General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What law would have stopped even half of the last 10 mass shootings? [View all]jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)marengo: Think that's relevant to my point, do you? It's not, and you know that.
Huh? you a stranger to reason? What I posted (repeated below) was entirely relevant to your question.
marblefalls first wrote: Making all long rifles illegal. Australia did a few years back and they are OFF the streets.
marengo asked: If that's the case, how is it there are more guns in Australia now than before Port Arthur?
No, not all long guns were banned, but marengo's implication is that the gun buyback backfired. The link marengo posted refuted marengo's concern, since population has increased 50% by 8 million people (from 16 mill to 24 mill) since 1986 port arthur massacre, and households with firearms have fallen by 75% since 1988:
However, the greater number of firearms has been outpaced by Australia's growth in population, so per capita firearm ownership remains 23% lower than it was before the Port Arthur massacre.
"The proportion of households with a firearm fell by 75% since 1988. Those who already possess several guns have bought more,". https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360
Australia/Population (2016) 24.21 million (2016)
Australia/Population (1986) 16.02 million (1986)
marengo's link: {Assoc Professor Alpers, Uni Sydney} said the 1996 firearms laws resulted in a "gun swap" as banned rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were replaced with newly imported single-shot firearms.
Haven't heard of many mass shootings with single shot firearms, marengo.
Your implication that the aussie gun buyback of 1986 has backfired, has backfired on you.