Posted on Oct 23, 2016
Strict gun laws ended mass shootings in Australia
7.72K
163
92
3
0
3
Australia had 18 mass shootings before 1996. In 1996 Australia saw the the worst mass shooting in the world (at that time: it is now number 3 after Norway 2011 and Orlando.) A deranged man called Martin Bryant, with his legally purchased arsenal of AR-15's, SLR's, handguns, etc, all legal in Australia at the time, killed 35 innocent people.
In the aftermath of this tragedy, Australia set up a licensing system for firearms. All hunters and sport shooters could get an air-rifle, 22 caliber bolt action rifle, or paintball gun with a simple Class A license. A class B license, which required a valid license as for why a Class A license was insufficient, could get you a shotgun or a centerfire bolt action rifle. A Handgun license was available for sport shooters and hunters as well, but it required VERY strict processing. All other firearms were banned or restricted to the point that they might as well be banned, a a mandatory buyback of existing firearms was enacted. Gun crime fell dramatically, and has fallen dramatically ever since.
The ownership of firearms for "self defense" is not a valid reason. And you know what? Australia is even more sparsely populated than the USA, with even more areas where the police are hours away. Canada also has many hunters and farmers who need firearms in order to get food, or defend their livestock. But all of these people have survived very well with Australia's new gun laws. Why are american hunters or farmers, or people living in rural areas any different? Australia also had a strong gun culture before 1996, and firearm ownership is still higher than average for the world to this day. But their gun culture adapted to the necessity of common sense gun laws and gun control.
There have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia ever since. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Yes, there was a terrorist attack in Sydney in 2014. Yes, 2 people were shot. But that is far less than are shot in a single day here in the United States. By any standard, the gun ban in Australia has succeeded in reducing both murders and suicides with guns. And the crime rate in Australia as a whole, including non-gun crimes, has also fallen.
Meanwhile, U.S gun laws are a national disgrace. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0 . 30,000 people die each year from guns. If we had the same gun death rate as Australia, that number would be around 3450: a TENTH as many. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths
Personally, I would like to see firearms laws similar to Australia's passed here in the USA. Like I said before, Australia also had a strong gun culture before 1996. Australia also has wide open areas, lots and lots of hunters, dangerous animals in the outback, and many rural areas far away from police intervention. (So does Canada, for that matter.) But their gun laws are far more sensible, far more safe, than ours, and their gun death rates are far lower. Why can't we be the same way?
In the aftermath of this tragedy, Australia set up a licensing system for firearms. All hunters and sport shooters could get an air-rifle, 22 caliber bolt action rifle, or paintball gun with a simple Class A license. A class B license, which required a valid license as for why a Class A license was insufficient, could get you a shotgun or a centerfire bolt action rifle. A Handgun license was available for sport shooters and hunters as well, but it required VERY strict processing. All other firearms were banned or restricted to the point that they might as well be banned, a a mandatory buyback of existing firearms was enacted. Gun crime fell dramatically, and has fallen dramatically ever since.
The ownership of firearms for "self defense" is not a valid reason. And you know what? Australia is even more sparsely populated than the USA, with even more areas where the police are hours away. Canada also has many hunters and farmers who need firearms in order to get food, or defend their livestock. But all of these people have survived very well with Australia's new gun laws. Why are american hunters or farmers, or people living in rural areas any different? Australia also had a strong gun culture before 1996, and firearm ownership is still higher than average for the world to this day. But their gun culture adapted to the necessity of common sense gun laws and gun control.
There have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia ever since. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Yes, there was a terrorist attack in Sydney in 2014. Yes, 2 people were shot. But that is far less than are shot in a single day here in the United States. By any standard, the gun ban in Australia has succeeded in reducing both murders and suicides with guns. And the crime rate in Australia as a whole, including non-gun crimes, has also fallen.
Meanwhile, U.S gun laws are a national disgrace. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0 . 30,000 people die each year from guns. If we had the same gun death rate as Australia, that number would be around 3450: a TENTH as many. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths
Personally, I would like to see firearms laws similar to Australia's passed here in the USA. Like I said before, Australia also had a strong gun culture before 1996. Australia also has wide open areas, lots and lots of hunters, dangerous animals in the outback, and many rural areas far away from police intervention. (So does Canada, for that matter.) But their gun laws are far more sensible, far more safe, than ours, and their gun death rates are far lower. Why can't we be the same way?
Strict gun laws ended mass shootings in Australia
Posted from sciencenewsforstudents.org
Gun Control
Australia
NRA
Election 2016
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 31
15
15
0
I prefer the 200-year-old US Constitution over any type of government on any day.
(15)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Well said SPC Harsh. Regarding the topic's article "food fight" in support of both arguments and all the stats I share Mark Twain. He stated this and attributed it to Disraeli but it was originally voiced in 1895 in an article by Leonard H. Courtney:
"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review
Meaning being that one can use context and other techniques to support any argument with whatever information is available, and it may not always give the truest conclusion. Bottom line for me is that all the arguments about framer's intent of right to bear arms, militia, current weapons vs. technology at the time and the rest just don't suffice. For me the ability to own weapons makes me sleep better at night given our political climate and division as a Nation. We can easily say "it won't happen here" but if all my freedoms as I know them are in jeopardy I prefer to be armed to at least fight for them if that should occur. It might be a losing battle but I'd prefer to go out on my feet than on my knees. Best Wishes to all.
"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review
Meaning being that one can use context and other techniques to support any argument with whatever information is available, and it may not always give the truest conclusion. Bottom line for me is that all the arguments about framer's intent of right to bear arms, militia, current weapons vs. technology at the time and the rest just don't suffice. For me the ability to own weapons makes me sleep better at night given our political climate and division as a Nation. We can easily say "it won't happen here" but if all my freedoms as I know them are in jeopardy I prefer to be armed to at least fight for them if that should occur. It might be a losing battle but I'd prefer to go out on my feet than on my knees. Best Wishes to all.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
If you lookin at the bottom of this list for the newer massacres, you will find mass murder by arson, blunt instrument, knife, AND guns. Illegalizing guns does not change people, only the means of their actions.
(10)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I agree as in Canada we had a we had a double homicide by crossbow we've also had lots of stabbings and you will see in front of skanky bars no knives. Anybody so they'll use whatever means necessary druggies whatever and we have extra strict gun laws and criminals have AK-47 AR-15 magazines and all kinds of firearms so it doesn't stop them here in Alberta Canada Australia is lucky or they're not telling you the full story.
(1)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
LTC (Join to see) - Australia also has the benefit of being an island without any neighboring countries. We could ban firearms here, but just like drugs, they could always just come across the border.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
PFC Harry Leuchen - Then there was that guy in Nice, FR. He killed 80 with a truck, easy as pie.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
Your cherry picked data doesn't represent a complete picture at all. Give this a read if your close minded nature can fathom it. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847 If you want a good middle ground article that makes total sense read this one. http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
Is gun control a flawed policy?...
(8)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Excellent article, and strangely many of the same arguments I've used in the past including "you can make a gun out of a shovel." (from home depot).
(1)
(0)
PFC Rickey Cook
living in the outback the murder rate is higher and more violent than when we owned firearms
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google