Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by GeorgeandSugar, Mar 2, 2018.
I'm sure there will be many that will not.
Clearly, we have never met.
Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
I did state that there was annual variances, and I wasn't going to do 21 years worth, the idea was to show a "then and now" perspective to show that overall, the changes in firearm legislation/percentage of firearms have not directly negatively or positively affected crime statistics.
There are a myriad of other factors at play in Australian society, same as American society, that have a bigger effect on crime rates than firearms. Demographics, poverty, economy, etc and so on.
I don't really know why you're quoting the licencing categorisation from wikipedia. It states pretty much what I have been saying all along, it does however neglect to mention it is upto state and territory governments to determine how it is implemented and so on. So the Fed govt wrote the guideline, doesn't mean every state and territory follows it to the letter. Which they don't. For example, definition of occupational shooter can be anyone who uses their firearm to make money, like hunting Kangaroos and selling the meat, which is very common, is an occupation, therefore you can apply for a semi-automatic licence.
No I get that. And I wasn't expecting 21 years of evidence.
As I said, multiple studies show that that much of violent crime was on the decrease before the ban. My point was that in the next several years immediately following, there appears to have been an increase, and in some cases a significant surge in violent crime after the ban.
This does not suggest that the ban is the cause of the surge, it just goes to suggest that the ban didn't stop or even deter violent crime.
As for the wikipedia, perhaps my sarcasm was missed in the "Oh so trustworthy" part.
As I mentioned, I think we both agree that comparing Australia and the U.S.A. is like comparing coconuts and fire ants. I think you may have misread the point of my original post. It wasn't that what happens in Australia will happen in the U.S., it's that trying to use the ban in the Australia to prove it will be beneficial to the U.S. is moot. First, the ban didn't work. Second, the two cultures are entirely different.
And I realize anyone can go out and be licensed to purchase a gun there, but it is no different than saying in order to purchase a gun here, you must be a licensed hunter and saying that isn't a ban, it is IMHO.
However, I also agree with a previous statement of yours that the gun culture in Australia is nothing what it's like in the U.S.A. and is therefore, very likely, not as impacting as it would be here. Australia also doesn't have a constitutional amendment defining and protecting the right to firearms for every citizen.
I think we actually agree more than we disagree.
I would say that you're right in that we are pretty much on the same page haha,
I think the only reason that having a firearm licence and registration system for me doesn't spell the word "ban" to me is because it's no different to the process to get a car licence and registration.
Interestingly enough, it actually takes longer to get a car licence, the training/competence period is probably 300%longer, registration fees are annual, insurance fees are higher, penalties for misuse are more regulated and more severe (for example the act of drinking alcohol and being in the possesion of/discharging a firearm is not illegal, but it is illegal to drink and drive), overall the keeping of a car costs more and is more restrictive than a firearm from a cost/legislative perspective. So I just can't see how a similar, yet easier and cheaper, system for firearms is considered a ban. But that's about the only thing that I can't agree on, and that is realistically semantics in the fact that what we call it doesn't effect the points we are making here.
Yeah sorry I didn't see the "oh so reliable" bit about wikipedia haha.