It went from 1.8 to 1.2. You do notice a reduction since 1996, but it follows a general downward trend that stated in 1980. But I don’t think you can say homicides have dramatically decreased, can you? You see a slow decline before and after the ban. Yes you can see the dip in gun death numbers, but you can’t see a clear dip in homicide numbers. (The causes for the violence were still there, they just used something else.) You even note 2 spikes. The US has also had a general downward trend since 1990. An even more dramatic one, actually.
But that aside, our homicide rates were never close to being the same. The Oz gun rates were never near our levels even though they had potentially similar access. While homicide is down, we can’t conclude the gun ban was the the main factor, or if there was a general decrease in homicides we see generally around a lot of the world.
I bet it did have a positive effect on suicides though. But again, I disagree with preventing me from owning something because someone else my hurt themselves.
In the highly unlikely event of me ever running the USA ;-), I wouldn’t try to stop you from owning guns.
This:
… isn’t an attitude amenable to the kind of reason that lead to gun control in Oz. And I guess it’s widespread.
I’d just tax the hell out of ammunition and anything you can use to make it with. Guns don’t kill people, it’s the disruptive effects of the energy imparted to bodily tissues by bullets traversing them that kill people. Make ammunition rarer and expensive and you’d still be able to collect as many harmless precision engineered devices as you please.
So people will reload. It’s not that difficult to cast bullets (todo: literature research to find the proper flux to react away the alloying elements from car battery plates that interfere with casting). Powder and primers are more challenging but we did comparable chemistry at high school and in the worst case you can synth stuff from air and water and electricity.
Absolutely they will. But just because you and I and many on this board are able to do things like that doesn’t mean the average gun owner is*. Most people aren’t that technically minded so access to ammunition would naturally fall. Many of those who are capable would find the process tedious and not bother.
Then once enough people get bored with their guns that are so expensive to play with they can’t make sexy “bang” noises with them any more; a buyback program would likely be more successful and much cheaper to run. A bit later, when there are less gun owners, I could try gun control again …
*Even the despicable murderous arse —a real gun nut if ever there was one— who perpetrated The Hungerford Massacre was incapable of easily stripping, cleaning and reassembling his guns without assistance. I seriously doubt he’d ever have learned how to reload even though the expertise to learn was available at his (our ) gun club.
[quote=“Mister44, post:263, topic:75521”]
It went from 1.8 to 1.2. … I don’t think you can say homicides have dramatically decreased, can you?[/quote]
you don’t consider a 30% drop dramatic? No wonder you’re incapable of expressing a number of how many killed per year is unacceptable.
Never? NZ used to have armed police and _wide_spread firearms ownership. We collectively turned away from all that - socially as well as legislatively - once it became irrelevant. I suspect Oz did to.
So let’s think a bit. Let’s redesign the cartridge so the hard to get, limited lifetime brass is not needed. Say use a 3d-printed plastic, possibly with infinitely reusable metal shell, the polymer lined inside with an intumescent or ablative coating to withstand the fire for the fraction of second; the printed part then can be single-use as you can crank out as many as you want with just some patience.
There are more possible solutions out there. Just think out of the box.
Over 30+ years? No. It isn’t dramatic. It is a gradual change. I suppose it is significant, going from very rare to hardly ever.
Mmm - nope. Doesn’t look like anywhere near the US’s murder rate. Even way back when gun laws were similar. At least not since 1950. Maybe waaay back when Australia was full of criminals.
When are you all going to be open to the fact that the REASONS for crime and the REASONS people are willing to kill are independent of the tools available? That maybe it isn’t our guns, it’s our people.
But interestingly, in the PRC the death toll in attacks tends to be lower than the US variety because the most available tools are makeshift clubs and edged weapons. So maybe it is your guns?[quote=“Mister44, post:280, topic:75521”]
… it’s our people.
[/quote]
You aren’t arguing American Exceptionalism are you? Because surely it has to be just a bit embarrassing to be claiming that your nation is uniquely violent? Plus the overall Intentional Homicide Rates don’t really bear that out. You’re way down at 115th place there, despite the regular gun mayhem.
I agree with you that unhinged people will use the tools they have available to create carnage once they’re minded to do so. It’s just that the whole history of warfare has surely taught us that clubs are defeated by edged weapons; which fall to arrows; which are outclassed by guns? Guns are just really efficient at what they do well. So why make them easily available? Come and join Oz (186th), UK (187th) and NZ (196th), way down the table.
Look - I concede guns make killing easier. But, again, the huge overwhelming majority of people who own guns who don’t hurt anyone. Why does this minority trump the majority? If I suggested keeping Muslims out of the country, on the off chance they get all blow-uppy, like the unfortunate example today in Iraq, I would be rightfully called a bigot. So why are guns labeled as “bad” when only a tiny amount are used to harm others in the US?
Pretty much EVERYONE has access to at least a kitchen knife. An average person could kill their whole family in their sleep with one. Or drown their young kids in the bath. Or clip pedestrians on the side of the road with their car. EVERYONE has access to something that could cause bodily harm. Fortunately nearly everyone is sane and doesn’t want to hurt others.
We are exceptionally violent? No, I am saying we are DIFFERENT. We are unique in some ways. I think every country is to a degree. Hell parts of the US are unique to other parts. It is a HUGE, massive nation with many subcultures.
Why is it if an American says such and such people should do things this way because it works here they get chastised for being insensitive to cultural differences - but not the other way around.
If you cherry picked the data, removing the worst sections of large cities, the murder rate is much closer to that of the Canada and the like. You’re right there are much worse countries with higher murder rates, and pretty much all of them have high levels of poverty. Is is possible that the US has pockets where poverty and hopelessness mimics a third world country, resulting in higher crime rates? Could the social safety nets some of these other countries have help reduce the need for some to commit crime?
Yes, of course. But the stats I’m quoting are from other technologically developed, first world, anglophone nations. We are culturally similar enough that most of us could quickly fit in if we migrate. We aren’t that different.
Because your compassion and need to make society better for your fellows should trump your desire to own a potentially lethal device that you don’t really need?
Why would you not do anything you can to try and stop that from happening ever again? Particularly as that sort of scenario is repeated over and over across your nation virtually every week?
) gun club.
Plus the overall 
