The video presented by Dawg has no source behind the stats they posted leading me to believe they are outright bull****.Quote:
Did gun control work in Australia?
Posted by Dylan Matthews on August 2, 2012 at 9:30 am
John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one’s idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush’s closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).
But one of Howard’s other lasting legacies is Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.
On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia’s footsteps. “There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit,” he concluded. “But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path.”
So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.
The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn’t statistically significant.
What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks’ speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks:
Tasmania did a quicker buyback, and saw a large decline in suicides, while the Australian Capital Territory did a slower buyback, and a slower decline. The study fits with a pattern of research in the United States that finds a strong correlation between gun possession and suicide rates, as University of Chicago public health Professor Harold Pollack details here.
Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides. A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded (pdf) that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law’s enactment, but found no significant result for homicides; Leigh and Neill argue (pdf) that this paper’s methodology is deeply flawed, as it includes the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted (pdf) that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn’t have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren’t negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, “should know better.”
Another paper (pdf) by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, looks at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no ”structural breaks” associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violences, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as “breaks.”
“When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect,” Hemenway explains. “It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years.”
Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well. Such a buyback isn’t in the cards in the U.S. anytime soon — an equivalent buyback here would entail the destruction of 40 million guns — but the data suggest Howard might have a case.
I made those facts up myself:rolleyes:
Law abiding citizens isn't the same thing as citizens with the temperment and training to carry deadly force on them in the street or have access to assault weapons.
How about compromise.
-Assault Weapons, Machine Guns and Clips carrying over 15 rounds are outright banned.
-Handguns, Rifles and Shotguns w/ammo capacity of 15 rounds or less are protected forever by a new Constitutional Amendment making absoutely clear that citizens have an absolute right to own them if not A. A Felon or B. Insane.
Work the langauge to suit of course, but I'd sign on for this.:yes:
Define assault weapon, when was the last time someone used a machine gun or a silenced weapon in the commission of a crime? I could compromise on the less then 16 round clips.
A. Felon .B. Crazy. C. under a restraining order for domestic abuse. D. Not a US Citizen.
Any weapon that is not a handgun, rifile or shotgun that has automatic potential ro a potential rate-of-fire over X (we can debate what X should be of course).
All fine by me, like I said, adjust the language (minimally) to suit.Quote:
A. Felon .B. Crazy. C. under a restraining order for domestic abuse. D. Not a US Citizen.
WF, that is a good start to some sort of compromise. Guns are as American as apple pie and the gun grabbers need to understand this. The complete elimination of gun rights is not the way to do it.
Extremist rule on both sides right now though
Further clarification please. Are these assault rifles?
Remington 7400 semi auto, 4 round detachable clip, in 30/06 cal.
Ruger 1022 semi auto, 10 round detachable clip, in .22 cal.
Pardon the feet.
Remington 870, pump fed, 5 round capacity, in 12 gauge.
The 7400 is my go to big game gun, the 1022 is far and above my favorite plinker/target/vermin gun, and the 870 doesn't get much use at all. TBH I gave it away.
If I was to go on a shooting spree in a crowded area, I'd choose the 870, but I'm not and I won't cause I aint that crazy, I like people, and I value all life.
Seriously though, as you know, most SA rifles are easily converted to full auto and the higher capacity clips are relatively easy to come by as well. Maybe the only solution will be for governments to work with manufacturers in an effort to sell only certain types of rifles to the public that are difficult, if not impossible, to convert.
No easy answers with the stubbornness found on both ends of the spectrum of this argument.
Personally (i.e. outside work), no.
All would remain legal and protected.
Posession of a modified variant of any that allowed full-auto or posession of clips w/ capacity over 15 rounds would, of course, be a crime.
Retirees aren't allowed to carry higher capacity clips, but they are also not required to get a carry permit. Kind of silly, when you think about it. It's like "you're trusted enough to carry this firearm, but that amount of ammo that you've been hauling around for 20+ years, not so much.":rolleyes:
The Aurora killer did not use a machine gun, it was/is semi auto.
I have heard that with some semi auto rifles it is easy to convert them to full auto, I have little knowledge of how to do that. But I am thinking it is not that easy, certainly not that useful.
Here in Oregon I can legally obtain a machine gun, but first I have to pass a federal back ground check and be issued a what they refer to as a stamp from the Feds, I think the stamp runs about $200/$400, takes about 8 months. Same rules apply for silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns. Also the gun would have to be made before, I think, 1968, so to get a machine gun is going to cost about $5,000 a M-60 would be closer to $25,000, there is a finite supply.
The nearest in door range to my home rents machine guns for use on there range. $25 plus ammo. No back ground check required.
My point is that it is very rare for a machine gun or a silencer to be used in a crime, last I remember was that bank shoot out in CA.
My 7400 and 1022 are essentially the same as the gun used by Holmes. Not sure about the 7400 but I would think it would be near impossible to convert to full auto, the 1022 on the other hand I have read that it is easy to convert to full auto with just a file.
The gun Holmes used I understand would need a 1/2 dozen different parts to convert to full auto (possession of these parts along with a gun is a federal crime and they are not sold on the net). The 7400 is an extremely more powerful gun the one Holmes used and capable of firing just as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Point is that even though they are not black and look like and are hunting/target rifles, they would be considered assault rifles by most accepted media/common perception standards.
A true assault rifle to me is one that is select fire. Which are currently illegal in the US with out the stamp. Law enforcement excluded.
The level of difficulty in converting it is largely proportionate to your access to the right tools and the person to sue them. In other words, it isn't all that difficult. But you're right, it'st usefulness is limited at best. Which is why I am more concerned about the gun itself, rather than its rate of fire.
The founding fathers instituted our right to bear arms so that we could defend ourselves from tyranny. No type of weapons should be banned at all. If all the citizens have are shotguns and pistols, they would stand no chance against the assault weapons and heavy artillery of the government. I hope it never happens...ever. But if there is ever mass violent upheaval in this country, the people need to be able to fight back.