Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Im finding it hard to understand your justifications Toad.
[/b]
Don't worry, that's a mutual problem here.
Your quote a crime rate that hasnt changed before or after the Ban. Surely that tells you something? Crime doesnt go down. It only ever goes up.
[/b]
Sorry, Spook. You're just plain wrong. Crime rates in the US have been dropping across the board over the last 10-15 years. It's just this last year that has seen a
small upward spike. This is pretty well documented in our media if you care to look. Or from your own posted link, if you wish:
The United States has the highest homicide rate of 6.8 per 100 000 population. The US rate has been declining since 1994
Declining without using a gun buy back or ban; declining (for whatever combination of reasons) using just OUR system of restricting some buyers.
How could this be possible without a gun ban, eh? Obviously, there's a whole lot more to it than just the guns.
Further, your Australian crime rates had been dropping as well prior to Port Arthur. Again I quote from YOUR link:
In 1995-96 the proportion of homicides committed with a firearm was 21 per cent, a figure much lower than that which prevailed twenty years ago (the proportion then was around 40 per cent). The proportion has continued at that rate ever since. Thus, the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides
So, let's look at it.
US crime rates declined with NO buy-back/ban.
Australian crimes rates WERE declining up until Port Arthur and the ban
but have STAYED THE SAME (unlike the US which continued to decline slightly) ever since the buy-back/ban.
So what did you folks accomplish with your ban?
Nothing that I can see documented. You made a nice "feelgood" move that had essentially no effect except to put your lawful hunters and shooters through a lot of pointless, unnecessary BS.
Spook: Again, its not about restricting the lawful citizen. Its about restricting everyone. A lawful citizen is only lawful until engaged in criminal activity.
[/b]
Jeez, that last line chillingly reminds me of the "guilty until proven innocent" approach that our Founders were obviously so against. Our whole jurisprudence system is based on the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty.
It's not "if engaged in criminal activity" it's "until".
If that' the atttude of Australian government.. whew. I'm REALLY glad I live here in the US now!
And perhaps that's the big difference. I think we're (US) focused on allowing people rights until and IF they prove themselves unworthy of exercising those rights.
Some governments, notably England and Australia, have taken the view that no one is worthy of exercising some rights.
Spook: Anyone with a Legitimate purpose for owning a gun, ie; farmers, sporting shooters, occupational needs etc can still buy a gun in this country.
[/b]
If I read your gun rights as clipped and posted above, that's simply a bit of misdirection. Your government decides "legitimate purpose" and even describes the firearms that can be used. Pump shotguns prohibited? That's the mainstay of the US hunter; inexpensive and extremely reliable. It's most certainly a legitimate gun for hunting. Yet it's prohibited in you country. I'd view that as a typical government overreaction.
And while you're citizens can buy a gun, they're very restricted on how/when they can use it, how/when they can store it, how much ammunition they can have on hand, etc.? are they not?
In short, Australia, like England, has made it cumbersome and difficult to own and use whatever firearms have been left as "available" to the citizenry.
And again, to what end? Previously declining crime rates in both of those countries have either stabilized or increased. No gain for all the BS.
Spook: Show due cause and lawful excuse and you get one. Otherwise you dont. Pretty basic methodology.
One that doesn't work, apparently. We've had declining rates without any bans.
You've had declining rates until the ban and then they stabilized.
And that's from YOUR link.
Bottom line is this and you can't get around it:
, the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides
[/b]
In fact, none of the scientists/stats can show that the post-Port Arthur gun laws had anything at all to do with declining rates since we, the worst of the worst, had declining rates WITHOUT any "post-Port Arthur (type) gun laws".
So, simply put, your buy back did NOTHING. And that's why I'm biased against that solution. It hasn't worked for you.
It's simply a "feelgood" measure by any objective assessment of the data.
And that's where we differ. I'm sure you don't agree.
I wonder what would have happened to Australia's crime rate had all that money, time and effort been poured into the police force instead of searching for and buying up some old farmer's bolt-action Enfield. I'll wager it would have continued to decline rather than stabilized.