Necessary, because people keep bringing it up. Here - instead of International Politics - because here is where they keep bringing it up.
Let’s start off with:
By the way, violence in Oz was in decline before the gun ban.
nationalreview.com/article/4 … ma-america
c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/f … 202007.pdf
Pay attention to the starting point.
I pity the Australians. It must be awful to live under such oppression. 
Hmmm.
So the last date shows about .2 homocides per 100,000. So about 40 a year. A 3.2% increase would be 1.28 more homocides per year. Which is meaningless as an indicator of anything.
Keep stretching roland.
Any way you look at it, the ban has been effective.
12 mass shootings in the 18 years before the ban, none in the 18 years since.
65% decline in the gun suicide rate.
59% decline in the gun murder rate.
The decade before the ban, intentional gun death rates dropped 33%. In the decade after, 60%.
Of course this article needs to be taken with a grain of salt because it wasn’t done in finger paint but it’s a good overview. nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world … .html?_r=0
Do you actually live in Taiwan? Do you feel oppressed by the fact that guns are illegal here, and by the resulting rarity of mass shootings here?
If I remember correctly, the change in Australia’s gun laws in 1996 was supported by well over 90% of the Australian population. Semi-automatic centerfire rifles, previously legal, were banned, and this measure was seen as being very reasonable since almost no one in Australia had a need for such a weapon (farmers conducting certain kinds of pest control can get an exemption, providing they can show a need for a semi-auto centerfire). There were also new rules on shotguns and handguns but I forget the details.
Anyone wishing to own a gun in Australia must have a ‘genuine reason’ which does not include self defence. Hunting is a genuine reason (you need written permission of a landowner before buying a gun for hunting). And being a member of a gun club is another genuine reason, but you must have membership of a club before purchasing a gun and you must actively participate in the club in order to keep it. It is illegal to carry guns on your person in public, and you can only transport guns in a vehicle to and from your gun club, hunting permission, gunsmith etc.
Edit.
Coming from a hunting family, I want to say that the new tougher laws had absolutely no impact on us, aside from having to comply with stricter storage requirements - for many people this basically meant buying a gun safe. Hunters really have no ‘need’ for semi-automatic weapons.
Tyranny.
It’s commanism, I tells ya!
and your fear is that public knowledge of the facts will result in reasonable gun legislation.
I’m more concerned about the mass stabbings.
[quote=“antarcticbeech”]
Coming from a hunting family, I want to say that the new tougher laws had absolutely no impact on us, aside from having to comply with stricter storage requirements - for many people this basically meant buying a gun safe. Hunters really have no ‘need’ for semi-automatic weapons.[/quote]
Depends on what you’re hunting, and whether what you’re hunting is hunting you back.
Which brings in the topic of Australia’s immigration policies. Shall we talk about that?
No it doesn’t. The weapon of choice for dangerous game is a bolt-action. The benchmark cartridge for large, dangerous game is widely considered to be the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum but, as far as I am aware, no one even makes a semi-auto in .375 H&H. Winchester’s Model 70 Safari Express - chambered in .375 H&H, .416 Rem and 458 Win Mag - is a bolt gun. Ruger’s Guide Gun - supposedly designed for professional hunters guiding clients onto dangerous game and, thus, available in .375 H&H - is also a bolt-action. Browning’s offerings in .375 H&H are all bolt-actions.
The vast majority of semi-autos produced are chambered in the piddling little .223/5.56mm and the relatively piddling .308/7.62mm, neither of which is a dangerous game cartridge. They are military cartridges designed to be short, so that the size of any self-loading action designed around them can be minimized and not overly cumbersome; having a small round also has the added benefit of allowing one soldier to carry many rounds of ammunition. In civilian use no one would select a .223 to hunt dangerous game, unless you consider rabbits dangerous; it is a varmint round. Likewise, very few hunters would use a .308 on anything likely to “hunt you back” because it is also under-powered. In civilian use the .308 is basically a deer cartridge, or a moderately long range target round. Few semi-autos sold to civilians are chambered in anything bigger. Browning’s BAR is available in 338 Win Mag, which is certainly big enough for anything in North America, yet the vast majority of hunters of dangerous game continue to choose bolt actions for their dependability. I suspect there are far more lever guns out there in 45/70 and .444 Marlin than semi-autos in .338. And anyone wanting to splurge on a rifle for such a task would buy a custom double. Jim Corbett, the legendary hunter of man-eating tigers, used a ‘light’ bolt-action rifle when doing a lot of walking and a ‘heavy’ double rifle when not.
As long as they don’t let in any criminals we should be alright.
which is different to some time ago, when they only let in criminals (and their guards, who were a pretty dire lot as well).
Where do you even get your figures from? They aren’t even quoted in your right-wing ‘news’ articles.
Contrast those with Wikipedia:
According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, “…the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996”. There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Of those 260 victims however, only 36 were homicides involving a firearm. Also, “The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).”. In 2014, only 35 people were victims of firearms homicide (1 in 685000 population),[36] compared to 98 people in 1996 [37] (1 in 186000 population). A 3.7 fold decrease in firearm homicide rates since controls were introduced.
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved over the ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[38] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[39]
And all of this despite Australia’s population increasing from ~18 million to ~24 million since the ban on guns.
In terms of overall homicide rates per year, these show a clear trend downwards after the country-wide ban of guns
Feel free to move this.
Guy was shooting and a dude just walked up behind him and took his gun. Didn’t shoot him with it, tho.