After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Sinc - Polidicks

[QUOTE]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. There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.” Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so. There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back. That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html[/url]

I honestly can't remember the last time we've had a shooting, of medium-large scale.

People who think that no gun control is safer than strict control [i]done properly[/i] are delusional. It would be really heard to enact gun control well in the US though thanks to the huge amount of firearms available.

We could copy the Israeli model and require teachers to be armed, if I was wanting to commit mass murder I wouldn't do it in a place where the entire staff is armed.

This is more of an opinion piece than news.

There's not much opinion about the bare facts.

[QUOTE=pvt.jenkins;38876620]I honestly can't remember the last time we've had a shooting, of medium-large scale.[/QUOTE] I'd probably suggest 2002 at Monash University in Melbourne. 2 people were killed and 5 people injured. That would be the last mass shooting that we had in Australia. After that, handguns were further restricted. Since then there haven't been another mass shooting in Australia, however of course there have been guns used in murders.

[QUOTE=zombieslaya;38876630]We could copy the Israeli model and require teachers to be armed, if I was wanting to commit mass murder I wouldn't do it in a place where the entire staff is armed.[/QUOTE] I don't think a guy who commits suicide after the murders really give a fuck.

[QUOTE=zombieslaya;38876630]We could copy the Israeli model and require teachers to be armed, if I was wanting to commit mass murder I wouldn't do it in a place where the entire staff is armed.[/QUOTE] Then they just go somewhere else and do it. Will all employees at the cinema then have to be armed? Then all store attendants in shopping malls? On that kind of logic eventually it would just have to be made law that everyone be trained and carry firearms. [QUOTE=megafat;38876665]I wish people would understand that if you make it more difficult to get guns, you make it more difficult to have those people go out and shoot someone.[/QUOTE] The problem is there are already so many guns in circulation in the US that it would probably still not be too hard to get one. Suddenly having a gun ban would not work because people have been able to have guns for so long. If I wanted to get my hands on a gun here it would be virtually impossible...Gun crime is basically non existent in the UK outside of the gang controlled parts of London.

I wish people would understand that if you make it more difficult to get guns, you make it more difficult to have those people go out and shoot someone.

There was a shooting in Russia around a month ago. Russia has strict gun laws

I literally can't argue against the efficacy of gun control in this situation. However, i still personally believe the masses shouting "gun control" are essentially hopping on a band wagon laying blame to only one detail when there are more significant ones. Am i saying gun control should remain exactly the same in the united states (because we all know the main point of this article being posted)? No. Just like how the gun is only a detail in the mass shooting stories, mental health is another that is more often than not glossed over by the media despite intense scrutinization of the shooters post incident. Gun control should not be the absolute primary focus as it's only a part of the problem. You don't run into a burning house and put out the fire in the fireplace and call it a solved problem expecting nothing more to happen, you've got plenty more places to put it out at.

This is basically what makes me think that your gun control is kind of crazy over there. We have one mass-shooting of this scale, we put in gun control. You guys have several mass-shootings of this scale a year, plus heavy gun-related deaths each year, and if anything, your gun control just keeps getting weaker.

[QUOTE=megafat;38876665]I wish people would understand that if you make it more difficult to get guns, you make it more difficult to have those people go out and shoot someone.[/QUOTE] Not true at all, but this is all very debatable. From what i've seen and read all this does is make shooting others LESS desirable but not impossible. Weapons will always and forever be easily attainable, this applies to firearms as well. Even in countries with strict gun laws, guns can still be acquired if one truely wishes to procure one. However with the stricter controls means stricter penalties for having one illicitly. Ergo a small time mugger won't risk years in jail to stick someone up with a gun if they can use a knife instead. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mabus;38876639]This is more of an opinion piece than news.[/QUOTE] It's all fact buddy.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38876676]There was a shooting in Russia around a month ago. Russia has strict gun laws[/QUOTE] Yeah but isn't the vast majority of Russian government and bureaucracy riddled with holes and corruption?

The article "forgot" to mention that our gun crime rate has been declining since the 80s. The buyback did nothing to change that [url]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.full[/url] [img]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280/F2.large.jpg[/img] This article is heavily biased and full of shit [QUOTE=SataniX;38876647]There's not much opinion about the bare facts.[/QUOTE] Carefully selected facts that ignore the full story

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38876676]There was a shooting in Russia around a month ago. Russia has strict gun laws[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Laserbeams;38876676]Russia[/QUOTE]

Huh, over here in The Netherlands we have similar laws, and yet we have a mass shooting roughly every couple of years.

[QUOTE=download;38876717]The article "forgot" to mention that our gun crime rate has been declining since the 80s. The buyback did nothing to change that[/QUOTE] There's a reason you won't find a non-bias source that agrees with your conclusions.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38876676]There was a shooting in Russia around a month ago. Russia has strict gun laws[/QUOTE] Think about what you just said.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876742]There's a reason you won't find a non-bias source that agrees with your conclusions.[/QUOTE] Oh look, I did

[QUOTE=download;38876717]The article "forgot" to mention that our gun crime rate has been declining since the 80s. The buyback did nothing to change that [URL]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.full[/URL] [IMG]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280/F2.large.jpg[/IMG] This article is heavily biased and full of shit Carefully selected facts that ignore the full story[/QUOTE] Uh, actually, they specifically mentioned this: [quote]There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. [B]Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”[/B][/quote] I'm not being the enemy here, i'm just pointing out that you seemed to have completely missed that paragraph.

[QUOTE=mysteryman;38876774]Uh, actually, they specifically mentioned this: I'm not being the enemy here, i'm just pointing out that you seemed to have completely missed that paragraph.[/QUOTE] Funny, the blogger can't cite the paper in question. Woops, my bad, he has. Gimmie a sec to read it

[QUOTE=download;38876752]Oh look, I did[/QUOTE] No, you didn't. You selected a graph without reading the study. NSW and VIC introduced gun control laws in 1987 following the Hoddle Street mass shootings. Other states did the same in the early 1990s. These restricting laws started to reduce gun crime. 1996, the states agree to legislative changes made by the Commonwealth. Gun buy back - since then, gun crime has fallen even more. At the end of the study which included the graph, they wrote: [quote]CONCLUSION Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms are achievable in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.[/quote]

What about the number of people who could've been saved from a robbery or an attack?

[QUOTE=download;38876785]Funny, the blogger can't cite the paper in question. Woops, my bad, he has. Gimmie a sec to read it[/QUOTE] Uh. Yes he did. [URL]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf[/URL] There we go saw your edit there. Really though in the first 2 pages alone there is enough evidence to support that the australian buy back did infact help australia. But that it was also a rare occurance as almost all other gun buybacks elsewhere are effectively useless. So we're both right....kind of.

[QUOTE=download;38876717]The article "forgot" to mention that our gun crime rate has been declining since the 80s. [/QUOTE] No it didn't.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876787]No, you didn't. You selected a graph without reading the study. NSW and VIC introduced gun control laws in 1987 following the Hoddle Street mass shootings. Other states did the same in the early 1990s. These restricting laws started to reduce gun crime. 1996, the states agree to legislative changes made by the Commonwealth. Gun buy back - since then, gun crime has fallen even more. At the end of the study of the graph you posted:[/QUOTE] The Hoddle street massacre lead to licensing, I don't disagree that was a good thing. The crime was falling at the same rate before and after the buyback. The authors conclusion do not support the data, look at it yourself Now, this Harvard study. Firtly, it's not peer reviewed, secondly it doesn't really discuss anything [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;38876821]No it didn't.[/QUOTE] I don't see it, could you point it out?

All we really have commom in Britain is stabbings get on our level

To be honest, Australia's gun laws are a bit overkill. Port Arthur excluded, gun homicide rates were overall low, there was no need to ban nearly fucking everything as they did. New Zealand on the other hand still allows those, yet I've honestly never heard of a shooting in NZ.