3 ms·

1) Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard initiated our gun buyback scheme in 1996 and since then, our firearm related suicide rate has fallen 74% and we

• rdl 14y ago
  On the suicide issue, I honestly don't care about the gun suicide rate in isolation of the total suicide rate. I'm curious what happened to the overall Australian suicide rate (and, ideally, correct for any other changes going on at the same time, like Australia's current booming economy) I generally agree that banning possession or even just sale of most guns would reduce the spree killing rate, but spree killings are essentially statistical noise relative to other violent crimes and gun-related violent crimes. Australia also had a far lower number of guns at time of prohibition than the US does now. I think a blanket ban on gun possession (or even sale) wouldn't have anywhere near as much of an affect on gang-related gun crime in the US as you'd hope, and would have related negative effects.
  • froo 14y ago
    It's not a blanket ban on gun possession though, it was purely a semi-automatic/automatic buyback. Lower capacity guns are still freely available.
    • rdl 14y ago
      It also seriously limited access overall (either by law or by culture). Otherwise the gun suicide rate wouldn't have been affected, since most suicides are single-shot (except for Russians...), and shotguns/rifles are used more in suicides than they are used in murder.
  • strlen 14y ago
    > I generally agree that banning possession or even just sale of most guns would reduce the spree killing rate, but spree killings are essentially statistical noise relative to other violent crimes and gun-related violent crimes. Yes, exactly -- I don't think that stopping spree-killing (as dreadful as they are) -- validates a significant encroachment on what is considered a protected individual right. The outright ban on most repeating firearms may have worked for Australia (less overall gun crime, no fundamental right to bear arms), but it would absolutely not happen in the US (liberals and conservatives would oppose it). At the same time, it would not significantly change public safety in general. Addressing spree-shootings is a legitimate concern, but in the United States, it has to necessarily be addressed in a manner that involves the least possible restriction. The kind of solution Australia under took would require a constitutional amendment (which needs a super majority of states to agree), an insane budget for a buy back (there could be close to hundred of millions of these firearms at the least), and it would probably never come to fruition as majority of the US populace would oppose it and police would refuse to enforce it. This isn't just about firearms: I'd imagine movies like "Innocence of Muslims" or groups like Westboro Baptist Church would be banned in many other first world countries. Upholding a statute that infringes on a Bill of Rights amendment requires an extra-ordinary cause ("fire in a crowded theater"/"clear and present danger" standard). Individuals who suggest US follow the Australia or British model are well intentioned but are unaware of both how strongly gun rights advocates and gun owners feel on the issue (there is no magic "gun lobby", NRA is powerful because of donations from individuals) and the reality of day-to-day gun violence in the US (it is not what is shown on tv).
  • Volpe 14y ago
    Yeah I agree with most of your points. Australia never had the gun culture the US had (even before the Gun buy back). Most people in urban areas did not own guns, it was (and remains) mostly farmers. I don't have a citation, but I remember reading a justification for suicide prevention fences on bridges, that found that it didn't just stop suicides from that bridge, it did so without raising suicides in any other way (i.e it lowered the total suicides). I've always found it difficult to think of a solution to America's "Gun Problem"... It is codified in their laws, and from that is deeply engrained in their culture. Any reform has to first start reforming the culture, in my mind.
    • strlen 14y ago
      On the other hand, violence is generally decreasing in the US, so it's quite possible non-coercive approaches could substantially affect the spree-shooting problem. Deeper structural changes would be needed to fix the actual gun violence problem in US which is completely different from the spree shooting problem (they're two separate problems, effectively): the violent crimes committed by illegally kept pistols (straw purchased, stolen, inherited, bought off the books) and is usually closely related to the drug war. It is also a deep inequality issue: the poor and minorities are far more likely to be affected than suburban whites.