The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 22, 2017, 06:50 AM   #26
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 625
Australia is pretty big and vast areas of it are uninhabited. I wonder how many guns illegally end up there...
ATN082268 is offline  
Old August 22, 2017, 09:03 AM   #27
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,357
Quote:
It's easier for people to violate laws as a form of political protest when the penalty is a misdemeanor and a fine.

Until and unless, the courts find the law null & void, it IS the law. And when violating the law means a felony conviction, jail time, a fine, and LOSS of ALL your guns, and the legal ability to own guns FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, its tough to find people who will volunteer to be "test cases".

As law abiding gun owners, we pride ourselves on obeying the law, despite the fact that we disagree with many of them.
Very well spoken, and exactly what I have told a person near to me who was complaining about a state registry. Especially since they were in the state on military service and would likely PCS in 2 or 3 years. Buy a gun and register with that state... as in 3 years it won't matter. Or wait 3 years when you move to a more pro-2A location. 3 years of waiting when you're young isn't much at all when compared to a felony conviction and being a prohibited person for life.
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 22, 2017, 12:38 PM   #28
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN082268
Australia is pretty big and vast areas of it are uninhabited. I wonder how many guns illegally end up there...
Perhaps not as many as you assume, considering that it's an island that's a considerable distance by water from any notably lawless countries. Weapons smuggling from the Middle East to Europe is considerably easier from a logistical standpoint.

Australia had fairly lax gun laws and high ownership rates only a few decades ago. The govt's main focus is presumably weapons stocks already in the country and originally purchased legally.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; August 22, 2017 at 02:46 PM. Reason: typo
carguychris is offline  
Old August 22, 2017, 02:10 PM   #29
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2008
Location: Far Nth Wst QLD Australia
Posts: 977
G'day

A little bit of background history may clear some things up a some.

From the article.
Automatic – .1%, Center-fire self-loading – 3.2%, Pump action shotguns – 15.1%, Self-loading shotguns – 32.7%, Rimfires – 47.5%, other -1.8%.

The automatics came primarily from museums and RSL Clubs and were therefore a non-event. However, the “Center-fire self-loading” firearms were the primary target of the buy-back. The 3.2% are not broken down between military and civilian rifles, but note this, Victoria had registration prior to the “buy-back”, without registration the level of compliance would have been lower. So what do the figures show us? It shows that almost half of the firearms turned in were lousy .22 pea rifles, a rifle that not one nation in the world issues to its solders because of its anaemic power. The figures also show that 47.8% of the rifles were shotguns, a firearm that Hitler allowed the occupied French to keep.


In Victoria prior to this event. None of the Automatics that came from places like Museums were in operating condition. Earlier state laws had banned these unless they had been deactivated. (Police inspection and Cirtification required fore each one). This also included semi auto Center-fire rifles except for limited special circumstances. Basically, the only Semi autos aloud in Victoria prior to this Buy Back beginning were Rim-fire and Shotguns.

The Government had previously stripped the "dangerous" rifles from the residents of that State. Except for people that were able to meet very strict requirements and prove they had an Occupational necessity.
__________________
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough!
When you're confused, I'll try to use smaller words!!!
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 is offline  
Old September 16, 2017, 07:06 PM   #30
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 228
What is interesting is frankly the data show Australia's mass confiscation had no affect on homicide or suicide rates at all

Looks like their decline in homicide was about 55% since their confiscation, while the US decline from its similar timed 1990's peaks was closer to 60%.

So the US and Australia had completely different phenomena and legal regime changes to gun laws, Australia guns, especially semi-auto guns, decreased, while US guns increased, and especially semi autos increased, and the us had a slightly larger drop in homicide.

Knowing a bit about stats and variables, think these two opposite tracks in independent variable with same result mean one has to look at other criminal justice and social variables that were the same as opposed to polar opposites.


There is one major change both made in the early 1990s: Both the US and Australia vastly increased their incarceration rates.

And incarceration rates are not just a correlation, they are slam dunk causal relationship. For example in my former home city 93% of perps had an arrest record prior to committing homicide, 80% had ten or more arrests -- and 91% of homicide victims did as well.
TDL is offline  
Old September 16, 2017, 07:30 PM   #31
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 228
From FOAA
Quote:
No amount of regulation will ever prevent a person, firearm owner or not, from committing suicide if that is what that person has determined to do
Indeed, and Australia proved this. Here in the US we have gun lobby "researchers" disingenuously using the raw Australian suicide stats, when in fact numerous peer reviewed studies, in fact ever single study that look at it, found Australia introduced an amplification of suicide undercount, though misclassification as accident, of non firearms suicide exactly at that point.

Australia's ABS says it is invalid to use the numbers to establish trends because of this, but US and Australia's pro-gun control researchers do exactly that.

It is guns that are a key pivot point on that suicide undercount for a known reason. Gun suicide is estimated to be in the range of 95% to 99% properly recorded as suicide because of assumptions made by medical examiners.

Virtually no gun suicides are misclassified as "accidental self caused death" or "undetermined."

Self-caused death ruled "accidental" from overdose, poisoning, falls, several kinds of drowning, driving into static objects, etc are established in the peer reviewed literature worldwide, and in Australia, to contain 30% to 50% suicides that result in large suicide undercounts.

And where would you see the undercount be amplified the most showing a false decline in suicide :With a sharp decrease in access to guns.

Australia's "accidental death" that was "self caused accidental death" in fact rose right at the point where the confiscation occurred.

Moreover, Australia's gun control was actually harmful to the ends of reducing suicide, since was asserted to be successful when it was not, distracting from actual private and public health polices that might actually help.
TDL is offline  
Old September 18, 2017, 07:44 AM   #32
brian33x51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Denver area
Posts: 130
Once you cross the line to "felon" why should you care? What will they do, charge you with another (bogus) felony for doing something that is even ethically a good thing (taking responsibility for self defense). Pretty dumb policies, at some point will reap what they sow.
brian33x51 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 05:35 AM   #33
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 228
Quote:
It's a success but most guns are rubbish
Agree with your sarcasm on asserted "success."
  • Australia overall reduces guns, and greatly reduces the number and proportion that are semi auto: homicide rate goes down 54% since 1990's peak
  • US overall increases guns, and increase the number and proportion that are semi auto: US Homicide rate goes down 58% since 1990's peak

Two polar opposite changes in amounts and types of guns, same effect. Where I come from that means the asserted casualty is absurd.

So the question is not: what did both Australia and the US do that was different? The valid question is: what did they do that was the same?
Answer: They both substantially (x to 3x) increased imprisonment/incarnation rates since the 1990's.
TDL is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -5. The time now is 06:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06236 seconds with 9 queries