This was a measure in 1996-1997 which was far more aggressive than anyone in US gun activism has called for.
You often hear about They want to take our guns away and this is usually a red herring but this Australian law really did take away some folks' guns. To be sure they were not the kind of folks you would want to have guns.
"It's unclear from Clinton's statement if she realized Australia's buyback was mandatory; she also brought up voluntary buybacks in US cities. But Australia's plan worked. Suicides and homicides fell following the gun buyback. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but, as Clinton said, it is worth at least looking at Australia's experience."
"On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man with a troubled past named Martin Bryant walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, a tourist town on the island of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle. He killed 35 people and wounded another 28."
"Australia's prime minister at the time, John Howard, had taken office just six weeks earlier at the head of a center-right coalition. He quickly drew a very clear conclusion from the Port Arthur killing: Australia had too many guns, and they were too easy to get."
"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people," Howard wrote in a 2013 op-ed for the New York Times. "I also knew it wouldn’t be easy."
"Howard persuaded both his coalition and Australia's states (the country has a federal system) to agree to a sweeping, nationwide reform of gun laws. The so-called National Firearms Agreement (NFA), drafted the month after the shooting, sharply restricted legal ownership of firearms in Australia. It also established a registry of all guns owned in the country, among other measures, and required a permit for all new firearm purchases."
"One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets."
"Australia solved this problem by introducing a mandatory buyback: Australia's states would take away all guns that had just been declared illegal. In exchange, they'd pay the guns' owners a fair price, set by a national committee using market value as a benchmark, to compensate for the loss of their property. The NFA also offered legal amnesty for anyone who handed in illegally owned guns, though they weren't compensated."
"There were fears that the mandatory buyback would provoke resistance: During one address to a crowd of guns rights supporters, Howard wore a bulletproof vest. Thankfully, fears of violence turned out to be unfounded. About 650,000 legally owned guns were peacefully seized, then destroyed, as part of the buyback."
"What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent."
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
Of course there are two issues to untangle.
1. Does it work
2. Can it pass politically
Clearly a mandatory buyback could be beneficial as you can certainly argue that we already have too many guns in the wrong hands. However, no matter how you wanted to frame it this might be a tough lift politically.
But it does show gun control advocates that Hillary is determined to actually fight back against the epidemic of gun violence.
P.S.. Could a mandatory buyback plan happen in the US? It'd be tough. If you framed it as simply taking away the guns of criminals or people with clear mental illness this could be plausible.
One way to pass a n involuntary gun buyback would be to make it seem voluntary though this is a bit Machiavellian...
You might not make it involuntary but take away the incentive of those who wouldn't do it voluntarily to continue to demur. I'm thinking now of the famous Nudge politics.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/obamas-effort-to-nudge-america-000276
I love me some Cass Sunstein this guy is just brilliant.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Personae-Soldiers-Minimalists-Inalienable/dp/0190222670/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445111920&sr=8-1&keywords=cass+sunstein
http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1445111920&sr=8-2&keywords=cass+sunstein
You often hear about They want to take our guns away and this is usually a red herring but this Australian law really did take away some folks' guns. To be sure they were not the kind of folks you would want to have guns.
"It's unclear from Clinton's statement if she realized Australia's buyback was mandatory; she also brought up voluntary buybacks in US cities. But Australia's plan worked. Suicides and homicides fell following the gun buyback. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but, as Clinton said, it is worth at least looking at Australia's experience."
"On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man with a troubled past named Martin Bryant walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, a tourist town on the island of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle. He killed 35 people and wounded another 28."
"Australia's prime minister at the time, John Howard, had taken office just six weeks earlier at the head of a center-right coalition. He quickly drew a very clear conclusion from the Port Arthur killing: Australia had too many guns, and they were too easy to get."
"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people," Howard wrote in a 2013 op-ed for the New York Times. "I also knew it wouldn’t be easy."
"Howard persuaded both his coalition and Australia's states (the country has a federal system) to agree to a sweeping, nationwide reform of gun laws. The so-called National Firearms Agreement (NFA), drafted the month after the shooting, sharply restricted legal ownership of firearms in Australia. It also established a registry of all guns owned in the country, among other measures, and required a permit for all new firearm purchases."
"One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets."
"Australia solved this problem by introducing a mandatory buyback: Australia's states would take away all guns that had just been declared illegal. In exchange, they'd pay the guns' owners a fair price, set by a national committee using market value as a benchmark, to compensate for the loss of their property. The NFA also offered legal amnesty for anyone who handed in illegally owned guns, though they weren't compensated."
"There were fears that the mandatory buyback would provoke resistance: During one address to a crowd of guns rights supporters, Howard wore a bulletproof vest. Thankfully, fears of violence turned out to be unfounded. About 650,000 legally owned guns were peacefully seized, then destroyed, as part of the buyback."
"What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent."
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
Of course there are two issues to untangle.
1. Does it work
2. Can it pass politically
Clearly a mandatory buyback could be beneficial as you can certainly argue that we already have too many guns in the wrong hands. However, no matter how you wanted to frame it this might be a tough lift politically.
But it does show gun control advocates that Hillary is determined to actually fight back against the epidemic of gun violence.
P.S.. Could a mandatory buyback plan happen in the US? It'd be tough. If you framed it as simply taking away the guns of criminals or people with clear mental illness this could be plausible.
One way to pass a n involuntary gun buyback would be to make it seem voluntary though this is a bit Machiavellian...
You might not make it involuntary but take away the incentive of those who wouldn't do it voluntarily to continue to demur. I'm thinking now of the famous Nudge politics.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/obamas-effort-to-nudge-america-000276
I love me some Cass Sunstein this guy is just brilliant.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Personae-Soldiers-Minimalists-Inalienable/dp/0190222670/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445111920&sr=8-1&keywords=cass+sunstein
http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1445111920&sr=8-2&keywords=cass+sunstein
It's going to be a tough sell.
ReplyDeletePersonally I like the idea of the Federal government only getting involved to the extend to maintaining a national database of background check information.
I guess I am for "states rights" about guns. If the people of Wyoming want laxer gun laws, then let them have it. I think the Dems risk alienating those whom they might otherwise have a chance to win over in "purple" states if they push this too hard.
Which brings up a funny point: in some right wing comments section somewhere (Breitbart, Redstate... one of those probably), I saw a discussion of illegal immigrants. One guy piped up writing (paraphrasing): "I'm from California, and it's TERRIBLE here!... the Mexicans have overrun my town. They shoot guns and drive around in pickup trucks. It's crazy!"
Ahahahaha.... That sounds like a Klan rally!... You shouldn't be kicking those guys out of the country, you should be registering them as Republicans!
That's one of the ironies (one of many) going on here: Excuse me while I indulge in some stereotypes: Mexicans immigrants: a culture of machismo, family values, "patriarchal," big families, guns, pick up trucks, church, values the "sacred"... WTF!!! No wonder Bush thought they'd be a natural ally of the right. I think he was onto something! Also, for all the talk of how immigrants are all on welfare (talk from the right), literally half the people I see everyday are Mexican immigrants (or I'd guess they are: I haven't interviewed each one of them). They dominate the staff in all the fast food places and most other restaurants as well... I've seen Mexican sushi chefs! They are my neighbors...literally, the house right next to me, and all mixed in my neighborhood. I see them at the store, and the kids in the school about three blocks up the street. They are the engineers I've worked with too, and the teachers at that school (many of whom are friends of mine). My Asian/White tenant dates a Mexican guy. He's over in my house with his son all the time (she has a thing for Mexicans actually). The tenant I had before here I also met at work (both engineers)... he's a good friend of mine: half Mexican and half Japanese. It's not uncommon for white people here to speak Spanish (I don't really beyond a few words, but I know a lot who do). If you were going to get a job while in college (working retail or restaurant work) it really would be an advantage to know Spanish. The Mexicans I see everyday are hard workers! I never see them holding a cardboard sign begging for money... I only see them working. Everywhere! Now of course I can't speak for how things are in large cities ... I don't spend much time in LA except on the freeway. So I'm talking anecdotes here. Now of course there are also some problems here with gangs... kids spray painting signs, etc. I don't know, but I suspect those are probably Mexican related gangs mostly. But it's not like we hear gunshots here at night, or that I'm even afraid of walking on any streets in town. I don't even lock my car half the time (of course, you'd have to see my car, Lol).
So this whole anti-immigrant push of the "populists" in the GOP really is shooting themselves in the foot. By choosing to turn their backs on potential political allies and instead declaring war on the immigrants, they better be prepared for what happens if they lose. They'd better get on their knees and pray to their imaginary sky fairies that they win this fight, else the backlash is likely to be ugly for them.
Dems should maximize damage to the GOP by accommodating the immigrant culture to some extent. Especially at this point in time.
Because even best case scenario, the immigrants probably aren't going to stick with the Dems forever. At some point it'll even out. They should make the most of it now while the GOP is imploding.
"pray to their imaginary sky fairies"
Delete...was a little harsh... I should have written:
"pray to White Jesus" ... Lol
... somebody should tell Ann Coulter that next time she makes an appearance on "the View" (for example). Wouldn't that be hilarious?
Delete"Ann, you'd better get on your knees and pray to White Jesus that your side wins, because you're upping the stakes with this tactic and you'd better be prepared for what happens if you lose!"
O/T ... I heard two interviews with Lawrence Lessig that I really enjoyed. I'm intrigued by how passionate he is about his plan. I was frustrated that he didn't get much into the details in either interview. I would love to see him in the next debate... an interesting guy. Too bad he was excluded from the last one.
ReplyDeleteHe's right (I think) that both the right and left are fed up with the "donor class" buying elections. That's probably one of the few things that there's across the board broad appeal on.
So, I'd love to hear him explain his plan in detail and I'd love to see some political experts discuss the flaws with it. Obviously he's put some thought into it, so I'm curious to hear some further discussion of it.
My intuition is that he's way too optimistic, but I'd be curious to hear his ideas bandied about by others. The whole rational for his candidacy actually.
DeleteLawrence Lessig makes more sense than Bernie at least because he's honest. Campaigning is one thing but governing is another
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Australian plan it probably is beyond what is possible in US but it's notable that HRC would even speak positively-though there is a question if she knew that buyback was involuntary.
ReplyDeleteYou could make it voluntary but increase your incentives to voluntarily comply!
They've done voluntary buybacks in some areas of California (like LA I think) if my memory serves me.
Delete"Personally I like the idea of the Federal government only getting involved to the extend to maintaining a national database of background check information."
ReplyDelete"I guess I am for "states rights" about guns. If the people of Wyoming want laxer gun laws, then let them have it. I think the Dems risk alienating those whom they might otherwise have a chance to win over in "purple" states if they push this too hard."
The problem is there are externalities in some states having lax laws as then the dealers just get them from the lax states.
They people of Wyoming would be taking on the risk not just for themselves but the rest of us too.
My take is that O'Malley had some good ideas. Background checks, a waiting period.
Licenses. Why should it be easier to drive a car than operate a firearm?
I'd be OK with licenses. Regarding spillover from lax states: The thing is a lot of these rampage type killers buy their guns legally. If some weirdo who has a hard time communicating with people in general has to find and successfully navigate his way through an underground illegal arms market, I think that's putting a pretty high bar up. Gangs are another story of course. Probably a more important story. All the people killed in rampage killings are probably a drop in the bucket. They get a lot of press, but the real gun violence is probably under the radar as far as the press is concerned.
DeleteIf I were a Wyoming gun nut and felt strongly about my collection of AR-15s... **personally** I wouldn't have a problem having to have a license and having strict Fed gov controls on where I could take them and where I could store them, etc. But that's probably not the case with actual Wyoming gun nuts. But Wyoming isn't a purple state either... it's pretty red.
The more interesting cases are truly purple states. The fact of the matter is we live in a "gun culture." That could change, but that's the way it is right now. There are a lot of "gun senators" out there, and that fact is that isn't going to change anytime soon. It's too bad, because I think there's a better chance of winning some of them back on other issues. I think that there are a lot of 1-issue voters out there though... and guns are real tangible things and make for a good single issue. They aren't like the national debt or immigrants (I'm guessing that immigrants are kind of an abstraction in Wyoming or Montana for example... unless you're a Blackfoot Indian... Ha!).
I'm worried Hillary might regret the Australia comments in the general. We'll see!
I will say this Tom. I got a lot of pushack on Twitter for even posting about this. Some guy owns guns and is certain I want to take his. He kept sending these shots that supposedly show there's no correlation between the number of guns and number of homicides which makes no sense at all and is not what the data I've seen shows
ReplyDeleteGun nuts are liars. But at the same time, like I wrote above, I think these rampage killings probably amount to a drop in the bucket regarding the ill effects of gun violence. We rarely hear about all the killings in a place like Chicago from the media. The rampage gets all the attention. The guns nuts are probably right to be peeved that rampages get so much attention, but for the wrong reason.
DeleteNot shots! I should quality charts. LOL. He's not that bad!
ReplyDeletevery nice post thanks for sharing it.
ReplyDeleteGun Parts for Sale Australia
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. Buy guns in bulk
ReplyDelete