# Australian gun reform

Gold Member
2021 Award
I wonder if this would work in the USA.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622114743.htm

the difference is that us Australians didn't/don't have a constitutional right to bear arms
so the govt. had no real opposition to disarming the population

Gun violence still exists and always will because illegal guns are easy to obtain
and they are un constant use during robberies and general homicides.
There's hardly a week that goes by here that there isn't several people shot

Dave

Mentor
the difference is that us Australians didn't/don't have a constitutional right to bear arms
Isn't that constitutional right to bear arms for forming a militia?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

And no, this will not be a discussion on guns, the study is about the reduction of homicides in Australia. Please keep the conversation about the study. Thank you.

The mentors are discussing whether the study can be discussed in a rational manor. Think about that before you post.

Last edited:
Mentor
I read through the article, but didn't see what firearms are not prohibited. Is it just these?

Also, despite a surge of post-law gun buying to replace destroyed semiautomatic and other rapid-fire weapons with single-shot rifles and shotguns,

No pistols/revolvers?

Staff Emeritus
No pistols/revolvers?
The last paragraph in the article states
Professor Simon Chapman said: "Australia's experience shows that banning rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths. In today's context, these findings offer an example which, with public support and political courage, might reduce gun deaths in other countries."
So perhaps it refers to semi-automatic pistols as well.

I do think it a matter of keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people.

Gun-loving mom kills daughters before being fatally shot by cops
A suburban Houston mom shot and killed her two daughters during a family argument — then was killed by police when she refused to drop her gun.
. . .
The mom had already shot her kids when a deputy arrived at the home to find the woman, gun in her hand, getting ready to open fire on one of the girls again.
. . .
“It was a family argument that turned into a shooting,” he [Sheriff Troy Nehls] explained.
. . .
Christy Sheats was an outspoken gun-rights supporter, according to posts on her Facebook page.

It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, . . . .''
What insanity!

The mom also posted about her daughters, writing last September, “Happy Daughter’s Day to my two amazing, sweet, kind, beautiful, intelligent girls. I love and treasure you both more than you could ever possibly know.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-mom-fatally-shoots-2-015754508.html
The husband of Texas killer mom Christy Sheats begged her in vain not to shoot their two daughters, a neighbor who witnessed the carnage said Sunday. “Don’t do this, they’re our kids!” the panicked father, Jason Sheats, screamed to his wife, 42, who shot Taylor, 22, and Madison, 17, before being gunned down herself by cops. . . . The officer who killed Christy feared she was about to pump still more bullets into one of the dying daughters, said the neighbor, Fazz Zainuddin.
A problem with the current system is that it acts after the fact, not before the fact. This woman should not have had access to access, but apparently she legally did. Why did the husband allow her to have access to guns, especially given their domestic strife?

The Texas Mother Who Shot Daughters Had a Mental Illness History, Reports Say

Last edited:
cosmik debris
If you are interested in Australian laws and its effect on crime New Zealand is worth a look. We don't have the same level of control as Australia and I don't think we have a high level of gun crime. It is increasing though. We are allowed semi-auto rifles and shotguns with some limitations on type i.e. Military vs hunting style. We are allowed Military style for sport under a special license. Pistols are allowed under a special license also.

Our laws were changed to this current structure after a mass shooting some 6 years before the Port Arthur incident in Australia. Our police do not carry arms about their persons but do have them available in a locked box in their car. We do have a large number of firearms in the general population and most gun incidents involve hunting style firearms.

It seems their is more to it than just availability.

nsaspook
Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
It seems strange to interpret one of the rights in the original Bill of Rights of citizens to be a right of government.
And that's why the text of the Second Amendment says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms ..." and not "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms ..."

The U.S. Supreme Court cases D.C. v. Heller (2008) and later McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) both upheld the right of the individual under the Second Amendment to possesses a firearm for lawful protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

OCR and nsaspook
Mentor
It's the right of the people to keep and bear arms to form a militia, the government wasn't paying for them. Since then the gun lobbyists got the meaning changed.

How Conservatives “Reinvented” the Second Amendment

This is political as much as legal. This is about justices who come out of the conservative movement advocating positions that they’ve advocated for a long time. And what the Second Amendment means is not determined by the Second Amendment, it’s determined by who wins presidential elections and gets to appoint their like-minded justices.

These decisions about what the Constitution means are deeply political. Always have been, always will be.

But we've strayed from the topic, so no more off topic posts, this is about the report in the OP, all other posts will be deleted.

Last edited:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gun-control-australia-20160622-snap-story.html
Gun-control advocates in the U.S. often point to Australia as proof that Americans would be safer with a ban on semiautomatic weapons. In the land down under, there has been a total of zero mass shootings since rapid-fire guns were outlawed in the 1990s.

But a new analysis of crime in Australia stops short of giving gun-control laws the credit for this remarkable run. The reason: Although homicides involving guns have declined over the past 20 years, homicides committed without firearms have dropped even more.

What did researchers actually say in the paper.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2530362
Conclusions and RelevanceFollowing enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.

Mentor
And the final conclusion.

Key Points
• Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?

• Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.

• Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths.
It doesn't matter that suicides and other deaths may have declined, we are only concerned with the decrease in crimes of mass shootings. That's what we are concerned with. Do you really think Orlando victims and Paris victims and Brussels victims care about suicide victim statistics?

Last edited:
And the final conclusion.

It doesn't matter that suicides and other deaths may have declined, we are only concerned with the decrease in crimes of mass shootings. That's what we are concerned with. Do you really think Orlando victims and Paris victims and Brussels victims care about suicide victim statistics?

It mattered to the researchers in their conclusion and Relevance. (Briefly summarize the overall conclusion of the data analysis based on the purpose of the study.)

I can't and won't speak for what the victims would care about. I only mourn their deaths at the hands of terrorists.

OCR
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Here's a study from University of Melbourne that disputes OP's paper

old jim

OCR and davenn
Here's a study from University of Melbourne that disputes OP's paper
old jim

The actual research paper (using standard statistical models) that's the source of data on the OP link agrees with this study.

Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.

?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Monash University Shooting 21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria 2 5 A shooting spree by Huan Yun Xiang, a student at Monash University

2011 Hectorville siege 29 April 2011 Hectorville, South Australia 3 3 A shooting that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.[9]

Hunt family murders 9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales 5 0 Murder-suicide shooting spree by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself

Logan shooting 22 October 2014 Logan, Victoria 3 0 A shooting murder of a neighbour family (Greg Holmes, 48, his mother Mary Lockhart, 75, and her husband Peter Lockhart, 78) by Ian Francis Jamieson, 63.[10]

Mentor
That study is all over the place. From the study
More recently, Neill and Leigh (2007) re-analyze the results of Baker and McPhedran (2006). They find that re-analysing the results either with a longer time series or using the log of the death rate, however, strengthens the evidence against the null hypothesis that the NFA had no effect on firearm suicides or homicides. In particular, they find a statistically significant reduction in deaths due to both firearm homicides and suicides.
What we're really interested in is if there is a decrease in mass homicides, Australia didn't really have that many. I don't think we can compare this to the US, there are too many automatic and semi automatic weapons that aren't even registered that wouldn't be found. Canada also implemented a ban. We can't compare other countries to the US.

Last edited:
nsaspook and jim hardy
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
That study is all over the place. From the study

Ahhh found it , page 7 of 29 .

in the interest of good faith reporting , very next sentence says
Summing up the extant literature, it therefore appears that despite the fact thatthe data come from the same source, ten years post-NFA, there is no consensus on whether the NFA had an impact on firearm homicides.

So their own researchers aren't sure. Not surprising for as you said the numbers are small.

In such an emotional issue it is a challenge to remain unbiased.
The Science Daily reporter linked in post #1 openly favors the gun ban
here's his closing paragraph
Professor Simon Chapman said: "Australia's experience shows that banning rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths. In today's context, these findings offer an example which, with public support and political courage, might reduce gun deaths in other countries."
Despite the contrary conclusion of the very JAMA paper he was writing about .
(here it is, from the bottom of SD article)http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2530362

Now i don't mind the Science Daily guy editorializing
but he should have reported truthfully on the paper he cited
Here's its closing paragraph:
Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.

and he should have explained why Simon Chapman 's statement disagreed with the JAMA paper
because taken at face value it suggests Chapman
1. either didn't know the conclusion made by the report he allegedly co-authored
or

I can't say whether Australia's mass homicide rate is down i don't go there so don't know.

Just saying i dislike being manipulated by "journalists" trying to sway me to buy into their prejudice.

old jim

OCR and nsaspook
OCR
...in the interest of good faith reporting...
...there are too many automatic and semi automatic weapons that aren't even registered...
Wikipedia said:
Automatic weapons tend to be restricted to military and police organizations in most developed countries that permit the use of semi-automatic firearms. Where automatic weapons are permitted, restrictions and regulations on their possession and use may be much more severe than for other firearms. In the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of fully automatic firearms under the National Firearms Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm#Uses
In such an emotional issue it is a challenge to remain unbiased.

Carry on...

Last edited:
jim hardy
Are you saying there are no automatic weapons out there? How are the terms being misused?

There are (machine guns) but are covered by the NFA 1934 act. A potential buyer must undergo an exhaustive criminal and mental health background check in order to get ATF approval to purchase after local law enforcement approves the application.

There have been two AFAIK murders with registered/legal machine guns since the passage of the NFA.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

OCR
With very few exceptions, when I end a post with...
Carry on...
It means I'm done posting in the thread... this is one of those exceptions.

In case you didn't know... but, now you do.

Carry on...

Mentor
There are (machine guns) but are covered by the NFA 1934 act. A potential buyer must undergo an exhaustive criminal and mental health background check in order to get ATF approval to purchase after local law enforcement approves the application.

There have been two AFAIK murders with registered/legal machine guns since the passage of the NFA.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

With very few exceptions, when I end a post with...

It means I'm done posting in the thread... this is one of those exceptions.

In case you didn't know... but, now you do.

Carry on...
So, none of these weapons would be owned legally/illegally? I see.

Automatic firearms can be divided into six main categories:

• Assault rifle—the standard type of service rifles in most modern armies, capable of both automatic and semi-automaticfire.[2]
• Battle rifle—a heavier-caliber type of service rifle that some classify as an assault rifle while others see them as a class of their own.[2]
• Automatic shotgun—a type of combat shotgun that is capable of firing shotgun shells automatically, usually also semi-automatically.[2]
• Machine gun—a large group of heavier firearms used for automatic fire of rifle ammunition, usually attached to a mount or supported by a bipod. Depending on size and weight, machine guns are divided into heavy, medium or light machine guns. The ammunition is often belt-fed.[2]
• Submachine gun—an automatic, short rifle (carbine) that uses pistol cartridges. Nowadays seldom used militarily, due to body armour making them ineffective, but they are commonly used by police forces and close protection units in many parts of the world.[2]
• Personal defense weapon—a new breed of automatic firearms that combine the lightness and size of the submachine gun with the heavier-calibre ammunition of the assault rifle, thus in practice, creating a submachine gun with body armor penetration capability.[2]
• Machine pistol—a handgun-style firearm, capable of fully automatic or burst fire. They are sometimes equipped with a foldable shoulder stock, to enable better accuracy during automatic fire, which then makes them very similar to submachine guns. Some machine pistols are shaped very similar to semi-automatics (e.g. the Glock 18). As with SMGs, machine pistols generally fire pistol caliber cartridges (such as the 9mm, .40, .45 ACP etc.).[2]

So, none of these weapons would be owned illegally? I see.

The unregistered possession of these weapons is a federal felony period. The actual use of any machine gun in a crime in the USA is very rare.
Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possesses firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations.[32] A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a$100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute.[33] For an individual, the felony fine of$100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to \$250,000.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Criminal_penalties

OCR
Mentor
OCR's link provided a whole list of automatic weapons, I posted them above.

OCR's link provided a whole list of automatic weapons, I posted them above.

Every last one would be a NFA weapon subject to the same conditions and facts as my previous post.

OCR
Mentor
Every last one would be a NFA weapon subject to the same conditions and facts as my previous post.
Not likely to deter a terrorist or a nut, not sure how we got sidetracked onto this discussion, this is about Australia. I think it's time to close this thread, we are discussing the wrong country.

jim hardy and nsaspook