Australian gun control

Raya · 03-22-2005, 01:16 PM

Here is an interesting item I got in my email today. If it's true, it provides amazing results. It seems, at least in Australia, that gun control is not the answer. What do you think?

Quote:

This is what happens when a people have NO Constitution, or firearms, to protect themselves with.

Per Ed Chenel, a police officer in Victoria, Australia ...

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has dramatically decreased, after such monumental effort and expense were expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

It’s been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by the government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are in:

Nationwide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Nationwide, assaults with firearms are up 8.6 percent
Nationwide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In Victoria alone, homicides are now up 300 percent.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months. There has also been a dramatic increase in residential break-ins and assaults of the elderly in the past 12 months.

Genda · 03-22-2005, 01:42 PM

I'm of the opinion that most of the people that commit crimes look upon illegal possession of a gun as just one more thing they need to do to get the job done. Honest citizens that could benefit from the legal ownership and possession of a gun for their own defense are thus put at an even larger disadvantage to criminals when they know they can be bolder in their crimes. After all, if law-abiding citizens give up all their guns, what is the likelyhood that a policeman will be in the person or house they rob/burgle? Almost none.

Taking guns away from people doesn't solve anything. Enforcing laws that are currenly on the books is the key. Use a gun, double your sentence. Injure/kill someone? No chance for early parole. Punishment for using guns needs to be swift and sure. Taking guns out of circulation? Pandora's box is already open. People are just trying to "put the toothpaste back in the tube."

Feyshtey · 03-22-2005, 02:59 PM

I tend to agree with Genda.

A criminal isn't going to willfully relinquish a weapon. They're criminals. You've not reduced the number of criminals with weapons. You've only reduced the level of defense an average, law-abiding citizen has to defend himself from a criminal with a weapon. The deterent for crime is greatly reduced.

What would be interesting is if Australia decided to repeal the law. Would they have roughly 640,000 previous gun owners wanting their destroyed weapons back?

Yikidee · 08-17-2005, 04:21 AM

Hmmm, i would be interested to see when you recieved this email. It has been 9 years since the Port Arthur massacre and it was then that we had to give our guns away.

Port Arthur Massicre

Also, yes it is true that most common criminals will carry a gun either way, but you are not going to stop these people anyway. If you allow the general public to carry guns as well, these guys that will carry even with these laws will just kill before anyone gets the chance to defend.

Its the guys that most likely would not kill if they did not have a gun and the murders that happen inthe heat of a moment and a gun is present that are lessened. Also so we don't have another massicre. You are also stopping people HAVING to shot anyone else to defend themselves. There is no false sense of security of having a gun.

Do we have shootings? Yes we do, but when there is a shooting with a fatality it makes National news. I do beleive we havea higher rate of assult than other countries thou. But i would rather be bashed than shot. Hell, i would rather be stabbed than shot!

Criminals do get guns, but by having these laws in place it makes them MUCH harder to get them. It is not easy to a licence here, let alone guns, so it is just going to get harder to get for the criminals to get them.

We do have some very big advantages over other countries thou.

Firtsly, we are a young (relativly) country and have a small population (20.3 mill). Most of out population is on the coasts. This makes policing and enforcing such laws MUCH easier.

We are on a big arse island. We can and do keep a close eye on our shores, so smuggling anything in is VERY hard. Yes it happens, some items get thru, but with teh amount the shores are patrolled and the remotness of allot of our shores i would say most gets picked up.

Back to the article thou.

The other thing you have to consider. Criminals, as most people know, are going to take advantage of anything they can. So, if you take away the guns from a majority of the population, chances are for the next year you will see an increase in armed robberies and shootings. They are teh ones with the upper hand at this point and time. However, this has changed a fair bit since 8 years ago.

I guess we had to take a period of more crimes commited with guns for a short period of time so we could have less chances of such a thing happening again. Considering our National Homicides are so low, a 3% increase is going to be less than the massicre by a LONG shot.

Just something that i quickly saw when i did a quick search. Am at work so could not get anymore info, but anyway..

Quote:

The report notes that there has been a 20% increase in homicide victimisation in 2001-2002, and a 25% decrease in the number of homicides involving a firearm - the lowest number and proportion since NHMP data collection began in 1989.

Source

Love these types of disscussions

Sorry i have ressed a bit of an old thread thou!

Valdemeric · 08-19-2005, 04:52 PM

I think the solution isn't in taking away all guns of citizens, because the criminals will end up getting guns anyway, and its just one more advantage they have. I think A better solution might be in checking who gets guns. Criminal record? no gun for you.

Yikidee · 08-19-2005, 09:40 PM

Yep, thats what we do now. The taking of guns was to make the controlling of who gets them much easier.

To get a gun license here you need to have no criminal record for starters, over a certain age (obvioulsy) and go thru a fairly intensive training course. It takes a bit, which is good.

At the end of the day a crim is going to use a gun to scare if they know that the person does not have a gun. They will use it if they get shot at. I have never heard of a robbery here in Aus where the crim comes in guns blazing, or for that matter shoots without being confronted with someone else with a gun.

So yes, althou they have the "adevantage", less people are killed as people will just hand over whatever it is the crim wants. Also, becuase guns are soooo hard to get ahold of here, the amount of crims that actaully have guns is very very small. The amount of armed holdups, robberies, muggings with guns is nearly non existent. When they do happen, they are nearly always on national news its that much of a big deal here.

The only thing that is worse is the amount of assults. We have more bar fights, general assults, etc than in the USA. But as i said before, i would rather be punched or even stabbed than shot.

Althou we have more bar fights, we have many less deaths resulting from fights.

Quote:

"It's not as if a 19-year-old in the United States is more evil than a 19-year-old in Australia—there's no evidence for that," Hemenway explains. "But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol. That's very hard to do in Australia. So when there's a bar fight in Australia, somebody gets punched out or hit with a beer bottle. Here, they get shot."

I also found this interesting bit from the same source.

Quote:

The ways in which people die by guns would not make a good television cop show. Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m. Few urban pedestrians thwart a mugger by brandishing a pistol. "We have done four surveys on self-defense gun use," Hemenway says. "And one thing we know for sure is that there's a lot more criminal gun use than self-defense gun use. And even when people say they pulled their gun in 'self-defense,' it usually turns out that there was just an escalating argument—at some point, people feel afraid and draw guns."

Going by this the argument that having guns is for self defense when it comes to the crunch seems void. Is it possibly more for the feeling of being safe? Also, because the crim will be thinking that the person they are mugging will most likely have a gun could this be the reason that they see more "criminal gun use" than "defensive gun use"? I can only go by what i am reading here and what i know in Aus and compare. If anyone can shed some more pratcial light that would be great. Surveys are great and all, but not always what reality is. Until then thou, i can only go by this.

Source

panjandrum · 08-21-2005, 09:16 AM

I've been working in and around law enforcement in Toronto, Canada for about 15 years now. I have never heard of a succesful defense by a home owner with a gun. Almost impossible if our safe handling rules are followed anyways.

Generally in Canada most civilian gun owners will only have long rifles and shotguns. Another permit and gun club membership or collector status is required to own most any other firearm.

From the stats I have seen about 50% of the guns in criminal possession are stolen from legal gun owners and gun stores. The other 50% mostly smuggle up from the US.

Toronto has recently had a lot of shootings, for us anyways. This seems to be due to a large influx of smuggled weapons from the US, most of the ones recovered are listed as stolen from upstate New York.

Firearms are dangerous, the less of them around in civilian use the better. Most people are not capable of handling them safely or of using them in an effective self defense manner, it's that simple.

Monsoon Rhayne · 08-23-2005, 11:02 AM

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them.

Yikidee · 08-24-2005, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monsoon Rhayne

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them.

Althou i am against completly outlawing them, I am yet to see what the bad in this is would actually be.

They have them now and would be more inclined to use them ON people instead of just a threat. If the crims know that there is a + 50% chance that the person they are going to mug has a gun do ou think they will just stroll up and threaten or just shot and then mug?

Hmmmm, i think there is no right answer for this one as the solutions that i come up with are only really effective for Australia becuase of the points i made in a post above. I think its easy for me to say all this when here it is ALLOT easier police and govern.

Hehe, you guys have over 10 times our population with other countries on your borders!

Either way, in context of the OP, this was a pretty old statistic. Our gun problems are very very very few. Most gun injuries we get now are accidental hunting ones or suicides (mainly country where gun laws are not as strict, sounds much like canada actually). If there is an armed holdup, it gets national news, and if someone is shot while in an armed holdup, all states go on high alert.

panjandrum · 08-24-2005, 06:25 AM

If the criminals think their victims might have guns I think they are just that much more likely to shoot first, safer for them that way.

I'd be fine with only outlaws having guns, nothing worse than attending accidental shootings and I'm willing there are more of those than there are cases of people using a gun in self defense and it working out ok.

Monsoon Rhayne · 08-24-2005, 10:32 AM

Well I'm ex-law enforcement so I know how to handle a weapon (gun safety) I just feel alot safer knowing I can handle the situation better with a handgun around.
I do see everyones point about most people not treating them right or not knowing enough gun safety, if your going to own a gun..a course should be required.

Zobbie · 08-24-2005, 11:59 AM

I would feel better if guns were much more difficult to obtain in the US.
My perception is that most of the gun violence is spontaneous(maybe i am wrong on this), so having a gun handy is not going to make the situation any better.

I also feel that in this whole issue a key element is not being discussed (not in this thread, just in general). What is the root cause for the violence? Is it something that can be addressed? Are our youth equipped with the skill to handle difficult situations(ie anger/hatred/rage) in a healthy manner?

anyhoo i will stop blabbering now

panjandrum · 08-25-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monsoon Rhayne

Well I'm ex-law enforcement so I know how to handle a weapon (gun safety) I just feel alot safer knowing I can handle the situation better with a handgun around.
I do see everyones point about most people not treating them right or not knowing enough gun safety, if your going to own a gun..a course should be required.

Since a few years ago, Canadian law requires a safe handling course to get a license. That license applies to long rifles and shotguns only. Hunting licenses require a separate course. Handguns require yet another course and membership in a registered gun club/range.

As far as law enforcement backgrounds, yes we can handle a gun better than most, but I know my family can't and therefore will not have one in the house usually. Even with gun safes and trigger locks, required under Canadian law, it just seems safer to not have one around.

Besides, to comply with safe storage here the weapon has to be double locked, safe and trigger lock, and ammunition has to be stored separately. Under these conditions how exactly am I supposed to use a weapon to defend from a break-in?

Saxie · 11-09-2005, 02:43 PM

Gun crimes exist because:

a) There is not enough regulation on firearm possesion, enabling these firearms to fall within the wrong hands including criminals (through theft), and children (through curiousity).

b) There is not enough regulation on firearm education and training enabling an increase in accidental crimes, including misuse of firearms or inadequate understanding and respect for guns.

c) There is too much regulation on firearm posession, without sufficient police enforcement to support the regulation, encouraging an increase in criminal activity.

In Canada, we have been extremely lucky with a respectively low gun-related crime rate. We are certainly not the lowest by far, and indeed there's room for improvement, but arriving at a delicate balance between the above-noted factors I believe is key to any successful firearm regulation program. I believe Canada is close to that balance, but Bill C-17 could endanger that balance if it goes overboard with Draconian Regulations as seen in Australia.

I am personally facinated and even a little awe-struck that citizens of the United States embrace and protect a Statue of their Constitution which they feel provides them with "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms". Here is a doctrine that was written 3 centuries ago in a chaotic, non-policed emerging society that needed to protect itself not only from humans, but from wild creatures. It perplexes me why a large majority of citizens of the United States feel this need still applies today where we have sophisticated, established and prominent police enforcement, homes made of concrete and steel rather than the tinder and straw of 1792 when that Statute was written.

What is further, is that inadequate regulation as portrayed in the United States endangers countries outside its borders where illegal exportation of stolen firearms is taking place. As noted by Panjandrum, half of gun crime in Canada takes place with stolen firearms that originated in the United States.

Personally, I think firearm control should not only be a concern restricted within nations, but it should be something that nations work together to achieve. If every nation worked together to find a regulative process to control firearm possession, there would be fewer stolen guns on the black market, resulting in fewer crimes worldwide.

ChrisChairs · 01-11-2006, 07:20 PM

I don't mind people having guns, but I do mind people acting like dickheads when they're packing. I also can't stand it when people say "packing" in re. to guns. It makes it sound like you're padding something

Belisarius · 01-17-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saxie

<snip>

I am personally facinated and even a little awe-struck that citizens of the United States embrace and protect a Statue of their Constitution which they feel provides them with "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms". Here is a doctrine that was written 3 centuries ago in a chaotic, non-policed emerging society that needed to protect itself not only from humans, but from wild creatures. It perplexes me why a large majority of citizens of the United States feel this need still applies today where we have sophisticated, established and prominent police enforcement, homes made of concrete and steel rather than the tinder and straw of 1792 when that Statute was written.

To translate the spirit of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America into modern terms: The rights of people to keep and bear arms to kill any uppity politician or bureaucrat shall not be infringed.

Razorwire · 01-18-2006, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belisarius

To translate the spirit of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America into modern terms: The rights of people to keep and bear arms to kill any uppity politician or bureaucrat shall not be infringed.

The reason for the second amendent is simply so that the American puplic can rise up against their own government like the colonists did against Britian. The take back your governement clause.

Belisarius · 01-18-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

The reason for the second amendent is simply so that the American puplic can rise up against their own government like the colonists did against Britian. The take back your governement clause.

Ain't that what I just said?

ChrisChairs · 01-18-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Ain't that what I just said?

Gee, I don't know....