Which is what affected firearms owners said at the time....
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyb...1455665717.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyb...1455665717.html
Study concludes gun buy back in Oz had no effect..
- Thread starter tdi-rick
- Start date
- Status
Rick, that's what we said at the time.
Howard has pushed the line that "firearm homicides" have declined since his new laws. But that stat (as per article) includes a reduction in firearms suicide (although the overall suicide rate is up).
Looking at how firearms are entering the criminal world shows some interesting trends. A container load of Glocks went missing between Melbourne and Sydney some years ago when the NSW Police were being re-armed. Pistols go missing from armories, and lately, it's taking the pistols off security guards and money couriers.
(BTW, you should see the latest caper that they've come up with to stop people joining the sport. If you come to our club, and wish to join, you must:
* Complete a 4 hour safety course, which includes the handling (not firing) of firearms;
* In order to handle them, you must have a commissioners' exemption allowing you to handle (but not fire);
* Turn up at the club on a day that we are doing the training, and shell out a hundred bucks, and do the training;
* Send the proof of training in to the registry with your licence application, and another application for temporary exemption from holding a licence (to cover shooting activities before your proper licence is issued);
* Pay $200 for a 5 year licence;
*then you can go through the permit to aquire, getting a rifle etc.)
In spite of that, our little club has gone from 18 members to over 50 in 5 years.
Howard has pushed the line that "firearm homicides" have declined since his new laws. But that stat (as per article) includes a reduction in firearms suicide (although the overall suicide rate is up).
Looking at how firearms are entering the criminal world shows some interesting trends. A container load of Glocks went missing between Melbourne and Sydney some years ago when the NSW Police were being re-armed. Pistols go missing from armories, and lately, it's taking the pistols off security guards and money couriers.
(BTW, you should see the latest caper that they've come up with to stop people joining the sport. If you come to our club, and wish to join, you must:
* Complete a 4 hour safety course, which includes the handling (not firing) of firearms;
* In order to handle them, you must have a commissioners' exemption allowing you to handle (but not fire);
* Turn up at the club on a day that we are doing the training, and shell out a hundred bucks, and do the training;
* Send the proof of training in to the registry with your licence application, and another application for temporary exemption from holding a licence (to cover shooting activities before your proper licence is issued);
* Pay $200 for a 5 year licence;
*then you can go through the permit to aquire, getting a rifle etc.)
In spite of that, our little club has gone from 18 members to over 50 in 5 years.
You guys have Prairie Dawgs to plink over there, Shannow? Big sport in the Mid-West here. Eliminates a heck of a nuisance, too.
Gun control will usually INCREASE crime because all it does is disarm law abiding people that wouldn't be committing crimes anyway. This leaves them helpless to the criminals that --big surprise here-- don't follow the law and turn in their weapons. As I recall, there was a sharp spike in crime when the Australian Gov. started to remove it's citizens right to self defense.
In the states, this is self evident in the utopias
that are Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, etc...etc. These areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books (in the US), yet still have the highest crime rates.
About 10 years ago, there was a small town in the mid west that made gun ownership mandatory. Crime dropped by ~%80 over night.
Gun buy back programs have been equally ineffective here in the US.
In the states, this is self evident in the utopias
About 10 years ago, there was a small town in the mid west that made gun ownership mandatory. Crime dropped by ~%80 over night.
Gun buy back programs have been equally ineffective here in the US.
JHZR2
Staff member
The biggest problem is that you always have idiots, and you always have criminals. Gun lawws and buybacks may protect the idiots from themselves and others, which may help a bit, but it certainly doesnt help crime or anything else.. because unless you actively ban all guns, track every one down, take every one from every gun store, etc., youll never be able to make an appreciable dent - and even if you did all that, the criminals woul still get their hands on guns.
JMH
JMH
"In the states, this is self evident in the utopias that are Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, etc...etc. These areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books (in the US), yet still have the highest crime rates."
In Boston a number of years back black community leaders finally got tired of the violence when a drive by shooting happened at a funeral. They ended up worked with local, state and federal authorties, as well as a sociologist from Harvard as I recall. They figured out that a fairly small number of people were responsible for most of the crimes, and that a lot of other kids were also buying guns for protection. With the help of the feds they strengthened parole laws, advertised that owning even one round would result in time in a federal prison, and went about targeting the gang members. They traced the flow of illegal guns to the south, and not worked to shut down the illegal weapons but also make the streets safer so that people didn't feel compelled to arm themselves. They ended up making the place a lot safer, but I think it's reverted a bit.
I saved a newspaper clipping of a gun dealer that they busted a number of years back in Oregon, and one guy ended up illegally selling guns that ended up being traced to crimes in a number of states, including robberies and drive by shootings. The gun shows around here were so bad a few years back that gang bangers openly shopped for guns, as they knew that someone would sell to them; 'need help man fighting the Zog one world government, fighting the Man, shoot the feds in the head' and all.
At one time one could order a Thompson submachinegun mail order, no questions asked. They were very popular with gang members in the 30s, and after an assination attempt the National Firearms Act was implemented. Laws get passed when people do stupid things; when grenades are outlawed only outlaws will have grenades. Think what the US would be like if anyone could buy any automatic or crew served weapon, no questions asked, and if boxes of cheap imported ammo and explosives were stacked for sale at your local 7-11.
In Boston a number of years back black community leaders finally got tired of the violence when a drive by shooting happened at a funeral. They ended up worked with local, state and federal authorties, as well as a sociologist from Harvard as I recall. They figured out that a fairly small number of people were responsible for most of the crimes, and that a lot of other kids were also buying guns for protection. With the help of the feds they strengthened parole laws, advertised that owning even one round would result in time in a federal prison, and went about targeting the gang members. They traced the flow of illegal guns to the south, and not worked to shut down the illegal weapons but also make the streets safer so that people didn't feel compelled to arm themselves. They ended up making the place a lot safer, but I think it's reverted a bit.
I saved a newspaper clipping of a gun dealer that they busted a number of years back in Oregon, and one guy ended up illegally selling guns that ended up being traced to crimes in a number of states, including robberies and drive by shootings. The gun shows around here were so bad a few years back that gang bangers openly shopped for guns, as they knew that someone would sell to them; 'need help man fighting the Zog one world government, fighting the Man, shoot the feds in the head' and all.
At one time one could order a Thompson submachinegun mail order, no questions asked. They were very popular with gang members in the 30s, and after an assination attempt the National Firearms Act was implemented. Laws get passed when people do stupid things; when grenades are outlawed only outlaws will have grenades. Think what the US would be like if anyone could buy any automatic or crew served weapon, no questions asked, and if boxes of cheap imported ammo and explosives were stacked for sale at your local 7-11.
Another obvious situation is whether anyone should be allowed to take any weapon aboard an aircraft; if not then you advocate 'gun control', at least some form of it. The question is then one of trying to determine what type of gun control, not whether there should be any. It's easier to try to rationally discuss what is reasonable based upon what works and what people's needs are, in the context of what is allowed by law, if we dispense with the typical for / not for gun control slogans, as pretty much everyone is 'for gun control'.
Aircraft are an extreme case where a single round fired (even an accidental discharge) within the vehicle, hitting the right location, can place the lives of hundreds of people at risk. To me, the banning of guns aboard an aircraft is more a function of the environment that vehicle operates in, as opposed to a self defense question.
This (to me) should not take away a persons right to self defense away on an aircraft. Remember, the hand full of terrorists on 911 used simple box cutters to take over air planes that contained 100 people or more. If just %10 of the passengers had effective bladed or blunt weapons, the results could have been different. Instead, the hijackers KNEW that the people on the planes were defenseless, and conditioned to do nothing by our culture. Overall an easy mark, and I was more surprised by the shock of the American populace than the event itself.
So why don't they go after the car manufactures for aiding and abetting the criminals...I'm serious. They try to sue gun manufacturers for their "part" in the crime...why not the car guys.
A little over a year ago here in Vegas a crazy person went off his meds and intentionally drove his car into a group of people on the Strip. 6 people were killed and many other wounded. There were no expose's on the news about the type of car that was used, no push for more legislation...it was simply written off as a tragic occurrence.
Then, a few months later, a cop was shot and killed by a local rapper with an "AK-47" type rifle. There WERE expose's for weeks on the dangers of these types of guns, magazine capacity, rate of fire,...blah blah blah, all by "reporters" that had no clue. Most of what they said was wrong or irrelevant. Never mind the fact that he had a criminal record and legally should not have had the gun in the first place.
That's the key isn't it. Enforce the laws already on books, and keep the bad guys in jail. Start taking away some of the "rights" GIVEN to the bad guys by the courts, and start returning the ENUMERATED rights in the Constitution to the people that have had them taken away.
Unarmed people WILL become subjects to those more powerful than them (criminals, warlords, kings, fuhrers, governments...). This is historical fact and natural law (hunter vs. prey). The issue is that simple.
Yes. Often during the emotional turmoil directly after a well publicized and hyped event, without thought what the long term consequences will be. I believe this is what happened in Australia.
For those that don't know, the American Colonists largely had superior weapons to the British military. Rifled bores, improved sights, etc... It is one of the reasons we have the country that we have.
The Founding Fathers understood these ideas and concepts which is why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution no less than 11 years after the War for Independence was concluded. I know you don't like slogans, but the 2nd Amendment gives teeth to the first.
Air plane defense is easy. Just arm a few people with Taser pistols. You no longer have problems with a round penetrating the fuselage.
Shannow, have you heard the latest that the firearms registry have sprung on ranges here in NSW ?
"A range officer must be present behind every firing point on the range"
This happened at an inspection on the SSAA Indoor range at St Mary's recently.
How unworkable is this !
"A range officer must be present behind every firing point on the range"
This happened at an inspection on the SSAA Indoor range at St Mary's recently.
How unworkable is this !
Dunno about that...if using a cell phone in flight is dangerous to aircraft electical systems (still haven't figured that one out), just imagine what a Taser would do.
Cell phone use has everything to do with frequency, not with voltage or current in general. Tasers would be perfectly safe to use onboard an aircraft, IF the hijacker didn't get ahold of the weapon and use it on the pilots. As a former Delta flight attendant, there were times I wished for a weapon of some sort aboard my plane. I've had more than my share of crazies that might have re-thought their actions if they had a 38 pointed at them (one of which had full intentions of opening the door at 26,000 feet).
Firing a gun onboard could be disastrous and should only be done out of complete necessity, but having it in your hand in times of trouble could also mean the difference between life and death. Looking from the view of an airline employee, I'm still all for a stretegically placed handgun in the cockpit, reinforced doors be ****ed.
Firing a gun onboard could be disastrous and should only be done out of complete necessity, but having it in your hand in times of trouble could also mean the difference between life and death. Looking from the view of an airline employee, I'm still all for a stretegically placed handgun in the cockpit, reinforced doors be ****ed.
Our lawmakers are attempting to take the weapons out of the wrong peoples' hands. If they really wanted the criminals to take a hit in the arms department, they'd start nailing the individuals / establishments that sell them to people who are banned from having them. If it were stopped at the source (agreeably, the DIFFICULT way to do it) then I may not feel it necessary to sleep with a 38 within easy reach of the bed....and I live in a GOOD neighborhood.
Agree with you on both counts!
I'm with you on this one. Pilots should be able to carry pistols on board, but I would like to see Air Marshall type training included with that.
Again, I agree. Dangerous people should not be allowed to purchase firearms. The problem is that most guns used in crimes are stolen anyway. If the supply of civilian weapons dries up for criminals to use, they will just move onto police and military shipments/locations. The criminal mind will always adapt to changing laws.
"For those that don't know, the American Colonists largely had superior weapons to the British military. Rifled bores, improved sights, etc... It is one of the reasons we have the country that we have."
This reveals basic ignorance of history. To say that Colonial and militia forces were better equipped than the British Army is ridiculous.
---Although the typical American-made long arms favored the familiar British Brown Bess Land Pattern during the early war years, they shifted toward French designs and components as foreign aid expanded and France’s serviceable muskets re-equipped most of the Continental Line. The transition came slowly, however, for the maintenance and repair of arms returned from active field use added to the gunsmiths’ burdens.
As late as 1778, General von Steuben wrote of Washington’s line regiments following his arrival at Valley Forge in February, “The arms were in horrible condition, covered with rust, half of them without bayonets, many from which a single shot could not be fired … muskets, carbines, fowling pieces and rifles were seen in the same company.”
--George C. Neuman in "American Rifleman"
It is a common myth that the Ameicans made a practice of picking off the Redcoats at long range, thus befuddling British tactics. The fact is that most Colonial troops used smoothbore muskets, as did the British. The long rifles used by some units were indeed effective, as long as they could be reloaded before the British advanced behind volleys of musket fire and the dreaded bayonet charge ensued.
The Revolution was not won by superior American firearms. The most famous American generals all lost more battles than they won. We (and I say use "we", since though I wasn't there, my direct ancestors were) made the Brits pay dearly for every battle they won, until they decided they had enough. If our weapons had been so superior, Washington would not have been burned during the War of 1812.
And...I don't think trying to correlate gun ownership with low crime rates is such a good idea. Many countries with strict gun control have very much lower crime rates than the US, and many countries where practically everyone has a weapon have very high rates of crime and violence.
Not that I care for strict regulations, just hate to see faulty arguments.
This reveals basic ignorance of history. To say that Colonial and militia forces were better equipped than the British Army is ridiculous.
---Although the typical American-made long arms favored the familiar British Brown Bess Land Pattern during the early war years, they shifted toward French designs and components as foreign aid expanded and France’s serviceable muskets re-equipped most of the Continental Line. The transition came slowly, however, for the maintenance and repair of arms returned from active field use added to the gunsmiths’ burdens.
As late as 1778, General von Steuben wrote of Washington’s line regiments following his arrival at Valley Forge in February, “The arms were in horrible condition, covered with rust, half of them without bayonets, many from which a single shot could not be fired … muskets, carbines, fowling pieces and rifles were seen in the same company.”
--George C. Neuman in "American Rifleman"
It is a common myth that the Ameicans made a practice of picking off the Redcoats at long range, thus befuddling British tactics. The fact is that most Colonial troops used smoothbore muskets, as did the British. The long rifles used by some units were indeed effective, as long as they could be reloaded before the British advanced behind volleys of musket fire and the dreaded bayonet charge ensued.
The Revolution was not won by superior American firearms. The most famous American generals all lost more battles than they won. We (and I say use "we", since though I wasn't there, my direct ancestors were) made the Brits pay dearly for every battle they won, until they decided they had enough. If our weapons had been so superior, Washington would not have been burned during the War of 1812.
And...I don't think trying to correlate gun ownership with low crime rates is such a good idea. Many countries with strict gun control have very much lower crime rates than the US, and many countries where practically everyone has a weapon have very high rates of crime and violence.
Not that I care for strict regulations, just hate to see faulty arguments.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
