Cost of Gun Reform

What about other more common dangers such as drunk drivers. Should we all drive armoured vehicles to protect ourselves and our families from drunk drivers? What are the odds of another Martin Bryant given that since the enactment of thru gun regulations in 1996 there has been only one mass shooting (using the FBI criteria of more than 4 dead) since then? That was the recent case of murder/suicide in country Victoria which involved a member of the family shooting the other members, the other recent multiple homicide was a neighbourhood dispute. This confirms research findings from America that you are at far greater risk from someone known to you when there is a gun in the house than from a stranger.

 

Very possibly because although they keep the guns the government keeps the bullets

 

Under those circumstances, I don't think anything would protect you or your family. Usually, there is not week that goes by when we hear in the media about someone being killed by a knife either in the street; their home or business robbery, so guns have been just replaced by knives, but the crimes rate is still continuing. I blame the police for this, because they are sitting in their cars all day catching people speeding being tax collectors for the Government, instead of walking the streets like they use to do, as presence, to deter crime.

 

Ups,
right you are, but hey, why would that be?
Every Swiss must participate in their Army Service, and once they get sent home, he takes his rifle with him, to hide it in the closet.
I spent time in all three countries, and Switzerland is head and shoulders better developed then the US, or Australia. All people participate in politics, the whole nation is just further up the ladder.
They artificially weaken their Swiss Franc, in order not to become too expensive, hey tell that our PM, Mr. Abbott....
Sorry guys, I know some might see that as betrayal, but Central Europe is ahead of us, despite their current economic difficulties...
Regards

 

An interesting link that shows the massive difference between deaths committed by guns relating to murder and those by suicide. I think it also demonstrates Howard's gun control policy was based on a fairytail analogy

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

 

Jeanine Baker & Samara McPhedran, Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, Br. J. Criminology (2006). The authors commented that the stricter gun laws introduced post-1996 in Australia did not affect firearms homicide rates and may also not have impacted gun suicide and accidental shooting death rates. They concluded that “[t]here is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”[86]

Wang-Sheng Lee & Sandy Suardi, The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper No. 17/08, Aug. 200. This paper also reanalyzes data on firearms deaths that was used in previous research, using figures spanning the period from 1915 to 2004.[88] The authors used “an alternative time-series approach based on unknown structural breaks” in analyzing the data to determine the impact of the National Firearms Agreement on homicide and suicide.[89] They conclude that “sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.”[90] Finally, the authors state that “[a]lthough gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”[91]

 

Not really sure mate. Bowerbird suggested in an earlier posting that citizens who owned guns enacted civil war, and I was just pointing some facts out about Switzerland.

The majority of the people who owned guns in Australia (farmers) always acted responsibly and safeguarded their firearms and ammunition. The whole country cannot be held accountable and responsible for a few rat-bags or psychotics, who use firearms in an irresponsible way. The link I provide to bowerbird is very interesting and clearly shows the massive difference between guns being used for homicide and used for suicide over the decades, and the irrational panic and fear generated by Howard over gun control was simply unfounded.

You are preaching to the converted mate, as I know too well how far up the intellectual ladder the people of central Europe are compared to Australians. It doesn't make things any better when our young people are left being uneducated and unemployed for a foreign workforce. This simple wouldn't be allowed to happen in Switzerland or any other central European country, but the politicians nor the people are listening in Australia

Unfortunately this is the recourse for to much foreign investment being allowed into a country - they now want their workers imported into Australia to work in their companies, because they don't want to pay Australians for their time or labour.

 

You know,
I think Bowerbird is right, if we don't have weapons in the first place, the likelihood that those non existing weapons will kill is zero.
To me personally it is also a sign of a highly developed nation, not to have any, at least not for personal usage.
I know that the people of Switzerland are discussing the subject of the hidden guns at their homes, despite their tradition in doing so.
It is 2014 for Christ sake, and weapons are not changing anything for the better. Once a life is taken, that's it....
Regards

 

Freedom comes with a downside. I detest the Klan, and hate everything they stand for. But, I believe freedom of speech is more important than eliminating them. Every human has a right to arm themselves, at least until they deprive themselves of that right by committing crimes, or developing serious mental illnesses (which generally isn't their fault, but is still disqualifying). If that means more deaths (but I'd note while the US's murder rate is higher than countries that ban handguns, their overall rate of other violent crime is much less, though the US's murder rate is the lowest it's ever been), then, like putting up with the hateful speech of the Klan, it's the price we pay for freedom. So be it.

 

It is also a sign of complete naivete about human nature. Might as will wish for unicorns and manna from heaven.

 

I really do understand what you are saying, but I also think there are no facts and evidence to support all the hysteria around the theory that gun control reduces crime and death, and Howard's policy was completely over exaggerated.

Using just one example: if we take into consideration all the deaths that happen in Australia through road accidents that occur due to speed or drink driving verses gun homicide, then we are really looking at the wrong problem, when we associate gun ownership to crime & death.

A motor vehicle in the hands of an idiot has always been much more dangerous as a weapon of death, then any gun has been. For instance; how many countless times have we heard in the media about some idiot in a car being chased by police, running a red light, and killed some innocent person or an entire family in the process.

Is using a motor vehicle as a dangerous weapon any less serious than someone with a gun? The answer is NO, but we don't have the same restrictions or regulations on some "idiot" being able to buy a motor vehicle and using that as a dangerous weapon to either kill him/herself with, or some other innocent individual. Why not?

Where is the restrictions or regulations on driving your car to the local, and then getting p-i-s-s-ed as a parrot and being allowed to enter your vehicle, and on the way home you have a head-on, and kill some innocent person or their family? In all honesty mate, I see that behaviour as being 100% more dangerous to me and my family than people owning guns.

 

I agree, considering we are still killing each other in global wars. If we come together in a peaceful global community without wars and aggression, then maybe we can consider eliminating guns and weapons, but not until that happens. Utopia for humanity is many Centuries away.

 

Just because murder suicide is rare in the current environment of fewer guns does not mean it would not increase were there a greater availability. Your link demonstrates a decrease in absolute numbers of suicide despite an increase in population

This proves there has been no "substitution effect" when firearm availability decreased

from your link

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/australia

 

Yeeeah!

Hate to do it to you again old mate but your first paper was an orchard of a cherry pick and ummmmm - not to case aspersions but please check out the author's credentials

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract

Vested interest much? Bias maybe?

Your second link is an old standby of the NRA and it is an unpublished "paper" written for online viewing only and hosted by a right wing think tank that mainly studies economics of household incomes etc. Odd place for gun policies

As for the content - I am short on time at the moment but will give you a better break down of where and what was misleading about that paper later

 

Would you be brave enough to tell that one of those parents, who lost their child in a school shooting? I doubt it....

 

Oh, that's right, yell "save the children" when you have no clue about human nature.

 

Don't come to Australia. Say what you just said here and people will LAUGH. Cultural context is everything. And you are completely out of step with the cultural context concerning guns in this country.

 

So you equate Christ with guns in your country. Got it.

 

Do you suppose the press is suppressing cases of women murdering their partners every week? Otherwise, why do I read of women being murdered by their male partners on a weekly basis? Why is that? Murders of men by their female partners are being censored and suppressed by the press? Yeah, that must be it.

You don't get it. And there's no convincing you. Your eyes must conveniently shut tight every time there's another murder of a woman after domestic violence is reported in the news.

 

Not sure what that has to do with Christ. Please elaborate.

 

No, you haven't got it.

I was swearing. Christ.

 

You should make fists illegal since they are used most often in domestic violence.

 

Mass shootings haven't been replaced by mass stabbings.

 

Domestic violence against men is a real issue and it IS ignored.

 

There are certainly more women murdered by their men then the other way around.....
Violence is more of a male issue, despite the fact that there are some horrible women out there.
Someone might as well start a new thread to sort this one out.....
Regards