Australia’s gun laws not working

Status
Not open for further replies.
The anti gun crowd like to say we’re the only ones with mass murders. We know this is a lie.
They say Australia’s gun laws should be a model for us

Here’s proof both are lies and an example Australia’s laws don’t work if someone really wants to kill a bunch of people with a gun

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/0...nd-dead-with-gunshot-wounds-in-australia.html

Hmmm, funny thing, much of the pro gun crowd would not consider this shooting to be a mass shooting because it is a familial murder suicide. So the US pro gun groups usually overlook the very numerous sorts of mass shootings like this as not being mass shootings, but yet when it happens in a more anti-gun country, it is now a mass shooting. Interesting.

Singular example are hardly proof that something is or is not working. The information has to be taken in context. Does Australia have a bunch of mass shootings?

Google "4 people shot," "6 people shot," "6 people shot," "family murder suicide" etc. and see how many we have going on here. Is that therefore proof that our pro-gun laws are not working?
 
50% of the murders and a similar number of the victims are blacks in the US, while making up 13% of the population (up from 12% with similar statistics a couple decades ago.)

This along with the higher crime rates among Hispanic/Mestizo population accounts for the majority (but probably not all) of our crime rate differences when compared to Australia, Canada or Europe. The USA holds a unique place in the world demographically and isn’t really comparable to other countries like Australia which is almost entirely low crime demographics such as white and Asian.

Dan
 
Australia’s gun laws not working

....same could be said of their murder laws. Wish America could say a murder of 7 was the worst mass murder here in two decades. I see folks here dis antis when they try and use these type of stories to support their agenda, yet they do the same. We need to be better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAF
Wish America could say a murder of 7 was the worst mass murder here in two decades.
Well, actually, well over 80% of the US can say that.
Which might be the issue.
Australia at ±25 million is equivalent to Texas at ±26 million. To date, Texas has had too major shootings (Ft Hood and the church shooting).
Texas is not its 15 most populous counties (of 254); neither are the 32 counties in the US where 50% of the population resides (out of ±3000 counties).
This is precisely why population measurements are "regularized" by setting them in 10,000 equivalencies.
Sadly, dry statistical numbers make for poor histrionics, and are horrible fodder for "people control."
 
Hmmm, funny thing, much of the pro gun crowd would not consider this shooting to be a mass shooting because it is a familial murder suicide. So the US pro gun groups usually overlook the very numerous sorts of mass shootings like this as not being mass shootings, but yet when it happens in a more anti-gun country, it is now a mass shooting. Interesting.

Singular example are hardly proof that something is or is not working. The information has to be taken in context. Does Australia have a bunch of mass shootings?

Google "4 people shot," "6 people shot," "6 people shot," "family murder suicide" etc. and see how many we have going on here. Is that therefore proof that our pro-gun laws are not working?

"Hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice." I think most of us have indulged in it from time to time, though we might not always recall it.
 
Aussie gents have commented on line that there have been other multiple shootings, most or all domestic. From what I've read that was the trend in the past as well. And the 2014 Lindt Cafe hostage situation in Sydney could have resulted in 17 deaths rather than 2 if the perp had wanted to kill rather than spout Islam rantings. The law did not prevent the situation or determine the outcome. The perp did.

The Austarlian government estimates there are over 200,000 illegal long guns and over 10,000 illegal handguns in circulation in Australia. Other groups put the estimate much higher. More than enough for more mass killings, so the firearms laws cannot be said to be the reason that firearms are not used in more mass killings. (Other weapons are.)

The Australian Institute of Criminology also reported that the laws have not had effect on the overall trend in firearms violence.

As an aside the Australian scheme is registration and licensing and the AIC has reported that the overwhelming number of firearms used in crimes are either not registered or used by persons other than the registered owner. Duh.

The Australian use of firearms in crimes is historically lower than the US, with the lowest point in the 1950s when the current laws were not in effect and the laws varied from region to region. Rather than the current laws, the more likely reason for the rate is that the government is very authoritarian and the people are treated like subjects and maybe a bit of the old convict / copper relation still exists. As an example, self defense in the home is highly discouraged. One Aussie gent opined that if a police officer found a bat behind a citizen's front door, that person is likely to be taken in on weapons charges. Another, after touting the Aussie laws, said he is glad to be coming to the US for work as he would be able here to defend his family and intends to look into Kennesaw, Georgia.

Search out the discusions in Aussie papers about self defense vs vigilantism and the issues with the current rash of home invasions and car jackings by unemployed immigrants and local Aussie youth gangs.
 
If you remove an easy to use tool from the common person that tool will get used less by the common person.
It will still be used by those motivated to acquire them, and other methods will be used more often.

Making such a huge deal of mass shootings in the media is why mass shootings are done more frequently. Statistically they are still very small, and most murders in our nation are committed with handguns and most of those are gang members and people in the illegal drug industry robbing and killing each other.
50% of the murders and a similar number of the victims are blacks in the US, while making up 13% of the population (up from 12% with similar statistics a couple decades ago.)
The gang subculture and drugs, hip-hop and rap, it is all tied to most of the murders in our nation. A lot of the rap industry is supported with drug money, and investigators have even linked a lot of claimed ticket sales and reported rap income as money laundering of drug money by claiming business in excess of reality. While at the same time a lot of aspiring rappers use drug profits for studio time to try and make it big.
The problem is not guns.


Here it is known as the "scumbag effect." 90+% of the murders in Indy, 147 last year, were gangs, drugs, or after bars close. It is pretty easy to NOT become a number.
 

That is the Metro area. If you mean the statistical population area, that is another. Atant's city limits are clearly defined; however the greater Atlanta statistical area comprises 15 counties. Going from 8.5 to over 20 can really skew any meaningful statistics as the crime varies greatly outside NYC.
 
The Australian government estimates there are over 200,000 illegal long guns and over 10,000 illegal handguns in circulation in Australia.
For the most part, banned guns don't "circulate." They go underground and they stay hidden. Only rarely do they surface. That's the actual, practical effect of bans. They freeze the supply, and then, over the course of years, attrition takes its toll. That's what we can expect if there is ever a gun ban in this country. Forget about house-to-house confiscations.
 
I think I said before, somewhere, that a practical and chilling effect of a ban is that hidden/forbidden guns:

1. Can't be used in hunting
2. Talk about crucifying you in court if used in self-defense
3. Forget about competitions. So my AR is buried in the woods and can't make its monthly trek to the carbine match.

I think we have pretty much analyzed that the Australian incident will have little use in fighting the increasing number of state/local attacks on firearms or convince SCOTUS and Congress to roll back or protect classes of firearms restrictions.
 
For the most part, banned guns don't "circulate." They go underground and they stay hidden. Only rarely do they surface. That's the actual, practical effect of bans. They freeze the supply, and then, over the course of years, attrition takes its toll. That's what we can expect if there is ever a gun ban in this country. Forget about house-to-house confiscations.

No, the official statement is that they are in circulation. They are available to anyone who wishes to dodge the law. The original owners are now criminal under the law or may have been criminal before the laws were passed. Biker and other gangs are also involved in a black market that includes locally built firearms.

An article in an Australian publication is about a jeweler who built 100 fully auto weapons for sale to bikers. About 5 or 6 were confiscated as evidence, so that would leave over 90 still in circulation amongst the bikers. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/j...s/news-story/e67da40de031be70cae7cd08ab560cd4
 
No, the official statement is that they are in circulation. They are available to anyone who wishes to dodge the law.
Guns being "in circulation" is an antigun meme. It reinforces the notion that guns, even though nominally illegal, are readily available, and that, therefore, more draconian measures are necessary. The fact is, that it is very difficult to acquire illegal guns, not least because their underground owners don't want to give them up. The first effect of a gun ban is to freeze the supply and drive up the price.
 
Guns being "in circulation" is an antigun meme. It reinforces the notion that guns, even though nominally illegal, are readily available, and that, therefore, more draconian measures are necessary. The fact is, that it is very difficult to acquire illegal guns, not least because their underground owners don't want to give them up. The first effect of a gun ban is to freeze the supply and drive up the price.

I haven't seen any studies to support that line of reasoning other than bans driving up prices.

Those who have the illegal firerarms lose nothing in sellling them or passing them off if they get cold feet about possibly facing arrest. No idea what families of those who failed to turn in firearms might do if the owner dies--without an amnesty they may not be inclined to give them to the authorites and may pass them on. I've not seen any articles discussing this. No idea what percentage are criminals to begin with and are participating in the now very active black market.

The Australian authorities would be more than willing to push more draconian measures. They don't need encouragement as there are no limits when the citizens are subjects.
 
....same could be said of their murder laws. Wish America could say a murder of 7 was the worst mass murder here in two decades. I see folks here dis antis when they try and use these type of stories to support their agenda, yet they do the same. We need to be better than that.
Except that Australians can't say that either.

Stop buying into the antis agenda and their focus on FIREARM murders. It's overall murders that count, a person stabbed or burned is no less dead than one that was shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
 
Violence by means other than firearms is the Aussie tradition. Per my Aussie wife it is common to get punched out for irritating people.

If I remember from my last look at the Australia Institute of Criminology data, the non firearms rate of deaths and violence was at least twice the firearms rate, giving an overall of three times the advertised firearms rate when all added together. I haven't verified that data in quite a while as the firearms data is sufficient for most conversations I've had.
 
The anti gun crowd like to say we’re the only ones with mass murders. We know this is a lie.
They say Australia’s gun laws should be a model for us

Here’s proof both are lies and an example Australia’s laws don’t work if someone really wants to kill a bunch of people with a gun

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/0...nd-dead-with-gunshot-wounds-in-australia.html

The Australian laws are doing what they were designed to do and that is disarm Australians.
The agenda was not public safety but disarmament and control of the masses.
That’s what all gun control laws are about.
 
If I remember from my last look at the Australia Institute of Criminology data, the non firearms rate of deaths and violence was at least twice the firearms rate, giving an overall of three times the advertised firearms rate when all added together. I haven't verified that data in quite a while as the firearms data is sufficient for most conversations I've had.
Australian murder rate: 0.98
US muder rate: 4.88
 
The US is more diverse and allows more freedom of speech for subcultures that preach stupidity. Most violence is in the gang and drug culture, centered around blacks.
My understanding is Australia has problems with its aboriginal population at a similar rate to the US with its black population, but they make up close to 3% of Australia and blacks make up 13% of the US.
Strangely enough that is close to the percent difference in the murder rate. With over 4x as many of just that demographic we have over 4x the murder rate.

The US keeps statistics on many of these things, and without a doubt most of our murders are gang related and related to the gang, hip-hop and drug culture. That culture is most prominent in blacks where it is espoused as black culture, and the next demographic it is most common in is hispanic gangs that began to emulate that same subculture with similar results.
 
Last edited:
Australian murder rate: 0.98
US muder rate: 4.88
You take the top 4 most dangerous US cities (Baltimore, St Louis, New Orleans, and Chicago) out, and the US rate is near Australia's.
Take the top 10 most populous counties (of 3000 US counties, so 0.3%) out of the mix, and the US falls to about 49th in the world, well below Australia.
 
You take the top 4 most dangerous US cities (Baltimore, St Louis, New Orleans, and Chicago) out, and the US rate is near Australia's.
Take the top 10 most populous counties (of 3000 US counties, so 0.3%) out of the mix, and the US falls to about 49th in the world, well below Australia.
I've also heard that if you factor out gang and drug related murders (those two often overlap) then our murder rate assumes a more "european" -like murder rate.
I heard .... not really sure I'd vouch for it, but those two factors must rate high.
 
In 2015, there were roughly 8700 gun murders in the US. Not "homicides," which would include self-defense and suicide. Murders are the main thing we should be concerned about. People who are killed in self-defense need to be shot, and depressed people can kill themselves quickly with shoelaces or Hefty bags. We can't ban everything a person could use to kill himself.

It's very bad to lose 8700 people, but people like John Lott tell us the number would be much higher but for the many times privately held guns prevent murder.

Many times, we have decided it was better to send innocent military personnel to die in large numbers than to give up our rights or abandon other compelling national interests. There were several battles in World War Two which, standing alone, cost more than 8700 American lives.

Maybe we should just say civil rights, like suspension bridges, airplanes, and automobiles, have an unavoidable minimum cost in human life and ask ourselves if we are willing to pay it.

I don't think we would save 8700 lives per year by giving the gun-haters everything they want. We probably wouldn't save any, because certain segments of our population would continue to find guns and kill the innocent, and the innocent would lose much of their ability to fight back. But even if we did save 8700 lives, we would buy that blessing with our remarkable, precious civil rights. I don't think it would be worth it.

Unfortunately, many Americans don't care about freedom. They just want big-screen TV's, coarse entertainment, untrammeled sexual excess, dope, and entitlements. The notion that modern Americans love freedom is a sad myth not born out by the evidence. A certain percentage of us care, but it's probably not more than half.

This country was founded by stodgy old men with property and income. That's why we have so many rights. They knew what it was to build something, to look after something, and to have something to lose. Now a big chunk of our voters are ignorant oafs who go through life with their hands out, whining and looting. They will vote for anyone who promises them marijuana and other people's money.

Our demographics guarantee that America will remain a violent area, just like the regions that sent us our most violent people (look up El Salvador and South Africa some time). It's foolish to ignore that. Disarming every segment of society, including those that cause the least trouble, seems like a poor strategy for reducing bloodshed, but it is certain to disempower and humiliate us.

Overall, people who live in countries with gun control are busting their butts to move to bad old America, and not many of us are going in the other direction. Things must not be too bad here.
 
Maybe we should just say civil rights, like suspension bridges, airplanes, and automobiles, have an unavoidable minimum cost in human life and ask ourselves if we are willing to pay it.
That's the truth, but few people want to hear it. You won't score any points politically by saying it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top