Gun Control, Mental healthcare, big brother... thread

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

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 is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

What happened in Australia? Gun violence was bad. A decade of gun massacres had seen more than 100 people shot dead. The last straw was an incident at a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, when a lone gunman killed 20 people with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, achieved his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing a military-style semiautomatic rifle.

What happened next? Only 12 days after the shootings, in John Howard's first major act of leadership and by far the most popular in his first year as Prime Minister, his government announced nationwide gun law reform.

What exactly happened to murder and mass killing?

In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.

In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. As Howard wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times in 2013, "Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate."

 

You should look at the stats since 1996 when the changes went into effect.

 

The way I look at gun laws is I would be much safer if I was the only one to own guns while no one else did.

Me w/guns > You w/o guns.

 

Lets look at it another way...

Pretend that in 1996 blow jobs were illegal. You could get one but they cost $1000.

The government legalizes blow jobs and the price immediately drops to $100.

Then from 2010 to 2013 the price of blow jobs goes up to $102.

Mags is outraged! Government legalized blow jobs have only gone up in the last 3 years! A 2% increase is not acceptable! "I was told the price of blow jobs would go down but look, they're going up!"

Mags starts a campaign to end legalized blow jobs.

 

Well, if I were king, here's what I'd do. I'd make it MUCH harder to buy a gun. Not impossible. But more like getting a top-level security clearance. You've got to have references to vouch for you, you get investigated a bit. You may get interviewed in person. You go into a database and you are tracked from then on.

If everything checks out and people think you're stable, you get to buy guns. If not, you don't - and you still go into the database and get tracked.

barfo

 

If it looks like a gun, I doubt it.

If 7 guys attack me, a gun limited to 6 bullets isn't enough of a defense. 7 bullets isn't enough if I miss.

 

Denny needs 30 rounds, he would ask each assailant if they are democrat or republican. If they were republicans he would only shoot them once. If the were democrats he would shoot them each 4 times.

 

If 7 guys attack you and you have time to shoot all 7 of them, then you probably didn't need 7 bullets. They are probably baby seals, and you can just club them to death.

barfo

 

Infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

 

It is why you can't reasonably limit MY right to self defense.

"Reasonable" is only valid rhetoric if you accept the right may be infringed. There is no middle ground.

Go amend the constitution. Clearly if it is so reasonable, there won't be many people resisting the effort.

 

No one said there'd be math here.

 

Just count each finger 3x.

 

Someone really ought to do a snopes check on SPD's facts. It seems the articles he cites are misleading.

Mass killings in Australa were rare all along. They've had mass shootings since 1996, and even in the past 2-3 years.

Crazy murderer types there have taken to arson to kill by the dozens. And hammers, axes, and stabbings.

50% less risk of being killed with a gun? 40% of homicides used to be shooting, now 20%+ are. Not zero%.

 

Why not cut off everybody's trigger fingers?

Seems more your style.