Gun control ten years on.
December 13, 2006 4:31 PM Subscribe
Australian gun laws claimed to reduce mass shootings. In October, a study prepared by Australian pro-gun lobbyists and published in the British Journal of Criminology argued that tougher gun laws in Australia did little to lower murder or suicide rates.
A newly released report agrees that historically declining murder rates were mainly responsible for the decline in average gun homicides from 93 to 56 per annum. In the USA there were approximately 10000 gun homicides in 2004. The report emphasises there have been no mass shootings since the laws were enacted.
Breathe a word of this to anyone, and I'll blow your head off!
posted by you just lost the game at 4:46 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by you just lost the game at 4:46 PM on December 13, 2006
Hey, look at this, according to Oil Companies global warming is just a bunch of hoo-hah. senator Inhofe knew it all along!
posted by delmoi at 5:04 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by delmoi at 5:04 PM on December 13, 2006
According to these numbers, the murder rate in Australia has been very contestant both before and after the buyback.
posted by quin at 5:19 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by quin at 5:19 PM on December 13, 2006
Where the word 'contestant' is the same as 'consistent'.
posted by quin at 5:20 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by quin at 5:20 PM on December 13, 2006
I think the main point is there are no mass killings any more, as the availability of weapons needed to conduct them has been drastically curtailed.
posted by bystander at 5:39 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by bystander at 5:39 PM on December 13, 2006
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficent, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - YouKnowWho 1938
posted by Balisong at 5:42 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by Balisong at 5:42 PM on December 13, 2006
If you criminalize guns, then only pirates will have austrialians...
Crap, I think I'm missing something.
posted by The Power Nap at 5:50 PM on December 13, 2006
Crap, I think I'm missing something.
posted by The Power Nap at 5:50 PM on December 13, 2006
Also, cutting off all the penises would stop AIDS in its tracks.
posted by jfuller at 5:52 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by jfuller at 5:52 PM on December 13, 2006
You know who else was against mass killings?
posted by found missing at 6:02 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by found missing at 6:02 PM on December 13, 2006
jfuller: actually, they're saying that cutting off part of the penis will reduce HIV infections in Africa. Just to be relevant, here's a link from ABC Australia talking about it.
People will still kill each other. They'll just find another tool. We have a lot of firearms here, but we also don't really have that many "mass shootings" overall. From the PDF, there were 104 victims of "mass shootings" in 16 years. We whack that many people in car wrecks here on a daily basis.
Our stats also show a decline in homicides involving firearms, and strangely enough, fewer homicides were committed with blunt objects. From 88 to 04, there was ~40% drop in homicides committed with blunt objects.
Wasn't that when they banned lawn darts? That has to be it. They didn't just switch to another gun or a kinfe because those numbers are all down too.
Aren't stats fun?
posted by drstein at 6:10 PM on December 13, 2006
People will still kill each other. They'll just find another tool. We have a lot of firearms here, but we also don't really have that many "mass shootings" overall. From the PDF, there were 104 victims of "mass shootings" in 16 years. We whack that many people in car wrecks here on a daily basis.
Our stats also show a decline in homicides involving firearms, and strangely enough, fewer homicides were committed with blunt objects. From 88 to 04, there was ~40% drop in homicides committed with blunt objects.
Wasn't that when they banned lawn darts? That has to be it. They didn't just switch to another gun or a kinfe because those numbers are all down too.
Aren't stats fun?
posted by drstein at 6:10 PM on December 13, 2006
Also, cutting off all the penises would stop AIDS in its tracks.
I find this comment hilariously revealing.
posted by mobunited at 6:16 PM on December 13, 2006
I find this comment hilariously revealing.
posted by mobunited at 6:16 PM on December 13, 2006
IMPORTANT PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE REGARDING GUNS IN AUSTRALIA
We don't want them. Never did. We don't need them. The gun lobby would have you believe that the big bad government came along and took away millions of innocent Australians' guns. They didn't. No-one owned guns anyway. As a nation we never felt the need to carry guns to "defend ourselves" against scary minorities, or hippies, or whatever it is you do with your guns. We never felt the need to own guns as some kind of political "we need to defend democracy with violence!" statement. We just didn't have guns to start with. Unless you're a farmer, or a cop, or a competitive shooter, or go pig/roo hunting, or a member of the Hells Angels, I guess.
The US NRA even produced a video a few years back, using Australia as an example, claiming that crime rates had shot through the roof since the gun buy-back...they showed "protests" and pictures of elderly people "cowering in their homes". I have never seen such total, complete, utter bullshit. I challenge you to find an Australian pensioner who kept an automatic weapon in their bedside table before the buyback.
Don't believe the hype. We don't want guns in Australia and we never did.
posted by Jimbob at 6:25 PM on December 13, 2006 [4 favorites]
We don't want them. Never did. We don't need them. The gun lobby would have you believe that the big bad government came along and took away millions of innocent Australians' guns. They didn't. No-one owned guns anyway. As a nation we never felt the need to carry guns to "defend ourselves" against scary minorities, or hippies, or whatever it is you do with your guns. We never felt the need to own guns as some kind of political "we need to defend democracy with violence!" statement. We just didn't have guns to start with. Unless you're a farmer, or a cop, or a competitive shooter, or go pig/roo hunting, or a member of the Hells Angels, I guess.
The US NRA even produced a video a few years back, using Australia as an example, claiming that crime rates had shot through the roof since the gun buy-back...they showed "protests" and pictures of elderly people "cowering in their homes". I have never seen such total, complete, utter bullshit. I challenge you to find an Australian pensioner who kept an automatic weapon in their bedside table before the buyback.
Don't believe the hype. We don't want guns in Australia and we never did.
posted by Jimbob at 6:25 PM on December 13, 2006 [4 favorites]
drstein: pwned.
Of course, the fascinating thing about the US statistics is that homicides by handgun peaked in 1993, then declined precipitously by nearly half. This might be explained by various handgun-related laws and enforcement strategies, but homicides from all other causes also peaked in the 1988-1993 period, including blunt objects. The declines were not as comparably great, but this does suggest a common theme somehow (correlation not causation &c. cautions), perhaps economic or demographic.
If it were handgun restrictions alone, for example, you'd expect to see a concurrent increase in one of the other types of homicide as people move to kill with whatever's available.
In any case, I'd like to see similar statistics for Australia to see what other factors might weigh into this.
posted by dhartung at 7:06 PM on December 13, 2006
Of course, the fascinating thing about the US statistics is that homicides by handgun peaked in 1993, then declined precipitously by nearly half. This might be explained by various handgun-related laws and enforcement strategies, but homicides from all other causes also peaked in the 1988-1993 period, including blunt objects. The declines were not as comparably great, but this does suggest a common theme somehow (correlation not causation &c. cautions), perhaps economic or demographic.
If it were handgun restrictions alone, for example, you'd expect to see a concurrent increase in one of the other types of homicide as people move to kill with whatever's available.
In any case, I'd like to see similar statistics for Australia to see what other factors might weigh into this.
posted by dhartung at 7:06 PM on December 13, 2006
Hey Jimbob, since you're speaking for the entire country of Australia, maybe you could tell us some about what kind of beer Aussies like, and whether or not the "Outback Steakhouse" commercials really bug them.
posted by drstein at 7:06 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by drstein at 7:06 PM on December 13, 2006
Disarm all civilians; what could possibly go wrong?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:18 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:18 PM on December 13, 2006
Disarm all civilians; what could possibly go wrong?
Is this a suggestion that governments/police/armed forces can't be trusted, so ordinary ciziens should be armed?
Perhaps voting would be safer?
posted by bystander at 7:43 PM on December 13, 2006
dhartung: ...homicides by handgun peaked in 1993, then declined precipitously by nearly half...
The Freakonomics guys would try to convince you that this was due to Roe v. Wade.
posted by popechunk at 7:47 PM on December 13, 2006
The Freakonomics guys would try to convince you that this was due to Roe v. Wade.
posted by popechunk at 7:47 PM on December 13, 2006
I do agree with Jimbob that the number of Australians owning a weapon for self defense has always been vanishingly small.
Most people who owned a gun did so because they wanted to go duck or rabbit shooting once in a while.
posted by bystander at 7:57 PM on December 13, 2006
Most people who owned a gun did so because they wanted to go duck or rabbit shooting once in a while.
posted by bystander at 7:57 PM on December 13, 2006
Even though Jimbob is making a huge generalisation, I think there is some merit to it. It just doesnt seem to be that big of an issue here.
In the states the debate seems to be - its part of the constitution, its a fundemental right to be able to defend ourselves, the people will be able to rise up against the government.
In Australia its just- what do we do for self defence? will farmers still be able to use guns?
It was never one of the principles of how our country was founded, people dont really care that much about those things that are debated in the US. I know thats not speaking for everyone, but thats how politicians who are for gun control get a support.
posted by phyle at 8:11 PM on December 13, 2006
In the states the debate seems to be - its part of the constitution, its a fundemental right to be able to defend ourselves, the people will be able to rise up against the government.
In Australia its just- what do we do for self defence? will farmers still be able to use guns?
It was never one of the principles of how our country was founded, people dont really care that much about those things that are debated in the US. I know thats not speaking for everyone, but thats how politicians who are for gun control get a support.
posted by phyle at 8:11 PM on December 13, 2006
Well said, Jimbob.
An American lady living in Australia praised her child's pre-school for its "No guns allowed" sign. She said that guns were too dangerous around children.
When the teachers worked out what she was talking about, they explained the sign referred to toy guns. No one had even considered that anyone would be so foolish as to have a real gun.
Learning from the USA's bloody history of gun ownership, I'd say Australia is basically anti-gun.
posted by emf at 8:55 PM on December 13, 2006
An American lady living in Australia praised her child's pre-school for its "No guns allowed" sign. She said that guns were too dangerous around children.
When the teachers worked out what she was talking about, they explained the sign referred to toy guns. No one had even considered that anyone would be so foolish as to have a real gun.
Learning from the USA's bloody history of gun ownership, I'd say Australia is basically anti-gun.
posted by emf at 8:55 PM on December 13, 2006
"An American lady living in Australia praised her child's pre-school for its "No guns allowed" sign. She said that guns were too dangerous around children"
And statistically speaking, she's a clueless git that has bought into the "It's for the children. Won't someone please think about the children?" mentality.
"drstein; Coopers Pale Ale"
Ah, finally, another beer to seek out and quaff.
posted by drstein at 9:24 PM on December 13, 2006
And statistically speaking, she's a clueless git that has bought into the "It's for the children. Won't someone please think about the children?" mentality.
"drstein; Coopers Pale Ale"
Ah, finally, another beer to seek out and quaff.
posted by drstein at 9:24 PM on December 13, 2006
"We don't need them. The gun lobby would have you believe that the big bad government came along and took away millions of innocent Australians' guns. They didn't. No-one owned guns anyway."
Damn straight. I got into an argument around the time of the reforms. The advertising campaign Jimbob referred to showed pictures of Australian houses with tall fences, gated communities, barbed wire, and talked about how Aussies were now living in fear in their own homes.
It was just bullshit. I would have to walk a long way to find a house with a tall fence and the sort of high security they talked about. Most people don't own and never have owned guns. I have known one person in my life who owned a handgun.
For a few years I owned a .22 bolt action rifle which I would go target shooting with, but I sold it when it became difficult to register (hadn't used it in a couple of years anyway).
I really don't perceive a `guns for self defense' mindset within Australia . Murders happen, yes, but they rarely happen with guns.
What is *extremely* uncommon is accidental shootings.
posted by tomble at 12:40 AM on December 14, 2006
Damn straight. I got into an argument around the time of the reforms. The advertising campaign Jimbob referred to showed pictures of Australian houses with tall fences, gated communities, barbed wire, and talked about how Aussies were now living in fear in their own homes.
It was just bullshit. I would have to walk a long way to find a house with a tall fence and the sort of high security they talked about. Most people don't own and never have owned guns. I have known one person in my life who owned a handgun.
For a few years I owned a .22 bolt action rifle which I would go target shooting with, but I sold it when it became difficult to register (hadn't used it in a couple of years anyway).
I really don't perceive a `guns for self defense' mindset within Australia . Murders happen, yes, but they rarely happen with guns.
What is *extremely* uncommon is accidental shootings.
posted by tomble at 12:40 AM on December 14, 2006
I used to be absolutely, no exceptions in favour of gun prohibition anywhere. But then I thought about it a bit more and realised that there could in theory be some parts of the world so fucked up, violent and gun-ridden already that it might make people in general safer if they were allowed to own and even carry firearms.
Possibly parts of the US fall into this category. But Australia certainly doesn't. I mean, sure you can point to a victim of crime and say 'they might have been able to defend themselves if they were carrying a concealed weapon'. But then you have to ask: what if the criminal was too? I know! Give the victim a bigger, angrier weapon, etc etc. It doesn't work here.
(Also: some generalisations are generally correct. Jimbob's is an example of this, especially about pale ale)
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:52 AM on December 14, 2006
Possibly parts of the US fall into this category. But Australia certainly doesn't. I mean, sure you can point to a victim of crime and say 'they might have been able to defend themselves if they were carrying a concealed weapon'. But then you have to ask: what if the criminal was too? I know! Give the victim a bigger, angrier weapon, etc etc. It doesn't work here.
(Also: some generalisations are generally correct. Jimbob's is an example of this, especially about pale ale)
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:52 AM on December 14, 2006
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 2:01 AM on December 14, 2006
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 2:01 AM on December 14, 2006
Jimbob certainly doesn't speak for this Australian. I prefer Coopers Sparkling.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 2:16 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by the duck by the oboe at 2:16 AM on December 14, 2006
Dammit, you beat me to the gag. I was going to use more outrage though. And Little Creatures Pale Ale.
Someone did what to which guns now?
posted by markr at 2:29 AM on December 14, 2006
Someone did what to which guns now?
posted by markr at 2:29 AM on December 14, 2006
1: It is statistically difficult to say anything informative about changes in the rate of occurrence of an event that happens very seldom. It is not preposterous to suggest that tighter gun controls have reduced the rate of mass shootings, but mass shootings happen so seldom that the statistics do not (yet) support this contention. We're all much more likely to die by $UNLIKELYEVENT, so laws specifically to reduce the rate of mass shootings that significantly inconvenience practically anyone were and are just public relations exercises. And successful ones, too.
2: Guns are common among Australian farmers, and it was kind of stupid to make farmers turn in things like 80 year old repeating shotguns that were perfectly sensible tools, when farmers are not statistically likely to go on shooting rampages anyway, and they still have other firearms to shoot themselves with if they want to.
3: Farmers make up a very small fraction of the Australian population. In the urban and suburban areas where most Australians reside, guns really are rare, and were before these laws too. They're probably not quite as rare as we think, since I dare say there are a fair few old rifles and such sitting in boxes in people's attics, but it's very strange for a suburban Australian to proudly state that they own a gun (that isn't kept locked up at a shooting club - and even that's considered a bit weird).
As far as normal Australian (sub)urban residents goes, there are to a first approximation no visible guns in our society at all, except for those carried by law enforcement officers (who may or may not blow away innocent people with them, but that's a subject for another flamefest).
posted by dansdata at 2:37 AM on December 14, 2006
2: Guns are common among Australian farmers, and it was kind of stupid to make farmers turn in things like 80 year old repeating shotguns that were perfectly sensible tools, when farmers are not statistically likely to go on shooting rampages anyway, and they still have other firearms to shoot themselves with if they want to.
3: Farmers make up a very small fraction of the Australian population. In the urban and suburban areas where most Australians reside, guns really are rare, and were before these laws too. They're probably not quite as rare as we think, since I dare say there are a fair few old rifles and such sitting in boxes in people's attics, but it's very strange for a suburban Australian to proudly state that they own a gun (that isn't kept locked up at a shooting club - and even that's considered a bit weird).
As far as normal Australian (sub)urban residents goes, there are to a first approximation no visible guns in our society at all, except for those carried by law enforcement officers (who may or may not blow away innocent people with them, but that's a subject for another flamefest).
posted by dansdata at 2:37 AM on December 14, 2006
Hahaha. I thought of the exact same quote when I saw the summary :D
posted by Talez at 2:37 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by Talez at 2:37 AM on December 14, 2006
Actually having a quick look at their graphs, most of the trendlines should be flat until about 1988, when there was an initial round of gun control legislation after the Queen and Hoddle Street shootings. Then there is a dip due to those, followed by a further dip after the 1996 restrictions. Instead they have drawn a downward sloping line all the way to about 1988.
This graph from this paper shows something similar.
But that's just what it looks like to me.
posted by markr at 2:38 AM on December 14, 2006
This graph from this paper shows something similar.
But that's just what it looks like to me.
posted by markr at 2:38 AM on December 14, 2006
Jimbob is correct. Australians just aren't into guns. Broadly speaking, anyone keeping a gun for personal protection would be regarded with some suspicion.
Hey Jimbob, since you're speaking for the entire country of Australia, maybe you could tell us some about what kind of beer Aussies like, and whether or not the "Outback Steakhouse" commercials really bug them.
Antipodean education for today:
1. Mostly what their local brew is: VB for Victorians, XXXX for Queenslanders. Oddly, for its global dominance, hardly anyone prefers Fosters.
2. That restaurant is ... surreal.
posted by outlier at 4:38 AM on December 14, 2006
Why should the minority (person owning gun) give up that gun to reduce gun crime (interest of the majority)?
They shouldn't. They also shouldn't give up their swimming pools. Or their lawn darts. Or their love of bacon.
Freedom doesn't mean that you let other people have the rights you want. It means that... oh forget it.
posted by ewkpates at 7:51 AM on December 14, 2006
They shouldn't. They also shouldn't give up their swimming pools. Or their lawn darts. Or their love of bacon.
Freedom doesn't mean that you let other people have the rights you want. It means that... oh forget it.
posted by ewkpates at 7:51 AM on December 14, 2006
to paraphrase:
Why should the minority (persons who enjoy drink driving) give up that right to drink and drive to reduce road deaths (interest of the majority)?
posted by mary8nne at 7:45 PM on December 14, 2006
Why should the minority (persons who enjoy drink driving) give up that right to drink and drive to reduce road deaths (interest of the majority)?
posted by mary8nne at 7:45 PM on December 14, 2006
We don't want guns in Australia and we never did.
Yep.
posted by peacay at 7:50 PM on December 14, 2006
Yep.
posted by peacay at 7:50 PM on December 14, 2006
and although Fosters may not be popular over here, Fosters Group now owns pretty much all the popular beers except XXXX.
oh and in NSW the most popular beer these days seems to be Carlton Draught.
Personally i do enjoy Cooper Pale Ale, although mostly i seem to drink Carlton.
posted by mary8nne at 7:54 PM on December 14, 2006
oh and in NSW the most popular beer these days seems to be Carlton Draught.
Personally i do enjoy Cooper Pale Ale, although mostly i seem to drink Carlton.
posted by mary8nne at 7:54 PM on December 14, 2006
« Older Music so funky it can gag a maggot. | Dark Sith Lords who use lightsabers have children... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 4:43 PM on December 13, 2006