Quantcast
Whenever someone brings up Australia - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 24, 2016, 05:21 PM   #1
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,407
Whenever someone brings up Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia
29 April, 2011 - 3 murdered, 3 wounded Hectorville, South Australia
9 Sept, 2014 - 5 murdered, Lockhart, New South Wales
22 Oct, 2014 - 3 murdered, Logan, Victoria

Those ignore the other mass murders in Australia by bludgeon, stabbing and arson.

74 have died in mass murders in Australia since Port Arthur, but how many died in mass murders in the same period before? Surely it had to be a staggering number many times subsequent to the "salvation" provided by the "Australian Solution". Hundreds? Right?

Between April of '96 and '76 seventy nine people died in mass murders in Australia. Wait...that's almost the same number of people died in mass murders in Australia both in the 20 years after as before the Port Arthur massacre?

How can that be?... Unless Port Arthur was an anomaly.

How can it be that when there were fewer restrictions on firearms in Australia that the number of dead were barely any different than the two decades after the government confiscated firearms from their subjects? Surely the number of dead should be radically different, but anyone that can search "Australian mass murders" can see that there's nearly no difference.

Perhaps the truth is that when you cherry pick what you want to see and conveniently ignore the rest of the data you can argue anything, but instead I'd rather see the information available and understand it on my own without the spin. If that's the case we can see that Australia had the same body count from all forms of mass murder regardless of this approach of fixating on guns instead of violence.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 05:28 PM   #2
JTHunter
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 25, 2010
Location: Southwestern Illinois
Posts: 1,223
hso - that's because (and you know it as well as the rest of us) it's not about the killings, it is about the control they have over our lives.
__________________
“Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow
JTHunter is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 05:35 PM   #3
Warp
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 22, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 8,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
hso - that's because (and you know it as well as the rest of us) it's not about the killings, it is about the control they have over our lives.
Well, for some, yes. But for others they get caught up in the propaganda and actually believe they are significantly more safe when they are disarmed. Those folks can be swayed.
__________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
― Edmund Burke

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Warp is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 06:37 PM   #4
orionengnr
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2005
Posts: 5,354
Very informative post. Thank you.
orionengnr is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 06:59 PM   #5
goon
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 20, 2003
Posts: 7,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp
Well, for some, yes. But for others they get caught up in the propaganda and actually believe they are significantly more safe when they are disarmed. Those folks can be swayed.
Yep.

Also worth noting is the generally low level of compliance with the Australian buyback. And last, there are youtube videos from Australian news sources showing law enforcement officers demonstrating homemade submachineguns they've seized from criminals.

Taken together:

1. Statistically no positive impact on public safety
2. Low compliance, which both defeats the purpose of the law and creates a huge black market
3. Even more deadly guns are being built in garages and basements and making their way into the hands of criminals

With those facts in hand, it should be hard for any reasonable person to suggest we should just follow Australia's example. It wouldn't work for us... because it didn't even work for Australia.
goon is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 07:08 PM   #6
VoodooMountain
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2014
Posts: 172
Facts don't matter, and emotions triumph. More people are murdered in this country with blunt objects than rifles but the rifles are evil.


Britain has a 'save a life, surrender your knife' campaign because people still kill eachother whether they have guns or not. The real tragedy of course is that an unarmed public is largely defenseless against an armed force such as a government or the terrorists the media seems so worried about obtaining firearms. Irony at its saddest.

Thank you for this thread.
VoodooMountain is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 08:53 AM   #7
BigBore44
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,051
Government = Is and always will be protected by guns.
Civilians = Should have knives.

And should the government become truly tyrannical and oppressive, we all know what happens when you bring a knife to a gunfight.
__________________
"We are reporting live tonight that the President, by executive order, has abolished the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All citizens are hereby ordered to relinquish ownership of all firearms. Effective...immediately." - A Socialist's wet dream..
BigBore44 is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 08:57 AM   #8
Warp
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 22, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 8,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBore44 View Post
Government = Is and always will be protected by guns.
Civilians = Should have knives.

And should the government become truly tyrannical and oppressive, we all know what happens when you bring a knife to a gunfight.
Well, that may be true, until guns are effectively banned and stabbings go way up...then it may follow the UK path of





__________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
― Edmund Burke

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Warp is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 05:07 PM   #9
herkyguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 1,269
Thank you for sharing. I will absolutely use the points you've highlighted. I have some Australian friends who routinely refer to their ban as effective.
__________________
Non Sibi Sed Patriae
herkyguy is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 06:17 PM   #10
BigBore44
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,051
Warp,
And the government is still protected by firearms. And it will only get worse.
__________________
"We are reporting live tonight that the President, by executive order, has abolished the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All citizens are hereby ordered to relinquish ownership of all firearms. Effective...immediately." - A Socialist's wet dream..
BigBore44 is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 10:09 PM   #11
Guy B. Meredith
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 25, 2002
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 2,235
Not all mass murders happen. Nor are they prevented by the laws.

Just for curiosity sake you might like to check for incidents like Sydney's Lindt Cafe hostage taking in December of 2014.

One individual took 18 people hostage and had them hold Islamic writings up to the cafe windows as police tried to figure what to do. Two hostages and the perp were killed, but it was decisions made by the perp that prevented 18 hostages from being a mass murder, not the law.

The law did not prevent the hostage situation that could have gone bad.

There are other things at play besides the laws established in 1996-1997 to keep violence rates low. Particularly given that I've seen estimates of 220,000 to several million illegal semi auto and pump long guns being in circulation.

I'm hesitant to quote exact numbers as I've lost track of my sources, but the 220,000 is a solid official statement. When you get into it, though, it is obvious they really haven't a clue as to how many illegal firearms were actually turned in during the buyback or how many came into the country since.

The lowest rate of firearms violence was in the 1950s before there were standard laws. Some areas were apparently quite lax. But the NFA has not brought the rate back to the previous low so there are obviously other factors. Maybe economy or post WWII decompression?
__________________
Smart Gun + 1 Battery + 3 Wires = Dumb Gun

PC = Groupthink filter on reality.

Apostrophes denote ownership or missing letters NOT plurals!

San Francisco who??
Guy B. Meredith is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 11:07 PM   #12
Flechette
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 7, 2011
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp View Post
Well, that may be true, until guns are effectively banned and stabbings go way up...then it may follow the UK path of





Wow.
Flechette is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 07:35 AM   #13
rtroha
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 25, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 278
How can that last photo be from the UK if the price tag is in cents instead of pence?
rtroha is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 08:41 AM   #14
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,407
rtroha,

I'd be much more concerned if that were in the U.S., wouldn't you?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ban-plastic-knives1.jpg (28.8 KB, 19 views)
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 08:44 AM   #15
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,407
As much as I, above anyone else, like to point out knife insanity (please support Knife Rights), let's try to get back on countering the Australian argument.

Here's an example of the failure of the Australian gun ban.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...70522879813fe7
Quote:
“Good criminals have the connections to get existing guns but on the lower end, those guns aren’t available so they move to the next thing. We’re seeing it as a growing trend.

“We seem to be seeing it more than we have previously. ...

“That’s a concern that they can source guns in the first place, and the fact that people make them and sell them.”
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ralia-edition/

http://ssaa.org.au/news-resources/fi...ade-pipe-guns/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH76VoI_hsw
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.

Last edited by hso; June 26, 2016 at 08:57 AM.
hso is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 09:10 AM   #16
MErl
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1,269
Raw numbers the mass murder deaths are the same. Per capita they are reduced as population has increased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia
MErl is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 09:22 AM   #17
vito
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 29, 2004
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 601
Facts don't really matter since this is primarily an emotional issue. One of my own daughters has repeatedly said that she wished that the US could be more like Australia when it comes to guns because it would make her "feel" safer. I also hear the UK brought up in these discussions because of the relatively low number and rates of gun related violence in the UK. But these anti-gun folks want to ignore the reality that total violent crime is higher in the UK than it is in the US. I guess violence is OK as long as it doesn't involve guns. It is obviously true that a murderer can kill more folks in a short time with a gun that with a knife or hammer or rock but the reality is also that mass murders are very rare even if the media is trying to make it look like a common occurrence in the US, and in a one on one situation a knife is every bit as dangerous as a gun. The difference is that a gun is a great equalizer, whereas defensive use of a knife is very dependent on the age, physical condition and training of the individual, much more so than with a firearm.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell
vito is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 09:32 AM   #18
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,407
Rates are the most important value for comparisons, but let us not forget that we're trying to win an argument with people that are going to pick their terms and facts to suit their argument and then push those even farther.

The population growth rate for Australia appears to be very consistent in the period we're discussing, which is good since we can trust to extrapolation backwards to '76.

Unimpressive considering the claims made by the antis that the Australian ban provided the ultimate solution.

Let's consider homicide rates where the objective data is clearer. Our homicide rate is half of what it was in the late '90s, but how much has Australian homicide rates dropped?
Figure 2 Homicide incidents by year 1989–90 to 2011–12 (rate per 100,000)

The Australian rate of homicides drops somewhat, but the change doesn't match the U.S. rate of change as our rate of murders have dropped in half as our ownership of firearms happened to be increasing (no, there is no causal relationship between increased firearms ownership and decreasing homicide rate since our other homicides dropped as well at about the same rate indicating a separate driver).
Look at the same '89 to 2010 periods and we can see that our homicide rates plumeted compared to the Australian homicide rates.

The U.S. halved the homicide rate (all means) vs. Australia that only was reduced only 30% of their high. How can the Australian solution be less effective at reducing homicide rates if it is the ultimate solution as claimed by Ms. Clinton and others then?

Speaking of suicides, the U.S. suicide rate (12.1) is higher than Australia's (10.6) and below France (12.3), Iceland (14.0), Belgium (14.2), Finland, Japan (18.5), Russia (19.5) and South Korea (28.9). Australians are close enough in suicide rates to point out that they should be much much lower if firearms were a causal factor. Obviously we would point even more to those other countries like France and Belgium and Japan that have much lower firearms ownership rates than the U.S. with markedly higher suicide rates. But the discussion is on mass murders in Australia vs. the U.S. as opposed to firearms relationships to suicides or overall homicide rates.

What's the point in this diversion from the original topic of the Australian Solution? We see that mass murders in Australia haven't disappeared and that the rate of them hasn't fallen off that dramatically. We see that the Australian suicide rate is lower than the U.S. suicide rate, but only a bit lower instead of near zero. We see that homicide rates for Australia are dramatically lower than the U.S., but still not near zero being a quarter of U.S. rates. The Antis point to Australia's firearms ban as being a great solution, but their mass murder rate is only a bit lower after the ban as before it, their homicide rate is little changed after the ban and their suicide rate isn't that different from ours.

To further muddy the waters.





Looks like most rates of homicides have stayed the same or only fallen much slower than our rate of homicides since the 90's.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.

Last edited by hso; June 26, 2016 at 06:38 PM.
hso is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 01:03 PM   #19
buck460XVR
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 6, 2007
Posts: 5,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by hso View Post
The U.S. halved the homicide rate (all means) vs. Australia that only was reduced only 30% of their high. How can the Australian solution be less effective at reducing homicide rates if it is the ultimate solution as claimed by Ms. Clinton and others then?
Are all the charts shown giving homicides by the use of firearms only? There are so many variables when it comes to homicides that using overall numbers can be misleading....on both sides. The reduction of homicides can be perceived as the result of more guns, better law enforcement(including better firepower, more training and more officers), better domestic abuse education, better overall education and even better economic levels. Homicides can and are committed many times without the use of a firearm. Homicides can and are thwarted many times because the intended victim has a firearm. This is why folks on both sides claim "misrepresentation" when the other side posts figures and/or graphs....and those folks on both sides are right.

Here's another example........

Quote:
If strict gun laws can stop mass shootings in Australia, why not in the US?

New research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that there have been no mass shootings – "mass" defined as five or more victims, not including the perpetrator – in Australia in the two decades since the country enacted stricter gun control measures.
Now all of us realize that a terrorist intent on making a statement is not going to be stopped because of Australia's gun restrictions.......still the anti's claim it is the only reason there have been no new mass murders since the new restrictions have been put in place. One just has to look at the figures.

Far too many folks on both sides of the fence think there is a simple solution to the problem of mass murder and homicides in general. That there in itself is the problem.
__________________
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.


Theiyr're...........take that Grammar Nazis!
buck460XVR is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 01:36 PM   #20
goon
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 20, 2003
Posts: 7,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by vito
Facts don't really matter since this is primarily an emotional issue.
With respect, I'd suggest that it's also a pretty emotional issue for gun owners.

It's definitely an emotional issue for a victim of a crime who now owns or carries a weapon for his or her own protection. It's also an emotional issue for me. I can't think of anything worse than being unable to protect a loved one because an attacker has me at such a disadvantage that all I can do is counterattack and die with empty hands. Statistically, that's pretty unlikely to happen - especially in the states I've tended to live in. Even unarmed, it's likely you could go your entire life and never have to deal with a violent attack. The violent crime stats for some states literally do almost mirror Switzerland. As pointed out above, we are also experiencing a general downward trend in crime.

But for those rare exceptions, you'd better believe there's no way I want to be without a firearm. That's why I fight so hard for it.

It might be emotional for our opponents, but it's just as emotional for us.
goon is offline  
Old June 26, 2016, 05:51 PM   #21
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,407
Quote:
Far too many folks on both sides of the fence think there is a simple solution to the problem of mass murder and homicides in general. That there in itself is the problem.
Therein lies the problem, almost everyone wants a single simple solution, but there aren't any effective ones. In reality the causes of violence are socially complex and requires complex social solutions. When we see homicide rates low, but firearms ownership being high or high homicide rates with strict firearms prohibitions it should be obvious that prohibiting firearms can't be the effective solution to reducing homicides.

As to "mass shootings", when the FBI defines a mass murder one way and all the Antis want to define it another way to suite their objective we run into the problem of confusing definitions and results. The FBI requirements set a low threshold which drives the gross number and rate of mass murders up. If we decided to use the 5 homicides criteria we still end up with one instead of 3 mass shootings in Australia and 7 mass murders instead of 10 since Port Arthur. Not exactly the "no mass shootings since the ban" claimed and 66 dead much like before since Port Arthur.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.

Last edited by hso; June 26, 2016 at 06:08 PM.
hso is offline  
Old June 27, 2016, 11:52 AM   #22
Kiln
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Posts: 2,391
One thing that people ignore about the Australia vs US argument is that the USA is considerably larger, has more people, and has very large borders that are impossible to completely secure. Australia is an island and even they haven't managed to totally cut out gun smuggling.

There is also the fact that the government picking up the number of guns aready in the US is statistically impossible.
Kiln is offline  
Old June 27, 2016, 12:04 PM   #23
Warp
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 22, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 8,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiln View Post
One thing that people ignore about the Australia vs US argument is that the USA is considerably larger, has more people, and has very large borders that are impossible to completely secure. Australia is an island and even they haven't managed to totally cut out gun smuggling.

There is also the fact that the government picking up the number of guns aready in the US is statistically impossible.
Also demographics.

Even a cursory glance at US homicides/firearm homicides will show that a very high, extraordinarily disproportionate, percentage of them are younger black males generally related to gangs/drugs in larger cities/urban areas. If the comparison country doesn't have that demographic, it's pretty silly to act as though comparing the countries is comparing more guns vs less guns in a vacuum lol
__________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
― Edmund Burke

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Warp is offline  
Old June 27, 2016, 05:00 PM   #24
JTHunter
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 25, 2010
Location: Southwestern Illinois
Posts: 1,223
Kiln - besides being larger with more people, doesn't the population of the U.S. have a greater variety of ethnicities and nationalities than Australia?
America is/was the "great melting pot" with people from nearly every country on the planet, maybe even from them all. Australia is primarily populated by people from the U.K., with many being "forced settlers" but still primarily British subjects. They don't have the diversity we do.
__________________
“Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow
JTHunter is offline  
Old June 27, 2016, 08:45 PM   #25
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,407
That might have been the case the first 100 years, but Australia, like most Commonwealth countries, became very diverse thanks to ability of diverse peoples to move between former British Colonial countries. The Australians see the majority of homicides relate to criminal/gang activity as we do here.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2016 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.