"We always awake to a beautiful day in Australia. We have a fun filled culture of natural beauty, colour and spice backed by a lovely clean environment."And many other great things--like strong gun laws.
And despite the dire predictions of the gunloons, 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
 |
| Is a woman--and is an atheist. |
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.”
The US can do it if Australia did.
In accordance with the proposals of the Prime Minister (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) John Howard, all Australian States adopted measures requiring the licensing and registration of all firearms and the (almost total) prohibition of semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, and the requirement for the demonstration of a legitimate reason (for shotguns and rimfire rifles) or a genuine need (for centerfire rifles and all handguns) for the issuance of a license. Due to weapons amnesties, there have been few instances of armed insubordination.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of an "Assault Weapons" Ban,
The primary goal is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.
A better alternative is to ban, not simply features, but all weapons which fire semiautomatically, due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about firearms, and therefore don't have a clue what "semiautomatic" means (they are usually under the impression that such devices are a form of machinegun) the prohibition could be extended to weapons such as this:
http://www.tfsa.co.uk/norinco%20takedown.JPG
Such a ban on semiautomatics would also serve to prohibit most pistols in the U.S. as gun-nut favorites such as the M1911, Glocks, and Berettas, would be banned along with about 70-80 percent of all handguns. Revolvers would remain, although such could conceivably be prohibited if they are double action (and therefore will fire without being cocked until the cylinder is emptied) and such would make most handgun ownership illegal within the United States.
The next step (in emulation of Australian policy) would be to apply similar restrictions to pump action weapons such as the Remington 870, the most popular "civilian weapon" in the world. More Americans have this gun than any other firearm. It would yield a massive impact on the semi-illicit civilian arms market if such was prohibited as an "Assault Weapon".
The Australian policy of civilian disarmament is preferable to any current disarmament campaign that has been initiated domestically within the U.S.
Here comes E.N., once more cutting and pasting from his stock comment folder.
DeleteI disagree that enacting Austrailia like regulations would produce the same results. Cultural differences play a big role also. There is more to gun violence that just guns. There are many examples right here in the US that highlight this.
DeleteThere also significant constitutional issues that would crop up. You'd likely have an easier time after you amend the constitution. Perhaps you should start out with that.
Also keep in mind that just to the south, there is a country with very restrictive gun laws yet a very high level of gun crime. The US is also a recepient of many illegal items from our neighbor to the south. If we cant control people and tons of illegal drugs how would we control the smuggling of firearms? On the plus side, maybe if we did outlaw all those guns, perhaps we'd get back some of those assault weapons the federal government allowed to cross the border.
One thing the pro-gun crowd seems to conveniently overlook is that the famous "if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them" must have been operative in Australia. Yet, the outlaws didn't go wild in the aftermath of disarming the good guys.
DeleteThe reason: the outlaws get their guns from the good guys, in Australia and in the US. If you regulate and restrict the good guys the outlaws are affected directly.
And what about Mexico? Where are the outlaws getting their guns there? And what would keep those guns from flowing north to outlaws here?
DeleteAnd you, Mikeb, persist in the error that cultural differences don't matter.
DeleteMexico is a bad example of failed gun control because although they have certain laws on the books they're not enforced due to the massive corruption.
DeleteAustralia is a good example of successful gun control.
Sort of like some places like Chicago? They also have very strict gun laws, but those pesky criminals don't seem to follow them. In Chicago's case it seems to be massive incompetence rather than corruption, though the end result is the same.
DeleteAgain, we're looking at cultural differences that have a larger effect on gun violence than the guns themselves. There are good examples in the US that I've mentioned before that highlight this.
So cultural differences in Mexico have resulted in the failure of gun control there, but there's no chance that cultural differences could cause it to fail here--or that they could explain why we have a different murder rate than other countries.
DeleteI thought Mikeb didn't want comparisons made with other countries any more. Laci, you have my permission to move to Australia. You'd be happier there, and we'd be shut of you.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, even if he moved there, he'd still feel compelled to tell us how to live and try to force us to change our laws. It's a common Prog malady--the compulsive need to control others and how they live their lives.
DeleteNonsense.
DeleteThen explain why so many foreigners feel the need to tell us what laws we should have.
DeleteYou do realize that Obama, Biden, the media on the left, Bloomberg, and pretty much all the gun control organizations outside of VPC have been pounding America with the message that “no one is going to take your gun” and “no one’s rights will be denied” and “it’s all reasonable”. So why are you so against their message to undermine it with “hey, let’s confiscate and destroy half the guns like Australia did!”
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Show just did a piece on Australia as well. So after spending months reciting Obama’s message they turn around and say “look how awesome Australia is!” I guess they are not used to their audience thinking things through.
We don't have to go as far as they did to get good results. The thing Australia proves is how closely you lawful gun owners are tied to the criminals. What affects one group, necessarily affects the other.
DeleteMikeB: “We don't have to go as far as they did to get good results.”
DeleteWell, since our murder and violent crime rates dropped by the same amount as Australia’s over that time period, apparently we don’t have to go far at all.
Mexico indicates a different story. Which one we would be more like is up for debate.
DeleteStill, your attempt to use Australia as an example of that linkage is slick, but that's not how Laci presented it. Laci said, "The US can do it if Australia did."
So much for your side not really, deep down, wanting registries and bans. You call us paranoid when we say that Australia or Britain are your ultimate goals--you say that we're making things up and deceiving people--and then you glorify those places and say that we can follow their lead.
Sorry, but we refuse to memory hole these comments by which you show your endgame, and we will continue pointing to them when you lie and tell us that you really just want your little limited list of gun controls.
But you can't. Not here. No matter how much you want to ignore the Constitution, it's still the center of our law. Grow up, grow a spine, and try to amend it. But you know that you wouldn't be able to get that passed either.
DeleteI'd feel sorry for you if you hadn't brought all this suffering upon yourselves.
Excellent point, TS. The fact that our rates of violent crime have dropped over the last two decades shows that gun control isn't about safety.
DeleteLaci, meet E.N. You're perfect for each other--An crummy lawyer pretending to enlighten us all, and a somewhat intelligent troll pretending to be an off the wall NorK spreading propaganda.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the results in Australia, the fact remains that our constitution protects our rights to arms. It does not allow a ban like Australia's, and the American people will not comply with such a ban.
Finally, thanks for posting that ridiculous poster with it's picture of an AR outfitted with an AK's muzzle break and AK-47 Magazine. Yet another example of how the people wishing to regulate our guns are so ignorant that they couldn't find their ass using both hands.
Hey, but when the picture is made up by gun control folks we get to finally see this bastardized gun used as it was "designed" to be- spray fired from the hip.
DeleteYup, the U.S. can do it if Australia did it--except that our Founders had the brilliant idea of a Constitution that would restrain the impulses of people like Laci. Their genius impresses me more and more as the years go by.
Delete