Oz gun regulations drastically reduce deaths.

moon

Satire for Sanity
Drastic drops in Australia gun deaths after new regulations – study

576baeb7c46188f00f8b45a1.jpg


Gun control legislation introduced by Australia 20 years ago has not only stopped mass shootings from happening, but also led to a fall in gun-related fatalities, a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows.

Rapid fire weapons were banned in Australia in 1996 following a mass shooting, which killed 35 people. A year later, the government introduced a buy-back scheme. Over the next few years, over 700,000 semi-automatic weapons, pump action rifles and handguns were purchased by the federal government in two schemes.

https://www.rt.com/news/347917-australia-gun-control-study/

Vote Republicans out at every opportunity.
 
The Second Amendment is simply being misinterpreted by shysters. Everybody knows that- and some like it.
 
The point is that regulations work to save lives. The Australian example is proof in itself. Ergo- anybody opposing regulations supports massacres.
 
It's remarkably satisfying to shove the stick of logic up the noses of massacre supporters.

You're on view, boyos- exposed by some antipodean democracy.
 
Hmmmmmmm,

The article makes a point to characterize the "success" of Aussie gun control being measured by "private gun ownership down 75 percent" but no mention of the actual % reduction of homicide (which I thought was the point of the article). It mentions no mass shootings since gun confiscation but those were always rare (2 incidents / 3year average). The article talks about the theory of weapon substitution and the percentages disproving that, but still, no mention of the actual homicide data (which one would think they would need to have to break-out what they did give us).

On the other hand, I know that for the USA, the most recent overall homicide rate (2014 - 4.5 / 100K) is down to 51 year lows (1963 - 4.6 / 100K) and over the 17 year period of 1993 to 2010, the gun homicide rate has fallen 48%.

Of course this is during a time when the rights of the citizen have been respected and expanded, not restricted.

In the last 20 years some 132,000,000 guns were added to the civilian "arsenal" and the population grew by 49 million.

Facts, not empty grandstanding celebrating the abuse of citizens, based in blame-shifting hysteria.

.
 
Hmmmmmmm,

The article makes a point to characterize the "success" of Aussie gun control being measured by "private gun ownership down 75 percent" but no mention of the actual % reduction of homicide (which I thought was the point of the article). It mentions no mass shootings since gun confiscation but those were always rare (2 incidents / 3year average). The article talks about the theory of weapon substitution and the percentages disproving that, but still, no mention of the actual homicide data (which one would think they would need to have to break-out what they did give us).

On the other hand, I know that for the USA, the most recent overall homicide rate (2014 - 4.5 / 100K) is down to 51 year lows (1963 - 4.6 / 100K) and over the 17 year period of 1993 to 2010, the gun homicide rate has fallen 48%.

Of course this is during a time when the rights of the citizen have been respected and expanded, not restricted.

In the last 20 years some 132,000,000 guns were added to the civilian "arsenal" and the population grew by 49 million.

Facts, not empty grandstanding celebrating the abuse of citizens, based in blame-shifting hysteria.

.
Perfectly cogent position, stated eloquently and without rancor or derision. Now, stand by for the "oh yeah? Well you're just a lying poopy face" reply from the deranged lefties.
 
look at the deaths here when we had a law under clinton

The drop in homicide during he Clinton years is attributable to two things.

His crime bill that rapidly increased incarceration rates (+75% -- 1.3 million in jail or prison in 1993 to 2 million when he left) and the waning of the crack epidemic.

If you are talking about the "Assault Weapon" Ban, then you are really wrong.

That law had no impact on crime. Multiple studies on the effects of the law have found, "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."and that looking at the stats, "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

And that remains true today:

murder%20by%20weapon_zpsjcnhcjqs.jpg


then Bush let it expire

And since you are completely wrong on the effects, why wouldn't you be wrong on the history?

The law had to be reinstated by Congress and a new bill presented to Bush to become law (and he said he would sign it if one came before him).

I realize you have a skewed understanding of the true and legitimate extent of Presidential power after 8 years of the Charlatan, but Bush couldn't "let it expire" if it wasn't within his power to reinstate it.

You should be glad I am here to correct your idiocy.
 
Last edited:
regulations stifle freedom and economic competition. nothing more, nothing less


Sure- let's just overlook the massacres. Pray tell how the Australian experience is flawed and you'd have an argument. But you can't- so you don't.

It's the same for the forum's professional arms dealer. Regulations prevent massacres- proven. If you're anti-regulations then you are pro-massacre. Have a good wriggle.
 
Sure- let's just overlook the massacres.
lets do that. the regulations that prohibited people from carrying a gun got them killed because they were defenseless.

Pray tell how the Australian experience is flawed and you'd have an argument. But you can't- so you don't.
comparing the australian culture to the american culture is even worse than apples and oranges. aussies don't have near the thug climate there that we do here.

It's the same for the forum's professional arms dealer. Regulations prevent massacres- proven. If you're anti-regulations then you are pro-massacre. Have a good wriggle.
and yet those very regulations ensured that all those killed in the massacres had no chance to defend themselves. pro gun regulations means your pro gun massacre. congrats.
 
lets do that. the regulations that prohibited people from carrying a gun got them killed because they were defenseless.

Magnums make a big bulge in pink hot pants.

comparing the australian culture to the american culture is even worse than apples and oranges. aussies don't have near the thug climate there that we do here.

No guns means no guns- that means no guns for thugs.

and yet those very regulations ensured that all those killed in the massacres had no chance to defend themselves. pro gun regulations means your pro gun massacre. congrats.

Pathetic wriggling. The massacred Australians weren't prevented from defending themselves- nor were the thousands of murdered American citizens. You don't have an answer- and your pro-massacre bleating is really ugly.
 
From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred.

People didn't find other ways to kill or to die by suicide — rates of homicide and suicide fell overall also.

Gun-related homicides decreased 7.5 percent per year following the reforms.



http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091
 
Back
Top