The Aussies Had a Gun Massacre Problem. THEY FIXED IT! WHY CAN'T WE?

[Eric the Reddish]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

That fact is like, just fucking WOW!

[Eric the Reddish]

2. If you're right, the entire country is doomed

I'm not much on religion, but I do believe in something approximating a soul. If we let business as usual continue, we'll have lost our national one.

[Voice for Peace]

97. yes we CAN and yes we WILL nt

[6502]

168. This time we WILL.

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:02 AM - Edit history (1)

[liberal N proud]

3. Because the the lobbiest, namely the NRA, will not allow it.

[Eric the Reddish]

4. The NRA Has Gone Silent

They know they're taking on water: Let's add 10,000 gallons to the sinking ship, shall we?

[pangaia]

31. Good idea.

An old aphorism--When your enemy is sinking, throw him an anchor.

[backscatter712]

118. Carville!

IIRC, "If your opponent is drowning, toss the bastard an anvil!"

[Daemonaquila]

50. There's much more to fix than can be fixed by gun control, but -

we can NOT have a real conversation about it until the NRA is a stinking memory. This may be a unique opportunity to sink them, before they figure out a strategy to misdirect and come up on top again in political circles and in the media.

[PoliticalBiker]

54. Most Definately

While I own guns and want to keep that right, I despise the NRA
We could have made meaningful changes long ago had it not been for the NRA.
Even though I do own guns, I am completely open to reasonable restrictions and have been for a long time.
The NRA must change its tune. I would be much happier if they just went away... permanently

[Voice for Peace]

99. I say smoke them out of their holes

they don't thrive in the light.

Their days of power are numbered and it's not a big number.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[freshwest]

128. Their pals in the conspiracy world and Rush and Beck haven't though - neither has ALEC.

There needs to be a pushback in every state legislature on the loosening of gun control. Look at Michigan - after going after voters, women, children, public workers, schools and the Commons in general and most notably unions - they are passing more liberalization of CCW. Not stopping the war on any of the others, either.

[cstanleytech]

159. The NRA will be back, they are just waiting until people cool down over this incident

and it fades away.

[Eric the Reddish]

6. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014339712

"onehandle" is exactly right!

[PoliticalBiker]

60. I was watching...

... one of the weekend shows, I don't remember which one, but one of the guests said the NRA didn't have the power the media and many people said it did. And he wasn't challenged on that! I couldn't believe it.
When NRA membership cards are allowed as legal ID to vote in some states, when legislators are coersed by NRA *grading* threats, when gun restrictions are repealed with the ONLY advocate of repeal is the NRA, when background checks are required for hand guns but NOT long guns because of the NRA, the statement saying the power of the NRA is limited, it patently false.
While I believe in the 2nd amendment, with reasonable restrictions like any other part of the Constitution already has, THAT organization should be disbanded by order of law.

[Eric the Reddish]

78. Michael Bloomberg

On Meet The Press.

[atreides1]

77. The NRA is a front

For the gun makers and the GOP/Tea Party...they've gone silent for the moment, but it won't stop the money flowing to politicians...you can be silent and still keep that going.

[Livluvgrow]

155. heck

many here at DU would not allow it. So many folks here have their fingers in their ears going lalalalalalala as we speak

[murphyj87]

179. NRA and the insane American gun fetish

[leeroysphitz]

5. We are a nation of privileged children who want all the toys but non of the responsibilities.

It's time for the gun fetishists to realize that their holy, god given right to plink bud light cans off of a fence with their glocks and ar-15s isn't worth 20 murdered kindergarteners.

[baldguy]

8. +1000

They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian govt control that goes with it. The result is an armed terrorist mob.

[RC]

21. Bingo! Their macho deficiency, propped up with their multiple weapons.

Why else the use of military knock-offs for hunting, when there are perfectly good standard rifles designed for hunting.
It is a sickness. We are starting to recognize psychopathy as a problem, why not gun nutterey also?

[hifiguy]

110. You nailed it in one well-crafted sentence.

[Pryderi]

7. Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution?

[leveymg]

10. Guns are already regulated. Just extend the same rules from automatic to semi-auto firearms.

There's no real substantive difference between the two types as far as 2A is concerned.

[jonesgirl]

41. Why do you cherish that Amendment so much, when all the other Amendments have been

Amended lots of times? I heard a judge tell a defendant that our Constitution was written for the men hundreds of years ago, and not for today's people...therefore he wouldn't allow him to use We the People as an example.

[Plucketeer]

76. For ME....

..I can't understand why part of the 2nd amendment - THE FIRST FOUR WORDS OF THAT AMENDMENT - " A well regulated militia" are hardly EVER mentioned by those who claim said amendment for their own!

What the HELL is regulated - or even passes as a "militia" about those who cling to the personal arsenals? I would like these Rambos to give a detailed explanation of how it is they're gun lust is "regulated". Show me how you're regulated. Show me the enforcing authority for said regulations! Show me how it is they regulate you on a daily basis. We're talking tools EXPLICITLY designed to cause cessation of life in a living being. So explain to me how death tools should be less regulated than your toaster, your pool or your table saw or your automobile. Just how DO the words "regulated" and "militia" figure into your 2nd amendment sheild?

[pop topcan]

151. The pro-slavery people welcome your comment.

[jonesgirl]

181. I don't understand your comment Pop Topcan

[MrModerate]

55. No. Australian law is based heavily on English law . . .

And is in fact a member of the Commonwealth, i.e., a formal part of the UK's empire. (Bet you thought that had disappeared entirely, didn't you?)

Which means it's a body of law rather than a foundation document with narrow authorship, and a heavy dose of common law open to broad interpretation by government and the legal system.

But mostly, attitudes toward guns are cultural. Many of my Aussie friends like guns; but I don't know any who love them. Almost nobody's manhood is wrapped up in owning them, and very few Aussies of my acquaintance are so scared of their own shadows that they can't go out of the house without one.

But young Aussies tend to get into fights much more often than young Americans. And when they do, they tend to use their fists. Or the nearest potentially dangerous object (beer glasses are popular, and in fact have given rise to the term "glassing," meaning to throw same in someone's face). But they almost never use guns, and don't care to.

Aussies also like Americans on the whole, but think we're nuts about guns.

They're right.

[DissidentVoice]

107. Close but not exactly

Australia is a Commonwealth Realm, like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados and the UK itself, rather than a colony like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda. The Realms (also called Dominions) recognise the Queen as their Head of State but are entirely independent and self-governing.

Australia has had its own Constitution since 1901, Canada since 1982, New Zealand since 1986.

That said, the laws in all those countries are heavily based on British precedent and tradition.

Our independence came by revolution; theirs came by evolution.

I live near the Canadian border. I still see signs of Olde Brittania there; the Crown on police vehicles, the "EIIR" cypher on some public buildings, the Union Jack in the cantons of the Ontario and Manitoba flags, and "Royal" here and there (Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Mounted Police).

Australia held a referendum in 1999 to ditch the Monarchy, but it was unsuccessful.

I don't know about Jamaica, Barbados, etc., but the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have much, much lower rates of violent crime than we do.

Compare the two cities of Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario...separated by the mile-wide Detroit River, but truly two worlds apart in attitudes toward crime and guns.

[MrModerate]

132. Define "exactly" . . .

I live in Australia (have for years) and I'd say that my description of it as "a part of the empire" is essentially true. And the Constitution signed in 1901 is not the only document that makes up Australia's "Constitution." Several other documents collectively make it up.

Otherwise, we're in agreement.

[DissidentVoice]

166. Empire v. Commonwealth

OK, when I speak, I speak as an ardent Anglophile/Australophile/Canadaphile/Kiwiphile (those terms sound creepy, eh?).

First, the Empire hasn't really existed as such since the 1931 Statute of Westminster, when the Dominions were granted self-government; that's when the term "British Commonwealth" came into use. In the Second World War, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa declared war independently of the UK. Canada did so a week after the UK.

Second, decolonisation was rapid after the Second World War. I would put Indian independence as a Republic within the Commonwealth as a tipping point. Much of the Empire in Africa became independent.

Third, South Africa, one of the "charter Dominions," became a Republic outside the Commonwealth in 1961 because of their odious Apartheid policy.

The Commonwealth is a valuable "family of nations" today, even if a lot of people in Britain itself (younger ones mostly) don't even know what it is. A British friend of mine was surprised to see the Queen's image on Canadian currency, and this was back in the '90s.

There is still an Empire: the Falkland Islands, Bermuda, Gibraltar, etc. They are different to the Commonwealth Realms as they are largely ruled from London.

I would put Australia's status as similar to Canada (Quebec aside) and New Zealand as being "children" of the Empire and "grown-ups" in the Commonwealth.

Cheers!

[MrModerate]

174. Commonwealth was heir to the empire. The rump of empire. The evolution of empire.

Not disagreeing, per se, but you seem to be calling for a higher standard of historical precision than I was offering.

[DissidentVoice]

176. Not intentional

Sorry about that. As a history addict, I tend to get really nitpicky.

[Violet_Crumble]

167. The Commonwealth and the Empire are two different things...

Australia was part of the British Empire (a Dominion), which disintergrated after WWII and decolonisation of a lot of the Empire. What remained became the Commonwealth, which to the best of my knowledge has no benefits for its members other than the following:

1. The PM gets their pic taken in funny clothes with the Queen at CHOGM.
2. Live and work in other parts of the Commonwealth for a year or so if yr under 30.
3. Get to attend the Commonwealth Games and be trounced by Australia at every sport there is.


btw, have you read our Constitution? Shit, it's dull!

[MrModerate]

175. Your Item 2 is very, very, very important to young Australians of my acquaintance.

With regard to Item 3, The All Blacks regularly clean Australia's clock in Rugby Sevens and Aussie cricket is in a bit of a slump just at present.

[DissidentVoice]

177. Membership does have its benefits...

As stated, I live near the Canadian border.

Canadians (Quebec excepted) tend to view the Queen and Commonwealth as one major distinction between them and the United States.

I worked at a college here in the U.S. and one of our students was from Zimbabwe when they copped the boot from the C'wealth because of Robert Mugabe's dictatorship. A very bright, very sweet young woman, who was planning to attend university in Canada for her Master's degree under a Commonwealth student plan. She said, "now I can't do that, since I'm not a Commonwealth citizen anymore!" She was cheesed-off no end and I don't blame her as she had loads of potential to go a long way in life. We had another student from Canada who went to New Zealand for her Master's degree under a similar plan.

Commonwealth citizens can generally serve in one another's armed forces. I remember reading about a Canadian helicopter pilot who put in 20 years' service, retired, moved to Australia, joined the Royal Australian Navy at the rank of Lieutenant-Commander and, as far as I know, is still serving in the RAN as a helicopter pilot there. When the Royal New Zealand Air Force disbanded its fighter units some RNZAF pilots ended up in the RAAF, RAF and RCAF.

However, I do know of Canadians who are angry that EU nationals get precedence ahead of them for UK immigration.

[frylock]

126. does australia maintain "a well regulated militia?"

[DissidentVoice]

178. They do.

The Australian Army Reserve:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/Reserve/

The Royal Australian Air Force Reserve:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/Reserve/

The Royal Australian Navy Reserve:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/navy/Reserve/

[gcomeau]

130. Know why they call it an *amendment*?

Because the fucking Constitution can be AMENDED. Don't blather on about the fact that it exists, give a good reason it *should*.

[the devil]

145. There's another document that should be read...

It says something along the lines of "thou shalt not kill"...and it's been around longer than the Constitution. It might be an outdated concept, but it makes a lot more sense than "I gotta get me more of them AR-15 rifles before Obama takes 'em away!"

By the way, I'm a atheist, and I still think that line in the Bible makes more sense than the 2nd Amendment.

[murphyj87]

169. No advanced nation...

No advanced nation has a so called "right" to bear arms. That shows how far from the mainstream of 21st century thinking the thinking of Americans is. No wonder the Backward States of America is considered vastly inferior to our nations in every way that counts for anything.

Your nation will continue to be the Backward States of America in the minds of those of us outside the Backward States until the so called "right" to bear arms is repealed and replaced with a real right, the universal right to access to health care regardless of income.

45,000 Americans die each year because they are unable to get the health care they need in the Backward States.
20,000 Americans die each year because there is a so called "right" to bear arms.
Repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with a right to health care would save the lives of 65,000 Americans each year who now die because of the misplaced values of the Backward States of America and it's brain dead citizens.

It's a wonder that brain dead Americans don't have tanks, bazookas, and nuclear weapons in their houses, since these are "arms", and supposedly something they have a so called "right" to as well.

Just as a point of reference, 50 to 60 Canadians are murdered with guns each year, in the area of 1 a week nationwide (and Canadian kids play as many violent video games as American kids), whereas 10,500 Americans are murdered with guns each year, over 200 each week, or 200 times as many as there are in Canada.

[Renew Deal]

9. A ban plus buy back would be powerful

Without a buy back, these weapons will be lying around. That's a good idea.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. A buy-back might work, but boy will it be expensive.

My gun collection is worth at least $15,000.

If you figure an average value of $400 per firearm, with an estimated 300,000,000 firearms, the buyback program would cost 120,000,000,000.

That's 120 billion just for the gun purchases, ignoring overhead.

By way of comparison, the entire budget for NASA is only about $18 billion a year.

[Wednesdays]

29. Let's ask the parents of those dead kids how much they're worth.

[krispos42]

40. So you have no problem with the Pentagon and DHS budget?

How much is a dead child worth?

[Atypical Liberal]

43. I'm not saying it's not worth it, just pointing out the cost.

You are probably looking at half the value of the TARP bailout.

And there will be no financial payback of the money like there was with TARP.

[ragemage]

42. We piss that away on the military every year...and then some.

So by your logic it is too expensive so be prepared oh you a gonna pay for it...seriously do you think all guns will be turned in? of course not. If this saves even one child/one person it is worth the cost.

And we spend way more then that on military every year. How about we take some of that entitlement and cut it? Yeah I know a pipe dream never gonna happen...

[xtraxritical]

137. We piss that much away every year on greenskeeping on military golf courses!

[Thav]

52. Yes, that would be expensive

However, that money just doesn't disappear. You're putting 120 billion into the hands of people who are most likely to spend it. Let's say my state got 5 billion of those dollars, and that went into buying goods and services. The state has a 6% sales tax, so they'd stand to gain 300 million. That'd go to pay for a lot of services, which also generate more activity.

Spending generates economic activity, not investment. Buying back guns would generate a lot of economic activity.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. Take it out of the Defense budget. Plenty of waste there, to cover a buyback.

[Atypical Liberal]

86. No argument here.

Stop all the bullshit wars while we are at it.

[Nevernose]

100. And would save more American lives

Than most military spending boondoggles ever did.

[MrModerate]

58. And just the medical costs of gunshot wounds . . .

Are estimated at 2-10 billion a year, even before you add in nonmedical insurance costs and productivity losses.

When you consider all the knock-on costs, it's a program that would pay for itself in about a decade.

And continue paying dividends pretty much forever.

[Recursion]

74. Sounds like about how much stimulus we need

I'm in

[Renew Deal]

91. We're not talking about every weapon

Just the ones that are banned.

And then we can sell them to third world war lords.

[SheilaT]

115. How many trillions of dollars have

been spent on useless wars lately?

The money is there. The will isn't yet.

[valerief]

11. Of course, the U.S. can do the same. Legislators make waaaaaay too much money off

the weapons industry to give a shit, though.

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. Australia is a country with a population.....

Roughly equal to the LA/San Diego metroplex, on a continent about the size of the lower 48.

Might have been a different result if there were 360 million Aussies

[leveymg]

13. Why? Most Aussies live in cities and suburbs, just like here. What's the difference?

[marions ghost]

45. Australia is the most urbanized country in the world

--ie. more of the 23 million population lives in the larger cities than anywhere else.

So it really is comparable.

[Eric the Reddish]

89. Absolutely

You and leyveymg are correct: There is no substantive difference.

[marions ghost]

93. Thank you for your post

Australia is a good example of a country comparable to America that is setting the pace on this.

If Americans could go to Australia they would know there is something different about the place. Less fear, less distrust, less anger, less defensiveness.

As someone said in this thread, the Aussies still have a representative Democracy that responds to the people. America is beholden to arms manufacturers, war profiteers, Big Oil, fat cat self-serving corporates, and the NRA.

[Eric the Reddish]

102. You're Most Welcome

And consider this: Australia was founded as a penal colony for British criminals!

[Festivito]

136. True, but we got the Puritans!

So, we're about even.

[Firebrand Gary]

14. There are people that would donate BILLIONS to the Gov for the buyback program...

Bloomberg, Gates, Buffett... are names that come to mind. I'd bet on it.

[pop topcan]

152. If they're willing to spend that kind of money they don't need the government...just a few dozen

free ads on Craigslist. Offer $5K for every handgun, they'll have more than they can melt down.
\

[kooljerk666]

15. The UK got rid of most guns after another School Shootong, 16 children 1 Adult..........

I remember this one, the entire nation had HAD IT!

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom.

Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including media-driven public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.

WIKI LINK:

I had been pro gun & do not process any, this is it.

So Australia & England cared enough about people to protect them, when will we?

[ReRe]

16. I heard a BBC interview

about this last night. Impressive results.

[horsedoc]

17. Ban assault rifles and semi-automatics....

You can have your hunting rifle, shotgun and revolver for "home defense", ban the rest!

[UndahCovah]

34. You just can't do that!

Don't you gun grabbers realize, if the government is allowed to just ban things willy-nilly....The republicans take comtrol in 4, 6, 8 years, as the process always goes, what will THEY want to ban?

[marions ghost]

95. Call the whambulaaance

somebody's gonna "grab" our automatic weapons.

The govt that cares bans all kinds of things and behaviors.

[Eric the Reddish]

109. LOL!

Great riposte, mg!

[UndahCovah]

142. The point is, when the gop takes control

As it eventually will (the circle goes on), what will they decide to ban?

You cannot just ban things, especially things related to the bill of rights.

[marions ghost]

147. Of course you can ban things

...things that the majority of people feel are detrimental to a civilized society.

You can't live in fear of the GOP. And you can't be so in awe of the constitution that you use it for an excuse to continue the carnage of innocent people. I don't think that was the founding fathers intention.

Time to act on this if ever there was a time.

[pop topcan]

154. You don't really know anything about guns, do you?

Pity.

[aandegoons]

18. Because we have a very corrupt government.

The mighty dollar runs our government they don't even hide it anymore. They only need votes so they can get to the dollar.

[LisaLynne]

19. Thanks for posting this.

This is the sort of information we need, IMHO. Let's talk about what does or has worked.

[99Forever]

20. Blows holes in all of the NRA gun psycho babbling points.

[marions ghost]

22. And in general the rates of death by gun In Australia is dropping

Australia's gun laws = effective by these statistics:

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is:

2010: 1.0417
2009: 1.02
2008: 1.05
2007: 1.91
2006: 1.10
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

The rate of gun deaths per 100K is one/fiftieth the rate in the US.

[Recursion]

32. It's also dropping in the US

At about the same rate

[Doctor_J]

36. Their massacre rate dropped to ZERO after the ban

How's ours doing?

You gunsters are running out of ammo, no pun intended.

[Recursion]

39. Their massacre rate was much lower than ours before the ban, too

And, anyways, the argument in the OP was that the homicide rate went down after Australia restricted access to firearms, so I think it's very apropos to point out that our homicide rate also went down, by pretty much the same amount, after we didn't restrict access to firearms.

[marions ghost]

46. America's death by gun is currently 50 X Australia's

why is it so hard for you to admit that in Australia, they are doing it RIGHT? People who gotta have a gun have em there. It's not a hardship. What are you protecting?

[Recursion]

49. I wouldn't oppose an attempt at what Australia did

I'm expressing skepticism that the rate of legal firearm ownership has much effect on the rate of use of guns in crimes.

[marions ghost]

56. What do you think of this paper?:

http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html#navDiv=6

"Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides"

"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership."

Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

Previous research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime has been impeded by a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No. 7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.

In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim's death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.

[Recursion]

59. I agree fewer guns mean fewer homicides. I do not believe legal restrictions mean fewer guns

At least not in the US. For that matter, the firearm ownership rate in Australia seems to be pretty much what it was before: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

That's the step where we disagree, I think. The effect of fewer guns is clearly going to be fewer homicides; what I don't think is that there's a way to actually reduce the number of guns through legislation. I've lived in DC for 15 years. We've had a near-total ban on gun ownership most of that time, and significantly more guns per capita than NYC for all of that time. Sort of like the rate of alcohol consumption seems to have actually gone up during Prohibition.

[marions ghost]

64. Your example of DC

really can't compare to Australia. Virginia's gun laws are very lax. DC has easy access.

It needs to be a national policy.

[Recursion]

67. But from what I'm seeing, the rate of firearms ownership didn't go down in Australia, either

There were 3 million firearms among 17 million people in 1996, and there are 3.5 million firearms among 22 million people today.

[Doctor_J]

81. When on Nov 7 the gun nuts were threatening to move Down Under,

the Aussies posted that guns there are limited to single-shot, IIRC. Can you see the difference be tween that and the US?

[Recursion]

83. Totally. I would love to get rid of semi-automatic weapons.

I don't think bans will do that here, but I would love to see it happen.

[Eric the Reddish]

125. Game. Set. Match.

[Doctor_J]

80. Uh, no

anyways, the argument in the OP was that the homicide rate went down after Australia restricted access to firearms

Please read the subject line of the OP, more slowly this time

[Recursion]

87. The argument is that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996, which is untrue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

I ignored that part mostly because it's completely wrong.

[ThoughtCriminal]

146. 2 fatalities? That's a mass shooting?

I guess Australia had to lower the bar.

An one two-fatality shooting in 16 Years?

Any U.S. city would be lucky to only have that happen less than once a month.

[progressoid]

47. All murders are down but the percentage commited by firearms stays pretty constant.

According to the FBI, approx 67% of homicides are from firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. Freedom is dangerous without common sense.

We seem to have a lot of one, but lack enough of the other.

[eShirl]

24. And they didn't have to ban video games and movies?

Imagine that.

[Surya Gayatri]

131. No, but they may've had to curb RW hate radio--if, in fact, there

even was any in Oz. Then again, Rupert Murdock was Australian originally, so maybe they have it, but on a much lesser scale than in the US.

[ananda]

25. The one simple answer: phobias and racism.

Actually, the for-profit corporatism plays into the phobias and racism to sell guns and buy politicians.

Sometimes a huge tragedy can change things. We can only hope this is the one.

[harun]

27. Not only would this never happen within the Corporate Republic, it would never even

be brought to a vote by either house of Congress.

Just say'n.

[Ford_Prefect]

28. Just imagine how much lower it would be without Lord Rupert and his minions pushing the hate button?

[Recursion]

30. We got the same decrease in homicides by firearms, without getting rid of the firearms

homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006

That happened here, too. And we still have the guns.

[ProSense]

61. Interestingly,

"homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006"

...the assault weapons ban was in effect for most of that period: 1994 to 2004.

[Recursion]

63. Assault weapons are so rarely used in crimes that they don't even show up in the stats

We've had a sharp decrease in homicides consistently for the past 20 years, while gun laws have been all over the map

[ProSense]

69. So you're for assault weapons?

"We've had a sharp decrease in homicides consistently for the past 20 years, while gun laws have been all over the map"

In light of the Sandy Hook massacre, this is your argument? What's your point: that gun laws don't need to be addressed?

Manchin: Time For Gun Control ‘Action’ After CT Shooting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022009172

[Recursion]

72. I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. I bet you would too, if you learned what it actually did

For example, the rifle used by the shooter in CT wasn't an assault weapon (it would have been if it had had a bayonet lug).

I think a lot of people think the assault weapons ban banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. It didn't. Maybe doing that would be a good thing (I personally doubt legally banning them would actually get rid of them, but I wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it). But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law.

[ProSense]

75. Are you

"I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. "

...against this:

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Are you against that?

"I think a lot of people think the assault weapons ban banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. It didn't. Maybe doing that would be a good thing (I personally doubt legally banning them would actually get rid of them, but I wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it). But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law."

OK, you hated the 1994 law, but pointed to a potential solution, which you say you "wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it."

So why exactly are you adamantly finding excuses to object to the point in the OP, and to addressing the problem?

[Recursion]

79. As I've said repeatedly, for two reasons

1) Since we got the exact same decrease in gun crimes as Australia did, without actually getting rid of guns like Australia tried to, I think it's silly to credit Australia's gun control with the crime decrease

2) Australia's gun ownership rate hasn't gone down, as I've pointed out several times

Would I support that? Possibly. We could certainly use the stimulus, and as someone pointed out upthread we're talking about a few hundred billion dollars. The phrase "genuine reason" worries me a bit; as long as it's statutory rather than the whim of a possibly racist or sexist sheriff, I could buy into it. I'd rather see private sales regulated than prohibited (require a background check and publicly recorded), but I'd also rather see drugs and prostitution regulated than prohibited, so I'm pretty far off the mainstream there, I guess. Private sales will continue whether they're legal or not, and I'd rather have them off the black market and kept track of as much as possible.

[ProSense]

84. You keep making

"1) Since we got the exact same decrease in gun crimes as Australia did, without actually getting rid of guns like Australia tried to, I think it's silly to credit Australia's gun control with the crime decrease"

...this point. From the OP:

"In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

That is not "the exact same decrease."

The US:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

"2) Australia's gun ownership rate hasn't gone down, as I've pointed out several times "

That's even more reason to support similar action. As for the rest, you could simply have stated your opposition to the actions in the OP without the stretch of those two points.

[Recursion]

88. Well, first off, there has been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996

At Monash University

Secondly, as horrible as mass shootings are, they are such a small part of murder that they don't even appear in statistics. That's how we can have an increasing number of mass shootings in the context of a murder rate that's been cut in half.

[ProSense]

92. Again,

"Well, first off, there has been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996

At Monash University"

...you're trying to trivialize the seriousness of the situation in this country. Here is the list of Australian mass murders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders#Mass_deaths

How many have there been since 1996? Since 2002?

Here's what we're dealing with in this country:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

[hack89]

82. You do know that Connecticut has a strict AWB?

that gun was legal in Connecticut.

[ProSense]

85. Clearly it needs to be improved. n/t

[Doctor_J]

33. They still have representative democracy in Australia

Here, not so much. Our government is run by a few media conglomerates and corporations, who care not a bit for the will of the people.

[Demeter]

35. Our government is too corrupt

We cannot believe that it would respect our civil rights. Not any more. Not in the face of multiple violations that nothing, not courts, not reason, nothing, can stop.

[Demeter]

37. The problem is mental illness and lack of treatment

[krispos42]

38. "by gun", "by gun"

Overall homicide rate is flat, overall suicide rate is flat.

"...homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides..."




If gun-related homicides can plunge by 59% and the homicide rate stays essentially flat, then gun-related homicides must have been only a tiny fraction of homicides to begin with.

[Surya Gayatri]

44. Because we've got the damn 2nd Amendment--that anachronistic relic

from another age, when guns were tools for survival on the newly opening frontier.

There is no longer any reason to retain this archaic throwback to another age.

The 2nd has been egregiously misinterpreted and misapplied, allowing mad people to murder with impunity by using modern weapons designed for mass destruction...

Any other sane country would have struck it down long ago. But, a significant and influential share of the US population are deranged extremists who force the rest of the nation to deal with their obsessions.

[NewJeffCT]

62. slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the original Constitution as well

if I recall.

[Surya Gayatri]

73. Yes, they were. That unfortunate clause was subsequently struck down,

and rightly so. As should be the 2nd Amendment.

We no longer have reason to fear a British invasion and the frontier closed around 120 years ago. We now have a professional "well regulated standing militia" to ensure our mutual defense.

[ieoeja]

112. And they still are.

Not that it matters since there are no legal slaves anymore.

[Indydem]

98. You live in an urban area - great.

Tens of millions of Americans still live in rural areas where nuisance animals that destroy property and kill animals wander free. People still live where the nearest authorities are 15, 20, 30 minutes away.

You believe, because you live where guns are not needed, that all of us live there too.

Your world view is exceptionally narrow, and that is why you cannot understand those of us who own forearms for perfectly legitimate and necessary reasons.

[Surya Gayatri]

119. Please, spare us the nauseating image of your

noble-savage, righteously-rural self blowing away those pesky local raccoons by bump firing your Bushmaster...

Now here's a novel idea: how about revising the 2nd to proscribe weapons of mass destruction (such as those AK-built-for-at least-47-mass-murders)?

[Indydem]

120. AK-47 and all fully automatic rifles are already highly regulated - nearly illegal.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[Surya Gayatri]

123. But, their kissing cousins, the AK-ad-nauseum semi-automatics

(so obscenely easy to 'upgrade) are insanely accessible to almost anybody.

The '47' was followed by a sarcasm tag in case you missed it--it was a 'jeu de mot' to mean '47' mass murders.

I do know more than many non-gun grabbers what I'm talking about, yes.

[jonesgirl]

48. Question:

How can we agree to take away guns in America when we supply other countries with guns (Syria)?? How can we agree to take away guns when other countries hate us so much, and they send their "sleepers" here, ready to pounce any second on the innocent people?? How are we to protect ourself? Taking away guns is not the answer. Maybe limit the amount of ammunition?

[Fumesucker]

149. I doubt you'll get much of an answer if any

Uncomfortable questions like that tend to get ignored.

And welcome to DU, BTW.

[jonesgirl]

180. Uncomfortable questions?? Too tough??

Well, should I word it eloquently? Sorry, but it can't be done...the time is now to help change. Those babies and teachers didn't have a choice,,,we do, and we must, and we will.

[LynneSin]

51. It's just 3 letters to explain why we can't - NRA

Those assholes are getting filthy rich over the sales of guns in our country

[Indydem]

103. Wait, WHO is getting filty rich?

I am confused? Are you talking about the NRA members, or leadership, or who?

[laundry_queen]

163. a little deliberately obtuse are we? nt

[ProSense]

57. Because

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

...one of the NRA talking points is that the above can't work, and NRA shills use the 2nd Amendment as a crutch for their flawed logic.

I posted this yesterday to crickets: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022004704

[Recursion]

65. The buyback hasn't seemed to change Australia's firearms ownership rate

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

Same as it was 20 years ago, if I'm doing that math right.

[ProSense]

66. The point is the policy worked to reduce the violence.

What exactly is the point of trying to argue about ownership?

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Are you against that?

[Recursion]

68. Except our violence rate went down too, by the same amount (nt)

[ProSense]

71. Your argument is

"Except our violence rate went down too, by the same amount"

...is quite lame.

"In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

The US:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

[MannyGoldstein]

70. Because "everyone knows" that gun control doesn't work

Despite it working really, really well in Oz and several American states.

And "everyone knows" that proposing gun control will lose elections.

[Dems to Win]

90. Because we are the CAN'T DO IT country

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The USA can't accomplish anything anymore.....

Protect the Pentagon with 45 minutes notice? Can't Do It

High Speed Rail? Can't Do It

Fix our Infrastructure? Can't Do It

Repeal the Second Amendment? Can't Do It

Put banker-thieves in prison? Can't Do It

Win a War? Can't Do It

America's days of accomplishing ANYTHING are simply behind it........
sad but true.

[librechik]

94. because Americans are fucking crazy, unlike Aussies.

I can't believe I said that, but it's true. Aussies are world famous for their crazed stunts and attitudes. Yet they have universal healthcare, universal suffrage, very strict recycling laws and exquisitely representational democracy--everyone required by law to vote.

We can't do that because our democracy sucks and we are ruled by crazy greedy totalitarian religious zealots from hell, determined to punish anyone not exactly like they are.

[indepat]

96. Why can't we? Simply 'cause too many pols and other Americans view the right to pack

weapons of mass murder on our hips trumps all others' right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[neffernin]

101. Please update rhat the facts are wrong on this article

I'd hate to see us spread and support misinformation. Since that time there has been mass shootings in Australia. Kinda defeats the whole argument.

[ProSense]

105. No, the facts aren't wrong.

"Since that time there has been mass shootings in Australia."

There has been one shooting, with a handgun. Here is the list of Australian mass murders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders#Mass_deaths

Given the title of the piece ("After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since&quot , how many mass shooting similar to the 1996 incident has there been since that time? Since 2002?

There was also specific action taken after the 2002 incident, which is still a decade ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting#Gun_ownership_laws

Here's what we're dealing with in this country:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

[neffernin]

160. Hrm, not how i understood it

Kind of like semantics Imo. People died from being shot by guns, I could care less what kinds or in what fashion. Any action like this is sickening and something has needed to be done for years. There is very rarely a reason to taken life and no reason to take so many.

[Violet_Crumble]

165. There's been no massacres since the gun reform happened in Australia...

In the years leading up to Port Arthur, there was a spate of massacres. Since then, nothing. And do you know why? Because the decision was made to try to minimise the occurence of massacres carried out with assault weapons by introducing strict gun control laws. One incident with a handgun at Monash Uni does not mean it's been a failure.

America needs to follow the lead of Australia. It worked for us, though we don't have the same sort of utter lunatics who worship guns as they do in the US, and when the NRA tried to get involved and fight against the new laws, people here saw them for the RW extremists they were....

[santamargarita]

104. They don't have election stealing, right wing...

assholes that are clinically insane to deal with.

[LP2K12]

106. Switzerland...

I hear they're pretty good as well.

[Democracyinkind]

127. What do you think the Swiss example proves?

genuinely curious...

[LP2K12]

134. I believe...

The Swiss "got it right" when it comes to the militia portion of our amendment. You want to call it a right? Fine, be prepared to be called into service.

The neutral country has a tradition of a gun in every closet, and ranks amongst the highest levels of gun ownership in the world — with estimate of as many as 4.5 million guns in a country of just 7.9 million people (few countries have more guns per capita — the US and Yemen are two).

However, gun related crime is remarkably low, with only 24 gun murders in 2009 — 0.3 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 2007 figures in the US of 4.2 per 100,000 people, according to Time Magazine.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12#ixzz2FM6qti2R

I think if we tied gun ownership to military/police service as they do, it would help. It's not a cure all to the situation. These thoughts are just my opinion.

[Democracyinkind]

135. I am Swiss (double citizen living there) and I agree.

[AZ Progressive]

108. We let Industry control our Government

The NRA is simply a front group for the Arms Industry. We let industries and the religion of money control our Government. We let industry fund Right Wing think tanks and the right wing talking heads spew tons of propaganda (as well as an enabling media) that destroy any chance of having a meaningful discussion on important issues. The Australians, they didn't. They have a functional government. We have a dysfunctional government that can hardly solve problems anymore as a result of Industries and their propaganda.

[HeiressofBickworth]

111. My sister in Australia

was married to an Aussie who was a competitive shooter. She told me that the gun laws there are very strict and are strictly enforced. Two examples I remember: he had to show proof of having a locked closet (including the type of locks) for his guns. If he had been involved in ANY type of violence, either in the home or elsewhere, his guns would be permanently confiscated and he would not be allowed to have any others. Even these two regulations are far too onerous for NRA and would never be adopted in the US although they would go a long way to prevent unnecessary deaths by guns.

[shireen]

113. why did "self defense" not count?

Anybody know?

[Scootaloo]

114. Because both our politicians and voters are COWARDS.

[solara]

116. Excellent! Thank you for posting this!

K&R

[SoCalDem]

117. Because they have a parliament?

not the f'ed up lobby-owned monstrosity we have?

Their system allows for a "vote of no confidence", and a snap-election, so if members mess up, they can be dealt with rapidly..

[HiPointDem]

121. "There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since" = false.

Monash University shooting, 2002

[Sarah Ibarruri]

122. Because the right wingers are quick to come back with nonsensical BS excuses for gun worship

And many people applaud the BS like trained seals.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

124. K n R

[KamaAina]

129. So did the Brits.

The year after Dunblane (Scottish for "Newtown&quot , the UK banned high-capacity clips.

Number of mass school shootings since: Nought (0).

[rhett o rick]

133. Easy answer. Apathy and stupidity. Approx 68% of eligible voters either didnt bother to vote

or voted for dipshit Romney.

[samsingh]

138. because the NRA and their repug cronies love guns more than children

[Festivito]

139. The last line is F*ing -- FALSE. NOT TRUE. BALDERDASH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders#Mass_deaths

It works against us to spread easily disproven statements.

[AZ Progressive]

144. Still, only one shooting in 15+ years

Not to mention still that dramatic drop in gun homicides and suicides.

[Festivito]

171. "...hasn’t been a single one..." I can't use that line.

And the prior ten year statement doesn't appear accurate either.

[gcomeau]

150. A single "mass" shooting with *TWO* fatalities in over 15 years.

Yeah, makes a huge difference to the point being made.

[ThoughtCriminal]

157. In Australia - that's a "mass shooting"

In America it's Friday night in any big city.

Note that after this shooting, Australia pass some additional restrictions and has now gone ten years with zero - even with the bar for "Mass" lowered down to "Anything more than one fatality".

[Festivito]

172. That's not the line I was fed in the OP.

I use that and I lose credibility for months or years.

[MrMickeysMom]

140. It took 12 days to pass the law

ZERO mass shootings after 13 before...

Wow, indeed!

[840high]

141. After every tragedy we

say pretty words - action does not follow.

[treestar]

143. Seems to be a sensible and sane country

Which the US apparently is not. The healthcare issue also.

[UTUSN]

148. Kicking to the top, for my Aussie/Vietnam n/t

[Hoyt]

153. Aussies are tough folks, and they bit the bullet. Our gun "enthusiasts" don't have the guts to try

anything better, as long as they have theirs . . . . . . more and more guns in more places.

[Eric the Reddish]

173. Overcompensation

For you know very well what "shortcoming."

[leftlibdem420]

156. It's time to lead, Mr. President.

If even a right-wing peon like John Howard can do it, there's no reason to believe that you can't and that your compatriots can't.

[Isoldeblue]

158. I'm sure many said there would never be health care reform here....

I have faith that the NRA will be defeated and that sane gun reform will take place.

I don't have a problem with having a handgun for protection or a rifle for hunting. But there is no need for civilians to own assault weapons and high volume ammo cartridges shooting 10 or more rounds a second. And we must have serious background checks with a waiting period for anyone buying a gun. No more selling of any kind of guns or ammo on-line or at gun shows! Add high fines and prison terms for those selling guns illegally!

[Care Acutely]

161. K & R

[Cleita]

162. Because most American gun nuts aren't as smart as their average kangaroo. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

164. knr for sanity

[cantbeserious]

170. To Be Cynical - Because NRA Supporters And Gun Apologists Would Rather Die Supporting

The 2nd Amendment and the NRA.

Look around in the DU Gun forum for proof.

Guns are more important than children.

The 2nd Amendment is more sacred than life.

What has America become when these facts are self evident?