Talk:Gun laws of Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Beginning a re-write

I am commencing a series of edits on this page to improve coherence, add to the history of the debate, and start to prune excessive verbiage. Please feel free to chime in and correct me or add to the work.ChrisPer (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Michael Glass for a solid set of improvements in your edits! ChrisPer (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also Hayden120. Article is improved by your attention to detail, can I suggest we hold discussion here as well as in the comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisPer (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to offer more suggestions for this page? I think we need - better references for Martin Bryant's record of police interview, the proportions of types of guns destroyed in the buyback, and the 'incentives' applied to the State governments to sign on to the NAF. - better information on the history of activist groups - What? ChrisPer (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Counting suicides - does substitution matter?

Recent changes by 58.175.200.179 (Keir) apply anti-gun activist backspin to the text on interpreting suicide statistics.

Fact: Gun suicides fell by a certain percentage for about 3 years after 1997. Fact: Total suicides actually rose higher for the same years after 1997.

A number of pro-control people (eg Ozanne-Smith) claim the reduction in 'gun deaths' as the number 'lives saved'. Is this fair or not?

An unknown number of shooters committed suicide in the years after 1996. I knew one myself, and another one was reported (in writing, by a person I know) as a member of his family who took the compensation for his Grandfather's shotgun then bought a bottle of whisky and a rope, and hung himself. Is this man's life then a life saved by gun control?

Fact: Following an anti-gun report on a current affairs program, a person travelled to Tasmania and bought a gun by the method shown on the program, and killed himself. The coroner found that the man acted on a script provided by the program. (Source: Lovibond J. 1996. ‘Hobart gun death related to TV show’, Hobart Mercury, 21/05/1996, Ed: 1, Pg: 2, 511 words. Newstext)

Please make a case for the spin put on these statistics; otherwise I will just revert. ChrisPer 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fact: Gun suicides fell by a certain percentage for about 3 years after 1997.

Fact: Total suicides actually rose higher for the same years after 1997.".....

i'm sorry but your mistaken, per 100k people both gun suicide continued to fall and the total suicide rates fell from 1997 [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack v1 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack V1, there was a rise in total suicides in the interval 1995-1997, as hanging suicides more than substituted the fall in gun suicides. They resumed falling after that as government poured resources into suicide prevention. ChrisPer (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wierd assertion: Australian shooters approach the political clout of the NRA?

On 22:17, 15 January 2009 203.122.228.160 removed "In Australia, shooter organisations have never approached the strength of the National Rifle Association in the United States, and political sympathisers are quite discreet in their support." The editor asserted "This info was not correct."

Really? I suppose if you count 'political sympathisers' to mean actual shooting activists it might be so, but this refers to political sympathisers such as politicians and journalists. These people have had to be very discreet indeed about their support.

I will add this sentence back unless the editor defends the deletion. ChrisPer (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course, and the paragraph needs to be re-added. The information is correct- I mean, even the PM is an acknowledged shooter (Clay Targets, I believe) yet the political situation prevents him from publicising this or openly advocating liberalisation of the existing firearms laws. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Govt funding for shooting sports?

thats true, but we arent being ignored, funding for range infrastructure improvements of 500 mil has recently been released, thats equal to the buyback Jack v1 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who has released all this money for range infrastructure improvements, out of curiosity? I've heard nothing about it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The money is normal sporting grants according to John Tingle, and no more has been given to shooting than to other sports. Nevertheless the usual suspects objected in the media. The only figure I have found is $427,000 (0.1% of your amount) which suggests you have been listening to activists hyperventilating, Jack v1. ChrisPer (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

it was federal gov that i saw when googling party views, i skimmed over it, as it wasnt my focus and may have mis-recalled the number, but federal gov doesnt talk in 1/2 mil numbers, in trying to google ..shooting range funding/grant to find it again, i came accross many millions spent, although not the page i was looking for, if we want to look at funding by all state and federal gov. of firearm sports, it would run into a mega amount, you seem to be discounting the effort to support shooting by the gov.. i am happy to email the state's and federal gov and get the money spent in the last 10 years and include it in this article, to show the gov/s finacial support of the sport, but my point is re: how we are a small number and could easily be ignored, but infact we arent and the sport is well supported Jack v1 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the sport is particularly well-supported; ranges are closing down and I don't know a single shooting club that has received a cent of Government funding. Then again, it's not like I've looked very closely, but you'd think they'd be making more note of it if they were getting funding from the government ("These range improvements made possible by a grant from the (State) Government" or something like that).Commander Zulu (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose its fair enough to say I 'seem to be discounting" etc - really I am testing your data, because I know a lead NCGC activist has claimed to be a 'shooter'. However, I know that real shooters vary all the way to support of extreme controls, so whatever you really are is OK with me. I will continue to try and frame writing from an objective position, and I approve evidence-based controls myself.

As for the support of the sport, ranges are being closed and harassed by government bodies as urbanisation spreads and OHS&E regulation increases. Half a bill would solve a LOT of problems, and I really doubt that much is being spent though I would be not at all surprised to see tens of millions. Show us the references! ChrisPer (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack v1 has not dropped back with references for the $500M figure. I have found the following:

"Sixteen projects, in all, have been given $517,726 for all sorts of things, such as general upgrading of facilities, safety fencing, turning targets, shooting benches, and so on... the Government also announced a grant of an extra $1million for shooting clubs, in the recent state budget." John TIngle on NSW sports funding 2001. http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2001/2001-06-22_shooters-party-newsletter-funding-shooting-clubs.html

SSAA National queries Government funding claim: SSAA National recently queried the Government’s claim that they funded the shooting sports with $1.6 million a year. The following is their response: “I was unable to get an actual funding breakdown of the $1.6 million however I was able to discover that the recipient of the funding is Australian International Shooting Limited which is apparently recognised as the peak body for shooting sports in Australia. AISL is a company limited by guarantee comprising five full Member organisations: Australian Clay Target Association; Field and Game Federation of Australia; National Rifle Association of Australia; Pistol Australia; and Target Rifle Australia. AISL has a funding and service level agreement with the ASC. In 2007-08, AISL will receive $1.6m. I understand AISL is supported by the ASC, the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Commonwealth Games Association.” It appears the SSAA and SSAA members will receive none of the allocated money and an actual break down of the $1.6 million is not available." http://www.ssaa.org.au/federal-election-07/national-queries-government-funding-claim.html

It appears that Jack's claim of half a billion dollars is unfounded. ChrisPer (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just concerned that almost the entire Federal funding for shooting sports is going to an organisation I've never heard of, to be honest. I'm familiar with the Australian Clay Target Association and the National Rifle Association of Australia, but I've never heard of the rest of them or the umbrella organisation! Commander Zulu (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be the bodies for Commonwealth and Olympic games competitition. This is funding for medals. Also it has to be on top of the other info whish is NSW alone. We can assume that loooking deeper would find grants in other states. The total figure for Ausralia is likely to be around 6M, proportionally and with that peak body added.ChrisPer (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1984-1996 section - add political events - 1988 Unsworth election and NCV report

Anyone object to adding reference to these events? ChrisPer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 1988 - Unsworth makes issue of guns in NSW election loses, partly blamed on gun issue. 1988-1990 National Committee on Violence recommends banning smacking, boxing, fixing aboriginal community problems and a wishlist of gun control laws.

Also back in the Federation onwards section, 1978 on the formation of anti-gun groups, 1979 publication of Harding's 'Firearms and violence in Australian life' first gun control conference at UWA in 1980...

All this Australian gun control activity before the mass shootings indicates a social root of gun control that is unrelated to the real magnitude of the problem of Australian spectacular gun violence. What, therefore, drove the creation of this activist movement? ChrisPer (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The activist movement for gun control developed out of concerned media and public response to certain events in the US. - the assassinations including JFK, RLK and MLK, and the Texas tower shootings, and later the attempts on Presidents Ford and Reagan. This response attacked the symbol and the tool, rather than the human side, and entrenched certain assumptions about humanity such as the violent person 'just snapping' and the likelihood of ordinary, innocent people 'just snapping', quite against empirical evidence, which justifies the tool-focused approach over so many decades of activism.

The creation of activist groups in Australia, which had very modest gun violence compared with the US, speaks to the adoption of US new-class values by Australian activists. Anti-war, feminist and environmental activism go together in overlapping groups of people culturally linked by the global medium of English-language mass communication. ChrisPer (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming Martin Bryant in mention of Port Arthur Massacre

Personally I can live without it, but someone just added it in. Due to my reading on the contagion effect I believe the hype increases the risk of copycats, just as the recent child throwing off West Gate Bridge can be traced through a chain of imitations partly facilitated by media reports. ChrisPer (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for section on 2002 Monash shootings and handgun buyback

Australian Parliament House website Bills Digest No. 155 2002-03 title=National Handgun Buyback Bill 2003 ISSN=1328-8091 Publisher=Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/BD/2002-03/03bd155.htm (has barrel length and other criteria)

The Age "Victoria delays gun buyback move" July 1 2003 By Phillip Hudson http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/30/1056825335239.html 'National Coalition for Gun Control chairwoman Samantha Lee said the buyback list was a hoax that would not reduce guns in society. "It's a taxpayer-funded gun-exchange scheme, not a buyback," she said. '

BRIEFING PAPER with full information on NSW for handgun buyback, gun crimes and illegal importation. (Section 6.2.iv describes compensation for leaving the sport) Firearms Restrictions:Recent Developments by Rowena Johns Briefing Paper No 3/04 NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE ISSN 1325-4456 ISBN 0 7313 1755 6 February 2004 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/9C0252B88F63421ECA256ECF00073CB7/$File/03-04.pdf ChrisPer (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Need sources for -Number of pistols actually removed and substitutes prurchased. Also for the mention of shooters after Port Arthur trying to join the Liberal Party. ChrisPer (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Implication of ABC bias...

"Media reports gave Professor Chapman wide publicity while failing to reveal his involvement in gun control activism, for instance in the Australian Broadcasting Commission news coverage[39]"

I think that to say 'for instance in the Australian Broadcasting Commission' implies a systematic misrepresentation of the facts of the NFA (and its effects) by the ABC. The citation which links to the ABC's Public Report on Audience Comments and Complaints reports two complaints relating one TV report and one on-line article. Further, if this is the supporting evidence for the assertion that 'media reports gave Professor Chapman wide publicity while failing to reveal his involvement in gun control activism', it is flimsy.

This sentence, which has a somewhat political smell, needs to be better substantiated or should be removed.

Irvwash (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Irvwash, the media bias in this regard is not ABC bias but across the major media. It is a fact and its referenced. Media organisations routinely frame articles relating to gun control activists supportively, while disrespecting the qualifications and arguments of shooter groups. Its part of the landscape of gun politics. It isn't 'flimsy', especially given that the ABC acknowledged their fault which is rather a rare event in claims of political bias. The story was picked up on numerous radio stations, news bulletins and newspapers and the same scenario occured - no mention that Professor Chapman was a man with high stakes in discrediting shooters arguments. ChrisPer (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, it was the ABC that devoted a program of Australian Story to rehabilitating a gun control activist, Tim Watson-Munro, who went on the skids from drug abuse. It was also the ABC that reported the unsupported claim of the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2002 that there was proof the Buyback had saved lives based on Reuter and Mouzos, failing to look at the 'evidence' presented in that conference which was not published until months later, when it actually said that the evidence was that long-term declines in gun deaths had continued more or less without change caused by the Buyback. That false report enabled John Howard's 2002 handgun buyback which was universally agreed to be a total waste of resources. ABC pro-activist bias in gun control as in other issues is an important factor in Australian politics. I may have to add more to the 'Major Players' section about this, thanks for raising it. ChrisPer (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I imagine it WOULD seem flimsy if it were totally new to you. I don't think it worth collecting examples from a dozen papers and media organisations but there was no instance of a reporter that bothered to check the facts and include in their report Professor Chapman's history. Incidentally, in a comment at Andrew Leigh's blog Chapman said he didn't mention it because the connection was more than five years ago, a piece of evasiveness if ever I heard one. ChrisPer (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY I come back a day later and have to respect what Irvash said. How about "Media reports gave Professor Chapman wide publicity while failing to reveal his involvement in gun control activism. In one instance of this, the Australian Broadcasting Commission upheld complaints over one of its programs reporting Professor Chapman's views.[39]"  ? ChrisPer (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your vigorous defense your position, however, this is an Encyclopedia and even if your assertions are true but unverifiable they must be omitted. I'm afraid I would like to see more references. This sentence struck me as political and I think it undermines the veracity of the article by hinting that it is really just a mediated statement between the pro and anti gun lobbies, not a statement of fact.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.46.168 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Irvwash, I am a bit unsure here. Are you saying the claim that media as a whole did not report Professor Champman's past is 'unverifiable', that the overall assertion that the media support guncontroil is 'unverifiable', or that the specific implication that the ABC is especially biased is 'unverifiable'? How many transcripts would be needed to show that the ABC was merely the same as the rest of the media in that they accepted an activist press release above academic credentials without even googling the author and reading his own home page?

What I want most here is that YOU and others stick around and assist in making the article encyclopaedic, and I am quite happy to remove the suggestion that the ABC is particularly biased in this case because their bias is not worse than the other media organisations such as A Current Affair. ChrisPer (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited as per Irvwash's suggestion.ChrisPer (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived topics

I have archived some topics to Talk:Gun_politics_in_Australia/Archive_1. ChrisPer (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Measuring the effects of firearms laws in Australia

i propose this edit and welcome comment on the wording for
Changes in social problems related to firearms over time
if approved, i think i will need help with the links, can these be checked?
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime.
The homicide rate in Australia fell during the period from 1930 to 1950, but then increased substantially to a plateau of about 1.5 per 100 000 of the population in the 1960s and early 1970s. The upward trend then once again became apparent, reaching a level of around 2.0 per 100 000 of the population in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Overall levels of homicide has fallen 40% from 2.0 in the early 90's to 1.2 per 100,000 people in 2007
while the proportion of these events that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%. Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies (suggest adding robbery with firearm stats to give perspective)

(According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [2], in 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, yet only 5% of suicides involved firearms.} this is wrong as firearms were used in over 30% of suicides and now less, the link doest point to this 5% claim and i suggest adding correct stats)
During the 12 month grace period of the Buyback starting in October 1996, there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997(suicide went up 14% and suggest fixing). With the full implementation of the buy-back from he 30th of September 1997 , and male suicide has fallen 41% since 1997 to 2006 .
The number of guns stolen has fallen dramatically from 4,000 per year[17] to 664 in a six-month period in 2005[18]. This is because of efforts by police and shooting bodies to encourage secure storage of guns, which some states already had storage laws in place followed by the 1996 national agreement on law.
Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses. Only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year, and while only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered, only about 3% will afterward be connected to an actual crime.
Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales, which are included in the estimated 20,000 that are held illegally in Australia.

Jack v1 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack v1, your edits have merit but I would suggest to add context that you include the overall downward trends continuing as noted by Baker and McPhedran. The fall in suicides from 1997 is almost certainly because of a massive increase in suicide prevention efforts following that 14% rise you mentioned. The substitution effect from 1996-97 is referenced in de Leo et al further down. ChrisPer (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, i am a gun owner, i agree with our gun laws including the assault rifle style ban, i hesitate on the all semiauto and would have liked SA law of 93 tried as the national agreement(same as 96 only didnt include semi rifle/shot), i think that background checks, pre-licence training, permit to quire, storage and transport laws would have been enough, but tassy put paid to that

i suggest we use our elected parliament position as our national neutral point of view and have our antigun and progun as other views to balance that, we could even include the wild usa progun claims on our crime rate

the 41% drop in male suicide were for all methods,
the firearm rates i put were to try and show that the 5% was wrong and it read unbalanced, if we want to compare firearm suicide falling rate with total suicide rates and attempts by splitting method by substitution, which is relevant, ..with attempted suicide we would have firearm 10% survival, hanging 20%, drugs 90%, you have twice the survival rate with hanging and 9 times survival with drugs (rough numbers)
firearm were used in 40+% of suicide it is now about 10% (rough numbers) so less use of guns and substitution will have a higher survival rate. its not a clear 1 for 1 in method

Baker and McPhedran are part of our progun lobby and their findings are in dispute, their work can not be considered as main stream accepted
eg. this is Samara McPhedran. Chair. international Coalition for Woman in Shooting and Hunting (progun lobbyest) report that is quoted
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf full text

rebuttal using the log of the rate, rather than the level, to take account of the fact that that the rate can’t fall below zero, (you cant have less than zero dead people)

“We find reductions in both gun homicide and gun suicide rates that are statistically significant, meaning that they are larger than would have been expected by mere chance,” Dr Leigh said.“Our best estimates are that the gun buyback has saved between 128 and 282 lives per year.”
http://www.physorg.com/news96559347.html ,br> http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP555.pdf full text

The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australian gun buy-back Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, there has been a reduction of murder, suicide and other gun crime. the gun murder and suicide decline increased from 3% to 6% pa after the buyback, twice as fast,
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
which is based on the http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.pdf
( i dont know without reading the whole of both reports what substitution was given, if it wasnt, this would be relevant, but with the above 10/20/90% rate, also the report you just quoted, i havent read it, but it is probably relavent too, my goal is to have a balanced page

i will make a list of suggestions i have with this page as i consider it progun and not balanced or presented in the wiki neutral concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view i also suggest we ask for editorial help to set the page out properly from..editor assistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ASSIST Jack v1 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack v1, thats all very well but you are behind with the news. Baker and McPhedran's work was included in the survey paper by Lee and Suardi, who found that the numbers supported the work of Baker and McPhedran. The work by Leigh and Neill was disappointing in its shallowness, as they are not at all lightweights. Their claim of lives saved was grounded in a false assumption that no substitution of suicides occurred and is not credible (see de Leo et al.). The fact that Baker and McPhedran announced their afiliations speaks to their honesty, whereas the good Prof Chapman concealed his anti-gun activism of the past while relying on his academic titles.

Given your odd start to the edits with that self-defense thing, I am puzzled as to where you are coming from with your claims here. But feel free to get stuck in and push the article in the direction of encyclopaedic NPOV. Thats where we want it to go.ChrisPer (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i found chapmans and some of mc phedran articles taking from 1997 to 2005
McPhedran,Suicide prevention in Australia: sex, guns, and money
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=1&newsstoryid=2204
chapman a reanalysis of mc phedran and baker 2008 http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/pdfs/M&Breanalysis.pdf
i find it strange that McPhedran withdrew her answer to chapman's claim
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/heap/article/PIIS0168851008001632/abstract?rss=yes

McPhedran tells me that the article was initially withdrawn because Prof Chapman objected to her assertion that he had a conflict of interest and had many years of involvement with the anti-gun lobby. When she provided ample evidence that her assertions were true the reply was published, but the withdrawn page was left on the website. Here is the reference: Author’s response to Chapman and Hayen , 21 November 2008, Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran, Health Policy, December 2008 (Vol. 88, Issue 2, Pages 397-399). ChrisPer (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair Balance of Views

(seems like a good place to mark the separate issue discussion -ChrisPer) but no matter, McPhedran should be included, but as progun and chapman can go in as guncontrol
i havent seen our gov. endorsing either one, so neither is the accepted neutral position...if we have agreement that the elected parliament is the middle ground ? Jack v1 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The elected parliament is not middle ground but reality. Reality should be described. There is no reason to think it 'neutral' if that means halfway between competing framings of the issues; I suggest that seeing deeper than such framings is required. Interested to see where you are heading with this.

Have you not read Lee and Suardi and understood that it re-examines and settles the differences between Chapman/Alpers and Baker/McPhedran, with more appropriate statistical tools? The link is in the article references.

I would like to suggest that there is an important issue the article cannot yet cover in detail because it has not taken off in public debate; the reasons for the halt in massacres. Massacres are different to other crimes in several ways that matter greatly in preventing them. The reason they stopped seems to be related more to the media blitz for the gun laws than the removal of means from dangerous people. The Monash murders are not counted as a massacre but plainly fit the mold of massacres, triggered by media blitz of the Washington snipers. The activists don't explain how the laws alone stop massacres entirely, and are very lucky that their interests coincide with the media's so closely because it appears that when journalists and anti-gun activists are loudly claiming the gun laws must be changed, the result is imitative shooting massacres such as Port Arthur.ChrisPer (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The activists don't explain how the laws alone stop massacres entirely is somewhat putting words into people's mouths. The laws are designed to decrease massacres, and that none at all have occurred since '96 is a bonus. Trying to beat the Monash murders up into being representative of a continuing unchanged trend of mass murders is also a bit disingenuous - one could equally respond as to why we didn't get more copycat killers after the VT massacres. If the laws do nothing, then after all the mass murders we've seen in the US over the past decade, why have we not seen one here? Spree killing is on the rise in the US, but has stopped in its tracks here, regardless of the cause.

I think that the '96 laws were the right laws implemented for the wrong reason. Obviously I'm for gun control, but the way the article reads it's straining heavily against the bounds of a neutral point of view. -59.167.194.48 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Seven people were shot in the Monash massacre though only two died. It is politically important to advocates of the Australian gun laws to maintain that four DEAD are necessary to call it a shooting massacre, so they can claim credit for 'no massacres'. If we get past moral posturing to understand cause and effect, the Monash event fits the profile of school shooters, 'amok' killings and likely media-influenced copycats. The arbitrary statistical rule for inclusion in the category allows it to be dismissed. Activists continued to claim in the media from 1997 onward that handgun laws were far too loose, and it is reasonable speculation that those media influences caused the perpetrator to acquire his handguns, as they have for others. This is however stepping way beyond any scope for encyclopedic coverage. ChrisPer (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

the elected parliament reflects the majority view and sits between the progun and antigun position, how is it not our nations neutral/base position ?
i will need to quote a survey to verify but say, as 5% of pop are gun owners and out of those 10% want less laws, that would be 0.5% of population. the progun isnt our national neutral view, there are probably more antigun people that want a total ban than total gun owners Jack v1 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's probably closer to 90% of gun owners wanting "less" (or at least more sensible) laws- at any rate, finding a cite to that effect might be fun... Commander Zulu (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

you must hang with a different group of gun owners than i do, but ok..even if its 100% of gun owners it is still only 5% and isnt the elected parliamentary view Jack v1 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack, the 'elected parliamentary view' is important and is described in Parliaments' support of the National Agreement on Firearms. What is your point? Do you want to re-write the article as neutral between those who know something of the subject and those whose knowledge is poisoned with the loaded language of activist emotionalism? Perhaps you could say what you MEAN, with perhaps some text to help us understand. ChrisPer (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that your focus on a 'Base position' is aimed at framing the article so as to make shooters views and any criticism of activists as mere partisanship. There is plenty of that around but our objective here should be to frame the article as neutral to FACTS not to political positions.ChrisPer (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

no, that isnt my focus, my view is that the page should reflect parliament/mainstream view with progun and guncontrol to complete the balance of aussie gun politics,
at this point of time, even including the intro, the page would be better retitled " progun politics in australia " reality is that the guncontrol is larger than progun, thankfully lib/lab holds the middle ground and support our present laws and their isnt a mainstream push to change them
i also renamed this sub-section to what my goal is Jack v1 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as we're all aware, is that the only people with any real knowledge of this subject tend to be gun owners, which means there's always going to be a degree of pro-gun bias in the article. In my personal experience, most people in Australia really don't have any strong feelings one way or the other because they just don't have any exposure to firearms. So, the only people who get their voices heard are either the most professional and organised (the SSAA, Shooters Party, etc) or the most shrill and sensationalist (The Anti-Gun Lobby groups which appear to have members in the single digits.) It is, however, admirable that you're striving for Neutrality and even-handedness on such a difficult subject, though! Commander Zulu (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i dont want to get into an edit war as was happening with us, and will await my request on the assistance page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#footer
single digit ? the guncontrol greens are 9% the australian shooters party is less than 1%, the only state with any clout is nsw and that was on its last legs until the local issue of fishing and 4wd permits revived them,
even as a gun owner, this page isnt just a little bit bias, its blatantly progun

I was making a tongue in cheek reference to the number of members of dedicated Anti-Gun lobby groups, not political parties who also happen to be anti-gun. Part of the issue that I think many people in the US fail to realise is that even if every single licenced gun owner in Australia joined the SSAA (or a similar organisation), the numbers are still politically insignificant enough that the Government could safely ignore them anyway... Commander Zulu (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack 'blatantly progun' has its reasons. Shooting really WAS normal and important historically, the highest participation levels as recreation, farming, commercial shooting and defence supported rifle clubs. The modern sense of opprobrium is the result of a massive change of values since the rise of feminism, the 'peace movement' and all the new 'isms' since the sixties, followed by a media-led moral panic that spent three years treating shooters worse than pedophiles - since pedophiles are actually guilty, and shooters were innocent of anything. Reading 'pro-gun' is aligned with objectivity instead of hatred. Blatant is a good word for the extremes, but this is an attempt to frame the full picture.

I suggest you try re-writing the introduction for us in the style you think better - we will then see whare you are coming from and get a more objective consensus.ChrisPer (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFL So here might be an "unbiased" way of writing??"

Failure of Duty by the Gun Lobby

The Gun Lobby, the NRA and the SSAA have consistently failed to come up with an effective policy for keeping firearms away from criminals. In advocating a "Right to Bear Arms", resulting in decreased controls on firearms, the NRA has negligently failed to provide a mechanism for controlling the access to guns by criminals

This edit was by 142.28.42.106

1) The right to keep and bear arms derives from English common law, expressed in statute in the Bill of Rights of 1689, and integrated as a result of revolutionary experience in the USA into their Bill of Rights.

2) It was also incorporated in Australian law at white settlement but has been extinguished by statute in Australian law. Australian shooting bodies do not advocate a 'right to keep and bear arms' as such.

3) The inclusion of 'original research' about the NRA (the US civil rights and sporting organisation, not an Australian body) in this article is inappropriate to an encyclopedia.

4) Ordinary citizens are responsible for safe conduct of their own activities, and for complying with the law however excessive it may be. They are not responsible for crime control. The ideas of gun control activists notwithstanding, ordinary innocent people are not to blame for crime.

5)The capitalised Gun Lobby bit indicates this is probably sourced from a Gun Control Australia activist, as GCA display more paranoid writing style than other activist groups.

Friend 142.28.42.106, you are welcome to join us in creating an encyclopaedic article of high quality. Can I suggest you get a username and discuss this openly? ChrisPer (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the italics on that excerpt so that it's clearer that it's a quote, not part of the article. It confused me when I first read it as well. -59.167.194.48 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. It was originally inserted by an anonymous editor as part of the article, but I converted it to the present derisive treatment as a quotation. The only person that writes in that paranoid style that I am aware of is John Crook, but he didn't stick around.ChrisPer (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New editor Nonetheless Equal

Welcome! Sit down and discuss your proposed edits here.ChrisPer (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the part about Leigh and Neill's criticism of McPhedran and Baker. Even though they have been somewhat overtaken by later authors, it was a valuable moment in the discussion, forcing more sophisticated arguments to be tested.ChrisPer (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another newcomer, afsargee7, has appeared. Welcome, please discuss improvements here!

Nonetheless equal... vandalism? "SSAA are widely recognised for their successful chain of new age businesses, which specialise in reiki, chakra aligning and crystal healing." ChrisPer (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-Defence

Someone keeps adding in a mention of the fact that firearms can be lawfully used in Self-Defence in Australia. Whilst technically true, it has been pointed out by a previous editor that since guns have to be kept locked up, bolt removed, ammo separate etc, that there are very few situations in which a licenced gun owner is likely to have their gun, bolt, and ammo conveniently handy when a situation arises in which they need to defend themselves with a gun. Adding mentions that guns can be used for self-defence in Australia really isn't appropriate because the American idea of self-defence (and let's face it, the English-language Wiki is primarily read and edited by Americans) with firearms is completely different to the Australian one. In short, the statement is technically correct but also misleading and counter-productive, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Australian and American usages of the term have large and differing implications. US RKBA supporters are full would read the Australian law as NOT allowing self-defense, in effect.ChrisPer (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

re the bolt...gun laws are different in each state, sa, as i know it, doesnt require disassembly before storage, so a base law should be used with state reference where applicable (after reading licence, rifles are required to have bolt removed and its shotguns that doesnt require any disassembly) i'm sure a suitable paragraph could be written to out-line what would be the limitations, being locked up is one, ammo stored separately is another for legal self-defence with a gun the fact is guns are legally used and as such has relevance on this page

Off topic..buy back seems to be at the core of this page..no reference is given to earlier laws on gun control and effect, which have been significant sa gun law of 1977 sa had the basic '96 gun law in place in 1993 and only the semi buyback was added in '96 re 1993 http://colfo.org.nz/In%20the%20right%20hands/Smith_Paper.pdf sa gun law http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/FIREARMS%20ACT%201977.aspx

nsw gun law of 1985 and their amendments are relevant to overall control and effect, nsw.. http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/firearms/more_information/legislation/history_of_firearms_legislation_in_nsw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.54 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's technically possible to use a firearm for self-defence in Australia doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the article- you can also use a cricket bat or a 9 iron or a kitchen knife for self-defence purposes here and we don't feel the need to mention that on the appropriate article's pages. There's just too much political baggage associated with the whole thing for it to be appropriate for mention in this article, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

mate, your "technically possible" is silly..it does happen and will happen again, it is relevant in regard to self defence not a reason for permit, but it can and "is" used for self-defence. as it reads now and has been said to me that aussies cant use a gun for self-defence, this is wrong, we can and do legally, we just cant permit buy one for that sole purpose ( a legal term, so we dont have the gun rights debate and ccw that they have in the states)of course storage laws are to be observed for a claim of legal use for self defence, although if they weren't stored properly, you would still have the legal use for self defence and a charge for illegal storage. now you have restated your opinion and so have i..we are running around in circles ...you say its not relevant, 2 people say it is, wiki wouldnt have a policy that deliberately omits facts as its a fact and there are links to this fact, it should be included. as to gulf clubs, if there was a permit to buy with self defence not a reason, saying a gulf club could and is used for self defence would also be relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.28 (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

i added, "although whilst complying with gun laws, guns have been used for legal self-defence" with link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_(Australia) if anyone has a better phrasing please post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.57 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a cite or a source on some examples of legally owned firearms being used in self-defence in Australia that didn't end up with the owner in a heap of legal trouble? The gun laws vary from state to state, and in some of them, there's almost no way to be complying with the gun laws and use a firearm in self-defence, unless you happen to be attacked whilst out hunting or at a shooting range. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

your revision didnt include the fact that firearms have been used for legal self defence, so i reverted i havent heard of firearms self defence whilst hunting or at a shooting range the shootings are reported in the papers but on follow up, you only hear about the ones that go to court, are you in australia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.98 (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything... another user was the one who made the edit. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted and will continue to do so because the sentence is clumsy and adds nothing to the discussion on gun laws. THere have been several legal cases of self-defense, and several prosecutions. There are also dead people that should have been alive if they had been able to defend themselves, but all have been left out. Start a new section in the self defense (Australi9a) page if you want.ChrisPer (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

you are welcome to rephrase it, but as per above, it is relevant,,changed back again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.42 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit is being made in a section where we are describing existing law. It does not contribute to that at all. - oh and how about logging in so we can disagree by name instead of anonymously?ChrisPer (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

reasons given above, guns used for self defence whist complying to gun law..undo, i havent logged on yet, my name is jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.41 (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

jack said..should we seek independent moderation from a European ? on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal

I think that might not be a silly idea; although it's not so much the nationality as the "not being involved in this article" that matters, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

as firearms are such a polarised emotive issue in usa, with aust. stats being misused with false claims to support the pro position and probably the usa gun control groups too, i think an independent European would be better as i'm new to wiki, can you post this on the moderation link asking for said independent European —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack v1 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't work that way; you don't get to specifically request someone from a particular geographic area just because you think Americans or Australians might be "biased". Most of the people on Wiki are intelligent, well educated people, regardless of where they are from. Also, a friendly helpful hint: If you type the "tilde" key four times, you can automatically "sign" your post with a datestamp, which helps everyone keep track of the conversation. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

i dont question intelligence, the reason i asked for a European is that i find the gun culture of americans alien and doens't relate to the australian gun culture, none of our progun orgs are even suggesting american style laws.
on tying to post this topic on the Mediation_Cabal, it came back with a glitch that said this page is blocked, shall i post it to the administrators ?
My guess is that ChrisPer is american and as he has posts suggests on this page re:Rebirth of Freedom Foundation article, a moderate by american stadards, i consider my self an australian moderate gun owner, which would be a tree hugger by american standards, to give a bit of insight this american/australian gives perspective, although i dont agree with everything she said, i can get her point, its even worth opening because she is hot http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com/gabrielle_reilly/politics/gun_laws_australia_america.htm
i have suggested previously on this page basic errors, which have been removed when ChrisPer had a "clean up" of topics here, hence my direct editing of the page Jack v1 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(much later comment)Sorry Jack v1, I missed this at the time but do you mean a cleanup and archive of the discussion page? That wasn't me, but I would like to fix the basic errors you found. ALternatively you probably mean my rewrite of the Measuring the Effects section, and yes I tried to fix the problems you tagged. If you feel they were not fixed, glad to have more contributions! ChrisPer (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, ChrisPer is Australian, you would realise that if you clicked his name. Please do not assume. Secondly, this is an article of AUSTRALIAN law, so you must keep in mind that the main audience is most likely Australia. Terms such as 'self-defence' are understood differently in this country, and may cause confusion. Hayden120 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you, re secondly, the use of () to further expand aus firearm law is used in the "Firearms categories", to my mind it is a matter of wording to clarify to reduce misunderstanding on self-defence, as i said above, i am happy to have wording suggestions Jack v1 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you feel it is so important to mention the use of firearms for self-defence in Australia at all in the article? I'm not sure the circumstances in which someone can use a firearm to defend themselves in Australia and not end up in a lot of legal trouble anyway are common enough for it to warrant inclusion in the article, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question tells of the importance, where someone associated with the page is unaware, let alone the casual reader
it isnt as important as other issues i have with this page, but you have to start somewhere
this applies to firearms or any other weapon, object or fist, there is no weight given to the weapon used
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_(Australia) No 28 of 2003—Criminal Law Consolidation (Self Defence) Amendment Act 2003 [2]
my state has clarified our right and introduced laws allowing householders to use "whatever force they deem necessary" when confronted with a home invader.
Householders who kill or injure a home invader escape prosecution provided they can prove they had a genuine belief that it was necessary to do so to protect themselves or their family
Previously and i think in most states, people who injured or killed someone breaking into their home had to satisfy an examination court that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances to escape prosecution and trial, again this includes the use of a firearm or any means taken
ps..have you looked at my proposed edit in the section below ? it needs to be tidied, but you initial thoughts would be welcomed Jack v1 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC) on reflecting on this issue, it might be of benefit to add a self-defence section on this page as it relates to firearms, where it can be expanded to achieve an understanding Jack v1 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that firearms can be considered "reasonable force" for self-defence purposes, depending on the circumstances (I studied Law at university, FWIW). That's not my problem with mentioning the use of firearms for self-defence. The issue is that if a licenced gun owner has time to get their gun from the gun safe, get the ammunition, and then shoot an attacker, then the police are going to ask why they didn't also have time to run away or use something closer to hand (like, say, a kitchen knife?). That is the "legal trouble" I was talking about. The other thing you're forgetting is that there are several states in Australia, and whichever state you are in (SA, I think you mentioned?) clearly has different laws to everyone else regarding "reasonable force". So whilst it might be OK to use a gun to shoot someone in self-defence in SA, someone trying that in WA or NSW is likely going to be in a lot of trouble with the authorities, no matter how clearly necessary it might have been. In other words, in most states, you cannot comply with the firearms laws and shoot someone in self-defence, except in extremely limited circumstances. However, I have no objections to mentioning that the SA Government has passed laws that make using a firearm for self-defence a practical proposition there, as householders are permitted to use unlimited force to defend themselves. Does that make sense? Commander Zulu (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack v1! Maaaate! FWIW, I certainly agree that people can have different understanding of what 'self defense' we are talking about according to country of origin. Its pretty clear you and I do, while presumably being in the same country AND on the same side of the political debate. Even after your explanations I just don't understand why its so important to you to add this half-sentence. I think what you say is right, but don't know why such a self-evident statement would need to be made. The only reason I can think of is that you want to create an idea in the public mind that self-defense is OK, which is already the case IMHO. ChrisPer (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys. In case you haven't heard, there was a very recent case where a lawful owner of a firearm used it in defence of himself and his wife, injuring an attacker. The owner of the weapon was not charged with any crime, and any legal trouble he was involved in was minimal. Some of the police, including the local Inspector, have taken to calling him the "Herne Hill Hero", even. [3] Just thought that might be relevant to your interests. 130.102.0.178 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. It is relevant, and another case that confirms what Jack v1 and the rest of us were saying: (1) that it can be lawful to use a firearm in self-defense, and (2) You will be VERY carefully investigated by the police and charges will be laid if circumstances are not 100% in your favour. In this instance, the political impact of the age and vulnerability of the victims was also helpful IMHO. ChrisPer (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing that to our attention! An interesting article, especially as it's from WA, which is generally a staunchly anti-gun state and has a reputation amongst shooters for making their lives as difficult as possible. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed phrase "is legal" to "may be legal" for two reasons. I "is legal" sounds too much like a piece of definitive advice, which i don't think the article should give, and secondly the article linked to only says that a person was not charged, and gives an opinion from the investigating officer. That's different from a court ruling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.104.183 (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the previous wording could be passed off as definitive given the weaselly "in certain circumstances" wording. There is little question that 'is legal in certain circumstances' is true, but its also not worth quibbling about unless part of a larger re-framing of the terms of the debate. BTW, if you are new here, welcome; and if just not logged in, great to have someone else here again! ChrisPer (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems pretty thoroughly resolved, but it might help to add that "one can use a firearm for self defense, but it is practically impossible to do so while complying with gun control laws." I read that it couldn't be purchased for self defense, and wondered if it could be used for it. I had no idea you had to remove the bolt to store it! Lime in the Coconut 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits apparently attempting to remove criticism of Terry Hill

From the article on Port Arthur:

Later during a court hearing, the gun dealer Terry Hill revealed he had only sold Bryant ammunition for an unrelated rifle. [14]

In his article "A Killer in Profile", Patrick Bellamy explored Martin Bryant's lengthy history of mental disturbance, as well as indicating that while certainly a heinous crime, the general trend of gun crime in Tasmania was not reflected by the events of the Port Arthur massacre:

"Although much of the blame for Port Arthur was centered on the availability of guns used in violent crimes, Australia's homicide statistics prove otherwise. Tasmania, Martin Bryant's home state, has the lowest murder rate in the country with just 0.85 murders per 100,000 population, a rate far lower than Japan which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, fists, knives and blunt instruments are the most frequently used weapons in homicides, with guns accounting for just 25%."[7]

These items are referenced to an internet 'true crime' site. Exonerating Terry Hill is not part of the deal here; the claim that he 'revealed' he had only sold Bryant ammunition for an unrelated rifle is a non sequitur and looks like mere denial. It is quite possible that Hill did not sell some of Bryant's arms, but I wouldn't put Hill's name in anyway. ChrisPer (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits have my approval. MrAnderson7 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we are both editing at the same time. Ill hold off to not mess your work up. ChrisPer (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you simplified it enough to keep the detail, but rectify what I was trying to say. As said previously, I agree with your edits, and think it's a step in the right direction. MrAnderson7 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone edited Terry Hill's name back in and added this reference:

web |url=http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant |title=A Transcript Of The Police Interview With Martin Bryant |publisher=Love for Life}} /ref

I suspect the transcript is not messed with, but the website is a loony-tunes site not a reliable source. Has anyone got a better reference for Bryant's police interviews? ChrisPer (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Michael Glass

Glad to see your edits here again! I have refrained from quibbling over anything as I want to see changes that bring more neutral framing, and letting a bunch of good-faith changes happen may allow me (as a partisan) to make more constructive suggestions. ChrisPer (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Michael Glass (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And welcome again! ChrisPer (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to be back. Thanks once again. Michael Glass (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed quote by David Hemenway re Leigh and Neill

I just removed this sentence from discussion of the Leigh and Neill study claiming benefits

Long-time anti-gun campaigner, David Hemenway (Harvard School of Public Health) has since noted that the Neill and Leigh study "strains credulity."

His recent paper says:

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.4

4 refers to the Leigh and Neill paper.

The Australian Gun Buyback; Bulletins – Spring 2011 (Issue 4)Firearms research summaries provided by the Harvard Injury Control Research CenterHemenway's documentContributors: David Hemenway, PhD; Mary Vriniotis, MS; Funding for Bulletins is provided by the Joyce Foundation. I dont find his work credible, but the quote used in the article strains MY credulity. ChrisPer (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Benefit-Cost Analysis of National Agreement on Firearms

The Commonwealth Attorney General has responded to an FOI request as follows:

Thank you for your email dated 21 August 2011 requesting access to documents about the costs and benefits of the Gun Buyback schemes. Specifically, you seek:

(i) any document containing a benefit-cost analysis of either or both of the two gun buybacks in 1996-1997 and 2002-2003

(ii) any document containing a benefit-cost analysis of the National Firearms Agreement, including implementation costs and operating costs, and

(iii) any documents which discuss the externalised costs of either, or both, buybacks, being the tangible and intangible costs to members of the public, shooting organisations, victims of crime, any negative social impacts or any other costs not borne by direct payment from the Federal or state governments.

Extensive searches and enquiries were made within this Department regarding your queries as outlined above and I am reasonably satisfied that no documents exist. You should be aware that as the buybacks have yet to be finalised (due to outstanding court matters), it is unlikely that a cost-benefit analysis regarding an incomplete program would be undertaken. Furthermore, neither officers of the Department nor the jurisdictions that they consulted are aware of any benefit-cost analysis of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA). In practical terms, the NFA has been implemented jointly by the Commonwealth and all the States and Territories, so the production of one single analysis would be considerable. In any event, an extensive search of our files was undertaken without success.

4. As a result, having made extensive searches and enquiries within the Department, I have been unable to locate any documents that are relevant to your request. I am therefore obliged to refuse your FOI request under section 24A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“the Act”). Section 24A states that a request may be refused if, after all reasonable steps have been taken to find the requested documents, they cannot be found or do not exist. On this occasion, I am reasonably satisfied that the Department does not possess documents of the type that you have requested.

ChrisPer (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. Hard to believe such an document was not created. More likely its results do not support the gun buy back scheme and show the burden placed on shooters and thus its been buried IMHO --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

New editor from anti-shooter viewpoint!

Welcome to mystery editors 121.208.115.98, 58.175.202.174 and Auntof6. Thanks for all the edits; though I have used some bits I have also written many of your edits back as they are not very neutral in viewpoint.

This has made very little difference to the 96% of the population who have never owned a gun, never used a gun and think that guns should not be allowed into non-military, non-police hands. (NPOV problem - probably more like 60% than 90% think like that. The sentence implies that there is some moral virtue in being ignorant and inexperienced, and is therefore not encyclopedic.)

Dr Lee and Dr Suardi received criticism about their findings from 'scientists who believe guns create extra deaths in society'. (NPOV - it was activists, not scientists that complained, and THINK is not evidence.)

Dr Don Weatherburn, head of NSW BOCSAR and a senior Australian criminologist has castigated Professor Simon Chapman in public over his willingness to subvert evidence for his activist goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisPer (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone traced that IP? Sydney maybe? --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

The recent debate drew my attention to this article after reviewing the Major Players section I found many claims are unsourced or are not supported by the citations used. I have tagged where this has occured. In addition much of what is said here and attributed as major influences isnt born out by other articles about the same topics, thats means there is also an issue about WP:NPOV and in particular WP:WEIGHT. Gnangarra 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work, this is often an issue on Wikipedia. People who have put up unreferenced claims need to remove them or provide sources. As regards POV, material must be neutral or it will be removed. Citation required tags should be applied for a short period, then the material removed if refs are not provided--HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment about the minimal referencing of the Major Players section. There are few 'encyclopedic' level articles about this topic, and its a challenge to source it all. Nevertheless I have made a start, putting references for three of your tags. Will find more as we go along.

As for NPOV for the material on major influences, journalists report and activists start with emotional framings not sociological overviews. The first book on this subject in Australia, Harding's 1979 'Firearms and Violence in Australian Life' did attempt that but wasnt quoted much; saying that shooters were a cross-section of the population and perfectly normal in their values and psychology does not serve the agendas of activists or media.

Looking for more refences where you have tagged. ChrisPer (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Undue Weight includes this:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Also, if you are able to prove some theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

This impinges very clearly on the conspiracy theories we are regularly debunking here. ChrisPer (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has suggested that any conspiracy theory be put in the article itself, or that undue weight be applied to ideas without reliable sources. Such sources may turn up one day, or perhaps not. There are enough anomalies about the shooting at PA, to consider such a possibility in the future. Though I personally doubt it will occur in the foreseeable future in this political climate, --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome shooting display at Port Arthur How?

How did a guy with an IQ of 60 firing from the hip and spinning round, shoot 19 people in the head fatally with 20 shots? The shooter in the Broad Arrow Café always in motion and point-shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards.

Brigadier Ted Serong, former head of Australian forces in Vietnam, was just as impressed. In 1999, Serong—who explained that his eyes had first been opened by the "astonishing proportion of killed to wounded"—told Melbourne newspaper the Age: "There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am."

I dont understand this shooting display. Was Port Arthur created to enact harsh Gun control? --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect and assuming your good faith, what you have read about this is probably crap. "Firing from the hip and spinning round" sounds like the source is a conspiracy theorist's reinterpretation of events, not reality or a witness statement, which might have some connection to reality. There is no connection between IQ and shooting skills, and if you look at the whole day's events it is clear that there was no especially high shooting skill displayed. The Broad Arrow Cafe was a small building, and if you want you can experiment in the comfort of your own home. Put a tissue on each chair back around your dinner table, take a super soaker and walk in there and squirt them while timing yourself. Then tell me if your results indicate some kind of superhuman skill level. This guy put the gun within inches of peoples heads and pulled the trigger. Outside he fired many misses, and there are many survivors accounts of people he shot at and wounded or missed. The people who propogate this nonsense have been tricked by the way conspiracy people think and write - everything they say assumes their story is the only way to interpret the facts.

Anyway, thanks for joining the team editing this article and I look forward to your contributions. ChrisPer (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Im not sure I will edit much here as Im busy, but its an interesting topic to drop in on as Gun ownership is rising fast again. Re him spinning and shooting from the hip, this is a multiple witness statement. Your wrong too he didnt put the gun to peoples heads, he shot from the hip. People don't sit tight to get shot, they tried to stop him. He was too fast. RE IQ not correlated to shooting. Your kidding right? Are you a shooter? And 19 head shots from 20 rounds at moving targets from a moving target is astonishing as the Brigadier said. I was a regimental top shot and coundn't do that. Not many could. The story doesn't add up, Im not saying how it was done just saying somethings wrong and many shooters I have spoken to agree with this. BTW the shooter according to most witnesses shot from his right hip. Bryant is left-handed. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you say so. I have spent a bit of time using firearms, have been trained in rational argument, and have read the sources of this genius shooter claim. If it didn't clog your bullshit filter there is not much I can say, I am afraid :-) ChrisPer (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@ ChrisPer Re 'Genius' I never mentioned the word. RE ' Bullshit', careful you are getting abusive which is not something Wikipedia likes. There is no rational response to what I pointed out based on the official version. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

'Genius' shooter is a shorthand for your accolade 'an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards.' You assert that there is 'no rational response' to the stuff you have posted. Well, as I say I have some idea what rational means. Primarily it means that ideas are supported with reasons, which may be augmented with co-premises, unstated assumptions, and objections to the idea; and those reasons for and against may be grounded in evidence or other groundings such as common knowledge, laws of nature and so on. My rational response is that the assertion of a high level of expertise is not adequately supported, and invite you to test the evidence for it with me.

So far what is written about this is a form of 'begging the question', ie the supporting reasons assume the conclusion that there was some massive skill level. This certainly challenges the possibility of a 'rational response'! ChrisPer (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@ ChrisPer Re ' Genius, def ' A genius is someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.' Byrant has an IQ of 60. Its an oxymoron. re Rational, well witness statements. Doesn't get more real in this case. You will have to do your own research. Thats the way it is as there is and has been a lot going on. I dont have the full answers BTW, only unsatisfactory official explanations to explain this high level of shooting from a person with mental retardation.

IQ. 95% of the population scores within two SDs of the mean, i.e. has an IQ between 70 and 130. Under 70 is mental retardation. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So when I am challenged eg below, I go looking for references and provide them. You are too busy. So I will make a basic assertion: The conspiracy ideas are without foundation. The alleged high skill level of the shooter is not supported by more careful analysis. And claiming that the is no rational response, may indicate that the ideas are supported by a form of this argument:' "Shut up", he explained.' ChrisPer (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@ChrisPer re 'alleged high skill', your opinion is of course POV, unless you can reference it. RE 'too busy and references,' its best to put references in at the time, saves a lot of trouble, and time. Do it once, do it right IMHO. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks HumusCowboy, you are quite right that my opinion is POV but here in the Talk page is the place for letting that out. As they say at WP:WEIGHT

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief."

It would be great to have references for every clause and participle I write, but as I have added about 3/4 of all the referencing in this article I am not at all embarassed to wait until someone such as yourself adds in a tag before I go to the bit-level referencing some find necessary.

As you can see I have already referenced four or five of your tags, and your previous comments about being too busy to back up the stuff you bring are relevant. ChrisPer (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and especially WP:FRINGE are the relevant policies to this material. ChrisPer (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@ ChrisPer re. 'As you can see I have already referenced four or five of your tags,' My tags? I presume you mean citation required tags. I have not put any in the article. You may want to check your facts. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My bad Gnangarra put the tags. Lets hope someone puts in some quality work so we can have reliable sources to use here! ChrisPer (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Simon Chapman

Simon, your recent edits have some value but are not encyclopedic. Please put your self-defenses here on the TALK page because its WP:OR and not suitable on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisPer (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted an edit removing discussion of Professor Chapman's private arrangements for quick publishing, and the way the media failed to note his conflict of interest allowing his academic credentials to imply that he is not an intersted activist. Please discuss your edits here and get consensus; despite being 'interested' we want to build a reliable and encyclopedic article. ChrisPer (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes consensus is good in disputes, but the refs are ok and thats what counts for this important point to be noted in the article. Chapmans ' conflict of interest allowing his academic credentials to imply that he is not an interested activist.' --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! ChrisPer (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this passage and added {{fact}} on that paragraph. Wikipedia edits shouldnt be used a citations. While we may reasonably assume that Simonchapman (talk · contribs) is Simon Chapman, the identity of that account's owner has not been verified. He needs to publish his response in an WP:RS to ensure it is included in the article. John Vandenberg <sup>(chat)</sup> 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correction John. ChrisPer (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Information Unrelated to Topic?

"The rise of new values including feminism, environmental awareness and media reports of American gun violence created an awareness of gun control as a potential issue." How does feminism or environmental awareness have anything to do with gun control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissd21 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to sign. Chrissd21 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

These values form part of the modern 'political correctness', the values of the urban-dominated tertiary educated class that comprises 40% or so of modern western society. They have a number of side effects, such as the demonisation of firearms and creating a discourse of contempt against shooters. 'Redneck' and 'Gun nuts' are the least of it. Signed ChrisPer 203.206.125.171 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange, those same values are often used in support of women and hunting in the US. Women are seen as shedding typical gender roles by hunting and shooting for sport. Also, while leaving lead bullets in the environment isn't friendly, proper game management is essential in many areas. I guess it depends on how one views the role of firearms in society. If they're mainly used for violence, then it's pretty reasonable that those groups would oppose them. Lime in the Coconut 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The values are overall a GOOD thing, in my opinion. The negative side effects however are a fact. ChrisPer (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about "values". The woods in the USA are filled with far more useful edible critters than you will find in Australia.Eregli bob (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Contention over the effect of the gun buyback scheme

The conflicting interpretations of what is essentially the same set of data can be confusing. The various claims and counter-claims need to be summarised accurately. I hope that my changes go some way in that direction. Michael Glass (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your writing style and word choice is good. However, I feel the tweaks in emphasis might bear some adjustment. The remarkable things about the DeLeo et al. paper on possible suicide substitution were (1) that the rate of change increasing hanging suicides was exactly the same as the rate of decrease of gun suicides, clear evidence of possible one-for-one substitution; (2)that the hanging change started slightly before the shooting change, perhaps indicating an imitative behaviour pattern is the cause rather than 'darn, no gun, what now?'; (3) that Leigh and Neill totally missed it, when it addressed what became a key point of their paper - their claim that there was no evidence of substitution. When I forwarded it to Christine Neill for comment she noted that it didn't have Leigh and Neill or Baker and McPhedran in the references - ie she had missed the fact that it came out some years BEFORE their work.

Therefore it isn't that 'the question arises' of substitution - that question is directly addressed by the paper. A question that arises (for me) is whether the idea of substitution is the wrong way around, given the start of rising hangings before the fall in shootings. Is (imitative) behaviour choice the important factor rather than 'availability' of one or another method? ChrisPer (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Next, the pattern of claims and counter-claims as you say needs to be clear and simple for the purposes of this article. I re-wrote myself it a while back because it was fragmentary and incoherent. The Lee and Suardi survey paper is the most recent word on the time-series analysis, was conducted by mathematically knowledgeable statisticians and they have not (like Baker & MacPhedran or Chapman, Alpers et al.) been accused of partisanship. Feel free to make it more coherent and NPOV! ChrisPer (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Two new papers out in the Dec 98 CICJ; http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~criminology/journal.htm

Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Volume 20 Number 2, November 2008

Issue Editor: Professor Duncan Chappell, University of Sydney

Articles

Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh Do Gun Buy-backs Save Lives? Evidence from Time Series Variation

Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker Enhancing Evidence-Based Policy: Principles and Practice from a Case Study of Australian Firearms Legislation

I have read the latter, need to get to a Uni library to get the former. ChrisPer (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that most of my edits have been accepted. However, I would like to discuss this one. My wording about the De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger study was that it:

...studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at the same rate as gun suicides fell, the question arose of a possible substitution of suicide methods.'

This was changed to:

'...studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides at the exact rate of the fall in gun suicides. As the rise in hanging suicides started slightly before gun suicides began to fall, the question arises as to what substitution mechanism is operating.'

The second wording implies that that the rise in hangings was a substitution for a fall in gun suicides. The only question is what kind of substitution method is involved. This, to me, smacks of original research. I believe that we are in no position to make that leap. I believe that my wording is preferable, as it does not presume to suggest that this is the only interpretation. Could I suggest that the following wording might incorporate the best of both previous edits:

...studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at exactly the same rate as gun suicides fell, the question arose of a possible substitution of suicide methods.'

This incorporates the word 'exactly' from the second version into the first version and so it helps to clarify the reason why people might suspect that there was substitution in methods of suicides. Michael Glass (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a good basis for discussion Michael. I do think "the question arose" is a little airy, because it is actually a serious point of contention. For the first two years after the buyback we saw gun suicides going down cheerfully claimed as 'lives saved' but total suicide went up 14%. As a result there is personal investment in the 'question' which 'arose' ;-) If substitution was excluded there are many lives saved; we who question the claims of the anti-gun movement saw their 'Nanananana cant hear you' response on substitution at the time so we see it as very politicised. ChrisPer (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As one version reads 'the question arises' and the other reads 'the question arose' then my version and yours are equally airy. Perhaps this reference <http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/280> and this <http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/3/455> and this <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nChWOCgeX2oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA121&dq=%22Reuter%22+%22Australia:+A+massive+buyback+of+low-risk+guns%22+&ots=LMyLKXud2y&sig=Sdh41CUIxkO4Jy-OnxlCH9DRi-U#PPA153,M1> may help to throw some light on the situation. Also it is difficult to know what to make of this as some have claimed that the only thing that the gun buyback influenced was the number of suicides by guns. In any case, this reference <http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.33.2.151.22775> would suggest that the wording should be

...studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods.'

This explicitly says that the change in figures would have more than one cause. Michael Glass (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Go for it! ChrisPer (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Two new papers out in CICJ; one by Baker & McPhedran, one by Neill and Leigh. Haven't worked through them yet but it seemed to me that Leigh and Neill are "in hole, still digging", Baker & McPhedran are "darn, lets fix that and do better". http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~criminology/journal.htm sorry the papers are only accessible from subscription eg uni library.

Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh Do Gun Buy-backs Save Lives? Evidence from Time Series Variation Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Volume 20 Number 2, November 2008

Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker Enhancing Evidence-Based Policy: Principles and Practice from a Case Study of Australian Firearms Legislation Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Volume 20 Number 2, November 2008 ChrisPer (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to new Kleive et al. paper that found no particular effect of gun laws, and suggests social changes - ie higher acceptibility of hanging than guns in younger cohort - rather than gun laws produced the fall in gun suicides.ChrisPer (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the word "scheme" appropriate in the section "gun buyback scheme"? To me, scheme denotes partiality, as in ploy, plot, scam. In my opinion, there are dozens of more appropriate words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.176.164 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Scheme also implies a large and comprehensive framework plan. For example, the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It isn't partial. See may uses by other sources here: Google for "gun buyback scheme" ChrisPer (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

John Quiggin

He clearly should not be editing this article. All he has done is remove things and not contributed one bit.

Furthermore, on his blog he is clearly extremely biased and should not be in a position of power to edit this article http://johnquiggin.com/2012/12/16/time-to-ban-guns/

219.90.214.222 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Although his edits are clearly biased to discounting the views of people who actually use firearms, or know something about the subject, his purported reasons are grounded in encyclopedic standards. Reverts should include supporting references. The reorganisation to separate responses from the published papers is clearly intended to give a 'final' word to Leigh and Neills' dodgy study claiming 'hundreds' of lives saved, and is an NPOV violation. Nevertheless lets see if we can make the article BETTER. Find references to support what was unsupported. ChrisPer (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The section was a mess, mixing (as you note) unsupported editorial comment, published empirical work and lobby group responses. All I did was clean it up, and list the empirical work in (roughly) chronological order. If there is a published critique of Leigh and Neill, it should obviously be placed at the end. And, while I obviously have a POV, that appears to be true of most who have edited this page. JQ (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the page, John, and thank you for contributing. The section was indeed a mess because its a history of conflict. A tidyup is a good thing, but associating the agenda-driven research with its criticisms is necessary. Otherwise the academic credentials misused for activist argument from authority are given undue weight. ChrisPer (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so where have you put the criticisms of Baker & McPhedran's agenda-driven work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Z Thomas (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Chris. It's important that Wikipedia should present the evidence as neutrally as possible. That's hard with topics like this but that it can be done.JQ (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As a general observation, we have

(i) a substantial reduction in gun homicides and suicides since 1996 (ii) some plausible arguments to suggest that these reductions might not be due to the bans, but no causal model (iii) only a limited amount of data

In these circumstances, there's no chance that empirical studies will yield a finding that the bans had no effect or an effect near zero. Either they'll find a large and statistically significant positive effect, or they won't. The latter doesn't mean a finding of no effect, it means that the evidence is inconclusive. Editors who don't understand what I'm talking about here should read about statistical hypothesis testing. JQ (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A further observation is that quite a few editors need to read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN. With a controversial topic like this, editors' summaries of papers are of zero or negative value. The best way to inform readers about what a paper says is to go directly to the abstract.JQ (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree this seems to have become rather messy recently (possibly a side effect of Newton in the US). I also agree regarding the abstracts, however there is no way to avoid summaries of external sources by WP editors that's their primary job and WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN are not not meant to outlaw or ban that, but to avoid its abuse.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Being a Professor is no guarantee of intellectual honesty where there is an activist agenda. The research in this area is typically agenda-driven (references available), and requires careful reading of the papers and regard to experimental design to see how the agendas are promoted. Some authors' papers were mendaciously presented in the paper as though their academic credentials made them trustworthy, while concealing that as former members of the leading activist organisations, they had a lot to gain personally from 'proving' that their activism was beneficial. I draw the remarks of honest criminologist Don Weatherburn on public health propagandist Professor Chapman to your attention.

The work of Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill requires careful evaluation. Andrew Leigh is the person who by counting mentions of think-tanks in Parliament, somehow proved that the ABC is a biased right wing organisation. In at least two publications he has claimed that there is no evidence of method substitution in suicide, and that the fact that suicides were lower at the end of the period than the beginning was proof of non-substitution. After the first paper I drew the deLeo et al work to his attention and Leigh was cross they had not cited him; at least until I pointed out that the paper predated his own. Plainly he had not even checked the suicide literature. He ignored the work of those actual credible suicidologists in his subsequent paper. Leigh and Neill's work fails the sniff test. They have used stats in a way that ignores the real-world causes, mechanisms of causes, and the impacts of the millions of dollars in printers ink and TV hype on the national culture. Inspecting graphs of their data we see that there is a higher likelihood that the 1996 gun laws changed NON-firearm suicides than firearm suicides.

ChrisPer (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New section for article: Recent Issues

Things not covered in present article:

1. - Two years of breakdown in service in WAPOL licencing and QLD permit issuing due to bad or malicious system design.
2. - WAPOL not sending renewals, and delicensing over 6000 WA owners and farmers
3. - Actions against long range calibres like .50BMG and so forth
4. - ongoing database accuracy problems in all states
5. - Safe inspections, findings costs and outcomes
6. - Australia Post issues
7. - Driveby shootings in Sydney and the changes to ammo purchase rules.
8. - Access to national parks

What other things could we add? Federal vs State issues - this isnt about knives or other weapons, but the Customs debacle over folding knives would be a good example of weapons-related abuse of power over a considerable period. What is noteworthy in the federal vs state relationship in gun politics? ChrisPer (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to source some material on the controversial proposal to allow hunting in National Parks in NSW, where people also go hiking and camping. And the fact that hardly a day goes by without someone's house or car being shot up in western Sydney.Eregli bob (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just read this article and it is clearly very subjective, biased through selective use of sources, and certainly does not reflect the facts as accepted by the academic world. I fyou want to get this article to a state where it more closely reflects reality (rather than the fantasies of gun-lobbyists), you could start by having a read of this far more honest overview: http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/13/david-leyonhjelm/did-howards-firearms-reforms-have-impact-gun-death/ I can't see how Wikipedia can improve its reputation if it allows activists to use these pages for disseminating propaganda that is contradicted by any rational and objective reading of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Z Thomas (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Craig, Politifact is in no way an inclusive or balanced resource and the Leigh and Neill work they quote is itself dishonest and agenda-driven. It may come as a shock to you but the 'academic world' is in many areas not a harbour of rational, dispassionate science. In areas subject to political correctness it is a self-referencing circle engaged in a moral status auction. "any rational and objective reading"? Have you looked into the quality of work done by Professor Simon Chapman and his cronies, or Andrew Leigh now the Labor MHR for Canberra? I and others here are certainly partisan, but we capable of recognising an article that was corrupted by activist leftists rather than grounded in the history of Australia and the place of firearms use in that history.

You will note that I have not messed with the work of Professor John Quiggin, which has substantially improved the article while being somewhat biased the other way. Professor Quiggin moved the non-academic responses to research to a separate paragraph. Leigh and Neill is of course an extended response to Baker and McPhedran, and a rather shoddy one at that. ChrisPer (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference does not support assertion and will be removed

In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia's gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions".

^ Vos, T; Carter, R., Barendregt, J., Mihalopoulos, C., Veerman, J.L., Magnus, A., Cobiac, L., Bertram, M.Y., & Wallace, A.L. (2010). Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention (ACE–Prevention): Final Report.. Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)

The above cited reference has no mention at all of the gun buyback.ChrisPer (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Military style semiautos makes sense in the context used here

25 January 2014. ‎50.32.54.97 (talk)‎ (→‎The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences: removed buzzwords "military style", what makes a semi-automatic rifle "military" as opposed to "civilian" semi-auto?)

Your change destroyed the sense of the second affected sentence. I dont know if this is out of not undertanding the distinction or becaue of a pro or anti activist position.

There are good reasons to conflate military centrefire semiautos with civilian designs, because there is little technical difference in their function. However in the sense used here they are distinguishing a relatively few centrefire, military styled or military surplus semiautos - higher powered round, higher capacity removable magazines, some with pistol grip and flash hiders with bayonet fittings; this is a military style design called in US anti-gunner jargon an 'assault weapon' (in reality it makes a great sporting firearm). The vast majority of semiauto rifles taken in the buyback WERE .22 LONG RIFLE chambering - ie civilian styling, low-powered rabbit rifles that have nothing to do with anti-gun fantasy 'assault weapons'. The anti-gun activists conflated humdreds of thousands of these sporting arms with military arms by the dishonest category 'automatic and semi-automatic'. It is useful to distinguish just what was destroyed compared with what the popular imagination understood from the rhetorical term. ChrisPer (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove sections on Hectorville and Martin Place Sydney hostage

The sections 2011 Hectorville siege and 2014 Sydney hostage crisis appear to have little or no impact on Gun politics in Australia and have been removed. ChrisPer (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Article moved/renamed without consultation

I consider the new name slightly better in some ways, but the old name was the actual subject of the article and consistent with names of similar articles on about 27 countries. The editor who moved the article also removed the main reference to the State Governments and State Police as participants in the issue, who respectively enact the laws and regulations, and enforce them. ChrisPer (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (Copied from the user's talk page)

In some countries, notably the US, it is more appropriate to use the description "gun politics". But in the case of Australia gun control is not really a contentious political issue. I understand that it is part of a series, but that is no reason to contort the wording of the article to correspond with the social issues and outlook in another country. Perhaps they should all be changed to "gun laws" which is more neutral. Having said that, I have no issue with a change back to "gun politics". It was just an attempt to make the article more relevant to the actual attitudes in the country. Enthusiast (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a normal viewpoint, but not the whole picture. There are a couple of million Australians in households that own and use firearms, and they have had the fist of the law pressed to their noses for 20 years, their normal business greatly hampered by deliberate obstruction, plus self-righteous opprobrium from a chattering class who act as though people should not have different opinions to theirs. Australians have 800,000 gun licenses, 150,000 members in their largest organisation, formed a shooters' political party contesting elections in six states and federally, and are electing members to governments. This is not 'forcing the article to correspond to the social issues and outlook in another country' but dealing with Australian politics. The article was named politics, tagged as politics, and describes politics.

You are an awesome and fearless copy-editor and could be very good for this article but please, use the article Talk page to propose significant changes like moves, and to work with others. ChrisPer (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

'Major players' needs the only players with any actual power to be listed. A bucketload about the Feds has no meaning in the absence of mention of the States who have primary legal authority and act politically. ChrisPer (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sydney hostage crisis fallout

Please restore the section on the Sydney hostage crisis as of January. Please add to this section that in August 2015, Mike Baird and Troy Grant announced a tightening of laws on bail and illegal firearms, creating a new offence for the possession of a stolen firearm, with a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. An Illegal Firearms Investigation and Reward Scheme has also been announced, and there will be a ban on digital blueprints which allow 3D printers to make firearms. Thank you. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Sam Sailor <sup>Talk!</sup> 15:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes leave Port Arthur paragraphs indecipherable.

The numerous changes in the last two days have left terrible flow, and it's difficult to understand what the last few paragraphs in this section are saying at all. Several pieces of information have been included that decrease understanding instead of increasing it, for instance, what does the decreasing percentage of attacks using firearms matter if the percentage of attacks does not itself decrease?

It also appears (and I don't have the time to find out) that several more "facts" have been added that are not from the cited sources, or if they are, it's not clear how so.

My suggestion would be to revert to the edit labeled something like "added context" from Dec 4, but maybe I'm biased or too lazy to do all the typing myself. 2602:306:374D:8D60:C911:5303:9041:D7B9 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gun laws in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060613201931/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,20867,18950038-7583,00.html to http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18950038-7583,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 14:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Port Arthur massacre and its consequences-section

I rewrote the part with was subject to an edit conflicht now, because the existing text was partially editorializing and grossly misrepresenting its main source (the cnn article). An even better source actually linked in the cnn article is a 50 page paper by Neil/Leigh from 2012 (Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?), which could be used to expand that paragraph.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Data source for chart?

The chart displayed approximately lined up with section 5 claims to show the murder rate from 1993 to 2014. However, neither of the url sources embedded at the bottom of the chart contain any data covering that interval. Furthermore, random sampling of the years shows that the values are incorrect, for example, the graph shows the 1993 homicide rate as slightly over 1.6/100k, while the actual value is 1.88/100k; the 2011 rate is shown as about 1.1/100k, while the actual value is 1.21/100k.

Please provide sources for all the data. As it stands it's synthesis, and it's using incorrect values. Anastrophe (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing until properly sourced. Anastrophe (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

2000 NRA Controversy

I'm wondering if this section of the article could be expanded some more? Since the NRA responded to the Attorney General's criticisms not with a retraction, but rather a series of 1997/98 figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and local (Australian) newspaper articles which appeared to support their original claims. Yet in its current state this entry gives the impression that Daryl Williams duly reprimanded the NRA for spreading misinformation and that the story ended there.

That's also one example of a theme which I think the entry could explore more, namely the role Australian gun politics within the broader context of an international debate. Another such example would be televised debate between Rebecca Peters (who went on to work with IANSA following the 1996 reforms) and Wayne LaPierre in 2004. The Australian laws are now nearly 13 years old, and both sides within the international debate (whether in the US, Canada, the UK, Switzerland, etc) have used their own interpretations of these laws in their local political efforts. I'm not suggesting we need to go about listing a series of specific cases, just help to locate our debate within the larger picture.--TheCappy (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was more to say but the NRA effort really did suck. It was only propaganda to support their own prejudices, and discredited the NRA brand in Australia (not that our rampant political correctness gave them any credit you understand!) Australian media did not give their response the time of day, which might actually be good - it didn't help at all.

In the broader context, now is the time we should be able to make a contribution, and we are. WiSH have done well at South Pacific arms control conferences for instance.

If you have some useful stuff to add, go for it. I think that country paper story claiming '300% rise in murders' is a great example of the sort of bad work the debate is riddled with. ChrisPer (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest- if anyone can find a reference- that mentioning the NRA's meddling has also hurt the NRAA (National Rifle Association of Australia), which is entirely unrelated to, and has totally separate goals and aims from, the US-based NRA. But they've got similar names, which is enough for some people, alas. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for the NRA to keep involving themselves, since any debate about the role of small arms in a society is pretty disingenuous if (like the SSAA) it never addresses the elephant in the room; namely their function in the defense of individual life and liberty.

It's fascinating how successful Australian gun control advocates have been in marginalising that position, to the extent that local shooters organisations aren't even willing to contest it for fear of being labeled extremists, and yet it is the raison d'être for small arms. So at least the NRA are keeping it in the collective consciousness until our local debate matures enough to start addressing it seriously.

Anyway they're personal musings; not something for a Wikipedia entry.--TheCappy (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They are curious musings since Australians with less firearms have more life and liberty than Americans with more firearms. The US murder rate is three times ours. The US incarceration rate at ~770/100k is ~5-10 times any other industrialised nation (generally 50-150). 1 in 100 adults are currently in prison over there - a perhaps more salient explanation for their recent decrease in crime. As for personal freedoms, we're just as free here as over there, we just talk about it far, far less. There are a few things you can't do over here, a few you can't do over there, none of which are particularly necessary to getting on with your life. -59.167.194.48 (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing but an opinion as to whether Americans or Australians have more "life and liberty." By your own figures of ~770 people incarcerated per 100,000, your statement that "1 in 100 adults are 'currently' in prison over there" is wrong. However, comparing Australia and the United States is impossible. For starters, the U.S. population is roughly 10X Australia's and the group making up the greatest percentage of U.S. inmates, African-Americans, outnumber the entire population of Australia. Also, the U.S. illegal alien population numbers at least 35% of the entire population of Australia and many estimates have this group numbering over 20 million which would be well over 50% of Australia's population. Finally, the areas in the U.S. from which the most people are incarcerated, have the fewest guns per capita, so U.S. crime and incarceration rates should have no bearing on Australian gun law politics.TL36 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome TL36! Unfortunately the person you are disputing with made their remarks about 5 years ago and in any case wasn't worth arguing with in this venue. Feel free to suggest improvements for the article.ChrisPer (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Great to have you with us! How about getting a user name and logging in? Your stats give us lots of diversions to follow, (eg Americans kill more people with non-gun methods than we do in total, so their society plainly is more to blame than guns alone) but most importantly please continue to help create a quality NPOV article! ChrisPer (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

why you talking about NRA thats not australian! --Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Gun control template

Per this discussion on the template talk page, I am removing the Gun politics by country template from this article, and this article from the template, because the article is not about politics. Scolaire (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gun laws in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.33.2.151.22775
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927034746/http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2005/2005-07-04_trouble-in-paradise-goroka.pdf to http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2005/2005-07-04_trouble-in-paradise-goroka.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923040019/http://www.ssaa.org.au/press-releases/2004-11-04_the-impact-gun-control-laws-called-into-question.html to http://www.ssaa.org.au/press-releases/2004-11-04_the-impact-gun-control-laws-called-into-question.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128075207/http://ssaa.org.au/press-releases/2010-08-31_prevention-not-gun-buy-backs-key-to-suicide-reduction.html to http://www.ssaa.org.au/press-releases/2010-08-31_prevention-not-gun-buy-backs-key-to-suicide-reduction.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325081644/http://www.guncite.com/LATimesASW/weapon4a.htm to http://www.guncite.com/LATimesASW/weapon4a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824132546/http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/1998/3awmitch.htm to http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/1998/3awmitch.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220165027/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au:80/Prod/Parlment/Members.nsf/V3ListCurrentLCMembers to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentLCMembers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Our safety First

Its great they banned guns to protect us from a 30 deaths in 100 years case. When will the even more deadly weapon trucks be banned? Why wont the politicians protect us from trucks? Its not as if they are the smoking industry or alcohol industry which cost many times more lives each year and the gov losses Billions each year on. Or even the deadly privately owned weapons called cars which causes far more killing and damage each year and also the gov loses even more money on? Is guns and drugs the only thing the gov will ban and stop them causing any problems? Maybe the should make crimes illegal then they wont happen either.--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Make sure what you say on this talk page is to improve the article as per WP:Talk --SwiftyPeep (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This article does not outline THE ACTUAL GUN LAWS IN AUSTRALIA.

What specific allowances/restrictions are in place? Somebody please elaborate beyond firearm classification. Remember that politics is not the only point of interest in this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1ACE:600:7996:BEB0:26E5:73C0 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)