Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings

In the current debate on imposing even more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms than already exist, reference is often made to the Australian gun confiscation scheme that was put into effect in 1996. While the results of the scheme have been subject to argument, with papers showing both no effect, small overall increases in crime, and small decreases in homicide, proponents have claimed that the confiscation and ban are responsible for the lack of mass shootings since 1997.

Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, pulblished in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

The focus of the paper, mass shootings, falls in the trap of looking only at shooting incidents. This approach is fundamentally flawed because of the possibility of substitute methods. It does not matter to the person murdered if they are killed with a gun, petrol bomb, or knife. For public policy, it is overall homicide rates that are important, not the type of instrument used. Still the study has useful information not available elsewhere.

I found particularly interesting the fact that mass shootings are extremely rare events. They were even rarer before the modern era of gun regulation and mass media. Only one was noted in Australia before 1980, that one occurred in 1971. One was found in New Zealand, that occurred in 1941. During that time period, gun regulations were far less stringent than they are today.

The paper merely notes the study of the "copycat effect" induced by media coverage; the focus is on the incidence of mass shootings.

Since 1980, 12 mass killings occurred in Australia and 4 in New Zealand, about the same when corrected for population differences. Most of the mass killings were domestic, 8 of the 12 in Australia, 2 of the 4 in New Zealand. New Zealand has significant ownership of the firearms banned in Australia. Neither country has has a mass shooting since 1997.

I recommend the study to anyone interested in criminology, mass killings, or citizen disarmament.

But this is logical and rational. IF you believe that the anti-gun side really wants to increase safety then they would have to agree. Anti-gunners fall into many camps, but the two most prominent that I can see are the dedicated statists like 0bama who want their jackbooted thugs to rule over defenseless peasants, and those shallow minded who are afraid. Not just of guns, but of freedom, responsibility and all that having a free society entails.

Neither of these groups is susceptible to rational logical arguments.

I've said this before many times, and I'll doubtless say it again. Anti-gunners can't be bargained with, because A. They have nothing to give - all they want is to take and take until we have no rights left, and B. They never keep their promises anyway. They can't be reasoned with because their hatred of guns in the hands of citizens (they never seem to mind the police being armed though) is irrational or cynically self serving. They have no pity or even the slightest understanding of those of us who want effective means to defend ourselves from the unorganized and organized criminals because in their minds our owning guns makes US criminals, and they NEVER stop. They never quit. They're never satisfied. Every additional infringement is "A good first step" to them.

There are only three final ends to this.

They win. we're disarmed and dutifully turn our arms over to the police then to be at the mercy of anyone.
We're killed "resisting arrest" by the government's beloved police
We kill enough anti-gunners and their thugs to end the threat for a generation.

We may move very slowly like the frog that starts out in the pot of cold water and ends up boiled because he didn't recognize the threat in time, and we may win a few legislative delaying actions. But in the end it's going ot be one of the three.

Australia needs a pro-gun advertising campaign, which might have to run a decade or more to convince them of the value of guns. As things are now, they are pretty programmed against guns at all levels, by their government and media.

So the campaign would have to be pretty comprehensive and work at a lot of different psychological levels.

“Oz needs to make the nation the same as the Swiss, because the Chinese are coming one of these days and nothing will stop them unless there is a gun behind every bush and wallaby.”

Correct. They also need their own nuclear weapons, because they sure cannot count on the U.S. Obama administration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.