|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 22, 2017, 06:50 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Australia is pretty big and vast areas of it are uninhabited. I wonder how many guns illegally end up there...
|
August 22, 2017, 09:03 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
|
|
August 22, 2017, 12:38 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
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 |
|
August 22, 2017, 02:10 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2008
Location: Far Nth Wst QLD Australia
Posts: 992
|
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!!! |
September 16, 2017, 07:06 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
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. |
September 16, 2017, 07:30 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
From FOAA
Quote:
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. |
|
September 18, 2017, 07:44 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Denver area
Posts: 221
|
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.
|
October 5, 2017, 05:35 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|