HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » WONDERFUL! This is what ...

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:48 AM

WONDERFUL! This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls

This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls
6/19/15

...But can something be done? Australia, a country that in some ways shares the United States' frontier mentality and history as part of the British empire, implemented sweeping gun-control measures that have been successful for nearly two decades. So, theoretically it's possible, but "the power to do something about it" in the U.S. is limited by factors that are deeply rooted in its culture and baked into its founding document.

...What happened in Australia? Gun violence was bad. A decade of gun massacres had seen more than 100 people shot dead. The last straw was an incident at a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, when a lone gunman killed 20 people with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, achieved his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing a military-style semiautomatic rifle.

What happened next? Only 12 days after the shootings, in John Howard's first major act of leadership and by far the most popular in his first year as Prime Minister, his government announced nationwide gun law reform.

Uniform legislation agreed to by all states and territories -- the national government has no control over gun ownership or use -- specifically addressed mass shootings: Rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were banned, gun owner licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards.

How did Australia do it? In two nationwide, federally funded gun buybacks, plus large-scale voluntary surrenders and state gun amnesties both before and after Port Arthur, Australia collected and destroyed more than a million firearms, perhaps a third of the national stock, according to Professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney, who is editor of gunpolicy.org. No other nation had attempted anything on this scale. The national government also banned the importation of new automatic and semiautomatic weapons. And the buyback was paid for by a special one-off tax on all Australians.

What was the political fallout? It wasn't without cost to John Howard. Political interest groups among his conservative base raised hell, and the move met strong resistance from some in rural areas. His party's coalition partner in those areas suffered in subsequent elections. But the majority of Australians, shocked by the mass killing, backed action. And it worked...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/


^^^^ This is what we should have done after Newtown/Sandy Hook. It BLOWS MY MIND nothing changed after those sweet, precious toddlers were gunned down in a closet.

(Repost from a reply on another thread. I think its extremely relevant & should be read by as many of us Americans as possible. Please spread the word. It's possible!!!!)

PS~
What exactly happened to murder and mass killing?

In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.

In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. As Howard wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times in 2013, "Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate."

83 replies, 5176 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 83 replies Author Time Post
Reply WONDERFUL! This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls (Original post)
RiverLover Jun 2015 OP
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #1
RiverLover Jun 2015 #2
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #3
AlbertCat Jun 2015 #26
brentspeak Jun 2015 #8
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #10
magical thyme Jun 2015 #25
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #38
magical thyme Jun 2015 #53
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #56
magical thyme Jun 2015 #78
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #79
magical thyme Jun 2015 #80
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #81
magical thyme Jun 2015 #82
Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #20
magical thyme Jun 2015 #23
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #39
magical thyme Jun 2015 #54
wyldwolf Jun 2015 #55
TheCowsCameHome Jun 2015 #4
prayin4rain Jun 2015 #7
RiverLover Jun 2015 #9
TheCowsCameHome Jun 2015 #12
prayin4rain Jun 2015 #14
LiberalArkie Jun 2015 #31
U4ikLefty Jun 2015 #67
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #35
BlueJazz Jun 2015 #5
Scuba Jun 2015 #6
RiverLover Jun 2015 #27
eridani Jun 2015 #66
peacebird Jun 2015 #33
MH1 Jun 2015 #11
RiverLover Jun 2015 #13
Thespian2 Jun 2015 #15
EX500rider Jun 2015 #41
Bigmack Jun 2015 #58
EX500rider Jun 2015 #61
Thespian2 Jun 2015 #75
EX500rider Jun 2015 #76
Thespian2 Jun 2015 #77
Stuart G Jun 2015 #16
George II Jun 2015 #17
RiverLover Jun 2015 #22
treestar Jun 2015 #18
RiverLover Jun 2015 #24
treestar Jun 2015 #37
RiverLover Jun 2015 #40
prayin4rain Jun 2015 #46
RiverLover Jun 2015 #48
prayin4rain Jun 2015 #49
clffrdjk Jun 2015 #83
madokie Jun 2015 #19
RiverLover Jun 2015 #30
RiverLover Jun 2015 #47
packman Jun 2015 #21
RiverLover Jun 2015 #28
DanTex Jun 2015 #29
Adrahil Jun 2015 #32
EL34x4 Jun 2015 #34
RiverLover Jun 2015 #42
EL34x4 Jun 2015 #44
RiverLover Jun 2015 #45
Shamash Jun 2015 #57
RiverLover Jun 2015 #70
Shamash Jun 2015 #73
RiverLover Jun 2015 #74
TexasBushwhacker Jun 2015 #36
Contrary1 Jun 2015 #43
Damansarajaya Jun 2015 #50
Name removed Jun 2015 #52
davidpdx Jun 2015 #62
daleanime Jun 2015 #51
polly7 Jun 2015 #59
Shamash Jun 2015 #60
polly7 Jun 2015 #64
Shamash Jun 2015 #68
polly7 Jun 2015 #69
Post removed Jun 2015 #72
davidpdx Jun 2015 #63
roamer65 Jun 2015 #65
Baitball Blogger Jun 2015 #71

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:52 AM

1. 'But states rights!' - Bernie fans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:55 AM

2. Not all Bernie fans agree on this one, obviously.

Just like I'm sure not all Hillary fans do either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:58 AM

3. Yeah you're right. Reply should have been...

'But states rights!' - Bernie Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:25 AM

26. 'But states rights!' - Bernie Sanders

 

Yes yes....

Bernie Sanders IS the face of state rights on guns..... or something.....

Whenever I hear about a mass shooting of innocents.... I think "Bernie Sander!" 1st.... then maybe the NRA or Rick Perry or someone like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:36 AM

8. So wyldwolf and the NRA have this much in common:

Neither believe in 'states' rights' (as the NRA does not anymore).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:42 AM

10. 'In Reversal, the NRA Embraces States' Rights'

http://m.thenation.com/article/172834-reversal-nra-embraces-states-rights

Bernie believes in states rights, - on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:25 AM

25. no. what he believed was that states could best manage background checks

 

and that gun control alone will not solve the problems of our sick, violent culture.

Not quite the same thing. But continue with your attempted smears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:19 PM

38. So states can best manage...

Civil rights? Voting rights? Health care? Or just gun laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 05:45 PM

53. last I saw, communities and states manage voter registration. and the states manage

 

their ACAs unless they specifically left it to the feds. And as far as health care goes, he's been on record for a long time as favoring single payer. But that doesn't mean that administration wouldn't happen at state level.

So yes, the registration end of voting and health care are handled at the state level and lower.

He didn't disagree with background checks in principal; just specifics of the brady law as written. that's not uncommon you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #53)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:15 PM

56. So he's a states rights advocate

Why not embrace it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 09:44 AM

78. your attempt to link Bernie to the slave states that own the "states rights" meme

 

reeks of desperation.

But it dawned on me, doing chores this am, that if it took hold late in the game, it could really backfire on you in the general election.

carry on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 09:54 AM

79. So he isn't a states rights advocate on guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 10:11 AM

80. No 2- word soundbite accurately summarizes Bernie's thinking about gun control

 

So give it a rest already. Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #80)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 10:33 AM

81. So his position is convoluted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 10:44 AM

82. oh ffs. if a 2-word soundbite doesn't do it, a single word doesn't either. it's a complex

 

issue that will need more than a simple fix.

but you know that already. and I'm done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:17 AM

20. Most of them probably make up their own minds, rather than blindly cheerleading.

 

Let's not paint everyone with a broad brush just because we find ourselves disagreeing with them now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:22 AM

23. he believed gun control could best be managed at the state level. that's not the same as state's

 

rights.

And he also didn't -- and doesn't -- believe that gun control alone will solve the problem of a violent culture.

Of course, his more sophisticated and complex view of our sick culture doesn't fit into a nice soundbite. So continue trying to mischaracterize his views. Smacks of desparation, but carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:21 PM

39. What else can be best managed at the state level?


Civil rights? Voting rights? Health care? Minimum wage? Or just gun laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 05:48 PM

54. voter registration is handled by state & community. ACAs are state level unless

 

they specifically requested federal. And as far as health care goes, he's been on record for a long time as favoring single payer. But that doesn't mean that administration wouldn't happen at state level.

He also believed background checks could best be handled at the state level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #54)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:13 PM

55. So he's a states rights advocate

Why not embrace it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:03 AM

4. Different mentality over here, mate.

Guns are worshipped above all else, it's sad to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:35 AM

7. Yep, and population.

18 million people in Australia in 1996.
26 million people in Texas alone right now. And as you point out, many of those people believe that owning guns is their constitutional right and the government trying to take their guns is proof of the government's intended tyranny, just as the forefather's predicted.

I wish we could remove guns from our country, but I just don't see it happening. If I see a plan that I think will work, I will support it. But removing guns from a country with 320 million people is a lot different than removing guns from a country with 20 million people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prayin4rain (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:41 AM

9. Australia didn't remove all guns. 1/3 were bought back. And restrictions were put in place.

Read the article above in the OP as well as this one~

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/


The more we know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prayin4rain (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:08 AM

12. It must have to do with Americans loving their guns.

Any attempt to limit access to weaponry is seen as a threat to their freedom.

Expect the mass killings to continue.

Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:47 AM

14. Yep, it's a damn shame. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:33 AM

31. A gay friend of mine told me that the Aussie men don't have to compensate for their size with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:10 PM

67. Bazinga!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:59 AM

35. Americans also believe owning an SUV is about freedom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:04 AM

5. I certainly approve this post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:27 AM

6. K&r from a firearm owner in favor of sensible restrictions on firearms.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:25 AM

27. So great to know there are gun owners like you, Scuba.

Thank you!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:51 PM

66. The reality is that a clear majority of gun owners are like Scuba

NRA lobbying does not reflect that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:41 AM

33. K&R from another firearm owner in favor of sensible restrictions on firearms!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:47 AM

11. Laws -- CAN -- make a difference. The problem ....

is that we have a broken political system, disengaged citizens, and a hugely wealthy set of stakeholders deeply invested in keeping their blood-soaked profits flowing.

Resulting in so-called "reforms" like Manchin-Toomey (those two names should set off all kinds of warning bells), which would have supposedly strengthened and expanded background checks, at the too-dear cost of requiring reciprocity in the wrong direction between states on gun laws ... i.e. someone legally allowed to carry a weapon in Florida would now be legal to carry in Pennsylvania, even though PA's requirements for a permit are stricter.

People wanted stronger background checks ... so Manchin-Toomey tried to use that as cover to get through a change that gun-lovers have been salivating over for a long time. Personally, I expect that whatever changes this legislation had made to supposedly expand background checks, would have been either incomplete, unworkable, unenforceable, or some combination thereof. I don't trust either one of those politicians as far as I can throw them. I especially don't trust Toomey. Manchin at least is nominally a Dem and votes with Dems on some things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:31 AM

13. Excellent points.

Depressing though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

15. K & R

Years ago I followed my personal plan...I sold or gave away all my hunting guns...never owned a hand gun, never wanted to...

Because of the proliferation of guns, America is one of the most dangerous countries in the world...how could one know that some gun owner was about to blast away in a restaurant, school, church, mall...almost any place in the country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thespian2 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:34 PM

41. "Because of the proliferation of guns, America is one of the most dangerous countries in the world"

Actually not even close...

The US is ranked 108th out of 218 countries by homicide rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:41 PM

58. How about countries like us...?

 

Maybe you noticed that Rwanda and Mozambique had a rate of 10....we had half of that....

But Germany and France and Canada and the UK had about 1/5 of our rate.

You really find comfort in knowing that the US is only slightly less murderous than Kenya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #58)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:15 PM

61. I am glad we aren't Venezuela that's for sure..

The reasonable rates are all under 5 per 100,000 per year....the US is 4.7
That bad countries like Honduras and Venezuela are over 50. (Honduras is 90 per 100,00!)
I was responding however to the claim that we were "one of the most dangerous countries in the world." Which is plainly not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:55 PM

75. Over 14,800 homicides in 2012...

Countries with internal wars did manage to score higher...Are you saying that 14,800+ homicides do not make America one of the most dangerous of nations? My main problem with America is the proliferation of guns...when you enter a mall, who is armed and who isn't?
When will the next gun owner decide to shoot people?

No, we have no hand guns, and I feel much safer that way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thespian2 (Reply #75)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:37 PM

76. "Are you saying that 14,800+ homicides do not make America one of the most dangerous of nations?"

Yes I am saying that. So do the facts. All 110 countries with a higher homicide rate are not experiencing a war.

As a matter of fact the worst 10 on the planet are not in any type of war:
South Africa
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Swaziland
Lesotho
Jamaica
Guatemala
El Salvador
Belize
United States Virgin Islands
Venezuela
Honduras

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #76)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 12:36 AM

77. Okay.

I'll stay in Canada most of the time where I don't have to worry about being shot in a grocery story...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

16. Outstanding Posts..Thanks .big K AND R... post and link say everything there is to say....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:08 AM

17. "This is what we should have done after Newtown/Sandy Hook"

Sorry to disagree - this is what we should have done after the 1966 Texas Clock Tower massacre, or even earlier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:19 AM

22. I concede, you are right. I am wrong. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:08 AM

18. I think here the problem is the 2nd Amendment

People can hang onto that to say the US can't have this type of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:24 AM

24. This ISNT TAKING AWAY PEOPLE's GUNS. That's a RW meme that Fox has spread even to us on the left.

Control. Not banning hunting rifles or pistols for self-protection. Its restricting automatic & semi-automatic weapons. Its a VOLUNTARY govt buy-back to reduce the number of guns floating around.

Please read the article.

We're supposed to be the informed, intelligent side. It doesn't conflict with our "right to bear arms."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 12:59 PM

37. No but in comparison with Australia and other countries

The right wing here has the 2nd to use as a cudgel, which is what I was getting at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:29 PM

40. That is a difference, & it would be relevant if we wanted to take away their right to bear arms.

Progunners shouldn't get away with using it to fight sensible gun ownership. Its a false flag. It's incorrect. It's used by gun makers as a $care tactic & we should be able to see through it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:16 PM

46. Australia's was compulsory, so you can understand why we assumed you meant compulsory.

Of course, several cities across the U.S. have implemented voluntary buyback programs. But, yeah, maybe larger scale effort would make more of a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prayin4rain (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:27 PM

48. Compulsory for certain types of guns only. Do you need a semi-automatic?

Does anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:34 PM

49. No, certainly I do not think any regular citizen does.

If the majority agrees with me, we should be able to get an amendment passed. Then, we still have the logistics problem of disarming the gun nuts of their semi automatic and automatic weapons. 90 percent of Australians supported their law. If we can get even close to that approval rate, we'd have a chance. Without widespread approval, we're gonna have quite a situation on our hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 23, 2015, 11:04 AM

83. How many pistols are not semi auto?

 

You specifically say it is a ban on all semi autos, do you understand that is 90% of all pistols and well over half of all rifles and shotguns?

You can't demand that while trying to claim you are not coming for their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:15 AM

19. I can get behind this

Yes I can.
Call me a gun grabber all you want... to anyone who feels they must.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:28 AM

30. Gun Grabber!!!!!!



Madokie!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #19)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:17 AM

21. Second Admendment, 2nd Admendment, II Admendment, SECOND AD, 2 AD

How many ways can I say this? It's a gawd-given right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:27 AM

28. No one wants to prevent Americans' right to bear arms.

Just trying to bring some sensibility. Do we really need automatic/semi-automatic weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:27 AM

29. John Oliver did a great series on this on the Daily Show.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:34 AM

32. The SCotUS would not permit banning all semi-autos....

 

Which is what it would REALLY take. That will take either a radical shift on the court, or an amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 11:45 AM

34. What really happened in Australia were Australians burying a lot of guns in their back yards.

 

...the Attorney-General's Department itself estimated that 3.35 million firearms would become prohibited...

...As so much of the necessary data is unavailable, it is impossible to conclude that the "buyback" achieved anything other than the collection of 640,381 firearms
(mostly .22 cal rimfire semi-auto rifles and pump-action shotguns) at a huge and unwarranted cost.

ABS firearm import statistics for 1996-97 indicate that 125,594 of these firearms have been replaced already.

In the final analysis, the success or otherwise of the confiscations can only be measured by crime reduction...


http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-12_the-great-australian-gun-buyback.html

People often tout Australia's gun buyback as a success while conveniently ignoring that compliance was dismal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EL34x4 (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:40 PM

42. I can see how the NRA would spin it that way.

In addition to the article above, here's another take on their program from people without a financial stake in the sales of automatic and semi-automatic weapons~

2012
''Our gun buyback took about a fifth of our guns out of circulation but it approximately halved the number of gun-owning households,'' Leigh, who is also a Labor party MP, said, the Morning-Herald reported. 'If the U.S. could dramatically decrease the number of households with guns, it would have many fewer deaths."

A 2011 study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center of the Australian program noted that while 13 gun massacres (involving the death of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, there had been no massacres since.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/


You know, Kodak used to make a lot of money with camera film, Brother used to make a fortune in word processors...the gun makers could find other products to produce. We just need the strong will of the people. If the will is strong enough, lobbyists' bribes will be turned away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:48 PM

44. You're right about needing the strong will of the people.

 

After Port Arthur, Australians demanded gun control.

After Sandy Hook, Americans bought AR-15s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EL34x4 (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:55 PM

45. OMG that's so true, and so awful

We just really suck sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:15 PM

57. Speaking of spin

 

The Australian government has admitted that it only got about one-third of the guns it expected to in the mandatory buy-back.

And the number of deliberate events qualifying as mass deaths in the 19 years since the ban is the same as in the 25 years before it, with an average death toll per year that is virtually the same. The only difference was that fewer guns were used, though with the same number of people dying per year, that would seem to be of little consolation to the victims. However, that is merely according to this, so there may be additional incidents not listed on either side of the ban.

If you have additional information on the subject, it would certainly be useful. But implications of "NRA spin" or that anyone who disagrees with you is taking an NRA position, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:27 PM

70. Our president disagrees with your spin, & acc to Factcheck, it is indeed in the eye of the beholder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #70)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:46 PM

73. You missed something

 

I believe that would be where you showed anything I said was factually incorrect. Because nothing at either of those links did. Simply saying "someone famous disagrees with you" is a pretty piss poor excuse for a rebuttal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:51 PM

74. Read the fact check article. It really is debatable. Both sides.

I don't have time tonight to argue anything or engage in a pointless debate with you. I've got a big week ahead.

Have a good night!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 12:05 PM

36. But Australia doesn't have major gun manufacturers

By banning imports of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, they made sure that the weapons that were destroyed were not replaced. Since they don't have any major gun manufacturers locally, they don't have a corporate shills like the NRA. So they don't have politicians allowing themselves to be influenced by NRA lobbyists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:47 PM

43. "A decade of gun massacres had seen more than 100 people shot dead."

That's nothing...this country can beat that total in just a few days. USA! USA! USA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 05:13 PM

50. Yes, this was essentially a gun ban.

 

A gun ban will definitely work to stop gun violence. See England, see Japan.

If we tried it in the US, millions of people would march on Washington and burn it to the ground.

So, that's just not an option here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Reply #50)


Response to Damansarajaya (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:29 PM

62. South Korea as well

Although I believe people here are allowed to have guns for hunting it is highly regulated like Japan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 05:16 PM

51. K&R.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 06:44 PM

59. I don't understand why anyone, anywhere would need to carry a weapon,

concealed, or not.

What would possibly make someone so afraid out in public they would need to carry a gun, let alone strap one on in full view. I just don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 07:12 PM

60. Possibly this?

 

Woman stabbed to death by ex who was under a restraining order

And additionally, in New Jersey she could not legally own a 1 ounce (30 gram) pepper spray or a stun gun. So I don't know how you feel about a woman's right to choose, but that poor woman certainly didn't have much of one when it came to protecting herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #60)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:40 PM

64. I'm fully for a woman, or anyone's right to choose.

Possibly having a gun and being able to use it would have saved her. I live in Canada, so don't know the laws there regarding pepper spray or stun guns, it doesn't make sense to me that a woman wouldn't be able to legally own those.

Can you tell me the number of cases in which women who already do have the right to carry guns have saved themselves in situations like this?

I've seen too much horror with guns - all accidents and suicides, I really hate them. Why would anyone choose to open carry - strap those huge guns on their backs or pistols around their waists or legs out in public? I might be able to be convinced people, ie. women in fear, should be able to carry a gun for protection - but openly, when accidents could happen so easily and just the sight of them might make everyone around afraid and uncomfortable - just, no. I think it's crazy and trouble waiting to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 09:49 PM

68. Remember that fear is subjective

 

and thus not always rational. You probably have no fear if you see a policeman/woman with an openly carried gun in Canada, because you have an expectation that goes with seeing the uniform. If you saw the back of a civilian with a gun on their hip you might feel one thing, and then feel another if they turned around and you saw they had a prominent police badge around their neck or hanging off a suit pocket. The person was no different before or after, it was just your feelings that had changed.

And your feelings and expectations might not be the same as those of a black man in Ferguson, Missouri has when he sees a policeman. I do not see open civilian carry that much where I live, but I have seen it and it does not bother me.

Other countries with tighter gun control than the US allow civilian carry (like the Czech Republic), and this:



was taken at the Apple Store in Geneva, Switzerland, where no one batted an eye at it. The young man in question is a Swiss reservist, probably on his way back from maneuvers. It is a regular occurrence to see someone on a bus or train with a "huge gun on their back" while in civilian clothing, and so they have different expectations than you would. And lest anyone try to mislead to you to the contrary, that young man does have magazines for the weapon and is allowed to buy ammunition for it at any gun store with no limits (it is not easy to directly confirm this unless you read the laws in the original language, but an English translation of the Swiss legal code is here).

As to how many women who have the right to carry actually save themselves, I don't know and am not sure anyone has broken it down that specifically. According to our Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are about 11 million concealed carry permits distributed among an adult population of about 200 million. Our Center for Disease Control estimates that defensive gun use is at least as common as criminal gun use, and if you accept that figure (a lot here at DU do not) it would mean there are about 800 instances each day in which a person uses a gun or threatens to use a gun as a self-defense measure (this is among all gun owners, not just concealed carry permit holders). I do not feel confident trying to detail it more than that, but it gives you a rough feel for the numbers.

Because every state that has a concealed carry permit system does criminal background checks on the applicant, such people are pre-selected to be less likely to be the ones you should worry about, and this is borne out in statistics, with concealed carry gun owners being less likely to commit a gun crime than average. I do not have any corresponding figures for open carry because many of the states that allow it do not require a permit to do so.

Last, I am a gun rights supporter, but even so I would like to clarify your opening statement. Having a gun and being able to use it would not have saved her. It might have saved her. I think that she should have had a choice, and that not having that choice decreased her chance to survive. But simply owning or carrying a gun, even if you are trained with it, is no guarantee it will save you. It is a last resort that you hope you never have to use, and you act intelligently so that you decrease the chances you will ever need to use that last resort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #68)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:15 PM

69. I don't argue with people who believe it's fine to openly carry around guns at the expense of

the safety and comfort of others. You agree with it - that's fine. I don't. I just think it's stupid. I've seen too many accidents up here as it is with guns on the farm, and suicides - boggles the mind that people there are shooting each other accidentally, or not, with the full right to carry these weapons and do so - in public. Demanding the right to carry guns to church, to schools, to gov't facilities - seems these people are just really, really afraid. I could almost pity them if their obsession and fear didn't kill so many people.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #69)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:33 PM

63. The question is how many more shootings and deaths will it take before something is done?

It is sad to have to ask that, but the power toward maintaining the status quo is strong. I would totally support any measure tightening gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:41 PM

65. Australia doesn't have anything similar to our 2nd amendment.

Howard's coalition held the majority of the seats in the lower house of Parliament, so it was much easier to get it enacted.

To get large scale gun control in enacted in the USA, you would have to first repeal or modify the 2nd amendment. The chances of that happening are near absolute zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 10:32 PM

71. It is more pre-apocalyptic than frontierland mentality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread