Thread: Primary Response

I believe I heard (ABC) - but can't back it up - that the national gun homicide rate halved after the gun buy-back.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

I believe I heard (ABC) - but can't back it up - that the national gun homicide rate halved after the gun buy-back.

From The Australian Institute of Criminlogy

"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

I would expect that the number of firearm related homocides would drop after an event such as Port Arthur and the ensueing media coverage and buy back (I didn't say all the firearms handed in where rubbish), but it was already on a downward trend, again that doesn't surprise me. Society changed a lot from 1968 to 2003. People became increasingly more willing to report crime and attitudes and what was accepted changed as well, that's my opinion anyway.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

I believe I heard (ABC) - but can't back it up - that the national gun homicide rate halved after the gun buy-back.

It would be more interesting to know what happened to the total homicide rate?

Were fewer people killed because there were fewer guns around, or were the same number killed but by different means?

Just as a casual observation, there appear to a lot more knifes around and a lot more people prepared to use them.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

It would be more interesting to know what happened to the total homicide rate?

Were fewer people killed because there were fewer guns around, or were the same number killed but by different means?

Just as a casual observation, there appear to a lot more knifes around and a lot more people prepared to use them.

From the same website

"The Australian Institute of Criminology has been monitoring homicides in Australia since 1989. Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide, but excludes driving-related fatalities unless these occur in the course of a criminal event. In 2005-06 there were 283 homicide incidents in Australia, resulting in 301 victims, committed by 336 offenders. This represents an increase from the previous year, although overall it appears that homicide incidents are in decline. The figure below shows the number of homicide incidents in Australia from 1989-90 to 2005-06. There has been a statistically significant downward trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia over this 17 year period (Kendall's tau = -0.42; p=.02)."

I agree on knives Fred.

Originally Posted by Scott

Regardless of statistics, a gun is a gun. From my point of view the only people who should have a gun are the Police and Army, full stop. There should be absolutely no reason why a civilian should own a gun. All the stats in the world doesn't temper the fact that children were killed.

Scott

I understand your sentiment, but I would suggest that ownership of guns should be restricted to people with a legitimate reason. To give you some idea, a farmer is a civilian but he may also need a gun for feral animal control. He may also need a gun to humanely put down sick or injured domestic animals. I am just pointing out that we have to be careful how we delineate.

I would also state for the record I have never owned a gun and when I had sick animals I used to ask a neighbour to come over and shoot them for me. Sounds callous I know, but the choice is lingering and painful death or quick and merciful death.

It is quite difficult to obtain a gun in Oz and a protracted process. I don't believe it is difficult in the US and there is a vast array of weapons available. We are talking about a hugely different culture and very different legislation.

Regards
Paul

i see in today's news that the NRA have come out in favour of the status quo. They suggest that armed guards should be patrolling the schools! I don't know how that fits in with the mantra of small government and lower taxes.

Yes I did see that Jim. As we know, the solution to the gun problem is more guns.

Ozhunter, I've been wondering when you might drop in here. I think a debate such as this is quite incomplete without the veiws of someone such as yourself (i.e. a responsible gun owner/user).

Btw, has anyone noticed the distinct lack of hysteria in this thread so far? Wonder how long that will last....

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Btw, has anyone noticed the distinct lack of hysteria in this thread so far? Wonder how long that will last....

I, and I suppose many others, own or have owned guns. I needed them for vermin and the occasionally putting down of a sick animal but when I moved into a township I didn't see the point in having them anymore.
We do have a different attitude and, I feel, are more likely to trust the next bloke than to see him as a threat. Perhaps I'm getting old but I can't see that happening when you see guns as a solution.

Originally Posted by jimbur

i see in today's news that the NRA have come out in favour of the status quo. They suggest that armed guards should be patrolling the schools! I don't know how that fits in with the mantra of small government and lower taxes.

An interesting point, reading farther on this is that one third of the schools already have armed guards.
Regards

I must agree whole heartedly with Ozhunter's comments. I also have no issue with the restrictions on semi-auto weapons, however I think the general firearm restrictions are overly restrictive, while the punishments for illegal use are too low.

To me, those that call for a ban on all firearms are either ignorant or possible just arrogant (or maybe a bit of both). Ignorant of the benefits firearms have in society and the low risk they actually pose, or arrogant to the needs/wants of those who use firearms in their work, sport or hobby.

Life is full of risk and it is near impossible to eliminate it. Are firearms in society are risk? ... certainly, but I believe the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. Plus in the grand scheme of things there are a lot greater risks out there ... take alcohol for instance - it has a huge impact/cost on society (for both adults and children) yet there is no real benefit to society (note that I do enjoy a drink ). Maybe those wanting a full ban on firearms need to refocus where there efforts can pay the biggest dividend in reducing risk.

Just to be clear on my position - it's the assault rifles that can do so much damage, and serve no civilian need that I would like to see banned.

Vernon, I think that alcohol does serve a social function, to some extent anyway. Bit of a loosener etc. To go a little further (and it might be a bit silly, but...) one of my best mates and I forged a frienship because we used to go out on the balcony at work for a smoke, and subsequently got to more relaxed chatting etc (i.e. more social conversation rather than work).

Originally Posted by jimbur

i see in today's news that the NRA have come out in favour of the status quo. They suggest that armed guards should be patrolling the schools! I don't know how that fits in with the mantra of small government and lower taxes.

In the current climate there, this might go some way toward reducing the occurrence of these shootings. I cannot see an easy fix for them though. If they try and restrict firearm ownership too much, it might trigger groups like local militia (of which there are plenty) to think they have had their rights impinged and take action. That doesn't bear thinking about, but given the attitude toward maintaining freedom, you never know. Once again, the opinions I have formed about the militia and the thinking of the American people have been formed from the outside. Maybe some of our US friends could chime in.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Ozhunter, I've been wondering when you might drop in here. I think a debate such as this is quite incomplete without the veiws of someone such as yourself (i.e. a responsible gun owner/user).

I have stayed away until I saw the tone that things would take. Often this subject sends people from 37° to 110° instantly, and the conversation serves no purpose.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Btw, has anyone noticed the distinct lack of hysteria in this thread so far? Wonder how long that will last....

It will stay that way, at least from my stand point anyway.


And lets give a hooray to auto save. I've had three goes at posting this, our internet is pretending to be second hand chainsaw ATM

FF you could have substituted a coffee or a tea for that cigarette - same "social" effect, not nearly as risky.

I guess my point is that there are a lot of things we "accept" in society that are "risky". As far as I'm concerned (and statistically speaking in Australia) firearms are no where near the top.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

FF you could have substituted a coffee or a tea for that cigarette - same "social" effect, not nearly as risky.

Vernon, the (minor) point was that we had to go to a designated area, and were therefore thrown together. C & T can still be consumed wherever your desk is.

We were working in Sales at the time (investment properties) and it was a useful technique to excuse one's self from the clients..."Well, I'm just going out for a durrie, so you might like to have a chat while I'm gone" coz they really needed to have a chat by this time.