Firearms

[pizzazz]

The reason I am being vague is because I am deliberately trying to be vague, by "administrative body" I mean any group of people organize for a purpose (any legal endeavor will do)who become so frightened by a persons behavior that they call the cops on him/her. The reason I say "group" is because I don't individual beefs to have the authority, but if an entire company, apartment complex, school, rotary club, whatever is so frightened they're willing to make a group complaint to the police, the police should not be restricted from action simply because they haven't done anything "yet".

Or I guess the college in this case maybe should have prosecuted the guy for criminal mischief and disturbing the peace and give him a nice criminal record for the rest of his life, when more than like this guy just needs some serious therapy to prevent his being a danger.

because as much as we all love the freedoms that our current system gives us, it needs a fix of some sort so that those amongst us who demonstrate dangerous behavior can't go out on a "good day" and buy themselves a gun.

You seem to want to insist on "due process" but I don't think denying the mentally unstable of gun ownership should warrant it.

Um, yeah. Due process is important in free society. Once you have a list that allows someone to arbitrarily revoke the constitutional right of another with their knowledge or ability to defend themselves, no process to putting them on the list, at any time, we may as well kiss free society goodbye. And no, this is not a paranoid slippery slope rambling--legal precedent is incredibly important. I mean, there are people who think that religion, or certain religions, or no religion, or an opposing political view, is a sure sign of mental illness or straight up evil. Since speech can be used to "hurt" people, or to rile up people to actually hurt someone, we obviously need a list of people who can't practice free speech, right? And they're too dangerous to be let out, so if we catch them speaking out, we must be able to hold them indefinitely, and they don't need legal protection either, we can just throw them into a mental asylum. So now we have a list of people who, without being told or having any chance to defend themselves, can find themselves locked up with no recourse.

[HungryHobo]

The reason I say "group" is because I don't individual beefs to have the authority, but if an entire company, apartment complex, school, rotary club, whatever is so frightened they're willing to make a group complaint to the police, the police should not be restricted from action simply because they haven't done anything "yet".

there's a lovely old phrase I came across a while back.
"A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular."
and in the society you want where individual freedoms can be suspended without due process just because more than one person says so it wouldn't be very good to be unpopular at all.

All this idea would lead to is the group of bitter old people who play bridge in the local hall working their way through the entire local population under the age of 40 revoking very right they have because those old bats hate or are afraid of everyone.

or lets say you piss off some local company by lodging an objection when they're trying to get planning permission to build a rendering plant next door to your house, you can be sure they'll declare that you're a menace to them and that they're afraid of you and that every constitutional right you have should be revoked.

and leave deciding on the mental state of people to professionals.

[Sero]

Again, you miss the point, flippant. I do not insist on due process, the law insists upon it. Whether or not you think it is warranted or not is irrelevant, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected one and can only be taken away by due process of law. This is, in itself, the law.

The problem is not that the mentally ill are permitted guns. My understanding is that there exists already a process by which a person diagnosed with a mental illness will not be approved to purchase a firearm, that satisfies due process requirements. The issue is that, occasionally, sometimes, rarely, an individual is not diagnosed as mentally ill, and is able to purchase a firearm and do terrible things with it. This is a tragedy and worthy of attempting to prevent. But the method of prevention is diagnosis, not undermining the due process requirement.

Yes, a mentally ill person going on a shooting spree is horrible, but it's a very rare event of relatively little impact to society as a whole. Removing due process requirements in an attempt to combat an extremely infrequent and rare event is madness, due process is a protective mechanism built into our society's legal framework for a very good reason. It is not a minor protective mechanism, either, it is an absolutely critical one. The benefit gained versus the cost paid contraindicate any suggestion of removing due process.

[NukemHill]

Right or no Right, acquiring a firearm should not necessarily be so easy. How about a test like they have for Drivers Licenses?

You can't dismiss the Right. The Right to bear arms is Constitutionally mandated. The right to drive is not. Driving is a privilege.

That said, theoretically one should have to pass tests to possess a gun. But any system that has those requirements can be gamed. Look at the "literacy" tests that kept blacks from voting in the south.

There are perils no matter which direction one turns. I'd prefer the err on the side of freedom, as that provides the most opportunities for people to choose wisely. Not that they necessarily will.

[Cleverbeans]

The problem is not that the mentally ill are permitted guns. .... But the method of prevention is diagnosis, not undermining the due process requirement.

There is a much more effective and fair method of preventing it, ban the creation and sale of guns. Mentally ill individuals committing atrocities with guns are pretty rare, sane people do it every day and often under the pretense of being the "good guys". Of course, that option is consistently rejected due to the paranoia and constitutional dogmatism.

Finding and diagnosing the mentally ill - Hard to enforce. Only addresses a very minor portion of the problem.
Outlawing guns - Easy to enforce. Eliminates the vast majority of the problem.

[Sero]

Oh good, a sweeping generalization that ignores pages of previous discussion on the subject.

You assert as true several things in your post that you have not demonstrated as true. Some of them are laughably absurd. May I request you familiarize yourself with the previous discussion on this topic and adjust your contribution to account for the things already discussed, before issuing a sweeping declaration that you have a 'simple' solution to a complex problem, while at the same time implying disagreement entails a delusional, possibly mentally ill state?

Back up your statements, sir, with reasoning and citations.

[NukemHill]

The problem is not that the mentally ill are permitted guns. .... But the method of prevention is diagnosis, not undermining the due process requirement.

There is a much more effective and fair method of preventing it, ban the creation and sale of guns. Mentally ill individuals committing atrocities with guns are pretty rare, sane people do it every day and often under the pretense of being the "good guys". Of course, that option is consistently rejected due to the paranoia and constitutional dogmatism.

Finding and diagnosing the mentally ill - Hard to enforce. Only addresses a very minor portion of the problem.
Outlawing guns - Easy to enforce. Eliminates the vast majority of the problem.

Jeebus. Seriously?

Wow.

At the risk of Godwinning the thread, they very successfully banned gun ownership amongst the Jewish population in Nazi Germany in the 30s. My wife's family lived there at the time, and my father-in-law would love to regale you with the tales of peace and brotherhood that resulted.

Oh, wait--

We "Constitutional Dogmatists", as you so condescendingly put it, believe in the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of said document is to preserve the rights of the individuals against the tyranny of centralized government. Those rights have been eroding for decades. One of those central rights is the right to defend oneself and one's property. Including from a tyrannical government. What you propose is to fundamentally cripple that right.

Being a citizen in this country isn't easy. It wasn't meant to be. There are both rights and responsibilities. There are benefits and costs. One of the costs of a truly free society is that its citizens are free to make many questionable decisions. They are ultimately responsible for those decisions. We work hard to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs. But we can't remove the costs. What you would do is try to minimize the costs, and fail in the process, and maximize the damage.

Gun control (or actual elimination, as you would propose) isn't the answer.

[Sero]

I think the constitutional intent argument is a bit ill-advised, personally. I will certainly argue very strongly against anyone who suggests that the 2nd amendment doesn't give the rights it does, I get very irritated by people who want to circumvent the constitution through unconstitutional means. The constitution is by no means sacrosanct and beyond any possible editing or improvement, that's why we have an amendment process, and people should use it, not try to pretend a constitutionally protected right, isn't. It also of course doesn't factor in that this is not a US-exclusive forum, and this issue spans across borders. That said, cultural and legal context also matters.

I think building an entire argument upon one specific use to which the right can be put is not the way to go. I, and I think a lot of people, especially here on the forums and in America in general, but I think among people far beyond just those subsets, feel that it is better to err toward granting freedoms in the absence of a compelling argument against them, rather than denying freedoms in the absence of a compelling argument in favor of them. This is certainly the philosophy of US constitutional law.

There has been a lot of discussion, especially in the last few pages, upon this topic: What great specific harm to society at large would be prevented by extreme restrictions or banning, of firearms? I don't think any opponents of firearms have yet to establish this clearly, in this thread. There are many strong societal goods to be achieved by the presence of firearms in a populace. The ills associated with firearms seem more symptomatic than the direct fault of the existence and presence of firearms. This has been discussed some before and I don't mean to imply by my statements that it's cut and dried black and white, but it is readily demonstrable that some societies with a very high degree of gun ownership have very low levels of violent crime and gun crime in particular. It is likewise demonstrable that societies with very low levels of gun ownership can have high levels of violent crime even without the availability of firearms. Guns are not the issue. People with guns are not the issue. Violent people with guns are the issue. And what is the fault there? That they have a gun, or that they are violent? For that matter, hasn't violent crime been on a decline in the United States for several decades? We're at something like a 30 year low, aren't we?

So, unless a compelling case is made for a specific societal harm prevented by removing guns (with all the difficulty and woe and harms associated with that. Because I can categorically state as fact without fear of contradiction that enforcing a total ban on firearm manufacturing and possession in the united states could hardly be accurately characterized as 'easy'.), that outweighs, beyond a reasonable doubt, the cost in benefits to society that gun ownership brings, that would be lost, I'm going to err on the side of retaining the right to possess firearms. And that conclusion is not borne of paranoia or constitutional dogmatism.

[orinjuse]

I've only had a skim of the last few pages of this thread, so let me know if this has already been covered...

As an outsider observer of the US gun debate, one thing that's always confused me about the insistence the American population be armed in case it ever has to resist its government is the actual viability of that resistance.

When the US constitution was written, a bunch of farmers with muskets could stand up relatively well to a bunch of regular troops armed with similar muskets. The average farmer didn't have cannon while the government did, so there was already a bit of discrepancy there.

But now, even the most bunker-minded American is unlikely to have anything greater than a cupboard full of assault rifles, while the government has tanks, bombers, warships, etc etc. There isn't even a slight chance that the American public could go toe-to-toe with their government if the need arose, as long as it retained control of the armed forces.

So why bother? Why allow people to own things like submachine guns or assault rifles? A heavily armed populace isn't a roadblock to tyrannical government any more, all it is is a recipe for civilian gun deaths.

[Glass Fractal]

So why bother? Why allow people to own things like submachine guns or assault rifles? A heavily armed populace isn't a roadblock to tyrannical government any more, all it is is a recipe for civilian gun deaths.

While I agree with the rest of what you said I have to disagree with this. While I'm not quite as supportive of guns as some other Americans I do find myself finally coming down on the side of guns being legal for the reason of self defense. A gun is not the magical equalizing force that some rhetoric claims it to be it does offer people a chance in situations where they had none at all. Without really really extensive restrictions applied for a long time there's no chance of getting the weapons out of criminal's hands.

As far as reducing the number of "civilian gun deaths" goes that's a poor way of framing the debate. We want to reduce the number of people that get killed period, the way they die shouldn't matter. Cutting the number of gun deaths does not necessarily reduce the number of deaths, social services, prison reform, and urban planning all strike me as better ways to do that.

Now there are things I think it's absolutely ridiculous to own. I don't think anybody needs an anti-materiel rifle or a heavy machine gun since but they're neither practical or cost effective for pretty much anything I'm just not that concerned. Handguns account for most crime not just because they're cheap but because they're vastly more appropriate for walking up and shooting someone with.

[orinjuse]

But do you really need an AK47 for self defence? Do you really think that's a sensible option if some kid breaks into your loungeroom for your DVD player? And how likely are you to just strafe your neighbour's bedroom when you attempt to valiantly defend the liberty and freedom of the fifty bucks you left on the kitchen counter with a military-grade weapon?

And the whole 'doesn't matter how people die' argument is silly. Prison reform is great, but when that doesn't work it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. And what about the genuine accidental gun deaths? Kids finding the gun in dad's bedside drawer, people who didn't realise it was loaded, etc etc.

I'm from a country that fits your caveat of long-term, very restrictive gun laws (Australia), which means that there really are very few guns in criminals' hands. Getting to the point Australia is at no doubt takes a long period of restrictive gun laws, but you've got to start sometime, right?

[Spambot5546]

So why bother? Why allow people to own things like submachine guns or assault rifles? A heavily armed populace isn't a roadblock to tyrannical government any more, all it is is a recipe for civilian gun deaths.

Maybe you don't follow the news, but we just got driven out of a country much smaller than this one by a bunch of guys with submachine guns and assault rifles.

[Greyarcher]

So why bother? Why allow people to own things like submachine guns or assault rifles? A heavily armed populace isn't a roadblock to tyrannical government any more, all it is is a recipe for civilian gun deaths.

Maybe you don't follow the news, but we just got driven out of a country much smaller than this one by a bunch of guys with submachine guns and assault rifles.

Indeed. I'd say orinjuse remark rather misses the mark--it doesn't matter whether the US military has tanks, bombers, carriers, etc. while the civilians do not. Tyrannical government needs a subdued populace to maintain control over the country--that means the populace has to be beaten down and not just slaughtered with heavy artillery. And it is easiest to beat down an unarmed populace; trying to beat down armed and resistant people will probably get you shot. So firearms are an impediment to tyrannical government: without firearms, people who resist can be beaten down by government thugs; with firearms, resistance is life-and-death, and if everyone resists then the government collapses because it has no one to rule.

Anyway. Orinjuse, I think knives and accidental gun deaths were discussed a bit earlier in the thread. Just do a quick search for something like "firearms accidental" and "firearms knife"; the posts were scattered around pages 3-6 I believe.

[mmmcannibalism]

And the whole 'doesn't matter how people die' argument is silly. Prison reform is great, but when that doesn't work it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. And what about the genuine accidental gun deaths? Kids finding the gun in dad's bedside drawer, people who didn't realise it was loaded, etc etc.

How people die is important, if the point behind a theoretical gun ban is to reduce deaths; that law is useless if it won't affect the murder rate but will turn murders with guns into murders with knives.

We are going to take away your right to own a specific kind of weapon because people would feel better if the murders were switched to different kinds of weapons isn't a good argument. I believe the studies showing that gun bans don't help has been posted in this thread a few times.

[Glass Fractal]

And the whole 'doesn't matter how people die' argument is silly. Prison reform is great, but when that doesn't work it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. And what about the genuine accidental gun deaths? Kids finding the gun in dad's bedside drawer, people who didn't realise it was loaded, etc etc.

Yes how people die is worth looking at but it is very much secondary to the total number of deaths, so it seems like a red herring to me. If 100% of deaths in the US came from guns but we had 1% of the deaths we do that would be a vastly better than having 1% of deaths come from guns but retain the same number of people getting killed.

Its harder to kill with a knife, true, but we should be looking at ways to stop people from being in a position where killing someone is a likely consequence. Banning guns will not do that, it will make it harder for a person to defend themselves if they choose to confront their attacker. Ideally if you were robbed you'd let them do it and have the police handle it after the fact, no one is likely to die, but the option to stop that person from robbing you (or killing you, though that's far less likely) seems legitimate to me.

A gun should be unloaded when not in use. Irresponsible parents will end up putting their children in danger no matter what laws are passed. Knives can also accidentally kill children (and they cannot be made harmless) but we allow them because they have uses we consider reasonable.

So why bother? Why allow people to own things like submachine guns or assault rifles? A heavily armed populace isn't a roadblock to tyrannical government any more, all it is is a recipe for civilian gun deaths.

Maybe you don't follow the news, but we just got driven out of a country much smaller than this one by a bunch of guys with submachine guns and assault rifles.

[/quote]

I was under the impression that it was their bombs that did most of the damage. And hasn't Afganistan had a lot more real violence in its recent history (prior to the current occupation) than the US? I would think that if you picked a hundred random Americans and a hundred random Afgans the Afgans would win in a fight.

[mmmcannibalism]

I was under the impression that it was their bombs that did most of the damage. And hasn't Afganistan had a lot more real violence in its recent history (prior to the current occupation) than the US? I would think that if you picked a hundred random Americans and a hundred random Afgans the Afgans would win in a fight.

First, I'd say that bombs+small arms is what you could manage in any guerilla resistance, so it still fits the model of use in fighting off tyrannical government.

That being said, random afgans is going to include all the people not involved in the fighting so I'm not sure that's true. Also, I imagine the americans who are armed are better at aiming* which would be rather important depending on terrain.

*from the fact that americans tend to have guns for hunting or range training(both of which build accuracy) and some heresay I have heard that part of the reason we have relatively low casualties in firefights is the inability of insurgents to hit a target.

[Thesh]

But do you really need an AK47 for self defence? Do you really think that's a sensible option if some kid breaks into your loungeroom for your DVD player? And how likely are you to just strafe your neighbour's bedroom when you attempt to valiantly defend the liberty and freedom of the fifty bucks you left on the kitchen counter with a military-grade weapon?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is not a question of what you need or don't need. The question is what will you gain by banning them? History has shown that banning them will not reduce violence or homicides in the country. It won't make you any safer, it won't help anyone.

[Shivahn]

But do you really need an AK47 for self defence? Do you really think that's a sensible option if some kid breaks into your loungeroom for your DVD player? And how likely are you to just strafe your neighbour's bedroom when you attempt to valiantly defend the liberty and freedom of the fifty bucks you left on the kitchen counter with a military-grade weapon?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is not a question of what you need or don't need. The question is what will you gain by banning them? History has shown that banning them will not reduce violence or homicides in the country. It won't make you any safer, it won't help anyone.

Yeah, you should probably also not be asking "how likely are you to just strafe your neighbour's bedroom", but "has anyone in the history of the AK-47 ever strafed their neighbor's bedroom while defending themselves?"

The answer is probably no.

You should also consider how often assault weapons are used in crimes! Spoilers"

Spoiler:

It's not very much at all. Assault weapons are a total red herring - those that don't want heavy restrictions don't want them restricted, and many that do want heavier restrictions do want them restricted, despite the fact that they're rarely, used in crimes. If you're honest-to-god goal is to reduce gun deaths through gun control, you should be concentrating on handguns, otherwise your goal appears to be (and likely is) to ban guns as an end rather than a means.

[orinjuse]

But do you really need an AK47 for self defence? Do you really think that's a sensible option if some kid breaks into your loungeroom for your DVD player? And how likely are you to just strafe your neighbour's bedroom when you attempt to valiantly defend the liberty and freedom of the fifty bucks you left on the kitchen counter with a military-grade weapon?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is not a question of what you need or don't need. The question is what will you gain by banning them? History has shown that banning them will not reduce violence or homicides in the country. It won't make you any safer, it won't help anyone.

What history has shown that? My country's history definitely hasn't. It might help you to understand my view with a bit of a look at my context.

In 1996 Australia started a widespread ban on weapons broadly defined as 'rapid fire', meaning semi-automatic/pump action/lever action etc long guns, and semi-automatic handguns and revolvers. Automatic firearms were already banned. The government set up a buyback scheme for these types of weapons, and collected and destroyed the best part of a million guns. Currently, you can get bolt-action rifles and double barrel shotguns if you're a farmer, but for pretty much no other reasons, and handguns are even harder to get a permit for. You also have to store them in heavy steel safes.

That ban was in direct response to the Port Arthur massacre, where a guy with two semi-automatic rifles killed 35 people.

Before the ban, we had 13 mass shootings in 15 years. Since the ban, we haven't had any. Since the ban, the annual decline in firearm homicide has doubled, and the rate of decline in firearm suicides in men has been twice the rate of decline in overall suicides.

I can't find any good stats on knife crime to address that point; all I can find is stats up to 2000, which don't show any significant rise: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/b ... e/bb08.pdf

Here are some references for the gun crime figures:

http://msl.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... L-09-01C10
http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

So from my perspective, gun bans definitely do work, and that's why I can never really understand this cavalier claim that they won't make any difference.

[flippant]

But how many guns were already present in the population when the bans were put into effect?

But do you really need an AK47 for self defence?

Whenever I hear this question it always brings up a question of my own. Do you know the difference between lever action, bolt action, clip fed, tube fed, semi-automatic, full automatic, single shot, single action & double action? If you don't know the answers to this question, you should just be either for guns or against them and leave the gun choice to the person who is planning on using it and what they are using it for.


I'm not a big fan of the AK47 but if I could only afford one gun for all my shooting needs, the AK47 would be on my top ten list. Because though it doesn't do any particular job (automatic fire, target fire, suppressive fire) well, it does all those jobs to a satisfactory level, and it's robust and low maintenance.

[Thesh]

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

Even after the ban, assaults continued to increase, and homicides didn't decrease until 2002, which is 5 years after the ban. The section on homicides show that even though gun homicides declined, total homicides continued to rise at the same rate as before. Also, another thing that happened in 2002 was that the assault rate dropped. So what does that show? To me it shows that homicides are more linked to the rate of assault than to gun control. In 1997, suicides peaked, and then went down and gun suicide rates were on a decline even before the ban. I don't think the evidence shows that the gun ban helped anything.

And I don't particularly care about mass shootings. They get a lot of media attention, but they are rare and not nearly as large a problem as overall violence and crime.

[orinjuse]

But how many guns were already present in the population when the bans were put into effect?

But do you really need an AK47 for self defence?

Whenever I hear this question it always brings up a question of my own. Do you know the difference between lever action, bolt action, clip fed, tube fed, semi-automatic, full automatic, single shot, single action & double action? If you don't know the answers to this question, you should just be either for guns or against them and leave the gun choice to the person who is planning on using it and what they are using it for.


I'm not a big fan of the AK47 but if I could only afford one gun for all my shooting needs, the AK47 would be on my top ten list. Because though it doesn't do any particular job (automatic fire, target fire, suppressive fire) well, it does all those jobs to a satisfactory level, and it's robust and low maintenance.

For your first point, it was definitely less that in the US even before the ban, but with the ban the government collected a bit under 900,000 guns in a country that at the time had a population of 18m, so it was quite a significant reduction in the number of guns floating around.

For your second point, I do, yes. I might be in favour of tight gun control, but I'm also a 20 something male with access to Wikipedia.

Regarding the AK47, what are your actual 'gun needs'? Do they really include 'suppressive fire'? Do you get attacked by bands of heavily armed thugs on your way to the supermarket often?

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

Even after the ban, assaults continued to increase, and homicides didn't decrease until 2002, which is 5 years after the ban. The section on homicides show that even though gun homicides declined, total homicides continued to rise at the same rate as before. Also, another thing that happened in 2002 was that the assault rate dropped. So what does that show? To me it shows that homicides are more linked to the rate of assault than to gun control. In 1997, suicides peaked, and then went down and gun suicide rates were on a decline even before the ban. I don't think the evidence shows that the gun ban helped anything.

And I don't particularly care about mass shootings. They get a lot of media attention, but they are rare and not nearly as large a problem as overall violence and crime.

That's not the best source you could have chosen, considering it's a badly-written, sparely referenced pro-gun website, but you're right - year on year it's difficult to get a solid trend from Australian homicide statistics, considering they're so low. Here's a better source of homicide stats:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

You could argue that the long-term homicide declines were already in effect and the gun bans didn't have much of an effect, but on the other hand the sudden and complete absence of mass shootings is a pretty strong point in their favour. Mass shootings may have little impact on the American homicide bottom line, since your figures are about 500 times our own, but the 35 people killed in Port Arthur was definitely a big thing for a country with an average of 300 homicides a year at the time.

And you also shouldn't look at the ban in isolation. As Glass Fractal said before, there are many other ways people work on decreasing crime.

[Thesh]

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

You could argue that the long-term homicide declines were already in effect and the gun bans didn't have much of an effect, but on the other hand the sudden and complete absence of mass shootings is a pretty strong point in their favour. Mass shootings may have little impact on the American homicide bottom line, since your figures are about 500 times our own, but the 35 people killed in Port Arthur was definitely a big thing for a country with an average of 300 homicides a year at the time.

But you focused on that one off incident and ignored the bigger problem. Until 2003, pretty much every year after that shooting more people were murdered. So why does the fact that it is a mass shooting matter? Murder is murder, no matter how it happens. The only thing that you accomplished was drawing attention away from the real problems. How about focusing on the incredibly high rate of assaults that Australia has? Reducing that would have had a more significant effect on your homicide rate.

And you also shouldn't look at the ban in isolation. As Glass Fractal said before, there are many other ways people work on decreasing crime.

The point is that a gun ban does not decrease crime, and that working on decreasing crime in general is your only option for reducing homicide rates.

EDIT: Also:

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

I haven't looked at all the data, but the ban definitely didn't stop all mass shootings.

And according to this list, I only see 7 in 15 years (1982-1997), not 13:

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

Also, Autralia homicide rate 0.0150324 per 1,000 people, US homicide rate 0.042802 per 1,000 people... Hardly 500 times as many...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

[orinjuse]

Governments here are focusing on reducing assault rates, and it definitely is a very important issue. But there will always be assaults, and reducing the number of assaults involving weapons is also a very important issue.

You got me on the Monash shooting, I forgot that one. Check out my previous links for the mass shootings figure - one of them had the reference.

And that comparison with the US was for firearm homicides - I should have clarified that, sorry.

[Thesh]

Why does it matter if they are firearm homicides? Murder is murder, whether it's done with a gun, a knife, a bat, or a bomb. The end result is that someone is dead.

[orinjuse]

Sure, but the chance of it just being attempted murder is much higher with a bat than a gun. You don't think it's a good idea to address both motive and means?

[marky66]

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

You could argue that the long-term homicide declines were already in effect and the gun bans didn't have much of an effect, but on the other hand the sudden and complete absence of mass shootings is a pretty strong point in their favour. Mass shootings may have little impact on the American homicide bottom line, since your figures are about 500 times our own, but the 35 people killed in Port Arthur was definitely a big thing for a country with an average of 300 homicides a year at the time.

But you focused on that one off incident and ignored the bigger problem. Until 2003, pretty much every year after that shooting more people were murdered. So why does the fact that it is a mass shooting matter? Murder is murder, no matter how it happens. The only thing that you accomplished was drawing attention away from the real problems. How about focusing on the incredibly high rate of assaults that Australia has? Reducing that would have had a more significant effect on your homicide rate.

And you also shouldn't look at the ban in isolation. As Glass Fractal said before, there are many other ways people work on decreasing crime.

The point is that a gun ban does not decrease crime, and that working on decreasing crime in general is your only option for reducing homicide rates.

EDIT: Also:

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

I haven't looked at all the data, but the ban definitely didn't stop all mass shootings.

And according to this list, I only see 7 in 15 years (1982-1997), not 13:

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

Also, Autralia homicide rate 0.0150324 per 1,000 people, US homicide rate 0.042802 per 1,000 people... Hardly 500 times as many...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

Also according to that wikipedia page, there were no mass shootings between 1971 and 1984 (or 1987)* without the gun ban in place.
*If you eliminate the instance of two "outlaw organizations" shooting at each other. One can reasonably presume that they would have had guns with or without a ban.

[mmmcannibalism]

Sure, but the chance of it just being attempted murder is much higher with a bat than a gun. You don't think it's a good idea to address both motive and means?

No, your proposing that it is theoretically true that for any attempt at murder a gun will lead to a higher success rate. The fact that murder rates don't go down when guns are banned is a testament that this is either not true, or somehow a gun ban encourages more attempted murders.

[Thesh]

Sure, but the chance of it just being attempted murder is much higher with a bat than a gun. You don't think it's a good idea to address both motive and means?

Again, people have attempted to address means via gun regulations, and I see no evidence it results in a reduced homicide rate. Your post was making a comparison of gun homicide rates like it's a more important figure than homicide rates in general.

[LtNOWIS]

That being said, random afgans is going to include all the people not involved in the fighting so I'm not sure that's true. Also, I imagine the americans who are armed are better at aiming* which would be rather important depending on terrain.

*from the fact that americans tend to have guns for hunting or range training(both of which build accuracy) and some heresay I have heard that part of the reason we have relatively low casualties in firefights is the inability of insurgents to hit a target.

Yeah, that's definitely true. The Taliban have crappy rifles, irregular ammunition, very little training, and worse eyesight than Westerners. So they generally shoot very poorly. If they didn't have IEDs as part of their strategy, they would be totally ineffective. Unfortunately, the Afghan Army and police are also poor shots.

[Sero]

I don't know about eyesight, but the rest sounds reasonable. My understanding has been that in that region, with the exception of Israelis, the concept of fire discipline (terminology check?) is relatively unknown. That is to say, if you take an automatic weapon and fire through a thirty round magazine in a sustained burst, muzzle climb due to recoil means only your first, maybe second, round is going to go anywhere close to the target (even assuming you've aimed well with the initial shot, which if you're spraying like that, seems unlikely). Whereas industrialized nation's military's infantry fight largely with single aimed shots or short bursts of automatic fire. The First Battle of Mogadishu is a pretty good example of the sort of result it creates, however. (160 versus 2-4 thousand, 20 fatal casualties versus an estimated three hundred fifty -to more than a thousand fatal casualties)

[Thesh]

If I was to guess, I would say if you hand anyone an AK-47, they will point and shoot without aiming and generally miss on every shot. The ones that do try to use the sights, probably don't adjust them. With most rifles, if you don't adjust the sights you will have trouble hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards. Fixed sight weapons, you are SOL; they never shoot where you aim.

[flippant]

For your first point, it was definitely less that in the US even before the ban, but with the ban the government collected a bit under 900,000 guns in a country that at the time had a population of 18m, so it was quite a significant reduction in the number of guns floating around.

So you understand that with the United Stated having 200 million guns in a 300 million population, our situation is not going to be solvable the way it was done in Australia.

For your second point, I do, yes. I might be in favour of tight gun control, but I'm also a 20 something male with access to Wikipedia.

Regarding the AK47, what are your actual 'gun needs'? Do they really include 'suppressive fire'? Do you get attacked by bands of heavily armed thugs on your way to the supermarket often?

A civilian bought AK-47 is pretty much incapable of suppressive fire. My current gun needs are some light hunting, some target shooting for fun and home defense. I have two guns presently and am shopping for a third.

This comment is exactly the reason I asked if you know the difference between lever action, bolt action, clip fed, tube fed, semi-automatic, full automatic, single shot, single action & double action(and by know, I mean do you know what places and purposes those can and should be used? any idiot can wiki some info, that doesnt provide understanding.) None of those provide things provide adequate suppressive fire out of an AK-47. As has been stated above, even fully automatic weapons do a poor job of suppressive fire, the best mode for that traditionally has been the three round burst which no civilian gun is legally allowed.
But as to using the gun for protection, the AK is not my first choice, but it's serviceable, for hunting, also not my first choice but serviceable, for target shooting not my first choice but serviceable. for ease of maintenance and repair, very close to number one because they are so simply and elegantly designed.

[orinjuse]

A civilian bought AK-47 is pretty much incapable of suppressive fire. My current gun needs are some light hunting, some target shooting for fun and home defense. I have two guns presently and am shopping for a third.

This comment is exactly the reason I asked if you know the difference between lever action, bolt action, clip fed, tube fed, semi-automatic, full automatic, single shot, single action & double action(and by know, I mean do you know what places and purposes those can and should be used? any idiot can wiki some info, that doesnt provide understanding.) None of those provide things provide adequate suppressive fire out of an AK-47. As has been stated above, even fully automatic weapons do a poor job of suppressive fire, the best mode for that traditionally has been the three round burst which no civilian gun is legally allowed.
But as to using the gun for protection, the AK is not my first choice, but it's serviceable, for hunting, also not my first choice but serviceable, for target shooting not my first choice but serviceable. for ease of maintenance and repair, very close to number one because they are so simply and elegantly designed.

Why do you need to go hunting? Is that how you make your living, or do you live on a farm? Why do you need a high-powered weapon for home defence? Would the money you spend on the gun, ammunition and target practice be better spent on an insurance policy and locks?

None of these, in my opinion, are gun needs. They're gun wants.

If you and your country want to justify owning them to yourselves, then that's entirely your choice and good for you, but you should try to get past this odd idea Americans seem to have that you need guns.

[osiris32]

Why do you need to go hunting? Is that how you make your living, or do you live on a farm? Why do you need a high-powered weapon for home defence? Would the money you spend on the gun, ammunition and target practice be better spent on an insurance policy and locks?

None of these, in my opinion, are gun needs. They're gun wants.

If you and your country want to justify owning them to yourselves, then that's entirely your choice and good for you, but you should try to get past this odd idea Americans seem to have that you need guns.

Many of us go hunting because it's cheaper than buying meat throughout the year. My hunting license and tag cost me about $70, ammo is about $20, and the trip probably $50. It nets me about $700-800 in meat. Financially it helps me out a great deal. So yes, it's a financial need on my part.

For home defense, I would say in my case, I would rather have a firearm than a knife or other melee object. Because distance is a NEED in combat. I'm also smart enough to make sure my firearms aren't visibile, and are kept safe. So in my case, it's a need, especially since I'm former law enforcement, and there ARE people who would target me because of that. Not many, obviously, but it has happened. Also, I'm sorry, but locks only keep out honest people. They do not keep out anyone who is determined to get in, especially given how easy it is to break a window with a rock.

Also, the idea of the need for guns in the US comes from how our country was created. We had to throw off a tyrannical government in an armed revolution, and the founders of our country realized that the concept of armed revolution is a RIGHT of all people. So they made sure in the text of our constitution that the ability of the people to overthrow the government was afforded. As it says in our Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So for our country, it IS a need, as it provides for our own freedom and personal security.

[EdgarJPublius]

A civilian bought AK-47 is pretty much incapable of suppressive fire. My current gun needs are some light hunting, some target shooting for fun and home defense. I have two guns presently and am shopping for a third.

This comment is exactly the reason I asked if you know the difference between lever action, bolt action, clip fed, tube fed, semi-automatic, full automatic, single shot, single action & double action(and by know, I mean do you know what places and purposes those can and should be used? any idiot can wiki some info, that doesnt provide understanding.) None of those provide things provide adequate suppressive fire out of an AK-47. As has been stated above, even fully automatic weapons do a poor job of suppressive fire, the best mode for that traditionally has been the three round burst which no civilian gun is legally allowed.
But as to using the gun for protection, the AK is not my first choice, but it's serviceable, for hunting, also not my first choice but serviceable, for target shooting not my first choice but serviceable. for ease of maintenance and repair, very close to number one because they are so simply and elegantly designed.

Why do you need to go hunting? Is that how you make your living, or do you live on a farm? Why do you need a high-powered weapon for home defence? Would the money you spend on the gun, ammunition and target practice be better spent on an insurance policy and locks?

None of these, in my opinion, are gun needs. They're gun wants.

If you and your country want to justify owning them to yourselves, then that's entirely your choice and good for you, but you should try to get past this odd idea Americans seem to have that you need guns.

So, we should ban guns because you can't think of a legitimate need anyone could have for them?

[orinjuse]

Writing it down a long time ago still doesn't make it right. It might have been a need two hundred years ago, but that has little bearing on the current world.

Besides, equipping your civilians for 'armed resistance' against your government seems to be having pretty unpopular consequences for you at the moment, yes?

[Glass Fractal]

A civilian bought AK-47 is pretty much incapable of suppressive fire. My current gun needs are some light hunting, some target shooting for fun and home defense. I have two guns presently and am shopping for a third.

This comment is exactly the reason I asked if you know the difference between lever action, bolt action, clip fed, tube fed, semi-automatic, full automatic, single shot, single action & double action(and by know, I mean do you know what places and purposes those can and should be used? any idiot can wiki some info, that doesnt provide understanding.) None of those provide things provide adequate suppressive fire out of an AK-47. As has been stated above, even fully automatic weapons do a poor job of suppressive fire, the best mode for that traditionally has been the three round burst which no civilian gun is legally allowed.
But as to using the gun for protection, the AK is not my first choice, but it's serviceable, for hunting, also not my first choice but serviceable, for target shooting not my first choice but serviceable. for ease of maintenance and repair, very close to number one because they are so simply and elegantly designed.

Why do you need to go hunting? Is that how you make your living, or do you live on a farm? Why do you need a high-powered weapon for home defence? Would the money you spend on the gun, ammunition and target practice be better spent on an insurance policy and locks?

None of these, in my opinion, are gun needs. They're gun wants.

If you and your country want to justify owning them to yourselves, then that's entirely your choice and good for you, but you should try to get past this odd idea Americans seem to have that you need guns.

Need should not be the requirement for making things not illegal. There's almost nothing that we need to have. Cars, liquids other than water, foods other than tofu, shoes, clothing.

If you can establish that guns cause more harm than good it would be worth banning them but I'd say that the statistics don't bare that out. While emotional dislike of guns very powerful it isn't something to base laws on.

[Thesh]

California has had an open carry law in place for over 40 years. The law states that you can carry a firearm in public as long as it is in plain sight, holstered, and not loaded. Now there is a bill in the state assembly that would strike down this law. They are stating public safety and the shooting in Arizona. I want to know how is a holstered, empty gun a public safety issue, and how is this at all related to the shooting in Arizona?

[orinjuse]

I think the negative consequences of having lots of guns floating around do outweigh the admittedly wonderful benefits of putting holes in bits of paper and pretending to be an action hero.

Although there is data out there that I've based that opinion on, it seems to be almost pointless citing it, because there's so much FUD and partisan politics and analysis around that for every source like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html , there's one with incontrovertible proof that liberals and foreigners will murder babies the moment upstanding American patriots no longer stand guard over them with M16s (it's true; we require their stem cells for our moon base).

So, feel free to keep your guns. The rest of the world doesn't really care, most of us just think you're a bit nuts.