Off the wires.

The introduction of Australia's tough new gun laws in 1996 has done little to reduce the rate of gun murder or suicide, according to a new
report. And it says the $500 million buyback of guns after the Port Arthur massacre, where 35 people were killed, has had no effect on the
homicide rate.

The study, prepared by Australian pro-gun lobbyists and published in the British Journal of Criminology, argues that the money spent on buying back more than 600,000 weapons would have been better spent on a public health campaign.

-

Canada has had handgun registration for many years and after spending $2,000,000,000 (Canadian, and that is billion) now has registration of long guns.

The person involved in the killing in Montreal had a firearm license, his firearms were registered, and he belonged to a local club.

Those without a license and not allowed to have firearms; street gangs and drug dealers fail to register firearm or even bother with a firearm license, and kill many throughout Canada each year.

Don't they know it's against the law?

Stiffer jail sentances is the answer not more gun laws!

When was the last time you heard of a killing at a shooting range where everyone is armed?

Heh. Greg is once again, mistaking his fantasy world with reality.
In fact, a recent report highlights how Howards Gun control laws have had zero effect...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

"The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline."

Keep up the great comparisons Greg, they are a source of great amusement.

It always seemed to me that John Howard’s response to Port Arthur was rather clever. After all, he faced one big problem and one big opportunity.

The problem was the gross negligence and incompetence of the Tasmanian government and police. After all, the shooter was a known loony, suspected by the community of having already killed two people, there had been complaints of him shooting at people before and he had a cache of entirely illegal firearms.

As for the police being lured away on the day of the incident and their reported inability to find a great deal of evidence or eye witness identification actually linking him to the crimes - well - enough said.

The whole thing could have easily turned into a media assault on the only state government (if I remember rightly) of the same political persuasion as Howard.

The opportunity was the resentment and envy that the professional and media classes in the very highly urbanized Australian population have towards “Rednecks” or small town and rural Australians. Or rather, I should say, towards a romantic fantasy of them that these days involves a utility (pickup truck) dog, gun and wide open spaces.

They were quite willing to ignore the real causes of the tragedy and any real solutions in the interest of mounting a campaign to “get” what they mistakenly imagined as one of the pillars of Redneck life. Incidentally, most shooters I know tend to be urban, middle aged, excessively law abiding and a little boring.

As for the gun laws doing any good, well, more than a century of experience with them in relatively orderly, Western countries left no doubt that they would either be useless, or cause a small amount of harm. The best brief summary of the long-term results is probably “Ten years after the National Firearms Agreement of 1996” at http://www.ssaa.org.au/ .

And another thing, when people are stressed their death rate from all causes rises for several years. Mounting a rather hysterical and unjust campaign against some hundreds of thousands of Australians must have caused some harm.

Hi there All...
In my humble opinion the Gun Laws in Australia, apropos storage, are not rigid enough. If an individual can demonstrate a genuine need to possess a firearm, then that firearm should be secured at the establishment, (a gazetted firing range) where the firearm is used.

In the case of an individual who participates in lawful hunting, then appropriate premises should be sourced and made secure, in order that the firearm/s is securely stored therein.

The costs of establishing secure storage facilities, and on-going expenses of that facility, should be borne TOTALLY by the shooter. Simply put, let the user pay.

Under no circumstances, should a firearm be kept PERMANENTLY in a domiciliary environment...for ANY reason. Any contemporaneous cleaning or maintainence, post shooting, should be conducted either in the field, or a point,at the designated place of secure storage.

Further, in the event that a firearm requires more complex adjustment; repair; or modification, then it would be retrieved by the owner and conveyed to a licensed technician, in order to effect that repair et al.

It has been argued here, that there has been no repeat, of carnage of a kind, perpetrated at Port Arthur, some years ago. True.

However, there have been many many incidences of suicide, committed with a firearm, in the home. Where the easy availability of a firearm, (the method of choice for men who possess them) and ammunition, is generally close at hand.

In my opinion, in a city, or in any metropolis, there is simply no case to be made out, nor a need to be met, legitimising the permanent possession of any firearm/s in a private dwelling house.

Rural producers may demonstrate a particular need for firearm/s, for the conduct of their rural enterprise. Where there is an apparent need to have a firearm close at hand, Generally, this need is both evident and proper.

For those of you who seek to attack this proposal, think about it for a moment. Essentially, I'm certainly NOT anti-firearms. Just very concerned at the easy access to firearm/s in the home..... That's all.

Greg Barnes?

Is this the Greg Barnes that was on Insight about a year ago talking about Australian values, where, when the vile bigot Wassim Dhourahei of Hizbut-Tahrir said that Muslims can never accept democracy, Greg Barnes, like all the other cowards in the room, said nothing?

Yet he took pleasure in attacking the old guy from One Nation who simply said that we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant.

You far leftists are the reason all this is going on, and one day, when people get commonsense, will all face TREASON trials.

Look foward to it.

o sung wu: “In my humble opinion the Gun Laws in Australia, apropos storage, are not rigid enough. If an individual can demonstrate a genuine need to possess a firearm, then that firearm should be secured at the establishment, (a gazetted firing range) where the firearm is used.

”The costs of establishing secure storage facilities, and on-going expenses of that facility, should be borne TOTALLY by the shooter. Simply put, let the user pay."

Yes, and I’d really, really like all cars, especially those #$% SUVs that somehow seem exempt from all the pedestrian safety features normal cars are subject to, banned from built up areas. They should have to be stored at the city limits.

The ancient cities used to do it so why can’t we? The only wheeled traffic was delivery vehicles between midnight and dawn.

That way I could ride my bike, or an electric moped, around town without being hit by a car running a stop sign and nearly killed like last time. See, I have a real personal stake in this.

Also, there would be excellent public transport because everyone would use it. The old, poor and those whose disabilities prevent them from driving would not be abandoned as they are now.

Now isn’t that a far more worthy wish, and there are firm statistics to suggest it would prevent thousands of deaths and injuries and lead to a fairer society.

Let’s see your statistics suggesting that doing the same thing for lawfully held firearms would produce the same level of good – or any good at all.

Hints
1. Most firearm related crime involves illegally held firearms.
2. Preventing firearm related deaths is useless if about the same number of deaths occur anyway. Take about a week to think about this one carefully: People who have a problem with firearms have a great deal of trouble getting this one.
3. Contrary to the CDC’s theories in the 60s, removing a seemingly more lethal means (firearms) does little to reduce the numbers of murders and male suicides.

Hi Stephen Heyer...

If you own a firearm, why is it necessary for you to keep it in the family home? You can't fire it; Presumably it simply sits in a gun safe. Therefore, it could just as easily be appropriately secured at a central storage facility. Or is it Stephen Heyer, nice to know that it's always on hand? Or perhaps in the event that some ne'er do well breaks into you abode, and commits a criminal act? And I suppose having a firearm in the house, does give one a certain 'peace of mind' in case this or that happens (what ever 'this or that' may be ?)

You state inter alia, that it would be cost prohibitive to establish a central storage facility. I reiterate, you wish to use guns, then let the user pay. I understand that the SSAA are quite cashed-up, I'm sure they'd assist initially.

You might be interested to know, that most policing bodies in Australia, rather then police members taking their personal service weapon home, (such was the case for years) are now required to lodge it, in special lockers at their stations. They draw their weapon at the commencement of shift, returning it, at 'Knock Off'.

You assert that if anyone has a problem with firearms (or words to that effect)...what actually is your point here? Further Stephen Heyer, you'd better get used to the 'Central Storage' concept, for it's not too far away !

Cheers...O Sung Wu.

The real cause of the spates of massacres that is media frenzy triggering copycats.

The activists cash in on the need for media to generate controversy, plus certain journalists' self-serving desire to be 'making a difference'. Those people are dead because the journalists and activists truly did make a difference.

And I note that Greg was a correspondent for the Hobart Mercury, which had particularly strong influence in the Bryant matter.

See my article at: http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/Ideas%20Kill%20-%20Science%20and%20the%20Massacre%203.pdf

Chris

I would advise reading the article by ChrisPer (Chris Allen) at
http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/Ideas%20Kill%20-%20Science%20and%20the%20Massacre%203.pdf

I’ve seen more formal scientific work saying the same thing, but Chris’ article is short enough for people with only a casual interest in such things to bother reading.

The interesting thing that emerges from following the tactics and writings of the anti-gun mob is that they give little sign of being much interested in reducing deaths, let alone respecting cultural traditions that other people value. Rather, they have a mania to “get rid of (other peoples’) guns” even if it does little to reduce deaths and injuries, or even if doing so increases them in the long term.

Even more interestingly, when they control government, they seem to have a strong drive to heavily arm “their” police forces. It doesn’t seem to be weapons as such they dislike, just OTHER people having them.

I suppose that is quite an evolutionarily successful strategy if you can pull it off.

It seems to me a better way to stop massacres would be to simply increase spending on mental health.
I'm from a rural family, and started shooting when I was five years old. I've never shot anyone, and the thought has never crossed my mind, probably because I've seen first hand the damage bullets do to flesh.
Honestly, I doubt very much if the gun laws are the reason there hasn't been a massacre in a while, as the reality is if you want a gun, one is not that hard to obtain despite the gun laws.

Hi there Stephen Heyer...
Thank you for the 'reference' you suggested I read. I don't quite know what the author is trying to say, or the point he's attempting to make. Prima facie, it would seem that he's arguing that tough or tougher gun laws alone, do not prevent F/A massacres. I'd agree with that, in part. He eludes to the proposition that the media in toto, should share at least, a substantial moral responsibility for 'urging' some 'damaged' individuals ( the mentally ill) to go out and wreck havoc on the community. Emmmm. A fairly long bow, I should think? I agree absolutely, with the view that 'Stomont' articulated, apropos that mental illness may in part, be a very significant reason for a person to simply go out and slaughter innocents. Again, I don't know. I should say that as a veteran, I can tell you, that on the first occasion, that I realized that I may have killed another, I felt absolutely emotionally extirpated !

I don't know what motivates people to destroy others. And I would respectfully suggest, that neither would many others. Though I must say however, that generally I'm not persuaded by any arguement proffered by the many self styled pseudo social artificers, that are ensconced in a dusty little office, deep in the bowels of a university somewhere. Of course there is a place for the theoretician. But I'd suggest that this particular issue, needs much more than an academic approach for a workable and effective solution.

Cheers...O Sung Wu.