This time from Australia:Firearm deaths down 50%

[kajolishot]

The biggest fall in firearm deaths occurred following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military style weapon.

Following the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia. In 1996, 521 people died from a firearm-inflicted wound, while in 1997 this dropped to 437.

The new laws introduced after Port Arthur specifically targeted military-style weapons, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being handed in.

But handguns now seem to be the weapon of choice.

The report found the number of times a hunting rifle was used in a death dropped to 76 in 2001 from 282 in 1991.

Shotgun deaths also dropped significantly, from 133 to 54.

But handgun deaths have increased, hitting 49 in 2001 after accounting for 29 in 1991.

"The available data suggest a trend towards greater use of handguns in suicide and accidental deaths," the report found.

State and Federal governments agreed in late 2002 on new laws aimed at restricting access to handguns.

Full Source

It's all relative - gun control measures that is.

 

[James R]

Yes. In this case, overall firearm deaths in Australia have decreased 50% since 1992 or so, ever since stronger gun-control measures have been put in place.

The US should look at this and learn.

 

[Cowboy]

Something to consider:

The change in crime numbers involving firearms is meaningless. What really matters is whether or not the overall murder rate has changed. If the same number of people are committing the same number of crimes, then it doesn't really matter if they are using guns, knives, tire irons or fountain pens.

The US should look at this and learn.

What should we Americans learn? That the violation of our rights might - and I stress the word might - result in a gain in safety?

If access to guns causes crime, Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, North Dakota and South Dakota (all states with lenient gun laws, with Vermonters even able to carry guns without a permit) should be crime-ridden slums.

They aren't. Why?

On the international level, why isn't Switzerland a war zone? The government in Switzerland hands out military-style rifles to many citizens, after all.

 

[James R]

The causes of crime are many, and I am in no way suggesting that guns cause crime.

What I <i>am</i> suggesting is that the incidence of homicide (accidental or deliberate) decreases with fewer guns.

 

[Cowboy]

What I <i>am</i> suggesting is that the incidence of homicide (accidental or deliberate) decreases with fewer guns.

Can you compare the gun ownership rates and murder rates of Utah and New Hampshire with California and Washington DC?

 

[thefountainhed]

Can you compare the gun ownership rates and murder rates of Utah and New Hampshire with California and Washington DC?

Galt/Acid Cowboy, you are far too fond of committing logical fallacies and relying on a constricted worldview to support your opinions. It is irrelevant that Utah and New Hampshire have a lower murder rate than California and DC, even though the former have gun ownership laws and that latter do not. The societal dynamics of the two groups necessarily differ: DC and California are more urban and thus, by virtue of the dynamics associated with a high concentration of population -- poverty, crime, etc, have an environment that lends itself to bad uses of firearms, than their rural counterparts. As a result, gun control laws or not, the urban areas more often than not, have higher murder rates.

Therefore, a comparison between the rural areas and the urban areas with a disproportionality in gun ownership and crime as an argument against gun control laws is a non sequitur and irrelevant. The overriding point is that gun control laws do diminish the count of murders (accidental or deliberate) caused by firearms. As such, and in lieu of the increasing rates of murder rates by firearms, gun control is necessary. Your right to own firearms is predicated on both the disadvantages and advantages of the effects of uses of those firearms. And in most situations, the need for safety far outweighs one's right to gun ownership. Much like freedom of speech does not lend itself to a divulgation of sensitive materials as relating to national security.

 

[BigBlueHead]

People will always find ways to murder each other; my primary concern with widespread firearms ownership usually relates to accidents.

 

[kajolishot]

What should we Americans learn? That the violation of our rights might - and I stress the word might - result in a gain in safety?

What rights, exactly? Where does it say I have the right to carry a military weapon? For hunting? If you have to use shit like that for hunting then guns are the last thing you should be touching.

 

[Bells]

What should we Americans learn? That the violation of our rights might - and I stress the word might - result in a gain in safety?

What rights, exactly? Where does it say I have the right to carry a military weapon? For hunting? If you have to use shit like that for hunting then guns are the last thing you should be touching.

Yeah but how else can you hunt for deer unless you have a fully automatic rifle? Isn't going hunting the same as going to war ? After all, the wild life could also be armed and one must protect oneself. Don't want the hunters to be stalked by a gun toting deer or duck now do we? The hunter must protect themselves from wild life terrorist or animal of mass destruction .

It never ceases to amaze me how it can be a right to bare fully automatic weapons. Some people own bigger and stronger guns then the members of the armed forces carry when they're in battle. I mean honestly, what would you (as a normal member of the general public going about your daily life) do with it? Why would you need it? Do you face warfare just driving out of your driveway? Do you live your daily life as though you were in a real life version of Tach Ops? Have you become an urban commando, patrolling the streets for other automatic gun toting fools?

The right to bare arms is one thing, but the right to bare a weapon that could bring down 10+ more people with one press of the trigger is another thing altogether. Such guns were not in existence when the Bill of Rights was drafted. I'm sure that if the writers of the Bill lived today, the people of the US would not have the same rights that they have now.

Living in Australia, especially after the Port Arthur massacre, we have seen a reduction in murders or crimes caused by guns. While handguns are still a problem, we're all hopeful that the new laws on accessing handguns, will bring the numbers down even further.

 

[Cowboy]

It is irrelevant that Utah and New Hampshire have a lower murder rate than California and DC, even though the former have gun ownership laws and that latter do not.

It's very relevant. It demonstrates that gun ownership, in and of itself, does not cause crime.

The societal dynamics of the two groups necessarily differ: DC and California are more urban and thus, by virtue of the dynamics associated with a high concentration of population -- poverty, crime, etc, have an environment that lends itself to bad uses of firearms, than their rural counterparts.

You are making the point I was alluding to: there are far more important factors than access to firearms when accounting for crime rates.

As a result, gun control laws or not, the urban areas more often than not, have higher murder rates.

This proves my point that access to firearms is not the cause of criminal behavior.

Therefore, a comparison between the rural areas and the urban areas with a disproportionality in gun ownership and crime as an argument against gun control laws is a non sequitur and irrelevant.

Whether something is a non sequitur and irrelevant depends on what point one is trying to make. My point is that access to firearms is not the cause of crime, which makes this very relevant.

The overriding point is that gun control laws do diminish the count of murders (accidental or deliberate) caused by firearms.

It's the overriding point based on your constricted worldview.

My overriding point is individual rights.

As such, and in lieu of the increasing rates of murder rates by firearms, gun control is necessary.

As you pointed out earlier, urban areas tend to have higher murder rates than non-urban areas, regardless of gun control laws. Given this fact, the "logical" approach would be the increased regulation of residents of urban areas rather than gun owners.

Your right to own firearms is predicated on both the disadvantages and advantages of the effects of uses of those firearms.

My use of firearms has pretty much been limited to the wholesale slaughter of paper targets. Explain how this negatively affects society and justifies stripping me of my rights.

And in most situations, the need for safety far outweighs one's right to gun ownership.

According to your constricted worldview.

Much like freedom of speech does not lend itself to a divulgation of sensitive materials as relating to national security.

Compromising national security impedes the government's ability to perform one of its few legitimate functions.

How does my ownership and responsible use of firearms infringe on or impede anything other than the desire of meddling leftists to run my life according to their values?

 

[Cowboy]

What rights, exactly?

My right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property.

There are also recreational uses.

Where does it say I have the right to carry a military weapon?

My right to life mandates that I have the right to defend myself. Currently, the most effective means to defend myself would be a firearm.

And, just out of curiousity, where does it say I don't have a right to carry a military weapon?

For hunting? If you have to use shit like that for hunting then guns are the last thing you should be touching.

By what reasoning?

 

[Cowboy]

Some people own bigger and stronger guns then the members of the armed forces carry when they're in battle.

Which people and what guns?

I mean honestly, what would you (as a normal member of the general public going about your daily life) do with it?

It would be badass fun.

Why would you need it?

Are our rights determined by necessity? Does this mean we don't have a right to buy luxury cars, expensive suits or video games?

The right to bare arms is one thing, but the right to bare a weapon that could bring down 10+ more people with one press of the trigger is another thing altogether.

Why is it different?

Such guns were not in existence when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

I love it when gun-haters use this argument.

Lots of things weren't in existence when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Does this mean the internet, television and radio are not covered by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment? What about post-18th century religions, such as Scientology or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)? Are they not covered by the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment?

The Founding Fathers were pretty bright guys. If they intended for our freedoms to be limited to current (for their time) technology and beliefs, they would have said so.

If that was the case, the First Amendment would look something like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless the religion was founded by some guy in Utah who thinks God came from another planet or by science fiction writers whose books become movies starring John Travolta; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless said speech or press is beamed into your house via satellite or through a telephone cord; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble as long as they don't travel to the assembly scene in anything more modern than a horse and buggy; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, as long as it's not an online petition or one hand-written with a ball-point pen since none of that crap has been invented yet."

I'm sure that if the writers of the Bill lived today, the people of the US would not have the same rights that they have now.

Probably not. I'm guessing we would have more freedom and less government.

While handguns are still a problem, we're all hopeful that the new laws on accessing handguns, will bring the numbers down even further.

I bet a law limiting criminals' access to society would work even better.

Eek indeed.

 

[thefountainhed]

It's very relevant. It demonstrates that gun ownership, in and of itself, does not cause crime.

Actually, it is irrelevant, as no one is asserting that gun ownership necessarily causes crime.

You are making the point I was alluding to: there are far more important factors than access to firearms when accounting for crime rates.

That was not my point.

This proves my point that access to firearms is not the cause of criminal behavior.

As I said, that point is irrelevant.

Whether something is a non sequitur and irrelevant depends on what point one is trying to make. My point is that access to firearms is not the cause of crime, which makes this very relevant.

It is a non sequitur because noone was asserting otherwise. You made a point that was irrelevant to the argument.

It's the overriding point based on your constricted worldview.

How so?

My overriding point is individual rights.

We are talking about safety, and how an elimination of guns increases safety. How then can individual rights be the overriding point?

As you pointed out earlier, urban areas tend to have higher murder rates than non-urban areas, regardless of gun control laws. Given this fact, the "logical" approach would be the increased regulation of residents of urban areas rather than gun owners.

That is in no way the logical approach. Although urban areas do in fact have higher crime rates than their rural counterparts, the rural areas also do have crime. Knowing therefore, that gun control laws do decrease murder rates, all areas-- rural and urban, will benefit from control laws. Your argument attempts to put more value on say 100 lives than 10 lives. That is no argument.

My use of firearms has pretty much been limited to the wholesale slaughter of paper targets. Explain how this negatively affects society and justifies stripping me of my rights.

Because, in providing you with the right to own firearms, society intrinsically grants that right to other members who might not restrict their usage to "paper targets." The future use of your firearm can also not be predicted; one cannot know what kind of state you might be in, that might in that context, warrant an irrational usage of that firearm.

According to your constricted worldview.

How so?

Compromising national security impedes the government's ability to perform one of its few legitimate functions.

That legitimate function would be safety. I do not see how a decrease in murder rates could be any different.

How does my ownership and responsible use of firearms infringe on or impede anything other than the desire of meddling leftists to run my life according to their values?

Look above. Also, it is not necessarily "leftists" fighting for gun control laws. Your willingless to label serves no relevant purpose as relating to the discussion.

 

[kazakhan]

Because, in providing you with the right to own firearms, society intrinsically grants that right to other members who might not restrict their usage to "paper targets." The future use of your firearm can also not be predicted; one cannot know what kind of state you might be in, that might in that context, warrant an irrational usage of that firearm.

I'm not sure I understand your point? How about...
Because, in providing you with the right to own a car*, society intrinsically grants that right to other members who might not restrict their usage to the "road rules." The future use of your car* can also not be predicted; one cannot know what kind of state you might be in, that might in that context, warrant an irrational usage of that car*.

*firearm could be replaced with any implement which could be used to kill obviously.

 

[thefountainhed]

You equate the usage of car to that of a firearm? I find the comparison quite moronic.

 

[Nasor]

This thread is ridiculous. Yes, shooting deaths have gone down in Australia, but the overall murder rate has remained unchanged. It is also worth noting that while the gun ban hasn't affected the murder rate, the per capita rates of assault, robbery, rape, and theft have all increased since the gun control laws were enacted. If anything, this would indicate that the NRA and company are correct.

Check the statistics yourselves, as compiled by the Australia government:

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/centenary/

 

[kazakhan]

You equate the usage of car to that of a firearm? I find the comparison quite moronic.

I find that when I see someone on the News has used their car to assault &/or murder someone else, it is quite moronic! Why do we allow people to own knives which are used in assaults more often then firearms? Why are fireworks, cleaning agents etc allowed when "joe public" can use them to make explosives?
I find the part of your post I quoted to be quite moronic, which of course is why I replied If what you said justifies the banning of firearms then it also justifies the banning of anything that could be used as a lethal weapon.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

I love it how whenever these threads pop up the touchy-feely anti-gun leftists are so quick to ask OMG WHY DO U NEED A MACHIEN GUNZ!?

As long as I'm not hurting people with it, who cares? Why do you need a car that goes faster than 65 miles an hour? Why do you need a swimming pool in your back yard? Both of those cause more deaths per year in the United States, and neither is protected in the Bill of Rights.

Gun control really catalyzes cognitive dissonance in the American left. You retards are the first ones bitching about the 1st and 4th when they're placed in jeopardy by transitory shit like the PATRIOT act, but willfully turn a blind eye to the consistent and chronic attacks on the 2nd that've been happening in this country since 1934.

Hypocrisy ++

 

[Nasor]

I used to assume that tough gun control laws would result in lower murder rates. It seems to makes sense, but whenever you actually look at the crime statistics for places before and after gun control laws are enacted, the results always seem to show that there isn't a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates.

It doesn't seem to have had any effect in England, where the murder rate has actually increased since the 1997 gun laws were enacted. Australia enacted tough gun control laws in 1996 after a madman went on a shooting spree and killed 35 people. It seems to have been a rather fruitless exercise in civil-rights reduction, since the murder rate in Australia has remained steady for decades. The gun ban simply prompted people to switch to different weapons. In Brazil, murder rates actually increased significantly after tough gun control laws were introduced.

There are obviously a lot of people here at sciforums who support gun control laws, so I'm curious to here if there are any known instances of gun control laws causing a substantial drop in murder rates. So far I've been unable to find any.

 

[Mystech]

Yes. In this case, overall firearm deaths in Australia have decreased 50% since 1992 or so, ever since stronger gun-control measures have been put in place.

The US should look at this and learn.

We actually seem to be heading in the other direction in terms of gun control. I'm not sure on the specifics of the law, but apparently starting this year Assault rifles, and high capacity magazines are going to be free and legal again. I’ll have to look that one up in more detail and maybe start a separate thread about it.