Gun Control works

[Mt Shooter]

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 Personal firearms to be destroyed by their own govermnemnt, a program costing Australia taspayers more thatn 500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, Assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, Armed robberies are up 44 percent.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and cruminals still possess their guns.

 

[vis-à-vis]

That's pretty clear.

I thought the aussie gun ban was in place longer than a year. What's your source material?

 

[Feud]

Great info, what's the source?

 

[unspellable]

Burglaries?

How about the burglary rates?

 

[Conqueror]

Aussie gun ban started in the late 1990s if I recall correctly - 1996 or so. That info is long outdated. However, it's still valid.

 

[big44]

This is something I've been wondering about here in the U.S. with the upcoming elections.

Look at England and Australia. What if the majority of the population just refused to turn in their weapons? Is the spark of patriotism alive in Americans today, or would we fold like a paper napkin and turn our in too?

 

[CountGlockula]

Did a search and found the source...from 2001:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

 

[yokel]

Look at England and Australia. What if the majority of the population just refused to turn in their weapons? Is the spark of patriotism alive in Americans today, or would we fold like a paper napkin and turn our in too?

As far as i'm concerned, it's akin to the choice between dying in battle with only a slim hope of escape, or facing sure death in an extermination camp.

 

[Librarian]

Australian homicide info available here. Look for "Homicide in Australia:" for yearly reports.

Here's a decent graph:

and here's another:

Note that homicides by firearm were pretty low before the 'turn-in' as well as after, but there's a fairly clear change in suicide rates; the trend was still down before the turn-in, in 1996-1997 (one could expect real effects, if any, beginning 1998).

 

[thekomet]

I think that what has happened in Australia is fascinating, but I am unsure how much we can apply to our country. The do not have the gun culture that we have, and of course never had the equivalent to a RKBA. Also, their rate of gun crime has always been much lower than ours. The Snopes link contains several links to official Australian reports on the use of firearms in homicides. Read them, it is worth the time. I have included some interesting ideas and quotes from the article. here is the linkThe Licensing and
Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide

look at the chart which shows firearm related homicides 1915-1998. not much different pre-ban vs post-ban.

-"In other words, those who commit homicide in Australia are individuals who have circumvented legislation and will be least likely to be affected if further restrictions on firearms ownership are introduced. Any further restrictions will most likely affect individuals who are the law-abiding shooters in Australia who have already “made significant sacrifices in furtherance of public safety”"

- In 1992-94 there were 196 firearm homicides, with information available on whether the firearm was legally held or not for 151 homicides. It was found that in 15 per cent of the homicides, the firearms were legally held by the
perpetrator (22 cases), or by the victim (1 case). In 6 homicides, there was evidence to suggest that the firearm used had been stolen.
---My take: Legal gun owners and legally owned guns are not nearly as likely to be used in a homicide, and in 122 of these homicides it is unknown where the gun came from. Was it smuggled in? manufactured illegally? the reported numbers indicate they were NOT stolen from someone's home.
Money quote: "These studies suggest that it is the unlicensed offenders with illegal or unregistered firearms that most commonly commit firearm-related homicide.

- "In contrast to international research, handguns were used in only just
over a quarter of all firearms homicides in Australia (n = 13)"
---My take: what happens in Australia may not be a reliable proxy for America

- "However, since the introduction of the NAF in 1996, there appears to have been a noticeable increase in the proportion of homicides committed with handguns (Category H firearms) (Figure 5). In 1998/99, 42.2 per cent (27 out of 64) of firearm related homicides were committed with a handgun, compared to 16.5 per cent in 1992/93 (14 out of 85), and 13.0 per cent (13 out of 100) in 1995/96."
---My take: category H is highly restricted, the average citizen cannot own one; my understanding is only govt employees can possess them. The data shows that homicides committed with a handgun actually rose, and only criminals would be in possession of handguns.
Money quote: "As a consequence, these individuals (ie who cannot buy firearms legally) turn to illegitimate means of firearms acquisition, especially firearms that are easily concealable firearms, such as handguns. This may have possibly contributed to the dramatic rise in handgun homicides recorded in Australia in the last few years."

 

[Razorskarr]

G'Day, folks,

thekomet is right in so far as Cat. H* firearms are highly restricted. It's not that citizens can't own them, it's just that you need a "legitmate reason." This is where it gets dodgy. To own any firearm in this country you must have a "legitimate reason" like wanting to shoot clay discs out of the sky every other weekend (I don't have a problem with clay pidgeon, I think it's a fine sport) but defence of one's home, family, property or person is not permitted.

The Australian Government doesn't recognize the right to bear arms for self defence.

*Cat. H refers to handguns, deactivated handguns and any firearms under 65cm ('bout two feet) long. Pistols must be .38 calibre or less and must have a barrel lenght of at least 120mm, revolvers must also be .38 or less and have a barrel of at least 100mm. Calibres up to .45 are possible for participants in "approved" competitions.

The Australian govt., of course, doesn't recognize IPSC, metallic sil., tactical three gun or other practical/tactical comps.

. . . my first post after a long time lurking. Nice to be here.

 

[daniel (australia)]

Wow, its been a whole four months since this spurious set of figures was last posted here. Are we ever going to put this one to rest once and for all?

Here's what I said last time, back at the end of last September, which in turn links back to the August '07 version:

Variants of that have been kicking around the internet for the past ten years, since the longarm buyback took place. It gets quoted breathlessly here roughly every month it seems. The figures are however spurious. Rather than go over it all again here's the last time it was discussed, and that thread includes links to snopes and to some of the real facts.

The reality is that well over a billion dollars has gone down the drain on the laws forced upon us by John "I hate guns" Howard, but with ten years' data the result is that these laws and that huge investment have had essentially no measurable effect at all, save perhaps in reducing the number of firearms reported stolen.

The best the proponents of these laws can say is that there have been no mass shootings since the buyback, but there again there have been none in New Zealand over the same time period (they'd had several previously) even though their laws were unchanged and remained roughly similar to our pre-buyback laws.

It is not unlikely that what stopped mass shootings here was the fact that Bryant didn't go out in a blaze of glory but instead was captured in a most unheroic manner, and revealed as a halfwit loser who'll spend the rest of his pathetic life locked in a box.

Razorskarr

The pistol restrictions are a bit of a nonsense, I'd have to agree. I "handed back" a fairly ordinary 1911A1 clone in .45 and with the proceeds bought both a 9mm Glock and a .357 Ruger GP100. Australia's taxpayers should be satisfied that their tax dollars paid for this increase in safety It has to be said though that the Government in fact does recognise IPSC and Metallic Silhouette as legitimate, and several other competitions besides. Metallic Silhouette is also a category for which calibres up to .45 can be authorised - I know several people with .460 S&W and similar hand cannons. You can also get a larger calibre if your reason is one other than target shooting, such as occupational.

 

[Razorskarr]

Thankyou, daniel, I stand corrected.

I'd completely forgotten about occupational shooters. I suppose the point I was trying to highlight was that SD is not recognized as a legitimate reason for owning any kind of firearm.

It is my belief that under most circumstances a firearm presents any individual with the best means of protecting themselves. We have a recognized right to use whatever force is necessary, up to and including lethal, to protect ourselves. If the most effective means to do that is denied to us then what value does the right have?

I know all things considered my gripe is more principle than practical but it's just the way I see it.

 

[daniel (australia)]

That provision explicitly excluding self defence as a legitimate ground was not accidental either. It was introduced at the insistence of Howard and intended to close off forever that moral/utilitarian argument, and put us all in the position of arguing for a "sport" or "hobby":banghead:

And of course at the same time no one questions the fact that the APS (politicians' bodyguards) need their personal weapons...

 

[Hawk]

Wow, its been a whole four months since this spurious set of figures was last posted here. Are we ever going to put this one to rest once and for all?

It's got some long legs and lacks the general interest needed for a debunk to be widely known. I expect it will hang on well beyond "free money from Microsoft for forwarding an email".

NRA saw fit to update their page in 2000 although they still, much like Brady and VPC, choose to omit reference to the compensation paid. Many agree with this stance; I see it as a profound strategic blunder.

I wish some of our "pro" groups would quite with the Post hoc ergo propter hoc stuff already. Nevertheless, I would guess that the original "Ed Chenel" version will be forwarded into spam filters for decades.

We've learned to keep our fingers off the trigger and to know what our target is and what lies beyond. I fear we'll never develop the same circumspection regarding the "forward" key of our email clients. Too bad as some of that stuff winds up in other countries and makes us look like rubes or at least people that don't check either our facts or the currency of our correspondence.