Australia's Gun Problem

[jenspen]

It seems so self-evident that the Australia gun laws have been a Good Thing that I haven't been following the thread. But I just came across this - written by a doctor in about 1634:


''Tis not only the mischief of diseases, and the villany of
poisons, that make an end of us; we vainly* accuse the fury of guns, and
the new inventions of death:—it is in the power of every hand to destroy
us, and we are beholden unto every one we meet, he doth not kill us.
There is therefore but one comfort left, that though it be in the power
of the weakest arm to take away life.....

Religio Medici


*he means "in vain", as in "the weediest kid with a gun and a grudge can kill more or less at random".

 

[lionking]

The gun laws were designed to reduce firearm-related homicides. They were never intended as a panacea for all violent crime. The laws did what they were intended for.

http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

Oh Jeez facts. Something Wildcat is not familiar with. He's much more comfortable with the fiction that gun laws in Australia have not reduced mass gun deaths. Prepare for swimming pool and paper cuts death statistics......

 

[uvar]

Oh Jeez facts. Something Wildcat is not familiar with. He's much more comfortable with the fiction that gun laws in Australia have not reduced mass gun deaths. Prepare for swimming pool and paper cuts death statistics......

I do wish the chart went back further into the past - it could just be a sharp drop, because of Port Arthur, in an already-continual decline. It was originally designed that way because it was addressing a specific quote:

"There were more deaths after the gun bans from guns than there were in the three years before Port Arthur," Mr Katter said on Tuesday

This graph, from the AIC, seems to suggest there was a pre-existing decline (reconstructed from data there to avoid hotlinking):


(By the way, I'm for gun control, I just don't think the ABC graph is very useful.)

 

[devnull]

Or who lived through the horrific aftermath of Port Arthur.

i can buy a lever action 30-30, but not a lever action shot gun, and this is sane?

Silencers are *banned*, and this is sane?

 

[Ranb]

Not everybody is interested in sporting use. In fact, most people aren't. They own footballs and cricket bats for sports.

I was asking fromdownunder why he (of she) can't justify owning one for sporting use.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Silencers are *banned*, and this is sane?

Why were silencers banned in Australia? Was it in response to a silencer crime problem?

Ranb

 

[lionking]

i can buy a lever action 30-30, but not a lever action shot gun, and this is sane?

Silencers are *banned*, and this is sane?

If it's the public's will, of course. There is no right to own guns in Australia, so it's entirely a legislative matter. What do you think the overall public opinion is of strong gun control?

What's insane is a single idiot Independent blackmailing the government into changing the law.

And why would anyone want a silencer? This is a serious question.

 

[lionking]

I do wish the chart went back further into the past - it could just be a sharp drop, because of Port Arthur, in an already-continual decline. It was originally designed that way because it was addressing a specific quote:


This graph, from the AIC, seems to suggest there was a pre-existing decline (reconstructed from data there to avoid hotlinking):
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5472555e43fec0dc0b.png[/qimg]

(By the way, I'm for gun control, I just don't think the ABC graph is very useful.)

Quoting that loon Bob Katter is not the way to support any argument. If he said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check.

 

[fromdownunder]

I was asking fromdownunder why he (of she) can't justify owning one for sporting use.

Ranb

I could justify purchasing a gun, and get licensed if I was a member of a shooting club, or had a kangaroo culling license, or was a duck shooter etc. it really is that simple. I am just not interested.

Australia has quite a few Olympic and Commonwealth Games gun medalists who don't seem to have any problems training with, and using, uuummm, guns. And hundreds of gun clubs that regularly have shooting competitions.

Norm

 

[uvar]

Quoting that loon Bob Katter is not the way to support any argument. If he said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check.

I was quoting him to indicate why the original chart only showed the three years previous to 1996, not because of his position. The linked article makes it pretty clear his statement was incorrect.

 

[Ranb]

And why would anyone want a silencer? This is a serious question.

A serious answer for you again. Perhaps you can remember it this time?

Silencers (or mufflers as they are also called in the US Code) reduce the noise of a firearm. Unless noise is the intended byproduct of a machine, a muffler or other noise abatement is usually a safety feature or benefit when used properly. Most rational people want noise reduction, is this hard to understand? Makes perfect sense to me and lots of other people.

I'm not sure why you would have a problem with a muffler that reduces the noise of a hunting rifle down to 135 decibels. A silencer has no effect on action noise, bullet flight noise and impact noise. It is impossible to completely hide the noise of a gunshot of a typical rifle. Pistols are even louder than rifles when suppressed.

I want a muffler for my rifle for the same reason I want a silencer on my motorcycle. Makes sense doesn't it? People/governments in many other countries including New Zealand and Great Britain see it this way, why not you and your Australian comrades?

Instead of appearing to be incredulous, why not explain why it seems you have a problem with silencers. Was there a silencer crime problem in Australia? I never heard of one.

Ranb

 

[Sceptic-PK]

i can buy a lever action 30-30, but not a lever action shot gun, and this is sane?

Silencers are *banned*, and this is sane?

Nobody ever claimed the legislation(s) was perfect, or that legislators have a strong grasp of the nuances in the many and varied firearms available. If you're saying that the gun laws could be strengthened to be more consistent, then I would agree with you.

 

[arthwollipot]

A serious answer for you again. Perhaps you can remember it this time?

Silencers (or mufflers as they are also called in the US Code) reduce the noise of a firearm. Unless noise is the intended byproduct of a machine, a muffler or other noise abatement is usually a safety feature or benefit when used properly. Most rational people want noise reduction, is this hard to understand? Makes perfect sense to me and lots of other people.

I'm not sure why you would have a problem with a muffler that reduces the noise of a hunting rifle down to 135 decibels. A silencer has no effect on action noise, bullet flight noise and impact noise. It is impossible to completely hide the noise of a gunshot of a typical rifle. Pistols are even louder than rifles when suppressed.

I want a muffler for my rifle for the same reason I want a silencer on my motorcycle. Makes sense doesn't it? People/governments in many other countries including New Zealand and Great Britain see it this way, why not you and your Australian comrades?

Instead of appearing to be incredulous, why not explain why it seems you have a problem with silencers. Was there a silencer crime problem in Australia? I never heard of one.

Ranb

If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun? Why doesn't everybody? Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers? Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?

It seems to me that silencers are an option - one that most people don't choose most of the time. It leads me to ask - why are you silencing your gun this time, and not other times? Why don't you want me to hear your discharge this time, when you're perfectly happy for me to hear it at other times?

Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting. If it were just about noise control, then everybody would be using them all the time. Except for those who, like those wankers who ride unmuffled Harley Davidsons, just want to make as loud a noise as possible.

 

[devnull]

Why were silencers banned in Australia? Was it in response to a silencer crime problem?

Ranb

Nup. Our current theory is the lawmakers think they make guns go "pew pew!", and are only used by paid assassins.

 

[The Atheist]

The murder rate in the USA actually fell more than the murder rate of Australia since 1996, even as most states loosened their gun laws. But Australians assign 100% of the drop to draconian gun laws, while critical thinkers find the effect much more likely the result of the banning of leaded gasoline worldwide.

Have they started using lead again?

Murder rates seem to be going up in many cities across USA: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0

 

[uvar]

If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun? Why doesn't everybody? Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers? Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?

It seems to me that silencers are an option - one that most people don't choose most of the time. It leads me to ask - why are you silencing your gun this time, and not other times? Why don't you want me to hear your discharge this time, when you're perfectly happy for me to hear it at other times?

Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting. If it were just about noise control, then everybody would be using them all the time. Except for those who, like those wankers who ride unmuffled Harley Davidsons, just want to make as loud a noise as possible.

That's a lot of questions, and some of them seem like they wouldn't have been hard to research, assuming you want to know the answer. For instance, just like a car muffler, silencers/suppressors have an effect on performance (some negatives, some positives, apart from sound levels). And although I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure firing a gun freely in built-up areas is already usually prohibited (disorderly conduct, that sort of thing), and outside those places there are plenty of locations you can shoot where, even if anybody else heard you, noise pollution laws wouldn't apply.

I suppose if a person hated the entire concept of guns they might think anybody near one deserved hearing damage, but that's a bit petty.

Ranb, devnull is basically right - at this point they're banned because they're already banned, fearmongering about them falling into the hands of criminals is easy*, and talk about relaxing gun laws is a good way to get bad attention from voters who share arthwollipot's opinions. (Also, banning suppressors makes it harder to secretly hunt in national parks, according to one Greens press release I found just now.)

*Only when an organisation or independent politician brings the topic up; the fearmongering is usually about more important topics.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Nup. Our current theory is the lawmakers think they make guns go "pew pew!", and are only used by paid assassins.

Yes, you would find a fair few Australians unfamiliar with firearms whose first thoughts might be in that direction. Notwithstanding the effect of popular culture on political opinion, who really gives a **** though? Australian voters and their state and federal representatives support an imperfect set of rules governing firearm use.

I agree that all you Yanks have a right to criticise something in Australia (coz let's be honest, you guys cop it from everyone all the damned time), but nobody in our galaxy cares about your opinions re gun control. I mean come on fellas. Fair suck of the sav!

 

[devnull]

Dude, Im an Aussie

 

[WildCat]

Have they started using lead again?

Murder rates seem to be going up in many cities across USA: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0

How does that change what I said? Murder rates fell worldwide in the 1990s, and Australia assigned the entire drop in Australia to a gun law.

Plot the rate of leaded gasoline exposure to the homicide rate 23 years later (because it is childhood lead exposure that is linked to violent crime as adults) and there is a very strong correlation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615

 

[Cleon]

If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun?

Many reasons. Not all guns are able to be equipped with one, for one thing. With very few exceptions (Nagant M1895), they don't work with revolvers at all, simply due to the way revolvers function.

For another, there is a perception (which may or may not be accurate, depending on the shooter gun, and silencer) that they affect accuracy, which I think you'll agree is fairly important.

Why doesn't everybody?

Because they're *********** expensive and a legal hassle, due to people getting their information on the subject from movies and legislating accordingly. RanB knows more than I do, but you basically have to set up a trust to "own" one (and then you don't own it, the "trust" does).

And again, not all guns will work with suppressors.

Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers?

Suppressors need to be pulled apart and cleaned regularly to be functional. There's really no point in building them right in.

Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?

Because a suppressor doesn't make it "quiet" by a long shot.

Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting.

This is what a "silencer" on a modern firearm actually sounds like:



There ain't no way that's going to "hide the fact that you're shooting."