Home Politics

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Simila

chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

By Will Oremus

Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012


On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
Chubasco.jpg
«1

Replies

  • roto7777roto7777 Posts: 2,545 Captain
    So basically:
    1) The Aussie residents used their own money to buy guns
    2) Aussie residents then gave the Aussie govt more money (through taxes). Of course, only a percentage of people pay taxes.
    3) This extra money was then used to "buy back" the guns.
    4) The Aussie govt now owns 600,000 guns that were paid for by residents.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    roto7777 wrote: »
    So basically:
    1) The Aussie residents used their own money to buy guns
    2) Aussie residents then gave the Aussie govt more money (through taxes). Of course, only a percentage of people pay taxes.
    3) This extra money was then used to "buy back" the guns.
    4) The Aussie govt now owns 600,000 guns that were paid for by residents.
    What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

    This
    Chubasco.jpg
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    When I was in school we carried pocketknives and during hunting season just about every car/pickup truck had a weapon in it. I don't recall any shootings? But that was also before the liberals and the girlie men took over the education system.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    mustang190 wrote: »
    When I was in school we carried pocketknives and during hunting season just about every car/pickup truck had a weapon in it. I don't recall any shootings? But that was also before the liberals and the girlie men took over the education system.

    Country was safer then as the dems had control of the house.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • coldaircoldair Posts: 11,498 Officer
    simple solution Move to Australia,
    BYE I won't miss you one bit
    169304.GIF
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    coldair wrote: »
    simple solution Move to Australia,
    BYE I won't miss you one bit

    Why would I need to move. Only a matter of time till we have it all here. Now which country are you considering when Obama and the dems make all the changes you will hate?
    Chubasco.jpg
  • tagtag Posts: 8,860 Admiral
    AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
    April 13, 2009

    It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

    Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

    •In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for **** -- increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    •Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    •During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for **** -- increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    •At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: **** dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    •Australian women are now **** over three times as often as American women.
    While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

    Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,499 AG
    tag wrote: »
    AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
    April 13, 2009

    It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

    Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

    •In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for **** -- increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    •Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    •During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for **** -- increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    •At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: **** dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    •Australian women are now **** over three times as often as American women.
    While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

    Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

    Chicago's a nice place too. :grin
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    chubasco wrote: »
    Country was safer then as the dems had control of the house.

    interesting thing you said there chubs. what years (era) are you refering to?
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    interesting thing you said there chubs. what years (era) are you refering to?

    Look at the question I was answering.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    chubasco wrote: »
    Look at the question I was answering.

    I did, you obviously either know the guy's age, or think you do. So to cover both bases, just wondering what time period you were refering to.

    Shouldn't be that hard of a question to answer.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    I did, you obviously either know the guy's age, or think you do. So to cover both bases, just wondering what time period you were refering to.

    Shouldn't be that hard of a question to answer.

    For his previous postings I put him at about my age.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    so you're to scared to an era along with your comment.

    why does that bother you so much?
  • bullheadbullhead Posts: 120 Deckhand
    Ok, let's review .... Australia buys 20% of the guns owned by private citizens, which leaves 2,400,000 still in circulation. All firearms owners are required to register their remaining guns, by serial number, by name. Homicide by firearm in Australia is about 30 per year (10% of the total homicides), and of that, 80% of the guns used are unregistered. (Homicide by firearm was over 40% of all homicides before strict regulation.)

    Homicide rate in Australia BEFORE gun control: 1.9 deaths per 100,000 population
    Homicide rate in Australia AFTER gun control: 1.3 deaths per 100,000 population
    Homicide rate in USA now: 4.7 deaths per 100,000 population
    Homicide rate in USA (future) if we see the same percent reduction as Australia: 3.2 deaths per 100,000 population

    So even if we take the same extreme measures as Australia, with the same rate of success as Australia, our homicide rate will still be 60% higher than Australia's homicide rate BEFORE strict gun control?

    I think there is more to what is happening in America. There is something going on with our culture, apart from gun ownership or possession, that needs to be fixed. Going back to 1950, the lowest rate for homicide in the USA was in 1955, 1956 at 4.1 per 100,000, and the high being 1979-1980-1981 with 9.7, 10.2, 9.8 respectively. Fortunately, we seem to be on a decline in rate right now. Our rate, in 1996, the same year that Australia enacted their buyback, was 7.2 deaths per 100,000. Our current rate, of 4.7 per 100,000, is actually a better reduction in rate than the Aussie's have achieved since 1996, without the extreme measures the Aussie's took! I guess, according to the article being referenced, our current policies have "worked really, really well". Access to guns may be a factor, but is not the root of the problem.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    bullhead wrote: »
    Ok, let's review .... Australia buys 20% of the guns owned by private citizens, which leaves 2,400,000 still in circulation. All firearms owners are required to register their remaining guns, by serial number, by name. Homicide by firearm in Australia is about 30 per year (10% of the total homicides), and of that, 80% of the guns used are unregistered. (Homicide by firearm was over 40% of all homicides before strict regulation.)

    Homicide rate in Australia BEFORE gun control: 1.9 deaths per 100,000 population
    Homicide rate in Australia AFTER gun control: 1.3 deaths per 100,000 population
    Homicide rate in USA now: 4.7 deaths per 100,000 population
    Homicide rate in USA (future) if we see the same percent reduction as Australia: 3.2 deaths per 100,000 population

    So even if we take the same extreme measures as Australia, with the same rate of success as Australia, our homicide rate will still be 60% higher than Australia's homicide rate BEFORE strict gun control?

    I think there is more to what is happening in America. There is something going on with our culture, apart from gun ownership or possession, that needs to be fixed. Going back to 1950, the lowest rate for homicide in the USA was in 1955, 1956 at 4.1 per 100,000, and the high being 1979-1980-1981 with 9.7, 10.2, 9.8 respectively. Fortunately, we seem to be on a decline in rate right now. Our rate, in 1996, the same year that Australia enacted their buyback, was 7.2 deaths per 100,000. Our current rate, of 4.7 per 100,000, is actually a better reduction in rate than the Aussie's have achieved since 1996, without the extreme measures the Aussie's took! I guess, according to the article being referenced, our current policies have "worked really, really well". Access to guns may be a factor, but is not the root of the problem.


    I have read that the most probable reason for the huge decline in gun deaths from the 1979-1981 period took place about 18 years after Roe v Wade. Strong connection there.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • esteroestero Posts: 2,041 Captain
    chubasco wrote: »
    Country was safer then as the dems had control of the house.

    Thats nonsense.

    Just because you’re  Offended  Doesn’t mean you right!

  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,499 AG
    estero wrote: »
    Thats nonsense.

    The democrats of those years are rolling in their graves at what their party has become.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • esteroestero Posts: 2,041 Captain
    Most of the the same gun laws in our country were in effect then as now. It isn't the gun laws that have failed its a lot of the people in this country.

    Just because you’re  Offended  Doesn’t mean you right!

  • DBRYANDBRYAN Posts: 4,415 Captain
    chubasco wrote: »
    After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

    Question? Does their Constitution have a right to bear arms?
  • silvergsilverg Posts: 1,456 Officer
    chubasco wrote: »
    I have read that the most probable reason for the huge decline in gun deaths from the 1979-1981 period took place about 18 years after Roe v Wade. Strong connection there.

    About as much as the Redskins game outcome prior to a Presidential election.
  • esteroestero Posts: 2,041 Captain
    chubasco wrote: »
    I have read that the most probable reason for the huge decline in gun deaths from the 1979-1981 period took place about 18 years after Roe v Wade. Strong connection there.

    After a few executions of prisoners on death row gun deaths have gone down.

    Just because you’re  Offended  Doesn’t mean you right!

  • beach_tradebeach_trade Posts: 2,040 Captain
    tag wrote: »
    AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
    April 13, 2009

    It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

    Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

    •In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for **** -- increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    •Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    •During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for **** -- increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    •At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: **** dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    •Australian women are now **** over three times as often as American women.
    While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

    Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847


    Bogus chain email with little truth but thanks for playing.
  • bullheadbullhead Posts: 120 Deckhand
    Chubasco, I am not sure I understand your Roe v Wade comment, but ... assuming that some definable demographic in Australia is responsible for their lower homicide rate, or conversely, that some definable demographic in the USA is responsible for our higher rate, and that Roe vs. Wade is responsible for a lowering of that rate, the insinuation is that we need to look at that segment of the population that is currently aborting (and possibly not present in the Aussie demographic), and if we want to further reduce the homicide rate, increase the rate of abortion in that specific demographic. That seems, to me, too close to sanctioned genocide, and is completely repulsive to most of humanity, regardless of how noble the reason. Also, I would be shocked if the demographic profile of these high-profile murder/suicides is the same as the majority of other homicides. If however, we can focus mental health or other resources based on a combination of demographics and awareness/screening, that might be a plausible solution. Even in that case, I am sure there will be ACLU lawsuits against "profiling". As usual, all the politicians are lining up for more gun control.
  • HOME DEPOT GEORGEHOME DEPOT GEORGE Posts: 526 Officer
    Bogus chain email with little truth but thanks for playing.

    Clearly people aren't interested in facts, if whatever facts are posted don't agree with some people they call them bogus. Why can't we have a fact based discussion instead of name calling and letting our emotions dictate our responses. For the record I'm pro gun so lets look at some FACTS, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed in states with the strictest gun laws. 1/10 of 1 percent of all gun crimes are committed with "assault weapons" yet the only gun discussion on the news is an assault weapons ban. Even though I wouldn't support it I would have more respect for politicians if they came out and said 99% of gun crimes are committed with handguns and want to address the issue instead of fear mongering and half truths since most americans don't know the difference between a slingshot and a machine gun. Luckily most people in this area have no issue with any guns but it's still funny to hear people talking about how the shooter used machine guns etc and getting all worked up into a frenzy. At work everyone knows I collect guns and I've taken many people shooting for the first time and in the past week dozens of people have come to me asking questions about what they've seen on the news. Why don't we post some facts and have a mature discussion.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    I did, you obviously either know the guy's age, or think you do. So to cover both bases, just wondering what time period you were refering to.

    Shouldn't be that hard of a question to answer.

    Homer, good catch. Don't expect an answer. Chubbie is juuuuuuuuuuuuust smart enough to sidestep your question and move on to the next question.

    Chubbie, this is very simple. The USA ain't the Land of Oz. in the USA we do out thing the USA way and don't follow others poor decisions. I know that bothers you because you really want a one government world.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    bullhead wrote: »
    Chubasco, I am not sure I understand your Roe v Wade comment, but ... assuming that some definable demographic in Australia is responsible for their lower homicide rate, or conversely, that some definable demographic in the USA is responsible for our higher rate, and that Roe vs. Wade is responsible for a lowering of that rate, the insinuation is that we need to look at that segment of the population that is currently aborting (and possibly not present in the Aussie demographic), and if we want to further reduce the homicide rate, increase the rate of abortion in that specific demographic. That seems, to me, too close to sanctioned genocide, and is completely repulsive to most of humanity, regardless of how noble the reason. Also, I would be shocked if the demographic profile of these high-profile murder/suicides is the same as the majority of other homicides. If however, we can focus mental health or other resources based on a combination of demographics and awareness/screening, that might be a plausible solution. Even in that case, I am sure there will be ACLU lawsuits against "profiling". As usual, all the politicians are lining up for more gun control.

    check out these links


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

    http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/

    http://www.deveber.org/blog/2010/03/11/does-abortion-reduce-crime-rates
    Chubasco.jpg
  • tagtag Posts: 8,860 Admiral
    Bogus chain email with little truth but thanks for playing.

    Perhaps you should get an adult to click on the link I provided and have them read it to you. You could also have an adult google the information.
  • PhishbohnPhishbohn Posts: 2,981 Captain
    Where can I purchase that firearm? It's very Patriotic.
    Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face. - Mike Tyson.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,860 Admiral
    Where is the country of West Germany? If they can't get their geography correct how can you believe the stats.
Sign In or Register to comment.