9 ms·

Australia confiscated 650k guns. Murders and suicides plummeted

64 points by chmaynard 4y ago

asdefghyk 4y ago
Research shows "In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. "
- asdefghyk 4y ago
  What we can say with certainty is that in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect, there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.
  - asdefghyk 4y ago
    Quotes from https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-gun-buybacks-reduce-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836 https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-g...
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    Here's a list with many Australian mass shootings since 1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Austral...
    - McP 4y ago
      Good list, but the closest thing to a mass shooting after 1996 is a familicide with 7 killed [1]. It doesn't really compare to the Port Arthur massacre. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting
      - phendrenad2 4y ago
        So, it works? But it's not enough to prove that something works (or maybe it is), there should ideally be some hypothetical method of action. What's the best theory on a voluntary buyback program stopping mass shootings?
        ChrisLomont 4y ago
        No, it doesn't work. Picking one place an outcome happened after a law was passed, while ignoring all places similar laws were passed, is not how you evaluate evidence. For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. The first world actually saw a massive homicide reduction during the same period. Some hypotheses include reduction of lead in the environment for ~prev 15-20 years, resulting in less violent people. Econ lit is full of references on all this stuff. If you do stuff like try to correlate overall homicide rate among OECD countries (or even US states, or all countries) with gun ownership rates, you get a slightly negative correlation. If you expect less guns means less homicides, this should surprise you. Lots of other countries also have passed similar laws - some saw increases in violence, some didn't. Picking one where violence went up and concluding laws don't work is as incorrect as picking Australia.
        notacoward 4y ago
        > New Zealand didn't pass such a law Yes, they bloody well did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Magazines,_and_Parts)_Amendment_Act_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Mag... Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Not when others do it - an accusation you've slung in multiple branches of this thread - and not when you do it. Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further.
        ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >Yes, they bloody well did. Yes, they passed one in 2019. They didn't pass one in 1990s and they saw the same violence reduction that pretty much all first world countries saw from then till now. So attributing changes in Australia to a 1996 law without noticing the evidence for the same reduction elsewhere without such laws is still the same erroneous logic. >Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Maybe if you read what I wrote "For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. " and understood that to mean what it says - there was a reduction over that time without such a law. Passing one 20+ years after the fact does not change that those reductions were seen around the world, including New Zealand. If they pass more next year it doesn't invalidate that without such a law they saw reductions. If they remove all laws in a decade it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. If the world ends it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. See the difference? >Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further. Indeed.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996 How much of that can be attributed to the phasing out of lead paint? [0] Or easier access to abortions? [1] [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lead-poisoning-linked-to-_b_3423272 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lead-poisoning-linked-to-_b_3... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...
- yucky 4y ago
  The US also saw a huge decrease in gun deaths during that same time frame. In fact, most countries did, since violent crime peaked in 1994 and has been declining almost every year since then (pre-COVID).
ChrisLomont 4y ago
More correctly, Australia had a voluntary gun buyback program, and a significant amount of the returned money went to buying more, newer guns. Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. This is easily checked from Australian news, govt stats, and research papers covering the issue.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Also, the rate of firearm violence was already on a linear decline. The buyback program didn't have much, if any, effect on the rate of decline.
- spicyusername 4y ago
  Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns Oh, so it only affected those types of guns that can kill people? Note during the same timeframe, Australia saw the same decline in non-gun homicides as it did in gun homicides. Maybe there were bigger factors (lead removal from common goods for one) at play? Note that New Zealand saw the same declines, despite no such gun laws, and the US saw the same declines, despite massive increases in guns owned, all during the same period. Most of the world saw this, and it's much more attributable to removing so much lead from society, resulting in less at risk people, than it was to laws.
- Youden 4y ago
  > Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. Technically true but per [0], the proportion of households with guns dropped from 20% to 6.2% and the number of licensed gun owners has dropped from 14.27% to 3.41%. So yes, there are more guns but there are fewer people with guns. [0]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (looks like a random site but it's actually run by the University of Sydney)
Giorgi 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonmp85 4y ago
  Run-on sentences, use of "woke"… I think this entire person can be ignored.
  - Giorgi 4y ago
    Spoken like a real woke.
_-david-_ 4y ago
The problem with this is the number of guns in Australia has increased despite the buyback. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/ https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-n...
- spicyusername 4y ago
  Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Semiautomatic and shotguns are still quite popular in Australia. It is hard to get an exact breakdown since many Australians own them illegally though. There is a possibility there are more of these type guns than before. The only other type of guns are bolt action and revolvers. I just don't think there was a massive increase in ownership of those, but if you have any stats I would love to see them.
- olliej 4y ago
  The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). That said I agree this article is bad, and the authors should feel bad, they've clearly gone in with the goal of making the story "and the guns all went away" [edit: sorry, I just saw who I replied to, and that was unintentional - I in no intent meant to be stalking or anything, many apologies]
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. Do you have any numbers on this? As far as I know Australia had almost no automatic weapons prior to this buyback. >There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). This is just not true. Automatic weapons are very rarely (never?) used in mass killings. I think you are confusing semiautomatic (pull the trigger and one bullet is fired) and automatic (pull the trigger and bullets continue to shoot).
ryanmarsh 4y ago
It also gave authorities the flexibility to implement pandemic policies which would have been unenforceable in a place like the US.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  You mean like suspending parliament? [1] https://www.gotocourt.com.au/legal-news/suspend-parliament/ https://www.gotocourt.com.au/legal-news/suspend-parliament/
  - jasonmp85 4y ago
    Why would this matter in the US?
- johnthealy3 4y ago
  I think one of the only things preventing the US from implementing Australia-style pandemic policies was the number of guns in civilian hands. As such, the pandemic taught me why America tolerates this sort of thing repeatedly.
- spoils19 4y ago
  There's valid points on both sides, but the freedom to express our liberties should always triumph political points and reactionary policies.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  You say as if that was a bad thing
avalys 4y ago
- sharemywin 4y ago
  clearly we should ban cars to stop drunk driving.
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    Free, overnight public transport on weekends is effectively same. Gov could just cover your insane Uber fees and would probably end up saving money.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      Or, you know, a regular taxi service. Japan has one where a second person shows up to drive your car home as well: > The service, known as “daiko” in Japan, gives inebriated people a lift home, along with their vehicles, after a night on the town. * https://www.stripes.com/news/dial-a-driver-service-helps-us-forces-fight-duis-on-okinawa-1.456859 https://www.stripes.com/news/dial-a-driver-service-helps-us-...
      - dzhiurgis 4y ago
        This too, but my point is people will try to save even $5 and risk driving drunk instead.
- jasonmp85 4y ago
  Driving has some utility.
- spicyusername 4y ago
  The spreading of overly-simplistic black and white perspectives like this are why so many good, but nuanced, policies are politically dead in the water. As with eliminating gun violence, there are plenty of solutions to drunk driving that don't involve eliminating alcohol from the equation, but they require that politicians and their constituents have the political will to try them. What your saying is funny and sounds good, but is not contributing meaningfully to the conversation of how to solve these problems that need solving.
pessimizer 4y ago
The US has 400 million guns. Good luck with that, they'll take you away before you take them away. It's a liberal voter delusion that the 2% of US guns in the hands of the military and police can be used to take away the 98% of guns owned by people who want to keep them. And it is a voter delusion, because the Democratic party wouldn't even be able to get the votes within its own party if there were a chance in hell of it passing, and they know it. It's just a wedge issue. It's effective because the upper-middle class liberal base can imagine themselves being affected by a mass shooting, so they care about it. Mass shootings are a media boon, because they know that they don't have to do any work for the next week, just dust off all of the timeless partisan nonsense that they published during the last one. Right now a bunch of right-wing outlets are doing the same thing, and gun sales are about to go up.
- giantg2 4y ago
  The biggest issue/question that never comes up on this topic... do you really think the police and military are amenable to taking the weapons? These are people too. Some, possibly many in my experience, would be totally against doing that to the point of it turning into a coup.
  - coenhyde 4y ago
    The thing is, even in Australia we didn't try to take the guns. We just said, "give us your guns, and we will give you above market rate money. Oh and btw it is illegal to own a gun that isn't registered." If your buy back program offers a higher rate than the market (black or otherwise). Then the buyback program will suck up the guns.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Yeah, I was replying about the confiscation comment. Aren't there still a lot of unregistered guns in the rural areas? I had a friend who lived over there and said that was fairly common.
      - 4y ago
coenhyde 4y ago
FYI we didn't "confiscate" them. It was a buyback for any guns you didn't register. I am anti guns. But after living in the US for more than a decade I acknowledge a mandatory buyback program wouldn't work here. For idealogical, practical and economic reasons. The USA is the largest manufacturer of guns in the world. And the domestic market is important to their business. In Australia we don't manufacture guns, so it's easy for us to say no more gun imports. If people in the US want their guns, then whatever. But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. We must acknowledge that all guns are not created equal. Some guns can kill more in a shorter period than others. If the lethality of a weapon doesn't matter then why can't we go buy tomahawk missiles or a tactical nuke. Personally I'd like an M1 Abrams Tank for self defense.
- spicyusername 4y ago
  > But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. It's frustrating how small and simple of a step this could be but how unlikely a small, vocal, and politically active minority of American's are to it.
  - treesknees 4y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws that restrict gun ownership. I think the truth is it's not a minority.
    - darknavi 4y ago
      > If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws Have week been watching the same government for the last 6 years?
    - giantg2 4y ago
      It may be a minority, but probably not a small one. The question then becomes about what restrictions would be found to be constitutional while being effective (and defining which specific part of the issue we're trying to fix). It's an interesting lead-in to the larger topic of when a majority should restrict the freedoms/rights of a minority and how that plays out - whether talking about guns or abortion, etc.
samatman 4y ago
Here's the study. It's about firearm suicides and murder, not suicide and murder. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2...
8bitsrule 4y ago
The intention of US founders: https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/ https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/ The intent did not include any dork with a grudge. Edit: I respected and still respect the gentlemen who taught me gun use and gun safety when I was a teenager. They understood their duties to their country - several of them had served in WW2 and had a sober perspective - and I have no doubt that men like them would and could help to put an end to our ongoing horrors.
- giantg2 4y ago
  And here is definition of militia in Code. Although I wonder if it's still acceptable to discriminate on age, sex, and physical handicap. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
olliej 4y ago
This is an annoying article, as it reflects lazy research to support a predetermined conclusion. This is annoying as it's so bad, that it provides evidence that "gun control reporting is misleading". My understanding, and other commenters seem to agree, the gun buyback program didn't reduce gun ownership, and it also can't be tied to the reduction in casualties as those numbers were already tracking down before the buyback. More accurate reporting would instead focus on the restrictions on types of guns that were legally permitted, and how those restrictions impacted the repeat of sprees (there have been none). Similar restrictions in the UK after their big shootings had similar near eradication of mass shootings. The restrictions basically meant a complete ban on * All self loading rifles * All self loading shotguns * All pump action shotguns Now in addition to that people had to demonstrate actual need for weapons that they owned. That meant you had to prove you had a occupational need, were an active member of a shooting club, or you were an active hunter - and had proof of access to hunting land. Gun licensing was divided into five different categories, which each had different requirements, but all required a pile of mandatory training. Most countries other than the US have a pile of rules requiring safety+security of gun and ammunition storage, but afaict that doesn't have any impact mass shootings (and I don't see why it would?), it seems mostly to be responsible for the far lower rates of accidental child/child-involved death in non-US countries. I say this as someone who apparently pulled a rifle on my mum as a 4yo, before NZ had real weapon security rules, so I could easily have been an orphan due to NZ's lack of gun security laws at that point.
chrismcb 4y ago
"murders and suicides plummeted" But they didn't. At least not homicides. Homicides didn't plummet until early 2000s. # of homicides by year (I'm not exactly sure how a year is counted, for example first year is 1989-1990, 1990-1991, etc: 307,324,313,332,323,327,303,299,328,305,310,351,299,289,248,283 It really falls off after the 283, but the 1995-97 numbers are right around 300. Yeah, less than the previous years, but not by a lot (and as the article pointed out, there was already a downward trend) After 1996 the number of homicides committed with a firearm went down, but the actual number of homicides didn't. Data from https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide
cudgy 4y ago
So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? Those that have the money to hire police / special security personnel to protect them? What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? There is a constitutional right to have guns in the US and a very conservative supreme court, so I doubt a draconian ban will have legs in the US anyway.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? Cars and trucks need licensing, large purchases of fertilizers are tracked (esp. post Oklahoma City), as are large purchases of fuel and chemicals (thanks meth epidemic and Breaking Bad). The licensing and tracking of firearms in the US is… spotty. Perhaps if some of the same measures were implemented it would help the situation. Massachusetts may be a good place to start: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
- rstuart4133 4y ago
  > So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? I'm an Australian. The answer is anyone who wants to if you aren't on one of the usual lists (the same sort of lists US has). I know one person with 40 guns at home. But ... there are rules. You have to have training, the sort of training you can typically only achieve by joining a gun club. You have to be registered. You have to have an approved gun safe. I think there is a regulation about storing the ammo separately. Nothing over the top, certainly nothing more burdensome than a car owner faces. Because it's not difficult we have our share of Olympic firearms champions, we have political parties called "The hunters and fishers party". It a wild guess, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Australia has the same proportion of people who enjoy hunting with guns as the US does. All this is allowed, and our Olympic shooters are celebrated, just like all other sports people. > What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? I don't know what stops them from finding other ways to kill themselves (suicide) and or others. But the statistics are pretty clear. They don't do it. Which does make you wonder about the difference between the homicide rates in the US and the rest of the world. If there is one clear difference in attitude, it's this: owning a gun for personal protection is not considered good form any Western country other than the USA. And that unsurprisingly means people don't shoot each other as often, which translates to fewer gun homicides. For example USA gun ownership: 120/100 people [0]. Australia gun ownership: 30/100. So maybe 4 times any many guns in the USA. But gun homicides: 4.12/100 in the USA, 0.18 in Australia. 22 times higher. To state the obvious: if the goal of "owning a gun for personal protection" is to keep you safer, it ain't working. In fact it's a disaster - the cure is far worse than the disease. The civil society in west is usually very good at digesting that sort of information, and acting on it. (They don't always act on it by banning or restricting gun ownership - Australia certainly didn't.) The fact the the USA's civil society hasn't managed that makes us think you yankees are a little odd. [0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-compar...

64 points by chmaynard 4y ago

Research shows "In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. "

asdefghyk 4y ago
What we can say with certainty is that in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect, there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.
- asdefghyk 4y ago
  Quotes from https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-gun-buybacks-reduce-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836 https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-g...
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  Here's a list with many Australian mass shootings since 1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Austral...
  - McP 4y ago
    Good list, but the closest thing to a mass shooting after 1996 is a familicide with 7 killed [1]. It doesn't really compare to the Port Arthur massacre. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting
    - phendrenad2 4y ago
      So, it works? But it's not enough to prove that something works (or maybe it is), there should ideally be some hypothetical method of action. What's the best theory on a voluntary buyback program stopping mass shootings?
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        No, it doesn't work. Picking one place an outcome happened after a law was passed, while ignoring all places similar laws were passed, is not how you evaluate evidence. For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. The first world actually saw a massive homicide reduction during the same period. Some hypotheses include reduction of lead in the environment for ~prev 15-20 years, resulting in less violent people. Econ lit is full of references on all this stuff. If you do stuff like try to correlate overall homicide rate among OECD countries (or even US states, or all countries) with gun ownership rates, you get a slightly negative correlation. If you expect less guns means less homicides, this should surprise you. Lots of other countries also have passed similar laws - some saw increases in violence, some didn't. Picking one where violence went up and concluding laws don't work is as incorrect as picking Australia.
        notacoward 4y ago
        > New Zealand didn't pass such a law Yes, they bloody well did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Magazines,_and_Parts)_Amendment_Act_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Mag... Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Not when others do it - an accusation you've slung in multiple branches of this thread - and not when you do it. Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further.
        ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >Yes, they bloody well did. Yes, they passed one in 2019. They didn't pass one in 1990s and they saw the same violence reduction that pretty much all first world countries saw from then till now. So attributing changes in Australia to a 1996 law without noticing the evidence for the same reduction elsewhere without such laws is still the same erroneous logic. >Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Maybe if you read what I wrote "For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. " and understood that to mean what it says - there was a reduction over that time without such a law. Passing one 20+ years after the fact does not change that those reductions were seen around the world, including New Zealand. If they pass more next year it doesn't invalidate that without such a law they saw reductions. If they remove all laws in a decade it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. If the world ends it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. See the difference? >Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further. Indeed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996 How much of that can be attributed to the phasing out of lead paint? [0] Or easier access to abortions? [1] [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lead-poisoning-linked-to-_b_3423272 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lead-poisoning-linked-to-_b_3... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...
yucky 4y ago
The US also saw a huge decrease in gun deaths during that same time frame. In fact, most countries did, since violent crime peaked in 1994 and has been declining almost every year since then (pre-COVID).

ChrisLomont 4y ago

More correctly, Australia had a voluntary gun buyback program, and a significant amount of the returned money went to buying more, newer guns. Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. This is easily checked from Australian news, govt stats, and research papers covering the issue.

claytongulick 4y ago
Also, the rate of firearm violence was already on a linear decline. The buyback program didn't have much, if any, effect on the rate of decline.
spicyusername 4y ago
Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns Oh, so it only affected those types of guns that can kill people? Note during the same timeframe, Australia saw the same decline in non-gun homicides as it did in gun homicides. Maybe there were bigger factors (lead removal from common goods for one) at play? Note that New Zealand saw the same declines, despite no such gun laws, and the US saw the same declines, despite massive increases in guns owned, all during the same period. Most of the world saw this, and it's much more attributable to removing so much lead from society, resulting in less at risk people, than it was to laws.
Youden 4y ago
> Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. Technically true but per [0], the proportion of households with guns dropped from 20% to 6.2% and the number of licensed gun owners has dropped from 14.27% to 3.41%. So yes, there are more guns but there are fewer people with guns. [0]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (looks like a random site but it's actually run by the University of Sydney)

Giorgi 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jasonmp85 4y ago
Run-on sentences, use of "woke"… I think this entire person can be ignored.
- Giorgi 4y ago
  Spoken like a real woke.

_-david-_ 4y ago

The problem with this is the number of guns in Australia has increased despite the buyback. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/ https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-n...

spicyusername 4y ago
Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Semiautomatic and shotguns are still quite popular in Australia. It is hard to get an exact breakdown since many Australians own them illegally though. There is a possibility there are more of these type guns than before. The only other type of guns are bolt action and revolvers. I just don't think there was a massive increase in ownership of those, but if you have any stats I would love to see them.
olliej 4y ago
The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). That said I agree this article is bad, and the authors should feel bad, they've clearly gone in with the goal of making the story "and the guns all went away" [edit: sorry, I just saw who I replied to, and that was unintentional - I in no intent meant to be stalking or anything, many apologies]
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. Do you have any numbers on this? As far as I know Australia had almost no automatic weapons prior to this buyback. >There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). This is just not true. Automatic weapons are very rarely (never?) used in mass killings. I think you are confusing semiautomatic (pull the trigger and one bullet is fired) and automatic (pull the trigger and bullets continue to shoot).

ryanmarsh 4y ago

It also gave authorities the flexibility to implement pandemic policies which would have been unenforceable in a place like the US.

claytongulick 4y ago
You mean like suspending parliament? [1] https://www.gotocourt.com.au/legal-news/suspend-parliament/ https://www.gotocourt.com.au/legal-news/suspend-parliament/
- jasonmp85 4y ago
  Why would this matter in the US?
johnthealy3 4y ago
I think one of the only things preventing the US from implementing Australia-style pandemic policies was the number of guns in civilian hands. As such, the pandemic taught me why America tolerates this sort of thing repeatedly.
spoils19 4y ago
There's valid points on both sides, but the freedom to express our liberties should always triumph political points and reactionary policies.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
You say as if that was a bad thing

avalys 4y ago

sharemywin 4y ago
clearly we should ban cars to stop drunk driving.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  Free, overnight public transport on weekends is effectively same. Gov could just cover your insane Uber fees and would probably end up saving money.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    Or, you know, a regular taxi service. Japan has one where a second person shows up to drive your car home as well: > The service, known as “daiko” in Japan, gives inebriated people a lift home, along with their vehicles, after a night on the town. * https://www.stripes.com/news/dial-a-driver-service-helps-us-forces-fight-duis-on-okinawa-1.456859 https://www.stripes.com/news/dial-a-driver-service-helps-us-...
    - dzhiurgis 4y ago
      This too, but my point is people will try to save even $5 and risk driving drunk instead.
jasonmp85 4y ago
Driving has some utility.
spicyusername 4y ago
The spreading of overly-simplistic black and white perspectives like this are why so many good, but nuanced, policies are politically dead in the water. As with eliminating gun violence, there are plenty of solutions to drunk driving that don't involve eliminating alcohol from the equation, but they require that politicians and their constituents have the political will to try them. What your saying is funny and sounds good, but is not contributing meaningfully to the conversation of how to solve these problems that need solving.

pessimizer 4y ago

The US has 400 million guns. Good luck with that, they'll take you away before you take them away. It's a liberal voter delusion that the 2% of US guns in the hands of the military and police can be used to take away the 98% of guns owned by people who want to keep them. And it is a voter delusion, because the Democratic party wouldn't even be able to get the votes within its own party if there were a chance in hell of it passing, and they know it. It's just a wedge issue. It's effective because the upper-middle class liberal base can imagine themselves being affected by a mass shooting, so they care about it. Mass shootings are a media boon, because they know that they don't have to do any work for the next week, just dust off all of the timeless partisan nonsense that they published during the last one. Right now a bunch of right-wing outlets are doing the same thing, and gun sales are about to go up.

giantg2 4y ago
The biggest issue/question that never comes up on this topic... do you really think the police and military are amenable to taking the weapons? These are people too. Some, possibly many in my experience, would be totally against doing that to the point of it turning into a coup.
- coenhyde 4y ago
  The thing is, even in Australia we didn't try to take the guns. We just said, "give us your guns, and we will give you above market rate money. Oh and btw it is illegal to own a gun that isn't registered." If your buy back program offers a higher rate than the market (black or otherwise). Then the buyback program will suck up the guns.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Yeah, I was replying about the confiscation comment. Aren't there still a lot of unregistered guns in the rural areas? I had a friend who lived over there and said that was fairly common.
    - 4y ago

coenhyde 4y ago

FYI we didn't "confiscate" them. It was a buyback for any guns you didn't register. I am anti guns. But after living in the US for more than a decade I acknowledge a mandatory buyback program wouldn't work here. For idealogical, practical and economic reasons. The USA is the largest manufacturer of guns in the world. And the domestic market is important to their business. In Australia we don't manufacture guns, so it's easy for us to say no more gun imports. If people in the US want their guns, then whatever. But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. We must acknowledge that all guns are not created equal. Some guns can kill more in a shorter period than others. If the lethality of a weapon doesn't matter then why can't we go buy tomahawk missiles or a tactical nuke. Personally I'd like an M1 Abrams Tank for self defense.

spicyusername 4y ago
> But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. It's frustrating how small and simple of a step this could be but how unlikely a small, vocal, and politically active minority of American's are to it.
- treesknees 4y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws that restrict gun ownership. I think the truth is it's not a minority.
  - darknavi 4y ago
    > If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws Have week been watching the same government for the last 6 years?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    It may be a minority, but probably not a small one. The question then becomes about what restrictions would be found to be constitutional while being effective (and defining which specific part of the issue we're trying to fix). It's an interesting lead-in to the larger topic of when a majority should restrict the freedoms/rights of a minority and how that plays out - whether talking about guns or abortion, etc.

samatman 4y ago

Here's the study. It's about firearm suicides and murder, not suicide and murder. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2...

8bitsrule 4y ago

The intention of US founders: https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/ https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/ The intent did not include any dork with a grudge. Edit: I respected and still respect the gentlemen who taught me gun use and gun safety when I was a teenager. They understood their duties to their country - several of them had served in WW2 and had a sober perspective - and I have no doubt that men like them would and could help to put an end to our ongoing horrors.

giantg2 4y ago
And here is definition of militia in Code. Although I wonder if it's still acceptable to discriminate on age, sex, and physical handicap. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

olliej 4y ago

This is an annoying article, as it reflects lazy research to support a predetermined conclusion. This is annoying as it's so bad, that it provides evidence that "gun control reporting is misleading". My understanding, and other commenters seem to agree, the gun buyback program didn't reduce gun ownership, and it also can't be tied to the reduction in casualties as those numbers were already tracking down before the buyback. More accurate reporting would instead focus on the restrictions on types of guns that were legally permitted, and how those restrictions impacted the repeat of sprees (there have been none). Similar restrictions in the UK after their big shootings had similar near eradication of mass shootings. The restrictions basically meant a complete ban on * All self loading rifles * All self loading shotguns * All pump action shotguns Now in addition to that people had to demonstrate actual need for weapons that they owned. That meant you had to prove you had a occupational need, were an active member of a shooting club, or you were an active hunter - and had proof of access to hunting land. Gun licensing was divided into five different categories, which each had different requirements, but all required a pile of mandatory training. Most countries other than the US have a pile of rules requiring safety+security of gun and ammunition storage, but afaict that doesn't have any impact mass shootings (and I don't see why it would?), it seems mostly to be responsible for the far lower rates of accidental child/child-involved death in non-US countries. I say this as someone who apparently pulled a rifle on my mum as a 4yo, before NZ had real weapon security rules, so I could easily have been an orphan due to NZ's lack of gun security laws at that point.

chrismcb 4y ago

"murders and suicides plummeted" But they didn't. At least not homicides. Homicides didn't plummet until early 2000s. # of homicides by year (I'm not exactly sure how a year is counted, for example first year is 1989-1990, 1990-1991, etc: 307,324,313,332,323,327,303,299,328,305,310,351,299,289,248,283 It really falls off after the 283, but the 1995-97 numbers are right around 300. Yeah, less than the previous years, but not by a lot (and as the article pointed out, there was already a downward trend) After 1996 the number of homicides committed with a firearm went down, but the actual number of homicides didn't. Data from https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide

cudgy 4y ago

So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? Those that have the money to hire police / special security personnel to protect them? What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? There is a constitutional right to have guns in the US and a very conservative supreme court, so I doubt a draconian ban will have legs in the US anyway.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 4y ago
> Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? Cars and trucks need licensing, large purchases of fertilizers are tracked (esp. post Oklahoma City), as are large purchases of fuel and chemicals (thanks meth epidemic and Breaking Bad). The licensing and tracking of firearms in the US is… spotty. Perhaps if some of the same measures were implemented it would help the situation. Massachusetts may be a good place to start: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
rstuart4133 4y ago
> So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? I'm an Australian. The answer is anyone who wants to if you aren't on one of the usual lists (the same sort of lists US has). I know one person with 40 guns at home. But ... there are rules. You have to have training, the sort of training you can typically only achieve by joining a gun club. You have to be registered. You have to have an approved gun safe. I think there is a regulation about storing the ammo separately. Nothing over the top, certainly nothing more burdensome than a car owner faces. Because it's not difficult we have our share of Olympic firearms champions, we have political parties called "The hunters and fishers party". It a wild guess, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Australia has the same proportion of people who enjoy hunting with guns as the US does. All this is allowed, and our Olympic shooters are celebrated, just like all other sports people. > What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? I don't know what stops them from finding other ways to kill themselves (suicide) and or others. But the statistics are pretty clear. They don't do it. Which does make you wonder about the difference between the homicide rates in the US and the rest of the world. If there is one clear difference in attitude, it's this: owning a gun for personal protection is not considered good form any Western country other than the USA. And that unsurprisingly means people don't shoot each other as often, which translates to fewer gun homicides. For example USA gun ownership: 120/100 people [0]. Australia gun ownership: 30/100. So maybe 4 times any many guns in the USA. But gun homicides: 4.12/100 in the USA, 0.18 in Australia. 22 times higher. To state the obvious: if the goal of "owning a gun for personal protection" is to keep you safer, it ain't working. In fact it's a disaster - the cure is far worse than the disease. The civil society in west is usually very good at digesting that sort of information, and acting on it. (They don't always act on it by banning or restricting gun ownership - Australia certainly didn't.) The fact the the USA's civil society hasn't managed that makes us think you yankees are a little odd. [0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-compar...