They're so stupid I could cry
Guns policy saving lives
This is a little piece praising the Australian gun buy back of 1997. It's obviously been penned as part of the great American gun debate that seems to be sweeping the world since the events of Sandy Hook.
The author apparently doesn't want anyone to start questioning Australian gun policy as it looks like trouble may be brewing stateside. If American gun owners stay true to their word there may be hell to pay if Obama decides the time is right for gun control in America.
Articles like this are helping to soften up the people by pretending that gun control works while making sure their own resident population does not start to cause a fuss. Face it, if it kicks off Yankside and the Americans make a firm stand against gun control, the citizens of other countries may start to take note.
We wouldn't want that now, would we.
Since the 1997 gun buyback, your chance of being a victim of gun violence has more than halved. Yet as this newspaper pointed out on Monday, the number of guns in Australia has increased by nearly one-fifth over the same period. What's going on?
The simplest answer is that Australia's population is a fifth larger than it was in 1997. In reality, Australia has about as many guns per person as it did after the gun buyback. The only way you can conclude that the gun buyback has been undone is if to ignore a decade and a half of population growth.
So there are more Aussie guns now that there were after the buy back and this is put down to population growth. Notice the opening line though? "Your chance of being a victim of gun violence has more than halved".
Maybe so. Less gun access will inevitably mean less gun violence, but the anti-gun nuts can stop cheering. It also means more non gun related violence. History has shown with regular monotony that a disarmed population becomes victim to more violence than an armed one.
Criminals who don't have guns will turn to other weapons. Knives, bats, bottles or even just their fists. The key point is that they know their victims are unarmed so are more likely to commit a crime they may have previously thought twice about.
In the 1990s, some argued that the gun buyback would make no difference to the firearms homicide and suicide rates. Yet a series of careful studies have shown otherwise. In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia experienced an average of one mass shooting (involving five or more deaths) every year. Since then, we have not had a mass shooting. The odds of this being a coincidence are less than one in 100.
In terms of mass shooting, if those stats are correct, the gun control policy has been a resounding success, however it should not be the policy of any administration to eradicate mass shootings at the expense of a disarmed population and rapidly rising violent crime.
Mass shootings are rare. That's what gets them so much media attention. A mass shooting can pull on the public heartstrings (after being properly manipulated by the media) a lot more than any single killing.
You're more likely to die falling off your step ladders while hanging a picture than you are to die as the victim of a mass shooting. Nobody attempts to ban step ladders or regulate picture hanging because deaths from these things are not publicly emotive.
The fact that there have been no mass shooting since gun control came to Australia is largely moot. The bigger picture needs to be looked at. The cost to society of a defenceless population faced by higher violent crime levels must take priority over the unfortunately horrible but fortunately rare phenomenon of the mass shooting.
The gun buyback also had some unexpected pay-offs. [...] found that the firearm suicide and homicide rates more than halved after the Australian gun buyback. Although the gun death rate was falling before 1997, it accelerated downwards after the buyback. Looking across states, we also found jurisdictions where more guns were bought back experienced a greater reduction in firearms homicide and suicide.
Suicide rates are also a totally moot point. Some people 'attempt suicide' in order to get attention. Anyone who eats the barrel of a gun is deadly serious about their desire to die. Someone who is that serious will find a way to end their life even if they have no access to a gun.
If I decided I wanted to end it all (Unlikely. Life's good) the easiest and most painless way for me would be to take my shotgun out of the cabinet and blow my bonce off. If the Government took my gun I would have to pick the next best option, exhaust into the car for example (Although apparently three burning cigarettes will do it just as good). The point is, I would do it one way or another
If you reduce access to guns you will reduce gun suicides but not the suicide rate as a whole.
We estimate that the Australian gun buyback continues to save about 200 lives per year. That means thousands of people are walking the streets today who would not be alive without the National Firearms Agreement. Other work, including by public health researchers Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers, Kingsley Agho and Michael Jones, reaches a similar conclusion.
I don't know where this 200 lives thing comes from, but without doing a scrap of research of my own I can conclude that it's utter bollocks. The fact is that I have done a lot of research of my own and I know it's utter bollocks.
Gun control has never saved lives, it has always increased crime and increased violence. In many countries around the world, gun control has put the population in the most danger from the very people who are supposed to be protecting them, their own governments, which in the case of the USA, is the very reason for the existence of the 2nd amendment.
Here's a little news report that might put some perspective on the ridiculous claims made in this article. It covers the UK first, then Australia. Enjoy.
Did you notice Simon Chapmans name in that article? It's not only your fags he wants to take.