Politicspolitics

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:09 PM

How Australia Got An Assault Weapons Ban

Under the auspices of a conservative government.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man named Martin Bryant drove his yellow Volvo to a popular tourist spot in Port Arthur, Australia, a former penal colony on the island state of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon. Before the day was through, he had shot dead 35 people and wounded 18 others. Twelve of those deaths came at the Broad Arrow Café, where Bryant first ate lunch and then sprayed bullets with his Colt AR-15 SP1, which he had stowed in a tennis bag. At the gift shop next door, he murdered eight more people. Later, he stopped his car to give a ride to a young mother who was running away from the sound of gun fire with her two children aged 3 and 6. When the mother figured out that he was the murderer, she and the kids ran —all three were shot dead at close range.

Within just weeks of that tragedy, elected officials in each of Australia’s six states and two mainland territories—pressed forward by police chiefs across the continent and by the then-newly elected prime minister, John Howard—banned semi-automatic and other military-style weapons across the country. The federal government of Australia prohibited their import, and lawmakers introduced a generous nationwide gun buyback program, funded with a Medicare tax, to encourage Australians to freely give up their assault-style weapons. Amazingly, many of them did.

A land of roughneck pioneers and outback settlers, Australia had never embraced much government regulation and certainly not about their guns. This was a land of almost cartoonish toughness and self-reliance, home of Crocodile Dundee and Australian rules football. Here even the kangaroos box. But Port Arthur had followed too many prior deadly shooting sprees and Australians were clearly sick to death of them.

So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.

Nothing, that is, in a good way.

Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.

As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.
(Excerpted)
https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

21 replies, 464 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply How Australia Got An Assault Weapons Ban (Original post)
jh4freedom Aug 2019 OP
jh4freedom Aug 2019 #1
Gunslinger201 Aug 2019 #5
jh4freedom Aug 2019 #10
Jardinier Aug 2019 #2
Gunslinger201 Aug 2019 #3
Jardinier Aug 2019 #6
D26-15 Aug 2019 #9
Banshee 3 Actual Aug 2019 #4
Frankenvoter Aug 2019 #7
Banshee 3 Actual Aug 2019 #15
Frankenvoter Aug 2019 #16
Oldgeezer Aug 2019 #8
jh4freedom Aug 2019 #11
Oldgeezer Aug 2019 #12
jh4freedom Aug 2019 #17
KittyCatIdiots Aug 2019 #18
PrescientWon. Aug 2019 #14
jh4freedom Aug 2019 #21
PrescientWon. Aug 2019 #13
357blackhawk Aug 2019 #19
pavulon-lives Aug 2019 #20

Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:13 PM

1. Assault Weapons Ban followed by handgun legislation

In 2002, a mentally impaired student at Monash University in Melbourne shot two people dead and injured five others. He came to his rampage with six handguns, not an assault rifle. Had he been carrying an AR-15, the toll would have been far worse. But even so, Australian lawmakers added a new National Handgun Agreement, a separate buyback act, and a reformulated gun trafficking policy to their legislative arsenal.

There has been no similar shooting spree since.

But it wasn’t just the murderous rampages that faded away. Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1 killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of America’s.

Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has about 2.7 million residents.)

Perhaps most remarkable is what happened with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one analysis.

What stopped many of those would-be suicides—quite straightforwardly, it seems—was the lack of access to a gun, a generally immediate and effective method of killing. (Nine out of 10 suicide attempts with a firearm result in death, a far higher share than attempts by other methods.) Public health experts call such an effect “means restriction.” Some Australians found other ways to take their own lives—but for many, that acute moment of sadness and resolve passed in the absence of a gun.

Suicide “is commonly an impulsive act by a vulnerable individual,” explain E. Michael Lewiecki and Sara A. Miller in the American Journal of Public Health. “The impulsivity of suicide provides opportunities to reduce the risk of suicide by restricting access to lethal means.”

Which brings us back to the here and now. In 2015, an unthinkable 22,103 Americans shot themselves to death with a gun —accounting for just over half of the suicides in the country that year.

It isn’t hard to imagine what would happen without all those guns at the ready. In a world of raging hypotheticals, we actually have some good, hard answers for this. All we have to do is look down under. There are millions of American families begging us to do it.
https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:18 PM

5. Let me know when you repeal the 2nd Amendment

Its not going to happen...not again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 06:33 PM

10. And yet...in accordance with the 2nd Amendment

The National Firearms Act of 1934
The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.

While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.

As structured in 1934, the NFA imposed a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms, as well as mere possessors of unregistered firearms, to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. If the possessor of an unregistered firearm applied to register the firearm as required by the NFA, the Treasury Department could supply information to State authorities about the registrant’s possession of the firearm. State authorities could then use the information to prosecute the person whose possession violated State laws. For these reasons, the Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution — the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.

Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968

Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. First, the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed. Indeed, under the amended law, there is no mechanism for a possessor to register an unregistered NFA firearm already possessed by the person. Second, a provision was added to the law prohibiting the use of any information from an NFA application or registration as evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration. In 1971, the Supreme Court reexamined the NFA in the Freed case and found that the 1968 amendments cured the constitutional defect in the original NFA.

Title II also amended the NFA definitions of “firearm” by adding “destructive devices” and expanding the definition of “machinegun.”

Firearm Owners’ Protection Act
In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the Gun Control Act to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:15 PM

2. You cant compare Australians to Americans

Australians are cunts. Botany Bay cunts. The worse kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jardinier (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:17 PM

3. Pommie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:21 PM

6. Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jardinier (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 06:17 PM

9. Cunts that like to think that playig with alligators is macho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:18 PM

4. Firearms are not an CONSTITUTIONAL Right in Australia like they are in the USA

Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105

''No State can convert a liberty, into a license and charge a fee therefore''
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm


Shuttlesworth vs. City of Birmingham 394 US 197

''If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the Citizen can ignore the license and fee
and engage in the right(liberty) with impunity"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742
The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 05:30 PM

7. I read the second amendment to mean anything I can carry, which would include an anti tank weapon

But not a tank.

Same as small anti-air arms, whatever I can carry, to help maintain a well regulated militia, that is meant to be just what it says, a militia.

Our armed forces are supposed to take care of threats from without, the militia is supposed to take care of problems from within.

That's how I see it and any government spooks around here who like to go run and tell the government when someone says something they dont agree with because they get the giggles from it (cough) RCcola2014(cough cough).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 07:50 PM

15. The Militia under US law

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 07:54 PM

16. Was that what the founders wrote?

Or was that legislated through congress at some point?

The deep state likes keeping thier subjects defenseless there's no doubt about that. I read the intent of the founders as well as thier actual words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 06:02 PM

8. You tried...failed miserably...but you tried...failed horribly...

There is no 2A protection in Australia.
How do make the comparison with a modicum of relevance ?...don't bullshit Us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oldgeezer (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 06:36 PM

11. Tell that to Congress and Presidents

Who passed and signed into law the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 06:41 PM

12. That has WHAT to do with Australia? OR our 2nd amendment?

Do you proof read what you type before you hit the "post my reply" button......?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oldgeezer (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 10:09 PM

17. Well let me try to explain it to you

Under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of laws that regulate certain categories of “arms” that citizens do not have a right to bear (fully automatic weapons) and the Supreme Court has upheld the right of government to regulate the ownership of arms via registration. New, fully automatic weapons—weapons that reload automatically and fire continuously with one trigger pull—have been banned for civilians in the United States since the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. The Act contains a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the years since passage, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.
Also the Act prohibited the right to bear arms to anyone (among other categories) who is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996 via the Lautenberg Amendment.)
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (consisting of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) did not violate the Second Amendment, and did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The mass murder in Australia was the catalyst for an assault weapons ban in that nation. I can see the current impetus that new gun control legislation is getting in reaction to ElPaso/Dayton being a similar catalyst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #17)


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 07:05 PM

14. it's arguable that BOTH were unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PrescientWon. (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:53 AM

21. Every piece of legislation is arguable

The bottom line is that when there are actual Constitutional tests of a law, it is the Supreme Court’s job to render a decision. The law banning citizens from having a right to keep and bear machine guns has been on the books for 85 years now and the law reaffirming that 1934 law has been on the books for 33 years now.

The courts have upheld as constitutional those laws that deny the following categories of citizens the right to keep and bear arms:
(1) Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.
(2) Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
(3) Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
(4) Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
(5) Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.
(6) Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
(7) Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
(8) Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
(9) Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
(10) A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Mon Aug 12, 2019, 07:05 PM

13. How did they get around the right to keep and bear arms in teh Aussie Constitution??

Oh... wait!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:06 AM

19. Not true.

On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man named Martin Bryant drove his yellow Volvo to a popular tourist spot in Port Arthur, Australia, a former penal colony on the island state of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon. Before the day was through, he had shot dead 35 people and wounded 18 others. Twelve of those deaths came at the Broad Arrow Café, where Bryant first ate lunch and then sprayed bullets with his Colt AR-15 SP1, Which he did not obtain legally. The other weapon was stolen from a Victoria state police armory.

Within just weeks of that tragedy, elected officials in each of Australia’s six states and two mainland territories—pressed forward by police chiefs across the continent and by the then-newly elected prime minister, John Howard—banned semi-automatic and other military-style weapons across the country. The federal government of Australia prohibited their import, and lawmakers introduced a generous nationwide gun buyback program, funded with a Medicare tax, to encourage Australians to freely give up their assault-style weapons. Amazingly, many of them did. Actually, the public was bombarded by anti gun propaganda by State owned media and the Howard government, no dissenting voices allowed. The NFA was quickly passed because Howard blackmailed the states with with holding health care funds, much like Carter did with the speed limit and Reagan did with drinking ages. Also, compliance rate was 20 percent. Many of the guns collected were sold on the black market by corrupt police.

A land of roughneck pioneers and outback settlers, Australia had never embraced much government regulation and certainly not about their guns. This was a land of almost cartoonish toughness and self-reliance, home of Crocodile Dundee and Australian rules football. Here even the kangaroos box. But Port Arthur had followed too many prior deadly shooting sprees and Australians were clearly sick to death of them. Not true either, most Australians live in coastal cities, the "Crocodile Dundee" types have no voice in government at all.

Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate. Since Australia doesn't have freedom of speech, it is a tyranny. Nothing there worth invading the place for. Violence was dropping since 1980, then a spike after NFA, than continued to drop the same rate as before.

As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years. complete bullshit. 95 people have died in mass murders, including shootings, since vs 92 prior.

My problem is this: gun control advocates have no valid arguments. All they have are logical fallacies, distortions, and lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:22 AM

20. word of the day - noncompliance

compliance rates in democrat states like NY and CT with assault weapon bans is 15%. Now those states are full of people who elect democrats and bend the knee to their bullshit.

Now consider the rest of the US, pass an awb and no one will comply. Like prohibition or the recent LA mag ban, everyone ignored it.

Weed's illegal federally, ignored. Sanctuary cities, now we have 2nd amendment sanctuaries where democrats pass gun regs. Colorado mag ban is ignored.

Democrats stroke it to new zeland and other bans but in reality it's prohibition. when it ended drinking was more popular. go for it, see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics