Talk:Gun laws of Australia/Archive 1

message: The last sentence is not a sentence. Perhaps someone who can divine its intent can complete it. --Russell E 19:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympics 

message: While the edits of User:202.173.128.90 have removed a lot of out-of-place and POV stuff, I think the article has now gone the other way. For example, "the Australian community" did not push for those specific gun laws, a segment of the community did while another segment (not just the "pro-gun lobby") opposed it. If I remember correctly it was very controversial and, for example, is attributed with destroying National Party support and bolstering One Nation in Queensland. Which brings me to my second point, which is instead of being a tit-for-tat tightrope attempt at NPOV portrayal of the history of gun control, the article should actually provide proper background information on gun politics in general in Australia and the various players in that political game. Until someone can address this and in particular address the anti-gun POV now present in the article I think we need a POV warning, so I'm sticking one there now. --Russell E 12:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-gun bias 

message: Dear anonymous gun rights advocate:
Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.  The view that the reaction to the Port Arthur massacre was a moral panic is an opinion, not a fact, one that is obviously held by some people but not all.  Please attribute these views appropriately, preferably with evidence to back it up. --Robert Merkel 01:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribute opinions please 

message: What happened after the Port Arthur massacre was in fact an example of moral panic and scapegoating on a large scale. My advice to you is to read all the Australian newspapers that were printed from when the news about the Port Arthur massacre was reported to the gun debate that occured afterwards.
After reading the newspapaers, have a read of the Moral Panic page here on Wikipedia as well as look at the Wikipedia page on the Columbine High School massacre and you will see that the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre (as well as the aftermaths of other mass-shootings) was an exercise in moral panic and scapegoating on a large scale.
:My advice to you is that just because you think it was a moral panic doesn't mean that opinion is universal, or even a majority one.  Many prominent Australians consider the introduction of those gun laws as a rational response to events.  I am Australian and my family *are* farmers and occasional hunters, so I *do* happen to remember quite a lot about that particular debate.  I personally think that there's a fair element of truth to your moral panic hypothesis, but that is irrelevant.  It shouldn't be hard to find somebody in an editorial in a shooter's magazine (or even in the mainstream papers) who called the reaction a moral panic.  Quote them instead of asserting your opinion as fact.  As you haven't done so, I'm going to have to revert you again.--Robert Merkel 03:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you listen to me for a second?  I never said that the moral panic hypothesis is irrelevant or that it doesn't belong on the page.  I said we can't state it as fact, because it's clearly not.  I think it would indeed improve the article if it was included in the right way.  What I'm suggesting to you is that to include it, you need to establish that some significant group of people believe this to be the case and get the Wikipedia to report who they are and why they think that.  It shouldn't be hard; heck, blogger Tim Lambert, a guy who devotes a significant fraction of his life to debunking the dubious research of John Lott, thinks the buyback was a waste of money.  Do you have access to a research library so you can dig up relevant articles in various media outlets?--Robert Merkel 04:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Using the phrase "licensed, law-abiding" like a mantra is clearly an attempt to inject POV into the article; I have removed some of the repetetious uses.
Secondly, my anonymous friend, what's wrong with describing people who own guns as "shooters".  What else are people going to do with their guns (except a few who might collect historic weapons which are never fired)? 
Oh, and have you considered getting an account, under a pseudonym?  It doesn't make your real identity any easier to find, and it's easier to discuss things when we have *something* to call you. --Robert Merkel 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second all of the above.  --Russell E 04:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic point 

message: Just an FYI, this is not America.  There is no such thing as a pro-gun lobby, even if this poor nomenclature is illustrated by the media.  Pro-gun lobbyists are NOT neccesarily firearms owners, primary producers or sporting shooters in the sense of the word.  Anyone who believes that firearms are an integral tool in the ability to facilitate freedom (ie: the constitution of the US) are pro-gun.
In Australia, the 'pro-gun' aspect are actually sporting shooters or primary producers exclusively and I'm sure, as a primary producer and sporting shooter that I can safely say we'd all prefer to be refered to in our correct contexts.  Some of us HAVE to use firearms, plain and simple, to survive and run our properties.
Likewise, I am sure that sporting shooters who win us medals at international events aren't 'pro gun' in the American gun nut sense of the word, yet this word has a very overbearing and obviously NPOV implication.  It is thereby my suggestion that we refrain from such name calling, lest the term 'pinko lefty tree hugging pot smoking hippies' be utilised to those who are anti-gun to even out the POV.  :P  And yes, that last bit was tongue in cheek, before I get flamed hard, but just a smart arse way of illustrating that stereotypes are 'teh suck' so to speak.  ;) Jachin 08:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is a bit like calling a chef "pro-knife". Russell E 01:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous use of the term 'pro-gun'.

message: I have removed the following text:
:Further criticism stems from the fact that 100% of firearms in Australia are imported from foreign markets, with the compensated confiscation involving the destruction of over a hundred million dollars worth of firearms it was therefore comparable to incinerating an equal amount of cash from the economy, whilst inflating foreign economies and even further causing a financial vacuum in consumerism by the need to purchase replacement firearms matching the new legislation.
:Hobbyists and sportsmen alike lambasted the new legislation and compensated confiscation of firearms as the government offered a cash incentive to firearms users to hand in their firearms licence and give up the sport, severely negatively impacting on shooting as a sports as well as silencing the protests over the already overbearing firearms legislation by removing the social numerics of shooters.
This all looks like opinion to me. If it is an opinion that is widely held and/or has been made known in the public arena, I'd say it should go in the "Firearms advocacy groups" section, presented clearly as being someone's opinion and preferably with references. It probably needs to be shortened a bit, too, perhaps to one short sentence for each of the two paragraphs above. (I know they are already one setence per paragraph but they're very long ones!)   While we're at it, the estimates the SSAA did on how (in)effective the longarms buyback was should be mentioned. -- Russell E 01:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More opinion presented as fact 

message: I have only recently started viewing this page, but I find it a fairly solid contribution.  The efforts of editors to correct overzealous non-npov work are well targeted and improve the work.  My sense of it at present is that it is unusually npov for this topic; I have written some and find it extremely challenging to avoid loaded language.  See for example my article http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/ScienceServes.htm .
I will withhold a couple of edits until I get a better sense of the house guidelines. At this time I would add some points:
1) Historically we have 'always' had strict controls on handguns: in fact they were introduced around 1920 without debate, out of fear of bolshevism.  
2) State differences in the law were very important. Only the laws of 1996 brought a sense of national interest and federal involvement.  Variations were such that in WA many guns were effectively banned that in Queensland and Tasmania were available without restriction. Unitl 1991, in Tasmania it was possible to own fully-automatic weapons, yet despite many unlicenced guns being acquired in all states from Queensland and Tasmania there is still no instance of a fully automatic weapon being used in a murder.
Harmonisation between the states has significantly reduced the sourcing of uncontrolled firearms. --ChrisPer 01:42 October 2005 (UTC)
:Welcome. I note that you are using the term "npov" - I presume you are familiar with WP:NPOV, the policy it refers to.  One of the most relevant points here is the section of "writing for the enemy".  Even though the majority of editors here seem to be opposed to gun control, that is no excuse for not making our best efforts to present the views of people who endorse gun control as fairly as possible.  
:As to your specific points, your comment on handgun control relating to Bolshevism back in the 1920's is fascinating.  Do you have a source?  
:You also make a good point on the importance of uniformity, but where do you get your evidence for the claim that no automatic weapon was used for a murder?  --Robert Merkel
: Thanks ChrisPer, it sounds like you have some great stuff to add and I'm glad you see the value of NPOV.  Don't worry too much about the rules, encyclopedic style and NPOV are the most important, other things can be tidied up for you by others -- as Robert points out, though, it would be good if you could provide your sources (we can help with setting them out in the right syntax etc). So, be bold in updating pages! P.S. If you put four tildes at the end of your messages (~~~~) it puts your name at the end, linked to your user page, which makes things easier. --Russell E 02:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Robert and Russell, I will document my sources when I edit. ChrisPer 09:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments to editors to date! 

message: I always think a few images are good to spice up an entry, for those with TV-conditioned attention spans ;). I've found a couple of good copyright-expired candidates here:   ... these illustrate the "settlement-1980s" section. However, if we only put these (or one of these) in, it could be considered POV. One could possibly also use the mugshot in the Martin Bryant entry but then it would look a bit odd without pictures for every other section .. so I'm not sure what to do. Suggestions? --Russell E 00:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we could locate an image of the government advertising campaign from the national gun buyback scheme, that would be a good one to add. --Robert Merkel 11:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: A wise man once said to me. "You've heard the weight of opinion, now let me give you the weight of evidence." 
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics  the murder rate has not changed since the new laws. You are just as likely to be killed today as you were at any time in the last 10-20 years (excepting 1996). 
The suicide rate was already going down for the 15 years leading up to 1996, so the ongoing downwards trend cannot be attributed to firearm laws. 
78% of firearm deaths in Australia are suicides, mostly young males, with many confounding factors, such as depression, unemployment, alcohol/drug use, etc. 
Only 5% of suicides involved firearms. 
The violent crime rate has risen since the new laws. 
Our biggest killers are still heart disease, cancer and road deaths.
I have treated numerous drug overdoses, and several attempted non-firearm suicides. The only gunshots I have treated were those involving drugs and alcohol. 
I can think of dozens of better ways for the $500 million to have been spent. How many lives could have been saved by fixing roads, for a start?  --DocJ 02:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with much of your argument, but Wikipedia is not the place to make such an argument yourself.  It's a place to quote other people or groups that have made the same argument.  Is it that hard to find published references making precisely this point?   --Robert Merkel 07:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: It's been over a month since someone objected to my proposal to remove the NPOV tag. Since they are anonymous I don't know whether they've made any changes. Since that person hasn't responded to my query on what they wish to change and whether they're going to change it, and seeing there have been no major changes made in the last couple of weeks, I propose once more that the NPOV tag be removed. I will do so one week from today unless somebody objects. --Russell E 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Russell E 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV tag? 

message: Can the person who is making the statement above subtantiate it?  If not I think it should be removed...  (But then I'm new to Wikipedia so not quite sure of the rules :-) 131.172.4.45 08:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This same question was asked above. As I said there, the statement is clearly referenced. The reference is a radio interview, a transcript of which is available online. In it, Sam Lee tacitly acknowledges that she is the sole member. --Russell E 09:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I got confused. The reference is to the Shooter's Party newsletter which contains quotes from the radio interview. --Russell E 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for statement "Ms. Samantha Lee, chair and apparently sole member"? 

message: I added some info to these sections to add in the role of the AIC as 'umpire' appointed by the government, and clarify the NCGC reference.  I am quite new to Wikipedia, and welcome your edits/suggestions.
Also, the references seem to be getting out of line - there are at least 16 numbers in the text but only 15 in the reference list. ChrisPer 08:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, annoyingly we have to manually make sure they're in the correct order (i.e. the order in which they're cited in the text). I'll try to fix them. -- Russell E 09:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok fixed. For future reference, try to avoid putting direct external links in the text (i.e. the newspaper article on the NSW Bureau of Crime Stats) because the software counts it as one of the numbered references regardless. --Russell E 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to NCGC and Howard Government 

message: I have removed the discussion of the report since it was already mentioned earlier in the same section. However, there I attributed it to the actual person quoted in the newspaper article, Don Weatherburn. I agree the newspaper article reads as if there is a report (but does not explicitely say so), but I cannot for the life of me find any such report on their website. If it does exist we should certainly mention it and refer to it directly but for now I think it should be attributed as a statement of DW personally. --Russell E 10:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSW Bureau of Crime Stats Report 

message: Russell E, I guess this addition was by you.  Do you feel this site is a worthwhile contribution?  It perpetuates that false claim about murders up 300% in the state of Victoria, for instance.  If you i9ntend it as an example of the pro-gun viewpoint only, fine, but a much older site 'The Great Australian Gun Law Con' http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ might be another good example. Cheers!
ChrisPer 03:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't me (I just edited to qualify that it was a POV anti-gun-control site)... actually in general I'm fairly ambivalent about external links in general (wikipedia is not Yahoo!) and I agree that one isn't the best -- in fact there are numerous fairly dodgy sites out there on both sides of the debate. This one in particular, I think, is a high school student's essay (I seem to remember the author posting on a message board somewhere). I let it slide out of politeness but maybe you're right and it should be deleted. --Russell E 05:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Russell E. I will read it more carefully and email the author about the 300% thing. BTW is there a good way to send you a pm?  ChrisPer 09:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you click on my name then click on Discussion it will take you to User talk:Russell E, you can leave messages there (this is the standard way for personal communication in wikipedia)... however if you really want it to be private you can click E-mail this user. Or you can PM me on AHN. --Russell E 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Camper anti-gun control website 

message: I thought it was well-established that Bryant obtained the firearms illegally, e.g.  (search for "have a gun licence"). However the article has been edited to say that this is unclear... could the editor or someone please elaborate? --Russell E 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryant's possession of firearms 

message: CLARK:
Yeah. As a caller to my program yesterday said, in some cases he said, well particularly of bikie gangs it’s fairly easy he said to import a package of motorcycle parts which will include broken down parts of a gun and that’s what happened, that is how they get here.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is one of the difficulties and we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns unless they’re police or in the military or in the security industry. There is no earthly reason for people to have…ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.
- Randwicked Alex B 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quote is here, Yaf.

message: The claim in the article that semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifle ban hurts hunters seems bogus. It is considered among hunters that self-loading firearms are unfair because no animal would have a chance against the rain of bullets, therefore only mauser derivates (bolt-action lever rifle with max. 5 bullets in clip) are used as well as dual fold-barrel shotguns. No honest hunter anywhere in the world would use an AK47 or SKS or pump shotgun to fell animals, you may as well use a gatling cannon or a missile launcher then.
:Respectfully disagree regarding semi-automatic guns.  Also, pump-action guns are not semi-automatic guns, but must be manually operated.  Both semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns are commonly used for small game hunting of quail and other birds that fly in flocks called coveys.  In the US, shotguns are most often restricted to 3 rounds, maximum, when hunting game.  Still, it is often possible to get a "single", a "double", or (rarely) a "triple" when a covey takes flight.  If a bolt-action shotgun were used instead, this would often result in second or third shots being taken when game was nearly out of range, resulting in grievously wounding game instead of killing game cleanly.  No hunter wishes to cause a crippling wound in place of a clean kill.  Semi-automatic modified versions of full-automatic military rifles are also often used for deer hunting, and work very well at this task, and are often much cheaper to buy than new commercial rifles by a factor of 4:1 or even 5:1 or more. To suggest that poor hunters on a limited income, hunting for subsistence food, should only buy expensive rifles is elitist at best, and racist at worst.  Suggest you go someone else for your trolling. Yaf 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Yaf (for a change!). Not all hunters share your "fair chase" ethic. Many simply want meat or to achieve effective pest eradication. --Russell E 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, semi-auto .22 rifles were often used for hunting small game in parts of Australia before the ban. And lots of people used semi-auto shotguns for ducks.  --Robert Merkel 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with "only mauser derivates (bolt-action lever rifle with max. 5 bullets in clip) are used. There are numerous hunters (myself included) who use a Lee-Enfield rifle (with a 10-shot magazine), and plenty of others who use the various Winchester/Marlin lever-actions, which have 7 or 8 shot magazines. If they were legal, a lot of people would also use SKS or M1 Garand rifles- as Yaf said, we're not all marksmen worthy of the Olympics, and the ability to have rapid follow-up shots to ensure a humane kill and no suffering is very important. It's not like responsible hunters blindly empty the clip into an animal, either. As has been pointed out, Semi-Auto .22 rifles and shotguns were favourite Bunny Guns until the ban- rabbits really are a plague in this part of the world, and the semi-auto .22 was prized for getting rid of them.--Commander Zulu 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, the deer released into the Australian bush are in themselves feral animals. --Robert Merkel 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from personal attack. That aside, do you mean to suggest that the article says that semi-autos were not used for hunting?? As far as I know it's only the user comment at the top of this discussion that makes that argument. The consensus response opposed that view and agrees with you that the article shouldnt' make such a claim. If it does we should fix it. --Russell E 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunters do not use any (semi-)automatic! 

message: The whole Tasmania thing seems like a stretch in the light of Windschuttle's discovery that the massacre view of white-black relations is based on lies by major historians. 
The text about relying on kangaroos for food, giving convicts arms and the effects of hunting pressure on nearby animal populations seem to be lifted from Christopher Halls 'Guns in Australia' but that said it about Sydney. (More likely they both came from the same sources...)
Early gun use was partly military in emphasis, and self-protection was vital.  If there is no objection I will post changes to this part soon. ChrisPer 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good ChrisPer. If you have references for your changes and could include them in the article, that would be great. Btw if you mention Windschuttle I guess you'll need to mention the opposing points of view also. --Russell E 01:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem, your changes are great (and on a personal note your Windschuttle link has given me a couple of hours of very interesting reading!) For the technical side of things see Help:Editing#Links, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources  and just try editing (without saving!) sections of the article that already have references to see how they're done. For guidelines on linking and which words to link and which ones not to, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context ... That said, see also Perfection Not Required! --Russell E 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about Tasmania hunting pressure and Black Line incident seem bogus 

message: I plan to update this page to include evidence for media exposure contributing to massacres via imitation (known as the contagion effect or copycat effect).  I have prepared a long article on this, not yet published, and will make it available when I edit the page. Those who would like to enter discussion or read the article beforehand can also email me at thinkshard -at yahoo.com for a copy if they wish. ChrisPer 00:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would probably have to cite some sources other than your own (i.e. in addition to your own) if you want to avoid being accused of violating the policy of no original research. Strictly the policy says it is ok to cite your own published research in the third person, but it would help with credibility if you could throw in some other references too. --Russell E 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of massacres - copycat effect 

message: I removed this:
:Indeed, it is important to note that no single firearm has every pulled its own trigger yet the firearm and not the person is where the blame is consistently placed.  Instead of punishing the individual, more gun laws are enacted, which are, of course, ignored by the criminal.
This statement, which represents an opinion held by some gun control opponents, is being presented as fact.   --Robert Merkel 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: I've added this section explaining the basic outline of Firearms Laws in Australia (along with a discussion of Antique Firearms), to give the reader a basic outline of the situation for lawful gun owners in Australia at the moment, in a (hopefully) NPOV method. 
I've used Queensland's Weapons Act as the basis for most of the information, partly because it's the legislation I have the most knowledge of, and also partly because the basic framework (categories, genuine needs, handgun regs etc) are pretty much the same from state to state and you could probably fill an entire article with a discussion of how NSW makes you wait 28 days for a PTA but you get one for any firearm in a given Category, while in Queensland you can get a PTA in 4 days but you have to tell them what sort of gun (calibre and action at a minimum) you want, and in WA your ability to own a gun at all is entirely dependent on whether or not the local Police Commissioner likes you... you get the idea. Anyway, hopefully no-one minds the new section- I really feel the information in it was a rather important omission from previous versions of this article. --Commander Zulu 06:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, definitely filled a hole. Good stuff. I've made some edits just to bring it a bit closer in line with the Wikipedia manual of style, also to generalise it slightly to other states, and I got rid of non-firearm weapons seeing the article is about gun politics.  A bit of work needs to be done to the rest of the article now as it reiterates some of the points made in the new section etc but I will leave that for another time or another volunteer ;) --Russell E 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a minor edit to remove the metric equivalents of .38" and .45" calibres- they're not exactly the same as the direct metric equivalents, and the legislation (in Queensland, at least) refers only to the Imperial measurements and not the metric ones. For example, .45" includes the calibres .45/70, .45 Long Colt, .45 ACP, .450 Adams, .455 Webley, and .454 Casull... all of which have different actual measurements in metric. --Commander Zulu 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Firearms Laws in Australia

message: Are they actually category A? AFAIK, they're kind of a legal grey area- not really toys, but not really airguns. Is is specifically mentioned in a particular State's weapons legislation? --Commander Zulu 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Airsoft guns which are longer than 65 cm in total length are category A. Airsoft guns which do not exceed 65 cm are category H (handguns). See section 3 of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic.) and interstate equivalents. Wulfilia 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Weapons Act 1990 (QLD) makes no reference to Soft Air/Airsoft guns, only Air Rifles and Air Pistols. The current interpretation of the Act, to the best of my knowledge, is that Soft Air guns are a legal grey area in QLD, and generally considered toys- in that they are not airguns in the traditional sense of the word, and differ only in colour and external appearance from the toy BB guns available in many toy shops. Having said that, anyone who misuses one- say, to rob a petrol station or something like that- would face charges as if it were an actual firearm. Of course, a case could be made that Soft Air guns are considered "firearms", but to the best of my knowledge no definitive ruling on their status has been made in QLD. --Commander Zulu 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right; the position in Queensland is more confusing. I would have to trawl through the regulations to work it out. The real problem airsoft guns have there is that they are subject to control as replicas. Wulfilia 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soft Air guns

message: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html
Can someone find the original study for this?  - Malkinann 07:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The study is: Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference? Jeanine Baker and Samara Mcphedran, British Journal of Criminology,  Advance Access published online on October 18, 2006 (which means it will appear in print at some future date).  I have institutional access to this journal.  If anybody would like a copy of this article for their personal use (that is, NOT to post on the web...) please contact me through the "e-mail this user" link.  --Robert Merkel 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Port Arthur Buyback had no effect on murder rates?

message: While that paper should definitely be mentioned, it also received some non-trivial criticism from a number of Australian economists.  The most comprehensive coverage, however, was at Andrew Leigh's blog, at which myself and ChrisPer participated in the conversation.  However, so did Don Weatherburn (Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research) and Simon Chapman (a professor of public health at the University of Sydney and a former director of the Coalition for Gun Control).  There are other possible sources, but in this case I really think the blog post was the best.  Would others mind if we cited Leigh's blog post? --Robert Merkel 09:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baker and McPhedran paper 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "handed in to the Victoria Police for destruction 3 years earlier" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  OK addeed back a reference to the copycat model with solid references, no nutcases in that list.ChrisPer 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing some original research 

message: [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)
thread_title:  'Legitimate' is an unacceptable term for one side in this debate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: i propose the removing of "Thousands of shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the Government, but were barred from membership." as no citation has been given since asked and find it highly unlikely, (i'd say wrong, but unlikely to find a cite to refute something that didnt happen)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack v1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Arthur Shooting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like an alright idea to me. CeeWhy2 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture wars? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hang on... 

message: Because of all the uncited and unverified claims. Goldfishsoldier 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I will keep an eye out for opportunities to reference, when I know where it comes from.ChrisPer 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up tag added 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, feel free to make it clearer then!:-) ChrisPer 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genuine Reason for Category A 

message: 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)
thread_title: Professional Sporting Shooters eligible for Category C?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of the word "weapon". 

message: Should this be noted in the Federal Government section? CeeWhy2 11:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kevin Rudd to release policy soon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK...ChrisPer 12:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Chapman is a former 'convenor' of the National Coalition for Gun Control 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jobs that need doing on this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Does Federal Labor support the shooting sports, or just Prime Minister Kevin Rudd?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rebirth of Freedom Foundation article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed? 

message: "Gun control groups in Australia gain membership immediately after killing sprees but may lose membership at other times."
Whoa!!  So killing sprees automatically make the groups gain members?  I believe some rewording would make this section run a lot nicer. Pandawelch (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go for it. I tried a long time ago, calling their membership 'ephemeral'. ChrisPer (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: 58.175.201.213 has edited the section on 'measuring the effects' to reverse their sense and make claims in places using the language of gun-control activists. Eg " in favour of protecting Australian citizens from gun deaths" is their usual cant. The other edits show a reasonable familiarity with the language which leads me to wonder if the writer is Simon Chapman himself, though that IP has been used for a bunch of edits that suggest an art historian. Whoever you are, welcome!
After the recent meta-study from Melbourne I feel these edits are on shaky ground. Please drop back and discuss! I note someone else new, Finesportscoat, has reverted and Hayden120 is on the job too.ChrisPer (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah. Another drive-by gun control advocate, no time to even discuss changes.ChrisPer (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editors join us... welcome!