|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/18/2012 5:58:34 AM)
|
Everybody seems to be arguing about how fast and how many of which type of gun can fire what.
Who gives a shit about all that?
All the gun-toting NRA supporters always quote the 2nd and spout how many illegal weapons couldn't be stopped coming into the country and that severe gun restrictions don't work, blah, blah, blah.
But as Obama stated in his Sunday evening speech in Newtown, "we can't stop all the killings with new laws but that is no reason for inaction".
Well, here is simple concrete proof that gun restrictions DO work that I think even jlf can comprehend -
The UK drastically repealed it's gun ownership laws and the number of gun-related mass killings and crimes plummeted.
The same thing happened in Autralia.
Headline: In 1996, Australia enacted gun control measures. There have been no mass shootings since.
The worse mass murder in Australian history happened on April 28, 1996, when a gunman killed 35 and wounded 23 in a Tasmanian seaside resort.
The conservative Prime Minister John Howard responded with gun control legislation and a mass buyback of about one-fifth of all the firearms in circulation in Australia.
As The Washington Post points out, it worked: "Howard cites a study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 per cent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 per cent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."
In the wake of the Aurora shootings, Howard visited America and, on his return, remained convinced of the efficacy of gun control. He wrote a comment piece for Australian newspaper The Age titled "Brothers in arms, yes, but the US needs to get rid of its guns".
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/in-1996-australia-enacted-gun-control-measures-there-have-been-no-mass-shootings-since-8421740.html
Original source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
In the 18 years leading up to the change in gun laws, Australia had 13 gun-related mass killings.
In the 16 years since the gun control legislation was introduced, the number of gun-related mass killings is 0.
Source: BBC news last night.
Yes, you did read it right, it's not a typo, since gun law reform in Australia the number of mass killings is ZERO!!
Zero, nada, zilch, none. Not a single mass killing since they introduced severe gun ownership.
Do I need to spell it out again so the information sinks in??
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
The original source goes on to say -
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes.
In just 12 days, the Aussies had their gun laws radically changed and it worked.
And, just like the UK, there was no referendum on it, no public vote, no consultation; they just did it.
Yet the US asshats just can't get their shit together and do something similar.
And before anyone starts spouting about illegal guns killing people etc, Australia and the UK have just the same problems with arms smuggling as the USA does.
The only difference is the gun ownership laws.
jlf: Can you come up with a resonable, coherent, logical argument that counters these facts and that the US shouldn't have strict gun law reforms?
Other than the 2nd, which both the UK and Australia had an equivalent and just swept them aside to make new laws.
Can you now tell me and the countless millions in favour of gun law reform that it does not work?
I have shown two countries that had radical gun law reforms and it worked.
If you honestly don't think it works, provide proof and legitimate sources.
|
|
|
|
