JC Denton wrote on Apr 28
th, 2013 at 12:29am:
That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.
That is about the least convincing piece of evidence I have seen questioning Australian laws. Besides, all that really needs to be said regarding Australia's situation is that Martin Bryant acquired his firearm legally and without any sort of scrutiny.
Also, regarding NZ, the article you quote is a little dishonest - since NZ has had rather tight controls on semi-automatic "rambo style" weapons since 1992:
Quote:After the Aramoana massacre in November 1990, John Banks, the Minister for Police, announced that the government would ban what he and others described as "Rambo-style" weapons and substantially tighten gun laws generally. The law was eventually passed in 1992 and required written permits to order guns or ammunition mail-order, restricted ammunition sales to firearms licence holders, added photographs to firearms licences, required licence holders to have secure storage for firearms at their homes (which would be inspected before a licence was issued), and controversially required all licence holders to be re-vetted for new licences which would be valid for only 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand#Aramoana_and_the_1992_A...Thus, what your article doesn't mention is that by 1996, NZ had far tighter controls on the type of weapon Bryant used, than Australia had. Thus its not really surprising that after Australia got on board with gun control, both countries saw a rapid decline in shootings using those weapons.
Chard wrote on Apr 28
th, 2013 at 2:13am:
You have evidence to support this absurd claim?
The evidence of virtually every nation that has strict gun controls - UK, Japan, Australia etc
Gun advocates always cite the example of Switzerland, but that is clearly an atypical case.
I will also add that comparing different states in the US is somewhat flawed - since criminals in one state that has strict controls can simply acquire their guns from a neighbouring state that doesn't. Having said that, a
recent study suggests that gun laws do in fact work - though the limitations of the study are acknowledged.