General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums15 Things to Know About Australia's Incredibly Effective Gun Clampdown
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/15-things-to-know-about-australia-s-incredibly-effective-gun-clampdown-20121218* It came out of tragedy. In April 1996, a disturbed 28-year-old man named Martin Bryant killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur.
* It moved public opinion. In the wake of the shooting, a national upwelling of grief and revulsion saw pollsters reporting 9095% public approval for stringent new gun laws.
* A conservative politician took the lead. Australias conservative Prime Minister John Howard spearheaded a push by Australian states and territories to severely restrict gun ownership that year, in what came to be known as the National Firearms Agreement.
* It targeted the kinds of guns used in massacres. As the Port Arthur gunman and several other mass killers had used semi-automatic weapons, the new gun laws banned rapid-fire long guns, specifically to reduce their availability for mass shootings.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Botany
(70,291 posts)But I agree w/ Michael Moore that this shooting will be the last one in America until
the next happens and it will because we refuse to do anything.
Logical
(22,457 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)How's that been working out for them?
If it works in Australia, let them keep it. I'll pass.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)drove the effort. And they don't have a 2nd Amendment to get in the way.
Here, ain't gonna happen for a while. Maybe more assholes carrying guns into IHOP will wake up the public, but it will still take a while.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...as long as the NRA continues to get away with responding by telling people that the solution is to hand out more guns to everyone so they can stop the next bad man with a gun, and having people treat that like it's a actual serous statement worthy of consideration.
Never mind that that also happens to be creating many more bad men with guns... and that they know when they're going to start shooting and you don't... and that even a lot of good guys with guns will end up doing more harm than good in most situations like that since they don't have the training to deal with it appropriately and just waving a gun around at things that threaten you isn't actually a very effective response most of the time if what you want it a lower body count...
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)most people, so the propaganda flows freely.
But yer typical Mom taking her kids into a Chuck E. Cheese loaded with assholes loaded for bear makes it up close and personal.
woodsprite
(11,854 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Their federal government is forbidden from regulating firearms. This "national" effort had to be enacted by Australia's states.
factsarenotfair
(910 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I will look later and see if I can find it, but the totals turned in were far less than registered imports in the decade prior.
And also reports that outside the big cities the Australian police essentially turn a blind eye to people having them.
I'll dig later and find where I saw it. I know the report of police attitudes was a post on an LE forum I used to frequent.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The non-compliant have to hide away their guns to keep them from being seized. That makes those guns less available for shootings.
Fact is, shootings have plummeted in Australia since the ban came into effect. It doesn't have to be perfect in order to be effective.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is a political and cultural issue.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)They couldn't cram through a new assault weapons ban in the immediate aftermath of Newtown when emotion and support for such measures peaked. It simply isn't going to happen and we are wasting our breath trying.
It's better to focus on things we can improve: socioeconomic conditions for our inner cities, where most of our gun violence occurs; mental health services to reduce spree shooters and the biggest cause of gun deaths: suicide.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)If we were able to make 90% of the people turn in their weapons (as are guesses on Australian compliance to the ban), that would still leave 30 million guns in circulation, and by people who were acting in nature against the law. So we'd have a subculture of Americans possessing illegal firearms. The black market would see a huge increase in violence, as does every other prohibition (see drugs, alcohol...)
It simply would not work. It would be great if it did, but we all know that a large percentage of gun owners would refuse to turn int heir weapons. Everyone says, "I'll turn in my gun when everyone else does" and no one would go first.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's fine.
Those guns would be stashed away, in order to protect them from prying law enforcement eyes. That "stashing" would also make those guns far less available to be used in massacres.
Captain Stern
(2,197 posts)Australia passed it's strict gun control laws with 90-95% support.
Here, only about 50% favor enacting any new gun control laws. Even right after the Sandy Hook massacre that number only got up to 55%.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)confiscation of guns would cost in the U.S.?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So they spend the previous 14 points describing what Australia changed in order to get the program to work, then they declare it won't work in the US because those changes have not already been done.