Reasonable gun control works in Australia, why not try it here?
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
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.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. 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.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. 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. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
- BrianLv 48 years agoFavorite Answer
Some will say "Reasonable claim is unreasonable" Others will thump the "2nd Amendment" but the fact of the matter is simple.
" In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."
90% Public approval matters.
If 90% of people in the united stats actually supported change it would likely happen. Sadly things get passed by 1 vote here.
Edit: To Len "Or die with"
- ErikaLv 44 years ago
Well, only a quick note. The very first thing that Hitler (And Stalin) did when he made up our minds to take control of the lots was to impose gun control. So, if you are asking whether or not or not gun manage takes away the potential for citizens to defend themselves and their families, then sure. Does it control crime? NO! There are *zero* weapons allowed in Washington DC, yet its probably the most easiest crime rate areas in the united states.
- 8 years ago
Reasonable gun control works in Australia? That's why the people are begging for their guns back?
Violent crime went up by over 50% after they banned semi-automatic weapons. It's less safe than ever before.
This pretty much sums it up.
- kril_420Lv 78 years ago
Sure, play the Reasonable card. That's just like you people.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Alvin ColmesLv 78 years ago
Maybe it's time to put reasonable controls on other Bill of Rights amendments? heheheSource(s): hehehe
- Anonymous8 years ago