Australia: Gun ban had NO effect on murder rate

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Buyback has no effect on murder rate

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths...

News source: Sydney Morning Herald

Study source (pdf file): British Journal of Criminology
(Requires registration to view the full text.)

The anti-gun politicians were wrong, and the gun-owners were correct. Those that were correct, had their property confiscated for nothing.

Those here that vote "good idea", since it confiscated personal property and didn't even achieve the desired goal, please explain why you still think it was a good idea anyway.

[ExAFO 0]

Easy Arugula Salad

Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Ready In: 15 Minutes
Yields: 4 servings

INGREDIENTS:
4 cups young arugula leaves, rinsed and dried
1 cup cherry tomatoes, halved
1/4 cup pine nuts
2 tablespoons grapeseed oil or olive oil
1 tablespoon rice vinegar
salt to taste
freshly ground black pepper to taste
1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 large avocado - peeled, pitted and sliced

DIRECTIONS:

1. In a large plastic bowl with a lid, combine arugula, cherry tomatoes, pine nuts, oil, vinegar, and Parmesan cheese. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Cover, and shake to mix.

2. Divide salad onto plates, and top with slices of avocado.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

So, how do you prove that without the gun ban this decline would have continued?

There are so many variables at play that it is impossible to draw a conclusion based on just one variable. (in either direction of this debate)

[kelpdiver 2]

are you going to pick on all of her Majesty's colonies now?

[juanesky 0]

is about time someone goes after that...ahem, female dog...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Easy Arugula Salad

It's rude to disrupt a discussion by posting something completely irrelevant.

If you don't have anything to contribute, I suggest you just ignore the thread.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, how do you prove that without the gun ban this decline would have continued?

Before the gun ban the murder rate was declining. And after the gun ban, it continued to decline at the same rate.

So, do you want to believe that if they had not banned guns, that somehow that murder rate would have changed directions and started climbing, even though it had already been declining prior to the ban?

If so, please explain your theory for how keeping gun laws as-is would cause this.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

are you going to pick on all of her Majesty's colonies now?

What I am "picking on" is anti-gun policies and beliefs.

It just so happens that Her Majesty and her Aussie colony are two of the places which have failed in the worst way in this regard.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's rude to disrupt a discussion by posting something completely irrelevant.

If you don't have anything to contribute, I suggest you just ignore the thread.

I'm not a big fan of cherry tomatoes, they tend to taste unwashed. Is it ok to deseed a whole tomato and just dice it up into like half inch bits?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dorbie 0]

But did it prevent another massacre? You'll never really know for sure.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Before the gun ban the murder rate was declining. And after the gun ban, it continued to decline at the same rate.

So, do you want to believe that if they had not banned guns, that somehow that murder rate would have changed directions and started climbing, even though it had already been declining prior to the ban?

If so, please explain your theory for how keeping gun laws as-is would cause this.

Not my theory, been trying to explain to you for a while that too many variables are at play to draw a conclusion based on one variable.

You really don't know what would have happened if there had NOT been a gun ban.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The anti-gun politicians were wrong, and the gun-owners were correct. Those that were correct, had their property confiscated for nothing.

I wonder why it ever happened. Just look on other countries like Russia, where guns have been banned for a very long time. Only hunting rifles were allowed, and obviously one cannot carry them. Did it affect murder rate? No. People were killing each others hundreds of years even before guns were invented. One does not need a gun to murder someone.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

One does not need a gun to murder someone.

true, just makes it a hell of a lot easier.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

true, just makes it a hell of a lot easier.

Not if you never used a gun before.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Scoop 0]

Yes they are extremely complicated bits of equipment

Aim & squeeze. Takes less balls than fronting someone out face to face too.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yes they are extremely complicated bits of equipment
Aim & squeeze. Takes less balls than fronting someone out face to face too.

If you consider it THAT way, using a knife is much simpler. Just hit.
And using poison still takes much less balls.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Scoop 0]

A knife attack is still physical and up close. Firing a gun isn't. If a 10 stone teenager come up to me with a knife I could probably fight my way out of it, I'd get seriously hurt but I could do it... probably. If a 10 stone teenager come within effective range and shot me I couldn't really do fuck all about it Its indiscriminate, unless they were truly an awful shot.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A knife attack is still physical and up close. Firing a gun isn't. If a 10 stone teenager come up to me with a knife I could probably fight my way out of it, I'd get seriously hurt but I could do it... probably. If a 10 stone teenager come within effective range and shot me I couldn't really do fuck all about it Its indiscriminate, unless they were truly an awful shot.

running works really well. Most people would struggle to hit a moving object at 7m.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

A knife attack is still physical and up close. Firing a gun isn't.

You mentioned "Takes less balls than fronting someone out face to face too", so I assume you're talking about backstabbing.
They both are close unless you are taling about using sniper rifles.

Quote

If a 10 stone teenager come within effective range and shot me I couldn't really do fuck all about it.

I would not agree unless you are talking about teenager who is good in shooting, and have spent a lot of time in rifle range in shooting moving targets. You just need to run zigzag, and his chances to shot you decrease dramatically. And if he running after you and shooting at the same time, the chance is close to zero.
Anyway, if someone is going to kill a person, and the only way he can do it is to use a gun, he will not be stopped by a gun ban. If one is going to murder a person, it is already death penalty or life sentense, and it doesn't matter if you get 3 more years for illegally obtaining a gun.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

...
Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns
...

I cannot help but wonder why pro-gun activists always feel the urge to point out what is already obvious, at least to anybody with an at least half functional brain.
Of course criminals are not going to hand in their guns voluntarily, it's as obvious as the fact that this is not what gun bans are meant to address. Banning legal gun ownership seeks to reduce the number of (legally owned) gun related deaths due to handling accidents or "red rage" type shootings, and maybe to prevent legally purchased firearms ending up on the black market thus resulting in illegal gun ownership.
Pointing out the fact that criminals are not going to hand in their illegal firearms as a result of a ban is nothing but a diversionary tactic, and a rather weak one at that.
As for the claim that murder rates would have kept declining at the same rate even without a ban, all I can say is that without any supporting evidence this is wishful thinking at best (or bad science at the very least).

Cheers,

Vale

[jm951 0]

Why is it that the anti gunners are so interested in expanding the nanny state when using the "accident" argument. The same logic could be applied to automobiles, look how many are killed or injured each day from cars? Next let's look at skydiving, how many get injured doing that?

To say that guns are only used in "criminal" or "terminal" types of engagements is totally false. There are lots of shooting sports where firearms are used safely. Skeet, Trap, Target, IPSC, USPSA, NRA Smallbore, Biathalon just to name a few.

It boils down to personal responsibility. If you're not man/woman enough to take the lumps for your own decisions, don't expect the gov to bail you out. I think the another issue is a deep psychological need on the part of the antis to control others and an unarmed populace is easily controlled.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Why is it that the anti gunners are so interested in expanding the nanny state when using the "accident" argument. The same logic could be applied to automobiles, look how many are killed or injured each day from cars?

The difference being, surely, that the 'nanny state' already regulates automobiles by requiring drivers to obtain a licence.

Quote

It boils down to personal responsibility. If you're not man/woman enough to take the lumps for your own decisions, don't expect the gov to bail you out. I think the another issue is a deep psychological need on the part of the antis to control others and an unarmed populace is easily controlled.

Why then is personal responsibility enough to regulate guns, but not cars? Why aren't people allowed to certify themselves as safe drivers?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Why then is personal responsibility enough to regulate guns, but not cars?

It's fine for both, but perhaps less appropriate for cars which accidentally kill 40,000 people a year versus guns at arround 1,200 even though there are a lot more guns.

Quote

Why aren't people allowed to certify themselves as safe drivers?

They are. As long as you stay off public roads you don't need a license to operate a car.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

They are. As long as you stay off public roads you don't need a license to operate a car.

Nor can you take it off private property.

I agree, cars and guns should be treated the same way. I know gun owners and the NRA would never agree to that though.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I agree, cars and guns should be treated the same way. I know gun owners and the NRA would never agree to that though.

You don't need a license to buy a car in the US.

Oh, you probably meant something else.