General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAustralian Mass Shooting Victims: 1987 to Present
I put this graphic together in response to yesterday's mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon. Please feel free to share with anyone and everyone, via email, Facebook, Twitter, whatever.
Direct link for image (remove the asterisk): h*ttp://s9.postimg.org/6qsn1gjin/Australian_Mass_Shooting_Victims.jpg
Thanks.
treestar
(82,383 posts)easy access to guns is the real problem. Make them harder for everyone to get.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)You're the first. I was thinking that some may be hesitating to comment or recommend because the graphic is hard to believe. ("Can that really be accurate?" So I'll hasten to reassure anyone now that the information is 100% accurate. I used multiple sources, but for a quick recap, here's a Slate article from yesterday:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
Thanks!
Response to Old Crow (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)here try to claim that Australia still has lots of shooting deaths, when it actually has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the world.
I am heartily sick of the second amendment's sacredness held up as why we can't possibly do anything about the gun violence in this country,
If every single day, every single gun death got nonstop media coverage for a day or two, well there aren't enough hours in the month to handle the deaths that occur on just one day.
I also wish photographs and video of the violence and its aftermath were made public. Instead, what we see is sanitized, mostly distance shots of ambulances or grieving people holding vigils, as if a vigil will make a dent in anything.
Yesterday someone posted a silent thread, and I refrained from going there and saying We don't need a freaking silent thread, we need a very, very noisy one. Prayers and thoughts are wasted energy.
Get rid of the guns.
shenmue
(38,503 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Hey, I might be also. Yes, sign me up for being an Aussie. Being an American lately feels like I've got a bullseye painted on my back.
seaotter
(576 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Your logic eludes me.
seaotter
(576 posts).
.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... hiding that Sarcasm tag. As you've probably noticed, when it comes to gun control discussions, all sorts of outlandish statements are made in earnest.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Interesting.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)The main paper I've based this chart off of defines a "mass shooting" as having three or more victims.* I agree that's a bit arbitrary. Our own FBI has no specific definition of what constitutes a mass shooting; the only official definition they have that seems germane is for " mass murder," which the Bureau defines as an event where someone kills four or more people in a single incident.
*Chapman et al. (2006). Australias 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Retrieved from:
http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf
See Table 1 on page 367.
Hope this helps.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Two died. If that's not a "mass shooting" I fail to see the point of whatever definition of "mass shooting" excludes it.
At any rate Sydney should count, then, since it had three deaths.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... the other two deaths being the gunman himself, shot by the police, and a hostage who was accidentally killed by the ricochet of a policeman's bullet.
Hope that helps.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... the paper I've drawn the data from defines a "mass shooting" as an incident where a gunman kills three or more people. If you'll take a look at the paper (using the link I provided), I think you'll understand the methodology better.
Bucky
(53,804 posts)Compare that to America. We have at least one 4+ fatality mass shooting every week, and have attempted virtually no laws to interfere in it. Even if a background check didn't stop every shooting (obviously it wouldn't) it will save lives. There would be fewer shootings, less deaths, and no loss of liberty.
It's sad, of course, that questions like this come down to counting numbers of people needlessly killed. But that's what policy is about, moving the numbers in the right direction. It's far far sadder that there are people who are fighting against moving the bloody-soaked numbers downward.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)More deaths that should not have happened...Welcome to Rot-Wing America...
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)we are in the northern hemisphere.
That is the only reason I could come up with.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)The gun freaks can't find enough useless and destructive excuses as it is. Now you get factual on them.
Gooday, mate.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Birds of a feather...
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If a similar law were passed here, the government would be overthrown. No other country in the world has a gun culture like ours.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,321 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Not a club I would be proud to be in.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Prepare for lame/bullshit excuses...some have no shame at all and will defend the gun above all else.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I had an interesting discussion with one poster who was curious as to why a couple shootings post-1996 weren't included in the chart. Turns out the two incidents in question were excluded because they didn't meet the "mass shooting" criteria of having the gunman kill three or more people, that criteria having been used by the paper I based the chart on.
It was a good discussion and points out that I really ought to define the term "mass shooting" somewhere on the chart. I've got to go offline for awhile, but maybe I can update the chart tonight. It would be an improvement, for sure.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It is sad we have to define anything to do with 'mass shootings' since we are supposedly an advanced civilization/species able to rise above our baser instincts.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,321 posts)And we all went 'Yeah, alright then, that seems fair enough.'
After Sandy Hook where little tiny children were killed, your government said 'Well....maaaybee....if we got rid of the BIG guns?' and 50% of you said 'FUCK YOU, DON'T TAKE MY GUNS!' "
- Jim Jeffries in his now famous anti gun stand-up bit
The gun control debate was lost and is now pretty much over after Sandy Hook when the American public, or at least its elected representatives, decided that we could live with elementary school children being shot in the face.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... but it seems pretty accurate, alas. In the coverage of yesterday's shooting, I was reminded of the Sandy Hook total: 26. Such a large number. I drive by the Sandy Hook exit on my way into and out of Connecticut several times a year and it's usually with a lump in my throat.
On edit: I found a video of the Jim Jeffries routine you described--and it's awesome. Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention!
A HERETIC I AM
(24,321 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Thanks for the link. Really gave me some good laughs. Even the end: "You know what's good about the musket? It give you a lot of time to calm down." Great stuff.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,321 posts)At Sandy Hook Elementary.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I grew up in Connecticut and still have family there. It's a small state. When the massacre occurred, the entire state was in mourning. You could see it in people's faces everywhere you went: the gas station, the grocery store, the post office, everywhere. The entire state, for weeks, felt like a funeral home. It still effects me.
olddots
(10,237 posts)in America it became a fashion statement.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That indicated guns were readily (and legally) available in Australia and Canada but those countries don't have problems with mass shootings. Does anyone know if it is true that it is fairly easy for an individual to legally obtain a gun in Australia and Canada?
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)And I would say that describing it as "fairly easy" to obtain a gun in Australia is inaccurate.
1. Many types of guns are flat-out illegal, including many semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns.
2. Prospective gun owners must demonstrate a valid reason for needing a gun, such as hunting or an occupational requirement (security guard, for example). "Personal protection" or "self-defense" are NOT considered valid reasons.
3. Prospective gun owners must be at least 18 years old and first pass a gun safety course.
4. Each gun purchase requires a 28-day waiting period, and every firearm is registered in a national database.
5. Guns can only be purchased from a licensed dealer and there are strict limits on the amount of ammunition you can buy.
6. Licenses expire after five years, at which time the individual must reapply and re-demonstrate a valid need for the firearm.
7. Police are allowed to confiscate a gun from anyone whom they judge to have an impairment, physical or mental, that makes the individual "unsuitable" for gun ownership.
If you need still more information, here's a link to a detailed report compiled by the U.S. Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
Hope this helps!
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)You can walk the streets of metro Sydney any time of the day or night and never give a second thought to becoming a victim of gun violence. As opposed to New Orleans, where you walk with a dog and a 1000 yard stare, under the lights and ready to run.
The side benefits of a culture that abhors violence that is not on the rugby pitch.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I hear so many good things about Australia of late. I'm hoping the U.S. can figure out how to emulate some of her successes. Living here in a country that's slipping behind in a fog of complacency and "exceptionalism" is a bit discouraging.