Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because we have Constitutional rights.
You are welcome!
compare the population numbers of both countries...and that may give you a clue...
Do you understand the concept of percentage rates?
compare the population numbers of both countries...and that may give you a clue...
compare the population numbers of both countries...and that may give you a clue...
I don't think population has anything to do with it. Its to do with gun culture.
you could be, just move there
That's the Redneck Credo. Americans are so stupid, they would rather see more useless deaths than admit another country could come up with a model solution to a terrible problem.
That's called epic myopic ignorance.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to keep a well-armed militia, not ordinary citizens.
Japan is a homogeneous society of the one of the most racist people on the planet
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australias history.
Twelve days later, Australias government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The countrys new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a genuine reason for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Posts Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But heres the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasnt been a single one in Australia since.
Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australias history.
Twelve days later, Australias government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The countrys new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a genuine reason for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Posts Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But heres the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasnt been a single one in Australia since.
Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australias history.
Twelve days later, Australias government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The countrys new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a genuine reason for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Posts Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But heres the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasnt been a single one in Australia since.
Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?
Self denfense doesn't count? Really? So it's okay to be shot you just can't shoot anyone in self defense? That hardly seems fair.
oops..After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called assault weapons or military-type firearms, but also 22-caliber rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, according to an association representative.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
* In the 25 years before the gun ban, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
you could be, just move there
That's the Redneck Credo. Americans are so stupid, they would rather see more useless deaths than admit another country could come up with a model solution to a terrible problem.
That's called epic myopic ignorance.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to keep a well-armed militia, not ordinary citizens.
you could be, just move there
That's the Redneck Credo. Americans are so stupid, they would rather see more useless deaths than admit another country could come up with a model solution to a terrible problem.
That's called epic myopic ignorance.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to keep a well-armed militia, not ordinary citizens.
No it's just that we know it's unfair to hold everyone accountable for the acts of one person.
99.9999% of gun owners, even those who own so called "assault" rifles, will never take a life with a gun therefore there is no need to ban any of the weapons they own.
That's the Redneck Credo. Americans are so stupid, they would rather see more useless deaths than admit another country could come up with a model solution to a terrible problem.
That's called epic myopic ignorance.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to keep a well-armed militia, not ordinary citizens.
No it's just that we know it's unfair to hold everyone accountable for the acts of one person.
99.9999% of gun owners, even those who own so called "assault" rifles, will never take a life with a gun therefore there is no need to ban any of the weapons they own.
*sigh* I understand your point, I really do. The majority of people are responsible with their firearms - but at the same time, why do people need an assault rifle to protect themselves?
No it's just that we know it's unfair to hold everyone accountable for the acts of one person.
99.9999% of gun owners, even those who own so called "assault" rifles, will never take a life with a gun therefore there is no need to ban any of the weapons they own.
*sigh* I understand your point, I really do. The majority of people are responsible with their firearms - but at the same time, why do people need an assault rifle to protect themselves?
I don't believe anyone should tell someone else what they "need".
