Strong gun laws led to safer country

[Rossw]

On 7/21/2016 at 1:09 AM, David Geelan said:

Massacres were not uncommon in Australia before 1996. There's a list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

There have been multiple killings since but only one that involved a gun meets the definition of mass killings (more than 4 fatalities).

Looking at the big picture of violent crimes is it fair to just say there is less gun violence when it looks as if crimes with multiple deaths by other means still is pretty consistent according to the Wikipedia source? And gun violence is still frequently occurring in spite of the laws.

[whbae]

Right here in USA, I understand Chicago has a toughest gun law, but the crime is higher than any city in the country.

[bonnie]

51 minutes ago, whbae said:

Right here in USA, I understand Chicago has a toughest gun law, but the crime is higher than any city in the country.

Home

• About
• Research
• Financial Crisis
• Health Care
• Taxes
• Retirement
• Energy
• Youth Programs
• Blogs

 

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy.  Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

For text:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts 

- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847#sthash.JaLJYADt.dpuf

[bonnie]

Australian Gun Law Update - CNN iReport

ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1281433

Nov 09, 2015 · Australian Gun Law Update; ... (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria .....alone,homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. ...

[bonnie]

Australia’s gun ban experiment success: Fact or fiction?

6/16/14| by Chris Eger

 

An Australian police official inspecting a pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms that had been handed under the Australian government’s buyback in Sydney in 1997. (Photo credit: David Gray/Reuters)

President Obama has repeatedly hailed Australia’s 1996 gun ban as a model for gun control. However, critics from the land down under are opening up.

During a recent Q and A session with Tumblr founder and CEO David Karp, the President referenced the country’s harsh gun ban, saying “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting … and Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

This echoed a similar remark made in September 2013 following the Washington Naval Yard mass killing by the President.

“In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries, they understood that there was nothing ordinary about this kind of carnage,” Obama said nine months ago. “They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed, and mass shootings became a great rarity.”

With these comments voiced not once but twice by the leader of the United States, some Australians were puzzled by the reference.

“The ‘success’ of the 1996 Australian gun reform is a myth,” penned Australian Nick Adams, a conservative writer and motivational speaker, in an open letter posted on Joe for America. “The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?”

In 1996, Australia adopted the National Firearms Agreement following a mass killing known as the Port Arthur massacre, where a gunman killed 35 people and injured 24. The measure led to severe restrictions on firearms including an outright ban on most semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns.

During the enactment of the law, the government bought back nearly 700,000 guns, but whether or not it had a positive affect is still up for debate. Statistics show that violent crime remained steady, the murder rate dropped slightly and gun deaths had reduced, but the flow of illegal guns has risen along with assaults and murders by stabbing. While technically there hasn’t been a mass shooting since the measure passed, there are accounts where a gunman opened fire in a public place.

In 2002 at Monash University in Melbourne, a mental impaired gunman shot seven people, killing two of them. Afterward, the government expanded controls over semi-automatic handguns, buying back some 50,000 handguns then deemed illegal.

During this period, the Australian military divested itself of large stockpiles of surplus small arms, with lawmakers taking great steps to prevent the guns from passing into the hands of local collectors. This included the export of more than 100,000 Lithgow-made Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifles to the U.S. and the destruction of 110,000 Australian L1A1 (semi-auto only FN FAL) rifles in 1994.

Adams, who currently lives in the U.S., said he believes that gun laws achieve very little. “Mass shootings are about illness, not guns. Any other so-called ‘gun issue’, if there are any, is related to the breakdown of the family, cultural decline, and the age of entitlement.”

The effect on crime and punishment in the south Pacific country is also a matter of debate.

The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, the largest gun rights group in the country, has long held that the 1996 gun laws and those passed since then have had a negligible effect on safety and firearms death.

Although some studies maintain that there was a decline in gun deaths, particularly suicides, in the country following the 1996 legislation, a 2008 report by the University of Melbourne that analyzed firearms deaths for a period of 100-years in Australia concluded that the new laws did not have any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.

Others contend that any decrease in gun deaths is societal related and not due to strict gun control.

“The full truth is that Australia’s close neighbor New Zealand – a country very similar to Australia in history, culture, and economic trends – has experienced an almost identical time period with no mass shooting events despite the ongoing widespread availability of the types of firearms Australia banned,” David Leyonhjelm, a Liberal Democratic Party member of the Australian parliament, wrote in a piece for the Australian Finance Review.

In an email to Guns.com, Leyonhjelm said, “The gun laws have made no difference to the level of homicides, up or down. Their impact on suicides is less clear, but there has probably been no impact apart from method substitution.”

The lawmaker was clear that the gun ban in his country was not a magic wand for ending mass killings.

“There have been no mass shootings since the gun laws were introduced, but New Zealand has had none either and it didn’t follow us,” Leyonhjelm said. “On the other hand, we have had several mass murders using other methods (principally fire).”

In closing, Leyonhjelm contends that the Australian model is a flawed one. “The bottom line is we are suffering under draconian gun laws that treat us like criminals in waiting, with zero public benefit but substantial public cost,” he said, adding. “If President Obama genuinely believes Australia offers a model for reducing firearm crime or suicides, he is seriously misinformed.”

[whbae]

How quickly we forget as we grew older. "There is a reaction to an action".  When we were training our kids we used to say "don't do it!". Did it ever work?!  It is a basic human nature to react to act.  When we tell the child not to do it he will do more.  This nature is carried on to our adulthood. When the grown ups are told not to do it they will want to do more. When the government tells you not to buy a gun people will go opposite way invoking the 2nd amendment.  It never work when you try to enforce a negative  behavior.  Education is the best solution.

[bonnie]

8 hours ago, whbae said:

How quickly we forget as we grew older. "There is a reaction to an action".  When we were training our kids we used to say "don't do it!". Did it ever work?!  It is a basic human nature to react to act.  When we tell the child not to do it he will do more.  This nature is carried on to our adulthood. When the grown ups are told not to do it they will want to do more. When the government tells you not to buy a gun people will go opposite way invoking the 2nd amendment.  It never work when you try to enforce a negative  behavior.  Education is the best solution.

How quickly we forget as we grew older. "There is a reaction to an action".  When we were training our kids we used to say "don't do it!". Did it ever work?!  It is a basic human nature to react to act.  When we tell the child not to do it he will do more.

 

So do you believe the opposite would logically be true.? Tell them to purchase guns and that would mean they wouldn't?

Yes,telling our sons not to do something did work. While this is true....There is a reaction to an action... it takes more than simply saying No.  When they suffer the reaction to their actions from small children on it can be very effective.

If the availability of guns was the motivating factor behind gun violence we would see more violence where gun laws are far more lenient.Look at the statistics from Chicago alone.

I have several family members living in Wyoming,guns are almost as numerous as vehicles. Guns are a staple for most,especially those living in the country. They are carried in pickups,left clearly visible in homes and yet no one is running around shooting up schools,churches and malls.

When I was in high school students that drove to school frequently had a gun in the vehicle. It was common for those that did to stop and do a little hunting on the way home from school.

How many think that criminals willingly turned their weapons in when Australia had the gun confiscation? Law abiding citizens were not the risk,they turned theirs in.

 

 

 

 

 

So

[whbae]

What I would like to say is this; gun control would not reduce crime associated with guns. Every time there is a gun violence some politicians immediate cry for gun control.  When a local government imposes a new rule to restrict gun sale, the gun sales sore before the rule takes effect. This is the reaction of people to the government action.  I personally do not own a gun and have no desire to own one.  Some time ago, a local police chief urged me to get a gun and he would issue a permit to carry it. but, I do not feel owning a gun prevents gun crime.

[Rossw]

I'd be curious to see if there is a correlation to the drop in mental health services provided because of the economic downturn and the rise in mass killings. The streets in many of cities around here are full of homeless with mental illness but have no place to go.

[bonnie]

16 minutes ago, Rossw said:

I'd be curious to see if there is a correlation to the drop in mental health services provided because of the economic downturn and the rise in mass killings. The streets in many of cities around here are full of homeless with mental illness but have no place to go.

I dont recall to many mentally ill homeless being identified as a shooter. 

[Rossw]

5 minutes ago, bonnie said:

I dont recall to many mentally ill homeless being identified as a shooter. 

I wasn't clear in my point. Not that the homeless are shooters but it is evident mental health services are inadequate and does that correlate to the rise increased violence. Sorry for the confusion.

[bonnie]

6 minutes ago, Rossw said:

I wasn't clear in my point. Not that the homeless are shooters but it is evident mental health services are inadequate and does that correlate to the rise increased violence. Sorry for the confusion.

That still wouldnt explain the lack of gun violence in area's where guns are readily available. Wyoming has more guns per person than most places and you dont see the kind of violence as Chicago or other places with tight gun control. Even allowing for the difference in population ,I am sure they have the nut cases like anywhere else.I know it was a different time but when I was dating my husband their guns were always out in plain sight. My husband kept his behind a chair by the living room door. Children didnt take the guns that were in plain sight and shoot their sibling by accident.Nor did teenagers decide to settle a dispute by shooting someone with a gun that was handy.

[Rossw]

I've lived in Wyoming and thought they were nice level headed people. Much more so than California. That proves the point the amount of guns does not influence the amount of violence. When I was in Wyoming they didn't have anywhere near the gang problem we have here. Guess hangs don't like isolated cold.

[bonnie]

What I find interesting about citizens of Wyoming is the amount of guns and what appears to be a willingness to use them if they or their families were threatened. Yet there is a lack of violence you find in area's of tight gun control. Most dont even lock their doors. I do know I would not want to be caught breaking into their home or business.

[Rossw]

They prove the point gun laws are worthless. There is nothing wrong with responsible people owning guns which proves the gun problem isn't a gun problem but a people problem. Does having more gun laws have any effect on criminals....? Of course not.

[Bravus]

Lots of opinions from right-wingers in those articles, and 'statistics' from right-wing think tanks, very few or no credible research reports from credible researchers.

Of course there are many factors beyond guns! My claim is not that guns and gun laws are the sole factor: that would be a foolish claim, easily debunked. You seem to keep trying to debunk that claim, but it's not the claim I'm making.

My claim is that, given humans and humanity and all our violent impulses, and all the other factors of ideology and media and poverty and mental illness, that, all other things being equal, the same human situation with fewer assault weapons and handguns in it will lead to fewer shootings than with many assault weapons and handguns.

That claim is really very simple and obvious. If there were zero guns in a situation, there would be zero shootings. If there were infinite guns, there would not be infinite shootings. Between those two extremes, my claim is simply that fewer guns will in general mean fewer shootings.

The Munich shootings where guns are harder to get does not debunk that: there will always be ways and always be some incidents. I'm talking about reducing the number, not creating a utopia on earth.

The fact it's possible to kill someone with a knife or a rock also doesn't debunk that. In general, fewer guns in an environment will lead to fewer shootings. If that environment is a violent one, it might be fewer compared to a high baseline... but what's the appropriate comparison is between *that* environment with more and fewer guns, not between that environment and a completely different one. It's completely unsurprising that Chicago and Wyoming have different rates of violent crime, for reasons largely unrelated to the incidence of guns or gun control.

It's a complex argument that needs a sophisticated approach to making reasonable comparisons of like with like... but as I said above, it's really a very simple concept: all other things being equal, fewer guns means fewer shootings.

[Rossw]

I'm not so sure taking away guns solves the people problem. According to the wiki source shootings did still occur but arson was still prevalent. Do we just keep banning everything that can be used to kill? We cannot allow ourselves to try and insulate our lives to such a degree that all risk is removed by legislation. This just gives legislation too much control over our lives. We know it is legislation against believers that show the close of probation and I think we are going in that direction very quickly. It astonishes me believers want more legislative control. That is the wrong way to think it though. Good moral upright people do not need more legislation. Legislation is a result of amoral people but does legislation change their immorality. Amoral people won't follow legislation in the first place so the only freedoms we take away are from the moral people. 

What good are more laws if we can't hold any more people in prisons? Now we've created a hypocrisy if we make more laws and can't hold anybody in prison or jail. ...

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Note:

This is not intended as a political topic, nor is this a forum for venting political views. Please confine political palaver to the politics only forum.

[bonnie]

 

[bonnie]

14 minutes ago, bonnie said:

 

70

• Some  have even tried to pass legislation to make gun manufacturers liable for the violence of the criminal using their firearm. This makes as much sense as making General Motor liable for the actions of someone who intentionally uses a Chevy to run over someone, or making Ortho responsible for a wife using their bug poison to murder her husband.

 

So let’s look at the mass shooting that just took place at the Munich, Germany shopping mall.

On Friday, Ali Sonboly, an 18-year-old German teen started shooting outside a McDonald’s and then walked into the Olympia-Einkaufszentrum mall in Munich, Germany and started shooting. At the time of this writing, the teen killed 9 and wounded 21 others. Among the victims are women and children. The teen is of Iranian descent and held dual citizenship in Germany and Iran and was reported as yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ before he started shooting at children.

Police report that they believe the alleged shooter was found less than a mile away from the mall with a self-inflicted fatal gunshot wound to the head.

Don’t forget that last Monday, (July 18), there was a mass stabbing on a train in Germany heading to Würzburg. An Afghan teen started stabbing and slashing other passengers on the train.

The first questions we need to be addressing is how strict is Germany’s gun laws and could they have prevented this mass shooting?

According to the Law Library of Congress:

“The German system of gun control is among the most stringent in Europe.  It restricts the acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon.  It bans fully automatic weapons and severely restricts the acquisition of other types of weapons.  Compulsory liability insurance is required for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms. [Emphasis mine]

In recent years, German gun-control law underwent several reforms that made it even more stringent.  A new Weapons Act became effective in 2003 after a school shooting in the city of Erfurt in which a student killed sixteen persons.  The new Act restricted the use of large caliber weapons by young people and strengthened requirements for the safe storage of firearms.

Another reform was enacted in 2009 in response to the massacre at Winnenden, in which an eighteen-year-old killed fifteen people in the course of a school shooting.  This latest reform led to the creation of a federal gun register and to intense governmental monitoring of gun owners’ compliance with requirements for the safe storage of firearms.  Pursuant to the reformed legislation, the authorities may at any time request access to the premises of any registered gun owner to monitor whether proper safe-storage procedures are being observed.”

It seems that although Germany has some of the strictest gun control laws in Europe, they didn’t stop this mass shooting in Munich. Strict gun laws haven’t stopped the gun violence in Chicago. Passing strict gun laws will not stop mass shootings and or mass killings in the US. If someone is determined to kill a bunch of people, they will find a way to do it. They can still obtain guns illegally, or use a bomb or knives or even a truck to run over people with. There are numerous ways to kill groups of people and those ways will be used whether or not strict gun control laws are passed.

 

 

[bonnie]

17 hours ago, David Geelan said:

Lots of opinions from right-wingers in those articles, and 'statistics' from right-wing think tanks, very few or no credible research reports from credible researchers.

Of course there are many factors beyond guns! My claim is not that guns and gun laws are the sole factor: that would be a foolish claim, easily debunked. You seem to keep trying to debunk that claim, but it's not the claim I'm making.

My claim is that, given humans and humanity and all our violent impulses, and all the other factors of ideology and media and poverty and mental illness, that, all other things being equal, the same human situation with fewer assault weapons and handguns in it will lead to fewer shootings than with many assault weapons and handguns.

That claim is really very simple and obvious. If there were zero guns in a situation, there would be zero shootings. If there were infinite guns, there would not be infinite shootings. Between those two extremes, my claim is simply that fewer guns will in general mean fewer shootings.

The Munich shootings where guns are harder to get does not debunk that: there will always be ways and always be some incidents. I'm talking about reducing the number, not creating a utopia on earth.

The fact it's possible to kill someone with a knife or a rock also doesn't debunk that. In general, fewer guns in an environment will lead to fewer shootings. If that environment is a violent one, it might be fewer compared to a high baseline... but what's the appropriate comparison is between *that* environment with more and fewer guns, not between that environment and a completely different one. It's completely unsurprising that Chicago and Wyoming have different rates of violent crime, for reasons largely unrelated to the incidence of guns or gun control.

Ia sophisticated approach to making reasonable comparisons of like with like... but as I said above, it's really a very simple concept: all other things being equal, fewer guns means fewer shootings.

So because a bunch of thugs disregard the law already in force in Chicago,let's penalize the law abiding citizens in other states. Perhaps a concentrated effort to shut down the thugs in Chicago and places like that would help somewhat.

fewer guns means fewer shootings. Fewer cars means fewer vehicle fatalities. When people drive recklessly and kill someone let's go after all drivers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rossw]

The gun laws turn law abiding citizens into criminals but does nothing to those who were already criminals. Pretty soon we will just have laws that implicate everyone so the police can "legally" pick up anyone they want.

Note: This is intended to reference the whole world and not just the US in order to stay relevant to this section.

[bonnie]

36 minutes ago, Rossw said:

The gun laws turn law abiding citizens into criminals but does nothing to those who were already criminals. Pretty soon we will just have laws that implicate everyone so the police can "legally" pick up anyone they want.

Note: This is intended to reference the whole world and not just the US in order to stay relevant to this section.

With the stringent gun laws in other countries and the recent events what kind of gun laws do they want in the US? 

[Guest guest]

On 7/24/2016 at 8:35 AM, David Geelan said:

Lots of opinions from right-wingers in those articles, and 'statistics' from right-wing think tanks, very few or no credible research reports from credible researchers.

Of course there are many factors beyond guns! My claim is not that guns and gun laws are the sole factor: that would be a foolish claim, easily debunked. You seem to keep trying to debunk that claim, but it's not the claim I'm making.

My claim is that, given humans and humanity and all our violent impulses, and all the other factors of ideology and media and poverty and mental illness, that, all other things being equal, the same human situation with fewer assault weapons and handguns in it will lead to fewer shootings than with many assault weapons and handguns.

That claim is really very simple and obvious. If there were zero guns in a situation, there would be zero shootings. If there were infinite guns, there would not be infinite shootings. Between those two extremes, my claim is simply that fewer guns will in general mean fewer shootings.

The Munich shootings where guns are harder to get does not debunk that: there will always be ways and always be some incidents. I'm talking about reducing the number, not creating a utopia on earth.

The fact it's possible to kill someone with a knife or a rock also doesn't debunk that. In general, fewer guns in an environment will lead to fewer shootings. If that environment is a violent one, it might be fewer compared to a high baseline... but what's the appropriate comparison is between *that* environment with more and fewer guns, not between that environment and a completely different one. It's completely unsurprising that Chicago and Wyoming have different rates of violent crime, for reasons largely unrelated to the incidence of guns or gun control.

It's a complex argument that needs a sophisticated approach to making reasonable comparisons of like with like... but as I said above, it's really a very simple concept: all other things being equal, fewer guns means fewer shootings.

I guess I'm amazed that on a Christian web site Christians, who, if anyone in the world should understand the concept, are thinking that human laws will control sinful behavior.  I find this to be a form of insanity when I consider the saying, insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.   The very first human being born with a fallen nature murdered his own brother, long before guns were invented.  We've been killing each other ever since then, and the only proven solution is a heart surrendered to God and given over to His control.  

This is a world dedicated to breaking God's law and always has been since Adam and Eve sinned.  Thus to ignore God's solutions and keep on presenting human solutions that do nothing be keep the people who do live within the bounds of human laws their right to defend themselves from those who would attack them is just plain old insanity.  All it does is place more power in the hands of criminals and government.  And neither have ever proven themselves to have the best interests of the common law abiding man at the forefront of their agenda.  

The facts that France, Belgium, and Germany have enacted laws that keep the law abiding man from defending himself and they still have had hundreds of people slaughtered there this year in just a few incidents proves that you cannot stop the bad guys by restricting the good guys.  All you do is make helpless victims out of them.

[Bravus]

" insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results"

Like having lots of guns in a society and lots of mass shootings?

Why not try something different?

Because we know humans are sinful, we realise it makes sense to take precautions. We're under no illusions about human perfection.

"The facts that France, Belgium, and Germany have enacted laws that keep the law abiding man from defending himself and they still have had hundreds of people slaughtered there this year in just a few incidents proves that you cannot stop the bad guys by restricting the good guys.  All you do is make helpless victims out of them."

Because the guns have kept everyone in America safe so effectively...

Reality. Maybe get acquainted with it some time?