Gun Control in Australia has saved 0, yes 0 lives!

[Plunge]

Not like that is shocking to any of us. The study, reported in a respected journal and rigerously peer reviewed, showed that over 90% of the guns used in homicides and the like were unregistered, something those that opposed the anti-gun laws predicted.

From the article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html):

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.


The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.


The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

What a waste of money, time and effort.

[ethics]

That post needs to be replicated and focused on by MSM...

Oh wait...

[Sarge]

"(P)oliticians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before".

:noworthy:

[ditch]

Not like that is shocking to any of us. The study, reported in a respected journal and rigerously peer reviewed, showed that over 90% of the guns used in homicides and the like were unregistered, something those that opposed the anti-gun laws predicted.

From the article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html):

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.


The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.


The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

What a waste of money, time and effort.

For a start Plunge, this study, by two pro gunners, did not investigate how many lives our gun laws saved, so it is impossible to assess on the basis of their findings, whether any lives have been saved as a result of these laws or not. While they concluded that the laws have had no effect on the homicide rate, they have not found that lives have not been saved.

To take another angle on their findings, there has been no evidence of lives having been lost as a result of these laws, nor has there been an increase in the homicide rate. It continues to decline. Hardly anything for pro gunners to be beating their chests about. Sounds to me like its clear from this study that citizens here do not need guns. I could have told you that. I, or anyone else living here, knows that.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking our respective cultures mirror each other in all ways. Certainly they do in a significant number of ways, but gun ownership and our attitude to guns in general, is one example where we differ markedly. I know what the majority of members at GA think about gun ownership. The current thread re teachers and guns in one of your states, Idaho I think, illustrates that clearly enough. It may well be the way I would think too if I'd been raised and lived my life in the US. But I haven't, and I can tell you that the great majority of us here don't want or need a gun. I hope it stays that way.

I used to join in the discussion on gun ownership at GA when I first started posting here. I don't do that now. Attitudes on this topic are firmly held on both sides of the debate so I accept it at that and generally leave the debates to others who are interested. Responses on this topic, I have to say, are very predictable. I don't pretend to comprehend the pro gun stance. There are dramatic societal and cultural differences between our two countries that make it impossible to appreciate why you believe in private gun ownership unless one has lived there for some time. But it's interesting to learn the reasons why you think as you do. The one thing that surprised me more than anything else, was the concern of many, that an unarmed citizen is vulnerable to a govt trying to unduly exert it's power and more to the point, that there is that concern, and the armed citizen is prepared for this possibility. That concept is a one I was totally unfamiliar with. Our different histories may well explain the reason for our different way of thinking on that one.

I would like to have read that research paper in full that you quoted from Plunge, courtesy of the SMH, I know. But the $23 they were asking brings out the tight arse in me. :)

[Copzilla]

Sounds to me like its clear from this study that citizens here do not need guns.

(snip)

But I haven't, and I can tell you that the great majority of us here don't want or need a gun. I hope it stays that way.

I hope it stays that way too. Because if you ever do need a gun, you won't have one. And if you ever do need a gun and don't have one, that is when you will most wish you had not disarmed the law abiding populace.

[ditch]

I hope it stays that way too. Because if you ever do need a gun, you won't have one. And if you ever do need a gun and don't have one, that is when you will most wish you had not disarmed the law abiding populace.

Still having trouble seeing things from a non - local angle Copz? I made a point of mentioning differences between our two cultural circumstances. I can appreciate the difference or atleast appreciate that there are differences. What I can't appreciate is your unwillingness to see things from any other angle than your own. There is a world outside of your own experience, but I guess that matters little when it comes to pet subjects.

[cmhbob]

It's not just a pet subject, Ditch. Look at the history of the country, and what we had to do for our independence. We had to rebel against our government, and fight a long war to do it. The sitting government of the day was denying basic human rights to their citizens, who had no means of redress except armed rebellion.

That's why the matter is so important to many of us. If we were forced to rebel against one government, it's not unreasonable to think that might happen again.

Edit: And too many countries want to look at as not a local issue, when it should be local to a country. Why should the UN or any similar body have the right to disarm a people, when they can't reliably disarm everyone who might be aggressive to that people?

[jfcjrus]

{snip} I don't pretend to comprehend the pro gun stance. There are dramatic societal and cultural differences between our two countries that make it impossible to appreciate why you believe in private gun ownership unless one has lived there for some time. {/snip}
I don't understand it either, Ditch!
Because it's rather a pain in the ass, and a horrible responsibility to even contemplate the taking of another's life in the defense of one's own.
(No question that I'd hope such a situation would never come up, during my lifetime!)

I don't think the right to kill another, rather than be killed, is something to define among cultures.
It's simply about an individual's freedom.
In that, if you do NOT have the right (and the means) to defend your life, then of what good are all the 'other' rights bestowed by your culture?

To me, IF the shit ever hits the fan when I or my family is facing death from a lunatic with a gun, I'd feel more comfortable being allowed to carry a gun for self defense than having to depend upon the "culture of society" to save myself and my family.

Perhaps in Australia the police are funded and tasked to personally protect all citizens from harm?
If so, then I can certainly understand why there'd be no need for a citizen to own a gun to protect himself.
If so, our 'cultures' are indeed different, because here in the USA the Police are only tasked with catching those that killed you, not preventing such.

And, personally, I'd rather be allowed to have the means to save the police the effort of hunting down and prosecuting my killer. ;)

Regards,

[ditch]

It's not just a pet subject, Ditch. Look at the history of the country, and what we had to do for our independence. We had to rebel against our government, and fight a long war to do it. The sitting government of the day was denying basic human rights to their citizens, who had no means of redress except armed rebellion.

That's why the matter is so important to many of us. If we were forced to rebel against one government, it's not unreasonable to think that might happen again.

Edit: And too many countries want to look at as not a local issue, when it should be local to a country. Why should the UN or any similar body have the right to disarm a people, when they can't reliably disarm everyone who might be aggressive to that people?

Pet subject....my remark there was a personal, snide remark at Copz. Nothing too serious.;)

But I do acknowledge your historical reasons for having the attitudes to guns that you do. What I was attempting to say was that I was unaware of that particular reason, having to fight for your liberty and ensuring that the liberties gained are not to be lost. It was a new one to me and was surprised by learning of it. I don't question it, I'm in no position to do that.

As for the UN, I'm not familair enough with what is happenning there to comment really.

[ditch]

I don't understand it either, Ditch!
Because it's rather a pain in the ass, and a horrible responsibility to even contemplate the taking of another's life in the defense of one's own.
(No question that I'd hope such a situation would never come up, during my lifetime!)

I don't think the right to kill another, rather than be killed, is something to define among cultures.
It's simply about an individual's freedom.
In that, if you do NOT have the right (and the means) to defend your life, then of what good are all the 'other' rights bestowed by your culture?

To me, IF the shit ever hits the fan when I or my family is facing death from a lunatic with a gun, I'd feel more comfortable being allowed to carry a gun for self defense than having to depend upon the "culture of society" to save myself and my family.

Perhaps in Australia the police are funded and tasked to personally protect all citizens from harm?
If so, then I can certainly understand why there'd be no need for a citizen to own a gun to protect himself.
If so, our 'cultures' are indeed different, because here in the USA the Police are only tasked with catching those that killed you, not preventing such.

And, personally, I'd rather be allowed to have the means to save the police the effort of hunting down and prosecuting my killer. ;)

Regards,

I feel Joe, that it is a matter of degree of personal threat that prompts one to defend one's self with a gun. That sounds so bloody obvious once it's said, I know. The differences in the degree of threat individuals feel in the US, from assault and home invasion for example, is significantly greater than we feel here. Yes? It's wrong to believe though that Australians will never take up arms if the degree of threat increases to some significant degree. We've fought in enough wars to make that a truism. On a domestic level I reckon the same reasoning would apply. Things are pretty quiet down here I can tell you. You read about the middle eastern crime activities in the paper and the Maroubra riots, but we are still a long way from feeling the need to carry a weapon. Like I said, I hope it stays that way. If it doesn't I will never refuse to get a weapon. I just hope the need never arises and will support efforts from the police and govt to keep things that way.

BTW. Police here are certainly not expected to prevent crime to the extent that one gets a nice warm feeling from knowing they are being watched over.

[cmhbob]

As for the UN, I'm not familair enough with what is happenning there to comment really.It's not pretty. (http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+Small+Arms&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

[Copzilla]

Still having trouble seeing things from a non - local angle Copz? I made a point of mentioning differences between our two cultural circumstances. I can appreciate the difference or atleast appreciate that there are differences. What I can't appreciate is your unwillingness to see things from any other angle than your own. There is a world outside of your own experience, but I guess that matters little when it comes to pet subjects.

I never said anything about your culture, ditch. You simply said that you think you'll never need one. I certainly hope you're right, because if you ever do, you won't have one. Now what about culture is inherent in my statement?

And how would you know of cultural differences? You claim a knowledge of American culture. You claim I don't know about Aussie culture.

You're simply dismissing arguments by claiming superior worldly knowledge. Bah. I am not impressed.

[ditch]

I never said anything about your culture, ditch. You simply said that you think you'll never need one. I certainly hope you're right, because if you ever do, you won't have one. Now what about culture is inherent in my statement?

And how would you know of cultural differences? You claim a knowledge of American culture. You claim I don't know about Aussie culture.

You're simply dismissing arguments by claiming superior worldly knowledge. Bah. I am not impressed.

I never said I had a superior world view. I said that I appreciate the cultural differences and that I could not accept that you do not. In a nutshell, and to put it more precisely, it appears that you are defending a pro gun stance regardless, rather than looking beyond that and acknowledging that what is acceptable and perhaps needed in the US does not necessarily translate to the local experience here. Of course you can see the difference if you want to look. But do you want to look?

While a a lack of knowledge of Oz culture isn't perhaps a comment that I can direct at you, I would say that the average Aussie knows more of your culture than the average American does of ours. It's a natural result, isn't it, of the greater exposure we have of yours' than you have of ours'. It doesn't imply superiority of one over the other.

[ShinyTop]

I will have you know I spent a week in Australia in 1969 so I am well versed in the culture of your country. <SMALL>never mind my primary goals were good food and fast women</SMALL>

I note you have mentioned a couple of times traveling across our country twice and I am willing to concede you have more exposure to the US than the average US citizen has to Australia.

[Sierra Mike]

That was John Beanham who did the traveling, I believe. And chances are, he did it while strapped. :)

SM

[ShinyTop]

That was John Beanham who did the traveling, I believe. And chances are, he did it while strapped. :)

SM

<small>oooooops</small> Nevermind (in my best Gilda imitation)

[ditch]

Yes that would have been John R who did the travelling across the US. He certainly would have a different attitude to guns than I have.

[ditch]

I seem to recall that you saying you were on R&R when here Shiny back in the Vietnam era?

[ShinyTop]

yes, R&R to Sydney

[ditch]

It's not pretty. (http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+Small+Arms&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Well, the opening statement from one of the sites you linked to, sounds like it may be not so bad as you thought. Just what might be behind that initial action is another thing again.

[Sierra Mike]

I could no longer trust Annan to be good to his word. After all, he still has to answer for his son's heavily discounted Mercedes (http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200511140905.asp). :)

SM

[MemphisMark]

To get back to the OP, I don't think it's a truism. Just because the homicide level stayed the same, that's not to say it didn't go up. It's hard to prove a negative, and that's what the title of this thread is. Trying to prove a negative.

We can verify that guns in the hands of citizens prevent crimes, as there is enough statistical evidence to prove it to all but the most rabid hoplophobes.

Ditch, we have a saying Up Here, and it goes, "It is better to have and not need than to need and not have." That is what Copz was trying to say.

Do you, as Australians, have a right to self-defense? I know in Great Britain they don't. In GB, you are always required to retreat when presented with a threat, even in your own home. A burglar comes in the front door, you are expected to flee out the back door.

But again, you can't prove a negative.

[Advocat]

In GB, you are always required to retreat when presented with a threat, even in your own home. A burglar comes in the front door, you are expected to flee out the back door.

In both Canada (http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html#03) and the UK (http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html#03), the laws are predicated on the use of "reasonable force" and the preservation of life. Property is considered a secondary consideration to life. You are allowed to use force equal to the threat which is confronting you; excessive use of force can land you in jail, if the Crown wishes to push it, and many lawyers recommend retreating simply to prevent exposure to the "excessive force" charges. However, in both countries the laws allow you the use of reasonable force in defence of home, property and the lives of others.

In almost all cases, the use of lethal force in defence is only considered reasonable when:
1) The offender was attacking with overwhelming force/weapons
2) The offender was obviously intending on killing the defendant
3) All other reasonable means of defence/escape were not available.

In other words, blowing away a 15-year old housebreaker to defend your collection of baseball cards isn't reasonable. Yes, most courts would expect you to flee if confronted with a burglar; your insurance will pay for the loss, but nothing can bring back yours (or his) life once taken.

If the guy says he's going to kill you, and has a big knife, and is blocking the door, you're well within your rights to kill him in self defence. If he comes at you with a stick, you can pick up a baseball bat (but you're not allowed to continue breaking limbs once he's down). If someone is much bigger than you are and unarmed, the use of a weapon is allowed.

But you can't just shoot through the door when someone is trying to break in. The law, however, says nothing about putting a 00-buck shell just over their heads, which is usually very effective, and likely only to injure the termites in your wall. ;)

[ethics]

Randy, if that 15 yr old has a gun, I ain't asking questions or pontificating on his next move.

[tke711]

I'll never understand the thinking required that comes to the conclusion that I must be "reasonable" in my response to someone being unreasonable by breaking into my house. Why is the responsibility on me to determine, in a second or two, what level of force is "reasonable" for me to use to protect my family? Nothing like shifting the blame/responsibility from the criminal.

If someone breaks into my house, I don't care if they have a weapon or not. They will get one warning to get out, if they don't head that warning they get shot. I'll let the lawyer sort out the details after I KNOW my family is safe.

[ethics]

Well, like I was alluding to Randy, this is the crux of where Liberals and Conservatives separate (and why there are many more LIVING Conservatives than Liberals). ;)

[tke711]

True enough. :lol:

[Advocat]

Randy, if that 15 yr old has a gun, I ain't asking questions or pontificating on his next move.

Reasonable force, remember? ;) If he's armed, it's okay to shoot.

However, shooting the same kid, if he was unarmed, would be considered excessive (to say the least)

But that's the difference between the US and other countries. There are so many guns, and they're so pervasive at every level of society, that it's expected that a burglar is armed. In Canada/the UK (I can't speak for Australia), where firearms are much more restricted, it's the reverse... armed burglarlies are rare. Heck, in Canada, when you look at the much more threatening crime of robbery (which includes muggings, stores, banks, etc.), only 1 out of 7 are commited by a gun-toting perp.

[ethics]

Reasonable force, remember? ;) If he's armed, it's okay to shoot.

However, shooting the same kid, if he was unarmed, would be considered excessive (to say the least)

Some will disagree with you. Anything can be used successfully as a weapon and if the kid has a knife, a bat, even a golf club, that would deem many to shoot in self-defense.

Me? I wouldn't, I have enough training to buy me that extra second or two but I can understand why some would shoot (he IS on their property armed with a weapon, even if it's not a gun).

But that's the difference between the US and other countries. There are so many guns, and they're so pervasive at every level of society, that it's expected that a burglar is armed. In Canada/the UK (I can't speak for Australia), where firearms are much more restricted, it's the reverse... armed burglarlies are rare.
See, I don't think it's the quantity of guns, Randy, I think it's a difference of cultural thinking. See, here in America, we don't take risks like ponder if the burglar has a gun and risk you do even if you are outside of the US and the ARMED Burglars are "rare". All it takes is ONE of those RARE instances to end YOUR life, would render YOU dead for the burglar to do whatever they want to the rest of your family.

No thanks, man. You want to live, don't break in to my home where three females are defenseless without me. I'll ponder the meaning of life and death after I protect my girls, thank you very much. :)

Heck, in Canada, when you look at the much more threatening crime of robbery (which includes muggings, stores, banks, etc.), only 1 out of 7 are commited by a gun-toting perp.
ONLY one of seven? Again, the instance that 1 out of 7 is you, all bets are off with your life, no?

[Plunge]

Reasonable force, remember? ;) If he's armed, it's okay to shoot.

However, shooting the same kid, if he was unarmed, would be considered excessive (to say the least)




That's why you always make sure you have a throw away to put in the little punks hand... ;)

[MemphisMark]

Like I said. Someone breaks in through the front door, you are expected to run out the back door.

It seems silly that you are only supposed to return as much force that has been presented to you. You win fights by giving overwhelming force, not by making it an equal chance and hope that your "opponent" makes a mistake that you can capitalize on. That's for wargames, not for instances where your life is in danger. I'd bet the laws would change if some of the lawmakers were subject to the same laws and consequences that regular subjects do.

We have the "castle law" which means we don't have to retreat while in our homes.

Here in the US, it is perfectly reasonable (and prudent) to act under the idea that the punk who broke into your house poses an immediate and grave danger to yourself and your family. Therefore, you are within your rights to shoot first and ask questions later. But obviously you can't shoot him outside your house and drag him inside and put a weapon in his dead hand.

[ditch]

To get back to the OP, I don't think it's a truism. Just because the homicide level stayed the same, that's not to say it didn't go up. It's hard to prove a negative, and that's what the title of this thread is. Trying to prove a negative.

The homicide rate continued to decline. The point made by the authors was that there was no appreciable increase in the decline.

We can verify that guns in the hands of citizens prevent crimes, as there is enough statistical evidence to prove it to all but the most rabid hoplophobes.

That statistical evidence though does not apply universally. It may in the US and other countries but not in Oz which is the case in point. I'm not questioniong what may or may not be the case in the US.

Ditch, we have a saying Up Here, and it goes, "It is better to have and not need than to need and not have." That is what Copz was trying to say.

Fair enough. I'm not disagreeing with Copz or anyone when it comes to your local experience.

Do you, as Australians, have a right to self-defense? I know in Great Britain they don't. In GB, you are always required to retreat when presented with a threat, even in your own home. A burglar comes in the front door, you are expected to flee out the back door.

But again, you can't prove a negative.

When I get my broadband monthly allocation renewed 1st November I'll check precisely what our local laws say on that. Things are slower than a wet week right now.

The point I'm making here is that what works for you doesn't necessarily work for us. Private gun ownership is not seen as being necessary for self defence. We do not feel the same threat as you do re home invasion. Its not unkown, but is not an issue worthy of public concern. It may be one day, maybe not. But it is not currently.

Without feeling that there is a threat to one's self, there will be no urge to arm to defend. I know things are different for you. Many here say it often enough. I'm saying for us, it is different.

[ditch]

Here's an update that's worth noting. A further criticises the original that was quoted at the outset in this thread, and draws conclusions that differ from it.

.............the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56.

The latter finding contrasts with a report published in October which found that half a billion dollars spent removing guns had virtually no effect on homicide rates.

That report - by two Australian academics, Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, and published in the British Journal of Criminology - said gun homicide deaths were falling well before the buyback and the rate of decline hardly changed with the new laws.

From the SMH. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html)