international

Friday, December 15, 2006

 

No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reforms

‘Australia hasn’t witnessed a single mass shooting since a massacre 10 years ago prompted nationwide gun law reforms, according to a study Thursday that linked the tough laws with a dramatic reduction in firearm deaths. [..]

The study found the buyback coincided with an end to mass shootings and dramatic decreases in shooting deaths in Australia.

“The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and accelerated declines in total firearms-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides,” the report concluded.’

Seems obvious, really. πŸ™‚




4 Responses to “No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reforms”

  1. Emma Says:

    It’s worth reading this transcript:
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2006/1776336.htm

    before forming any opinions – seems the two authors of the latest study (who have been heavily involved with anti gun groups for decades now) have a history of making dramatic claims about the success of the laws, but being careless with their facts. This is what Dr Don Weatherburn, Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics had to say a few weeks back:

    Don Weatherburn: Well points and crosses to both sides. I think firstly starting with Simon, he’s being a little disingenuous here because he and Phillip Alpers wrote a piece for The Age on April 26 or 28, talking about the drop in mass shootings, but highlighting more than anything else, the drop in firearm homicide, who said the downward trend has been more dramatic, and he identified two periods and said it was now falling 70 times faster than after the gun laws than before. And I think there was a problem with that arithmetic, and I think it’s been satisfactorily dealt with by Samara’s work.

  2. moonbuggy Says:

    It seems they’re basically saying more research needs to be done. They can’t tell if there is an effect or not, because the events are so rare you need a long period of study to get a meaningful set of data. Which is a valid point, I suppose.

    Gun control still makes a lot of sense to me, regardless. The majority of the population has no need for firearms at all. Sure, farmers and no doubt some other professions do have a legitimate need, but what’s an average person going to do with a gun? Especially the sorts of guns that the government bought back in 1996.

    I know there are people out there who shoot as a sport/recreation. Whilst I wouldn’t consider that a “need”, I suppose it’s a vaguely legitimate hobby. It’s just a matter of finding a balance. e.g. assualt rifles may well be fun to shoot, but is fun for a few people worth the risk to everyone else if someone decides to start aiming the AK-47 at a person instead of the bullseye. πŸ™‚

  3. Libertarian Says:

    “Gun control still makes a lot of sense to me, regardless. The majority of the population has no need for firearms at all.”

    Who are you to determine whether someone “needs” a firearm or not?

    Please note that the cities in the U.S. with the highest crime rates are also the ones with the most stringent gun control. If law-abiding citizens were allowed to own guns, they could defend themselves from thugs. Unfortunately the barking moonbat hoplophobes who run cities like Boston, NYC, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco are less concerned about people’s safety than they are about showing what “caring,” “progressive” people they are by banning those mean, nasty, ugly objects.

    I need to write another check to the NRA pronto.

  4. moonbuggy Says:

    “Who are you to determine whether someone “needs” a firearm or not?”

    I was stating an opinion. I also said that a balance needed to be found, so I don’t think I have made such a determination. What I think you are really asking is: who am I to have an opinion that differs from yours? πŸ™‚

    Seriously tho, what could the average person do with an automatic assault rifle? If you’re so adamant there is a need, then give me one reason why. One that doesn’t involve shooting another person, because there’s definitely no need for that level of precaution/protection for the average Australian.

    The fact that the vast majority of the Australian population has lived quite happily for years _without_ possessing such weapons seems to undermine any argument that there is any need. If they are so necessary, then how could we possibly have survived without them for so long?

    Your analogy to US cities is really of no use in this case, as the ban in Australia is a nation wide ban. These weapons are not readily available anywhere in the country and sure aren’t easy to get through customs [although not impossible, I’d imagine]. Whilst your law abiding citizens in the cities with gun control can’t get weapons, unfortunately the criminally inclined can just hop on over to the next state. Or find a stolen gun, or whatever they do.

    So, you’ve made your own mess by flooding your country with weapons basically designed to kill people, and now your only hope is to try and arm all your citizens and hope they can fend for themselves. Sucks to be you.

    You’d probably be wiser to invest your money in ammunition, so you can defend yourself from these armed thugs that are apparently wandering your streets freely, rather than sending it off to the NRA. πŸ™‚

Leave a Reply

research