David Leyonhjelm. No massacres since 1996?

According to popular legend, Hitler’s master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said, “A lie told once is still a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”

The claim that there have been no gun massacres since the introduction of John Howard’s 1996 gun laws has probably been repeated well over a thousand times, which is perhaps why so many view it as the truth.

In the 20 years following 1996 there were 14 shootings in Australia involving multiple victims. Of these, twelve involved either two or three fatalities, one involved four fatalities and one five fatalities. The fatality toll would have been higher but for some luck and lifesaving medical attention. In the 20 years prior to 1996 there were 12 mass fatality shootings. The number of victims was higher, which resulted in more fatalities in total.

There is no universally accepted definition of a massacre. Some argue that a mass murder can only be described as a massacre if undertaken by groups, not individuals, with a political motivation. Some historians claim that describing small scale mass murders as massacres diminishes the large scale mass murders that unquestionably fall within the definition.

Yet others insist that a massacre is defined by the number of victims. By a remarkable coincidence, those responsible for the claim that there have been no massacres in Australia since 1996 insist there must be at least five victims. Following the 2014 Hunt family murder-suicide in which there were five victims, it is even suggested the minimum should be six.

Those repeating the claim that there have been no gun massacres since 1996 have probably never thought much about this. For them it is sufficient to claim that massacres occurred prior to the gun laws but not after. They then draw the conclusion that the gun laws made the difference. It sounds compelling, superficially at least.

A better analysis of the impact of the 1996 gun laws would be to look at overall murders attributable to firearms. By that measure, the laws made no difference. Firearms death rates were declining in the 20 years prior to 1996 and continued to fall at precisely the same rate in the 20 years subsequently. This occurred in spite of a substantial increase in licensed firearm ownership.

The no massacres claim is usually accompanied by comparison with America. Yet even there the facts contradict the claim. Notwithstanding some high profile mass murders, the rate of US gun deaths over the last thirty years has declined faster (albeit from a higher starting point) than in Australia. And no one bothers to compare us with countries like New Zealand, which continue to have gun laws resembling Australia’s pre-Howard laws and which, like us, continue to see falling gun deaths.

I’m all for debate about gun laws, but let’s stick to real facts, not those that become facts because they have been repeated many times.

David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats

This entry was posted in Guest Post, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to David Leyonhjelm. No massacres since 1996?

  1. harry buttle

    As an aside, it is also worth noting that, while Govts are trumpeting the guns “kept out of criminal hands” (that have been handed in in the recent amnesty), an alternative spin on the guns handed in is “they’ve been out in public hands for the last 20 years and done no harm”.

  2. BrettW

    Some info on the Hunt case below. I dont know how Hunt obtained the gun but suspect it made it easier for him to kill his family. This “massacre” can hardly be compared to Port Arthur or the many mass public shootings in USA. This is the only massacre DL mentions above in an article indicating there have been 14 mass shootings. Details of the 14 shootings would have helped.

    Basic info on Hunt case :
    A New South Wales man whose main intention was suicide, also killed his wife and children because he believed it would “[spare] them future pain”, a coronial inquest has been told.All were killed with single gunshot wounds.

    A forensic psychologist from NSW Police told the inquest she thought Hunt’s main intention was suicide, but he believed his wife and children were dependent on him and so in killing them he was “sparing them future pain”.She said she believed there were “several indicators” that Hunt was depressed in September 2014.

    Dr Yule said some people with depression will “go to considerable lengths to conceal what they’re feeling”, to hide their mental condition from family or friends.

    She said his use of a gun and a single injury indicated he did not intend to inflict pain on his wife and three children.

    Ms Hunt sustained permanent brain injuries in a 2012 car accident, which the court heard led to a significant change in her personality.

  3. Harlequin Decline

    Yes agree with the article. Anyone have the graph showing that the homicide by firearm rate has declined at the same rate after Howard changed the gun laws as before the laws were changed?

  4. Leo G

    Massacre is not really an appropriate replacement term for “shootings involving multiple victims”, as the former term implies unnecessary and indiscriminate killing. A handheld gun is not an indiscriminate weapon unless discharged randomly. And how do you determine the necessity of a shooting to fulfill the purpose of the shooter?

  5. Zyconoclast

    I don’t own a gun, probably never will.

    But I do not object to or fear lawful gun owners.

    I know that it can only be a bad thing if exclusive guns ownership is by the government and criminals.

  6. Craig

    I own a gun for farm purposes (bloody foxes!) but rarely use it. But one has to be of a mind set to go around and shoot at people because of ones issues. For me, it’s about the person and not the gun and determining a number to describe a ‘massacre’ shouldn’t be the topic, rather, it’s a question of toughning up gun ownership laws or dedicating more resources to our law enforcement units to address the illegal trade of weapons.

  7. Beliaik

    Meanwhile, overseas, the white rental van is becoming the massacre weapon of choice, followed up by the trusty traditional knife for the random individual murders that follow.

    But there are few moves afoot to ban vehicles or knives (petrol and diesel replacement dreams notwithstanding)…

  8. Entropy

    Pro guns and SSM. What a set of election winning policies. Priorities, priorities.
    Why not concentrate on policies that get more LDP elected?

  9. John Bayley

    Firearms death rates were declining in the 20 years prior to 1996 and continued to fall at precisely the same rate in the 20 years subsequently.

    Yeah, well, exactly the same applies to, for example, bicycle helmets. The rate of head injury to bike riders was falling for years before the mandatory helmet law, which started in Victoria in 1990 and was then followed by all the other States.
    After the introduction of the laws, injury rates did drop – but that was all thanks to the substantial number of people; in particular kids and commuters, who stopped riding altogether.
    In recent years, injury rates per kilometre travelled have gone up, despite the helmet law. Australia, which together with NZ holds the dubious title of being the only countries in the worlds with mandatory all-ages helmet law, has injury rates much higher than those in Europe, where most commuters do not wear them.
    None of this, however, has anything to do with facts. It’s all about the “we must tell you what to do, because you’re too stupid to do it yourself” nanny statism.
    Here in QLD, the Newman LNP government held an inquiry into helmets, which recommended that the law be loosened for adults at least in some areas – like Brisbane CBD, where the multi-million dollar bike hire scheme failed (as its equivalent did in Melbourne) precisely because of mandatory helmets. Yet the then Minister flatly refused, repeating the patently false statement that “helmets save lives”.
    Alas, most of the public believes it, too – as they do with the gun laws.

  10. Shy Ted

    In some good news, that insufferable set of giant teeth, Kathy Lette, has been knocked off her bike and her article is in one of the Sunday papers. It’s well worth reading for the inner city leftie mentality, riding along on her bike and not paying attention to the traffic. Still somebody else’ fault though.

  11. Rabz

    As someone who narrowly avoided being caught up in the infamous Strathfield massacre (I was standing about 10 feet away from the shooter for several minutes about an hour before the shooting started) I simply cannot fathom how anyone could justify an idiot like Bunkum having access to those types of weapons – and don’t give me the “psych tests would have found him out” bullshit.

    If people were allowed access to guns, be they pistols, rifles, etc, then the shooting rate would massively increase.

    Would you want some ‘roided or iced out leb or bogan pulling a gun on you in traffic over some stupid road rage incident? Or the “peaceful” resolution of neighborehood disputes?

    Any idiot having access to a gun who previously didn’t, immediately places me at greater risk of being shot.

    No, thanks.

  12. PB

    I’m all for gun laws that allow Melburnians to defend their homes with whatever force necessary when Africa-in-Australia comes calling with baseball bats and machetes.

  13. Barry 1963

    I think Australia’s gun laws have overwhelming public support. The US model is not for us.

  14. Haidee

    I like David L’s preciseness. It’s there when he speaks, as well.

    Once we may not have needed a firearm in our home, but it’s all different now.
    I don’t want to be helpless. Rage road? neighbourhood disputes? . . . Try to stay out of trouble.

    Really awful news about Toothy Kathy. You’d think the pearly prominents would get smashed when she crashes off her bike.

  15. Sparkle Motion

    Any idiot having access to a gun who previously didn’t, immediately places me at greater risk of being shot.

    That’s a compelling argument in my opinion. It’s been borne out time and time again.

    Equating the Hunt murder-suicide tragedy, in full knowledge of those circumstances, with the atrocities of Vitkovic, Frankum and Bryant does not advance the argument for gun ownership/access and the consequences of it. It’s intellectually lightweight and might fly in what passes for “debate” in Canberra or MSM but the topic deserves better.

  16. Neil

    Firearms death rates were declining in the 20 years prior to 1996 and continued to fall at precisely the same rate in the 20 years subsequently. This occurred in spite of a substantial increase in licensed firearm ownership.

    Well it looks like you can get a firearm if you want one. Just not the one that you would like. I thought some people who post here said Howard had disarmed Australia?

  17. Eddystone

    If people were allowed access to guns, be they pistols, rifles, etc, then the shooting rate would massively increase.

    You would think so, wouldn’t you?

    Yet the opposite seems to happen, eg when CCW is introduced to a US State, murder rate drops.

    Also, with increasing rates of firearm ownership in the US and Aus, shooting deaths are decreasing.

    But some countries with bans on firearm ownership, such as Jamaica, have seen massive murder rates and gun battles between police and gangs.

  18. Tim Neilson

    BrettW
    #2436702, posted on July 9, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Come on Brett, you can do better. Leyonhjelm articulates very clearly how “massacre” was defined to support the desired conclusion (and is about to be redefined to excise the Hunt case) and you then critique him with “This is the only massacre DL mentions …”.

    Rabz
    #2436782, posted on July 10, 2017 at 8:28 am

    OK, but Leyonhjelm has quoted actual data from a number of countries which tend to suggest that’s not how it really works.
    It would be interesting to see a breakdown by type. Margaret Thatcher wrote that the stats in the UK were that more availability of pistols correlated very strongly with more violent crime, but more availability of long barrelled firearms correlated fairly strongly with less violent crime.

  19. Fat Tony

    Yep, prior to 1996, when any idiot could buy a gun, we had running gun battles in the street Every day. Just like the Wild West.

    Has the massacre of 8 little kids by their mother in Cairns 2 years ago been forgotten? Oh…sorry…she used a knife, not a gun.

    How many here have enjoyed a violent home invasion? (A pretty rare event prior to 1996 cos the scumbags weren’t sure if they’d walk into a shotgun – a fair fight is something they avoid like the plague).

    I, for one, would like to have a means of self defence at home – apart from a butter knife. If you don’t want that, well I won’t make you. Pretty simple – you can just run, hide & tell.

    The old (prior to 1996) system worked well, but police and governments are afraid of an armed populace and wanted us disarmed.

    People may go on about the number of legal firearms in Australia now, but every owner is licensed and every firearm is registered. If the shit ever hits the fan, the police/government will round up every legal weapon in the country. (Unless the police get their central depositories for all firearms first).

    Unfortunately, a lot of what John Constantine writes appears to be the trajectory this country is headed on. De-industrialisation & de-colonisation. (Saw it happen to Rhodesia, but didn’t think South Africa would succumb).

  20. Eddystone

    Well it looks like you can get a firearm if you want one. Just not the one that you would like. I thought some people who post here said Howard had disarmed Australia?

    Well it looks like more firearms doesn’t mean more violence.

    So why do we waste so much money and police time on regulating the law-abiding?

    What about the opportunity cost of not applying those resources against criminals?

  21. Fat Tony

    Eddystone
    #2436834, posted on July 10, 2017 at 9:50 am
    So why do we waste so much money and police time on regulating the law-abiding?

    2 reasons:
    1. Low hanging (non-violent) fruit
    2. The government is not afraid of the criminals – only the law-abiding people

  22. BrettW

    Tim,
    My point was it would help to know the 14 mass shootings that DL refers to support his view. No disrespect to the Hunt family but that is not the kind of shooter that worries me.

    In addition was Hunt a registered gun owner.

  23. Harlequin Decline

    harry buttle
    #2436713, posted on July 9, 2017 at 11:44 pm

    Thanks Harry.

  24. Confused Old Misfit

    On firearm amnesties:
    How many possessors of illegally held firearms surrendered how many illegally acquired firearms?
    Alternately:
    How many bad guys gave up how many stolen guns?

  25. IDefender of the faith

    As I recall Howard responded directly to a shooter who walked about a tourist resort shooting anyone he could find. I think that is what we all think of as a massacre. Multiple murders involving a family are clearly tragic events but are an entirely different issue. As are criminal gangs and so on.
    People with legitimate reasons to own guns are not inhibited in this country, but no one wants a gun culture such as we see elsewhere.

  26. Haidee

    ‘2. The government is not afraid of the criminals – only the law-abiding people’ . . .

    . . . . wearing a partly-concealed protective vest, Howard addressed the people in Sale. Was he afraid? was it his choice? I do not care.
    Admirable, it was not.

    “massacre” defined to support desired conclusion, yes

  27. Beliaik

    A gun is nothing more than a tool. I have plenty of tools that don’t spurt lumps of lead that are still perfectly capable of killing a person.

    Some roadrager jumping out of their car with a gun in gridlocked traffic would be scary – but probably more scary if armed with a chainsaw. A knife, a crowbar, a maglite torch and a can of lighter fuel and a lighter would also be scary. That’s no reason to ban any of those items. “What ifs” are generally a can of freedom-killing worms.

    We want more freedom, not less.

  28. Eyrie

    “The government is not afraid of the criminals – only the law-abiding people”.
    It is just professional courtesy between criminal gangs.

  29. flyingduk

    As a serving military member, I have deployed many times OS, with a 9mm on my hip and a long gun nearby. I went everywhere I went, even to the shower. The reason it did so was to allow me to defend myself from others who wished me harm. We all know that organised lethal violence is an increasing threat in western capital cities. At some point, that threat rises to the point where the downsides of an armed citizenry (increased risk of suicide, road rage, etc etc) become smaller than the upsides (ability to take out a mass shooter after a handful of vicitms, rather than a hundred). Long experience has shown that gun free zones (think Bataclan) are gun free zones for law abiding citizens only: they are ‘free fire ranges’ for the terrorists. The more of these attacks there are, the closer we come the point where personal carry in civilian life is justified.

  30. Fat Tony

    IDefender of the faith
    #2436872, posted on July 10, 2017 at 11:11 am

    People with legitimate reasons to own guns are not inhibited in this country, but no one wants a gun culture such as we see elsewhere.

    Self-defence is not a “legitimate” reason in this country.

    What “gun culture” are you referring to in the name of everyone?

  31. Qley

    At some point, that threat rises to the point where the downsides of an armed citizenry (increased risk of suicide, road rage, etc etc) become smaller than the upsides (ability to take out a mass shooter after a handful of vicitms, rather than a hundred)

    No doubt we will be told that even as the latest attack takes out hundreds that this point hasnt been reached.

  32. Rob MW

    It should be against the law for criminals not to have their guns registered, well it was worth pointing out the inequality, or maybe they are minority victims being victimized. Lazy bastards 🙂

    Hey, hey, ho, ho…..no guns for you to own. FMD.

    Remember Howard wearing his bullet proof vest at the gun owners rally. A play mate must have been shot him in the eye with a pop-gun as a kid and has had a set on guns ever since.

  33. Fat Tony

    Confused Old Misfit
    #2436859, posted on July 10, 2017 at 10:37 am

    On firearm amnesties:
    How many possessors of illegally held firearms surrendered how many illegally acquired firearms?
    Alternately:
    How many bad guys gave up how many stolen guns?

    I think a safe answer would be ZERO

  34. Neil

    Self-defence is not a “legitimate” reason in this country.

    Did that start in 1996 or has that always been the case? I don’t think you are allowed to even have knives in this country for self defence. But Leyonhjelm says there has been an increase in licensed firearm ownership since 1996 so you can get a gun for some reason.

  35. Eddystone

    the downsides of an armed citizenry (increased risk of suicide, road rage, etc etc)

    These are actually the down side of cultures that don’t respect the rule of law.

    I think that having the State scrutinising law abiding citizens, and treating them as potential criminals, diminishes respect for the rule of law, and ultimately is more dangerous to to public safety than allowing citizens to be armed.

    One aspect of the gun debate that I find interesting is the refusal of the anti-gun side to concede that there may be a benefit to allowing people the right to bear arms for their self defence.

    We only hear of the downside, and even that is usually exaggerated or plain wrong.

  36. stackja

    Eddystone
    #2436977, posted on July 10, 2017 at 1:01 pm
    the downsides of an armed citizenry (increased risk of suicide, road rage, etc etc)

    These are actually the down side of cultures that don’t respect the rule of law.

    Left created the disrespect. Then complain about lawlessness.

  37. Eddystone

    I don’t think you are allowed to even have knives in this country for self defence. But Leyonhjelm says there has been an increase in licensed firearm ownership since 1996 so you can get a gun for some reason.

    Neil, you are not allowed to carry anything for the purpose of self defence.

    Not even a hair clip.

    You can carry certain things that may be used for self defence as well as for another purpose, but if challenged by a police officer as to why you are carrying a baseball bat in the street, you would likely be charged if you admitted it was for self defence.

    The gun laws are designed to prevent people from carrying their registered firearms, or having them available at home, for self defence.

    Prior to 1996, you didn’t really need a “genuine reason” to own a firearm, AFAIK.

  38. Fat Tony

    Neil
    #2436959, posted on July 10, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Self-defence is not a “legitimate” reason in this country.

    Did that start in 1996 or has that always been the case? I don’t think you are allowed to even have knives in this country for self defence. But Leyonhjelm says there has been an increase in licensed firearm ownership since 1996 so you can get a gun for some reason.

    Prior to 1996, you didn’t need any reason to buy a firearm – you could just go to the shop and get one.

    These days, we are not allowed to have anything for self defence. Nothing.

    And yes, it is possible to get a firearm today – but only if the state allows you, and every owner is licensed and every firearm is registered.

    When we get to the stage of jihadis going wild in the streets, those firearms will be confiscated by the state.

  39. Haidee

    Our daughter was home alone when two invaders turned up in the early hours. While the wheelie bin was being brought to the kitchen window, she was being advised by ’emergency’ to go outside; instead in panic she bashed the heavy wooden back-door with our trusty iron bar (indentations still there). Invaders took off and twelve minutes later, police car arrived.
    Days later, police played back, for me, her 3-minute call to emergency.

    Would you feel stronger if you took a sizeable firearm to the window, instead of being on the phone for 3 minutes? I would.

    Carrying: I don’t immediately feel at greater risk (Rabz comment).

    “. . but no one wants a gun culture such as we see elsewhere”
    I’m afraid that’s just a heapawords

  40. Chris

    Well this is my hobby horse and in the past I spent a lot of time on it.

    DL has done good work since he was elected, and as the sole LDP Senator heis unlikely to implode in the party room. I think the comments here reflect several really important points about the gun debate, the main one being that a lot of decent people respond to spurious ideas, and as a result our laws reflect largely unexamined assumptions.

    Neil, the ban on issuing licenses for the purpose of self-defense was an example of measures to smash the imagined ‘gun culture’ because ‘no-one in Australia needs a gun for protection’. All those Australian people murdered after it became clear they were targets? Necessary sacrifices to this politically correct folklore.

  41. meher baba

    It’s interesting to play around with statistics. A supporter of Howard’s gun law reforms would point to the continuing downward trend in gun deaths in Australia since 1996 as evidence in favour of his policy. However, the good Senator sees it as evidence that nothing much has changed.

    Having experienced Hoddle St, Queen St, Strathfield and Port Arthur during the 1980s and 1990s, we have subsequently had only one mass shooting in a public place (Monash Uni: two dead). There’s a lot of argy bargy online about what constitutes a mass shooting, with the anti-gun forces trying to define it downwards and the gun lobby trying to define it upwards, but I don’t think many would disagree with the proposition that the US has averaged around 5 or more such mass shootings in a public place each year since 1996.

    The statistical case isn’t watertight, but it certainly doesn’t do anything to contradict the common sense attitude that making guns easier to obtain, including by people with mental illness issues, is probably going to do more harm than good.

    There are strong cultural reasons that mean that US-style gun laws would take on in Australia. A substantial chunk of the US population, particularly in the South and the mid-west, who are the descendants of subsistence farmers who, for generations, used guns to hunt food to protect and feed their families. Australians are mostly descended from city and town folk who were protected by police and always had access to an abundance of farmed meat. The pro-gun element of the population is therefore not big enough to make a political difference, except when – as sometimes happens – they find themselves with the balance of power in a State upper house.

  42. Chris

    Prior to 1996, you didn’t need any reason to buy a firearm – you could just go to the shop and get one.

    In some states, for long guns only; QLD and perhaps TAS and to a lesser extent NSW. Not all states were so free, especially WA.

    But all states had broadly similar restrictions on pistols.

  43. meher baba

    flyingduk: “At some point, that threat rises to the point where the downsides of an armed citizenry (increased risk of suicide, road rage, etc etc) become smaller than the upsides (ability to take out a mass shooter after a handful of vicitms, rather than a hundred).”

    Yes in theory, but we haven’t seen too many instances in the US where a gun-carrying member of the public has been able to take out a mass shooter. I think the main reason for this that mass shooters, while crazy, are generally not completely stupid, and they target their victims at times and places in which there is little likelihood of their carrying guns.

    For instance: in recent times we have seen
    – an attack in a darkened cinema, when any armed member of the public who had tried to shoot back would have most likely hit other innocent patrons rather than the gunman
    – an attack in a gay nightclub: and it isn’t easy to dance while carrying a gun
    – an attack on politicians playing baseball, when it was extremely fortunate that there were armed security officers present.

    I think that, looking at the situation from a global perspective, having more guns in the community as a whole helps the bad guys more than the good guys.

  44. Eddystone

    I think that, looking at the situation from a global perspective, having more guns in the community as a whole helps the bad guys more than the good guys.

    Then you think wrong, with the proviso that there are more legal guns.

    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
    ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle.

    Would Haidee’s daughter have been safer if she was legally able to have a gun for self defence? Of course she would have.

    As it was, she was able to bluff the crims, otherwise she would have had to rely on their good nature. Thanks to our laws.

    It’s madness.

  45. Rabz

    The statistical case isn’t watertight, but it certainly doesn’t do anything to contradict the common sense attitude that making guns easier to obtain, including by people with mental illness issues, is probably going to do more harm than good.

    Exactly. Not to mention hair trigger drugged out imbeciles who’d take offence at a sideways glance.

    There is no justification for suddenly allowing people to have easier access to guns. It is an infringement of my right to move about this country without being shot by some random civilian fuckwit, as almost happened to me at Strathfield Plaza. I also accept that Howard’s changes to gun laws mean that invariably, idiots who misuse guns have obtained them illegally for nefarious purposes – Mad Monis and that little shit in Parramatta being prime examples.

  46. Chris

    Yes in theory, but we haven’t seen too many instances in the US where a gun-carrying member of the public has been able to take out a mass shooter. I think the main reason for this that mass shooters, while crazy, are generally not completely stupid, and they target their victims at times and places in which there is little likelihood of their carrying guns.

    Firstly, the armed person is often mischaracterised by the media; they may be an off-dutypoliceman, or they may be said to have intervened without specifying with a gun, because the media reframe stories to their prejudices.
    In many instances public shootings have been stopped with zero or one or few casualties so the toll does not get so high to force media coverage.

    Yes they also choose ‘gun free zones’ almost exclusively.

  47. Eddystone

    Yes in theory, but we haven’t seen too many instances in the US where a gun-carrying member of the public has been able to take out a mass shooter. I think the main reason for this that mass shooters, while crazy, are generally not completely stupid, and they target their victims at times and places in which there is little likelihood of their carrying guns.

    There may be several million cases per year of Americans protecting themselves with a firearm. Figures are difficult to get.

    But public, random mass shootings are rare events, and tend to occur in places where carrying of guns is banned.

    The Aurora cinema was the only one in the area that banned guns. The killer had to pass several others that permitted carrying of guns to get to it.

    The Orlando nightclub was also a gun free zone. Don’t tell me someone couldn’t have had a gun in their purse or satchel if it was permitted.

  48. Tim Neilson

    meher baba
    #2437022, posted on July 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    The darkened cinema and the gay night club were both “gun free zones”, whether by law or by rule of the owners I don’t know.
    And as you said it was lucky that there were armed security guards at the baseball – i.e. lucky that it wasn’t a gun free zone.
    As flyingduk said, “gun free zones” are really only gun-in-the-possession-of-law-abiding-citizen free zones.

    I’m willing to accept Margaret Thatcher’s word that more pistols equals more crime (unless there’s proof to the contrary), but it certainly isn’t a 100% one way issue.

  49. Eddystone

    Rabz, the counter intuitive fact is that the gun laws don’t make us safer.

    Here’s a paper looking at Australia’s gun laws.

    The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths

    Here’s part of the conclusion.

    This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement
    on gun deaths.

    Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.

    In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

    ………..

    Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

  50. Akhenaten II

    Australians who suggest we should not go ‘the American way’ have no understanding of history and concept of true freedom. We are, in general, a bunch of socialist slaves. One day, when socialism collapses under its own weight, as it inevitable does, then see what a government desperate for revenue and conformity will do.

    No. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the 1st and the rest. Without it you are nothing but a nation of cucks.

  51. Akhenaten II

    I would add, the greatest mass murders in history (China, Russia, Cambodia) etc. all happened when the people were disarmed. Government is the greatest killer on the planet. Always was, always will be.

  52. Chris

    Rabz
    #2436782, posted on July 10, 2017 at 8:28 am
    As someone who narrowly avoided being caught up in the infamous Strathfield massacre (I was standing about 10 feet away from the shooter for several minutes about an hour before the shooting started) I simply cannot fathom how anyone could justify an idiot like Bunkum having access to those types of weapons – and don’t give me the “psych tests would have found him out” bullshit.

    If people were allowed access to guns, be they pistols, rifles, etc, then the shooting rate would massively increase.

    Would you want some ‘roided or iced out leb or bogan pulling a gun on you in traffic over some stupid road rage incident? Or the “peaceful” resolution of neighborehood disputes?

    Any idiot having access to a gun who previously didn’t, immediately places me at greater risk of being shot.

    No, thanks.

    OK now here we are dealing with one of the finest political minds of our time; I myself am a devoted parrot of the Rabz Doctrine for the ABC.

    What Rabz has so right is the bullshit filter and the self-interest test in common with most rational Australians including a majority of gun owners. Where he is, in my opinion, off the track is in the assumptions underlying gun licensing and human behaviour.

    There are a group of Australians, much more than a million in number, who demonstrate absolutely that they are trustworthy with guns. They are farmers, soldiers, police, target shooters and antique collectors and people who have been one or more of those things. Rabz’ rant excludes EVERYONE for the sake of general and his particular person’s safety, but there they are – one in every ten to twenty households already has someone proving every day that they are trustworthy.
    The usual rant from people not involved conceals an assumption that these examples do not matter and should be regarded as potentially more killers. But every single day I have access to guns and so do many many people, including plenty of Lebs and rough guys who you might choose to despise, who spend their lives minding their own fucking business.

    The massacres are a very important story that the underlying behavioural model in the Government and media is just wrong about. I have had a lot to say and write about it elsewhere.

  53. Howard Hill

    The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the 1st and the rest. Without it you are nothing but a nation of cucks.

    And cowards!

    Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, all agree the citizens will not have guns.

  54. meher baba

    Eddystone: “There may be several million cases per year of Americans protecting themselves with a firearm. Figures are difficult to get.”

    I looked into this a few years ago and the data are mixed. There aren’t a large number of instances of homeowners in the US shooting intruders with a gun: indeed, there seem to be far more instances of homeowners shooting friends, family, door-knocking Mormons (I’ve got some sympathy here), etc. in the mistaken belief that they were intruders. There are also suggestions that there have been many tens of thousands of cases in which a homeowner scared off an intruder with a gun, and also plenty of cases in which an armed intruder attacked a homeowner (whether they were armed or unarmed).

    “The Aurora cinema was the only one in the area that banned guns. The killer had to pass several others that permitted carrying of guns to get to it.”

    He was also able to sneak his arsenal in through the emergency exit, so it doesn’t sound like it was a very effective ban. Checking quickly online, I can’t find any proof that he chose this particular cinema because they banned guns: it appears to be a supposition made by gun advocates.

    “The Orlando nightclub was also a gun free zone. Don’t tell me someone couldn’t have had a gun in their purse or satchel if it was permitted.”

    If you are intending to dance, you are probably going to leave your purse or satchel in the cloakroom. I don’t know about you, but I would feel too comfortable dancing in a dark nightclub in which people are drinking, taking party drugs and also carrying guns.

    I greatly appreciate your measured responses to my posts (not necessarily all that common on this site) , but I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that, the more guns there are in a society, the more often they’re going to be used, for both good and bad purposes: so you will tend to end up with a bit of an arms race, and a greater likelihood of innocent people being caught in the crossfire or deliberately targeted. On the whole, the comparative statistics between the US – the only country on earth in which there are more civilian-owned guns than people – and other first world countries seem to support this proposition more than they disprove it.

  55. Splatacrobat

    Instead of 14 people getting killed by a .303, they can be killed by a 3.0 litre sedan and have the “massacre” beamed around the world.
    Which is more frightening, watching an unarmed officer stabbed in London or 86 people turned into hood ornaments in Nice?

  56. Neil

    Neil, you are not allowed to carry anything for the purpose of self defence.

    Well something has changed since 1689.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

    I read that after WW1 British Parliament legislated away an Englishmans right to bear arms because they were afraid of armed citizens with modern weapons rather than bows and arrows as their was revolution in Ireland, Russia.

    But i thought growing up the right to bear arms was an American thing because i did not know anybody who owned a gun. I had no idea Australia had a gun culture until i saw the stuff handed in during 1996.

  57. Fat Tony

    meher baba
    On the whole, the comparative statistics between the US – the only country on earth in which there are more civilian-owned guns than people – and other first world countries seem to support this proposition more than they disprove it

    I presume you are referring to Chicago and the drug fueled violence of our darker brothers.

    The USA is not homogeneous when it comes to gun crime – the states with the most restrictive gun laws are also the most ridden with gun crime.

  58. Fat Tony

    Neil
    I had no idea Australia had a gun culture until i saw the stuff handed in during 1996.

    Gun culture??? People owned guns as they owned lawn mowers, hand saws, drills, lathes, cars, motorbikes….

    It was no big deal and we didn’t have gun fights in the streets like some people seem to believe.

  59. Haidee

    For what it’s worth, I’m saying again
    I won’t be one of those in fear of meeting a lunatic gun-toter. To my mind, it’s highly unlikely.
    Innocent people are already being caught in “crossfire” of other kinds.
    It’s argued that any increase of risk re gun ownership/carrying must be avoided. In the not-too-distant future, that thinking might have to change.

    I’m not sure who’s now protecting innocent people.

  60. Fat Tony

    Haidee
    #2437117, posted on July 10, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    I’m not sure who’s now protecting innocent people.

    That’s another easy one – no one. (Run – hide – tell)

  61. Chris

    Ignorance never settles a question. Benjamin Disraeli

    QOTD over at Ace.

    Argument from ignorance is very big in gun law debates.

  62. Chris

    I had no idea Australia had a gun culture until i saw the stuff handed in during 1996.

    Well,do you believe we have a chainsaw culture?A hammer culture? A ‘modified sphere of inflated leather’ culture?

    People do stuff. Most of it is innocuous and their business. Just because we are ignorant of it and don’t wnat it ourselves does not mean it should be banned. But that is the logic behind a lot of ‘gun control’ argument.

  63. IDefender of the faith

    Fat Tony: I am referring to cultures in which ownership guns is widespread and where weapons are commonly encountered. For example: States of the US where you can easily find people carrying hand guns in the street or driving about with military grade automatic weapons. Ladies who lunch in Manila who carry small pistols in their purse. Signs at a car park checkpoint in Davao that ask people to check guns before entering the terminal.
    If you haven’t seen a 14 year old with an Uzi you don’t know what to be afraid of.

  64. Fat Tony

    IDefender of the faith

    States of the US where you can easily find people carrying hand guns in the street or driving about with military grade automatic weapons.
    From what I’ve read, these are the safest states of the USA – I don’t think there would be too many military grade automatic weapons in their cars.

    If you haven’t seen a 14 year old with an Uzi you don’t know what to be afraid of.
    I remember when 14 year old army cadets in this country used military weapons.
    If you haven’t had a couple of drug-fucked crazies trying to do a home invasion when you have 8 kids under the age of 15 in the house, you don’t know what to be afraid of.

  65. BrettW

    Still waiting on details of the 14 multiple shootings. Can’t find via Google. Surely DL or one of his supporters has them at hand. Otherwise the thread is just hot air with no substance to back it up.

  66. Chris

    Still waiting on details of the 14 multiple shootings.

    The dishonest framing of the Monash University shooting is that two were killed.
    Seven people were shot, two died.

    The criteria used to claim 8 or 12 or 14 mass shootings before the 1996 laws was four or more dead, even though in many of them part of the number were killed by other means than guns.

  67. .

    Thanks David for flushing out all of the fake libertarians and even more fake “concerned conservatives”.

  68. Chris

    The massacres are a very important story that the underlying behavioural model in the Government and media is just wrong about. I have had a lot to say and write about it elsewhere.

    Damn, can’t get the links to my best articles because the work filter blocks them.

    The social imitation model best explains how people form a motive to carry through a mass shooting. It also explains both why we had our mass shootings in Australia, and why they stopped almost completely.

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14495

    How news media can help prevent shooting massacres

    There is no mystery about school killings. The real causes are staring us in the face; criminological research demonstrates that these are copycat crimes.

    Notice how they echo and change the storylines of past crimes: locations were in the 1980s post offices, then became gun-free schools and malls; perpetrators were first PLO terrorists, then aging males with relationship issues and in recent years mentally unstable young men.

    Research in the USA showed that the mainstream news media provide training manuals for copycats, with their inset boxes listing weapons in ‘arsenals’; they refer to the killers’ ‘meticulous planning’ while laying out easy bullet-point lists of actions leading up to the crimes. The killers he researched kept articles from Time and Newsweek, and obsessively watched news and current affairs reports on how they could easily get guns to commit massacres. Now they turn to NBC, CNN and ABC and the online media. The news shows, not computer games or violent movies, are the most effective teachers of mass killing.

    We understand now that people build maps or scripts of how to act from what they see others around them doing. The more alike someone seems, the more their situation can be applied to yours, the more likely it is you will act like them. This applies to choice of fashions and musical tastes, choosing education options – and to committing crimes. News people know this and enforce internal guidelines to help prevent suicide and crime copycats. But for a mass shooting, the urgent opportunity to boost audiences and present copy overwhelms their ethical hesitation, and they convince themselves their carefully-preened moral outrage is a force for good.

    But they don’t stop there. The responsible news media provide billions of dollars in name recognition, photo publicity and hours of discussion about the significance of the killings and their perpetrators. They partner with political activists, fomenting hatred of the journalists’ political enemies and creating moral campaigns to punish them. Their actions invest the killers with a huge social significance, that these mentally unstable, morally deficient losers would never otherwise achieve.

    Detailed news ‘instruction’ has taught even the mentally handicapped how; and enormous social significance is guaranteed if they act. Our news services created the string of mass murders, and made an engine to keep it going.

    News reporters are not the only ones causing the massacres. What kind of people are ready at a moment’s notice to profit from mass killings? Who are the people who write the copy for them, who stand in front of their cameras and gravely incite moral outrage at whole classes of political enemies? The news media have formed strong and profitable partnerships with pet activists.

    In Australia, gun control activism started in the late 1970s. Activists quickly partnered with journalists sensationalizing and editorializing gun violence. Their influence grew and the activists brought the American fashion for gun control into the Australian media scene. A string of massacres started; the initiating event of massacres in Australia was the 1984 bikie gang ambush called by media the Milperra Massacre, a stupid private melée that left seven dead including an innocent bystander. The stage was set for Australian copycats, and (depending what you count), over the next 12 years the Australian media taught more than a dozen violent losers who actually committed massacres.

    In October 1995 a current affairs team joined activists from the National Coalition for Gun Control and Greenpeace. They carefully detailed how to buy guns illegally, demonstrating every step with an attractive spokes-model. They showed how easy it could be to use the guns, then blew apart a melon like a victim’s head. Then a prominent activist framed our fear as destiny: “We are going to have a massacre in Tasmania!’ Six months later, the Police asked Martin Bryant when he bought his assault rifle. The answer: ‘About five months ago.’

    This program was explicitly named by the Coroner as the cause of at least one other death – that of a Melbourne man who travelled to Tasmania, bought a gun as taught by the program, and killed himself. A journalist asked the NCGC activist, whose words may have triggered the killings, about this verdict and he lashed out with bitter hostility.

    There is a very obvious imitative trigger in mass killings, after the training phase of media communication to the prospective killer. It is quite usual that intensive media for one massacre is immediately rewarded by another, and for several smaller attacks to be foiled in the weeks after. The trigger for the Port Arthur killings was the unprecedented media coverage of the Dunblane killings of schoolchildren. No news editor or current affairs producer has ever been held to account for the massacres, yet the connection in timing is obvious.

    John Howard led the moralizers of Australian media and politics, a lynch mob against the people who didn’t do the crime. For three years it seemed any ‘nice’ person talking about guns had to say ‘I hate guns as much as anybody, but…’ before they could relate how normal life had involved guns. At the Sydney Olympics, shooters won the first gold medals and ordinary Australians got over political correctness in the glow of national pride and camaraderie.

    One voice kept at the public as most of Australia returned to productive issues, having crushed the shooters. Lee Rhiannon had grabbed hold of the fact that handguns, far more tightly controlled than long guns ever were, were still available if you jumped through the many hoops to get a license. Sympathetic journalists in a national broadcaster gave her a platform to claim, falsely, that handguns were easy to get. This led many to go through the tedious process to get legal guns, which filters out almost all irresponsibles. One foreign student took her advice, and although he was a bit weird a shooting club supported him; anecdotal evidence suggests that was partly out of fear of being accused of racism.

    In late 2002 the media went nuts over the Washington sniper killings. Weeks of media hysteria over guns combined with this student’s mental illness and personal crises. At the height of the Washington Beltway sniper headlines, he shot seven people at Monash University. A similar pattern had been followed; the news media with activist partners write stories about guns being easy to get, and so more people get them; then news media provide massacres as potent examples and publicity rewards to people who go on to kill.

    Now killers send publicity packages with photos, video and manifestos to media directly, and news editors confirm their complicity in the killings by using those publicity pictures and stories.

    The tools to break the cycle of killings already exist, in the guidelines used to stop copycat suicides. When you break them, as NineMSN did for the jumping suicide of a pretty newsreader, the chain of imitations can lead far and wide. Within 24 hours a woman jumped from a building in West Perth, killing her child; later a woman jumped from West Gate Bridge, killing her children too; later still a man threw his daughter to her death from that bridge, but stopped short and spared the lives of his other children.

    For massacres, called parasuicide events, the guidelines are clear and likely to be effective. They are:

    · Move massacre and suicide stories to lower prominence. Below the fold, further back, later in the bulletin, fewer words, without longwinded or detailed special reports.

    · Do not glamorise or demonise the actions of the perpetrators. Use the passive voice to make them less interesting.

    · Do not provide glamorous people as action models; do not use pictures that the perpetrator provides. Choose pictures that diminish rather than glorify their self-image.

    · Do not use words that might encourage people to think their own life patterns are similar to those of the perpetrators; emphasize the uniqueness of mental illnesses and situations of individuals.

    · Provide counter-suicide behavior guides, such as a hotline to call or quotes from groups that work with people at risk.

    · Do not emphasize the tools and methods of suicides or mass killings.

    And one more that is badly needed for media and police:

    · Don’t teach passive compliance as though the killer might not hurt you if you do what they want, or as though the authorities will be in time to help you. Teach people how to seize the initiative to save lives.

    Until our media adopt guidelines like these, copycat mass killings will continue.

  69. DM of WA

    I am completely comfortable with the concept of armed citizenry until I remember that many of those “citizens” come from Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan …

  70. Empire GTHO Phase III

    What I want to know is: the hoplophobia epidemic – what’s the gummint gonna do about it?

  71. Chris

    I am completely comfortable with the concept of armed citizenry until I remember that many of those “citizens” come from Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan …

    Lucky us.

  72. Fat Tony

    DM of WA
    #2437197, posted on July 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    I am completely comfortable with the concept of armed citizenry until I remember that many of those “citizens” come from Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan …

    Ummm….they’re the reason we need to be armed

  73. Chris

    What I want to know is: the hoplophobia epidemic – what’s the gummint gonna do about it?

    Sheeple, hoplophobia, cackle-shit over the use of the word weapon – ineffective attempts to change the debate with language.

    Political Correctness, homophobia, islamophobia, virtue signalling – effective words that reframe the debates, dishonestly for the phobias but effective.

  74. Sydney Boy

    Sorry John Bayley

    the patently false statement that “helmets save lives

    ”.

    I’d much rather fall off my bike wearing a helmet than not. Ask Richie Porte how he feels about helmets. You are mischievously comparing apples (European cyclists commenting at slow speeds while physically separated from traffic and with a very different motorist mindset) to oranges (Australian cyclists riding on roads for r creation and fitness with an anti-cyclist motorist mindset).

  75. Fat Tony

    Sydney Boy

    Yeah, it’s a bit like the gunfights in the streets we had prior to 1996.

    Unfortunately, they were overshadowed by the thousands dying from head injuries from falling off bicycles.

  76. Fat Tony

    Australian cyclists riding on roads for recreation and fitness with an anti-cyclist motorist mindset

    That “mindset” is from the arrogant pricks who ride around in lycra, taking up as much of the road as they deem necessary and giving abuse to anyone in a car who may challenge them.

  77. BrettW

    Chris’s post a very interesting read.

    I am not interested in the “talk” about the statistics used or the definition of multiple. I would like to see a simple comparison of figures before and after Port Arthur. A “multiple” can be more than one but whatever number is chosen should be the same before and after PA. What also is significant in my mind is the location whether it be tourist spot, Uni or a family farm.

    In the absence of any such comparison I might as well base my view on the hilarious 14 minutes by Jim Jeffries in his show Bare.

  78. Marcus Classis

    I am completely comfortable with the concept of armed citizenry until I remember that many of those “citizens” come from Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan …

    You mean the ones who, as criminals, don’t obey the law at all and are already armed up, while you are not, and make a nice defenceless victim for them?

  79. JC

    Gun control is another example of people not understanding cost/trade offs. How many preventable deaths could have occurred if there was limited gun control?

    I also read last year that prices have fallen quite materially in the black market for hand guns etc. If you want a gun, it will cost you about 700 bucks. I could buy one at 9 am tomorrow morning if I wanted one… from the Greek hardware store owner not far away.

    What we’ve ended up with is criminals and cops possessing guns. Everyone else is pretty much locked out of the game. Nice.

  80. Marcus Classis

    fat Tony

    When we get to the stage of jihadis going wild in the streets, those firearms will be confiscated by the state.

    Many will be. Many more will be suddenly stolen, or accidentally lost in tragic canoeing accidents, while sales of poly pipe soar.

  81. JC

    I am completely comfortable with the concept of armed citizenry until I remember that many of those “citizens” come from Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan …

    LOl. They aren’t going to go through the hoops of buying a gun legally even if we had liberalized laws. They will buy them from the black market like all the crims have in the past.

  82. JC

    There is no justification for suddenly allowing people to have easier access to guns. It is an infringement of my right to move about this country without being shot by some random civilian fuckwit, as almost happened to me at Strathfield Plaza. I also accept that Howard’s changes to gun laws mean that invariably, idiots who misuse guns have obtained them illegally for nefarious purposes – Mad Monis and that little shit in Parramatta being prime examples.

    Rabz

    You really think either of those two would have been prevented from buying a gun? I don’t know how that Strathtfield fucker bought his, but Monis would have obtained his illegally, so gun laws did nothing to prevent the latter.

  83. rickw

    As someone who narrowly avoided being caught up in the infamous Strathfield massacre (I was standing about 10 feet away from the shooter for several minutes about an hour before the shooting started) I simply cannot fathom how anyone could justify an idiot like Bunkum having access to those types of weapons – and don’t give me the “psych tests would have found him out” bullshit.

    If people were allowed access to guns, be they pistols, rifles, etc, then the shooting rate would massively increase.

    Would you want some ‘roided or iced out leb or bogan pulling a gun on you in traffic over some stupid road rage incident? Or the “peaceful” resolution of neighborehood disputes?

    Any idiot having access to a gun who previously didn’t, immediately places me at greater risk of being shot.

    No, thanks.

    What a load of tosh. Your roided Leb already has a handgun you fuckwit.

  84. rickw

    But i thought growing up the right to bear arms was an American thing because i did not know anybody who owned a gun. I had no idea Australia had a gun culture until i saw the stuff handed in during 1996.

    The American Right to Bear Arms was actually a distillation of American, French and English thinking at that time.

    There was a heated debate at the time about whether or not the amendment should be included, not over intent, but over the best means of achieving it. Some held that writing it as an amendment implied that Government had some jurisdiction over arms, the intent was that the had none.

    As it turns out, the approach was probably the right one, The Second Amendment is probably the original meme.

  85. Tel

    What we’ve ended up with is criminals and cops possessing guns. Everyone else is pretty much locked out of the game. Nice.

    Feudalism worked on that system for thousands of years. They only stopped disarming peasants in the UK after the King realized that peasants with longbows and improvised pole arms were actually pretty effective at stopping an invasion. Even after that they made sure the peasants didn’t have anything much good. Some people called it the “Death of Chivalry” while others called it “The Birth of Democracy”.

    When you have military technology like WWI then war becomes pretty much a logistics exercise, so governments are forced to maintain the capability of fielding a very large army, and that requires large numbers of people capable of fighting. When you have the type of military technology that more closely resembles a gear sport, it will tend towards Feudalism or something similar.

  86. Empire GTHO Phase III

    I’d much rather fall off my bike wearing a helmet than not.

    An entirely uncontroversial statement. Be sure to wear one every time you ride.

    There is merit in your point about road use behaviour. Look out for emerging trends in incidence and cost demographics for the socialised personal road injury insurance schemes. Then identify who the culprits are shifting the cost burden.

    These same type-A gents with expensive carbon fibre toys are the urban hoplophobes, typically living in safe neighbourhoods with private security, who would deny the everyman his self defence.

    They can go to hell.

  87. Sydney Boy

    That “mindset” is from the arrogant pricks who ride around in lycra, taking up as much of the road as they deem necessary and giving abuse to anyone in a car who may challenge them.

    No Fat Tony, that mindset is from the arrogant drivers who complain that cyclists are “always breaking the law” and that cyclists shouldn’t be allowed on the road “because they don’t pay rego”. Because no-one has ever seen a motorist break the law; and of course most roads are paid by council rates, not rego. So renters shouldn’t be allowed to drive?

  88. Fat Tony

    No Sydney Boy – just what i wrote or is it a bit complex for you?

  89. rickw

    John Howard’s 1996 Gun Control Laws probably hold the record for the most historically incorrect law, proven to be incorrect by history within the shortest period of time.

    What do I mean by historically incorrect? Gun Control is NOT a significant feature of Western Democracies, and certainly not those that endure. Whilst Australia hasn’t had a brash and in your face 2nd Amendment, it certain has practically had the same approach. Up until relatively recently, Australians had enjoyed the freedom to own equivalent arms to the military AND BETTER.

    It was not uncommon in WWI for Australian Enlisted Men, in the case of Melbourne, to take a walk down Elizabeth St and purchase a side arm of their choice prior to embarking. Most purchased something far better than what their officers would be carrying.

    On the other hand, Gun Control is a feature of everything outside of the sphere of Western Democracies. Since quite obviously, Gun Control is a useful tool for those wishing to exert authority over a population or a segment of population. For those unfamiliar with the bloody history of Gun Control (a reliable predictor of future genocide), a visit to jpfo.org probably provides the most comprehensive list.

    Of course all this historical perspective seemed pretty pointless and well, “historical” in 1996, but true Conservatives and Government that was more trusting of it’s Citizens would have been rather more circumspect in messing with such a fundamental feature of a Western Democracy. The Liberals of course were not, because they’re not conservatives and they don’t trust citizens.

    A mere 20 years later, and the world is a very different place to that of 1996, and the historical relevance of Citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms is becoming more apparent with each passing week.

    A Government is not guaranteed to act in it’s citizens best interest. Governments are now doing this on some very blatant and dangerous fronts.

    As a result of the Government engineered and sustained “migrant crisis” the citizens of France, German and Italy are rapidly arming themselves because there is such a divergence in interests. Of course they are scrambling a little less than Australians might be in the same circumstances, because their Gun Laws are less draconian than ours and they are gifted with land borders over which arms are more easily shipped. They appear to be caught in a slow motion genocide facilitated by their own Governments, who would have thought this in 1996?

    The US is emerging out of what could have been a rather more dramatic political crisis with virtually zero deaths. How might Antifa be acting if the rest of the country was disarmed and prostrate before them? They would be launching a civil war with certainty, rather than their opponents making jokes about how many minutes such a civil war would last.

    In Australia of course all of the same factors are playing out, but rather more slowly and rather more benignly than in other places, as it usually does in Australia. We can be quite stupid and never really face the full consequences. The most obvious issue in Australia is of course that terrorists and criminals continue to get their guns, and use them.

    The real question for Australia is whether or not we can pull our head out of our arse. Can we acknowledge the fundamental fact that disarming citizens has zero impact on terrorists and criminals? Can we acknowledge that it facilitates their activities quite a bit? Can we make a change in the direction of commonsense just once?

  90. Rabz

    Could stupid c*nts such as rickwanker who infest this blog stop resorting to ad homs when they don’t have an argument, you monumental fuckwits?

    Enough. If you’re too stupid to comprehend my comment you’re too fucking stupid to comment on this blog.

    Now fuck off.

  91. Rabz

    Monis would have obtained his illegally, so gun laws did nothing to prevent the latter.

    That was exactly my point, JC. Howard’s gun laws have patently failed.

  92. harry buttle

    The CDC studied the best way to reduce the effect of firearm violence in 2013 (at Obamas behest), some key findings –

    1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

    2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
    “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

    3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
    “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

    4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
    “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

    5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
    “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

    6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
    “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

    7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
    “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

  93. Fat Tony

    Rabz
    #2437412, posted on July 10, 2017 at 8:48 pm

    Could stupid c*nts such as rickwanker who infest this blog stop resorting to ad homs when they don’t have an argument, you monumental fuckwits?

    Ahhh..Rabz – your argument seems to consist of “I was frightened by a dickhead with a gun therefore no-one else should be allowed to have a gun”

    Not very convincing.

  94. .

    Pretty convincing stuff Harry, a good get.

  95. Neil

    The American Right to Bear Arms was actually a distillation of American, French and English thinking at that time.

    Yeah i always thought it was an American thing but apparently it is/was a common law right. HenryVIII passed a law where the first born had to be taught how to use a bow and arrow or you were fined a months wages. Apparently England was defended by militia groups hence the need to bear arms. All the Americans did was enshrine into law what was the custom of the time. Another custom was that when Britain finally got a standing army they were billeted out into peoples homes rather than put into barracks. Barracks came latter.

    Then in the early 1920’s the British govt were concerned about an armed populace with modern weapons and legislated away the right to bear arms. But i think the British govt got it right to be concerned about modern weapons in the hands of people. Where do you stop? If people want a gun they should be licensed like car drivers.

  96. .

    The common law right generally comes from the English Bill of Rights. This is what Jefferson, Madison complained about to the British.

  97. Haidee

    I don’t think the British government got it right to be concerned about modern weapons
    in the hands of . . . people.
    Where to stop?? I don’t get that.

    A lot of interesting info in the comments here, I thought

  98. Neil

    Where to stop?? I don’t get that.

    What if someone invents a nuclear device you can fire from a rifle?

    But i still remember the day i showed the English Bill of Rights 1689 to an American and pointed to the bit about the right to bear arms. He had no idea the 2nd Ammendment was taken from English history

  99. harry buttle

    While we are on the subject of the 1996 gun buyback, millions of firearms are believed to have been kept back and not registered (import number v hand in/registrations) and of course we know as fact that in the region of 1000 handguns were directly transferred from law abiding citizens to criminals during the buyback, because the NSW Police caught the Qld dealer who accepted them as hand ins, certified their destruction, erased their ID (inadequately) and then shipped them to Crims in NSW – they got convictions for 700 handguns and believe a more realistic number was 1400 sold – few, if any, recovered.
    Then we have the 200 Glock pistols shipped in recently via Sylvania Waters Post Office, around 15 recovered.
    I find it amusing that people who will tell you with absolute certainty that prohibition never works regarding drugs, alcohol etc have an almost religious level of belief in the efficacy of gun bans.

  100. Habib

    My old man, a retired Luitenant Colonel, always said “be very suspicious of any politician that seeks to disarm the populace”. Spot on, it’s fuck-all to do with public safety and reducing crime, and everything to do with regulation and power. The US 2nd ammendment is not about self defence or citizen militias, it’s entirely about being able to remove an out of control government.

  101. Where do you stop? If people want a gun they should be licensed like car drivers.

    If only they were.
    To be licenced like car drivers gun owners would have to:
    Have a licence to use their gun in public places.
    They could get any level of licence they desired, simply by passing a test, once.

    To be licenced like gun owners, car drivers would have to:
    Prove they need a car. (not just want one)
    “Personal transport” would not be a valid reason for having a car.
    Have written permission from a landholder to drive a car on that land.
    Be limited to 50cc engine, unless they can prove a need for a higher calibre of piston.
    Be prohibited from owning or driving an automatic car.
    Have their car stored in a lockup garage which cannot be got into by Apex or the like.
    Not store their car with petrol in it – petrol to be stored in a separate locked room.

  102. .

    I find it amusing that people who will tell you with absolute certainty that prohibition never works regarding drugs, alcohol etc have an almost religious level of belief in the efficacy of gun bans.

    Oh no, not me old son.

    Nearly everything the government does is incompetent by default, design or operation.

  103. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    I served fifteen years in the A.D.F – rifleman, mortar crewman and machine gunner. I’m fairly familiar with a range of weapons, from the 9mm Browning, through the L1A1 SLR and the M60 machine gun, and the 81mm F1 and F2 mortar tubes, to the 84mm Carl Gustav 84mm recoiless gun. I don’t want to own an assault rifle for self defense, like some of the local hoons do – a pump action shotgun will do, but I don’t see why I should be bound by the same gun ownership rules as someone whose never had any such training. I’ve every respect for some of the local coppers, but there are others I wouldn’t trust with a cap pistol, let alone repose much trust in their ability to protect me.

  104. Haidee

    Thanks, Neil. I thought, by “modern” weapons, you meant – at that time, 1920s.

  105. Paridell

    I have never heard the supposed quotation from Goebbels, even as a “popular legend”. In any case, it is fictitious. It sounds like a reworking of the saying attributed to Stalin that one death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic.
    Goebbels would never have claimed that a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth, because he did not think in such relative terms. The Nazi cause, according to him, rested on truth; when he discussed the techniques of lying, it was always to accuse his enemies of telling lies, e.g. “Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik” (From Churchill’s Lie Factory), 1941. We may see Goebbels a flagrant liar, but bogus quotations like this one of “popular legend” only confuse the picture.

  106. Neil

    The US 2nd ammendment is not about self defence or citizen militias, it’s entirely about being able to remove an out of control government.

    The USA did not have the money when the Constitution was written for a standing army. Cheaper to have a armed citizen militia which was the custom in England until they got around to having a standing army.

  107. Docket62 (deplorable)

    I believe we will reach a point in Australia where an armed citizenry is a must. It is possible (but difficult) to obtain licences for the various weapons required for competition shooting (IPSC in particular) and personally Id like that extended to personal carry in the future although that is just wishful thinking. Just one could have stopped a Port Arthur in its tracks.. well before Plod arrived. I believe in regulation and control of firearms to qualified individuals (Military or para military experience). This is the only true deterrent to combat massacres. Difficult to say how a Monis could have been prevented but gun control isn’t one of them – he would have got a gun illicitly.

    We need to arm ourselves. Seriously. Do the work, get a licence and learn how to use the various weapons out there. For all our sakes.

  108. Docket62 (deplorable)

    Nearly everything the government does is incompetent by default, design or operation.

    A liberty quote

  109. Haidee

    One last thing
    I hate that term “buyback”. Truly hate hearing it.

  110. john constantine

    If we worry about guns, but not home kits capable of genetically modifying influenza viruses in a carshed, aren’t we missing the point a bit?.

  111. john constantine

    Sheer numbers hint that there have been mass killers moving through Australian society.

    Blokes with aids that infected as many other people as they could-they got away with mass murder, because politics.

    Family law divorce lawyers that drive the men they drag through hell to suicide, and do it to multiple victims for decades.

    The coming wave of untreatable sexual transmitted diseases.

    http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2017/07/antibioticresistant-gonorrhea-on-the-rise-new-drugs-needed.aspx

    If a bloke goes to the mardi-gras in Sydney with an arse loaded full of untreatable gonorrhea, a tub of meadow-lea margarine and a heart bent on spreading the luv- isn’t this worse than owning a gun?.

  112. …personally Id like that extended to personal carry in the future although that is just wishful thinking. Just one could have stopped a Port Arthur in its tracks.. well before Plod arrived.

    IIRC the Port Arthur shootings would have ended when he left the Port Arthur …er (park, or whatever it is) and headed up the main road.

    The servo just up the road was armed, but due to having guns, ammo, bolts etc all locked in different regulation safes, weren’t able to arm themselves in time, & the killer got to the servo, shot a few people, stole a car, & proceeded on his way.

    Well done you Tasmanian govt. arseholes who’d mandated separate storage – well fucking done.
    Brilliant fucking move, you arseholes – alas not one of you have been tied to a triangle in a farm shed & had an oxy-acetylene torch used on your quoit.

  113. rickw

    Could stupid c*nts such as rickwanker who infest this blog stop resorting to ad homs when they don’t have an argument, you monumental fuckwits?

    Enough. If you’re too stupid to comprehend my comment you’re too fucking stupid to comment on this blog.

    Now fuck off.

    I’m glad you weren’t ever rescued by an ABC reporter otherwise you wouldn’t be able to think straight about the ABC either.

    Now, back to the argument, do roided Lebs already have guns or not? Yes?

  114. Chris

    Could stupid c*nts such as rickwanker who infest this blog stop resorting to ad homs when they don’t have an argument, you monumental fuckwits?

    Enough. If you’re too stupid to comprehend my comment you’re too fucking stupid to comment on this blog.
    Now fuck off.

    You talking to me, squire?
    It reminds me that the chief characteristic of anti-gun argument is ignorant virtue signalling, in angry defiance of evidence.

  115. IDefender of the faith

    Fat Tony: there is nothing stopping you from having a gun. The issue is that you want to use it illegally as your response makes clear. you are exemplifying the gun culture problem. You want to shoot people who threaten you. Of course if that’s allowed the next step is 14 year olds on drugs with Uzis and we escalate the problem.

  116. Chris

    iDef, there we have you; slippery slop arguments (sick) are invalid under Diversidee.

  117. harry buttle

    Firstly, “Idefender”, you are wrong at law, in every state you have an absolute right of self defence – they are all variations on “must use reasonable force”, but you have the right to kill someone in defence of yourself (or another person) if your life is threatened. What you don’t have is a credible right to a practical means of defence or a right to prepare for your defence. Govts have removed that, but if you have a firearm at hand and you are attacked, you have every legal right to use it in self defence, so Tony does not want to use a firearm illegally.
    Secondly, 14 year olds with Uzis – a. Uzis are a prohibited firearm, being a submachinegun, so they are not the next logical step to allowing for practical self defence with legal firearms, and b. I went to school with a 14 year old who routinely carried an Uzi on his farm in South Africa, because people wanted to kill his family because of their race. they were driven to move to Australia.
    Thirdly “gun culture” – you say it like it is a bad thing, in the US guns are used defensively by law abiding citizens ten times for every single criminal use of a gun, that strikes me as a good thing.
    and finally, I don’t imagine that Jill Meaghers last thoughts, having been raped and as she was being strangled to death prior to being dumped in a shallow grave were, “thank god I didn’t have a gun, that would have just escalated the problem”.

  118. IDefender of the faith

    Harry b: I wouldn’t try that argument if I were you. Guns are not owned legally for the purpose of killing people no matter the circumstances. You are right I think a culture in which guns are in common presence is sick. As for Africa I very much that owning an Uzi did anyone much good. Possibly a reason so many staffers are here, where no one is hunting anyone be with guns.

  119. IDefender of the faith

    Sorry. I meant Saffers

  120. nilk

    For instance: in recent times we have seen
    – an attack in a darkened cinema, when any armed member of the public who had tried to shoot back would have most likely hit other innocent patrons rather than the gunman
    – an attack in a gay nightclub: and it isn’t easy to dance while carrying a gun
    – an attack on politicians playing baseball, when it was extremely fortunate that there were armed security officers present.

    Good try, meher baba.

    The cinema was a gunfree zone, so no patrons allowed to carry guns. The same with the Pulse nightclub. If they had been zoned for open carry or concealed carry I suspect neither would have happened. People insane enough to open fire in places like that often are not so insane that they can’t find a soft target to shoot up.

  121. .

    You want to shoot people who threaten you.

    Um yes. The cops can do this, we can’t. Piss off to your fascist rathole.

  122. IDefender of the faith

    Dot: get yourself to a shrink. You clearly think you should be allowed to shoot people.

  123. .

    You clearly think that the police have a right to self-defence and the citizen does not.

    Get yourself a necktie and see yourself to the ladies.

  124. Chris

    Grow up kiddies.
    Or better yet, come out to the range and burn some powder. You can say pretty much anything out there.

  125. Tel

    Now, back to the argument, do roided Lebs already have guns or not? Yes?

    As someone who lives in Western Sydney, I can tell you that for a place with a lot of very nice cars, it’s quite surprising how many times they backfire for no reason in the middle of the night.

  126. Oh come on

    For example: States of the US where you can easily find people carrying hand guns in the street

    Where they are doing so legally tend to be the places with the lowest rates of gun crime.

    or driving about with military grade automatic weapons.

    Flat out fiction. You’re just parroting Piers Morgan talking points. Like the claim the AR-15 is a ‘military grade’ weapon. No, it isn’t. It may look like one – which is why fools like Morgan make such dumb claims about it – but it’s not. It’s not even an assault rifle (no, ‘AR’ does not mean ‘Assault Rifle’). Assault rifles have a fully automatic firing mechanism. US federal law in place since the 1920s has made it extremely difficult for US citizens to legally possess fully automatic firearms. There is a relatively tiny number of legally owned and licensed fully automatic weapons in circulation (IIRC, there are around one thousand licensed weapons across the entire country) in the US. My understanding is that it’s extremely difficult to obtain or transfer ownership of such weapons, and the conditions of ownership of a licensed fully automatic firearm are highly restrictive and burdensome.

    It’s far easier to illegally obtain a fully automatic unlicensed weapon, or illegally modify an otherwise legal semi-automatic weapon, than it is to legally own one. The notion that there are parts of the US where loads of people wander around openly brandishing fully automatic weapons is a furphy. The closest thing you’ll find to this cliche is in the Democrat-controlled inner city ghettoes where gun control laws are the tightest.

  127. Fat Tony

    IDefender of the faith
    #2437842, posted on July 11, 2017 at 11:16 am

    Fat Tony: there is nothing stopping you from having a gun. The issue is that you want to use it illegally as your response makes clear. you are exemplifying the gun culture problem. You want to shoot people who threaten you. Of course if that’s allowed the next step is 14 year olds on drugs with Uzis and we escalate the problem.

    Well, if the people who were threatening me were busy beheading the infidels next door, then yes, I would want to kill them. Somehow, since our governments have not yet fully submitted to Islam, I do not think, at this stage, this would be illegal.

    And what the fuck is this shit about 14 year olds with Uzis??? Do you really think me having a pump shotgun in my house to defend my family would make 14 year olds carry Uzis??? Can I have the name of your supplier/dealer – he sells you some serious gear.

    I don’t know if you were around prior to 1996, but we did not have gun fights in the street, we had fuckall home invasions and, generally, scumbags behaved a little better than now.

    And fuck your stupid arrant “gun culture” problem – whatever the fuck that is. You clown.

  128. IDefender of the faith

    Dot: you should get together with Fat Tony. It seems likely you both want to kill people. (My suggestion is aimed solely to help the coppers find you both.) of course you both may be unconscious given the self inflicted free upper cuts.

  129. Fat Tony

    IDefender of the faith
    #2438019, posted on July 11, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Dot: you should get together with Fat Tony. It seems likely you both want to kill people. (My suggestion is aimed solely to help the coppers find you both.) of course you both may be unconscious given the self inflicted free upper cuts.

    Try arguing the points and not what you think they are.

    You are totally retarded, a fuckwit’s fuckwit.

  130. Empire GTHO Phase III

    Dot: you should get together with Fat Tony. It seems likely you both want to kill people. (My suggestion is aimed solely to help the coppers find you both.) of course you both may be unconscious given the self inflicted free upper cuts.

    Neither suggested any such thing and you’ve verballed both.

    Communist or clown? We’ll be the judge.

  131. harry buttle

    Defender – “Harry b: I wouldn’t try that argument if I were you. Guns are not owned legally for the purpose of killing people no matter the circumstances.”

    Wrong at law yet again. there is no restriction as to the tools you can use to protect your own life (or that of another), you just have to explain how you happened to have a firearm at hand. in my case my gun safe (an A.B.C.H) is in my bedroom, in the event of a home invasion I lock the sturdy door to the bedroom, open the safe, open the ammo container and the bad guys get to talk to Mr Mossberg and his friend Sig Sauer. perfectly legal.

    To quote the law as it applies in my state –
    Tasmania

    Criminal Code Act 1924 (No. 69 of 1924)
    46. Self-defence and defence of another person

    A person is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another person, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

    You will note that there is no “except by using a gun, because that would be, like, bad and stuff”.

    Facts. they can be your friend, but please stop trying to give legal advice when you haven’t even looked up the laws and don’t know the applicable juristiction.

  132. Chris

    I don’t know if you were around prior to 1996, but we did not have gun fights in the street, we had fuckall home invasions and, generally, scumbags behaved a little better than now.

    And fuck your stupid arrant “gun culture” problem – whatever the fuck that is. You clown.

    +1,000,000
    Left-weasel hate monkeys that slander their decent neighbours, almost always for their own moral status posturing, need a solid update with a cluebat.

  133. IDefender of the faith

    Empire: good luck with that.
    Harry: you too. Especially when you explain to the judge why you name your guns.
    Chris: and you.
    Fat Tony: I have. You don’t like my points. I don’t like yours.
    No one here has provided a single good reason to in any way change the laws related to gun ownership. And yes, I’m in favour of very tight restrictions.

  134. harry buttle

    Defender – “Harry: you too. Especially when you explain to the judge why you name your guns.”

    They are brand names you simpleton.

    Your opinion doesn’t matter much re changes to the laws. 1 in 16 voters have a firearms licence and there are more of us every year, throw in the idiotic Adler reclassification and the Govt has shown firearms owners that we have to politically organise, the laws are changing, it will take a couple of election cycles but it is inevitable.

  135. Bushlaw

    For those making assumptions about self defence, it’s important to be aware that the law relies on a judgment of the threat. Perception of the threat is only part of the question:
    “At common law, the leading case on self-defence is Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645, where the accused killed his neighbour after an argument. The accused argued he believed that the deceased had a knife and a shotgun in his possession, which compelled the accused to go into his unit to retrieve his gun, and as a consequence, shooting his neighbour dead.

    During the trial the presiding judge withdrew the issue of self-defence, resulting in a conviction. On a successful appeal to the High Court, a retrial was ordered with Dawson and Toohey JJ setting out the requirements for self-defence:

    “The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.”

    Looking to self-defence in legislation, we can turn to s 10.4(2) of the Criminal Code 1994 (Cth) which states the following:

    A person carries out conduct in self-defence if, and only if, he or she believes the conduct is necessary:

    to defend himself or herself or another person; or
    to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person; or
    to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or
    to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises; or
    to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing criminal trespass.”

  136. rickw

    No one here has provided a single good reason to in any way change the laws related to gun ownership. And yes, I’m in favour of very tight restrictions.

    I guess you’ll only work out what the problem is when despite “very tight restrictions” some muzzie or apex gang member shoves a gun in your face and then you’ll ponder why they have one and you don’t.

    The big reason for citizens being armed is of course government gone feral, this seemed rather absurd in 1996 but in 2017 it would be hard to argue that the French and German governments haven’t gone feral with their desire to swamp their countries with immigrants. Have the citizens of Australia been treated with more or less respect by Government since 1996?

    If you think that the right of citizens to be armed is an irrelevancy, then you are either a very poor student of history or you think that Australia has had some fairy dust sprinkled on it that renders histories lessons redundant.

  137. rickw

    Assault rifles have a fully automatic firing mechanism. US federal law in place since the 1920s has made it extremely difficult for US citizens to legally possess fully automatic firearms. There is a relatively tiny number of legally owned and licensed fully automatic weapons in circulation (IIRC, there are around one thousand licensed weapons across the entire country) in the US. My understanding is that it’s extremely difficult to obtain or transfer ownership of such weapons, and the conditions of ownership of a licensed fully automatic firearm are highly restrictive and burdensome.

    How burdensome depends on which state.

    There are more than 26,000 licensed machine gun owners in Texas, there are also quite a few in New Zealand. How much of a problem do they cause? ZERO.

    How useful are they if Antifa attempts to start a civil war? VERY.

  138. rickw

    As someone who lives in Western Sydney, I can tell you that for a place with a lot of very nice cars, it’s quite surprising how many times they backfire for no reason in the middle of the night.

    Gun Control is irrelevant, the worst people already have all the guns they want.

  139. Eddystone

    Got a letter published in the Australian today.

    Lex Saunders (Letters, 10/7) says that the purpose of Howard’s gun laws was to prevent deaths.

    How then to explain New Zealand, which did not enact such strict laws? Semi-automatic long arms can be owned by New Zealanders for hunting and for competition. Yet New Zealand has almost exactly the same history of massacres as does Australia, that is, no public gun massacres since 1997.

    Imagine if the resources wasted on policing Australia’s one million law abiding firearms owners had been put into deterring real criminals.

    They left this bit out.

    Melbourne University published a paper in 2008, “The Australian Firearms Buyback and It’s Effect on Gun Deaths”.

    The authors concluded; “This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods”.

  140. IDefender of the faith

    Harry: snowball in hell.
    Rickw: if your purpose is to attack government I very much doubt that government will encourage your desire to own a machine gun.
    My impression is that there a few people on this blog who clearly want to possess dangerous weapons for the sake purpose of fantasy warfare against the government or other citizens. I suspect this would be cured by having them move for a few years to a place where lots of people are armed. Mindanao is not far.

  141. Eddystone

    IDefender of the faith is just one of the usual clueless trolls that turns up to many of these gun law discussions and indefatigably repeats the usual mantra that we’ve all heard dozens of times already.

    Yawn.

  142. Fat Tony

    IDefender of the faith

    My impression is that there a few people on this blog who clearly want to possess dangerous weapons for the sake purpose of fantasy warfare against the government or other citizens.

    The last 100 years of socialist governments, first disarming their people, then murdering them.
    Haven’t heard about that, have we?? (Prob 150 million+ murdered)
    Ohh…that’s right – governments are always benevolent.

    My recent impression of you was “a fuckwit’s fuckwit”.
    It is no longer an impression.

  143. Tel

    Gun Control is irrelevant, the worst people already have all the guns they want.

    Now, it’s wrong to think badly of people, just because they drive a schmick car. You know that don’t you?

  144. Tel

    I suspect this would be cured by having them move for a few years to a place where lots of people are armed.

    I suspect I might not qualify for Swiss Citizenship, but I do appreciate the suggestion, even though it’s crossed my mind before. Maybe the kids or grandkids… you never know.

  145. harry buttle

    ” I suspect this would be cured by having them move for a few years to a place where lots of people are armed. Mindanao is not far.”

    I gave you the statistics you dumb shit. 1 in 16 voters are already legally armed here and the number is increasing rapidly, throw in the criminal weapons and the ones that were criminalised in 1996 but not handed in (what the police call the “grey market”) – you don’t need to go anywhere to be where lots of people are armed, you are just too thick to understand it.

    There is no point discussing anything further with you, anyone else, no problem – but you not just choose ignorance, you glory in it.

  146. harry buttle

    Bushlaw, your case only matters to Victorians.

    I strongly recommend that people look up the self defence laws in their own states – firearms or none, it is worth knowing the rules as the Govt applies them to you.

  147. IDefender of the faith

    Well. I began by pointing out that nothing stops anyone from owning a gun. Bush law has indicated that the High Court, no less, has established that a person with a reasonable apprehension of threat may use the gun in self defence. So, I say again, the right that some here want to promote us the right to promote the use of gun violence beyond what is reason reasonable.
    The other possibility is that there’s a bunch of wankers here who get their kicks out of polishing their barrels.

  148. The other possibility is that there’s a bunch of wankers here who get their kicks out of polishing their barrels.

    You say this as if it is a bad thing.

  149. rickw

    Well. I began by pointing out that nothing stops anyone from owning a gun. Bush law has indicated that the High Court, no less, has established that a person with a reasonable apprehension of threat may use the gun in self defence. So, I say again, the right that some here want to promote us the right to promote the use of gun violence beyond what is reason reasonable.

    The only problem is that wankers like you won’t be satisfied until guns are practically banned. I’m happy for you to not own a gun, I’m happy to own a gun. All most people are asking is for idiots like you to stop imposing their stupid world view on the rest of us. No one here is saying to impose gun ownership on everyone, yet what you want is to impose gun dispossession on everyone.

  150. IDefender of the faith

    Rickw: not everyone. Just obsessive nutters.

  151. Pingback: Gun Control Australia’s Charles Watson gives train wreck interview on ABC over national firearm amnesty – Firearm Owners United

Comments are closed.