Total deaths, including suicide, are down about 200 per year from 1996 to 2006. That’s not a lot, but it accounts for around 40-45%, which is more impressive. I’d like to see the numbers for homicide only. It also suggests that Australia wasn’t nearly as violent as the US to begin with.
There were, on average, 11 mass shooting deaths per year in the decade leading up to the ban.
I’m sure many people will vehemently disagree, but I’m not sure such tiny numbers justify their ban/restrictions.
Eliahna & Peremensoe have answered pretty well already, but in essence he was full of shit.
On a couple of points
If he’s claiming this law as ‘recent’. The catalyst for the law changes in Australia was the Port Arthur Massacre which occurred in 1996. The new new laws were enacted in that same year and the gun buyback program commenced in 1997. Hardly recent. As an aside it was a buyback program, so while it was mandatory to hand your guns in, there were government appointed valuers that determined the value of your firearm and you were paid an appropriate price for them. The program IIRC also included an amnesty on firearms, so if you turned in a firearm that would have been illegal even before the law changes, you were still paid and no questions asked.
As to the level of gun crime - that is complete crap as well. I can dig up some more stats if you like, but the short version is violent crime has been reasonably static over the last decade or more in Australia, (hence I’m not claiming Australia is some crime free utopia) but the incidence of use of guns in the commission of those violent crimes has decreased remarkably since 1996, but some stats I saw a while ago suggested that it had been on the decline since the 80’s in any case. (I can’t recall the specifics but there were some new gun laws introduced in 1987)
Presumably if he was from Australia, he may simply be a gun advocate and there certainly are gun advocate groups here in Australia, (the most prominent being Sporting Shooters Association) and while the SSAA is seen as a reputedly organisation it certainly does not have the mainstream recognition nor clout of the closest US analogy I can think of being the NRA. Other pro-gun groups tend, on a whole, to be seen as somewhat fringe groups.
Seattle has had a rash of shootings lately, mostly gang related. Actually, ‘a rash of’ here is about the same as several hours of a typical Chicago weekend, but anyway folks are concerned. However, I’ve noticed very little call for more gun control. In fact, a columnist in the Seattle Times this morning had a very rational discussion of our main problem, which is that the gun laws that are on the books are rarely enforced here, and almost never is anybody ever punished for violating them.
He lists several of the more recent shootings, and illustrates that if the judicial system here had enforced the penalties that were in these laws, most of these shooting would not have occured. Makes one mad as heck to read it. If you want to see what he wrote, here is the link.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2018762877_danny25.html
Frankly, I think that most of our gun violence problems is directly caused by ineffectual prosecutors and compassionate judges.
I think it’s gotten into the territory now of feeling one needs to have one for protection against those who already have them. We live on the border, in California, and are moving into a house from an apartment complex. Already I’ve gone over there and found gates wide open and storage sheds broken open. And yep, we’re getting a gun. Or two.
Enlighten me. Pretty please? I’m obviously confused as hell, so show some compassion instead of insults.
The thing is, in the USA, Gun Control laws have not led to a decrease in Violent crimes.
Sure, one can point to some nation or other where they have less guns, and lower crimes- and I’ll admit that’s fairly common. But we can also point to nations like Mexico with strong gun control and extreme daily gun violence. Also Switzerland where every able-bodied male has a Assault Rifle in his home and they have very low violent crime. But those nations are not the USA.
So, it appears that we woudl be giving up a Constitution right and not gaining anything back. Now sure, one can point to a given shooting and say “But* that* wouldn’t have happened with no guns!”. Maybe. But they have had many mass murders with nothing but a machete, and you can do a lot with a truckload of fertilizer.
Also- OTOH we might be able to point to a life here and there and say that person would have been saved if we ignored the 1st Ad, and banned (e.g.) the Anarchist’s Cookbook. But SCOTUS doesnt buy that. The Bill of Rights is pretty inviolate. Sure, SCOTUS has ruled that Free Speech doesnt include the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater- but we do ban or regulate machine guns, destructive devices and so forth.
The Bill of Rights is important. Now, maybe if it could be shown that banning guns woudl lead to a huge decrease in violent crime, we might get behind getting rid of the 2nd Ad, but that just isnt so- there does not seem to be any significant decrease at all.
Why give up a cherished right for nothing?
But here in the USA, violent crime has been decreasing.
And, I really dont give a rats-ass about a decrease in incidence of use of guns in the commission of those violent crimes- does it really matter if they shoot you or chop you up with a machete?
I ended up skipping page 2 because I’ve seen it before.
I’m an American citizen who is a permanent resident of Australia. In my opinion, the Australians system works very well. Those who wish to own guns may but there is no right to bear arms. There are national gun laws. If you need to protect your home, you get Crimsafe screens and buy a dog, maybe install motion sensors. (Duh.)
It’s frustrating how it goes. Mass shooting occurs in the USA. There is no serious debate on the Second Amendment and no substantive changes to laws. How can that be changed?
Cut the association between “Democrat” (or “liberal”) and “gun control”. No party made real changes, and neither of the major parties wants to. You’re going to be a single issue movement focused on repealing the Second Amendment. You’ll be unpopular. So were Abolitionists.
Get the support of churches. In fact, give the whole thing a religious tint, the holy books are on your side. In fact, if you’re not religious, I’d say you’re the wrong person to lead the charge. I bet it wouldn’t be hard to get the Pope’s seal of approval for starters.
Get the support of women. Mothers Against Demon Guns Everywhere. MADGE. Children are at risk, people!
You’re A-OK with hunting. Nope, we’re not banning guns at all. Hunters can keep their sensible firearms. Just probably not at home.
You’ll be pushing shit uphill but history is on your side.
Not all their books, just those with bad ideas, heresy and seditious ideas. And, you will be compensated for the books we burn.
Presumably the smoking comment? Maybe your prayer didn’t work?
While others are nitpicking above: often they’re semi-auto, so not assault rifle. While a Swiss person is in the military, they are issued a fully automatic/select fire SIG SG 550. When they leave and enter the reserves, it gets converted to semi.
Where else would you keep them? And what’s wrong with home? They make lockers at the very least.
I’m not sure many pro-gun nor anti-gun people would be comfortable comparing this to slavery.
I’m confused; what prayer? 
Sorry. The:
[QUOTE=Taomist]
(plzgodnosecondhandsmokedebaterightnow)
[/quote]
part. But I’m just speculating.
Why should it be changed? Like I said, in the USA, strict gun control laws have not led to lower violent crime rates.
:smack::smack: Thank you! I was REALLY confused there for a minute. 
You’re lead by the nose by emotional reactions to narratives rather than a dispassionate view of the overall picture.
I remember people after 9/11 saying that they’d never fly again. I remember how 2001 prior to that was the “summer of the shark” even though it was average to below average in shark attacks because the media decided to make it a story. I remember how a few times over the years one cute kid gets kidnapped, it somehow resonates with the public and becomes a huge news story, and suddenly parents are massively overprotective of their kids - because of one crime they’ve decided is far bigger and more important than others because of the way the narrative was presented to them.
The idea that you react to isolated incidents, or a string of isolated incidents, as a way of determining a societal policy is a ridiculous emotional overreaction. We have a big mass shooting every few years. In the grand scheme of things, big fucking deal. Several times more people have drowned in their own swimming pools.
So we have what, a dozen deaths per year on average from these spree shootings? Would you shape the policy of a country with over 300 million people based on 12 deaths a year? That seems absurd to me.
Spree shootings are almost a non-factor. Quite frankly, I’m shocked that there are so few of them. In a country of 300m people, we don’t have more crazy people just going out that way. I’d expect dozens a year at least. The number of spree shooters is actually shockingly low in the grand scheme of things. Negligible.
If your goal is to save lives, there are a thousand better trees to bark up than spree shooters - including just the regular background noise of gun violence, which is far more significant. There’s no justification at all on focusing on dramatic crimes over mundane ones, it’s purely an irrational emotional reaction.
The idea of banning guns because of one spree shooter is as absurd to me as discussing curbing air travel because of one plane crash. Graph out spree shooters as a cause of death compared to other unnatural causes of death and let’s see the magnitude of this problem.
While I’m afraid I don’t buy that claim-- just as I’m afraid that you’d disregard any evidence to the contrary, I can think of a dozen reasons.
To add to my last post:
I constantly hear from older people that “things are so bad these days” and “what has the world come to” in reference to the outrage story of the month. It doesn’t matter that crime has been going down for the last few decades - our recreational fear and voyeuristic psuedo-victimhood has been cranked up to 11. Things are better than they’ve been, and yet people think the world is this sick, twisted, dangerous place because of the glamourization of isolated crimes.
If you want to discuss policy, bring up the overall crime rates, compare crime rates to areas with more or less guns, and just generally analyze the overall picture. If you want to say “something horrible happened, this story emotionally resonates with me, we must do something!” and advocate for massive policy changes, you are exactly the sort of person that allows the government to trample all over us. The hysterical overreaction to 9/11 was the root cause of most of the problems we’ve faced as a country in the last decade, and these irrational reactions are exactly the sort of thing driving that type of governance.
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that. The guy apparently booby trapped his house and was capable of making explosives. And explosives are generally more deadly than guns. Columbine had a failed attempt to build a bomb, and in this case here the bombs were left at home for booby traps - had they not had guns, and instead focused their destructive desires into explosives, we could’ve seen a higher body count. I’m not saying this is necesarily a desirable policy goal (ie “let’s not ban guns, they’re a good release valve compared to explosives”) but it is likely that they lowered the death toll in some cases.
Rate of homicides by firearm
United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)
France – 255 (0.389/100,000)
Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)
Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)
I’m not sure why you feel that’s at all related to what I said.
You wanted to see the magnitude of the problem.