That's not true. Firstly, gun-related violence is irrelevant, total homicide is what matters. Secondly, non-gun homicide did actually increase, or rather, it didn't decrease in line with overall homicide. Knife murder barely decreased at all, being 110 a year in 1997, being 86 now. Hands/feet and "other" homicide spiked somewhat after the 1996 buyback, gradually decreasing from then on. http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I switch to the new forum to edit posts and then switch back, lol.
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership accounting for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for members of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
Burglary also spiked after the buyback https://web.archive.org/web/20180120172 ... crime.html
But even if it did increase homicide, Australia never had a problem with homicide. I absolutely reject the notion that people's rights be infringed upon for marginal benefits at best.
And as for private means of gun control, private companies do seek generally to maximise profits, that's why it's a good idea to be discriminating in who sell your guns to. It's bad PR to have a gun you sold be an instrument in a mass shooting. Just change the federal FBI checks and change it with some private licensure scheme, and I can bet you that most vendors would adopt that as a requirement for purchase.
Well it actually seems that gun stores can deny service, which is good. But generally, private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... -they-wantabraker wrote:
Firearm distributors cam deny someone service, can they? I know they may get a bed rep from it, but I am not aware of any law making it illegal.B1rd wrote:
I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.
