Re: OZ gun-grab fails to "save" society...
- From: ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 12:58:37 GMT
On 24 Dec 2006 22:09:01 -0800, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 24 Dec 2006 16:31:32 -0800, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
The BJAC reprint service counters the Sleasel reprint service with the
"Gun Control Laws Down Under Have Not Cut Murder, Suicide Rates"
Jan 2007, America's First Freedom Magazine
RESEARCH RECENTLY PUBLISHED in the British Journal of Criminology
finds that Australia's mandated gun turn-in program-which netted
640,000 guns at a cost of some $500 million-failed to make the country
After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which a lone psychopath
killed 53 people, Australia banned semi-automatic long guns and began a
12-month amnesty period for gun owners to turn in their property and
In their new study, Samara McPhedran, chairwoman of the
International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, and Dr.
Jeanine Baker, president of the Sporting Shooters Ass'n of Australia,
cite data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian
Institute of Criminology to say the recent gun control laws have not
affected actual gun murder rates or firearm suicide rates.
"Reducing the number of legally held firearms, banning certain
firearms and increasing the requirements that must be met to legally
own firearms has not produced the desired outcome of a safer society,"
Oh my! The "sensible" solution of well over half a million guns (and
half a million tax bucks) off Oz "streets" and still no improvement in
society! And the reseach is in a peer-reviewed journal too, not just
some newpaper fill. Maybe "common sense" isn't the answer? As President
Reagan noted, it's not that liberals are dumb it's just that so much of
what they know is wrong!
Gun Control: Means never giving a sucker an even break if you are king.
Pity Samara McPhedran and Dr. Jeanine Baker chose to IGNORE the actual
stated aim of the 1996 gun laws, namely to limit the possibility of
firearm mass murders, of which there have NONE since those laws came
NOBODY claimed that a law directly impacting on 1% (that's right, one
per cent) of violent crimes could produce "the desired outcome of a
safer society". This "desired outcome of a safer society" is something
the authors INVENTED to support their claims. Notably in their study
they do not actually attribute this claim to anybody, it's just a
throwaway line intended to be accepted uncritically. Their entire
analysis fails its first important test, ie that it investigates the
actual desired outcome.
And for the record the Australian murder rate in 2005 was 24% LOWER
than it was in 1996 and the proportion of firearms used in mrurder has
fallen from 31.7% to 9.6%. Also the suicide rate IS down as well.
So who would have guessed that two members of gun groups would have
concocted the reason for the gun laws, then summarily dismissed the
large decrease in firearm use in violent crime and suicide since those
laws were introduced?
Perhaps someone stupid enough to think it takes seven years would be
trying to tie the two together.
philboy, just admit it - youa are wrong. As usual.
I will admit one thing, I never tire of listening to your mournful
howls about how the falls in the use of guns in crime in Australia
can't possibly be because of laws limiting gun availablity, but
something, anything else. The beauty of your argument is that you never
offer any explanation as to what else might be a factor, and CERTAINLY
would not even contemplate offering any hard evidence.
As in previous posts; what about Great Britain and Vermont?
I have offered several explanations in the past: And an excellent
example is NYC. Enforcement of the law; put the criminals behind