‘It’s just horrifying’: Seven killed in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in 22 years

"An Australian community is reeling from the deadliest mass shooting the country has seen in more than 20 years, after seven people, including four children, were discovered dead on a rural property near Margaret River....

"The deadly incident was Australia's worst mass shooting since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, when a gunman opened fire in a cafe in Tasmania and then hunted down more victims in his vehicle, killing 35 and injuring many others.

"As The Washington Post reported, soon after the 1996 incident, John Howard, who was elected as Australia's prime minister that year, enacted strict gun control. Known as the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), the law banned the possession, manufacture and sale of all semiautomatic firearms and pump-action shotguns other than in 'exceptional circumstances,' such as military and police use.

"The NFA also mandated that applicants wait 28 days from the time they obtain a permit to the time they buy a weapon. Applicants are also required to undergo firearms training, and weapons and ammunition must be stored separately, according to the law."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-shooting-in-22-years/?utm_term=.72cade7c2e7f

It's much more horrifying to them because unlike Americans they are not used to mass shootings happening regularly. Will they find it necessary to pass new gun laws?

 

You don't realise what's now coming to lawful gun owners. We'll be the UK by the time all is said and done.

I live in the state affected.

 

Sad for the victims, and it will likely get sad for lawful gun owners. Wait until your government realizes that the Cumbria shooter used a bolt action .22 and a double barrel shotgun to kill 12 people when they start looking at new laws.

 

The firearm-related restrictions implemented in the wake of the Port Arthur incident did nothing to prevent mass shooting from occurring. The nation of Australia was simply experiencing a temporary lull, and attributed it to the restrictions being implemented into law. There is now undeniable, confirmed proof that the restrictions did nothing at all. The lull has now come to an end, and more than likely the number of mass shootings in the nation of Australia will increase significantly.

 

You lost them all in a boating accident, I'm sure.

 

GUN FREE ZONES = KILLING ZONE

When will they ever learn?

 

But wasn’t this shooting of seven people the deadliest shooting in 22 years? Hell....don’t we have 5x more gun murders than that on a daily basis in the heavily armed US?

 

The weapons that are used in mass murders and other homicides are still available in Australia. It's the difference in people, not their laws.

 

Wow, Aussies (following their gun legislation) just became nicer?

 

How many mass shootings have they had during that time? How many mass murders?

 

What does that matter?

 

Criminals will always be able to obtain every kind of weapon regardless of any "gun ban".

 

Why do you think Australian evidence finds crime reduction effects from their buy back policy?

 

How could it reduce gun crime when guns will always be easy to obtain in Australia?

 

I'm referring to the research (e.g. https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/12/2/509/99272 ). What accounts for this evidence?

 

Like this evidence:

"This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods."

https://ssaa.org.au/assets/news-res...arms-buyback-and-its-effect-on-gun-deaths.pdf

 

ARIMA has its place, but its not powerful stuff overall. You are correct that there isn't a consensus over Aussie evidence. However, we wouldn't expect one. Have you read it and how would you determine the more robust study?

 

Well, we can't actually see the research that says 80% decline in suicide, but luckily that's not the only source.



Do you see an 80% decline in this chart? Or in this one?



http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...A61B65AE88EBF976CA256DEF00724CDE?OpenDocument

 

You should have stuck with your previous working paper effort. That you tried the raw data counter only tells me that you're prepared to make comment without validity. Pathetic.

 

Given the raw data, I don't even see the need for a study. It wouldn't affect their laws or our laws. The gun buyback left 86% of the preban guns in civilian hands, and the only way that would make a significant difference is either the banned guns were the most useful for suicides or the men who owned the types of guns that were banned were the most inclined to suicide.

 

What was the incidence before and after?

 

It's a very sad incident. Grandfather living on a rural property who was probably licensed and had registered firearms, killed his daughter, her children and himself - according to news reports I've read. It's a Hollis Brown situation.

As something to be used by anyone discussing firearms control laws it's, in the phrase of the day, a "nothingburger".

 

You make comment about a study's findings and think you can just refer to the raw data? This sort of ignorance does bore me.

 

Different kinds of gun licenses in Australia:

"Category A is .22s, shotguns and air rifles. That’s the easiest license to obtain. No semiautomatics are allowed.

"Category B is for center fire rifles. You have to provide a reason for why you need a more powerful gun. I shoot feral pigs and foxes; that’s a valid reason. Again, no semiautomatics.

"Category C is available only to farmers; they can own a semiautomatic shotgun or .22 but the cartridges are limited to five shots for the shotgun and 10 shots for the .22.

"Category D, for semiautomatic guns and rifles, is only for professional shooters: you have to have a registered business and prove that you are earning an income through shooting.

"An H license is for handguns. If you want to buy a pistol in Australia you’ve got to be a member of a target pistol club. You’ve got to do a minimum of eight competition shoots per year to keep your license. If you don’t, you lose it.

"Category G is for collectors. For that you’ve got to attend at least one meeting per year."
http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/

Has it been reported what guns the killer used?

 

So you can predict the future?