Talk:Gun laws of Australia

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gun laws in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113130203/http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf to http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18950038-7583,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentLCMembers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826235136/http://www.ausparty.org.au/issues.html to http://www.ausparty.org.au/issues.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A user has removed a whole section about a study considering state and territory compliance with the national firearms agreement. When I reverted this, i was reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/809576852.  Rather than get in an edit war, I'd  be happy to discuss in this page. I disagree with the user that it is irrelevant to the article. Thoughts? Goldcactus (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the section is rather long standing and relates directly to the gun laws in Australia. It should remain in the article. Stickee (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

text: The study was reported by multiple third party sources, including the ABC, SMH and The Guardian. Here at Wikipedia, we says what sources say, not what our opinion is. You might think the report is "highly biased", but the reliable sources don't. Stickee (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making further discussion regarding the additions to these sections. The edits are unsourced, and appear to be original research by the author. Stickee (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of section about 2017 study 

message: There's a couple of statements that are entirely sourced by primary sources and show no evidence of notability, as per the WP:PRIMARY policy. As such I've reverted . I see  also  it too previously. Stickee (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using solely primary sources is there's no way to establish notability about the information presented by the primary source(s). At this stage, there's no evidence that statement is notable at all. Other content in the article is republished in notable secondary sources. Stickee (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

text: As stated by WP:DUE (linked in your quote), it's republishing in reliable sources (aka notability) that's makes an item worthy for inclusion in an article. Stickee (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

text: "Stickee accepted that the item was worthy of inclusion." No, I never did. Stickee (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your effort to read my mind. However, not noticing something does not mean I agree with it or "accept it as worthy". Stickee (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I never said it was worthy of inclusion. But that's a pointless thing to argue anyway. Focus on policy-based reasoning for inclusion. Stickee (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sourced statements 

message: This article should be improved, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Gun_laws_in_Australia. Some proposals are already here on this disc some may come additionally. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of Article  /  Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics  

message: ==== Literature ====
* Beattie, Stewart K.;   A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages) 
* Chapman, Simon; Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 978-1-74332-031-0 (275 Pages),(read online)
* Deckert, Antje; Sarre, Rick; The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice, Springer, 2017, ISBN  978-3-319-55747-2  (read online) (P. 788 ff => history of gun laws development)
* Noble, Keith Allan; MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. (2.nd Edition) ISBN 978-3-47884512-0
==== other Sources ====
* AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT: Commonwealth Position on Firearms, Submission 8325, Canberra 1991 Oktober, 9 / , No. 15879 Cabinet Minute
* THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, House Hansard, Thursday, 9 May 1996 Page: 766 f.  Gun Control ("... Denison (Mr Kerr) proposing ... The need to give full support to the Commonwealth's initiatives to secure stricter gun control ...")
* Barbour, Bruce (NSW-Ombudsman) 2006; Review of the Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2002, Firearm and Explosive Detection Dogs 
* NSW Police, Annual Report 2012-13, Page 99 "On 6 July 2012 the Firearms Act 1996 was amended to authorise police officers to seize licences and permits that are suspended, revoked or otherwise cease to be in force. Before the amendments, police only had the power to seize a person’s firearms. " source: online-PDF
* THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA,  HVP No 43 - 27 March 2017, Federation Chamber  ILLEGAL FIREARMS TRAFFICKING (" Mr Goodenough ... this House: notes that while Australia has some of the strongest firearm controls in the world, illicit firearms continue to remain a threat to community safety ...")
The link number 56 to a pdf is no longer available. https://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr02/mr02.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.3.0 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Improvements 

message: * AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT: Commonwealth Position on Firearms, Submission 8325, Canberra 1991 Oktober, 9 / , No. 15879 Cabinet Minute
* THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, House Hansard, Thursday, 9 May 1996 Page: 766 f.  Gun Control ("... Denison (Mr Kerr) proposing ... The need to give full support to the Commonwealth's initiatives to secure stricter gun control ...")
* Barbour, Bruce (NSW-Ombudsman) 2006; Review of the Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2002, Firearm and Explosive Detection Dogs 
* NSW Police, Annual Report 2012-13, Page 99 "On 6 July 2012 the Firearms Act 1996 was amended to authorise police officers to seize licences and permits that are suspended, revoked or otherwise cease to be in force. Before the amendments, police only had the power to seize a person’s firearms. " source: online-PDF
* THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA,  HVP No 43 - 27 March 2017, Federation Chamber  ILLEGAL FIREARMS TRAFFICKING (" Mr Goodenough ... this House: notes that while Australia has some of the strongest firearm controls in the world, illicit firearms continue to remain a threat to community safety ...")
The link number 56 to a pdf is no longer available. https://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr02/mr02.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.3.0 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  other Sources 

message: , even though it is no longer true that NZ has had no mass shootings, we should not remove the McPhedran paper as it is still valid as of the time of publication.  I've added a note that the claim of no mass shootings is no longer correct as of 2019 but that may not actually invalidate the conclusions of the paper.  We would need to find a RS that says the paper is no longer valid before removal.  Springee (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: CamV8, I don't agree with the view that this isn't specifically relevant to Australian gun laws since the paper was comparing the two countries in context of the laws Australia implemented vs those in NZ.  I also don't agree with refuting as justification for removal.  In cases like this its common to have research papers on both sides.  However, I think your 10 year test argument is harder for me to discount.  Again I lean towards keep it as it doesn't harm the reader to have access but also keep the context of NZ has since had a shooting.  Since I haven't read the paper I can't say how that single event changes the data in the paper.  This is also an important point.  For a while Norway lead the first world in terms of mass shooting casualties per capita, significantly exceeding the US, due to just one even.  If I recall the study used a 10 year window.  Once the Norway shooting was "too old" Norway once again dropped way down on the list.  Anyway, I think you have made a good argument in terms of the 10 year test but I would rather qualify the scope of the study vs just remove it.  Should we ping some other active editors on this page for a 3rd opinion? Regards to you as well, Springee (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Springee, lets stick to the question of whether the McPhedran paper is worthy (in the context of this article) of representing the position its conclusion states. I find this discussion a little perplexing as you have stated you haven't read the paper. Other incidents in other countries such as Norway have no context in this discussion on this article. As suggested earlier, if you would like the discuss the comparison of Australian gun laws with other countries then this discussion would be better suited to the Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation as comparison between countries is presented in that article. While I understand your point, I think this paper is no longer relevant to this article. Cheers CamV8 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't tried to find the paper and there isn't a direct link.  However, the paper is titled "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence" so it seems relevant to this article.  I would presume based on the Wikipedia text that the article was assessing the effectiveness of Australia's legal changes by comparing them to NZ's laws.  I will try to get a copy of the paper to get more context for the conclusion stated in the Wiki article.  Have you had a chance to read it?  Springee (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christchurch shooting and removal of McPhedran et al study 

message: Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH) made several studies on the NFA. Their 2006 study found an effect on suicide but not on homicide though in later studies they questioned this. Hence my edit, which I hope clarifies the text. Michael Glass (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving an apparent inconsistency in the text.  

message: The paragraph discussing the National Shooting Council was advertising copy supported by a single primary source. It would have required rewriting in entirety to fit encyclopaedic tone, but as a non notable organisation (the online presence is limited to their facebook page, website, and adverts), I considered the most expedient solution deletion of the offending paragraph. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Shooting Council mention removed as non-notable 

message: The lede of the article is a little short and doesnt introduce the article as well as it perhaps could. This could use some expanding, particularly the 4th sentence but in general perhaps it could use a small rewrite/expansion? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the second sentence mentions several high-profile killing sprees. What high-profile killing sprees are these? I don’t recall them. Did they really happen, perhaps they did not gain much media attention at the time, or are we assuming there must have been some? 120.153.17.94 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted very much in error. Please delete. 2001:8003:7C10:DB01:AC17:77E6:AB48:7B6 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede needs work 

message: I think it would make more sense that way, as 45 ACP is generally used in auto-loaders and the only revolver I can recall off the top of my head chambered in it (m1917) was double action. GastroGaming (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  shouldn't the hyperlink when referring to .45 caliber after mentioning single action shooting competition link to 45 long colt?