NRA doesn't like Australia's Gun Stats

[Shiner]

Your legal system isn't descended from the English Bill of Rights?

No.

The English Bill of Rights sets guidelines for parliamentary freedom of speech, elections, and gives protections to parliament when petitioning the monarchy. It also allowed protestants to arm themselves. It's a small piece of English law.

It probably did have some influence on the construction of our constitution, but the Australian constitution is a lot more than a Bill of Rights.

The Australian Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights. Some delegates to the 1898 Constitutional Convention favoured a section similar to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but the majority felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently guaranteed by the Parliamentary system and independent judiciary which the Constitution would create. As a result, the Australian Constitution has often been criticised for its scant protection of rights and freedoms.

Some express rights were, however, included:

Right to trial by jury – Section 80

Right to just compensation – Section 51(xxxi)

Right against discrimination on the basis of out-of-State residence – Section 117
Freedom of religion – Section 116

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia#Protection_of_rights

Their are also 'implied rights and freedoms' as ruled by the High Court. 2 of them!

The common law system, as developed in the United Kingdom, forms the basis of Australian jurisprudence. It is distinct from the civil law systems that operate in Europe, South America and Japan, which are derived from Roman law. Other countries that employ variations of the common law system are the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia and India.

The chief feature of the common law system is that judges’ decisions in pending cases are informed by the decisions of previously settled cases.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/legal_system.html

And here's the entire constitution, if anyone is interested. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

ETA: Sorry that didn't come out the way I intended. It's all upside down. The English Bill of Rights was part of the basis of our legal system, but again, only a part.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Serious question: What about dictatorships?

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean? Certainly I think dictatorships come with good examples of rights being taken away. But if I try to follow your meaning, in a dictatorship you have the rights that are provided to you in law, or have become social norms via other factors*, in much the same way rights under a democracy exist.

*In Australia for instance, we all take for granted that we have a "right" to free speech, however no such right actually exists in legislation. It's more an implied right rather than an explicit one.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Yes, Australians have shown they will gladly give up their rights even when there's no evidence anything was gained by giving up those rights.

LOL, 'rights', that is just so dumb.

 

[Shiner]

*In Australia for instance, we all take for granted that we have a "right" to free speech, however no such right actually exists in legislation. It's more an implied right rather than an explicit one.

No we don't have an implied personal freedom of speech. Even though some government websites say different.
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

They do clarify when you read it.

There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

 

[lionking]

LOL, 'rights', that is just so dumb.

The right to kill hasn't been very high on our agenda.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

The right to kill hasn't been very high on our agenda.

No, it hasn't and we never had the gun culture of the Americans. Ownership of a gun isn't seen as a right by us, it's just a gun.

After Sandy Hook the NRA were promulgating garbage about our gun control laws not working. With 13 mass shootings between 1980 and 1996 and none since regulation, their argument is quite specious.

 

[Shiner]

By far the best thing about living in Australia is the fact that our police don't have to behave like paramilitary storm-troopers* on the valid assumption that every second person they apprehend will be empowering himself with the personal freedom of going about in public with a firearm of some description.

*Well, not all the time anyway.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

By far the best thing about living in Australia is the fact that our police don't have to behave like paramilitary storm-troopers* on the valid assumption that every second person they apprehend will be empowering himself with the personal freedom of going about in public with a firearm of some description.

Well, not all the time anyway.

And with our armed forces giving allegiance to the Queen, a Prime Minister is unlikely to turn them on the population.

 

[lionking]

And with our armed forces giving allegiance to the Queen, a Prime Minister is unlikely to turn them on the population.

It's not only that. In my long life, I've never seen a situation where the government had to do the equivalent of "calling in the National Guard". Civil disobedience has always happened (just today I was delayed for 15 minutes by protesters who blockaded the Eastern Freeway - they walked away as the police approached). Protests are tolerated, moreso than many other countries (coppers simply wait for the protest to finish, within reason). Armed confrontation between the military and the public hasn't happened in the last century.

Thank FSM we do not have the equivalent of the Second Amendment, where protesters can turn up with weapons of murder.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

It's not only that. In my long life, I've never seen a situation where the government had to do the equivalent of "calling in the National Guard". Civil disobedience has always happened (just today I was delayed for 15 minutes by protesters who blockaded the Eastern Freeway - they walked away as the police approached). Protests are tolerated, moreso than many other countries (coppers simply wait for the protest to finish, within reason). Armed confrontation between the military and the public hasn't happened in the last century.

Thank FSM we do not have the equivalent of the Second Amendment, where protesters can turn up with weapons of murder.

We are indeed, 'the Lucky Country', for extremist views and actions are often treated with the contempt they deserve and not really a threat to our public order and lifestyle. Even our political parties on both sides have gravitated to the centre. We can walk down the street without wondering whether the angry drunk shouting at traffic is carrying.

 

[Shiner]

So, to see if there is another reason why Australia's mass shooting rate has dropped to nothing, what, if anything has changed regards background checks and security?

A large part of the original legislation was the introduction of stricter requirements to prove genuine use/need and background checks. We had license requirements before then, and some restrictions (full automatic, for example) but the '96 National Firearms Agreement outlawed a lot of weapons that were common.

Last year stricter license requirements were introduced. We now have to complete a firearms safety course,(Safe Shooting course) as well as show genuine reason for wanting a license. That means owning large property, having a property owner sign a document to say you control pests, or joining a club. Most people join a club. This is mandatory.

http://www.ssaansw.org.au/index.php/safe-shooting/applying-for-a-firearms-licence

Clubs have their own responsibilities under the legislation. Part of which is making sure members display competency by qualifying on a range at least annually.

<EDIT> The property owner angle has it's requirements too, but I'm not up-to-date on it.

A minimum of 28 days between the police recieving your application and it being processed. Approx 35 days not allowing for holidays and stuff. This is NSW, but I'm sure it's the same in other states.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/licences/frequently_asked_questions



This PDF contains all the legislation concerning firearms since 1996. All amendments and subsequent acts.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1996-74/current/pdf/1996-74.pdf

 

[Shiner]

We are indeed, 'the Lucky Country', for extremist views and actions are often treated with the contempt they deserve and not really a threat to our public order and lifestyle. Even our political parties on both sides have gravitated to the centre. We can walk down the street without wondering whether the angry drunk shouting at traffic is carrying.

If he's carrying anything, it's more likely to be alcohol than anything like a weapon. It's not like we have a cultural problem such as the U.S with guns.



I'll get back in my box now.

 

[The Don]

The UK has had four mass shootings, Hungerford (1987), Monkseaton (1989), Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010).

Monkseaton was with a shotgun, Cumbria with a shotgun and rifle, yet neither of those weapons were subjected to ownership restrictions like automatic weapons and handguns were after Hungerford and Dunblane.

Restricting weapons use is not really the issue. The big change in the UK was the introduction of further background checks, reducing the period between checks from 10 to 5 years and ensuring better security for guns. Monkseaton, the least well known of the shootings was by a man with mental health issues who got hold of his fathers shotgun and shot 15 people, killing one.

I am sure that all of the evidence discussed in all of these gun threads points to one conclusion. You can as many guns of what ever type in a society, what is important is to keep guns away from the people most likely to misuse them, such as criminals, nuts, angry people and youths.
So, to see if there is another reason why Australia's mass shooting rate has dropped to nothing, what, if anything has changed regards background checks and security?

IMO it's a case of yes and no to the highlighted portion. If there are fewer guns and less ammunition in a society then IMO it's less likely that a member of one of the groups you mention will get access to a weapon. The types of weapon to which someone has access will also IMO be a factor both when it comes to mass shootings and also more general homicides. Here in the U.K. the vast majority of weapons in circulation are unwieldy if the intention is to conceal them and although shotguns are deadly at short range they become less so with distance.

Of course IMO the biggest issue is that many people in the U.S. feel that they need a weapon for personal and/or household protection. To be effective in this role a weapon has to be loaded and accessible. This also means that those same weapons are available and accessible in the event of disputes, are around for accidental shootings and can be stolen.

 

[arthwollipot]

Did you read my post as saying something it didn't?

Sorry - I was trying to agree with you.

 

[Shiner]

Sorry - I was trying to agree with you.

Oh. As you were ....

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The whole "granted rights", "natural rights", "rights taken away" debate is silly. In the context of a society, a right is always an agreement with the government. The right to freedom is the right to have the government prevent others from infringing on your freedom. The right to bear arms is the right to have authorities be actively prohibited from passing laws infringing on it. The right to health care is the right to allow common funds to be spent on it.

If there was never an agreement with the Australian government for the right to bear arms to be explicitly protected, there was never a "right to bear arms" in any sense meaningful in the context of a society.

 

[Nessie]

Yes it is; 9th amendment.


Ranb

That is a bit vague and means the right to life was an add on, an after thought of not much consequence. Whereas the right to gun, right up there as a top priority.

It is no wonder Americans shoot each other at a rate which means only countries where there are wars or civil break down shoot more.

 

[Nessie]

.....

Oh, and we no longer have mass gun killings.

What about mass shootings? Forget the number killed, have there been any instances of someone going mad with a gun and shooting at lots of people?

The UK has had three mass killings and one mass shooting and that is it. If you added mass shootings to US figures of mass killings, their figures would go through the roof. That has been discussed before in relation to shootings where fewer than four were killed, but many more were shot.

Since Sandy Hook there have been 23 mass shootings in the USA where four or more have died.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...he-23-US-mass-shootings-since-Sandy-Hook.html

That is a high hurdle to cross to become a mass shooter. The FBI set that standard, but what about the number of shootings where say three were killed and goodness knows how many injured?

In the UK there is one shooting that has happened in recent times in 2010, with the Northumbria shooting of two people and a police officer who was blinded.

Are there any like that in Australia?

 

[Nessie]

A large part of the original legislation was the introduction of stricter requirements to prove genuine use/need and background checks. We had license requirements before then, and some restrictions (full automatic, for example) but the '96 National Firearms Agreement outlawed a lot of weapons that were common.

Last year stricter license requirements were introduced. We now have to complete a firearms safety course,(Safe Shooting course) as well as show genuine reason for wanting a license. That means owning large property, having a property owner sign a document to say you control pests, or joining a club. Most people join a club. This is mandatory.

http://www.ssaansw.org.au/index.php/safe-shooting/applying-for-a-firearms-licence

Clubs have their own responsibilities under the legislation. Part of which is making sure members display competency by qualifying on a range at least annually.

<EDIT> The property owner angle has it's requirements too, but I'm not up-to-date on it.

A minimum of 28 days between the police recieving your application and it being processed. Approx 35 days not allowing for holidays and stuff. This is NSW, but I'm sure it's the same in other states.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/licences/frequently_asked_questions



This PDF contains all the legislation concerning firearms since 1996. All amendments and subsequent acts.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1996-74/current/pdf/1996-74.pdf

Thanks for that. So the banning of certain gun types may not have been the cause of no more mass shootings. Instead being more careful as to who had a gun could well be the reason. Indeed, I would suggest it is the reason. Banning a sensible law abiding person who is not going to go on a mass shooting from having a certain type of gun will logically have no impact whatsoever on the number of mass shootings. Stopping a person who may go on a mass shooting from having a gun, any kind of gun will have an effect on the number of mass shootings.

From what we know about mass shooters is that many are younger and have mental health, anger issues. It is not rocket science to make sure such people find it hard to get hold of a gun. Mass shooters in the USA have found it easy. Potential mass shooters in the UK and Australia find it very difficult.

 

[Nessie]

IMO it's a case of yes and no to the highlighted portion. If there are fewer guns and less ammunition in a society then IMO it's less likely that a member of one of the groups you mention will get access to a weapon.

Lots of guns does impact, hence Switzerland has low crime, but more shootings than most of the rest of Europe. But Switzerland still has far fewer shootings than the USA. So the total number of guns is of much less significance than who has them.

The types of weapon to which someone has access will also IMO be a factor both when it comes to mass shootings and also more general homicides. Here in the U.K. the vast majority of weapons in circulation are unwieldy if the intention is to conceal them and although shotguns are deadly at short range they become less so with distance.

Yes, as potential mass shooters Dale Cregan, Raoul Moat and the Woolwich killers of Lee Rigby were all unable to get hold of much in the way of firearms. Where as Derrick Bird as a lawful gun owner could, hence he killed more people. That shows how properly controlling who has the guns is the most important issue.

Of course IMO the biggest issue is that many people in the U.S. feel that they need a weapon for personal and/or household protection. To be effective in this role a weapon has to be loaded and accessible. This also means that those same weapons are available and accessible in the event of disputes, are around for accidental shootings and can be stolen.

Americans will use guns against each other like no other Western Country.