CERTAIN guns where confiscated and the right to carry was taken away for the most part if not entirely.
So if someone sticks a gun in your face and confiscates your wallet, is that a "buy back"? When you threaten penalties for non-compliance, it is not a "buy back". You can wrap a pretty bow around your gun confiscation if you want, but it was not voluntary in any sense of the word. The data I linked clearly shows the suicide rate in your country rising to peak around 1998, then starting to gradually fall off yearly. It also clearly shows that current levels of gun suicide are about 10-12% of the number of people that are hanging themselves. There was no drastic reduction in overall suicide after the gun ban, overall suicide even went up for a few years after the gun ban. I included the older study because it talks about the contributing factors in suicide, at a time when guns were still very prevalent, and no one knew that gun confiscation was looming. Not once were guns mentioned as a contributing factor to consider. As many people have been killed in mass killings in Australia in the same number of years before Port Arthur as after, and if someone wanted to commit another Port Arthur they could do it right now, despite your gun bans. P.S. Please learn how to use the quote function, that was a mess.
It is not a linear relationship and it is multifactorial http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705 This is 1992 - so before the advent of SSRI medication which has been linked to impulse suicide But in using raw data you have skewed the results because it is not just ownership of firearms but firearm accessibility. If the firearm is kept secured the suicide rate is lower Second paragraph down http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-policy-summary/
Confiscation is not allowed under Australian law - which is why the government of the day had to pay for the weapons
Your whole premise is ridiculous on the face of it. Basically what you just quoted means the suicide victim is a loner, on drugs, with a criminal record, and has no education, and I'm sure suffering from depression. Then the study goes on to say if that person has a gun, they're more likely to kill themselves. Well duh. I bet if they replaced the gun with a rope you'd be saying access to rope causes suicides.
It is if they are paying you for it Again your papers did not go past 1997 (except the one that was published in 1992) so how can you do a comparison? You cherry picked
Taking by force is confiscation, even if the burgler throws you $5 for your wallet. Really? Let's see: Both of these from 2009: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Suicide http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442458840 This one from 2013 http://www.mindframe-media.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/11868/Suicide-Figures-ABS-2015.pdf Are you even trying?
Any psychologist that thinks this: Is a moron. It would be the same as saying that utensils in a drawer make you want to eat more. It gives you the option to eat easier, but it doesn't make you want to eat more, it doesn't increase your apatite. It's the same with suicide. A gun doesn't make you want to kill yourself. It's just a better tool for the job if you actually want to. Saying anything more is irrational and illogical, it doesn't matter who the moron is that says it or where they're from, they're still morons. Hell, we have a moron as the head of our country.....
Either give your guns or go to jail. Yeah it's confiscation. They just felt better by paying for the guns.
Same sources as previous - and the same criticism stands - they do not support your claim. It is poor debating to simply post a few links to raw data and claim a victory - it is beyond that to repeatedly post the same material over and over Let us re-examine the original claim http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=441327&page=7&p=1065801547#post1065801547 You have not proven this neither have you proven a causal relationship Research paper after research paper shows than when gun availability is restricted suicide rates go down and there is little substitution effect
Again poor debating, actually beyond poor but I will simply state at present it is poor to redefine everything and every paper as being "psychologists" and therefore suspect Truth is the evidence is very very clear, multiple studies over multiple countries
So if I wanted to keep it could I? Or would I be arrested and the gun confiscated? It isn't the method, its the end result.
Those that think what worked in Australia would work here have no understanding of reality... http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
All done by gun fearing lefties. I know you're new to the whole common sense thing, but trusting one side of a story is usually a bad idea. Now, I'm not preaching what the NRA says, I know they are the other way. I simply state what our own government statistics say, you know, the facts. You can tout opinion all you need, we already know how you guys that lead with your feelings think. Facts don't matter as long as you can find ANYTHING that supports what you want. We get it.
So are we off the claim that my sources were cherry picked and pre-1997? You must get tired running those goal posts all over the place. The evidence I presented, from your own government, clearly shows suicide rates and trends for over 20 years. It clearly shows the methods of suicide, and the numbers for each. Avoid it all you want. Keep claiming that school dropouts suffering from depression, taking drugs, drinking, living alone, and unemployed isn't the problem. Keep blaming guns, I really don't care. Anyone with two brain cells can see how ludicrous your stance is.
Was there an option to keep their weapons without being charged with a crime? No. That's confiscation.
Astroturf Question is - whose astroturf? Who has interest in keeping the arms race in America churning, having all those gullible citizens buying weapon after weapon? - - - Updated - - - No confiscation is taking something without renumeration
No they are cherry picked and POST 1997 They are also simple mud slinging - gathering up a few random facts and flinging them at a wall in the hope something will stick. Truth is you cannot find a rebuttal piece that proves your contention. The random statistics you are throwing up show the opposite as they do not support a hypothesis for substitution effect - - - Updated - - - Gotta love the American right - just lump it in a bag and call it "left" and you can ignore everything else
So I buy a $3500 custom firearm that I intend to have my whole life and pass it down to my children and grandchildren. Then I am involuntarily mandated to surrender it to the government for small percentage of what it's worth and some how that's not confiscation. Then it's mandatory robbery. If an armed mugger makes me hand my wallet over and he leaves me a small percentage of my money when he leaves, did I not just get robbed?
No - if you apply in writing you can keep that firearm - or bury it in the backyard. No one is forcing you hand over a weapon unless there is suspicion it has been used in a crime or otherwise comes to the attention of the police i.e. you have it on display in your lounge room and invite the local cops for a party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia You commit a crime with an illegal gun though and your arse belonga Copper
You are assuming that those who were affected were given fair compensation for their loss. There is no evidence of such.
