:rolleyes:
Ok well thanks for the input we’ll make sure and consult you next time. On the whole here in Oz we still view any sort of weapon related violence as big news and it tends to get a lot of coverage.
The above is a quote from the article which would seem to mean that anyone with a valid reason for having one will be able to have one. I doubt that needing one in the event of surprise ninja attack will be considered a valid reason.
Really, how practical do you think either a crossbow or a sword will be in home defence ?
Sure, but you are fine with letting your politicians cram just about every other type of restrictive post 9/11 legislation down your throats right ?
I find it mildly amusing that a lot of your rights are being eroded by your current administration and you are worried about swords and crossbows in Australia.
Don’t get me wrong the US usually gets a bum wrap. You guys are like the cops nobody wants you around unless there is a problem.
You know what? Fuck you. You show me some serious statistics that don’t come from your “I need a gun 'cause I have a small dick” organisations. I have better things to do than convert a Aussie-hating piece of shit like you.
[/sup]
Sorry that’s so small; I didn’t want to make the lines too long. Most of the trends seem to be constant over the time period 1995-2001. I couldn’t find comparable tables extending before 1995, so I don’t know when any of these trends started.
Some of the rates have been about constant or slightly decreasing (homicide, unlawful entry with intent) while others have risen rather dramatically (robbery, assault, other theft). As usual with statistics, it’s pretty hard to argue convincingly for The Reason behind the numbers.
Interesting. So, despite the buy up of weapons the crime rate has remained the same. Then why bother wasting money on legislation and confiscating weapons? If you are no safer now than you were before why deprive gun owners of something they might have enjoyed? It seems pretty obvious that they weren’t hurting anyone with their hobby/choice if the numbers haven’t changed.
It’s been a long time since I lived there, but I still have a lot of family and friends, and I keep up to date with the local news. It’s been my overriding impression from this that the vast majority of Australians were keen on tight gun regulations. If this isn’t so, I’d appreciate any information to correct my misapprehension.
But if that is the case, then I can really only see two options. The first is to campaign through clubs and groups to change public opinion on gun ownership. The second would be to move to somewhere more in tune with your feelings on this issue.
I understand that. If the crime rate dropped then your controls are demonstrated to be working. Maybe the gun owners can’t be trusted with guns. If the rates rise, then the controls obviously aren’t working. Maybe the criminals are taking advantage of an unarmed populace. If everything stays the same then why bother with controls? Or, is this just some sort of feel good legislation that uses the ‘evil’ gun owner as the scapegoat thus pandering to the Latte’ crowd?
The Snopes story was designed specifically to refute the bullshit from the NRA that the buy-back had caused an increase in crime.
You want to argue a different point altogether? Fine.
Maybe it’s because of the controls, maybe it’s because of a traditionally lower gun ownership rate, but something causes the gun homicide rate to be dramatically lower in Australia and the U.K compared to the U.S.
Yes, but it also proved that the legislation didn’t do anything to stop crime, either. Money spent on buying guns from harmless owners that might have gone into training programs to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place maybe?
**
In Canada we also have a low homicide rate. I don’t know what the difference between here and the US is, but for some reason we are spending close to a billion dollars on a gun registry. What is the point if the crime rate doesn’t change for the better because of it? If it doesn’t make you any safer by spending the money and makes criminals of harmless people who won’t register because they don’t want to see their property confiscated, what is the point in doing it? How do we know these gun owners are harmless? Because the crime rate doesn’t drop when the legislation is in effect. In Canada, it is to early to tell what effect the legislation will have. I expect it to probably be similar to Australia.
This is getting ridiculous. The buy-back was prompted by one particular incident, the Port Arthur Massacre. Firstly, the particular gun owner involved wasn’t harmless by any stretch of the imagination. Secondly, you can argue all you like that the money could have been better spent. Perhaps it could have. But what would a “training [program] to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place” look like? Is it something that, you know, actually exists? What does it cost? How effective is it?
We have a particular problem in Australia. Gun ownership and registration laws are implemented at the State level. The things that can be effective at is reducing “heat of the moment” and “insane” shootings of family members, neighbours, coworkers, school classmates, etc.
It can’t really work against gangs or organised crime. To address that problem would require more attention from our Federal government, with respect to the illegal importation of hand guns. Said Federal government has shown no willingness to do so. I think our current Prime Minister is a complete asshole, for this reason the least among many.
Irrespective of whether it makes any sense to ban samurai swords and crossbows in one or more Australian provinces, excessive exaggeration in a manner that contradicts one’s own sources undermines one’s argument/rant.
I’d like something clarified, please. What exactly are you anthropomorphizing when you use the term “country”? Who exactly — that is, what people or person — is doing the choosing?
Actually, the funny thing is that, despite the much stronger gun laws in Australia, in general the term “evil gun owner” is used far less frequently over there than it is here in the United States. Most Australians who own guns actually need them for things like controlling rabbit or kangaroo populations, and the number of guns owned by non-rural residents was very low even before the stricter laws came into effect. The idea of owning a gun for self-protection is really just not very strong in Australia.
I went to an agricultural high school in the outer suburbs of Sydney, and many of my friends came from farms. I know plenty of farmers who were affected by the new legislation, as it required them to hand in certain types of weapons but allowed them to keep others. Despite the fact that these people had owned their guns for a long time, and needed guns for certain activites associated with their livelihood, every one of them turned in the appropriate weapons.
My best friend’s father was thinking about keeping one of his banned guns because he liked it. And he rationalized it to himself by saying that he needed it on the property, but that city-dwellers did not needs their guns. My friend (his son) pointed out to him that he still had two shotguns and a rifle, and so had no practical need whatsoever for this gun. He conceded that this was true, and handed the gun in, because he thought it was the responsible thing to do.
As Desmostylus pointed out, the Snopes link was offered as evidence that crime has not risen since the legislation came into force. It is true that crime does not seem to have dropped either, but the main point was that the NRA has made some highly misleading claims about rising crime rates in Australia as a result of the gun buyback, in an attempt to shore up its argument on this side of the Pacific. The NRA’s assertions are, at best, bad misinterpretations of the figures, and at worst, cynical and disingenuous manipulation and outright lying.
Note that this is all completely separate from the argument about whether it should or should not be a person’s right to own a gun. The simple fact is that this right is not enshrined in the Australian Constitution, and the Australian population has shown itself rather amenable to relatively tight gun controls.
Uzi asked whether, given that the controls have had little demonstrable effect on the crime rate, they aren’t just “some sort of feel good legislation.” I’m sure that, to a certain extent, they are. And here we get into Ben Franklin’s old quote, often trotted out recently, about people who are willing to trade liberty for security deserving neither liberty nor security. The only problem with Franklin’s maxim is that people tend to cite it when they don’t like a particular pece of legislation, but ignore it when they do like the legislation.
So, since 9/11 plenty of people in the United States have been quoting BF in an attempt to argue against the various Administration assaults on liberty. Yet some of those people are happy to have increased taxes in order to provide economic security for the poor. I’m not saying that this is necessarily bad, only trying to point out that liberty and security are not only balanced in issues of free speech and the justice system, but that they extend to other areas as well. And if the gun-control issue becomes headline news again, you can be sure some anti-control people will use the same language to oppose it.
The fact is that every country, even the “freedom-loving” U.S. of A., sacrifices a certain amount of liberty in exchange for a certain amount of security. The big difference between people, and peoples, tends to be which liberties they are willing to sacrifice, and what type of security they seek. As wyntar has pointed out, there are plenty of assaults on rights and liberties in the US right now that many Americans seem to be taking without so much as a murmur.