Got any evidence for that claim? Not saying you're wrong because I can't think of any civilised society that isn't gradually getting more violent over the years but I think you'll struggle to link increasing violence with the level of accessibility of firearms.
The evidence is freely available in unbiased statistics that the crime rates were low and remained relatively low overall regardless of firearm accessibility in Australia. The same trend and slight rises and falls based on many other things remained.
I was not making the argument that decreased firearm accessibility was responsible for increased violence, only that it had no real effect on the overall crime of Australia. Others have made that argument.
What I observe is relatively the same trends before the restrictions and after the restrictions continued. Australia had even lower crime before the major restrictions, but also not a major increase as a result of the restrictions.
Great levels of freedom were lost, but it made little difference in the overall criminal activity.
The primary difference would not be the number of crimes, but rather who is sure to prevail in violent crime now. Equality has been lost for women, the elderly, and others unable to physically stand up to the strong young men responsible for most crime. I understand groups of biker gangs were responsible for a lot of crime in Australia. I am sure they benefit greatly with the disarmament of everyone else. Even if they have slightly fewer arms themselves, they would benefit greatly from everyone being restricted to other options.
So the overall crime numbers are not much different either way, just the level of legal physical control over one's own destiny.
Even you yourself admit criminal actions are now the best way to provide for defense at home. Violating the legal storage requirements, and committing a crime, and then lying about it if ever necessary to use in self defense. (Which may sound good in theory, but the simple fact someone is believed to have taken all the time to unlock a gun and ammo from separate locations gives the impression the danger was not as immediate as it may have been in reality.)
This is true although this was also the period where Australia suffered it's worst mass killings. There has not been a single spree killing with a semi-automatic rifle since they were outlawed thirteen years ago. I absolutely oppose the ban but it is hard to argue that that the new law hasn't been effective and achieved what it was intended to.
It was illegal for anyone to have a firearm at the locations of the killings. That means anyone willing to break the law and bring a firearm was sure to be the only armed person present. That includes spree killers.
It is access to firearms combined with laws against them being in specific public locations that generally combine to allow low IQ nutjobs to bring firearms they purchased to places nobody else can stop them and open fire. Making people ripe targets for individuals like the one in the Port Arthur massacre. Who incidentally was inspired by the non stop press coverage for weeks of the Dunblane incident used to ban handguns in the UK. Too dumb to think for himself, he was inspired to copy what the media was parading. So certainly individuals such as that can be reduced.
(Yet the slightly more 'intelligent' nuts, will just find other means. As has been seen many times over. Our most deadly attacks have not been done by someone with a firearm. In fact I would rather face a nut with a gun anytime than simply explode before I know there is even a nutcase present. Arguably the avenue of firearms can help reduce the effectiveness of such people, and give armed people a chance to fight back. Without the avenue of firearms they are more prone seek other methods, many of which are even harder to defend against.)
Of course none of that has anything to do with the original intent of the 2nd in the USA. Which was specifically for protection and allowing both offensive and defensive use against tyrants and oppressors of liberty, and those who supported them, like the Commonwealth. Allowing all people of the United States to be ready for militia action, such as a widespread insurgency (against the British or any other invader, or even the US government itself if it became tyrannical).
One of the benefits from breaking away from the British Empire through force I suppose. Certainly not a history shared with Australia.
It's kind of like arguing that we should just scrap the police because crime still occurs even with a police force. If another mass shooting does occur, and I agree with you that it probablly will, then I don't think it will change anything. Most people here will still consider it a good thing that psycopaths, depressives and your run-of-the-mill retard hasn't been able to just walk in to a gun shop and pick up an AR15 with no questions asked like they could before the 1996 ban. Most people here consider the dramatically reduced number of gun homicides to be a good thing.
