• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Australian gun laws have no effect on murder rate

AAjax

AAjax

Diamond Member
Interesting read. Its only logical that criminals dont abide by laws, thus outcomes like this you would figure to be expected.

partial quote

"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.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

"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."

Rest of the article
 
"Its only logical that criminals dont abide by laws, thus outcomes like this you would figure to be expected."

So true, criminals could care less about the laws.

A very good example of this from the article:

"Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be
criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90
per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not
licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement."


Law abiding citizens are the ones that the laws fall squarely and unfairly upon.
 
Disarming the general population is a nice for controlling the masses, but it has little effect on criminals. If they?ll break a law to kill someone, chances are the lesser law against a gun isn?t standing in their way.
 
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.
Click to expand...

Half a billion dollars spent so people like Aidanjm can sleep happy knowing that only criminals can have guns... if that isn't a waste of governments money, I don't know what is... too bad the money could have been spent on the poor.. soup kitchens... endowments for the arts, etc... oh, well at least Aidanjm feels happy. I don't live in australia so I don't care that much.

Yea, guns are evil. I own a few.. I also own an ar15.. whenever, I fire them, it turns me into a homicidal maniac... well, maybe not 🙂 Some people have an irrational fear of guns. I bet Aidanjm does 🙂
 
most people here don't want a gun culture. the gun buy back was popular with most people. there were votes in it - that is why Howard passed the law. so it is a very different situation than the states where people are slightly crazy. it will take a while, but as the decades pass the number of guns in the Australian community will grow smaller and smaller.
 
Yet another reason I will never vote for any candidate that supports stricter gun laws or registration.

It simply doesn't work as a crime reduction measure not to mention the constitutional/political concerns that accompany it.
 
The evidence is fairly clear. Gun restrictions don't affect crime rates. Also, lots of gun freedoms (like carrying a conceiled weapon) also don't affect crime rates. People on BOTH sides of the issue bring up pleasant sounding arguments which aren't based in reality.

Thus, gun laws should only be used (if necessary) for other reasons. Crime isn't one of them. For example, child safety features can be effective.
 
People shoot people because they hate themselves and self hate is the source of human violence. Having or getting rid of guns is irrelevant compared to mental health. If we want to stop crime and murder we will have to begin, someday, the work of dealing with our self hate, creating a culture where we can act out our violence safely and get back to the real, old feelings in childhood where it all started. Until we realize we are sick in the whole of humanity, we will not change at all. Year by year the put downs and hate accumulate and roll down hill on our kids and year by year we becomes more mentally ill. We long for Armageddon so we can let it all out, and we slowly make that a reality by backing blindfold into it.

The ego we love is sick. Who will allow ones beloved to die? Mental health is only for the tremendously tough. Guns and gun bans are for cowards, the right and the left side of nuts.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.
Click to expand...

OMG, do you realize how repugnant your statement is. You are comfortable that "average" people don't have guns. Furthermore, your statement alone concedes that these laws will do nothing to get guns out of the hands of non-average citizens, mainly criminals and nutjobs. Un-fricken-believable.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
btw - yes, I do agree that only criminals, and of course police, should carry guns. 🙂
Click to expand...

Holy crap, are you reading what you write before you post. "I do agree that only criminals.....should carry guns".
 
Originally posted by: AAjax
Interesting read. Its only logical that criminals dont abide by laws, thus outcomes like this you would figure to be expected.

partial quote

"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.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

"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."

Rest of the article
Click to expand...

Blame the trigger not the finger :roll:
 
Originally posted by: dullard
The evidence is fairly clear. Gun restrictions don't affect crime rates. Also, lots of gun freedoms (like carrying a conceiled weapon) also don't affect crime rates. People on BOTH sides of the issue bring up pleasant sounding arguments which aren't based in reality.

Thus, gun laws should only be used (if necessary) for other reasons. Crime isn't one of them. For example, child safety features can be effective.
Click to expand...

Wrong! A few from a quick search... non violent crime increases a bit, but violent crime definately decreases.

The dems have pretty much dropped this as an issue because they can't dispute the facts.

TextStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

TextIn Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses, which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. With this change, crime rates continued to fall alongside the issuance of concealed weapons licenses.

TextThe evidence is clear: concealed carry laws are making our neighborhoods safer. According to data from the FBI, states offering concealed carry permits have lower crime rates than states that do not offer them. On average, these states have a 24% lower total crime rate with 22% lower murder rates, 37% lower robbery rates, and 20% lower aggravated assault rates than states without concealed carry laws. It is no coincidence that the nation?s overall violent crime rate has decreased over the last decade, when 13 states improved and 17 states (including North Carolina) established new concealed carry laws.

What happens to crime rates? University of Chicago professor John Lott studied 18 years worth of data from every county in the United States. He accounted for dozens of sociological variables, such as changes in income or in arrest rates. Lott found that when a state enacts "shall issue" legislation, murder falls by 10%, rape by 3% and aggravated assault by 6%.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
most people here don't want a gun culture. the gun buy back was popular with most people. there were votes in it - that is why Howard passed the law. so it is a very different situation than the states where people are slightly crazy. it will take a while, but as the decades pass the number of guns in the Australian community will grow smaller and smaller.
Click to expand...

I dont want a welfare culture, does that mean I can pass a law to get rid of it?

I fear anybody who thinks taking away my right to own a weapon to defend myself is the right thing to do. They usually have other much darker motivations behind the move.

There is little surprise that past cultures and countries run by authortarians took away the right to bear arms. It makes it much easier to control the masses when they lack the means to fight back.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: aidanjm
most people here don't want a gun culture. the gun buy back was popular with most people. there were votes in it - that is why Howard passed the law. so it is a very different situation than the states where people are slightly crazy. it will take a while, but as the decades pass the number of guns in the Australian community will grow smaller and smaller.
Click to expand...

I dont want a welfare culture, does that mean I can pass a law to get rid of it?

I fear anybody who thinks taking away my right to own a weapon to defend myself is the right thing to do.

They usually have other much darker motivations behind the move.

There is little surprise that past cultures and countries run by authortarians took away the right to bear arms.

It makes it much easier to control the masses when they lack the means to fight back.
Click to expand...

OMFGBBQ we agree on something :shocked:

Answer me this though, why do you so blindly support the Republican Regime when they clearly have stripped the masses of means to fight back??? 😕
 
I think some people need to take english again and learn how to read to distinguish fact from opinion. Here are the facts, the rate of murder has declined in Australia, but it is the "opinion" of the writer that the tight gun laws had no effect. His opinion is flawed because he attributes that the rate of decline, whatever it is because he doesn't say, did not change. But the tight gun laws could have been the reason that the rate of decline continued. Its foolish to argue in favor of guns, because gun deaths have decreased in the last 10 years there. As a matter of fact it would prove the point that tighter gun laws did not increase danger for the law abiding citizen either. Which completely contradicts the belief here held by many that taking away guns would lead to more danger for the law abiding citizen, according to this small blurb that didn't happen.
Just some food for thought.................
 
Originally posted by: ajf3
Wrong! A few from a quick search... non violent crime increases a bit, but violent crime definately decreases.
Click to expand...
You fail, correlation does not equal causation. Just like the Australian study, the drop in murders was correlated with stricter gun controls. So should we assume that making gun controls more strict will cause lower murder rates? NO. The murder rate was dropping before and after the law was passed. Thus, the law had no impact, even though they are correlated.

Same thing for all of your links. Please try again, later.

I could easilly take the lowest crime states, make guns illegal there, and come back with a study that the areas where guns were illegal had the lowest crime rates. That doesn't mean the gun laws caused the low rate. In fact, it this hypothetical case, the true impact is the opposite!
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
..............I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.
Click to expand...

It's never bothered me a bit. (shrugs).

I'd be more bothered by all the d@mn poisonous stuff you guys have down there. After watching the Discovery Channel for several years, my wife refuses to even consider a visit to Australia.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: nCred
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210558.stm
Seems to be working in Brazil.
Click to expand...

Brazil actually just overwhelmingly shot down a total gun prohibition law. Nice try. Not to mention most of their crime involves drug lords and overzealous police death squads. Hell, they can go to Paraguay and get fvking bazookas if they want.

I think it's abundantly clear that banning guns doesn't really do much positive for crime in general or crime that involves firearms. It just disarms the populace. True in Ireland and UK as well.
 
I've never witnessed first hand a gun crime in the 10 high population cities where I've lived, and there are more guns in this state than people. So I guess logically one would deduce it isn't the guns which are the cause of "gun crimes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top