Your gun laws are a mistake: National Rifle Association to Australia

Lever actions shotguns have been around for over 130 years. The mechanism isn't used much because apparently it's rough on cartridges, and didn't work well with the old paper shotgun cartridges of the 19th century.

In the 20th century, I think it was mainly fashion. that, and honestly, pumps are much more practical than lever actions. The only reason lever action shotguns are getting popular in Australia is as a way around the gun laws.

 

No proof? You can't use google? You live in Australia and you don't know about your own country?

 

Then why did the crime bubble start in 1996 and continue today? Why was a declining crime rate reversed in 1996? What happened in 1996 to cause such a drastic change?

 

Funny thing, I have lived in Oklahoma or Texas my whole life. You know, the Wild West. Yet, I have never seen a gun fight. Guess I should move to a liberal stronghold if I want to see one.

 

Currently there is an effort to prohibit the ownership of lever action shotguns in the nation of Australia.

 

they must have seen that motorcycle scene in the first Terminator Movie while stoned

 

Dunno. But happily -

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4510.0

 

Actually we're very thin-skinned. True enough, we can dish it out but when it comes back at us we hate it. We have a bit of growing up to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes there is, the current federal government is on it. As soon as I saw the tv news item I should have started my stopwatch.

 

I've read, but I don't know how true it is, that following the gun ban in Australia Howard stopped allowing each region/city to publicly announce their own crime statistics, and all reporting had to be submitted to Canberra for official publication. Is there any truth to that and do you think there was any effort then or now to "massage" the numbers in order to justify the gun ban decision?

Has been a long time since I remember reading some of that and you seem like a level headed person so I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

 

The AUS gun banner government always presents things in the best possible light. AUS suffers from a huge surge in violent crime which started in 1996, peaked in 2001-2002, and only in the past 4-5 years have the rates dropped back to pre-ban levels. Even in the late 1990's to mid-2000's, when crime rates were skyrocketing (violent crime up by 33%) the reports don't point out the increases in crime, they always make very tailored statements to imply crime was under control.

That's why you have to look at the data base, not the reports.

 

I'll blame the Howard government for a lot of things but I'm not sure I can blame them for that. To the best of my knowledge each state and territory researches and publishes its own crime statistics and forwards them to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology. I don't think that was affected by Howard.

I doubt if there were any massaging of numbers because the research agencies are pretty independent. Police are likely to give their statistics a tickle though and that was one of the reasons the independent research agencies were set up. See this link for a particularly vicious example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Arantz

 

The reasons for crime - whatever the rates - are complex. I doubt if the gun bans had any effect whatsoever. If certain crimes increased then I think it would be better to have a good look at the details to try to find causation. I don't know about you but I'm a bit too lazy to go and do that.

 

hey dude,


I knew you at an old site..


good to see you arround

 

Yep, still loitering with no idea and good to see you as well.

 

thanks my friend


I always enjoyed your posts

 

Here is the data from the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports for 1995 (the year before the gun laws took full effect) and 2001 (rates are crimes per 100,000 people):

Crime - 1995 rate - 2001 rate - % increase
Violent Crime ----- 716.7 - 1015.7 - 42%
Homicide ------------ 3.63 - 4.2 - 16%
Sexual Assault ---- 71.77 - 95.3 - 33%
Robbery -------------80.61 - 137.0 - 70%
Assault with Bodily Injury- 560.72 809.7 - 44%
Kidnapping---------- 2.59 4.0 - 54%
Blackmail ----------- 0.86 1.8 - 109%

Why the huge increases? If you look at the data, the increases started in 1996, its a clear discrete break in the crime trend pre-1996 and post 1996. What major event besides the gun ban happened in 1996 that could trigger such a huge increase in crime?

 

Tell me why you think it's down the gun ban.

 

What major, discreet event occurred in 1996 that would impact crime so heavily and immediately? There is only one event - immediately after Port Arthur, the states were forced to implement severe gun control and gun bans in 1996.

 

Not to mention the same thing happened to the UK. Canada is starting to go off the rails too it seems.

 

Good point, the UK had the exact same experience as Australia. Canada sometimes seems to be getting its act together, they dropped the long gun ban a year ago, but with so many gun ban loons in Canada its hard to tell if its 1 step forward 3 steps back for Canada.

 

its based on the collectivist philosophy of group guilt.

 

I wish we had something like the NRA here. The SSAA is a complete joke, half the time they're the ones clamoring for more overregulation.

I've basically given up on the legal system. I source whatever weapons I can through licensing, because it's convenient - but the remainder I simply source illegally. The internet is such a wonderful thing. I have no moral issue with it - I am hurting nobody. I have a discrete range set up 50km from another soul in every direction.

Would I prefer it if we didn't have such draconian gun laws? Sure - just like I'd prefer it if we didn't have such draconian tobacco, dirt bike, drug, fishing, etc laws. But gun owners are pretty much at the bottom of the list when it comes to groups likely to see deregulation. What to do when the law becomes invasive and tyranical? Become a criminal, it's quite simple really. I fish illegally, I buy tax-free tobacco, I ride in state forests, etc.

 

How did it impact crime so heavily?

 

To explain "how" is a hypothesis on my part - the gun ban disarmed the population and empowered criminals. In the US, there have been several studies that show criminals avoid areas in which there is high gun ownership. For example, a Tennessee newspaper published gun ownership by zip code, premeditated crimes such as burglary declined in areas of high gun ownership and increased in areas of low gun ownership. For "spur of the moment crimes" there was a similar shift but not as great.

A gun is an equalizer, it empowers people who cannot successfully physically resist criminals - women, older people, a lone individual. Police are not an effective deterrent. When the population is armed, then the risk of severe punishment for the criminal increases. Disarm the population, and criminals commit more crimes.

 

And that may well be the case in the US and I'm not disputing it. Australia is different.

Not better, different.

We have never had the sort of firearms culture that exists in the US. That is not a value-laden statement, just my opinion which I think I can support if called upon. One of the reasons is the origin of society.

The US has a very different history from Australia in terms of how it was established. Yours is complex but at the heart of it is the idea of individual settlement and individual exploration and settlement. I'm going back to colonial days and post-Independence.

A firearm was absolutely necessary for settlers. For hunting for food and for protection.

A brilliant example was in the film "Sergeant York" where Gary Cooper's character (York) showed his prowess with long weapons before he joined the Army. The position of firearms even in the early 20th Century in rural America was based on simple necessity. It may well be the case today.

By contrast, Australia was settled (as is well known) as a penal colony and various parts of it were settled as penal colonies around the landmass from 1788 onwards. Non-convict immigration occurred almost at the same time in the various colonies so it wasn't all convict settlement. But the Imperial government had a hold on each colony like you wouldn't believe. It had to, it was infested with criminals from the start.

The colonies were violent but not without some order imposed by the military. Firearms were common but many people couldn't afford them anyway. While settlers in the bush needed them, firearms weren't so prevalent in the towns and eventually the cities. We didn't have the frontier pioneer culture of early America. Ours is a metropolitan culture now. Firearms - lawfully owned firearms - are something of a minority interest, which is why Howard was able to get away with his gun bans. And why the gun bans had no effect on our crime rates.