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.
I suppose what they're saying is gun deaths have declined but you cannot attribute that to the gun confiscations. So I did a little looking around, although as everyone knows I hate to do rebuttal research like this. Here's what I came up with.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.Oh, what a dilemma, whom to believe. Let's see, eeny meeny miny moe, I pick the second one.
Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
There's also this study by Leigh and Neill which points up flaws in the Baker and McPhedran study:
ReplyDeletehttp://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf
Again, gunloons are simply arguing against facts by creating the false standard that any gun control initiative must eliminate all gun crime.
--JadeGold
From mikeb's link: "So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."
ReplyDeleteBut that aside, if anyone hasn't noticed, I love it when US gun control advocates raise the subject of Australia and praise their recent "gun control."
That's because Australia banned and confiscated all pump action and semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns -- something that US gun control advocates try to deny that they want for the US.
If they don't want that for the US, why would they point out and praise Australia -- and why would they expect the same results from much lesser measures?
"So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."
ReplyDeleteWhy am I not suprised MikeB omits that little nugget?
Oh! Because it disproves what he's saying and doesn't fit the narrative.
Once more, FJ makes a number of huge leaps of logic and arrives at the conclusion he wanted to all the time.
ReplyDeleteBut let's entertain his wild conspiracy theories for a moment. Let's suppose the top-secret, super-dooper covert plan is to ban all "pump action and semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns."
Based on Australia's experience--they saved 3000--and counting--of their citizens. As such, FJ seems to be saying:
1. nevermind that gun buybacks work, losing over 3000 US citizens (or more) is unimportant.
2. we should ignore solid evidence gun buybacks work because FJ has special mindreading skillz that allow him to discern the greater conspiracy beneath the science.
Of course, this is the same tactic used in the healthcare debate--that the US would be forced to adopt the UK's or Canada's or France's exact healthcare system. Nevermind the fact, all of these countries enjoy better health at a lower cost.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: Let's suppose the top-secret, super-dooper covert plan is to ban all "pump action and semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns."
ReplyDeleteAustralia did it (so did the UK). If gun control advocates don't want that for the US, why would they point out and praise Australia -- and why would they expect the same claimed results from much lesser measures?
JadeGold: nevermind that gun buybacks work
IF it did work, "it" was the banning and confiscation of many of the most popular hunting rifles and shotguns in the US -- something that most gun control advocates try to deny. We DO learn that when JadeGold talks abou "buybacks" he may mean the banning and confiscation of hunting guns.
JadeGold: we should ignore solid evidence gun buybacks work
From mikeb's link: "So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."
One thing which neglects to be mentioned is that the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, as does the US Constitution. The Australian Federal Government decided to put a 1% levy on income tax for one year to finance the "buy back" purchase and destruction of all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. The Australian gun "buyback" was predicted to cost $A500 million.
ReplyDeleteSo, it was not a "confiscation", but a "buy back".
Additionally, there was the option of "deactivating" the firearm which made it "unfirable".
There is a lot of antagonism against "deactivating" firearms since BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot. It was alleged that the firearm used in her murder had been deativated.
The US doesn't have that problem since federal law does not allow for deactivated firearms.
So, the choice in the US would be register the weapon if possible or legally dispose of it through a "buyback".
Think of how much that would cost the US taxpayer.
Laci the dog
JadeGold: "Of course, this is the same tactic used in the healthcare debate--that the US would be forced to adopt the UK's or Canada's or France's exact healthcare system."
ReplyDeleteSo here is how JadeGold would debate healthcare:
JadeGold: "Canada does XYZ and has better health at a lower cost."
Opponent: So you want to do XYZ in the US?
JadeGold: "What a ridiculous assumption! What could possibly give you the idea that I want to do XYZ in the US?"
Australia did it (so did the UK). If gun control advocates don't want that for the US, why would they point out and praise Australia -- and why would they expect the same claimed results from much lesser measures?
ReplyDeleteActually, you're wrong about the UK and pump action shotguns. But it's ok--most gunloons are still under the impression the UK has banned all guns.
The issue is buybacks--it's not a specific plan. Gunloons claim buy backs don't work--Australia proves the gunloons wrong. Now, Australia had a far less--by several magnitudes--of a gun violence problem than the US, so there is little question some form of buyback, properly implemented, would work.
Obviously our greatest gun violence problem centers around handguns and assault weapons--so those are what should be targetted. Especially junk handguns.
I provided solid evidence showing the gun buyback in Aus worked.
--JadeGold
Laci: So, it was not a "confiscation", but a "buy back".
ReplyDeleteIn my original comment on this subject, I called it "confiscation with compensation." One could also call it "mandatory buyback." Mikeb asked why gunowners were antagonistic to "buybacks." If this is what JadeGold and Laci mean by "buybacks," then we have an answer to that question.
Laci: Additionally, there was the option of "deactivating" the firearm which made it "unfirable".
Gosh, why didn't you say so sooner? THAT will surely make a ban on many of the most popular hunting guns in the US more acceptable to US gunowners -- right?
No, FJ, I would debate healtcare thusly:
ReplyDeleteJG: The US fails to cover 50M of its citizens and pays significantly more in healthcare costs. Additionally, we have poorer heathcare outcomes than most industrialized nations. We should look at countries like France, Germany, Japan UK, Canada, etc. and see how they get better outcomes, cover all their citizens and pay less.
FJ: You want UK to take over????!! OMG, didn't we fight a war over this??!!ZOMG!!! Canadians get all their healthcare in the US--Rush Limbaugh says so.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "Actually, you're wrong about the UK and pump action shotguns."
ReplyDeleteBanned and confiscated, just like Australia.
JadeGold: "But it's ok--most gunloons are still under the impression the UK has banned all guns."
Not all guns -- just all pump action and semiauto rifles and shotguns and all handguns.
JadeGold: "Gunloons claim buy backs don't work--Australia proves the gunloons wrong."
Only IF it did work, and only if "buybacks" mean the banning and confiscation of many of the most popular hunting rifles and shotguns in the US -- something that most gun control advocates try to deny. It's now apparent that when JadeGold talks about "buybacks" he may mean the banning and confiscation of hunting guns.
JadeGold: I provided solid evidence showing the gun buyback in Aus worked.
And as usual there is evidence otherwise -- and even mikeb's link says: "there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."
JadeGold: "We should look at countries like France, Germany, Japan UK, Canada, etc. and see how they get better outcomes, cover all their citizens and pay less"
ReplyDeleteAhh -- classic JadeGold obfuscation.
JadeGold attempts to cover up his Australia comment by claiming the above is similar -- but it's not.
He used SEVERAL countries AND he quotes NO specific policy. In his Australia comment, he DID quote a specific policy, so an accurate analogy would be:
JadeGold: France does ABC, and has...
Opponent: So you want to do ABC in the US?
JadeGold: "What a ridiculous assumption! What could possibly give you the idea that I want to do ABC in the US?"
Banned and confiscated, just like Australia.
ReplyDeleteHappen to know Eric Clapton owns several and hunts with them. You can even go online and find them on sale in the UK.
Ahh -- classic JadeGold obfuscation.
JadeGold attempts to cover up his Australia comment by claiming the above is similar -- but it's not.
It's very similar. To point up this fact, can you tell us when President Obama said "let's install the UK's NHS here in the US. The exact same system."
You can't because he didn't.
Similarly, I've sagely noted that our gun violence problem in the US is much larger and involves different weapons. And I've repeatedly stated that we should focus our efforts on junk handguns and assault rifles. Somehow (let's just call it what is--dishonesty) you believe we're secretly looking to install Crocodile Dundee as Prime Minister of the US and ban all shotguns.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: France does ABC, and has...
ReplyDeleteOpponent: So you want to do ABC in the US?
JadeGold: "What a ridiculous assumption! What could possibly give you the idea that I want to do ABC in the US?
What I *am* saying is that we can look at the French system (as well as Canada's, UK's, etc) and borrow those aspects that work well and/or modify them to enhance our own healthcare based on our needs."
Fixed it for you.
---JadeGold
FishyJay said, "I love it when US gun control advocates raise the subject of Australia."
ReplyDeleteOf course in this case it was you who brought up Australia as an example that gun bans don't work.
"nevermind that gun buybacks work, losing over 3000 US citizens (or more) is unimportant."
ReplyDeleteAs against the American lives that would be lost becausethey no longer had access to firearms?
I do love it so when gunloons bring up the UK and Australia. They show conclusively that gun control--which has never been tried in the US--works.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
As against the American lives that would be lost becausethey no longer had access to firearms?
ReplyDeleteSeveral false premises here.
First, firearms would still be available.
Second, the overwhelming evidence shows that gun crime far exceeds DGUs.
__JadeGold
mikeb: "Of course in this case it was you who brought up Australia as an example that gun bans don't work."
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect, mikeb.
Go to your post "More Gun Buy-Backs" and look who first brought up Australia.
Of course, that person calls it a "buyback" but I have shown that it was a ban with compensation. that's not the same thing that you were posting about under "Buy-Backs."
mikeb, please show where I am wrong.
JadeGold: "I do love it so when gunloons bring up the UK and Australia.
ReplyDeleteWe agree! I too do love it so when gun control advocates bring up the UK and Australia.
JadeGold: "They show conclusively that gun control--which has never been tried in the US--works."
They show us that when they talk of "gun control" they often mean the banning and confiscation of all handguns and all pump action and semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns.
JadeGold: "Happen to know Eric Clapton owns several and hunts with them. You can even go online and find them on sale in the UK."
ReplyDeleteI will be happy to examine your evidence that Eric Clapton owns several working pump shotguns and stores them legally in the UK, and that working pump shotguns are now for sale to civilians legally in the UK.
Or is this another Kopel worked for Reagan" claim?
JadeGold: What I *am* saying is that we can look at the French system (as well as Canada's, UK's, etc) and borrow those aspects that work well and/or modify them to enhance our own healthcare based on our needs."
ReplyDeleteAnd I have no problem with you saying that. It's just not very similar to your Australia comment.
Above, you use SEVERAL countries AND you quote NO specific policy. In your Australia comment, you DID quote a specific policy of one specific country.
And later you claimed that you don't want that for the US? Suuure.
If you don't want that for the US, why point out and praise Australia and their gun ban ("forced buyback," if you prefer) -- and why would you expect the same supposed results from much lesser measures?
The Australian Federal Government decided to put a 1% levy on income tax for one year to finance the "buy back" purchase and destruction of all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. The Australian gun "buyback" was predicted to cost $A500 million.
ReplyDeleteSo, it was not a "confiscation", but a "buy back".
This is unbelievably stupid, even for Laci. The government CANNOT "buy back" private property that it never owned in the 1st place.
Furthermore, you claim that they levied a tax on citizens to pay for the confiscation. Great, so Australians had to pay for the government to forcibly confiscate private property.
The fact that the government confiscation of privately held arms was financed with taxpayer money changes nothing about the nature of what happened (if anything it makes it worse)
Of course the government agency would say gun grabbing works. They were the ones grabbing the guns.
ReplyDelete"So, it was not a "confiscation", but a "buy back""
A mandatory "buy back" is confiscation.
"First, firearms would still be available."
Of course they would... To criminals.
JadeGold :It's very similar. To point up this fact, can you tell us when President Obama said "let's install the UK's NHS here in the US. The exact same system."
ReplyDeleteAs I never said it was the intention to install all of the UK's gun laws.
However, if President Obama praised a SPECIFIC aspect of UK healthcare laws, reasonable people might conclude that he wanted something very similar in the US.
If not, reasonable people might ask why then point out and praise that specific aspect of UK healthcare laws -- and why would he expect the same supposed results from much lesser or different measures?
JadeGold: "Somehow (let's just call it what is--dishonesty) you believe we're secretly looking to install Crocodile Dundee as Prime Minister of the US"
ReplyDeleteOne reason that there have been news articles about how opposition to "gun control" has been growing in recent years is that the more extreme goals of gun control adovocates have been such a poorly kept secret.
That's because many gun control advocates cannot keep from praising gun bans (or "forced buybacks") in other countries. Case in point: JadeGold & Australia.
JadeGold: "and ban all shotguns."
Tsk -- not ALL shotguns -- just all pump action and semiauto shotguns (and all pump action and semiauto rifles, too)
One reason that there have been news articles about how opposition to "gun control" has been growing in recent years is that the more extreme goals of gun control adovocates have been such a poorly kept secret.
ReplyDeleteFalse premise.
First, gun control has never been tried in this country.
Second, the vast majority of Americans favor stricter reulation of guns--even NRA members favor such things as an assault weapon ban and closing the gun show loophole. Initiatives such as registration enjoy support in the 80 percentile range, as does waiting periods.
Third, gunloons who favor less regulation of guns enjoy support in the 10-12% range.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "First, gun control has never been tried in this country."
ReplyDeleteOK, no problem, I will restate: One reason that there have been news articles about how opposition to gun control "that has never been tried in this country" has been growing in recent years is that the more extreme goals of gun control advocates have been such a poorly kept secret.
Better?
JadeGold: Second, the vast majority of Americans favor stricter reulation of guns
As do I, but recent news articles and recent polls have shown that such suppport has been dropping. One reason is that the more extreme goals of gun control advocates have been such a poorly kept secret.
Tha's one of the things that keeps me from full support of gun show legislation.
JadeGold: even NRA members favor such things as an assault weapon ban
Another good case in point. I too supported the assault weapon ban -- UNTIL gun control advcates tried to expand the ban to include guns that they had promised NOT to ban.
Does jadegold ever say something without lying out his ass?
ReplyDeleteEVER?
Please Jade, show me evidence that you gun control folks don't want to ban guns.
Show me one proposed or enacted gun control law where the Brady's, VPC etc. have said
"We don't support that, it's an infringement, it goes too far."
Show me one gun ban that they have not enthusiastically supported?
Their goals have never been "reasonable regulations" they have always had the goal of banning guns. Hell, Pete Shields, the founder of what would become the Brady Campaign said his end goal was the eradication of all civilian ownership of handguns. The Brady Campaign merely extended that view to long guns as well.
Jade - You do realize you're repeating the same old tripe you spouted on Delaware Liberal where I repeatedly made you eat your words. Do you have no shame?
Mike W: "Pete Shields, the founder of what would become the Brady Campaign said his end goal was the eradication of all civilian ownership of handguns."
ReplyDeleteI have Shields's book. When Shields DOES place limits on the goals of his organization, he turns out to have been LYING:
"It is important to understand that our organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."
(Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die --People Do)
Why is Mike W. pondering my ass? That makes me uncomfortable.
ReplyDeletePete Shields made the comment in 1976--almost 40 years ago. Even when Shields was head of HCI (he retired in 1989 and died in 1993), he changed the focus of HCI from banning handguns to stricter regulation. If FJ indeed read Shields's book--he'd know this.
Of course, I am still jittery about Mike W's fixation with other men's asses.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: Pete Shields made the comment in 1976--almost 40 years ago. Even when Shields was head of HCI (he retired in 1989 and died in 1993), he changed the focus of HCI from banning handguns to stricter regulation. If FJ indeed read Shields's book--he'd know this.
ReplyDeleteIn 1976, Shields explained the incremental strategy toward his gun ban goal:
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest"
Such a strategy might work better if you don't remind people of your end goal.
I own Shields's book -- and what one learns from it is also enhanced by looking at the dates.
Shields promised in his book that his organization "does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns" -- yet in less then 10 years his organization was indeed proposing further controls on rifles and shotguns.
Later, gun control advocates promised not to ban a list of 650 types of sporting rifles and shotguns (Appendix A of the AWB)-- but in less than 10 years they were trying to ban guns on the list.
The only thing that really changes is that their old lies are replaced by new ones.
And let us not forget the NRA in 1968 called for a ban on junk guns and did not accept advertising for junk guns in their publications.
ReplyDeleteHere is the NRA Exec Director in 1968 on legislation to ban junk guns:
""On the Saturday Night Special, we are for it [banning] 100 percent. We would like to get rid of these guns."
ZFrom THe Rifleman, Feb 1968 issue:
"Shoddily manufactured by a few foreign makers, hundreds of thousands of these have been peddled in recent years by a handful of U.S. dealers. Prices as low as $8 or $10 have placed concealable handguns within reach of multitudes who never before could afford them. Most figure in "crimes of passion" or amateurish holdups, which form the bulk of the increase in violence. The Administration ... possesses sufficient authority to bar by Executive direction these miserably-made, potentially defective arms that contribute so much to rising violence."
By FJ's and Mike W's logic--this makes the NRA "gun banners."
--JadeGold
The NRA has always been a lukewarm organization at best, too willing to compromise with the enemy, much like many of the "sportsmen" organizations in Australia.
ReplyDeleteSo using their support of bad legislation to give legitimacy to more bad legislation is just all around fail.
Well we in the United States have seen at least the same drop in murder rates without Australia’s “confiscation with compensation”. Not only have we “never tried gun control in this country”, but we’ve had more progressive gun rights laws while the rates continued to decline. Can the gun controllers please explain to me why Australia should be a shining example to follow? It appears I can keep my guns and have the same result, while maintaining self-protection and saving the government a whole lot of money.
ReplyDeleteAlso, anyone who supports Australia’s ban is effectively saying that even with 1/10th our murder rate, you’d still call for massive gun bans. Is it really about our high murder rate? Would you stop pushing for gun control if we had a 90% reduction in murder rates? They haven’t even stopped in Australia.
"Banning" junk guns is a ban. "Banning" private sales is not.
ReplyDeleteFishyJay said, "mikeb, please show where I am wrong."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I misunderstood. I was saying you were the first to bring up Australia in this post. I even linked to the article you sent me to.
You're saying I was the first to bring up Australia in an earlier post.
Please let's not spend any more time on this one, it reminds me of the arguments I used to have with Bob S.
mikeb: Sorry, I misunderstood.
ReplyDeletePlease let's not spend any more time on this one
Nessun problema.
JadeGold: And let us not forget the NRA in 1968 called for a ban on junk guns and did not accept advertising for junk guns in their publications
ReplyDeleteJadeGold: By FJ's and Mike W's logic--this makes the NRA "gun banners."
Actually, I too supported banning "Saturday Night Specials."
But when a bill to do that was introduced in my state, it tured out that gun control advocates had worded it so as to ban not just "miserably-made, potentially defective" guns but also ALL revolvers with 2" barrels, including top quality guns such as the Colt Detective Special.
Thus I learned yet another lesson about "gun control."