Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Australia gun control in Australia

Quantative Evidence ???

ZERO God Damn massacres in Australia by a lone gunman, put that in ya pipe Dan Oz and smoke it !

According to the definition of "mass shooting" adopted by US Congress, of three or more murdered by firearm in a single incident, there have actually been at least three in the past five years: at Hectorville SA on 29 April 2011; at Lockhart, NSW on 9 September 2014; and Wedderburn Victoria on 22 October 2014.

As well, there were quite a number of mass killings which did not involve firearms over the years since the buyback - what may be described as method substitution. Methods used have included blunt instrument, knife, and fire. The victims have ended up just as dead.

Now, how many mass shootings have there been in New Zealand since 1997, without a buyback or wholesale changes to gun laws?

Some of you need to read it all instead of leaping to a position that suits your agenda. My words have been addressed to laws regarding the ownership of firearms, not the firearms themselves.

Please explain to me why a person who has a history of violent behavior which has resulted in a criminal record, threatened another person, has a mental defect (hearing voices or similar) or is diagnosed as depressed and may possibly harm themselves or others should continue to have access to a firearm?

Why is it not a good idea to store your firearms safely? Preventing their theft or mishandling by criminals or curious children. The graphic Obama has circulated on deaths from terrorism v domestic guns is a chilling statistic.



The evidence does not deny their effectiveness either.

As you would have read in my original post (quoted a the top for the slow readers here) it is impossible to state with certainty IN ANY DIRECTION on the effectiveness of changes to Australian gun laws.

One thing is certain, suicide by gun has substantially declined, but overall suicide rates are unaffected - people simply use a different method. Yes, homicide rates had been declining, and continued to decline - the most likely homicide victim in Australia is a male, drug user, drunk and killed by a friend/family member (also drug users and/or drunk) with a knife. That is a statistical fact, one that also applies in America but with the substitution of gun for knife (interesting difference that).

It is impossible to predict what might have happened had the Australian laws not changed. An anti-gun person would say that another massacre would have happened and that is statistically probable (a probability proven a few times a year in America at the momoent), but statistical predictions are not proof.

So bowmanh, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EITHER WAY. I know you see the failure of homicide (murder) rates to radically drop as proof of ineffective law, but the truth is that in Australia gun was NEVER the most common weapon. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the hard facts of Australian homicide before building an argument upon that position.


Any thinking person would find it easier to mount a convincing argument that the law changes did prevent another Port Arthur, Dunblane, Columbine, Sandy Hook disaster in an Australian school. Like I've said, statistics are not proof, but to those who understand patterns and trends they are a powerful persuasion.

Such a person couldn't lawfully own firearms prior to Port Arthur either. Nor can they in the US, for that matter. The laws which came in post Port Arthur went a great deal further though, imposing for example such requirements as waiting periods, as well as additional background checks, not only at the time of applying for the initial licence but also upon its renewal, and with every permit to acquire. These make no sense, other than as deliberately to make it difficult for the law-abiding.

At the same time, those who are determined to be armed are not prevented by these laws from being armed, due, in no small part, to the massive stock of firearms which disappeared into the grey market as a direct result of the new laws, as well as what the responsible authorities admit are problems with illegal imports and even illegal manufacture of submachine guns (which the crims have discovered is really very easy to do).


In fact though the laws introduced post Port Arthur actually create a situation under which, if you are the victim of theft, you are more likely to be prosecuted than the perpetrator and, even if they are in fact caught, they’ll probably suffer less sanction. After all, as the victim you’ll be likely to lose the firearms, even if they are recovered, and have any others confiscated, as well as losing the right for at least a period of years to buy or even touch any others. You can also be charged, and many have been, even if your firearms aren’t stolen.

In FY 2008-9 there were a total of 1570 firearms stolen in Australia (excluding WA). The number stolen had increased steadily in the preceding years. Of these, in 2008-9, 1410 were actually registered. This represents less than about 0.05% of the registered firearms in Australia at the time.

Now how many of those stolen firearms were used in violent crimes? Just three: “ …one incident of manslaughter, two incidents in which the offender had displayed dangerous conduct with the stolen firearm…” (Firearm Theft in Australia 2008–09, Samantha Bricknell, Australian Institute of Criminology, October 2011.


The ratio would probably be similar here. Domestic terrorism is a risk even more overblown than the risk of being killed in a mass shooting ever was, here or there. An even more interesting graph is that mapping the decline in homicide in the US, which has been faster than the decline here over the past 20 or so years. According to the FBI figures the homicide rate (murder and non-negligent manslaughter) in the US has declined from 9.8/100,000 in 1991 to 4.7/100,000 in 2012, a decline of 52%. Over the same time period, a period in which we had all these new laws and two buybacks, our murder rate in Australia declined by 42%, and the rate of decrease was unaffected, as I said in an earlier post, by any of the gun laws.

If you invest massive effort, and a billion dollars, in introducing and enforcing new laws, and after nearly 20 years cannot “state with certainty IN ANY DIRECTION on the effectiveness” of this, that whole exercise is demonstrably an utter failure.

I disagree when you say there is no evidence either way. If you are going to restrict people's rights then I think the burden of proof is on the side making the restrictions. The fact is there is no evidence that the homicide rate was reduced due to gun restrictions. And I don't see that it makes any difference what weapon is used in a homicide if someone is killed. Unless you want to argue that it's worse to be shot than knifed or clubbed to death then they are all the same. What's important is how many people are murdered, not how they are murdered.

Mass shootings get all the publicity but in reality they are a tiny fraction of homicides. In the US it's about one percent. The other 99 percent are more important and most of those are perpetrated by gang members in urban areas. Since criminals don't get their guns legally they are unaffected by gun laws.

Suicides are irrelevant. If you look at world wide suicide rates there is no correlation with the availability of guns. In most of the countries with the highest suicide rates (Korea is a good example) it's almost impossible to own a gun.

Obama's "graphic" uses faulty data so that's just nonsense.

In the US we do have laws preventing felons and those who are certifiably mentally incompetent from owning guns. I'm OK with that. One problem is that there are so many privacy laws that it's very difficult for information on those with mental illness to get through the system so that they can't buy guns. But this is also a double edged sword because it could be easily misused by the government.

I believe in storing firearms safely but I want to determine how that is done because government one size fits all solutions don't fit every situation. I know of more than one case where safe storage laws resulted in people being killed when they couldn't access guns quickly to defend themselves and there is good aggregate data showing that safe storage laws in the US actually make people less safe.

The fact is that the government can't really protect you and make you safe. You have to do that yourself.

"If you are going to restrict people's rights then I think the burden of proof is on the side making the restrictions."
Absolutely. Unfortunately there are a surprisingly large number of folks who do not see the stealing of freedom as a sin.

I wish somebody would explain to me how a weapon that is under lock and key is going to be able to defend your home or love ones. All my weapons are within 5 steps and ALL are loaded.

Can't add much more to what's been said.

I would encourage all to become members of the relative associations and stand up and fight.

Don't end up in the same boat as us, after the lying rodent Howard shafted gun owners here.

Have you ever been to the US and visited places like Philly, Baltimore, E St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, etc?

Funny when clueless people from a former prison colony/small island with homogenous vanilla populations feel the need to lecture Americans on how to live their lives. Nice props to Obama though. sheesh

Really funny

Yep have been to Australia a few times and have friends that live there. People werenice but there many many folks in the larger cities in Australia that embrace your Orwellian political system and lack of freedom.

Ribka we dont have the social or economic problems of the USA. Ribka this thread is about Australia.

again, since the 96 buyback we havent had a single Massacre by Looney with an ASSAULT rifle.

and Dan that you chose to use the unfortunate Suicide/ murder by by the Farmer shows what a grubby [bleep] you are.

You are clearly a one-eyed clown.

Have you been to the places you nominate? I personally have stayed in Baltimore, Chicago and Oakland. Not places I would choose to live and the significant social problems are clearly evident. I have not chosen to lecture, it is not possible to impose one nations (or even one groups) views on another with success as the challenges faced by each are different. That is the fundamental reason for the American Revolution and it remains a just cause, without representation it is immoral to tax people. Speaking of which, why is it that the Democrats consistently have more people vote for them, yet the Republicans have more seats?

I have asked some questions which have only partly been answered.

For whatever it is worth to your view of the world, Australian land mass is contiguous, and is 95% of the lower 48 (contiguos states). According to Wikipedia population density is 7.3 per mile, the lower 48 is 103 per mile. Hardly a small island, definitely a small population, but hey you've been "to Australia" so you know this?

I'm not sure what you mean by Orwellian political system, I've read Animal Farm and 1984 and I think they apply more to the USA than almost any other western country. Americans think they are the land of the free, but the reality is somewhat different. On balance it is still a better place to live than most of the rest of the world, but utopia it isn't.

Different countries have their social, economic and personal advantages. America, England, France, Singapore and Australia all have things to like and dislike. Having been to all these countries (and more) I can say that not one of them is utopia for me. We all have to chose a least worst fit. To me the USA is no longer that place.

That is very true. And it is the social and economic issues, rather than gun laws, which make the difference in the rate of homicide and other violent crime. Witness, for example, the huge differences in homicide rates in the US as between inner city areas on the one hand and suburban and rural areas on the other - differences which mirror economic and social disadvantage. Note also the fact that black people in the US are about 8 times as likely as white Americans not only to be perpetrators but also victims of homicide, again mirroring economic and other disparities.

In fact this holds true around the world: homicide rates correlate with indicators of poverty, disadvantage and social factors, not gun laws or availability.




Nor, since 1997, has New Zealand, without a gun buyback.

The reason the Hunt family tragedy was included is because it meets the definition of a shooting massacre. No more and no less. The argument in favour of the buyback has always been that it would prevent massacres, and the figure has been used by proponents of the laws of 13 mass shootings in the 18 years to 1996. This figure includes several family annihilation multiple murders, just like the Hunt case, as well as cases like the Cangai siege, which involved kidnapping and murder by a gang of men playing out over several days.

The number of those 13 which involved a lone shooter in a public place with an assault rifle was much smaller, a total of 3 in fact, or 4 if you include Josef Schwab (who killed a total of five in two different locations over a five day period).

All were tragedies - I was personally a witness to the immediate aftermath of one of them - but your scenario of a lone nutter with an assault rifle was actually very rare.

And if calling someone names is what you are reduced to, you don't have much of an argument, do you?

In Australia and New Zealand the need to defend your home or loved ones from a home invasion is almost non existent. It would be rare for a burglar to carry a gun as the penalty if caught would be quite severe. In NZ since the introduction of mandatory gun safes, accidental firearm deaths in a domestic environment has fallen to near zero. Probably the same for Australia.

However, if I lived in certain parts of the U.S. or in South Africa or many other places in the world I would certainly want quick access to a firearm to defend myself and my family. It's just not necessary in this part of the world.

No schit and you have very little diversity, a white bread population, and very strict immigration laws. We have millions of illegals, terrorists streaming into the US every year plus agin look at demographics in our larger cities compared to Austrailia. Off the top of my head I know over 20 people that were robbed, beaten, raped and/or violently killed in their homes by the more "diverse" members of our open country. Progressive liberals love a diverse violent society where the citizenry cower in their homes

Its easy to blame guns for violence when you have a closed white society

Your people are nice, your country is clean and safe. I envy your strict immigration laws

Diversity, mate I live in an area domated by Indonesian, philopin's, CHina, Korean, Russiam, Pol,s etc

In fact I have a Chinese Student currently residing with me.

My work which is in the Hospital system has me working with Dr and nurses from Vietnam, Germany, Neatherlands, Israel, Pakistan, India, Greece, Italy, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indo, the Middle east, Sudanese, Croatia, Turkey, Iran etc I could go .....

You clearly have no idea about how multicultural Sydney is and the acceptance of all cultures.

We don't have strict Immigration laws, we just have a massive shark infested body of water as a barrier and friend relatioships with our Neighbours.

Clean and safe I will agree with.

Stevil, if a guy shoots you over a cigarrete, what happens to the murderer? Here, in the liberal city, they blame the cigarette. You blame the criminal. Perhaps this is the difference. Alhtough, it seems America has a bad reputation as violent societies. If ya care to look where I live ( Allenton , WIs. USA. there is no crime here. Well, not violent crime. It just is not here. About 10 yrs ago an illegal Mexican killed another of his kind. About 2 yrs ago someone got their chainsaw stolen and one other kind of theft. This is over a 10 yr span. Wife couldn't get the garage door closed yesterday, never bothered me at all. We do lock the doors at night and I have a loaded Ruger SR 9. Wife has a Ruger SR22 loaded. My 18 yr old son has his 20 ga shotgun . Everyone has a gun here, hence , no crime.
If you go 40 MI. , or 60 to 70 KM. south east into Milwaukee, it is almost as dangerous as Chicago. Real bad. Also, to me Australia has always been a mystical land ,always interested in it and am amused at all your pictures . And when there is a crime, it is most always from someone from the big city. Here is a pic of our back yard. Oh ya, somene stole the neighbors canoe 5 yrs ago. And last summer the neighbors dog got out and killed 2 of my chickens. Getting bad around here now that I think of it.

We have the same here. How many Croatians, Dutch, Greeks are involved in violent sureno gangs, Crips, bloods gangs, drug cartel etc? Our local school system has over a 1000 documented gang members out of a student body of 6000. How many times has your home been broken into by a Chinese engineer?


Do you share any borders with third world countries? Does any country nearby ship in tons of meth and heroin each year to your populace? Can I just come to Australia and stay indefinitely in public funded housing, eat for free, and get on the public dole and start popping out children with 4 or 5 different baby mommas?

I served in the military and trained with Australian soldiers. Great guys and I envy the strict immigration laws in your country. Dont envy your sky high gas food and housing prices and lack of free speech .

Last I checked your remote island is 92 per cent white. Not much diversity according to govt stats

http://www.workpermit.com/australia/point_calculator.htm

Ribka you truly are a fool.

but hey keep on spewing your racist diatribe

ihookem quite smoking the weed.

PADDLER ( stevil) you dum anti-gun phug