Australia banned semiautomatic assault rifles. Here’s what happened.

Australia's Gun Control Laws haven't been significantly successful because violent crime has gone up. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Just say "Mexico"!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/...co-u-s-marine/

The answer IMO is not removing the firearms, it's educating on responsible ownership, handling, possessing, and use of firearms. Liberals "assume" the U.S. public at large is too dumb to do that. Conservatives think otherwise. If Liberals are too dumb to do that, so be it. Don't get one and don't keep one. But leave the rest of the folks alone, who are not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

No one, in a position of power on either side of the aisle, has proposed legislation that will remove firearms from the public.

Many Conservatives on this forum are against the requirement of obtaining a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun or to open-carry a handgun. Yet in your first sentence you state that you support ". . . educating on responsible ownership, handling, possessing, and use of firearms." Isn't that what a CHL requires?

To assume that people, Liberal or not, like myself who choose to not own a gun are "too dumb" to safely own a handgun is ridiculous. I'd be willing to bet that since it is probable that more "Conservatives" own guns than "Liberals", that the percentage of "Conservatives" who are victims of accidental shootings is higher than with "Liberals". No way to know for sure.

Australia's Gun Control Laws haven't been significantly successful because violent crime has gone up. That's why I posted the question to the OP, how would you defend yourself if you were faced with a violent encounter. Most people don't want to answer that question because they know in most if not all violent scenarios where death or severe bodily harm is imminent they would not be successful unless armed. They know it, I know it,so nobody is going to bullshit me on that issue. Mass murders with firearms is the lowest stat when it comes to gun violence. It's individuals that are mostly targeted with gun encounters in the commission of a violent felony crime.

Jim

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847 Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Like I said in my original, post -- it depends on which source of information you choose to believe. The article you cite was written in 2009. The article I cited was updated in 2016. My article clearly states that violent crime in Australia "have scarcely changed at all" since the gun buy-back program went into effect. And homicides have dropped very significantly.

You feel safer carrying a gun. I'm fine with your decision. You are correct. In the HIGHLY unlikely event that I am faced with a violent encounter, I will be pretty much defenseless. But while being armed MAY help me in my defense, there are no guarantees. On the Austin ECCIE forum a while ago, a guy told about a night in central Austin where he was attacked and beaten. Of course, someone responded to his post saying if he had a CHL and was carrying he could have saved himself. The OP responded back by saying he did have a CHL but because he was bar-hopping he was not carrying his gun, and if he had been carrying, his attackers were on him so fast he wouldn't have had time to get to his gun and there would have been one more bad guy on the streets with a gun -- his.

Not having enough firepower, a police station in Sydney was attacked with a car loaded with gasoline cans.

Like I said in my original, post -- it depends on which source of information you choose to believe. The article you cite was written in 2009. The article I cited was updated in 2016. My article clearly states that violent crime in Australia "have scarcely changed at all" since the gun buy-back program went into effect. And homicides have dropped very significantly.

You feel safer carrying a gun. I'm fine with your decision. You are correct. In the HIGHLY unlikely event that I am faced with a violent encounter, I will be pretty much defenseless. But while being armed MAY help me in my defense, there are no guarantees. On the Austin ECCIE forum a while ago, a guy told about a night in central Austin where he was attacked and beaten. Of course, someone responded to his post saying if he had a CHL and was carrying he could have saved himself. The OP responded back by saying he did have a CHL but because he was bar-hopping he was not carrying his gun, and if he had been carrying, his attackers were on him so fast he wouldn't have had time to get to his gun and there would have been one more bad guy on the streets with a gun -- his. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The decline had already be underway since 1969, speedy.

Like I said in my original, post -- it depends on which source of information you choose to believe. The article you cite was written in 2009. The article I cited was updated in 2016. My article clearly states that violent crime in Australia "have scarcely changed at all" since the gun buy-back program went into effect. And homicides have dropped very significantly.

You feel safer carrying a gun. I'm fine with your decision. You are correct. In the HIGHLY unlikely event that I am faced with a violent encounter, I will be pretty much defenseless. But while being armed MAY help me in my defense, there are no guarantees. On the Austin ECCIE forum a while ago, a guy told about a night in central Austin where he was attacked and beaten. Of course, someone responded to his post saying if he had a CHL and was carrying he could have saved himself. The OP responded back by saying he did have a CHL but because he was bar-hopping he was not carrying his gun, and if he had been carrying, his attackers were on him so fast he wouldn't have had time to get to his gun and there would have been one more bad guy on the streets with a gun -- his. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First of all lets own up to one fact. We don't live in Australia, we live in America a country of 320 million, Australia has only 23 million. America is much more racially diverse and sorry to say America has a lot more crazy ass people . Yes crazy people can do a lot of damage with a gun, but by the same token ya can't do much damage to a crazy person, so being armed might come in handy. The whole point is the use of a firearm is a form of self defense and although not everyone feels the need to carry a concealed weapon it's available to you.

Jim

Argue statistics all you want. The 2nd Amendment trumps them all. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be infringed. If you want to change that, repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Certainly we have the right to bear arms granted by the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any discussion on the cost of that right.

Also, just because a right is granted by the Constitution, it has always been the case that reasonable restrictions upon them can be placed. Our 1st Amendment freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire!" in a crowded public place or committing libel / slander / treason, for example. Our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is restricted by having states decide who is allowed to conceal carry firearms in public or that criminals should not have access to firearms or that the general public shouldn't have access to nuclear / biological weapons.

You can discuss the costs of having a right and reasonable restrictions upon a right without wanting to abolish the right altogether.

Certainly we have the right to bear arms granted by the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any discussion on the cost of that right.

Also, just because a right is granted by the Constitution, it has always been the case that reasonable restrictions upon them can be placed. Our 1st Amendment freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire!" in a crowded public place or committing libel / slander / treason, for example. Our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is restricted by having states decide who is allowed to conceal carry firearms in public or that criminals should not have access to firearms or that the general public shouldn't have access to nuclear / biological weapons.

You can discuss the costs of having a right and reasonable restrictions upon a right without wanting to abolish the right altogether. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Notice how on the one hand your example of not being allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium addresses an individual's miscreant behavior wherein the individual would be punished is, on the other hand, not equal to your asinine assertion that a whole group of individuals should be punished for the actions of a miscreant individual when it comes to guns. Hence, you've disqualified yourself as being capable of engaging in a "reasonable" discussion.

First of all lets own up to one fact. We don't live in Australia, we live in America a country of 320 million, Australia has only 23 million. America is much more racially diverse and sorry to say America has a lot more crazy ass people . Yes crazy people can do a lot of damage with a gun, but by the same token ya can't do much damage to a crazy person, so being armed might come in handy. The whole point is the use of a firearm is a form of self defense and although not everyone feels the need to carry a concealed weapon it's available to you.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I don't disagree with you at all!!! My posts have been in response to certain others who say that the gun buy-back program in Australia led to an increase in violent crime other than homicides such as rape and assault. Simply not true according to the information I've come across.

And regarding the claim made that the program in Australia impacted the homicide rate:

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/

"Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well."

Certainly we have the right to bear arms granted by the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any discussion on the cost of that right.

Also, just because a right is granted by the Constitution, it has always been the case that reasonable restrictions upon them can be placed. Our 1st Amendment freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire!" in a crowded public place or committing libel / slander / treason, for example. Our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is restricted by having states decide who is allowed to conceal carry firearms in public or that criminals should not have access to firearms or that the general public shouldn't have access to nuclear / biological weapons.

You can discuss the costs of having a right and reasonable restrictions upon a right without wanting to abolish the right altogether. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I totally agree.

As Justice Scalia, about as far right as a judge can get, stated in the majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

I don't disagree with you at all!!! My posts have been in response to certain others who say that the gun buy-back program in Australia led to an increase in violent crime other than homicides such as rape and assault. Simply not true according to the information I've come across. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess I'll have to go back and reread the various posts including the one who originally brought up Australia. I have been under the impression that the OP was touting the buy-back as a basis for a decrease in homicides by firearms, and the response was the violent crime rate over all did not decrease.

If firearm homicides decreased, but over all homicides did not, then that mathematically indicates that nonfirearm homicides increased to keep the overall rate about the same. At the same time if nonfirearm assualt offenses increased after the number of firearms were reduced for whatever reason then it seems that persons giving up their firearms were not as effectively defending themselves. Statistically speaking.

Then one would have to examine the "group" who voluntarily surrendered their firearms as being a "group" who would more than likely not use them anyway. So an "affect" on violent firearms crimes is not related to the "buy-back" program. those giving up their firearms were not likely to use them.

I don't disagree with you at all!!! My posts have been in response to certain others who say that the gun buy-back program in Australia led to an increase in violent crime other than homicides such as rape and assault. Simply not true according to the information I've come across.

And regarding the claim made that the program in Australia impacted the homicide rate:

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/

"Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well."
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You have to be careful with some of these stats. First of all what works for one country in regards to guns and crime, may not work for another. That's why I look at the population, who lives in a particular location and what the crime rate was before any particular mandate went into affect. Australia has not only a low population in a predominantly rural setting, like I mentioned before their population isn't very diverse with 92% Caucasian, and remaining 8% is divided up against Asian and native aboriginals. Now how would that work for us? I am not sure I am willing to take a chance, being that our society is so diverse and so divided. I would wager home invasions would steadily be on the rise.

Jim

The inability of liberals to understand the consequences of their ideology is paramount here.
Mass murders have not been eliminated n Australia and neither have mass killings with guns.
Sassy should do a little more research into these things before making those tyoes of statements.
It does seem to appear that arson has killed more people in Austrilia in greater numbers so, following the liberal logic should they ban fire?
What about box trucks?
Airplanes?
Automobiles?

Sassy should do a little more research into these things before making those types of statements. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

She's busy cutting and pasting. She doesn't have time to do silly research!

What's wrong with you? Demanding women to do work!

Cutting and pasting is kinda like .....

You have to be careful with some of these stats. First of all what works for one country in regards to guns and crime, may not work for another. That's why I look at the population, who lives in a particular location and what the crime rate was before any particular mandate went into affect. Australia has not only a low population in a predominantly rural setting, like I mentioned before their population isn't very diverse with 92% Caucasian, and remaining 8% is divided up against Asian and native aboriginals. Now how would that work for us? I am not sure I am willing to take a chance, being that our society is so diverse and so divided. I would wager home invasions would steadily be on the rise.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

To repeat what I said earlier -- I am not proposing anything. Strict gun control works very well in Japan. Totally different population demographics than the U.S.