Are Australia's gun laws the solution for the US?

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
This is what the Dems are looking at when talking about Australia's gun law

We have an opportunity in this country not to go down the American path."
Those were the words of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard before he radically changed Australia's gun laws and - many believe - rid the country of gun violence on a large scale.
Now the US is reeling from another mass shooting - its deadliest ever - in Las Vegas. A year after 49 people were shot dead in an Orlando nightclub, America continues to find itself far down that violent path.
But could it still change course the way Australia did?
In April 1996, 35 people were killed by a gunman, Martin Bryant, wielding semi-automatic weapons at a former prison colony and tourist attraction in Tasmania.
This became known as the Port Arthur massacre, and it was a turning point for Australia.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionMany Port Arthur victims died in a cafe which is now part of the site's memorial
The event appalled and galvanised the nation, helping to push Australia to enact some of the most comprehensive firearm laws in the world.
Former US President Barack Obama often pointed to Australia as an example for the US to follow.
"When Australia had a mass killing - I think it was in Tasmania - about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said: 'Well, we're going to completely change our gun laws'. And they did, and it hasn't happened since," he said in 2015.
So what exactly did Australia do, how did it work, and could it work in the US?
Drop in shootings
Less than two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the same sweeping gun laws banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns - weapons that can kill many people quickly.
They also put more hurdles between prospective gun owners and their weapons.
Australia has 28-day waiting periods, thorough background checks, and a requirement to present a "justifiable reason" to own a gun.
Unlike in the US, self-protection is not accepted as a justifiable reason to own a gun.
In the 21 years since the laws were passed, about one million semi-automatic weapons - roughly one third of the country's firearms - were sold back to the government and destroyed, nearly halving the number of gun-owning households in Australia.
The number of Australia's mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since.
Image copyrightAUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTImage captionUnregistered weapons surrendered during Australia's 2017 gun amnesty
And although the laws were designed specifically to reduce mass shootings, the rates of homicide and suicide have also come down since 1996.
Philip Alpers, a professor at Sydney School of Public Health, has done studiesshowing that aside from the victims of the Port Arthur shooting, 69 gun homicides were recorded in 1996 compared with 30 in 2012.
Despite the reduction in incidence though, gun violence has not disappeared in Australia.
Many outlawed firearms have been replaced with legal ones. And nearly 26,000 unregister
ed guns have been handed back this year in the first national amnesty since the Port Arthur killings.


Guns per capita in Australia and US: 1996 vs now
Australia
§ 1996: Approximately 17.5 guns per 100 people
§ 2016 (most recent numbers available): About 13.7 guns per 100 people
United States
§ 1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people
§ 2009 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people
Sources: AIC Australian institute of Criminology, Gun Policy,Small Arms Survey,and US Dept of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Australian firearms rights groups say that the laws go too far and restrict personal freedom.
They argue that gun violence was on a downward trajectory before the 1996 laws were passed, and reject any link between lower incidence of gun deaths and the tighter legislation.
Diana Melham, executive director of the Sporting Shooters Australia Association in New South Wales, argues the 1996 laws fuelled a sense of alienation among gun owners, which, she says "rallied the shooters".
The organisation, which is the country's largest gun lobby group, has grown rapidly since 1996 and its numbers are still on the rise.
Image captionDiana Melham says 1996 tightened gun ownership laws alienated gun owners
But Tim Fischer, who was Prime Minister Howard's deputy in 1996 and instrumental in getting the National Firearms Agreement passed, argues the US should follow Australia's lead.
"Plain and simple, what we've done works," he told the BBC in 2015.
The big question
So could it work in the US?
The simple answer is - probably not.
Although Australia does have a long history of hunting and sport, there is no equivalent to America's Second Amendment right to bear arms here.
Another significant difference is the speed of government action. In 1996 John Howard managed to get all six Australian states to agree to and pass uniform sweeping gun control legislation in just 12 days.
It is hard to fathom the US government ever being able to get all 50 states to agree to something, let alone act that quickly.
massacre was said to have been the "straw that broke the camel's back"
But according to Prof Alpers, the bigger difference is the cultural mindset.
"I don't for a moment think it would happen in the US," he says. "Australia already had a pre-disposition to doing something about it."
He explains that although by far the deadliest, the Port Arthur shooting was not the first Australia had experienced.
He says the country had lost nearly 150 people in the years running up to 1996 in mass shootings, and the national mood was changing.
"Port Arthur was the straw that broke the camel's back. You have to go back to those years to remember how visceral that backlash was."
Mr Fischer is more optimistic. He believes meaningful change could come to the US, but only when a "silent majority" are "sprung into action".
"Of course all mass shootings are a bridge too far," he says. "But there is going to be one that really tips the balance. Watch this space."
Exact numbers of the incidence of mass shootings in the US and abroad are hard to pin down because there is no uniform standard on the definition of a mass shooting.
In the US, there is no official database for this type of information, but tallies like the one from private research group ShootingTracker.com who put the number of mass shootings in the US in 2016 at 383, have been widely cited in the US media in the wake of other mass shootings.
 
Last edited:

bgoum

NES Member
Rating - 100%
46   0   0
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
1,094
Likes
649
Location
Salem, NH
We have something Australia does NOT have. #2A "Congress shall make no law" "shall not be infringed" Australian govt has no such restriction
 

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
17,136
Likes
11,592
Location
South Central Mass
My company is home based in Australia and our Global CTO, my boss, is in Australia. The guy's previous job was the equivalent of a CIO/CTO for the entire AU military. Figured the guy would be a gun guy as he was very pro military. Yeah, that wasn't the case. He was super anti gun. He thought it was the best thing when they took guns away in AU, thinks our 2A is the stupidest law ever and that gun owners should be ashamed for trying to keep their guns in the US.

Needless to say I've hated the guy since that day......
 

Welder1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
832
Likes
1,799
If a person is so smitten with Australian Gun control I suggest to them a permanent residence in Australia would be the answer.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,585
Likes
19,054
Location
North Shore
Their dirty little secret is that since that law passed and the confiscations, violent person on person crime has skyrocketed.
Rape
Robbery
Home invasions.
The guns went but the scumbags didn't go anywhere.. now they know the likelihood of getting your ass shot by a private citizen is next to nill , it's game on.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
4,176
Likes
2,633
Their dirty little secret is that since that law passed and the confiscations, violent person on person crime has skyrocketed.
Rape
Robbery
Home invasions.
The guns went but the scumbags didn't go anywhere.. now they know the likelihood of getting your ass shot by a private citizen is next to nill , it's game on.

Source?
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
4,176
Likes
2,633
Their entire population at the time was what, maybe twice the population of NYC? It's not really reasonable to compare the two countries because of cultural, geographical, and logistical differences that effect how a "gun ban" would be enforced.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,983
Likes
3,535
Location
Leoburg/Fitchminster area
Statistics lie and liars use statistics. A lot of our views regarding gun control are cultural and based on our history which is unique among the former British Colonies who are populated largely by persons of British Isles heritage. Although we are now about 2 1/2 generations removed from a national consciousness that in general that was very favorable to firearms ownership by individuals, there are still strong elements within our society that support the right to keep and bear arms. I doubt seriously that it will be the case fifty years from now and a much different America will emerge. One perhaps, that will embrace an Australian system or British system or worse. Regardless, two segments of society, I can well imagine will always have access to firearms: the power elites and the criminals.

Now there is a possibility of civil war, but I don't see a major victory for the side favoring some kind of return to a more traditional America. I do believe that secession, implosion and demographic realignment are distinct possibilities.

More prohibitive gun laws at the federal live are not going to solve anything because further restrictions on firearms are not going to keep people who intend to use them for unlawful reasons for getting them. Think not? Even the BPD Commissioner now blames gun crime on guns obtained from out of state sources such as Georgia, NH and ME. We have plenty of gun control here in MA but that doesn't stop anyone from getting a gun and using it unlawfully, does it?
 

Mountain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
16,297
Likes
19,370
Read the OP's title and ignored further verbiage.

Answer to the title question? NO.

Follow up to the question? I go out of my way to be in full compliance with the laws as they are now written. Stupid laws, but whatever- I comply and plan to continue doing so. Push me out of compliance? Come f-ing get it.

What a bunch of pussies are the Australians. UK-style cucks. When considering an answer for America, don't forget the map:

2016_House_Districts_by_Presidential_Party_Winner.png


Seriously, the progressives can F off. This is America. Are we seriously going to let a limited few population concentrations dictate policy for the entire US of F-ing A? So glad we are a republic and not a full blown majority rules democracy. Some brilliant mothers drafted and codified our form of government. We'd have already had civil war rev2 if they had not.
 
Last edited:

Roy Rogers

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
996
Likes
344
Location
Massachusetts
Data analysis: Did Australia's Ban on Guns Lower Rates of Violent Crime and Suicide? No, https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/0...iolent-crime-rates-and-lower-suicide-rates-2/.

DID AUSTRALIA’S BAN ON GUNS LOWER VIOLENT CRIME RATES AND LOWER SUICIDE RATES?

10/06/2017 WINTERY KNIGHT 3 COMMENTS

attachment.php



Gun ownership up, gun violence downSomeone asked me about what I thought of Australia’s experience banning the use of handguns for self-defense against criminals, and so I thought I would link to an article from The Federalist, then explain what peer-reviewed studies say about the issue.

Let’s start with The Federalist.

It says:

The argument, as Vox’s headline puts it, is “Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.”
The piece, along with many gun control advocates, cites a Harvard University study whose conclusion begins with this line: “It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States.” Not a great start for Vox’s angle, but I digress. The study doesn’t conclude that “murders and suicides plummeted” in Australia after the 1996 gun ban, as Vox claims in its headline. Instead, it focuses solely on firearm-related murders and suicides.

After the gun ban, violent crime rates were up:

Yes, as with the gun-happy United States, the murder rate is down in Australia. It’s dropped 31 percent from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012.But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban. In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best. It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.

So although you have fewer firearm-related deaths when you disarm law-abiding civilians, violent crime increases, because there is now NO deterrence to criminals. Even a criminal with a knife can rob, rape and murder someone who is unarmed.


What about suicide rates?
Look:

The Australian gun ban’s effect on suicide in the country isn’t any better. While Vox repeats the Harvard study’s claim that firearm-related suicides are down 57 percent in the aftermath of the ban, Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high. The Australian suicide prevention organization claims suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old. So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban.

So, overall suicides are not down, people simply found other ways to kill themselves. So the gun ban had no effect on the overall suicide rate. But it did raise the violent crime rate. Should we be surprised by this? Actually, this is consistent with peer-reviewed research.

Gun crime also skyrocketed after the 1996 gun ban. TheWashington Free Beacon reports.


Excerpt:

Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s.

Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically across the island nation’s localities in the past decade according to an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily. It found that gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases.

Experts said that the country’s 1996 ban on most semi-automatic firearms has actually driven criminals to those guns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney told The New Daily. “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

[…]Regardless of the reasons for the jump in gun crime, the numbers reveal the true size of Australia’s illegal gun market. “Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally,” The New Daily said. “The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.”

If you take guns away from law-abiding people (which is what Australia did), then only criminals will have guns. And that means that the criminals will become bolder in the face of their disarmed victims.

The peer-reviewed research:

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.



One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hang gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem cause by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.

For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.
 

Attachments

  • Australia crime data.jpg
    Australia crime data.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 150
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
14,664
Likes
8,612
We have the second amendment. The anti's are pushing to far.....their momentum is going to stop. Just keep getting the message out that a hitlary supporter did that vegas job and people will start to wake up. The MSM and the democrat leadership and George Soros and all the liberal talk show hosts and their anti trump rhetoric pushed this loon over the edge. and there are more out there. This blood and all future victims of these types of events is on their hands.

There will be no australia gun control here.
 

mibro

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
17,956
Likes
25,743
Location
Mass.
Their dirty little secret is that since that law passed and the confiscations, violent person on person crime has skyrocketed.
Rape
Robbery
Home invasions.
The guns went but the scumbags didn't go anywhere.. now they know the likelihood of getting your ass shot by a private citizen is next to nill , it's game on.

Same as the UK. More violent crime in general, gun, knife and acid attacks.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
938
Likes
379
Australia gets to deal with mandatory vaccinations among other egregious losses of individual freedom after surrendering their firearms. Way to go.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
40,420
Likes
66,906
OP, didn't read your post, way too long and no space between paragraphs.

The answer is simple, we can always control objects, but it is in human nature to kill, and that we cannot control.
You take guns away, they will crash a plane on a building.
Or they will stab people.
Or they will run people over with a truck.
...

The people that want to kill will kill. Period.
 
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,087
Likes
733
Location
Issaquah, WA
This is what the Dems are looking at when talking about Australia's gun law

We have an opportunity in this country not to go down the American path."
Those were the words of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard before he radically changed Australia's gun laws and - many believe - rid the country of gun violence on a large scale.
Now the US is reeling from another mass shooting - its deadliest ever - in Las Vegas. A year after 49 people were shot dead in an Orlando nightclub, America continues to find itself far down that violent path.
But could it still change course the way Australia did?
In April 1996, 35 people were killed by a gunman, Martin Bryant, wielding semi-automatic weapons at a former prison colony and tourist attraction in Tasmania.
This became known as the Port Arthur massacre, and it was a turning point for Australia.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionMany Port Arthur victims died in a cafe which is now part of the site's memorial
The event appalled and galvanised the nation, helping to push Australia to enact some of the most comprehensive firearm laws in the world.
Former US President Barack Obama often pointed to Australia as an example for the US to follow.
"When Australia had a mass killing - I think it was in Tasmania - about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said: 'Well, we're going to completely change our gun laws'. And they did, and it hasn't happened since," he said in 2015.
So what exactly did Australia do, how did it work, and could it work in the US?
Drop in shootings
Less than two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the same sweeping gun laws banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns - weapons that can kill many people quickly.
They also put more hurdles between prospective gun owners and their weapons.
Australia has 28-day waiting periods, thorough background checks, and a requirement to present a "justifiable reason" to own a gun.
Unlike in the US, self-protection is not accepted as a justifiable reason to own a gun.
In the 21 years since the laws were passed, about one million semi-automatic weapons - roughly one third of the country's firearms - were sold back to the government and destroyed, nearly halving the number of gun-owning households in Australia.
The number of Australia's mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since.
Image copyrightAUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTImage captionUnregistered weapons surrendered during Australia's 2017 gun amnesty
And although the laws were designed specifically to reduce mass shootings, the rates of homicide and suicide have also come down since 1996.
Philip Alpers, a professor at Sydney School of Public Health, has done studiesshowing that aside from the victims of the Port Arthur shooting, 69 gun homicides were recorded in 1996 compared with 30 in 2012.
Despite the reduction in incidence though, gun violence has not disappeared in Australia.
Many outlawed firearms have been replaced with legal ones. And nearly 26,000 unregister
ed guns have been handed back this year in the first national amnesty since the Port Arthur killings.


Guns per capita in Australia and US: 1996 vs now
Australia
§1996: Approximately 17.5 guns per 100 people
§2016 (most recent numbers available): About 13.7 guns per 100 people
United States
§1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people
§2009 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people
Sources: AIC Australian institute of Criminology, Gun Policy,Small Arms Survey,and US Dept of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Australian firearms rights groups say that the laws go too far and restrict personal freedom.
They argue that gun violence was on a downward trajectory before the 1996 laws were passed, and reject any link between lower incidence of gun deaths and the tighter legislation.
Diana Melham, executive director of the Sporting Shooters Australia Association in New South Wales, argues the 1996 laws fuelled a sense of alienation among gun owners, which, she says "rallied the shooters".
The organisation, which is the country's largest gun lobby group, has grown rapidly since 1996 and its numbers are still on the rise.
Image captionDiana Melham says 1996 tightened gun ownership laws alienated gun owners
But Tim Fischer, who was Prime Minister Howard's deputy in 1996 and instrumental in getting the National Firearms Agreement passed, argues the US should follow Australia's lead.
"Plain and simple, what we've done works," he told the BBC in 2015.
The big question
So could it work in the US?
The simple answer is - probably not.
Although Australia does have a long history of hunting and sport, there is no equivalent to America's Second Amendment right to bear arms here.
Another significant difference is the speed of government action. In 1996 John Howard managed to get all six Australian states to agree to and pass uniform sweeping gun control legislation in just 12 days.
It is hard to fathom the US government ever being able to get all 50 states to agree to something, let alone act that quickly.
massacre was said to have been the "straw that broke the camel's back"
But according to Prof Alpers, the bigger difference is the cultural mindset.
"I don't for a moment think it would happen in the US," he says. "Australia already had a pre-disposition to doing something about it."
He explains that although by far the deadliest, the Port Arthur shooting was not the first Australia had experienced.
He says the country had lost nearly 150 people in the years running up to 1996 in mass shootings, and the national mood was changing.
"Port Arthur was the straw that broke the camel's back. You have to go back to those years to remember how visceral that backlash was."
Mr Fischer is more optimistic. He believes meaningful change could come to the US, but only when a "silent majority" are "sprung into action".
"Of course all mass shootings are a bridge too far," he says. "But there is going to be one that really tips the balance. Watch this space."
Exact numbers of the incidence of mass shootings in the US and abroad are hard to pin down because there is no uniform standard on the definition of a mass shooting.
In the US, there is no official database for this type of information, but tallies like the one from private research group ShootingTracker.com who put the number of mass shootings in the US in 2016 at 383, have been widely cited in the US media in the wake of other mass shootings.
This says suicides went down after their ban. This chart begs to differ. It is data I personally pulled from the Australian version of the CDC.

Soo, if they lie about that... What else is B's in this "story".

548e65995847fad87ecbadf1af70e445.jpg


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 

gerrycaruso

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,214
Likes
3,111
Location
westford
Punishing all for the crimes of a few for the sake of safety is easier than attempting to solve the problem. The screwballs will just use a different tool.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
938
Likes
379
Punishing all for the crimes of a few for the sake of safety is easier than attempting to solve the problem. The screwballs will just use a different tool.

That's the public safety, greater good, collectivist agitprop they use to attack our individual rights. They want us to accept giving up our rights for the 'greater good', public health', ect, to be a better local, national, and global citizen, ie a NWO slave/serf.
 
Top Bottom