It"s on!!

[johnc]

Here is a quote from some research done in 2010 by Melbourne Uni's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I highlighted the relevant section for you.



The truth is out there if you wish to look.

OK then, if it wasn't the NFA that produced a substantial reduction in deaths then what was it? I'm not being obstinate but I can't see other major factors that account for the decline nor can I find anything that has anything concrete that provides alternatives that can discount the existence of the NFA. I'm with Sturdee there is something about the way we view firearms in this country and something about our cultural attitudes that is working. I would hate to see us water down anything to do with the current regulations and it wouldn't bother me if they were tightened.

[A Duke]

Has anybody asked a successful suicide why he done what he done with what he done it?


"Lies Damn lies and statistics"
Statistics prove what the person paying the researchers want them to show or they don't see the light of day.

I don't know if I am getting older and wiser or just more cynical.
Regards

[Vernonv]

OK then, if it wasn't the NFA that produced a substantial reduction in deaths then what was it?

There wasn't a "substantial reduction in deaths" and as already mentioned there also wasn't any huge shift in the total number of suicides.

John, I know you truly believe that the buy back had some huge impact on deaths and general public safety, but the bulk of the research doesn't support that notion.

[johnc]

There wasn't a "substantial reduction in deaths" and as already mentioned there also wasn't any huge shift in the total number of suicides.

John, I know you truly believe that the buy back had some huge impact on deaths and general public safety, but the bulk of the research doesn't support that notion.

We'll agree to disagree I guess, one thing we can agree on though is that in Australia something positive has happened in terms of both firearm deaths and the murder rates in general and that is a very good thing for our society hopefully the trend will continue for some time to come.

[Vernonv]

We'll agree to disagree I guess,

Yes I guess we will.

... one thing we can agree on though is that in Australia something positive has happened in terms of both firearm deaths and the murder rates in general and that is a very good thing for our society hopefully the trend will continue for some time to come.

Yes it is a good thing.

[corbs]

The bulk of firearm deaths have always been due to suicides ...

Discussing suicide deaths is irrelevant in this conversation. Someone who wants to kill themselves is going to do it regardless of what's available. Criminals generally shoot criminals so they are also irrelevant.

Mass shootings are what's important here because we're talking about innocent deaths in large numbers. I go back to my question which was answered before. There have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996. This can only be attributed to one thing and that's the gun restrictions.

I feel I should also add that I grew up around guns on the farm and have spent the last 19 years in the Navy. I don't have an issue with them but I do have an issue with people introducing irrelevant information to a discussion. Vernon, please don't see this as a go at yourself because it isn't. I'm referring to the American pro gun debate which is pushing that all of their guns are at risk which clearly isn't the case. The only weapons which are being discussed are their so called assault weapons. Personally I would simplify the discussion and make it automatic and semi automatic weapons and remove the term assault from the discussion altogether.

[Vernonv]

Discussing suicide deaths is irrelevant in this conversation.

The conversation turned/deviated a few pages back to the effectiveness of Australian gun laws and you can't get the true picture of how effective they are/aren't without taking into account suicides.

If "this conversation" has specific limits then maybe everyone needs to know what they are.

EDIT: I hasten to add that I did not raise the Australian gun laws in this thread. I did however attempt to correct statements I believe to be incorrect/inaccurate.

[FenceFurniture]

It is well demonstrated that the best way to stop gun crime is to forcibly arm everyone.

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

[A Duke]

"Criminals generally shoot criminals so they are also irrelevant."
This is the attitude I can not get my head around to me it is as nutty as saying we all should be running around with automatic assault rifles at the ready.
They (the crims.) need to be disarmed as other people get caught in the cross fire, and they shoot up the wrong house etc.
Anyway I will leave it at that, I can not under stand it And it has been put forward by a few posters in a couple of threads.
May be some one has been doing some brain washing.
Regards

[johnc]

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

You are quite right, there is no evidence to support the view that arming everyone will stop violence, there is a lot of information that points to the opposite. The prevalence of guns in the community has a strong correlation to gun deaths. The most obvious is the reference back to Switzerland where men of military age usually have a firearm at home. What is often overlooked is that before 2007 they only had 50 rounds of ammunition and that was checked and had to be accounted for. Since 2007 they are no longer able to have ammunition and there have been unsuccessful efforts to remove the firearm as well. Also not reported is that while the murder rate is very low the suicide and family deaths from these guns lifts that rate to above some other countries.

All the same let's see this "evidence" and if it's produced let's hope it is from a reliable and independant source and not picked from the jaundiced rantings or spin of some NRA style ratbag.

[A Duke]

This should give both sides some thing to mull on

"Accidental gunfire at three gun shows around the United States on Saturday left five injured, authorities said.

Three people were injured in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the state fairgrounds, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long said a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

Long said the shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged.

In Indiana, police said a 54-year-old Indianapolis man was injured when he accidentally shot himself while leaving a gun show.

State Police said Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds. Loaded personal weapons are not allowed inside the show.

Cozee was hospitalized for treatment. Police say the shooting was accidental and no charges will be filed.

Meanwhile, authorities in Ohio said a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

Police Chief Pat Berarducci said it appears the bullet struck the floor and the man was wounded in the arm and leg. Berarducci said the man was taken by helicopter to a Cleveland hospital. His condition was not immediately known."

No comment.

[jimbur]

Should be the safest place there is Hugh according to the NRA.

[damian]

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.

I typed out along post the other day then lost it on this stupid stupid laptop. I still don't have my desktop back so I'm keeping this short-ish Please be patient with the spelling mistakes, this machine is painful to use.

There are some great thoughtful posts above and some pretty silly ones.

Pops: I had friends in the 80's that shot pistols and those regulations you mention sound familiar. I am prepared to believe the regs are stricter now but owning a pistol was always difficult.

I never advocated free gun access nor necessarily loosening the rules we have. My point all along is that we should take a rational approach and test the results.

Statements like "joe blogs doesn't need an assault rifle" are total BS. It's really easy to damage someone you don't know. As I've said before we used to be a community based society, now we are an anonymous society and with that seems to have come an enthusiasm to mount the indignant soap box and persecute strangers because you perceptive them as a threat/sinner/whatever.

Joe Bloggs doesn't need his assault rifle ? Well you don't need your car. Cars kill far more people than guns throughout the western world. They create pollution and cost a bomb in infrastructure. I say we should ban them.

How many of you are finding excuses to save your precious private transport ? Oh I'm sure you have the arguments ready...but the bottom line is banning the gun doesn't hurt you, but banning the car does. This is the essence. I am not for a moment suggesting we shouldn't ban the gun, my point is we should be mindful and respectful of the damage it does to other australian citizens who have committed no crime.

I think it is absurd to seek new laws because the ones we have aren't enforced. Legislation is cheap, enforcement isn't. Legislation lets the politician look like they are doing something and appeases the transient indignation of the vocal groups, but proper policing of the laws costs money and earns no votes. This is the essence of the "law abiding gun owner" argument.

One of the great absurdities of Howards gun laws was banning semi auto .22's but allowing semi auto pistols. I know people who literally sawed off the butts of their .22's and registered them as pistols, then added clip on butts. Absurd.

All government action hurts someone. It is done for the greater good, but it should be done with that harm in mind and good rational thought put into the plan and it's impact tested rationally and honestly after the fact.

Alcohol prohibition in the US was enacted by do gooders with the same simple arguments this debate attracts. People went broke, people died. Much evil was done. It is possible that if the implementation was more reasonable and less fanatical/idealogical it might have been a good thing. Instead extremists hijacked the process and ruined the result. There are extremists on both sides of this, and much obfuscation. My point was is and always will be that we should approach this honestly and rationally.

We don't live in a perfect world but that doesn't mean we can't strive for one.

[Grumpy John]

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.

Which places were these Damian, and is it still mandatory to carry a gun in public?

[Big Shed]

I am aware of one place, Kennesaw-Georgia, where it is mandatory for every head of a household to own and maintain a gun and ammo therefore, but I am not aware of a place where it is compulsory to carry a gun.

I would be intersted to find out more Damian.