Talk:Gun politics in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Gun politics in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
News On 21 April 2008, Gun politics in Australia was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] "handed in to the Victoria Police for destruction 3 years earlier"

This addition needs a reference or it ought to go. Also, I'm not sure of the relevance of that information. If it is meant to illustrate some point, that point (whatever it is) is probably partisan and the whole thing ought to go in as a quotation from a notable pro-gun (or anti-gun??) lobbyist. --Russell E 11:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


To me, it is just one of the little point-scores shooters have against 'the authorities'. The gun was legally transferred to a dealer for legal sale, and the place in the chain of possession that needs nailing is where it went to someone without a licence. Not worthy of inclusion. ChrisPer 203.59.28.116 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing some original research

I removed a number of claims from this article (which is notably lacking sources for most of its claims); specifically, the ones I removed were those attributing the mass shootings of the 80's and 90's to copycatism. I personally think there's something to this thesis, but without some supporting evidence it's no more than unverified (and possibly unverifiable) speculation. --Robert Merkel 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote in those claims. My article referencing the original sources is at http://www.class.org.au/ideas_kill.htm , and this is forensic psych and behavioural scientists work not conspiracy theorists. I am not really across referencing in Wikipedia yet, so feel free to slam me for doing a poor job, but the science is adequate. ChrisPer 06:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources:

Cantor C. 2001 Civil Massacres Ethological Perspectives. The ASCAP Bulletin Vol 2 No 1. 29-31.

Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, 2000 Mass homicide: the civil massacre. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28:1:55-63

Cialdini, Robert 2001. Influence: Science and Practice 4th Ed. Allyn and Bacon, pp121-130.

Cramer, C 1993. Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9.

Hansen, Jane 1995. “Tassie Guns”, A Current Affair 2 Oct 1995, featuring Roland Browne and Rebecca Peters of the Coalition for Gun Control. Nine Network broadcast.

Lovibond J. 1996. ‘Hobart gun death related to TV show’, Hobart Mercury, 21/05/1996, Ed: 1, Pg: 2, 511 words. Newstext

Mullen, Paul quoted in Hannon K 1997, “Copycats to Blame for Massacres Says Expert”, Courier Mail, 4/3/1997

Pinker, Stephen 1999. How the Mind Works, Norton and Company, 672 pp.

Phillips, D. P. 1980. Airplane accidents, murder, and the mass media: Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces, 58, 1001-1024.

OK addeed back a reference to the copycat model with solid references, no nutcases in that list.ChrisPer 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Legitimate' is an unacceptable term for one side in this debate?

[One editor|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_Australia&diff=114979210&oldid=114978984] removed the term 'legitimate' because it is "not neutral, some people think that all private firearm ownership is illegitimate."


Legitimate definitions: lawful: authorized, sanctioned by, or in accordance with law; "a legitimate government" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Legitimacy in political science, is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or law as an authority. Wheras authority refers to a specific position in an established government, the term legitimacy is used when describing a system of government itself —where "government may be generalized to mean the wider "sphere of influence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate

The people and uses for firearms referred to are both: 1) Legal as in authorised and sanctioned by the law; 2) Authorised and sanctioned by tradition, past popular opinion and current general opinion.

Legal shooters are 'legitimate' in both of the general, applicable meanings. The anti-shooter activists who view shooting as 'illegitimate' are not a large majority. Small vocal minorities have no right to dictate their prejudices to the majority. The editor is correct that the word carries an implication that is pro- one side of the argument. However this linguistic contortion would reframe the debate as neutral between legitimate, widespread interests and the prejudices of a tiny bunch of activists. ChrisPer 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Port Arthur Shooting

Just some feedback after reading the part about Port Arthur...it says that Bryant shot 35 people with 29 bullets. After reading the full-length article about the shooting, I find this fact hard to be true. Perhaps someone could look into it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_Massacre

He killed 35 and wounded 37. It's impossible that he could have done that with just 29 bullets. The article I have just linked you to gives a full rundown of what happened. CeeWhy2 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture wars?

In the second paragraph - 'The cultural debate about gun politics reflects a general shift from 'traditional' values toward modern urban 'cosmopolitan' values'

Second paragraph, Firearm advocacy groups - 'women and people with tertiary educated class values; opposition comes from rural areas, older people, people who hold libertarian views and people with traditional values'

I think that these statements are clearly biased against those favouring gun control measures.

'Traditional values' is a vague term, and used in this context adds positive overtones to those opposing gun control, portraying them as 'decent' or 'normal' people. Similarly, 'urban cosmopolitan values' and 'tertiary educated class values' have negative overtones. True, its not quite as blatant as using the term 'latte-sippers', but these are still not netural descriptions. These two sentences seem to be attempts to juxtapose the two groups by portraying those against gun control in a positive light, and those supporting it in a negative light.

Finally, there are no citations to support these statements. So I suggest the offending terms be removed.

147.8.42.6 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an alright idea to me. CeeWhy2 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing or replacing these terms, but the anonymous person proposing it seems to wish to deny shooters are decent or normal people. If you would say so explicitly could lay out your argument to test its validity.

The terms are a touch loaded but the facts are true: this is a component of the 'culture war' and new-class or cosmopolitan values are replacing traditional values; shooting sports are declining as one direct result. ChrisPer 09:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hang on...

I see a lot of percentages. I don't see a lot of citations. On Wikipedia, information usually requires citations. I will, therefore, remove uncited statistics until citations can be found. CeeWhy2 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this request, andI wrote some of the above:-) When time allows I have added the references I can to parts I have knowledge of. Which stats were you referring to explicitly?ChrisPer 09:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The parts which I removed a few minutes after making this comment on the talk page. You'll have to go through the History log if you want to find them. CeeWhy2 10:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're kidding right?

"However the 2006 result has been analysed by an independent statistical analyst and it is believed that the result confirms the impact of the shooters' vote."

In my area urban north east Melbourne there was no hint of any pro-gun advertisement. I have no recollection of it being mentioned in the media. I'm not saying that I don't believe that there was a push from pro-gun groups but saying "an independent statistical analyst" (which, please?) confirms the impact seems highly spurious. The large number of unvertified statements also concerns me. Cherries Jubilee 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to know who they are talking about; the only ones I have seen writing on this are partisans.
Please be expliciat about which unverified statements you mean. I have edited a fair part of this article, and although I am not neutral I do not hold with the codswallop of conspiracy ideas or with facts pulled out of someone's backside. Sadly, this debate is riddled with that quality of thinking.
If you want to edit, do, and add sources we can use. I added quite a few of the existing references. ChrisPer 09:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up tag added

Because of all the uncited and unverified claims. Goldfishsoldier 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Goldfishsoldier, there are 40 references and 7 external links, far more than many longer but less contentious pages. Please mark the exact claims that you feel need to be referenced.ChrisPer 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Through out the sections on the Port Authur massicare and Monash shootings. Goldfishsoldier 06:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for opportunities to reference, when I know where it comes from.ChrisPer 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genuine Reason for Category A

Firearms licensees must provide a GENUINE REASON for a Category A firearm licence. They must demonstrate a GENUINE NEED for a higher category. THese are terms in the law of the states I have been in, and part of the National Agreement on Firearms. ChrisPer 09:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, but the way it's currently worded is unclear and appears as if someone wishing to acquire a Category A firearm needs a to demonstrate a reason beyond the reasons already demonstrated for obtaining a firearms licence in the first place. It's easy to see why "Genuine Reason" and "Genuine Need" appear almost as similes, and thus I think it's confusing to mention the Genuine Need in relation to Category A firearms in this context. --Commander Zulu 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, feel free to make it clearer then!:-) ChrisPer 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently purchased an air rifle (catagory A) and under the genuine reason section it exempted catagory A firearms. Goldfishsoldier 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Sporting Shooters eligible for Category C?

I can't say I've come across this one before- members of the Australian Clay Target Association (IIRC) who owned pump action or semi-auto shotguns prior to the 1997 Arms Law changes are still permitted to have them (provided they remain members and continue to shoot competitively- again IIRC- and people with disabilities that would preclude them from using a Category A shotgun may also apply for a category C licence. Which state allows "Professional Sporting Shooters" access to Category C firearms, out of curiosity? --Commander Zulu 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked on the Victoria police website and it was a genuine reason for owning a category C firearm. Goldfishsoldier 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional shooters - 'professional sporting shooters' must be a tiny class of people ;-). ChrisPer 04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "weapon".

Please refrain from using the word except in spicific cases, as it implies that a person is using a firearm in the interest of harming other people, which as far as I know, is illegal in Australia. Goldfishsoldier 06:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I was always taught that a firearm is NOT a weapon until such time as it is used against another person. --Commander Zulu 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Many shooters and non-shooters have some form of military experience, where all firearms are routinely referred to as weapons. The term is almost neutral, and used as so by many, many people. There are far worse terminological issues to worry about, including the 'automatic and semi-automatic' label which let them treat Ruger 10/22s as Weapons of Mass Destruction. The activist groups have a shrill mantra about all guns being designed to kill, which is nonsense - except symbolically. Javelins, archery sets, shot-puts and darts have that symbolic connection with weapons and its actually a good thing; let the anti-gun activists be seen as petty. I move we let 'weapon' stand as neutral unless framing is antagonistic.ChrisPer 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a reason why firearms in military use are referred to as "Weapons", and it's related to their intended use in that role. --Commander Zulu 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and its fair enough to use the word weapon more generally if the intention is not pejorative. We use the word weapon about flaming aboriginal boomerangs and spears, after all. I agree with you that it sometimes not appropriate because we wish to step away from connotiations of violence, eg about target arms discussed in a public forum. We went through this argument on about 3 other forums among shooters, and the word is not loaded.ChrisPer 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also the sections about 'Legitimate is unacceptable term for one side in this debate' and 'Culture wars'. The misuse of loaded language is very important, but I suggest this one is not a winner. ChrisPer 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm afraid. In the interests of co-operation, however, I'd put forward "Firearm" as an acceptable substitute for a neutral term. --Commander Zulu 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counting suicides - does substitution matter?

Recent changes by 58.175.200.179 (Keir) apply anti-gun activist backspin to the text on interpreting suicide statistics.

Fact: Gun suicides fell by a certain percentage for about 3 years after 1997. Fact: Total suicides actually rose higher for the same years after 1997.

A number of pro-control people (eg Ozanne-Smith) claim the reduction in 'gun deaths' as the number 'lives saved'. Is this fair or not?

An unknown number of shooters committed suicide in the years after 1996. I knew one myself, and another one was reported (in writing, by a person I know) as a member of his family who took the compensation for his Grandfather's shotgun then bought a bottle of whisky and a rope, and hung himself. Is this man's life then a life saved by gun control?

Fact: Following an anti-gun report on a current affairs program, a person travelled to Tasmania and bought a gun by the method shown on the program, and killed himself. The coroner found that the man acted on a script provided by the program. (Source: Lovibond J. 1996. ‘Hobart gun death related to TV show’, Hobart Mercury, 21/05/1996, Ed: 1, Pg: 2, 511 words. Newstext)

Please make a case for the spin put on these statistics; otherwise I will just revert. ChrisPer 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Rudd to release policy soon

[1]

Should this be noted in the Federal Government section? CeeWhy2 11:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not until it IS released, I think. Then it is really only of interest ifor a few short months until the votes are in... ChrisPer 202.137.193.58 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Chapman is a former 'convenor' of the National Coalition for Gun Control

So why does 58.84.81.127 edit, without comment, to remove this fact which bears directly on assessing his credibility as a researcher? Please provide a reason or I will revert. ChrisPer 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it had no citation and didn't seem to be necessary to mention. I wasn't logged on at the time when I deleted it. Goldfishsoldier 03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Look ABC reporters don't see fit to mention it but Professor Chapman is a professor of activist use of the media who has put a highly public effort into gun control. His whole career is as an activist, primarily against smoking, then gun control. He started with vandalising cigarette billboards (BUGA-UP) and moved into a salaried academic activist role, and the anti-gun effort was a major part of his career including publishing books about it that descibe his role such as 'Over Our Dead Bodies'. His role as a leader of the anti-gun movement is common knowledge, not some sneaky piece of bullshit introduced by some activist trying to poison the well. Note the treatment of Dr Jeanine Baker - she is the real deal AND a member of the pro-gun side, and declares it openly unlike Professor Chapman. If I have to produce a citation for the fact that the Pope is a Catholic, its getting ridiculous. ChrisPer 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Links: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/docs/chapman.htm accessed 10/9/2007 3.01pm: Simon Chapman - Biography "Since 1991, he has run dozens of training workshops in Australia, the United States and Great Britain in media advocacy for public health. He was a key member of the Coalition for Gun Control, which won the 1996 Australian community Human Rights award."

Plus check out his Wikipedia entry:Simon Chapman ChrisPer 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well once you can provide a good citation you should add it in.Goldfishsoldier 04:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK...ChrisPer 12:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jobs that need doing on this article

I suggest: 1) in 'Measuring the effects', add a section describing accessible references eg by Richard Harding (1980) and David Fine, as well as the AIC before 1996.

2) Add a full reference to the report of the National Committee on Violence in 1988-89 and its input to the NAF structure.

3) Find someone who knows about such things to rewrite the sections on the NCGC and GCA mentioning the NCGC history, name people involved in the 1980-1997 period such as Prof Charles Watson, Simon Chapman and John Crook. GCA has published a bunch of books, and Simon Chapman has published an extended gloat called 'Over Our Dead Bodies'.

4) Reference remaining facts that need referencing.

5) Update the firearms theft data - its fallen from 4000 per annum to 1200 according to AIC figures, or .07% of firearms annually. Also only a small proportion of those are subsequently recovered and a tiny proportion associated with subsequent crimes.

6) rewrite 'measuring the effects' into a clear structure - its a hotchpotch at present.

Anyone willing to make suggestions for more needed actions or pitch in?

ChrisPer 13:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<< crickets >>

ChrisPer 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

<<crickets>>

Ah, Goldfishsoldier has moved the cleanup tags so they apply only to the sections on the two massacres that triggered more gun control. Agreed, go for it. ChrisPer 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for handgun ban

The stated reason why handguns were banned before WW2 because of fear of communists is nonsense. Handguns were banned because of their frequent use in armed hold-ups and bank robberies, and because they had no legitimate rural use.Eregli bob 06:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eregli, why do you say nonsense? Have you got sources to cite? I may be able to accept the claim about 'armed hold-ups and bank robberies' because these are an issue in any age, but your 'no legitimate rural use' is a projection of the values of modern people, not tenable in the context of 1920 values. There are plenty of photographs from the time of station women practising with revolvers, because they had to protect themselves during long absences of their men. Publicans had revolvers (at least in gold country), and country bank staff had guns until the late 1970s. So put up sources for your interesting claims please.
I would add that the sources I quote note that Hansard claimed the reasons were armed crime, but that this was a smokescreen. ChrisPer 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, here are some of the sources I read on the matter - it was a British Empire issue not just in Australia:
Australia: Kopel, David 1992. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, Prometheus Books, New York, p195.(I have read this book but don't have a copy to check the page cited, which is from Cramer below)
Great Britain: FEAR AND LOATHING IN WHITEHALL: BOLSHEVISM AND THE FIREARMS ACT OF 1920 http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm (This source is based on declassified cabinet discussions from the time)
Canada: http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/briefhistoryofguncontrolincana.html
ChrisPer 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore they were not 'banned' before WWII. They were restricted, and remember that laws were separately passed in each State. They were effectively banned - in NSW only - for a period roughly from WWII to a time after the Melbourne Olympics in 1956. ChrisPer 06:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Federal Labor support the shooting sports, or just Prime Minister Kevin Rudd?

I noticed some recent edits concerned the new Government's stance on this issue. Well, this source says that Federal Labor "values the role that recreational firearm owners play in contributing to active sporting engagement, to the economy and to Australia's successes at the Olympic and Commonwealth Games" and that the Party "encourages ongoing dialogue between the member-based sporting organisations, legislators and law enforcers", so I don't think you have to say that Federal Labor's stance "remains to be seen". CeeWhy2 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Labor party is a loose coalition of wildly different factions - unionists, the old Right, a politically correct faction that disrespects shooters for their (assumed) race, sex and sexual orientation; and the green-left types (implacably hostile). It is very likely that at the first opportunity these factions will show wildly different intentions to Kevin Rudd. The text you quote reminds me of the similar words of support from the Liberals and John Howard himself. It just seems premature to approve them before they show their true colours. ChrisPer (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what you mean by the "politically correct" faction is the "progressives". Rudd is apparently a pistol shooter and a clay target shooter, so while its obvious where his alliance is, both major parties have politicians supportive of shooting sports. I think for now the SSAA article on Labor's position on shooting sports should be added. Goldfishsoldier (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. So the practical effect is 'no change'? Given that the official position of both major parties has been for no change, A littel note that with the chane in government no change is expected, might be OK. ChrisPer (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rebirth of Freedom Foundation article

The article linked here: http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/the-australian-gun-ban/ is not as described, but a polemic from a US RKBA perspective which ignores or misstates numerous facts.

- Somewhat paranoid interpretation based on HL Mencken's hobgoblin quote. This level of analysis offers nothing.

- over 94% of Australians systematically disarmed; but in fact about 5% of Australians are gun owners and were before. Shooting enthusiasts STILL have guns, just more paperwork and not the types we want. Most used compensation to buy a bolt or lever action .22 instead of the semi ones we gave up.

- .22 pistols were not affected at all, by any 'ban'.

- the crime rate did not explode. This was spin from a US RKBA propandadist perspective. Murder, suicide continued to fall. Armed robbery (non-firearm) rose a lot, for a while, for reasons hard to relate to firearm laws.

- The stats quoted to Dr Miguel Faria were taken form sensational news reports and do not reflect figures over longer time frames by reliable sources at all.

- The whole argument about deterring criminals is not relevant to Australian facts because civilian self-defense with firearms was so rare in Australia BEFORE the new laws that it is not considered a serious threat by criminals.

The linked article references no reliable sources of statistics and makes no fact-based argument. It is rubbish. And as a pro-gun person with a science background it pains me to see such tripe.ChrisPer (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed?

Ceewhy2, why do we need to cite a well-known fact about the Australian Constitution? Its pretty much common knowledge. ChrisPer 124.169.121.49 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)