Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Australia gun control in Australia

Excellent post; you make some good points. Wouldn't say Australia has a lack of free speech though as it's a democracy the same as any free nation. In fact probably more free than the U.S. which came 15th for personal freedom in the Legatum Prosperity Index.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...s-dominate-in-global-prosperity-rankings

Anyway, as much as most of us here like our guns the ideal is to have a balance between the safety of society and our right to own firearms. Unfortunately, I think it's far too easy for criminals and those of an unsound mind to obtain firearms in the U.S. The anti-gun brigade has missed the point; the horse has bolted and they're still trying to lock the stable door.

It is easy to throw out accusations of racism, especially if you don’t understand the points that are being made. There again, crude name-calling seems your style.

The US has very clear differences in crime rates as between races. The facts are very clear on that. For example, about 16.3% of Americans are black, but significantly more homicide offenders are black than are white, and the offending rate for the black population is about 8 times higher than it is for white Americans. Most of these homicides are intraracial, and black people are also about six times as likely to be murdered as white. These are based on official .gov figures. See for example Homicide Trends 1980 -2008 , Crime in The US Table 3 and Crime in the US Table 6 .

There are other differences too. Vast differences in wealth, for example. According to a 2009 study white American households averaged about 20 times the wealth of black households, and about 35% of black households had zero or negative net assets (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011...d-highs-between-whites-blacks-hispanics/). Far more blacks live in chronic poverty than whites too.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the two are linked. It also seems likely that high crime rates are the product of the poverty and other disadvantages, rather than simply race. This is lent credence by the fact that the two factors, disadvantage and crime rates, occur together geographically in inner urban areas of major cities, and have ebbed and flowed according to economic conditions. Places like Flint and Saginaw, Michigan, Gary Indiana, and Detroit and East St Louis, have been dramatically affected by the collapse of major heavy industry for example, which has led in turn to the significant increases of unemployment, poverty, and crime, many times the national average.

Similar associations exist, though not as extreme, between Hispanic ethnicity and both crime rates and indicators of disadvantage. It is also worth noting that about 72% of Hispanic offenders in US Federal prisons are non-US citizens.

As for crime gangs, again there are associations between these and race in the US, probably founded out of similar issues of disadvantage and social dislocation. It should be no surprise, for example, that if black and Hispanic youths are overrepresented in street crime – about 8 to ten times higher rates than white youths – they’ll probably be overrepresented in crime gangs too, and they are. In fact white youths comprise only about 11% of gang members, despite the fact that non Hispanic whites make up about 63% of the US population, see www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics

It is easy to throw out accusations of racism, but the fact is that there really are very significant issues associated with race in the US.

We don't have any constitutional protection of free speech though, any more than we have constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms. As a result freedom of speech is subject to the power of the Federal and the States' Parliaments to curtail it, and to the courts in interpreting statute and common law. Examples of how our freedom of speech may be curtailed include defamation laws, anti-discrimination laws, laws relating to gag orders, and quite an alarming number of laws brought in or at least proposed under the pretext of national security.

Australia's by no means the worst of course, but merely being a democracy is no real protection, and we are one of very very few democracies to have no Bill of Rights, or equivalent.

Sorry if I offended the good folks from Australia NZ. Met many good folks from both countries

I have worked as an Leo 25 years in the multi cultural diverse schitholes in the US now 25 years. Progressive lib Europeans and Australians have no clue how dangerous and crime ridden diverse parts of the US are.

People who reside in these areas, es
Ecially elderly folks, single mothers, live in fear in their homes, and are afraid to go out on the street and are victims of home invasions Res burgs. Guns are the only means of defending themselves.

Remember. The poor young Australian who stumbled into the jungle?

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbnhPgZFWOe4AGF3BGOd_;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1452405200/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cnn.com%2f2013%2f08%2f20%2fjustice%2faustralia-student-killed-oklahoma%2findex.html/RK=0/RS=IEfmmzOet9q2ziCzVd76OCqtL2M-

My mistake Dan. I was under the impression that Australia had a Bill of Rights as NZ has. Should check my facts before posting.

Reading all five pages so far, I've learned only two things:

1. The Australian confiscation laws have had no measurable effect on crime.

2. The long term reduction in homicides, whatever it's cause, has been greater in the United States, despite no national gun laws, than in Australia.

I asked this in a new thread and realized it would better fit here. During the buyback did the Govt pay fair prices for the guns or did you get some flat amount say $100 regardless if it was a rusty 22 single shot rifle or a Fine Rigby sporting rifle. Also were there exceptions for guns over a certain age like our curios and relics such as guns over 100 years old? Thanks

There were actually two buybacks, the first for semi-auto longarms and pump-action shotguns, in about 1997, the second for certain handguns (large calibre, short barrel) in about 2003. In both buybacks there were tables of prices for most models, and IIRC there were three different condition categories with prices set accordingly. There was also an appraisal system for unusual/customised firearms, and an appeal process, and compensation was also given for accessories specific to the firearm (eg spare magazines, reloading dies, holsters). The principle applied was "acquisition on just terms" under s. 51 xxxi of the Australian Constitution.

I think it would be fair to say that the amounts paid generally compared favourably with what you might have got if the buyback never happened, and you had chosen to sell. The problem was the compulsion to sell, not how much you'd get, together with all the other laws that came in the train of all this.

FWIW a Winchester 1400 fetched a good deal more than I'd have got for it as a trade-in. I handed in a 1911A1 in .45, with several spare mags, holster and dies, and with the proceeds bought a new Glock 9mm and a good used Ruger GP100 .357, also with dies, holsters mags/speedloaders. The nation became so much safer as a result.

It should also be remembered however that these buybacks cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. Taking into account all the costs of administering the buybacks and administering the systems set in place in their wake, such as registries, we are talking over a billion dollars.The buybacks themselves were funded out of a direct extra levy on taxpayers that year, while teh rest has largely come out of consolidated revenue and State government budgets (and the fees charged for licences and permits).

There were and there weren't. There were circumstances in which you could keep firearms which had otherwise been the subject of the buyback. For example, a clay target shooter could apply for a licence to keep and use their semiautomatic or pump shotgun for competition. Some others, such as farmers and graziers could get licences to keep and use semiautomatic firearms or pump shotguns on their property for pest control. Large calibre pistols (ie over .357" bore) could be kept for occupational use too, or Western Action or Silhouette shooting, after the handgun buyback, or by collectors. There are other examples too.

There were also provisions for heirlooms, which generally required the firearm to be permanently deactivated.

There was not, however, a provision which allowed you to keep a firearm of a type affected by these laws simply on the basis that you'd always had it, nor generally on the basis of it being over a certain age, though these laws didn't have much, if any effect on pre-1900 muzzleloaders.

Thanks Dan

Thanks to all of you who provided actual-accurate-helpful info on the subject.

I've been aware of the general idea of Aus. buy-back/gun control but y'all have given very interesting and useful information from those who live/lived there.

I sincerely hope Americans get/keep their heads out of their bungholes. Facts are facts.


Thanks

Jerry

If we go the way Australia did, I'll be made into a criminal I suppose...

...part of an ENORMOUS group, I'll venture.

FWIW, I can't in my wildest dreams see us going that way, either.

GTC

Most will be sheep, just like they were in Connecticut after Sandyhook.