No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reforms: report

[stignasty]

No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reforms: report

Last Updated: Thursday, December 14, 2006 | 1:41 AM ET

The Associated Press

Australia hasn't witnessed a single mass shooting since a massacre 10 years ago prompted nationwide gun law reforms, according to a study Thursday that linked the tough laws with a dramatic reduction in firearm deaths.

The federal and state governments agreed to ban semiautomatic and pump action shot guns and rifles days after a lone gunman went on a rampage at the Port Arthur tourist precinct in Tasmania state on April 28, 1996, killing 35 and wounding another 18.

The massacre was the 13th mass shooting in Australia in 15 years. Mass shootings had killed 104 victims and wounded another 52 since 1981, according to the University of Sydney report published Thursday in the journal Injury Prevention.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/14/australia-gun.html

[betsy]

They've got a very good advantage compared to Canada. Location.

[jbg]

They've got a very good advantage compared to Canada. Location.

Also, banning semi-automatics is quite different from banning long guns whose only use is hunting.

[jdobbin]

Also, banning semi-automatics is quite different from banning long guns whose only use is hunting.

Only used in hunting?

Citation?

Maybe a little study is needed before drawing conclusions.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...41-6250a30782c8

[M.Dancer]

In other news

Seat belts save lives.......

[White Doors]

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years.

That's a head scratcher ain't it?

[jdobbin]

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years.

That's a head scratcher ain't it?

I'd be happy if all gun owners in Canada had to be part of the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[FTA Lawyer]

Here's a thought...

The recent shooting at Dawson proves that registration of firearms is useless...almost completely. The fact of the matter is that the risk of "mass shootings" comes from the gun owner, not the gun (a re-statement of the adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people").

The gun owner has been licensed in Canada since the imposition of the FAC in 1976. Those licensing requirements are far more strict today in the current licensing regime. The vast majority of gun owners have never had a problem with licensing. Most have never had a problem with tighter storage and transport rules. Most have never had a problem with registration for handguns.

The big problem (since it was first suggested) has always been and will continue to be registration of long guns. Even many who originally supported the idea have changed their minds since the true costs of a useless endeavour have come to light.

What is also evident from Dawson is that the flaw in Canada's gun control regime is in the lack of monitoring / review of gun owners. Buddy was okay and passed all tests when he got his guns, and then went off the deep end.

Perhaps, instead of continuing to pour money down the proverbial rat-hole that is the long-gun registry, can even the gun-control lobbyists agree that our resources would be better spent on mandatory renewal procedures that include an actual risk assessment by a psychologist?

It wouldn't have to be every year...but maybe every 2 or 3. Force the gun owner to sit down with someone who knows a bit about people who are likely to go off the deep end and just go over their current situation. If there are too many risk factors, then suspend the license and take the guns temporarily...until the owner can lower their risk score.

It will never be perfect, of course, but why can't we look at ideas like this that actually allow safe, responsible gun ownership without much interference and focus our efforts to reduce harm on the one area that we might actually be able to produce a benefit?

As a gun owner, a couple hundred bucks and an hour of my time every couple of years would be completely acceptable to me...particularly if it meant no more pissing money away on a registry!

FTA

[guyser]

Pretty much all the other crimes in Australia have risen since the buy back. But of course no new mass murders.

Assaults are still rising, robbery up, armed robbery up , burglary is down, murder shows down

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

[jdobbin]

Pretty much all the other crimes in Australia have risen since the buy back. But of course no new mass murders.

Assaults are still rising, robbery up, armed robbery up , burglary is down, murder shows down

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

You'll have to get more current stats than this. These stats end in 2001.

We've talked about it in the past and most of Australia's crime was down in those links.

[guyser]

Here's a thought...

The recent shooting at Dawson proves that registration of firearms is useless...almost completely. The fact of the matter is that the risk of "mass shootings" comes from the gun owner, not the gun (a re-statement of the adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people").

The gun owner has been licensed in Canada since the imposition of the FAC in 1976. Those licensing requirements are far more strict today in the current licensing regime. The vast majority of gun owners have never had a problem with licensing. Most have never had a problem with tighter storage and transport rules. Most have never had a problem with registration for handguns.

The big problem (since it was first suggested) has always been and will continue to be registration of long guns. Even many who originally supported the idea have changed their minds since the true costs of a useless endeavour have come to light.

What is also evident from Dawson is that the flaw in Canada's gun control regime is in the lack of monitoring / review of gun owners. Buddy was okay and passed all tests when he got his guns, and then went off the deep end.

Perhaps, instead of continuing to pour money down the proverbial rat-hole that is the long-gun registry, can even the gun-control lobbyists agree that our resources would be better spent on mandatory renewal procedures that include an actual risk assessment by a psychologist?

It wouldn't have to be every year...but maybe every 2 or 3. Force the gun owner to sit down with someone who knows a bit about people who are likely to go off the deep end and just go over their current situation. If there are too many risk factors, then suspend the license and take the guns temporarily...until the owner can lower their risk score.

It will never be perfect, of course, but why can't we look at ideas like this that actually allow safe, responsible gun ownership without much interference and focus our efforts to reduce harm on the one area that we might actually be able to produce a benefit?

As a gun owner, a couple hundred bucks and an hour of my time every couple of years would be completely acceptable to me...particularly if it meant no more pissing money away on a registry!

FTA

As you are a Lawyer who sees the criminals day in and day out, I understand where you might feel that a psychiatric appraisal would be a good thing. And it is not that I dont agree, just not fully.

Lets look outside our cities, where gun ownership is more prevelant.

The rural person is not likely to agree with you. He/she is older, and we both know they think ANYTHING that comes out of Ottawa is a waste as respects gun laws. They have owned them and used, responsibly, for more years than you me and our grandparents have been here.

And then.........we put our faith in a psychiatrist who may not even own a gun and has his own agenda.

I fear your suugestion may be more of a boondoggle than we already have.

Oh, and I dont own a gun, never have, likely never will. In fact I shot a 22 ......................once.

[guyser]

Pretty much all the other crimes in Australia have risen since the buy back. But of course no new mass murders.

Assaults are still rising, robbery up, armed robbery up , burglary is down, murder shows down

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

You'll have to get more current stats than this. These stats end in 2001.

We've talked about it in the past and most of Australia's crime was down in those links.

Going back to my data, most of anything I found ends around the same time. I would suspect due to the time it takes to compile this info. It will usually be lagging.

But I am open to more info, and when I did check I found a lot of NRA stuff making vastly wilder claims about increased crime. I choose to ignore those.

[Wilber]

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years.

That's a head scratcher ain't it?

Similar in Norway according to what guys from there have told me. Grenades to.

[blueblood]

It's the whole rural/urban thing over again. Gun control doesn't make sense to rural Canada, we were responsible gun owners and always will be, our crime rate is a testament to that. Gun control makes sense to urban Canada as that's where the irresponsible gun owners are and their crime rate is a testament to that. Should we be punished for something that we doesn't apply to us?

[guyser]

It's the whole rural/urban thing over again. Gun control doesn't make sense to rural Canada, we were responsible gun owners and always will be, our crime rate is a testament to that. Gun control makes sense to urban Canada as that's where the irresponsible gun owners are and their crime rate is a testament to that. Should we be punished for something that we doesn't apply to us?

What and whom do you feel is urban and rural ?

Serious question for you by the way.

Take for instance , toronto, regina, montreal , north bay , red deer , etc

[blueblood]

It's the whole rural/urban thing over again. Gun control doesn't make sense to rural Canada, we were responsible gun owners and always will be, our crime rate is a testament to that. Gun control makes sense to urban Canada as that's where the irresponsible gun owners are and their crime rate is a testament to that. Should we be punished for something that we doesn't apply to us?

What and whom do you feel is urban and rural ?

Serious question for you by the way.

Take for instance , toronto, regina, montreal , north bay , red deer , etc

Pop less than 5000 in one spot, umm if the surrounding area of a town equals or exceeds the poulation of a town, i'll take that as rural.

[jdobbin]

Going back to my data, most of anything I found ends around the same time. I would suspect due to the time it takes to compile this info. It will usually be lagging.

But I am open to more info, and when I did check I found a lot of NRA stuff making vastly wilder claims about increased crime. I choose to ignore those.

Here is the government of Australia's stats up to 2004.

See what you think.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...ordedCrime.html

[guyser]

Here is the government of Australia's stats up to 2004.

See what you think.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...ordedCrime.html

Thanks. Interesting too.

Seems to come close to what I posted doesnt it? I am not trying to cherry pick my way through it (I have to get going ) but I did note that assault robbery and sexual assault was up since 1997 , though seems to be a dip in last couple of years.

Sorry, not robbery, that has gone down.

Homicide was relatively static but did go down nicely in 04. I am not sure if this supports their law or not.

[guyser]

Pop less than 5000 in one spot, umm if the surrounding area of a town equals or exceeds the poulation of a town, i'll take that as rural.

My point was, and I lost the link, was that rural and smaller cities have an increased rate of gun crime per 1000.

Of all the major cities Montreal and Toronto were the lowest. Regina Winnepeg and many rural areas were much higher..

I know plentyof people who are afraid of TO, including my nieces and sister in law. As if Ottawa doesn t ever have a problem. (frankly I think it is jealousy but we will save that one)

Seems it is a myth, and frankly I can play into it too, when I am at my cottage I never feel any threats.

[jdobbin]

Thanks. Interesting too.

Seems to come close to what I posted doesnt it? I am not trying to cherry pick my way through it (I have to get going ) but I did note that assault robbery and sexual assault was up since 1997 , though seems to be a dip in last couple of years.

Sorry, not robbery, that has gone down.

Homicide was relatively static but did go down nicely in 04. I am not sure if this supports their law or not.

Quite a bit is down.

* Of offences for which data were released, only kidnapping registered an increase between 2003 and 2004.

* Homicide (14%), robbery (16%), UEWI (13%), MVT (11%) and other theft (12%) all recorded decreases from 2003 to 2004.

[geoffrey]

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years.

That's a head scratcher ain't it?

Similar in Norway according to what guys from there have told me. Grenades to.

Exactly. Gun control alone doesn't make a difference, and in fact, things can be done without gun control that are much more effective and don't infringe upon someone's freedom.

[jester]

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years.

That's a head scratcher ain't it?

Similar in Norway according to what guys from there have told me. Grenades to.

Exactly. Gun control alone doesn't make a difference, and in fact, things can be done without gun control that are much more effective and don't infringe upon someone's freedom.

Freedom for what? Firefights with the neighbours, random drive bys. Just think they have free and open gun ownership in Baghdad (grenades too)--really nice place to live.......

[White Doors]

In other news, each and every home in Switzherland with a male resident over 18 years old has a fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle in it. There has not been a 'mass shooting' in switzerland for years.

That's a head scratcher ain't it?

Similar in Norway according to what guys from there have told me. Grenades to.

Exactly. Gun control alone doesn't make a difference, and in fact, things can be done without gun control that are much more effective and don't infringe upon someone's freedom.

Freedom for what? Firefights with the neighbours, random drive bys. Just think they have free and open gun ownership in Baghdad (grenades too)--really nice place to live.......

Freedom to own firearms. What else?

[Canadian Blue]

Freedom for what? Firefights with the neighbours, random drive bys. Just think they have free and open gun ownership in Baghdad (grenades too)--really nice place to live.......

Well, the Swiss, and many other European countries have a large amount of freedom to own firearms. Imagine if all member's of the CF were allowed to bring their C7's home with them along with five mag's. I think the reason America is more violent is because of the culture as compared to other nation's.

We have firefights and random driveby's in Canada with gun control. Either way you made a simple and fallable argument.