What is your oppinion on it? Personally I think Australia have great gun control laws, like all guns have to be in a safe and all handguns have to be used in atleast 10 competitions a year.
But on the other hand I think the country that suffers the largest blow from a lack of gun control wwould be America and that the culture of alot of people over there would mean that if gun laws were the way they are here the black market would explode with selling and what not.
Hey, did you know that Australia actually suffers from a high rate of home invasion and armed robbery? You know why? Because five guys with cricket bats can do anything the damn well please. Have a handgun? Too bad, it's in a safe! Want to call the cops? Good luck.
Look at Switzerland: They have one of the lowest violent crime rates per capita in the world, yet most of the citizens are armed. This is not coincidence.
Gun ownership allows the citizenry to protect itself from threats both foreign and domestic, the latter being more important.
Last I looked Australia has a lower homicide rate than Switzerland and frankly I would rather have my life then your lame sterotype of Austrailians robbing me with their cricket bats. Plus most people have some crazy thing called insurance so really there's not exactly a massive threat. Though I couldn't find any statistic on crime rate for Swizterland or Australia unfortunately only a homicide rate. Enlighten me
I'd like to see your information on homicide rates in both countries.
Also: I used cricket bats because I thought of them first, as I play cricket much more than, say, baseball. I have no idea what they play in Australia, though I'd bet soccer is popular.
Look at Switzerland: They have one of the lowest violent crime rates per capita in the world, yet most of the citizens are armed. This is not coincidence.
Yeah...that's because all of their citizens are trained military personal...seriously, its required for all males at age 25. So, you can't really use that as an example, not only because people have military discipline and are less likely to commit crimes, but also because more than half the population could probably kill you fairly easily without weapons.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how I feel about gun control. Yes, I support citizens owning guns up to an extent (No fully-automatic weapons, side-arms only ETC.) but you have to admit, the number of gun crimes committed in America alone every year is astounding. Maybe a more neutral approach to it, allowing guns to be used and carried, but require stricter guidelines to obtaining weapons in the the first place.
I used cricket bats because I thought of them first, as I play cricket much more than, say, baseball. I have no idea what they play in Australia, though I'd bet soccer is popular.
I know this isn't what you were getting at but this thought popped into my head.
Can you imagine getting robbed by people armed with soccer balls and cleats?
Gun Control only changes how criminals commit crimes, it doesn't stop them. Most gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns or illegal weapons, not the "assault" rifles like the AR-15. Most criminals probably aren't willing to pay $850+ just to use it in a crime. And being able to own a firearm to defend yourself is a good thing, if someone breaks into a house they usually don't want the owner to tell anything about them.
[url=http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_survey/CTS9ByIndicatorExtract.pdf] your first source pretty old and second one doesn't exactly compare the two countries...
From my personal experience the lack of guns are better. I have a baseball bat down the side of my bed. When I saw somebody in my back yard I was able to strike them in the side of the knee with it and all my problems were solved. I was fine with this due to the knowledge that the odds of him having a gun were very low. It's easy to go tow to toe with somebody or use a bludgeon when you are fairly sure the odds are even.
More importantly though did you know that America has harsher fines for possession of Marijuana than a flamethrower? Enough said.
Personally i think that Australia's gun law are bs (i live there btw). Honestly, if you want to kill someone, doing it with explosives and knives in the back is just as effective but causes much more pain. The injuries from getting bashed/knifed/exploded upon (paraplegia, broken limbs, brain damage, disembowelment) are much "worse" than getting shot in a limb or another NON-fatal area. Also if you are shot in a FATAL area you most likely will die quickly and without much pain.
But you can kill with such ease and you can hide something with such a large amount of stopping power pretty much anywhere. Guns are specifically made to kill. Why wouldn't something specifically designed to end lives be regulated?
The clip of a gun will run out, if you had a standard 30 round 5.56 NATO magazine loaded into a standard M16 you would only be able to kill around 20 people approx if you are very skilled and calm (before reloading, at which point if another person present had a gun you would be taken down(this is why i think civilians should be able to obtain pistols and the such, if they are considered suitable) . However if you are a psychopath who just uses the "spray and pray" technique, you would only be able to hit a few targets and there is a likely chance that you may only wound most people in the limbs and other non-fatal areas. But bombs and knives are a diffrent story, if you are in the blast-zone of an explosion, you will most probably be killed or injured critically. If you are stabbed, you will probably die (considering that the stabber is smart enough to go for your chest area). Bombs and knives = higher fatality chance. Knives = more effective ONLY if you are trained and calm (unlikely).
I assume for the second part you meant guns not knives. Also, explosives are illegal... Anyway, so you think it's not too bad that a gun can only kill a few people. How many people do you think you could kill in public with a bat before being taken down. Your argument completely denies the fact that like I said before. There is no other use for these things than to kill. Even with explosives the murdurous power is incidental. But guns are too dangerous to be in public posession.
Look at Switzerland: They have one of the lowest violent crime rates per capita in the world, yet most of the citizens are armed. This is not coincidence.
I put that down to cultural differences. I would argue that using Switzerland as a model example for gun liberlisation is flawed for 2 main reasons.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other comparable industrialised nations such as drugs and urban deprivation.
The Swiss are taught from an early age to assicate firearms with national security and have a culturally entrenched collective sense of responsibility. That sense of responsibility simply does not exist in most nations which is why widespread gun ownership, in most cases wouuld be disastrous.
Look at Switzerland on this graph and you can see that even in a culture such as that, gun crime is still high. It would seem obvious that widespread gun ownership and gun crime are directly related.
