Watch the full interview on GPS this Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN
Fareed Zakaria speaks with former Australian Prime Minister John Howard about the impact of gun legislation introduced by his government.
The results are actually quite stunning. The reduction in the rate of gun-related homicide in Australia is 59 percent, if you look at some statistics. By some statistics it's down 80 percent. Gun-related suicide...
Oh, yes.
…65 percent. These numbers must stun even you.
They did. And the issue has been surveyed and researched now over quite a long period of time. So even the most conservative researchers would acknowledge that a group surveyed over such a long period of time producing figures like that, it must mean that the change was beneficial.
And it was not just murders, but when I became prime minister in '96, Australia had one of the highest young male suicide rates in the world. By removing a lot of weapons, particularly in rural areas. The bush as we call it. The potential for young men feeling desperate – and so many of them may have a snap point – and if there's a gun available, it's easy to give effect to their sense of depression and despair. It's a lot harder when you have to use another method to end your life.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
This is pragmatism.
The most important comment by Prime Minister Howard was " this is NOT a left-right or conservative vs liberal issue. The more issues that are NOT seen as left vs right, the earlier we find solutions.
America has a problem compared to Australia: the right to carry arms.
Australia doesn't have such an Amendment, that is so deeply entrenched in the American psyche. Hence it's easier for the Aussies to accept their gun law.
Maybe it's time to change your psyche!?
Mr. Howard is just another politician willing to take credit for something good, over which he has, and had, no control. His logic is twisted: "If you drink, you die, if you don't drink you die - therefore it's better to drink." Maybe the standard of living has gone up, and maybe it's boon times in Australia, so that young people just feel like living more. Or maybe there are government cameras on every corner, so that people feel that body and soul are being watched, and in some perverse way, don't have the freedom to commit a crime of suicide or homicide.
Hi Vincent. I give credit to John Howard for the work he did to successfully introduce national gun laws in 1996. Thank you Mr Howard. My kids have grown up in safety. Also as he was Prime Minister if there were boom times he should take some credit for that. There are not government cameras on every corner. He did follow Bush into that stupid WMD war though...that wasn't so great.
Vincent - maybe - more likely, you're wrong. Nothing to do with economics or cameras. Just common sense.
Propaganda to disarm the American public because coming up austerity may cause people to rebel.
ever thought about changing your moniker to Right to be dumb?
What they have neglected to tell you is that the suicide and homicide rates have not changed all that much. They are just using ropes and tree/bridges to hang themselves, or over-dosing (depression is depression, and desperation will find a means to take ones own life). Homicides? Last time I was in Aussieland, (for one week), there were seven deaths in Queensland alone, all from gunshot. The rest used knives, dynamite or "high-tech theft techniques." Sorry boys. This doesn't change our Second Amendment in the least. Those of you who LIKE what you read about Australia should move yur butts there. Please. *Every other country in the world that has disarmed the people has seen a rise in crime, as the innocents have nothing to protect themselves with. It's the old addage, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." So leave it alone before YOU end up on the business end of one. Threat? No, promise. After all, if you against guns, then you are an enemy, foreign OR domestic, an enemy. Period. Now run along and go bug someone else with your bs.
No, every country in the world which has outlawed gun has seen a decrease in overall crime so you are fooling no one with your lies. Australia, UK and many other countries are prime examples
Guns being outlawed do not mean criminals having guns. Carrying illegal guns will attract such harsh penalties, no small time criminal will think it worth while to carry it. And stats in many countries support these facts. As for the big time mafia, do you really believe you can fight them with personal guns?
In every country gun laws has worked wonder, but america is the only country where people think that the right to show something which is just a killing machine, just for bragging rights is more important than the lives and future of its children. They are basically unable to make any sacrifices and give up something which is basically a luxury item because of false pride. And they are going to suffer a lot because of this
The founding fathers made a lot of personal sacrifices and always challenged status-quo. Now Americans are using their amedment as an excuse to avoid personal responsibilties, be selfish and short termed, never change something which is obsolete, never give up on personal luxuries even when the country needs you to. Basically they want to enjoy the fruits of other's labors without an iota of personal responsibilty and sacrifice. Labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a traitor is their basic response. If the founding fathers were present today, they would be the first ones to be called traitors by the same guys for challenging status-quo
Thank you!!!!! Someone gets it here.....
Thank you Equorial de Costa Rica!!!!!
The school shooting keeps coming up that an ar15 was used. There is no proof that the gun was used. It keeps getting blamed for the death of the children. Pistols was used. The ar15 was in the trunk of the shooter.
So what is your point? The AR 15 should be ok to be in circulation? Maybe all stores should sell it including grocery stores?
The point is, and I will type very slowly so you can understand, The guy used handguns to kill the children but the government lies and says he used an "assaultt" rifle and wants to ban the sale of them. The FBI has stated that "assault" rifles are invoved in less than 3% of gun deaths but the government wants to ban them again insteads of the ones more often used. Do you wonder why or are you so dull you have no curiosity? The governmnent wants them gone even though they are not a threat to the general public. Interesting!
You are absolutely wrong and repeating misinformation. Adam Lanza used the Bushmaster assault rifle to kill all 26 victims and then used the handgun to take his own life. Lanza had a second rifle that he left behind in the trunk of his car. The Newtown sheriff has stated this repeatedly in more than a dozen interviews.
So, what is your point? The AR-15 should not be in circulation? Maybe no stores should sell it including grocery stores.?
RebelRex. When that story FIRST came out, (I have it copied), it showed the AR "LOCKED" in the front seat of his car. He only carried in two handguns. The AR was never even used. However, within 14hrs suddenly it was the AR that had supposedly done all the killing. The bottom line is that it is just a weak attempt to outlaw something that there are no laws to outlaw it with. The Second Amendment does not have any "ifs, ands or but" nor does it state what arms are illegal as compared to others. I'll be damned if I'll budge on that, much less will I abide by an "illegal law" (I'd rather die, and that's the truth). And if I am to die, at least one of the B**tards are going with me in their attempt at disarming me.
The police spokesperson, Lt Paul Vance said the bushmaster was used. He's the one who knows. Watching it on TV doesn't make you an expert.
Also here's a definition you should be aware of: terrorism – the use of violence or threats to intimidate for political purposes.
The president doesn't have the guts to do what Mr Howard did. And though Australia was formed out of rejects of the British society so to speak, they are less barbaric than we here in the US who insist on owning and using guns.
NO civilized society should have the need for owning assault type weapons.
That mindset will not be changed voluntarily.
ALSO DON'T KEEP TALKING ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE. WE ALL KNOW AS MUCH AS YOU !! AND MORE ACTUALLY SINCE THE US INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN GOOD SHAPE.
BUT WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
THIS PRESIDENT IS INCAPABLE OF GETTING WORK DONE.
BECAUSE ALL HE DOES IS TALK WHICH GOT HIM RE ELECTED.
Let's get rid of everything that we do not absolutely need that is capable of causing death can kill. Let's get rid of all guns, cars that can go over the speed limit (speed kills you know), drugs that are capable of killing if taken in the wrong amounts, airplanes because if a jet liner crashes hundreds of people can die. Of course you know that thousands died when airplanes were used as weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure we can think of many many more things that can kill if improperly used. In the USA, more people were killed with bats, knives and other normal everyday items than were killed with "Assault Type" weapons, so if we are using the number of people who died by certain devices or tools to arrive at what should be banned, then we, by definition, should ban baseball bats, clubs and such because they are responsible for more deaths than AR-15s.
I don't own an AR-15 and don't want one, but saying that removing them from circulation is going to significantly reduce crime is about as ridiculous as saying that removing cars that are capable of exceeding 150 mph is going to significantly reduce the amount of deaths on the road by any significant number. The firearm of choice in The Virginia Tech shooting where 32 people were a 22 caliber handgun with a 10 round capacity and a 9mm handgun with 15 round capacity magazine.
Actually they charge you more on your insurance when you purchase a sports cars because you are more likely to wreck. You are also limited by what accessories you put in any car(like exotic lights) in certain states because they can be a hazard and distraction to other drivers. Not to mention they require you to get a liscence and show you know the law and how to use a car.
Obviously your not just thinking..at least not clearly.Your argument if you can call it that is lame.When people start using cars,bats,knives and what ever else you tried to compare to guns as murder weapons particularly on a large scale and as frequently,then we can look at addressing those issues, but as it is those items are not the weapon of choice are they? Guns are and thats why they are being discussed.
Since more people are beaten to death by baseball bats than are shot by AR15's, we need to ban baseball and confiscate all the bats in the USA. These assault bats cause much pain and suffering while a person is being beaten to death.
DandyDonnie
"Since more people are beaten to death by baseball bats than are shot by AR15's, we need to ban baseball and confiscate all the bats in the USA."
Thats fine, but we need to go after the number 1 killer – handguns. I don't agree we should ban base ball bats, they have a primary use, and thats not to kill. But your line of thought is correct, and as you know Handguns are the number 1 tool used in homicides so yes lets ban hand guns, I quite agree.
Don't forget that we need to get rid of air too, as pollution kills. Thus, if nobody can breath it, nobody will get "black lung" and all the other stuff that comes from breathing right? Too funny!
Poltergeist: You can buy a car with out registering it. You can drive it on the road with out registering it too.
You need to retake a civics class so that you can understand the separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and congressional branches of government. we have a President not a King.
Mr Howard is a modest man unlike our vain president who is fawned over by the likes of you to the country's peril.
While you point out that there was a drop in homicides in Australia since the assault rifle ban, you fail to state that there was a similar drop in the United States for the same period. And, a drop of many times greater in New York City. The main difference there being just enforcing the laws that we have. An effort that is under constant attack by the liberals. And, I don't understand the connection between semi automatic rifles and suicide. It generally only takes on bullet to do the job Seeing as fewer people were killed by rifles of any kind than by hammers last year, an assault rifle ban will be a huge expensive but politically correct waste of time. Enforcement of the laws we already have and tighter control of handguns are more important. And, these will make a difference
Zakaria and Howard, two men who supported the useless Iraq war. They believed Iraq had WMD, when the weapon inspectors said other wise.
Sorry you both hold no respect when it comes to wisdom.
Which inspectors sait Iraq had no WMD? Everything I read said the UN inspectors were convinced that Iraq had WMD.
Hans Blixt
Mr Zakaria
I'm with you on the assault weapons ban, in fact I think the GOP should take the lead on it to stupefy the left. But in your interview with PM Howard you cited a reduction in gun violence as proof that the ban worked. However, in the US our homicide rate is way down, the lowest in 50 years – all without a ban on assault weapons. Maybe we should continue to concentrate on whatever it is we've been doing right and redouble our efforts. Americans aren't murderous people. I have no stats yet but I suspect if you took out gang-on-gang violence our homicide rate would be among the lowest among industrial nations.
Keep the conversation going sir. It's important. I'm a gun owner but I think it's laughable to argue that I need a machine gun. We need to continue to evolve as a society. It's what makes us the world's greatest nation.
As a gun owner, please educate yourself. An assault weapon ban will not touch machine guns.
The numbers from the AIC (Australia) don't show crime decreasing across the board, please look for yourself. Even better, look at what happened crime rate in the UK with the gun ban. Even more disturbing is if you consider the fact that these countries are water locked islands, the gun related crime rates should be zero, but they are not.
Want to stop gun violence? The best four words I've read on the blogs so far, "Happy people don't kill". Let's revamp the inner cities the _right_ way, which is to bring in businesses and investment and create _legal_jobs_ for the community. We should offer local, state, and federal tax exemptions to any _significant_ business, say over 100 employees; we don't get tax revenue from jobs that don't exist anyways...
Your interview with Mr. Howard was disappointing, not because of what he said, but because of what you didn't. Please see: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.html for the Australian government's stats of armed robbery, which doubled in just a few years following the gun grab. No surprise here, when the population is defenseless, the criminals, who don't obey gun laws, will thrive. Instead of focusing on the very rare sensational mass killings, you should have given equal time to the everyday threats to the safety of the average Australian.
Only the people of the Western world feel defenseless without owning a gun.
Rest of the world is quite content without the ownership of any kind of a fire arm.
Show how barbaric we are.
Again and again there is an attempt by (particularly) American pro-gun people to link gun control in Australia to a rise in certain crime statistics. Again and again it must be pointed out that ownership of firearms in Australia for "personal protection" has historically, socially and culturally not been the PURPOSE for which many of us owned a weapon in the first place. Additionally, Australia has no big game, no ferocious land animal that will maul you to death and for many of us, a rifle was just a means to potshot rabbits and foxes. For generations, the problem of firearms ownership was not a particular issue until the (then) lax laws were exploited to bring into the country firearms that had traditionally had no purpose and no role – military grade automatic and semi-automatic rifles. In addition, handguns have always been generally illegal in most states with few exceptions (usually occupation related) – historically, there has not been a "wild west" mentality. Why? Generally, where the settlers went, the law went along as well – in many towns the first substantial structures were the hotel, the police station and the courthouse. It is legal to buy and own a firearm in Australia – providing it is a) suitable for the stated purpose on the licence application b) one of the allowed catagories. Finally – the laws were introduced following a resounding 86% yes vote of a 95% turnout of a national plebiscite. The money to pay for the buy back (at somewhat disputed market prices) came from the same plebiscite in which the People approved a 0.5% temporary in health contributions. In my own case, on $36k per year in 1997, my healthcare payment went up from $350 a year to $525 for the year – whoopee-do and well worth it.
Wow, we make less than that per year and if I had health insurance it would cost more PER MONTH than you pay in a year. Needless to say, I can't afford it. My husband is covered through his work.
I hope that many people watch Fareed Zakaria 's interview with former Australian Prime Minister John Howard and take action to get these weapons off the road.
So Fareed watch your interview with john howard, Sounds to me that you would be happier if you moved to Australia,
I know I would be happy to see you go. Most of us silly AMERICANS want to keep OUR consitution.
Fareed tried to move to Australia but they wouldn't let him in.
It is only our country that takes in all kinds of trash in the name of "saving them from persecution"
Oh yes, take Piers Morgan with you.
Mr. Howard neglected to mention the massive increase in violent firearms crimes, including home invasion, since the "successful" gun ban. See the following video:
Failure to present the side of the story revealed in the following video indicts Mr. Zakaria, whom I formerly respected, as a propagandist rather than just an occasionally plagiarizing "journalist"; Mr. Howard neglected to mention the massive increase in violent firearms crimes, including home invasion, since the "successful" gun ban. See the following video:
This is very old and outdated information. The rates vary from year to year, this appears to be information from 2001. The rates have decreased since. Relevant stats for the period 1996 – 2010 are available, just google Australian crime facts and figures 2011. Why would you bother trolling through outdated info to cherry pick certain stats to give the most negative picture? People's lives have been saved due to strong gun laws. People gave up guns for a safer society and can live without them.
"forced" gun owners? No..we were not forced, it was not a round up and it was not a confiscation. We, The People were asked in a NATIONAL vote. Not the state legislatures, but the people, directly. 95% turned out to vote, 86% said a loud YES. I handed in an old Lee-Enfield .303 I'd picked up at a military surplus sale and a couple of .22's that were just gathering dust in a cupboard. So what? I'd lost interest in killing rabbits years before. The source of this video and the interviewees are not unbiased either – it's amusing to see figures known to represent the SSA (which has somewhat dubious financial ties to the NRA) being captioned as "concerned gun owners" without also mentioning their ties to the SSA or the fact that these "interviews" were managed events or dredged up from the failed "NO" campaign of 1997 plebiscite as part of the NRA's 2002 political campaign. (Note Gary Fleetwood, the SSA's "Special Projects" officer being captioned as a "Police Inspector" – he was a one time senior constable in the SA Police for pete's sake. The video repeats unverifiable and many-times-over discredited statistics – the real numbers are publicly available to anyone who is not too hard of reading at the Australian Bureau of Statistics website in PDF format going back to at least 1996. This law was not introduced out of the blue. It came after an sharp increase during the 1980s in the importation under the old dis-unified State laws of weapons that had no place or purpose in our society and a not coincidental series of mass killings associated with these previously uncommon weapons. I've said it elsewhere in this cooments section – there has not nor has there ever been a "right" or culture of advocating using firearms ownership as a means of self defence as part of Australian culture, not now, not ever. Not since..I might add, the NRA attempted to influence the debate here in 1997 by sending a delegation to advise the SSA on "their rights"
As a side note "home invasion" is not a legal term in criminal law in Australia and as such it can not be said to have increased, decreased or even existed at all. The statistics list every single crime by specific type and degree and the NRA lumped together a huge number of widely varying types of crime relating to domestic incidents, assaults, burglary, aggravated burglary, unlawful entry, criminal trespass, vehicle tampering, criminal damage and "residential assault" and labeled it all as "home invasion". Residential is defined clearly in the statistical descriptions as meaning in residential areas, which can include a dwelling, on the footpath or road or in a park. The meaning and degree of "assault" varies from state to state but can include verbal abuse, spitting, pushing, threatening behaviour or language up to and including physical violence.
Armed robberies UP 69%
Assaults w/guns UP 28%
Gun murders UP 19%
Home invasions UP 21%
Australian crime stats since the ban. Moreover the level of gun crime in the news in australia in the last six months in unprecedented
Is there any more to say ?
FORGET Australia. It is our country we should talk about.
No country on earth has as many violent gun killings of innocent people as the US does. And there is no need to compare gun crimes to death with hammers and others.
Can't kill with a hammer or a knife from thirty feet at the rate of 20 shots per second.
First of all no semi automatic firearms are capable of 20 rounds a second. Second murder is murder no matter what the means. Where are the stats. on violent crime I will bet you will find that it has increased.
Assuming these statistics are correct, which I won't because they come from the propaganda video linked above, I've got a couple of questions about two of them...
"Armed robberies UP 69%". Armed with what? What were the weapons used in these robberies? We're not told.
"Home invasions UP 21%". Were the perpetrators armed with firearms? Again, we're not told.
That video is at least 11 years old because Trevor Griffin hasn't been the attorney-general of South Australia since December 2001.
Yeah..quit quoting long ago discredited NRA statistics on Australia and go to the real source at the ABS and then follow up news stories and find out what is actually happening.
Zakariajoker
My ancester was an Australian convict. He was imprisoned for stealing a sheep to feed his starving family who died when he went to jail. I am rather proud of him.
I think it is time for our American friends to admit that they live in a society which is violent and self centred. This is not surprising for a nation built on invasion and the slaughter of its natives. This wealth of the nation was then built on the most brutal system of slavery which, despite being nominally Christian, denied that their slaves were human but some sort odf inferior race whch the Nazi called untermensch.
Stop worrying about your right and concentrate on our responsibilities to others.
وردنا خبرا مؤكدا مفاده ما يلي :
المجرم واثق البطاط يتواجد حاليا في مدينة الشعله – في بيت يقع في نهاية شارع (60) بداية منطقة الدوانم مع مجموعه من المجرمين من المليشيات التابعه لفيلق القدس الايراني وينطلق من مدينة الشعله لتنفيذ عمليات الاغتيال في مناطق الغزاليه والسيديه والعامريه وبدعم لوجستي من مكتب القائد العام للقوات المسلحه
تعليقنا //
اين مذكرة القاء القبض بحق هذا الارهابي يا مالكي وهو لايبعد عن مقرك في المنطقه الخضراء اكثر من 15 كيلومتر ومليشياتك وجيشك الاجرامي يحاصر احياء الاعظميه والعامريه والسيديه لكي يتحرك هذا المجرم وعصابات فيلق القدس لقتل الابرياء وتصفية المطالبين بحقوقهم المشروعه
I was flabergasted that you accepted the Qinghua Univ. Party aperatchik as your authority about the Chinese economy. What a farce. Why didn't you go directly to his superiors, the party cadres so we could get a really objective viewpoint
I was very disappointed with the misleading characterization of Australia's firearms law as an "assault weapons ban." Since the details are readily available, I can only conclude that you intended to mislead your viewers. The key difference is that in Australia, you must convince the government of a NEED for any firearm, and self-defense is not a legitimate need. I hope we will not embark upon this kind of tyranny for the greater good.
I'm simply astounded how simple minded some people can be, to be influenced by this type of reporting. "The results are actually quite stunning. The reduction in the rate of gun-related homicide in Australia is 59 percent, if you look at some statistics. By some statistics it's down 80 percent. Gun-related suicide..."
Wow – removal of guns creates a reduction in gun related statistics. DUH! But that is NOT the whole picture. That would be like banning beer and reporting on the reduction in number of drunk driving accidents related to beer – it's an ignorant statistic, especially (as with these gun laws in Australia) when the introduction has had not marked effect on overall murder or violent crime rates.
Taking away ONE tool, and reporting on the reduction of the use of that tool, makes the reporter nothing but a "tool".
I don't have a gun. I'm not on the brink of "snapping". But I wonder why in 2013 the flowers I choose to grow are any ones business but mine and why I'm treated like a criminal,incarcerated, and having my pockets fleeced under the guise of keeping "someone" safe. Do tell.
The above video correctly describes the failure of Australian government $500M spent on disarming law abiding citizens.
The disarming only included certain type of weapons, some people simply replaced their old guns with much more lethal ones which are still legal.
Most criminals use illegally owned guns – gun controls are of little substance.
The solution is to eliminate the threat from armed and mentally ill people.
The issue is with the US health system that cannot distinguish normal from mentally ill and the gun licencing authority which provides gun licence to people who are clearly mental or the owners do not protect their guns from unauthorized used like in the most recent school shooting.
There are many countries where guns are at home and there is very little violent crime.
There is no limit to the amount of freedom that can be traded for safety.
Downtown Moscow in 1988 was perfectly safe at both 2am and 2pm.
Doesn't mean anyone would want to live there.
To: USA
From: World
Subject: Gun Control
You either like what happened on that Friday, or you don't. You either like what keeps happening in your country, or you don't.
If you like the way things are – then stop crying, whinging and praying when ever it happens – embrace it.
If you do NOT like the way things are – then do something about it... NOW!.
Crying, praying and cancelling TV show airings will not help.
Yours,
Concerned World Citizen
aka Human Being
And in Australia, they collected about 600,000 firearms. In 2010 in America, there were roughly 3 million semi-auto handguns made or imported.
You can't compare countries that have historically had few firearms to a place where civilians own about half of the world's supply. Banning semi-auto guns in a place that has never really had them is an easy task. In a place where they have been sold next to milk and cookies for over a century, it is ridiculous to think you will have any effect.
A far better comparison is a place that was already awash with guns before enacting harsh laws, a place like South Africa for example.
Since gun controls were introduced in South Africa in 2004 there has been a fall in gun crime of 21%.
Google Africa check, gun control
At first I was kind of supporting more laws, and still feel that somethings could be changed. but more and more this hole Gun-ban BS is coming off just as what the NRA said it was, a taking of average peoples rights in a miss guided effort to protect the bad guys. wile its true most violent crimes are committed by pour needy desperate people! literally nothing is being done to feed or house them! Or go after the real problem, the big banks and Wal-street! the very people who've made our pour so hungry and desperate in the first place. braking our financial laws the wealthy nearly trashed this country, hell the hole worlds economy! yet not even one of them have gone to jail. heck the Government even bailed the big boys out with our great great grand children's future incomes. And can someone tell me just why are our TV's and radio air waves all filled with British voices to start with? where the heck are the Americans reporters? I'm tired of hearing English accented voices telling me what Americans needs to do!!!
Comments on this issue shows how dumb people are and how politicians and others are seeking public office and positions of power for their own personal motives, mostly, financial, and how the general population can be manipulated and brain-washed.
Bingo.
Unfortunately, Fareed Zakaria has purposefully slanted the story to make it sound like there has been a significant decrease in the homicide rate in Austrailia due to gun legislation or gun control. If you listen to Fareed's words carefully, he states there was a significant decrease in "gun-related" homicides and a significant decrease in "gun-related" suicides in Australia. Fareed fails to mention the overall rate of homicides in Austrailia! Did the overall homicide rate decrease, increase or remain about the same over the researched period of time. I suspect, there was little or no change to the overall homicide rate in Australia which only proves that guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people. If these killers do not have guns to kill, they will use another method. Fareed Zakaria really needs to tell "the rest of story" in which he will not do – I am sure of that...
Guns increase a person's efficiency at killing – so yes guns kill people.
Without gun : ordinary fool can kill 2-3 people
With gun : ordinary fool can disintegrate 30 school children
So that extra 28 people is down to the gun, that is simple maths.
Hi Glen, gun related would be most relevant to the discussion. Overall homicides in Australia have dropped also from 354 in 1996 to 260 in 2010. Also violent robbery rates have dropped.
Make no mistake. Howard's gun buy back program cost the Australian mental health system dearly. Half a billion dollars. May not sound much unless your national population is only twenty three million. There are now just as many guns in Australia as there were pre buy back. FACT. These days there are far MORE home invasions and drive by shootings than ever before. The humble "sawn off" .22 calibre has now largely been replaced with 9mm semi auto handguns. None of us here feel safer, far from it in fact. Thanks for nothing Howard. When a sitting prime minister loses not only his position but also his seat in parliament it gives some idea of his popularity.
er.....FACT???? Just want to show us the quoted research?
Yes Alby, I feel safer,. You haven't provided facts. Australian crime facts are available for the period 1996 to 2010 if you google Australian crime facts and figures. Rates of all homicides have reduced since 1996 gun laws and plus robberies. What is your reason for spreading misinformation?
As long as there are sad, scared little men in the world, there will be guns. Any primate with an opposable thumb can point a tube and pull a trigger, so congratulations for emulating a chimpanzee. Why doesn't everyone smelt down their guns and turn them into something that can explore the universe? .. Oh that's right, sad scared little men.
Hand to hand is fine one on one but here in the states we have folks bang on a door covered with blood from an intentional bloody nose and draw on a family once inside. Time to try and shoot back with a telescope?
This article is nonsense. I'm not going to go into it fully here, but for those interested, just Google even a tiny bit and you'll see why. We're talking about the 2 to 400 range in Australia. In America it's thousands, so our numbers don't skew as easily. And the decline in murders there is one that is a trend since 1969. The decrease is in line with that trend, new law or no. On the other hand, gun violence in Australia has not been going down. This is an Obama ad with context purposefully left out.
Hi Fail, you've failed to provide any facts. The sample size is smaller in Australia, yes. Doesn't mean it's not valid to compare to America does it? Where are your facts to say gun violence has not been going down. I say you are wrong and the stats are available to check just look up Australian crime facts and figures.
"gun related..." yes, but what about the totals?
Hi Asi, total homicides have dropped from 354 in 1996 to 260 in 2010, google Australian crime facts and figures. Also violent robbery has decreased.
Australia may well have reduced gun deaths by restricting access to guns but how about the jobs of those employed in the gun industry? Don’t they matter? Less guns means less jobs.
Guess they got another job, Australia's unemployment rate is 5.4%.
One reason for the drop of gun deaths in Australia is that the gun buyback cleared Australian sheds and closets of thousands of cheap and nasty Stirling .22 semi automatic rifles. These pieces of junk were the tool of choice for armed robbers and home suicides. Just the removal of these weapons alone made a huge difference.
Now, instead of shooting themselves, they either hang themselves or drive a car at high speed into an immovable object- usually a tree. Suicide rates are still high, and mental health funding is totally pathetic and getting worse. Gun laws haven't prevented people acquiring weapons unlawfully- it's just gone underground.
Hi Doc, last available stats for suicide rate in Australia was 9.7 per 100,000. US was 12 per 100,000. So high compared to what? It's not really expected that gun laws will stop car accidents and cure mental health. Gun related deaths are dropping, includes deaths due to underground / illegal weapons.
Now, according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate, Australia has less than every single Nordic nation AND Canada, so much for that theory of "dangerous, disarmed and lawless Australia". I've been there and it is paradise, I hope they keep it that way, and without guns!
why not just require all guns to be covered by insurance, rates to be determined by the costs of damage done to any victim? then we change the dialog from ownership rights to the value fo life itself..
As for suicide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate, America has Australia beaten by a long shot. So much for the "Australia, they want to kill themselves" brapple.
To be blunt I don't think many people living outside the U.S. give a monkeys if you all shoot each other. Photocopies of all your pathetic ammendments can be used to line your coffins.
Uh-oh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index, the score is 6-13, but don't worry America, you did beat Canada! And Zimbabwe!
Studying by way of the good content material, will assist me to complete so occasionally. http://www.testttdjshdk121.com http://www.testttdjshdk121.com
It's funny that people think the government is lying on guns but the media is telling the truth. It's like the state farm commercial where the girl thinks that everything on the internet is true.
People will believe anything that supports their argument and will rarely look at the other side of the issue.
wii ned moar gunz 2 pertek uz frum pepl wit moar gunz dan wii hav. wii don lyk u demokrates cuz u unly wunt 2 tayk wey r gunz n jezuz 2. wii don lyk u demokrates 2 raz taxiz neder. wii don ned taxiz fer skools neder. wii kin bii hom skoold lyk mi dady en mumy (hiz siztr). iv u demokrates raz mi taxiz i wunt bii abl 2 bi nu weelz fer mi hows. ger republikins!!!!!!!!!
The United States was founded on these laws to bear arms and freedom of speech. It come from the people who were running from the abusive governments of the times in England, Germany and others. If you don't agree with our laws then you should just turn around and go back to Europe. Piers Morgan is one of them. Go back to England if you think guns should be band. We here in America don't want tyrannical governments to abuse us.
>> "If you don't agree with our laws then you should just turn around and go back to Europe. Piers Morgan is one of them. Go back to England if you think guns"
I'm Native American. Where should I go back to?
Statistics Matter. I haven't found exactly comparable years, but from 1989 to 2007, the homicide rate in Australia dropped by 31%. In the United States, from 1980 to 2011, it dropped by 53%. By the bare numbers, and the logic of this piece of analysis, the increasing number of guns in the U.S. led to almost the same reduction in homicide (per year) than did the supposed decrease of guns in Australia. Be careful of politicians and CNN reporters using numbers.
I just realized that the article was talking about gun-related homicide etc. What a silly statistic. If you are murdered, it doesn't much matter if it was done by a gun or not. This statistic is often used because many people (idiots including me apparently...) mistake it for the total murder rate and politicians/reporters use it for that effect. There is another complicating factor. If murders overall dropped and the proportion of gun-related murders stayed the same, the rate of gun-related murders would still have dropped, though the restrictions on guns would have had no effects whatsoever. Much (not all) of the reported reductions in gun-related murders just follow the reductions in overall murders.
According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
Looks like gun control really does work. Can we take the guns away from those tea party manaics who think everyone is out to get them now?