12 ms·

As found in the NY Times today regarding this subject: "In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister t

As found in the NY Times today regarding this subject: "In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands. The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings. In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent". It was legislation, intelligent legislation, that worked. It did not advocate the complete abolishment of firearms, which many pro-gun advocates seem to be making the mental leap towards when any discussion of gun "rights" is brought up. Thinking this problem isn't partially-solvable is ignorant.

angersock 14y ago
Tragic as these things are, I cannot endorse such a proposal for the United States. This year alone we've seen how many articles on wiretapping, government databases, executive assassination orders, and drone usage? Any citizen needs to hang on to whatever tools they have.
- pekk 14y ago
  Please be explicit when making this argument: you want the capacity to wage civil war against the policies of the current administration. This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it and you should probably be organizing in advance of the civil war that you believe to be necessary. You can't say these things and sit on the fence. Admit what you are saying.
  - icelancer 14y ago
    >This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.
  - angersock 14y ago
    I feel that it is completely reasonable to assert that, at some point in the future, a bad actor could bring about domestic policies which serve to undermine further the principles of civilization we hold important. I additionally assert that such an occurrence would seem easier with a populace not in possession of modern small arms. I did not, do not, and will not assert that there is any reason to believe we must organize against the current administration. I additionally did not state and do not believe that civil war is either desirable or neccesary. Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(
    - bmelton 14y ago
      __Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(__ Sorry, I was writing my crazy before you submitted.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Is there some reason he can't have guns to wage civil war? I believe that the entire point of the second amendment is to enable us to form militias should the need develop. Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners. The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse. If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
    - csense 14y ago
      > I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights. The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor. To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic. This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    Similarly to how strong password policies are no match for good hackers, but make compromising many accounts expensive or prohibitive, an armed populace cannot defeat a trained army, but can make "martial law" and other military actions against civilians risky and expensive -- and that is enough. It is the same principle as the older threat of a mob or peasant revolt. The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries not to follow its own law that gives its civilians and states the same option. This is partly a result of the American civil war but the civil war does not excuse any weakening of civilians, especially considering the special provision for them that is in the US Constitution. Note that nowhere do I or the parent post of yours say a civil war is necessary or even a good idea. I would like you to agree that it is possible to advocate for the option to do something without actually wanting that thing to happen.
  - cms07 14y ago
    This is the entire purpose of the second amendment, like it or not. The people who wrote it knew that the first 5 amendments were protections against what they thought was tyranny. The ability to have the ability to wage civil war is an inherent right of any United States citizen, regardless of the non-existent right to actually wage it.
- benjohnson 14y ago
  Imagine the suffering of the world if the United States turned even more 'evil' - with such a nuclear and technological arsenal we have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that no tyranny takes root here.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
    False, you are going to be comfy enough to not start a civil war. Civil wars only start when a government abuse its own people; the American government tries to avoid this but is not very good at it. The abused are usually foreign countries and America have invested way too much money and people in military to be defeated by any other.
- serge2k 14y ago
  So you can feel good about being a big tough gun owner well your government does whatever the hell they feel like anyway?
harshreality 14y ago
People can use any weapons they want in mass attacks. Cho (the VA Tech shooter) used two handguns, no long guns at all, and that attack was more lethal. [1] The Monash University shooting (7 people hit) doesn't count as an Austrialian mass shooting? It took place in 2002, after the new Australian law. [2] Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms. Even if the arguments in favor of banning guns were convincing, you can't maintain respect for the constitution or the rule of law while enacting laws that violate the constitution. The proximal reason for this event was the killer's mother, who it seems drove him insane with her paranoid end-of-the-world mentality. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Weapons [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
- brianchu 14y ago
  This is actually an effective argument for comprehensive gun control. An assault weapons ban would not prevent those two mass killings you cite. But, however, having a comprehensive system where, for example, mental health records are tied to gun purchase background checks would have prevented Seung-Hui Cho from purchasing handguns. Gun control is not just one policy. It's a broad policy with many possible facets: an assault weapons ban, federal standards for background checks, cracking down on sales at gun shows, eliminating loopholes, tying mental health records to background checks, the list goes on. EDITS (reply to below, additional things constantly added): I'm not naive enough to say that comprehensive gun control is going to eliminate all gun violence. I'm saying that it's a step forwards towards reducing gun violence. >We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work? This is a non sequitur. Just because the drug war has failed and the phrase "comprehensive drug control" shares two words with the phrase "comprehensive gun control" is not enough to logically lead to the conclusion that gun control is/will be a failure. The comparison needs to be elaborated. Let me elaborate on a few differences: people don't get addicted to guns like they do with drugs, someone using a drug can not directly physically injure someone else, drugs are much smaller and easier to hide (EDIT: for smuggling on an individual basis, not for a cartel), guns are hard to mass produce without people noticing. Drunk driving is not really relevant unless there is a large trend of accidents caused by cocaine/heroin/marijuana (rather than just alcohol). Guns are much less profitable for cartels than drugs are (for reasons of addiction). I think nitpicking over the specifics of an assault weapons ban does not really counter my point. I meant semi-automatic weapons with magazines/cartridges (and automatic weapons). Even if my definition misses something, I'd be willing to just concede that and expand my definition. Yes, it's obvious that a ban implemented today would not stop Adam Lanza, because the guns are already bought. It might reduce the number of deaths of an Adam Lanza 5 years from now (I'm acknowledging of course that he also had two handguns with him). To be clear, I don't propose that we should have a blanket handgun ban. It's simply not a realistic goal (politically and in terms of all the guns already out there). There are ways to improve gun control without banning all handguns. I also think that the mental health system in America is broken and needs fixing. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
waterlesscloud 14y ago
So reducing the number of guns in private hands by 20% reduced the number of mass shootings by 100%? Hmmm.
- lbarrow 14y ago
  This is entirely plausible. Mass shootings aren't carried out by a random sampling of gun owners -- they're carried out by exactly the people who would be prohibited from owning guns if we tightened the laws around gun ownership a bit. The best example of this is Seung-Hui Cho, aka the Virginia Tech shooter, who was able to buy handguns completely legally despite being involuntarily detained at a mental hospital less than two years beforehand. He then went on to kill 32 people.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    You're inferring that mass shootings are carried out exclusively by the sort of person who would sell the government his weapon under a buy-back program. (Otherwise there still would have been shootings, even if fewer, with guns bought before the new regulations on sales) Just how realistic do you think that is?
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  And by the same token, the TSA has reduced the number of US airline hijackings by 100%. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, indeed.
temphn 14y ago
Murder is banned. He committed more than twenty murders. Why do people think that you can ban mental illness? The focus on guns as opposed to the person is similar to the TSA's focus on weapons vs. terrorists. As for the cause and effect line you draw, hardly so clear cut. Switzerland has assault rifles in every home and a low crime rate. The UK has an effective gun ban and a very high crime rate. I know that if a Vancouver or London style riot comes to my town, that I want my Glock handy. There were many videos on Youtube of no-go zones with no police and rampant chaos during those riots. 911 will not be there when everyone needs it at once.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  So the tech community believes that "frictionless sharing" is a thing, but that the converse isn't? It's fine if guns are legal. But it should be way more inconvenient to kill a lot of people. I want it to require a great deal of skill and/or planning to start a massacre. It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now.
  - angersock 14y ago
    "It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now." We've had repeating firearms for more than a century--this is not a new thing to be afraid of. We've been killing each other on much larger scales much more inefficiently and painfully than that--try millenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots ).
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      The problem is not inefficient killing. The Rwandan genocide was performed largely without firearms, but required massive planning and mobilization. It was a collective and political massacre involving the complicity of many. The problem I have is with the proverbial army of one. It needs to be harder for a single person to murder 30 people in one incident.
  - __--__ 14y ago
    So where does that leave non-firearms related weapons? Potassium nitrate bombs are easy to make and can result in far more deaths than guns can. You can make napalm by soaking styrofoam in gasoline. Should we control the usage and distribution of packing peanuts? It may sound like a ridiculous argument, but it's the exact one you're making. What about machetes or hunting knives? If the real focus is to inflict mass casualties, there are tools far more appropriate for that sort of thing than guns and non-automatic rifles that take as much (or as little) planning as getting a hold of a gun and ammo. As someone else already said on this thread: you can't ban mental illness with legislation.
Tyrant505 14y ago
First, thank you for the stat. But do you really think someone as disturbed as this person could not just use basic fire arms or knives to do as much devastation? A bag full of shells with the blocks removed from a pump shotgun? The kid had what he had.. and just ran with it.
tsotha 14y ago
The odds of dying in one of these mass shooting incidents in the US are infinitesimally small. These incidents are the price of freedom, and I'm sad to hear the Aussies are no longer willing to pay it.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  I'm generally in favor of freedom, but you can't assume it's always a good, at any cost. If (and I don't really believe this) frequent mass murders were the cost of freedom, we would have to seriously consider whether it was worth it.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    What do you mean by "frequent"? The US is a country of 312m people.
    - andrewflnr 14y ago
      Find any of the recent threads here on the Connecticut shooting. We (in the US) do seem to have a relatively high per-capita mass-murder rate, at least compared to other first-world countries. That wasn't my main point though.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        > We (in the US) do seem to have a relatively high per-capita mass-murder rate, at least compared to other first-world countries. That statistic is misleading and ignores the elephant in the room: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931177 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931177
        flyinRyan 14y ago
        It isn't misleading! You're the one being misleading by claiming we need to cook the data to come up with the result you want to have instead of the reality of the situation.
salemh 14y ago
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html "Lesser" crimes increased during the banning yet decreased overtime, but influences on burglary are not readily available. Unfortunately I wrote a paper in high school detailing a 300% increase in burglary and violence during the ban period, which came from the US DoJ, and I have not been able to find the source since (10 years or so).
mynameishere 14y ago
I'm having a hard time finding good comparable numbers, but you can see that total homicides (1993-2007) went from ~300 to ~260 in Australia http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html whereas the (per 100,000) homicide rate in the US went from 9.5 to 5.7 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html ...if someone else wants to look up the population numbers and do the division, ok. But it's clear that the US's rate improved similarly or better than Australia's. Please try to keep in mind that the nytime's has a strident agenda. ED: I didn't read the .AU text. Their numbers went from 1.9 per to 1.3 per.
- vacri 14y ago
  Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The prison population in the same time in the US skyrocketed beyond belief.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    That doesn't make it wrong. There is a reason the public started to support stiffer sentences, after all - they believed (correctly, as it turns out) locking up criminals means you get less crime.
    - mpweiher 14y ago
      Except that crime rates dropped the same way in just about every other western country without harsher sentencing, and without locking up large sections of the population. Update: Thanks "lostlogin", fixed.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        Not by the same amount, though.
        mpweiher 14y ago
        They didn't have the chance to drop by the same amount, because they were much lower to begin with. And are still much lower. But drop they did. So what's the evidence again for higher incarceration rates and stiffer sentencing leading to lower crime?
learc83 14y ago
>"The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent". That statistic is only useful if we only care about murders committed with firearms. Honestly why would that be meaningful? At the end of the day the only thing that matters is total homicides. Looking at total homicide rates in Australia (per hundred thousand): 1.9 in 1996, up to 2.0 in 2000, and down to 1.3 in 2007. In the US 7.4 in 1996, down to 5.9 in 2007. A similar decline in both the US, and Australia. The evidence doesn't show that the gun ban did anything to significantly lower overall homicide rates.

angersock 14y ago

Tragic as these things are, I cannot endorse such a proposal for the United States. This year alone we've seen how many articles on wiretapping, government databases, executive assassination orders, and drone usage? Any citizen needs to hang on to whatever tools they have.

pekk 14y ago
Please be explicit when making this argument: you want the capacity to wage civil war against the policies of the current administration. This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it and you should probably be organizing in advance of the civil war that you believe to be necessary. You can't say these things and sit on the fence. Admit what you are saying.
- icelancer 14y ago
  >This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.
- angersock 14y ago
  I feel that it is completely reasonable to assert that, at some point in the future, a bad actor could bring about domestic policies which serve to undermine further the principles of civilization we hold important. I additionally assert that such an occurrence would seem easier with a populace not in possession of modern small arms. I did not, do not, and will not assert that there is any reason to believe we must organize against the current administration. I additionally did not state and do not believe that civil war is either desirable or neccesary. Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(
  - bmelton 14y ago
    __Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(__ Sorry, I was writing my crazy before you submitted.
- bmelton 14y ago
  Is there some reason he can't have guns to wage civil war? I believe that the entire point of the second amendment is to enable us to form militias should the need develop. Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners. The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse. If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
  - csense 14y ago
    > I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights. The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor. To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic. This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  Similarly to how strong password policies are no match for good hackers, but make compromising many accounts expensive or prohibitive, an armed populace cannot defeat a trained army, but can make "martial law" and other military actions against civilians risky and expensive -- and that is enough. It is the same principle as the older threat of a mob or peasant revolt. The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries not to follow its own law that gives its civilians and states the same option. This is partly a result of the American civil war but the civil war does not excuse any weakening of civilians, especially considering the special provision for them that is in the US Constitution. Note that nowhere do I or the parent post of yours say a civil war is necessary or even a good idea. I would like you to agree that it is possible to advocate for the option to do something without actually wanting that thing to happen.
- cms07 14y ago
  This is the entire purpose of the second amendment, like it or not. The people who wrote it knew that the first 5 amendments were protections against what they thought was tyranny. The ability to have the ability to wage civil war is an inherent right of any United States citizen, regardless of the non-existent right to actually wage it.
benjohnson 14y ago
Imagine the suffering of the world if the United States turned even more 'evil' - with such a nuclear and technological arsenal we have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that no tyranny takes root here.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  False, you are going to be comfy enough to not start a civil war. Civil wars only start when a government abuse its own people; the American government tries to avoid this but is not very good at it. The abused are usually foreign countries and America have invested way too much money and people in military to be defeated by any other.
serge2k 14y ago
So you can feel good about being a big tough gun owner well your government does whatever the hell they feel like anyway?

harshreality 14y ago

People can use any weapons they want in mass attacks. Cho (the VA Tech shooter) used two handguns, no long guns at all, and that attack was more lethal. [1] The Monash University shooting (7 people hit) doesn't count as an Austrialian mass shooting? It took place in 2002, after the new Australian law. [2] Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms. Even if the arguments in favor of banning guns were convincing, you can't maintain respect for the constitution or the rule of law while enacting laws that violate the constitution. The proximal reason for this event was the killer's mother, who it seems drove him insane with her paranoid end-of-the-world mentality. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Weapons [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

brianchu 14y ago
This is actually an effective argument for comprehensive gun control. An assault weapons ban would not prevent those two mass killings you cite. But, however, having a comprehensive system where, for example, mental health records are tied to gun purchase background checks would have prevented Seung-Hui Cho from purchasing handguns. Gun control is not just one policy. It's a broad policy with many possible facets: an assault weapons ban, federal standards for background checks, cracking down on sales at gun shows, eliminating loopholes, tying mental health records to background checks, the list goes on. EDITS (reply to below, additional things constantly added): I'm not naive enough to say that comprehensive gun control is going to eliminate all gun violence. I'm saying that it's a step forwards towards reducing gun violence. >We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work? This is a non sequitur. Just because the drug war has failed and the phrase "comprehensive drug control" shares two words with the phrase "comprehensive gun control" is not enough to logically lead to the conclusion that gun control is/will be a failure. The comparison needs to be elaborated. Let me elaborate on a few differences: people don't get addicted to guns like they do with drugs, someone using a drug can not directly physically injure someone else, drugs are much smaller and easier to hide (EDIT: for smuggling on an individual basis, not for a cartel), guns are hard to mass produce without people noticing. Drunk driving is not really relevant unless there is a large trend of accidents caused by cocaine/heroin/marijuana (rather than just alcohol). Guns are much less profitable for cartels than drugs are (for reasons of addiction). I think nitpicking over the specifics of an assault weapons ban does not really counter my point. I meant semi-automatic weapons with magazines/cartridges (and automatic weapons). Even if my definition misses something, I'd be willing to just concede that and expand my definition. Yes, it's obvious that a ban implemented today would not stop Adam Lanza, because the guns are already bought. It might reduce the number of deaths of an Adam Lanza 5 years from now (I'm acknowledging of course that he also had two handguns with him). To be clear, I don't propose that we should have a blanket handgun ban. It's simply not a realistic goal (politically and in terms of all the guns already out there). There are ways to improve gun control without banning all handguns. I also think that the mental health system in America is broken and needs fixing. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

waterlesscloud 14y ago

So reducing the number of guns in private hands by 20% reduced the number of mass shootings by 100%? Hmmm.

lbarrow 14y ago
This is entirely plausible. Mass shootings aren't carried out by a random sampling of gun owners -- they're carried out by exactly the people who would be prohibited from owning guns if we tightened the laws around gun ownership a bit. The best example of this is Seung-Hui Cho, aka the Virginia Tech shooter, who was able to buy handguns completely legally despite being involuntarily detained at a mental hospital less than two years beforehand. He then went on to kill 32 people.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  You're inferring that mass shootings are carried out exclusively by the sort of person who would sell the government his weapon under a buy-back program. (Otherwise there still would have been shootings, even if fewer, with guns bought before the new regulations on sales) Just how realistic do you think that is?
CamperBob2 14y ago
And by the same token, the TSA has reduced the number of US airline hijackings by 100%. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, indeed.

temphn 14y ago

Murder is banned. He committed more than twenty murders. Why do people think that you can ban mental illness? The focus on guns as opposed to the person is similar to the TSA's focus on weapons vs. terrorists. As for the cause and effect line you draw, hardly so clear cut. Switzerland has assault rifles in every home and a low crime rate. The UK has an effective gun ban and a very high crime rate. I know that if a Vancouver or London style riot comes to my town, that I want my Glock handy. There were many videos on Youtube of no-go zones with no police and rampant chaos during those riots. 911 will not be there when everyone needs it at once.

knowtheory 14y ago
So the tech community believes that "frictionless sharing" is a thing, but that the converse isn't? It's fine if guns are legal. But it should be way more inconvenient to kill a lot of people. I want it to require a great deal of skill and/or planning to start a massacre. It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now.
- angersock 14y ago
  "It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now." We've had repeating firearms for more than a century--this is not a new thing to be afraid of. We've been killing each other on much larger scales much more inefficiently and painfully than that--try millenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots ).
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    The problem is not inefficient killing. The Rwandan genocide was performed largely without firearms, but required massive planning and mobilization. It was a collective and political massacre involving the complicity of many. The problem I have is with the proverbial army of one. It needs to be harder for a single person to murder 30 people in one incident.
- __--__ 14y ago
  So where does that leave non-firearms related weapons? Potassium nitrate bombs are easy to make and can result in far more deaths than guns can. You can make napalm by soaking styrofoam in gasoline. Should we control the usage and distribution of packing peanuts? It may sound like a ridiculous argument, but it's the exact one you're making. What about machetes or hunting knives? If the real focus is to inflict mass casualties, there are tools far more appropriate for that sort of thing than guns and non-automatic rifles that take as much (or as little) planning as getting a hold of a gun and ammo. As someone else already said on this thread: you can't ban mental illness with legislation.

Tyrant505 14y ago

First, thank you for the stat. But do you really think someone as disturbed as this person could not just use basic fire arms or knives to do as much devastation? A bag full of shells with the blocks removed from a pump shotgun? The kid had what he had.. and just ran with it.

tsotha 14y ago

The odds of dying in one of these mass shooting incidents in the US are infinitesimally small. These incidents are the price of freedom, and I'm sad to hear the Aussies are no longer willing to pay it.

andrewflnr 14y ago
I'm generally in favor of freedom, but you can't assume it's always a good, at any cost. If (and I don't really believe this) frequent mass murders were the cost of freedom, we would have to seriously consider whether it was worth it.
- tsotha 14y ago
  What do you mean by "frequent"? The US is a country of 312m people.
  - andrewflnr 14y ago
    Find any of the recent threads here on the Connecticut shooting. We (in the US) do seem to have a relatively high per-capita mass-murder rate, at least compared to other first-world countries. That wasn't my main point though.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > We (in the US) do seem to have a relatively high per-capita mass-murder rate, at least compared to other first-world countries. That statistic is misleading and ignores the elephant in the room: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931177 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931177
      - flyinRyan 14y ago
        It isn't misleading! You're the one being misleading by claiming we need to cook the data to come up with the result you want to have instead of the reality of the situation.

salemh 14y ago

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html "Lesser" crimes increased during the banning yet decreased overtime, but influences on burglary are not readily available. Unfortunately I wrote a paper in high school detailing a 300% increase in burglary and violence during the ban period, which came from the US DoJ, and I have not been able to find the source since (10 years or so).

mynameishere 14y ago

I'm having a hard time finding good comparable numbers, but you can see that total homicides (1993-2007) went from ~300 to ~260 in Australia http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html whereas the (per 100,000) homicide rate in the US went from 9.5 to 5.7 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html ...if someone else wants to look up the population numbers and do the division, ok. But it's clear that the US's rate improved similarly or better than Australia's. Please try to keep in mind that the nytime's has a strident agenda. ED: I didn't read the .AU text. Their numbers went from 1.9 per to 1.3 per.

vacri 14y ago
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The prison population in the same time in the US skyrocketed beyond belief.
- tsotha 14y ago
  That doesn't make it wrong. There is a reason the public started to support stiffer sentences, after all - they believed (correctly, as it turns out) locking up criminals means you get less crime.
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    Except that crime rates dropped the same way in just about every other western country without harsher sentencing, and without locking up large sections of the population. Update: Thanks "lostlogin", fixed.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Not by the same amount, though.
      - mpweiher 14y ago
        They didn't have the chance to drop by the same amount, because they were much lower to begin with. And are still much lower. But drop they did. So what's the evidence again for higher incarceration rates and stiffer sentencing leading to lower crime?

learc83 14y ago

>"The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent". That statistic is only useful if we only care about murders committed with firearms. Honestly why would that be meaningful? At the end of the day the only thing that matters is total homicides. Looking at total homicide rates in Australia (per hundred thousand): 1.9 in 1996, up to 2.0 in 2000, and down to 1.3 in 2007. In the US 7.4 in 1996, down to 5.9 in 2007. A similar decline in both the US, and Australia. The evidence doesn't show that the gun ban did anything to significantly lower overall homicide rates.