Americans seem to have some idea in their head that we went from a US style system of almost unrestricted gun access and high ownership to an almost gun free society where only criminals have guns. The reality is its fairly easy to get a gun, theres at least 4 shops in my town selling guns and probably more that I'm not aware of. There is more legal guns in Australia right now than at any point in history, the majority of people who had guns bought back went out and bought guns with the money. As well there is lots of new gun owners like myself.
Guns had been regulated and restricted for decades before the 96 laws came in, handguns have been restricted since the 1920s. Fully automatic guns were banned in every state but Tasmania since the 1930s. The 1996 laws weren't about lowering homicide rates which have always been low here, they were a reaction to the efficiency with which Martin Bryant killed 12 people in 15 seconds at the broad arrow cafe (and killed a total of 35 people) and trying to avoid another incident like that, it works about as well as a tiger-repellant rock, we haven't had another incident like Port Arthur since.
I'm not a big supporter of the gun laws myself because rifles are rarely involved in crime as you pointed out, it was a paranoid reaction to an extremely rare occurence. I do support national registries and licensing and restrictions on urban people owning guns for 'self defense' though and I do feel quite safe living in a country thats always had gun restrictions, low levels of gun ownership and a low homicide rate.
At first, I wasn't going to get involved in this because I figured I was too busy to try and have a statistics war... and then it occurred to me- why this argument, and all the rest of the gun freak arguments are complete failures:
You have not really made any case against gun control. Not even started to- as much as I'm sure you think you've made an awesome slam dunk . Like all the rest of their hacks, you copied some stats out of another article on some rightwing blog or 'news' site, and think they this copy-paste of "See look- bad things still happen when there are no guns! Seeeeeee!" and that is frankly the argument of a child. I can say this about anything- like- the speed limit on the highway of 65 is obviously not working because people still get killed in speed related accidents. I can then start a stat-war by gathering all the numbers given to me by people opposed to speed limits, show that we have more highway deaths in America than another country with roads- say Romania- and that shows how regulation is EEEEvul. Essentially, there is nothing for the person who disagrees to possibly disprove. Even if I go to wikipedia- that favorite of internet arguers- [link] and look at their chart of gun-related deaths- it is clearly made by someone who favors guns. How can I spot this? It doesn't list the total number of people killed by being shot at all, does it? Nope. It uses a 'per capita' figure, so that the smallest country with a crime problem will naturally look the worst- so there's tiny El Salvador at the top. Notice how the numbers for the USA- which obviously we don't bother counting gun deaths at all, ever- is from the year 2002! Gee, that's current data, eh? They found numbers for EL FUCKING SALVADOR that were a year old, but the latest thing they could find for USA is 10 year old numbers becoming 11 years old. Gee, wonder why.
My point isn't to have a stats battle. It's to tell you that listing numbers that show 'this is worse than that' is a crock of shit. 26 people were massacred in a school. Do you not care about the lives of children? Before that, the mall santa in Portland Oregon had to dive for cover as two more people were killed. Before that, in Colorado a movie theater was shot to hell. Even in El Salvador this kind of shit isnt happening- it's all gang crime. Then they showed this idiotic simulation on CNN or fox or something about what an armed teacher should do in a shooting situation in a classroom. Do you know what age and gender most elementary school teachers are? So that's the solution given by you freaks- expect a 24year old girl to be at-the-ready at all times every day of the year anticipating the moment of attack, and then get into a gun battle with a heavily armed, fatigue and armor-wearing maniac with a machine gun.
I honestly thought you people were insane before. Now I'm convinced you are utterly lost. Without morals, completely shameless.
So: *The statistics are false, as they take into account that countries with high populations have more crimes because they have more people. *Statistics in general are wrong when they disagree with you, as you are omnipresent. *The statistics are wrong because data for the US is more dated than El Salvadore's, despite the fact that the sources for both countries are from the same year (2009). *Emotional outburst. I could shoot back by pointing out that last year 70 teens were killed and 65 wounded in a shooting in gun-controlling Norway, or how the worst school massacre in the US was not with guns, but I doubt that you really care.
But anyways, welcome back! ~TBSchemer took over your spot as Forum Idiot, but I see that you're well on your way to reclaiming the title.
The fact of the matter is that getting rid of guns and making them more strict will do nothing much to help lower the crime rates. You see, in world with guns the criminal will attack without assurance that his victim will have a gun and if he ever finds one with a gun, he may either a - making better plans in the future or b - decide to quit for fear of him/herself getting shot. Our founding fathers made guns legal for one reason and that is to give people the ability to rise up against their government in case it were ever to become far too corrupt, but guns and weapons of death evolve all the time, and someday killing someone will become far too easy; so in my opinion we need to restrict more powerful weapons (i.e. a barrett 50 cal) while leaving the weaker ones in the hands of our people.
Yes, but if the laws aren't there then it becomes far too convenient and criminals will use it to their advantage. It's true what you said about someone with the ability to afford it, but how often does a crack-shot have that much money, it's probably a good amount, but those two variables do not always come together. People do not shoot people because they're good at it, the do based on the emotion and the memory of a person. A man could shoot the commander-and-chief and get caught for it, only to be interrogated to reveal that the president slept with his wife and threatened blackmail if he were to go public. A man kills someone in the middle of the night with a .50 cal, (now in this universe there are no gun restrictions on this weapon) they check the wound and find it to be a .50 cal, it will be impossible to find him due to no gun restrictions on that weapon. Though he bought it from a store there, he did not have to fill out forms, and destroyed the weapon leaving no evidence, could have caught him if those forms were filled.
When was the last time you've heard of somebody being murdered with a .50?
Time to drop some knowledge on you. In 2011, there were 323 murders with rifles of any type and caliber. For comparison, there were 496 murders with hammers & clubs, 1,694 with "knives or cutting instruments," (far more than rifles and shotguns combined), and over 6,000 with handguns. If you're going to regulate something, rifles should be the last thing you consider. [link]
To add to that, the incident where I was assaulted involved a drunk person. Having a gun drawn on him would have been over the top (he already had a K9 unit raring to rip his throat out after I got security). And if I had a gun, the drunk guy could have one too. What a winning combination...
I'd call them 'heroism fantasies'. When my incident happened, my friend and I immediately left to get security so no-one could let it escalate. Not exactly heroic. If possible, just walk away... a hero can become an hero.
Yes. He is. After the Port Arthur massacre is when restrictions were put in place. Only in 2002 was there a shooting, where the gun was obtained legally (further increasing restrictions), and there hasn't been since. That Monash shooting in 2002 pales in comparison to the US.
An increasing violent crime rate suggests that guns keep the crime rate down
Assault has nothing to do with firearms, so I'm not sure why you bothered to include that. You're also wrong: Australia has not had a massacre since Port Arthur.
Between 1996-97 and 2000-01 there were four mass homicide incidents: two incidents involved four victims (knife and carbon monoxide gas), one incident had five victims (carbon monoxide gas), and another incident fifteen victims (arson/fire). All but the last mass murder occurred in a domestic situation [link]
There was almost no deviation in the homicide rate - it was dropping 3.2% before the buyback, and continued to drop 3.2% after. So what the numbers suggest is that people simply found other ways to kill each other, while depriving law-abiding citizens of their defenses against assault and rape, which skyrocketed. I'd hesitate to call the buyback a "success".
Fancy that. None of them were with a gun. Maybe the restrictions on firearms possession has actually had an effect in reducing firearm crimes? If only criminals could get guns, then why weren't they using them? Maybe it actually did have an effect? No, it couldn't be.
Perhaps 'assault' has a different meaning in the US. Not to downplay it's seriousness (I've been assaulted), but it's one of the more minor serious crimes to perpetrate. If I had brought out a gun in my incident, that would have been completely over the top. If robbery or grievous bodily harm shoots up 40%, then maybe you'd have a point. But with homicide dropping...
Maybe it's just me, but I doubt that it makes a difference to the victim whether they're shot, stabbed, burned, or gassed - they're still dead (well, if I was going to be murdered, getting shot seems like one of the better options, but that's neither here nor there). Would you consider it a success if gun crimes dropped to zero but the homicide rate doubled?
We could debate all day about how minor and insignificant petty crimes like rape and aggravated assault are, but the overall point was that the homicide rate wasn't affected very much, if at all. In other words, the government created a negligible or non-existant homicide drop while making other crimes much more common.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. The homicide rate had been falling before the buyback, and it didn't accelerate downwards after. Hence, the buyback had little to no effect on homicide: The total homicide rate has been slowly declining throughout the 1990s (figure 4-1). In the five years post-NFA there has been no pronounced acceleration of that decline. ~The study I gave you earlier.