Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings

    In the current debate on imposing even more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms than already exist, reference is often made to the Australian gun confiscation scheme that was put into effect in 1996. While the results of the scheme have been subject to argument, with papers showing both no effect, small overall increases in crime, and small decreases in homicide, proponents have claimed that the confiscation and ban are responsible for the lack of mass shootings since 1997.

    I have found only one paper on the subject;

    Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, pulblished in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

    Here is the abstract from the paper:

    Abstract

    " The development of legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of firearm-related death is an ongoing interest within the spheres of criminology, public policy, and criminal justice. Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends."

    The focus of the paper, mass shootings, falls in the trap of looking only at shooting incidents. This approach is fundamentally flawed because of the possibility of substitute methods. It does not matter to the person murdered if they are killed with a gun, petrol bomb, or knife. For public policy, it is overall homicide rates that are important, not the type of instrument used. Still the study has useful information not available elsewhere.

    I found particularly interesting the fact that mass shootings are extremely rare events. They were even rarer before the modern era of gun regulation and mass media. Only one was noted in Australia before 1980, that one occurred in 1971. One was found in New Zealand, that occurred in 1941. During that time period, gun regulations were far less stringent than they are today.

    The paper merely notes the study of the "copycat effect" induced by media coverage; the focus is on the incidence of mass shootings.

    Since 1980, 12 mass killings occurred in Australia and 4 in New Zealand, about the same when corrected for population differences. Most of the mass killings were domestic, 8 of the 12 in Australia, 2 of the 4 in New Zealand. New Zealand has significant ownership of the firearms banned in Australia. Neither country has has a mass shooting since 1997.

    I recommend the study to anyone interested in criminology, mass killings, or citizen disarmament.

    Link to Paper (PDF)

    Dean Weingarten

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/02...not-shown.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    It's nice to see in print, that which we all know in our hearts and minds. Gun prohibitions will work as well as did alcohol prohibition of 1920-1933. It will create a new class of "criminal" - otherwise legitimate gun owners - and it will create an expanded source of income for the pre-existing, criminal, black market gun smugglers. The Aussies were the most recent to suffer the loss of their personal defense firearms, but they were not the first.There is a saying...
    "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
    I have seen this quote attributed to both Jefferson (Thomas, not George ) and Franklin, but there is no provenance in history of either man having said that. (The quote is a play on a biblical passage exhorting men to, "beat their swords into plowshares.") Whoever said it should certainly get the recognition he/she deserves - it has been proven to be factual by tyrants and dictators around the world.

    Personally, I like this one,
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    which was in fact said by Jefferson, but at the time he was quoting Cesare Beccaria - an Italian jurist, philosopher and politician best known for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments - and this one
    "A man that hath a sword by his side shall have least occasion to make use of it." -- J. Trenchard & W. Moyle (1698)
    My Son-in-Law is from Australia, and he is very familiar with the consequences of their government's actions regarding "gun control making Australia a safer place". It is safer... for those who ignore the law. There has been a new class of crime in Australia since 1997 - "home invasion robberies" - a crime virtually unheard of prior to the confiscation of firearms from the LACs. And guess who does have guns? The HOME INVADERS!

    Jared still loves his COO, but he is greatly disappointed in his homeland's government. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    Along these same lines... DHS Raids Gun Collector – Confiscates Nearly 1,500 Guns

    Yep - that's the headline from today's Freedom Outpost article:
    DHS Raids Gun Collector – Confiscates Nearly 1,500 Guns
    Somebody please remind me about how "there will be no confiscation". The article does, however, make it sound like there's more to this story than meets the eye. Supposedly, the gun owner, Robert Adams of Albuquerque NM, had been under surveillance by "agents" for years. It appears that they had no firm evidence which could support a warrant (but then, under the National Defense Authorization Act, DHS doesn't need a warrant, evidence or even reasonable cause to raid a home, arrest the occupant and confiscate personal property). Due process? Nope - the NDAA suspended that irritating requirement as well, so they just Rambo'd in on him, fishing poles in hand. How will DHS justify this action? Will they create supporting evidence? Did I miss the reports of this egregious violation of Constitutional rights when it was on the national news? Who's next? And, to put my comments on balance, there are some questions about many of the guns being "unmarked". Regardless of the outcome, any legitimate Constitution-observing judge would find all evidence gathered to be "fruit of the poisonous tree", and therefore inadmissible. I wonder how an appointed federal judge will find? Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I hope they did not all his guns ... sounds like he knows not to store them all in one place...

    DHS=SS.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •