Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Australian report says gun laws work

ROD MCGUIRK

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 9:29 AM EDT 14/12/06

Study links tough laws with dramatic reduction in firearm deaths ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Oh? Oh? Look out Harper. It looks like there is proof that gun registries work? Good thing that there is the time out in Ottawa where the media will try and make your fantasy about the Senate fill the pages of the news over the holidays. Maybe they'll decide to write about this instead? Could it be that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry? Happy Holidays.
  2. William Hanlon from London, Ontario, Canada writes: Well golly gee, would ya fancy that? Turns out guns really DO kill people. Huh. Time to put away that big semi-automatic deer-blaster, eh Clem?
  3. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: Ah DAAH. Why is common sense so hard to come by, by elected officials ( mainly conservatives). It does not take studies to tell me and many others that reducing available guns and knowing who has those that are available will lower gun violance. That is a no brainer. For those out there that are somewhat "slow witted" let me lay it out for you. A guy get's really pi**ed off.. got that?. Now in his possesion or in his fathers closet is a gun, or several guns!. He is more likely to use a gun to retaliate for real or imagined wrongdoing against him than ..say.. if there was no gun to be found.. Got it?. Now step 2. He might then use a knife, baseball bat, fists.. Whatever. I for one like my chances of survival alot better if someone is commin at me with a knife or a baseball bat alot more than if they have a gun and can stand and shoot me from a fair distance away.. Make sense???. Gee Conservatives need to use there brains on this.. Just a wee bit. I know it's hard to do, Most right wingers like that good ol vengeful every man for himself thing, but use the social net just as much as anyone else, when no one is looking.
  4. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: Good guns laws work, and that is as plain as the nose on your face to anyone who cares to look at the record. Countries with stronger gun laws have fewer gun related deaths. The U.S. is the prime example of the need for strict guns laws but, of course, the gun nuts will never accept it. As someone who has owned guns in the past and been a hunter, sport shooters and others who legitimately use guns should have no problem with stringent controls on these tools for killing. Those who oppose gun control have all sorts of non-sensical rationalizations about why they should be able to have bazookas in daycare centres, but the simple fact remains: fewer guns in circulation means fewer homicides. I do realize that, just as the tobacco companies consistently deny the link between smoking and cancer, gun 'enthusiasts' will deny the link between bullet-holes and gun-caused deaths. After all, the gun didn't do it - the person did. Same argument for impaired drivers - the booze didnt kill anyone, the car did! Sorry, but that just does wash anymore - not with anyone who has a double-digit IQ.
  5. The Guinea from mississauga, Canada writes: What A Load!!!!! Just look at the evidence. Almost all the gun crimes committed in toronto were done with illegal weapons that were smuggled across the boarder. Enough already!!!!! Leave the hunters and farmers alone for God's sake.
  6. Tommy Shanks from toronto, Canada writes: Wow, reducing the number of guns actually does something more than counting them - who would have thought? I am sure the victims of the Montreal Massacre (the latest one anyone) must be relieved their wacko (who's name I refuse utter) at least had legally registered his semi-automatic weapon.
  7. Time Out from Canada writes: # 1 Brendan Caron - I know that you read the article top to bottom Brendan, and I know that you are aware that Australia has no gun registry. So why am I bothering to respond to an obvious partisan meaningless post, that does nothing more than embarass yourself? Because I can.
  8. Progressive Canadian from Canada writes: Although Harpo never listens to anyone in Canada, John Howard is his own personal God, maybe finally this will sink in.
  9. Paul S from Niagara Region, Canada writes: Australia can control the guns in its borders because they are isolated from the rest of the world, much like Britain.

    When we share a 2000km land border with the biggest gun-lovin' country in the world, it isn't nearly as easy. Even if gun control does actually work, you have to be able to actually control the guns in the first place.
  10. A G from Canada writes: If you read the article #1 it doesn't talk about registering guns but banning certain types. I am all for a total ban on semi-automatic weapons. Heck, I would even support a total ban on handguns. Hunters do not need a weapon that can shoot more than 2 or 3 rounds without reloading and aside from the military and law enforcement - why should anyone require a handgun? For all those target shooters who use handguns - maybe we can compromise and allow then to own the gun with a special permit - but only allow non-lethal ammunition - e.g. rubber bullets

    Couple the ban with a minimum 15 year sentence without parole for even possessing a banned gun or using a legal gun in a crime and I think we could see a decline in shootings and murders.
  11. Irene Cornwell from Morinville, Canada writes: Makes sense to me. Many domestic killings, rampages and suicides appear to be anger or impulse based and the non- availability of a handy weapon might give a chance for second thought or for someone to intervene.
    Having said that, I have respect for the genuine gun owner or collector. I have always wondered why the home insurance industry , the gun registry , the police and the bonifide gun owner don't work together to thwart gun theft. People willingly register guns with their home insurance policy. What more information does the registry and the law enforcement community need? Instead of millions spent individually requiring and fighting registration, these interests could work together against a common threat. . . the irresponsible gun owner and the criminal interests. I'm certain the criminal world is greatly amused by this on-going conflict between law abiding citizens.
  12. billy bob from Timmins, Canada writes: How is it that in Switzerland the law is you must have a gun in the house in yet we never hear of mass shootings there.Are the Swiss just better people than us and how is it that for the previous 200 years in Canada there never was any hint of gun registration and 14 year olds used to be able to buy guns and ammunition.Maybe all the intellectuals should ask themselves what variables have changed in the last 30 years and if they can answer that honestly then they will know the real reason for gun control.
  13. Scott Elliott from Toronto, Canada writes: Holy Cow!!! Research by the former head of an anti-gun lobby shows that gun controls work. Astounding!! Who would have thought!?

    And #1 Brendon: did you read the word :registry" even once in the article? If not, could you point out for me how the article shows that registries "work". Please include in your analysis what went wrong with the recent events in Montreal.
  14. Grant Janzen from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada writes: Nice try, Brendan (#1), except that Australia didn't try a registry; they went with a BAN on semiautomatic and pump weapons (as in buying them back from people and destroying them). I would be curious to find out how the Australian experience between 1981 and 1996 (13 mass shootings, averaging 8 killed and 4 wounded per shooting) matched Canada's in the same period. A case of comparing oranges to apples?
  15. robert birks from Ottawa, Canada writes: Gee whiz folks, read the story. Australia offered a BUY BACK rather than a confiscation. Good idea! Then they appear to have put semi automatics and pumps on a restricted list; much like our restriction on hand guns. The story doesn't say anything about an unworkable registry based on the Canadian model. The Australian's are smarter than that.
  16. Jason Graveline from Canada writes: QUOTE: “For example, suicide by hanging has increased dramatically,” Mr. Whelan told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. UNQUOTE So when can we expect the anti-gun lobby to start a petition for a rope ban or will a $1billion registry of all rope and rope-related products suffice? Next, ban sharp objects, baseball bats and of course, pointy sticks! Shall we bubblewrap our children before we let them out to play? QUOTE: But the researchers, headed by Prof. Simon Chapman, a former member of the national anti-firearm lobby group Coalition for Gun Control, found there was no evidence of method substitution in homicides or suicides since guns became more restricted. UNQUOTE A former member of an anti-gun lobby group headed up the research. No possible conflict of interest or bias there, eh? Here's an idea! Stop harassing law-abiding firearms owners who would not and will not commit a crime with their rifles, shotguns or handguns. Instead, agressively pursue the criminal that has no regard or respect for the nation's laws or it's citizens. Too bad tackling the real issue is so tough; far easier to just make life difficult for responsible gun owners.
  17. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Another "interesting" headline. The details are rather sketchy and incomplete! Of course less guns would coincide with less gun deaths, but the last time I looked, Australia does not have a southern neighbour to supply, or resupply the dwindling gun numbers! It would have also been interesting to have reported the "gang" situation in that country.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top