Australia banned semiautomatic assault rifles. Here’s what happened.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SassySue

You have to admit there have been no mass shootings since they invoked the gun law and that is quite an accomplishment. And, the homicide and suicide rate has definitely gone down.

Only because of good, intelligent police work, because the terrorists behind the 2009 Holsworthy Barracks terrorist plot had fully automatic weapons despite Australia's laws banning them.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. it's not the guns it's the shooters!!!

First off, we are not going to see gun control laws enacted in the U.S. anything similar to those in Australia, Japan, or England. Simply will never happen.

But to put all the blame on the shooters is not realistic. Studies (not polls) show that guns in the home increase the probability of someone in the home successfully committing suicide and increases the probability of a homicide.

I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on gun ownership. But I am pointing out that having a gun in the home is not all upside.

Source: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

"The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research, although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong."


"Our findings also suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm rather than by using other means. Victims of suicide living in homes with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method."

"For victims of homicide, there was also a strong association between guns in the home and risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide, but this risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death."

Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Summary

"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SassySue

You have to admit there have been no mass shootings since they invoked the gun law and that is quite an accomplishment.

Who does? You mean in an attempt to solidify your point? Tell that to the hostages of the Lindt Chocolate Café in Sydney in 2014. Only LE intervention kept the lives lost to a minimum and the dead terrorist wasn't even carrying an "assault" rifle as is the "drum beat" of the media wanting to disarm America.

It's almost like the lameass responses of those claiming ...

... the number of cops shot and killed in the U.S. is "down" ....

Do you mean one cop was shot and killed? How many is "tolerable"?

If you can't gather up 11 million illegal aliens and boot them out of this country and can't build a wall around the country to keep them from coming back ...

....how the hell do you think you are going to gather up 400+ million firearms in this country and get rid of them ..... and prevent any others from coming back into the country?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But to put all the blame on the shooters is not realistic.

Studies (not polls) show that guns in the home increase the probability of someone in the home successfully committing suicide and increases the probability of a homicide.

I realize that some firearms are dropped or fall over and "accidentally discharge" ... I also realize that PEOPLE fail to properly and adequately secure their firearms to prevent small, untrained persons from finding them and playing with them .... LIKE THEY DO ON TV!

Can we reach a "happy medium" and say that 95% of shootings are by people?

"Studies" .... at least for the time being this country is predominately based on a "majority" of the people deciding what is in their best interests. If there are 400 million firearms in this country how many accidental death have occurred from firearm discharges on an annual basis.*

*I'm putting "suicides" aside, because #1 how the hell does a "studier" determine that the dead person would not have used some other instrument to end their perceived torment and "end of life" decisions can be tied to the presence of a firearm "in the home"! I suppose a case can be made for "suicide by homeowner" with regard to burglars who break into homes in which they know there are "guns" and the occupants are readily, willing, and able to use the guns to end the career of the burglar .. once and for all!!!!

Three are 40,000 to 50,000 highway deaths a year. I'm keeping my car!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I realize that some firearms are dropped or fall over and "accidentally discharge" ... I also realize that PEOPLE fail to properly and adequately secure their firearms to prevent small, untrained persons from finding them and playing with them .... LIKE THEY DO ON TV!

Can we reach a "happy medium" and say that 95% of shootings are by people?

"Studies" .... at least for the time being this country is predominately based on a "majority" of the people deciding what is in their best interests. If there are 400 million firearms in this country how many accidental death have occurred from firearm discharges on an annual basis.*

*I'm putting "suicides" aside, because #1 how the hell does a "studier" determine that the dead person would not have used some other instrument to end their perceived torment and "end of life" decisions can be tied to the presence of a firearm "in the home"! I suppose a case can be made for "suicide by homeowner" with regard to burglars who break into homes in which they know there are "guns" and the occupants are readily, willing, and able to use the guns to end the career of the burglar .. once and for all!!!!

Three are 40,000 to 50,000 highway deaths a year. I'm keeping my car!

First, on the suicides. I don't think you have read the findings of the studies. When a gun is in the home the suicide rate OVERALL is higher than when a gun is not in the home. Guns are very effective in committing suicide. Other methods are not and other studies have shown that 90% of those who attempt to commit suicide and survive do not attempt it again. Very few survive attempted suicide by gun. Many survive attempted suicide by other means.

I would say 99-100% of shootings are by people, not by accident. The studies I linked to specifically talk about HOMICIDES, and eliminate accidental shootings. And the findings are that people with guns in their homes are more likely to be the victim of a homicide than people without guns in their homes.

Again, I simply don't care who does or does not own a gun. Personal choice. My decision to not own a gun has nothing to do with the studies. I do not see a need for a gun for my personal protection.

[TheDaliLama]

I never own a gun until someone walked into my bedroom at 3 am.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, on the suicides. I don't think you have read the findings of the studies. When a gun is in the home the suicide rate OVERALL is higher than when a gun is not in the home. Guns are very effective in committing suicide.

"First" I started reading "studies" regarding firearms, homicides, and suicides roughly 50 years ago, which included "studies' on "social control" of deviant behavior, crime in America, and "personal protection" with firearms. "We" started learning about "firearms in the home" 10 to 15 years before that.

I have been around "accidental discharges" in buildings, on ranges, and "in the field" (which includes inside an automobile).

As far as "suicides" and "stats' I am also familiar with the "propensity" of some medical examiners and investigators to "book" deaths as "suicides," for a variety of reason, not the least of which is that a "suicide" ruling ends the "investigative" work on the death case, and closes the file.....unless the family and/or insurance company re-opens the matter.

I will never forget the medical examiner in Harris County a LONG TIME AGO ruling the death of an agricultural inspector a suicide after he was found in a field with two rifle rounds through the back!!!! That's not just an isolated incident. It is sometime typical of the stretch!

Having said that ... I don't recall ever having been around or familiar with an "accidental discharge" that occurred without human interaction or neglect of some nature and/or level.

As for suicides ... you will find from psychiatrists that most people who use "slow death" choices for suicide are seeking attention and really don't want to kill themselves. Some shrinks call it a "call for help" ... for instance in 10 seconds can you explain what a wrist cut looks like when someone wants to die? The public drama of a public suicide is also symptomatic of someone who really doesn't want to kill themselves. Consequently, the stats are skewered as to firearms and no firearms. One has to look beyond the ME's report as to the "manner of death" and the details of the findings AND toxicology.

You chose not to have a firearm in your home. I wouldn't do anything that would require you to have one. I don't want you (or anyone else) to do anything that would frustrate and/or prevent me from having one in the home and/or doing anything that would frustrate and/or prevent me from responding in a timely manner to an unannounced intruder entering my home or wherever I may be staying at the time.

My family and friends have a general agreement: We don't enter into each others' homes or other residences without first knocking and waiting for someone to come and open the door. No matter the time of day. If we violate that "rule" and agreement, the corollary is that we "assume" the risks and won't complain if dire consequences result .... in other words we entered a "free fire zone" when we enter without permission.

The answer IMO is not removing the firearms, it's educating on responsible ownership, handling, possessing, and use of firearms. Liberals "assume" the U.S. public at large is too dumb to do that. Conservatives think otherwise. If Liberals are too dumb to do that, so be it. Don't get one and don't keep one. But leave the rest of the folks alone, who are not.

[ICU 812]

There is always a way:

Semi-auto banned?

Here is an alternative design concept to the self loading rifle that is over 150 years old!

http://troydefense.com/pumpactionrifle/

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

There is always a way:

Semi-auto banned?

"These people" won't be "happy" until we are restricted to one muzzleloader each with 1/2 pound of black powder as a six month supply and light shot.

They wring their hands about suicide ... how many suicides by AK-47's?

Once they get a foot in the door, it's over. It's just a matter of time.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Short video from Washington Post. See the results of their ban on assault weapons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...ewedvideo_3_na

Ok so you're concerned about mass shootings with several deaths and several injuries, everyone holds the same concern. But for a moment lets concentrate on the individual. In the event of a violent encounter where death or great bodily harm is imminent how do you suppose the average person would defend themselves? Feel free to use yourself as an example.

Jim

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"These people" won't be "happy" until we are restricted to one muzzleloader each with 1/2 pound of black powder as a six month supply and light shot.

They wring their hands about suicide ... how many suicides by AK-47's?

Once they get a foot in the door, it's over. It's just a matter of time.

Today:

Semi-automatic “assault” weapons are banned in Massachusetts.
20 July 2016

Weapons like the AR-15 are the gun of choice for mass shooters, Healey said, used in shootings in Orlando, Baton Rouge, Dallas, Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. After the shooting that killed 49 people in a nightclub in Orlando, sales of those types of weapons went up 450 percent in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said.

(Boston)

Of course, an AR-15 wasn't used to shoot anyone in Orlando, Dallas or Baton Rouge, but that would ruin the lib-retard narrative to say otherwise, and the gun used in Dallas was already on a ban list.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

There is always a way:

Semi-auto banned?

Here is an alternative design concept to the self loading rifle that is over 150 years old!

http://troydefense.com/pumpactionrifle/

you mean they function like the police shotguns?

[dilbert firestorm]

is there such a thing as a rifle with a non-detachable magazine/clip? I think I saw that some where in one of the articles posted here awhile back.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Depends on which source of information you believe as to how effective the gun control
efforts in Australia have been.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it's undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It's not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:

Australia's Gun Control Laws haven't been significantly successful because violent crime has gone up. That's why I posted the question to the OP, how would you defend yourself if you were faced with a violent encounter. Most people don't want to answer that question because they know in most if not all violent scenarios where death or severe bodily harm is imminent they would not be successful unless armed. They know it, I know it,so nobody is going to bullshit me on that issue. Mass murders with firearms is the lowest stat when it comes to gun violence. It's individuals that are mostly targeted with gun encounters in the commission of a violent felony crime.

Jim

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

[CuteOldGuy]

Argue statistics all you want. The 2nd Amendment trumps them all. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be infringed. If you want to change that, repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that.