Talk:Gun laws of Australia/Archive 1

Statistics

Okay, so I was reading an argument that within the first year homicides went up 3.2%,(& homicides with firearms went up 300%), Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6%; Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44% (Victoria only). I'm aware that the robbery number was cherry-picked as the biggest increase, because the Australian number wasn't as distinctive/large.

It's been almost a decade, and I've not seen any re-caps (along with comparisions of the newer pistol laws - before and after)

I also haven't seen any data from before (ie: were the trends going up, staying stable, or going down previous to this legislation), I haven't seen any numbers per capita (are there simply more homicides because there are more people?), or data from economic strata (are more people becoming poor?)

I know that in the U.S. the crime trends were already headed down, and advocates tend to claim those decreases for gun control. What's the status here?

-- ~ender 2005-02-26 08:04:MST

I think you have it backwards. The biggest change to gun laws in the U.S. recently is that many states have allowed the right to carry a concealed weapon. This has been accompanied by a decrease in the crime rate, and it's gun-rights activists, not gun-control ones, that seem more likely to cite crime-rate figures lately. Funnyhat 05:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Those statistics are highly misleading. I did something of an overview here [1] -Jeremy

"moral panic" stuff - not specific to Austraila

Removed:

The attitudes towards law-abiding firearm owners and the opponents of the 1996 gun laws by the politicians of Australia, the media, the anti-gun movement and the community in aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre and the rapid introduction of the 1996 gun laws were an example of moral panic on a large scale with many people using law-abiding firearm owners and those who opposed the 1996 gun laws (both gun owning and non-gun owning) as scapegoats for what happened at Port Arthur. Also, the rapid introduction of the 1996 gun laws highlights serious flaws in Australian democracy with the parliament rapidly passing these laws without proper, rational debate and scrutiny of these laws as well as threatening politicians who are members of political parties that back the bans but hold pro-gun sentiments and objected to the bans with removal from the party if they didn't support the political party's line and stance on the gun laws.

To claim this is specific to Australian democracy is just nonsense; politicians *always* respond to public outcries on a specific issue, and the response is often ill-considered legislation that advances other agendas that couldn't get passed in more normal times. Hence the PATRIOT Act in the United States, to pick one very well known example. Or witness the belting the left of the Democratic Party was given by the hawkish centrist wing on their opposition to the Iraq War in 2003, despite being proven completely right by history. --Robert Merkel 06:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also removed: "The incident left a strong impression among those who opposed the 1996 gun laws that John Howard dislikes all forms of legal gun ownership among law-abiding Australian citizens as well as him using the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre for his own personal political gain (since he was elected Prime Minister of Australia in March 1996 which raises questions on his motivations) by using law-abiding firearm owners as scapegoats and potraying them as threats to the community by wearing the bullet-proof vest to the rally."

Howard was elected before the Port Arthur massacre. Aside from that, the section was very poorly constructed, and quite obviously constructed from a pro-gun perspective; nobody can pretend to know what John Howard considers a threat to the community. That is an inference that shouldn't be made here. Also, the personal political gain Howard got out of the aftermath is irrelevant to the gun control debate.

Olympics

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)

More pro-gun bias

This: "This has in fact become a hot issue in recent times as some people are becoming more sympathetic to private gun owners and the burdensome restrictions placed on them, forcing the political climate to focus more on the criminals using the weapons and less on the weapons themselves."

Is not 'fact', but someone's opinion regarding gun control (as much of this article seems to be). Using adjectives such as 'burdensome', and assuming to know that more Australians are sympathetic to pro-gun groups than opposed to said groups has no place in an encyclopaedic website.

Furthermore, categorical statements like "forcing the political climate to focus more on the criminals using the weapons and less on the weapons themselves." also have no place in an encyclopaedic website, as this is more conjecture and opinion on the political climate of gun control in Australia.

Anti-gun bias

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)

Attribute opinions please

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)

Reply

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)

Robert Merkel,

There are many Australians out there who see that the actions of the politicians, the media, and the anti-gun movement in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre was an act of moral panic, mass-hysteria, and scapegoating and many of these people are not gun owners. Also, the whole moral panic hypothesis is NOT irrelvent because what happened after Port Arthur and Monash University was an example of it and nearly a million law-abiding Australian citizens were treated like crap.

Besides, what I haved added on the "Gun Politics of Australia" page posting IS fact - it is the stuff that people like yourself tend to overlook or ignore because it dosen't doesn't fit your anti-gun views. There is a need to show another side of the debate as well as the need to show facts and information on the political and social environment in the immediate aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre and the Monash University shootings that have been ignored by people like yourself because there was a large segment of the Australian community that was vilified and ostracised by the politicians, the media, the anti-gun movement and sections of the Australian communinity back in 1996 and 2002 all because they objected to a law that was bad and had no impact on making Australia safer or no impact in reducing the chances of another mass-shooting.

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)

Major edit

I have submitted a major edit of this article. Most the the old material is retained in the History and Firearms and crime in Australia sections. I have added a bit more historical background, and a whole major section on the major players in gun politics in Australia. I have put some proper references in, though more are needed. I have tried to change all POV material to be attributed opinions rather than stating it as fact. Most of the pro-firearm stuff I have placed under the "Firearms advocacy groups" subsection, where it belongs. Similarly POV anti-firearm stuff should go in the "Gun control groups" subsection with clear attribution.

I believe the article is now NPOV though the "Gun control groups" section could do with padding out ... I can't bring myself to find out what crap they're spouting to put it in there myself ;). So I think the NPOV warning could be taken out, though seeing I'm the one who put it up there it may be a bit presumptuous of me to take it out on the strength of my own major edit.

To the person who keeps adding pro-firearm POV stuff, please desist, you only make pro-gun look petty and invite a revert war. I am strongly opposed to most of Australia's gun control myself so don't take this the wrong way. By all means make our case but anything that is unproven or unprovable is opinion and needs to be presented as such.

--Russell E 05:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is reasonably fair, though you're right, it does need somebody to look into the gun control campaigners in a bit more detail. I'm happy to remove the neutrality flag from the main article (I'll do so tomorrow if nobody objects). Good work.--Robert Merkel 22:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a minor edit I made, mentioning it in here in the context of historical information. I removed the reference to American gold diggers being a major part of the defence of the Eureka Stockade. At best it's gilding the lily (see http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/53891/20060103-0000/www.eurekatimes.net/Eureka/eureka-flags-of-origin.htm) 59.167.59.181 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Keir.

According to Christopher Halls, 'Guns in Australia' 1974 there was a substantial contingent of Californians at Eureka, who were well armed and formed a separate body of men. I cant remember the exact number but it was over 100 I think. They appear to have been absent on the morning of the attack (along with 90% of the earlier crowd). Had that been otherwise the Government forces would not have got off so lightly. The reference you gave actually goes against your claim; it merely points out that an American black was among the early convicts and pretends that therefore 'American culture' was not new to Australia with the gold rush. Yet go up a page on that website, and we learn that American republicanism was a 'Major theme' of the Eureka Rebellion, along with trade unionism and constitutionalism. 202.137.193.58 06:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ChrisPer

From Wikipedia's article on Eureka, which was already linked form this section: " further two hundred Americans, the Independent Californian Rangers, under the leadership of James McGill, arrived about 4 pm. The Americans were armed with revolvers and Mexican knives, and possessed horses. In a fateful decision, McGill decided to take most of the Californian Rangers away from the stockade to intercept rumoured British reinforcements coming from Melbourne" 202.137.193.58 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ChrisPer

I added this in the first place because I thought it was interesting that American ideas were influential as a reference to the modern gun politics situation. I will not revert because it really isn't worth the diversion.ChrisPer 07:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I object, someone is still being very selective with their facts.

Please explain. Or better still, do something about it (assuming you understand the difference between fact and attributed opinion, if you're the same person who was making the earlier rather POV edits without opinion attribution). -- Russell E 04:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't make any earlier edits. Here are my problems. First line: "Australia has a long history of legitimate firearms use" sets the tone for the article. Poor gun owners are being victimised by their gun hating government.

The whole section "Firearms and crime in Australia" is biased. The statistics can be easily manipulated. see http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp The section "Gun control groups" sends the message that their are a few unbalanced individuals representing the pro-gun lobby. And while half the references are government sources, the other half are from shooting associations. 130.102.0.177 11:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Tom 30/9/05

I agree that the portrayal of the gun control groups is not particularly flattering, but I suspect that there's at least a little accuracy to it. At the moment, most Australians seem to be quite happy with the gun laws the way they are, and there's little agitation for them to be further tightened; there's almost certainly more dissatisfied shooters who want the laws loosened a bit than people who are actively seeking more restrictions. However, back in 1997, there was certainly a very strong community desire for tighter laws, going much more widely than a few people with a bee in their bonnet.

That said, the article would probably be improved if somebody looked further into gun control groups in Australia, and also if somebody with some involvement with them had a look.

At the moment, your suggestions are a little bit difficult to respond to, though. Could you make some more specific suggestions for changes to the article? --Robert Merkel 14:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to look into gun use in Australia, and will make specific suggestions when I feel confident that they are perfectly representative of the situation. 130.102.0.177 02:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Tom

Tom, how are you going? It's been almost 3 weeks now, do you still plan on making some changes and/or do you still object to the article in its present form? Otherwise, we should remove the NPOV tag. --Russell E 01:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence "Australia has a long history of legitimate firearms use": this is 100% true and provides important context for the discussion.

The statistics bit is retained from earlier versions and I agree could be expanded, but the fact remains that AIC statistics strongly suggest the futility of gun control as a means of reducing firearms crime. Considering the difficulties with selective statistics, perhaps the section should be removed and if relevant, points moved to the sections on the gun control lobby and the anti-gun control lobby. By the way, the web page you quote refers to an attempt to claim that crime rates went UP after the new restrictions, which is untrue. This claim is certainly not made in the present article.

The "Gun control groups" section sends the message that their are a few individuals representing the pro-gun lobby, because this is a factually accurate portrayal of the situation. You may check the reference to the radio interview where Samantha Lee acknowledges that she is the sole member of the NCGC. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, this fact remains unchallenged and should remain. The claim that she is "unbalanced" is not made, where did you get that from? Criticism of her work is present in the article but only as the attributed opinion of Jeanette Baker. The article itself makes no value judgements, which is as it should be.

The references from shooting association sources are used because they are the only people, apart from Samantha Lee, who are attempting to do research into gun control in Australia. Those articles have figures from the AIC and ABS as their primary sources but do a lot of collation and further analysis that would be cumbersome to reproduce in an encyclopedia article. Full references are given so the reader is free to judge the validity of those sources and trace the trail back to the AIC and ABS should see fit. --Russell E 03:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Stylistic point

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)

I second all of the above. --Russell E 04:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous use of the term 'pro-gun'.

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)

Agreed. It is a bit like calling a chef "pro-knife". Russell E 01:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

More opinion presented as fact

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)

Compliments to editors to date!

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)

Thanks Robert and Russell, I will document my sources when I edit. ChrisPer 09:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Images?

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: [2] [3] ... 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)

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)

Statistics

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 [4] 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)

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)

Isn't that exactly what I did, Robert? I quoted figures from the ABS. Incidentally, according to the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, absence of a firearm does not affect how likely a person is to attempt suicide. DocJ 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove NPOV tag?

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)

Done. --Russell E 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support for statement "Ms. Samantha Lee, chair and apparently sole member"?

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)

It wasn't me who made the statement, but I point to this article I helped write: http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/who_are_the_NCGC.htm and its source: http://www.shootersparty.org.au/JT%20Newsletter%2025%20Mar%2004.pdf Last Monday morning, March 22, Mike Jefferys, who does the breakfast programme on 2CC Canberra, interviewed Samantha Lee about the launch. When he asked her who the NCGC actually were, and how many of them there were, she hedged. When he put it to her that she was the only member, she replied, “Maybe I’ve just got a loud voice.”

I have trawled and trawled for info on the NCGC and they are very shadowy. At the time of the buyback they were very loud and large, and listed about 20 major organisations as members, such as the Public Health Association. Now they appear to have no-one except Lee, because the other high-profile former activists Simon Chapman, Roland Browne, Charles Watson and Tim Costello are busy contributing to society. ChrisPer 05:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Changes to NCGC and Howard Government

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)

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)

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)

NSW Bureau of Crime Stats Report

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)

Old Camper anti-gun control website

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)

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)

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)

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)

POV

The editors have done a good job in bring POV closer to neutral but can I make the following (constructive) suggestions :

- many of the sections are very good with clear references and arguments offered on both sides. However, many sections open with unsupported statements which 'skew' the article

- The opening sentence for example is not NPOV.

- In the "Firearms and crime in Australia" I would remove the first two sentences leaving references to the reports and their findings only. A counter example would be nice.

- In "Gun Control Groups" the statement "Gun control groups in Australia are ephemeral..." is unsupported and speculative, I would remove it.

- remove "legitimate" from "Australia has a long history of legitimate firearms use", legitimate uses depend upon your POV. Legal could be a more neutral word.

- the correct spelling of "indiginous" is "indigenous"

- change the sentence on "Tasmanian Bushranging" to "It has been suggested that the proliferation of firearms contributed to bushranging." - but I'd like a reference ideally.

- I am uneasy with "historically Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime" - in comparison to what ? I would remove this statement since it is unsupported bears no relationship to "gun control" per se.

- In order to present both sides of the argument I would rewrite the "Gun Control Groups" section and remove statements like "The accuracy of these claims are strongly questioned...". There are no equivalent statements in the "Firearms advocacy groups" section.

- In the links section I think there should be one to the AIC and it's pages

(http://www.aic.gov.au/research/weapons/)

If no one objects I will make these changes within a week or so, cheers Nick --Nickj69 10:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some of those but disagree with others. But then I'm strongly biased myself so it is possible that my best efforts to present a NPOV will be inadequate. In any case, here's my thoughts : (points not mentioned I agree with)

• First sentence: How is this POV? If you don't think it's true, why do we have a separate article for Australia?
• Firearms and crime in Australia: Agree to delete first sentence. Second sentence is the lead-in to the following next three sentences so should stay. What kind of counter example would you like? Those are the facts for Australia, a counter-example would be a lie or pertain to a different country.
• Gun control groups ephemeral: this is not speculative, it is fact and is backed up by the referenced statement that NCGC has only one member. Perhaps we should provide a reference to show that immediately after each spree killing memberships were much higher?
• Re "the accuracy of these claims are strongly questioned..." ... I don't think this should be removed. Perhaps it should be moved to the "Firearms advocacy groups" section though that would reduce the coherence of the article. The reason there are no counter-claims in the Firearms advocacy groups section is because as far as I'm aware the gun control lobby haven't made any such counter claims. If you can find some, add them.

--Russell E 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick, I too have a feeling that the NPOV tone needs work. The challenge in this is that I am the author of a 'POV' review of the AIC output, 'Science in the Service of politics' linked in the article. For that reason I have refrained from making a lot of edits.

I have significant knowledge of NCGC and GCA history from researching in the media and web-based information such as the 'Wayback machine'. The term ephemeral could be better chosen, but it accurately reflects the membership base. Visible activists are not ephemeral, they are limited to a dozen or so names over 20 years.

The 'long history of legitimate firearms use' can be supported in a number of ways, eg by the book 'Halls, Christopher, 1974 Guns in Australia ISBN 0600072916', the thousands of sports section reports and photographs of club competitions in newspapers over the decades of Australian history, and the decades of Australian shooting magazines reporting competition, hunting and vermin control work, and vast historical evidence in historical and family archives. The longest tradition of LEGITIMATE formal shooting, the Defence Act supported fullbore rifle club system, has historically been a major component of the development of Australia's capability for defense since the 1880s right the way until removed from Defense sponsorship in the last 7 years.

This legitimate use is actively dismissed by activists and Government; the fact of using firearms is assumed to de-legitimise in the standard PC worldview.

ChrisPer 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Russel -

-The opening para uses words like "pressure", "increasingly restrictive" and has the unsupported statement that we have "low levels of violent crime" (I may feel this to be true too but it does not make it so and it does not make it a good article). I woudl prefer the opening para to be a description of the actual gun control position now - what is legal and what is not. I don't actually know myself and this article doesn't help me find out.

-Firearms and crime - point taken, agree with your suggestion. (Note however one interpretation of this would be that tighter firearms control have led to a reduction in their use in suicide and homicide ?)

-Ephemeral is too emotive for my liking - how about "highly variable" or "unknown" ? Since the gun control groups haven't supplied any solid data, can we really draw any conclusion ?

-Fair point about the counter claims, I'll see if I can find someone to contribute some.

Chris - Perhaps my objection stems from the use of the word "legitimate" in isolation. As I see now you are using it to mean "government supported" which is a legitimate use of the word (pardon the pun). But legitimate also has connotations of "generally acceptable" which I am less comfortable with. The explanation you give above is much clearer, particularly the section on the "defence act", perhaps we could include that in the opening of the article ? You would need to justify "major component of the development of Australia's capability for defense" however.

--Nickj69 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All seems fairly reasonable, though I still have a problem with your first point. I agree that a summary of the current firearms laws would be worthwhile, however this would not belong in the opening paragraph. To me the opening paragraph should be a kind of abstract or synopsis, so it should briefly cover the main features of the history of gun control, the political motivations behind changes to gun control, and the current laws. The history of gun control is indeed one of increasing restrictions owing to pressure from lobby groups, so I don't see why that should go. I do agree that the "low levels of violent crime" is unreferenced and in terms of the last decade or so at least is actually inaccurate -- violent crime levels in Australia, with the exception of homicide, are presently actually very high by world standards,... but as you say this is largely irrelevant. Finally as an aside, the interpretation of declining homicide rates being due to increased gun control has indeed been made by the gun lobby — and perhaps this should be referenced — however it's clearly false since the trend was well established before any advances in gun control and the rate of decrease was unaffected by them. This is the point made by the SSAA and later by Weatherburn, both referenced in the article. --Russell E 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick, I am actually using both the senses of legitimate. The broad meaning IS appropriate. Its use brought me up short when I saw it in the article but it is literally true; it is a surprise because it has become so fashionable to deny the legitimacy of gun ownership. But three decades ago guns were what is called sporting goods, and about one household in 5 throughout Australia had one or more (figures from memory of Harding 1980 Firearms and Violence in Australian Life). 203.59.193.68 12:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I had no idea (although 1 in 5 still seems high). Given your explanation I withdraw my objection to the opening para but think you should reference exactly the sort of material you just mentioned. The only remaining point would be "pressure from the gun control lobby has led to increasingly restrictive firearms legislation". Given that gun control advocacy is described as sporadic or ephemeral does it then follow that it was pressure from them that directly led ot increased legislation ? Is it not more likely it was a combination of advocacy, public concern and (heaven forbid) the government acting out of its own initiative ?

cheers --Nickj69 18:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re the 1 in 5, As I say it is from memory. I think it was one in ten adults owned one or more guns, and households have almost two adults on average. (mostly bolt action .22s and single barrel shotguns until about 1960s). I have some photocopies from Harding, will check it.

I fully agree with your suggestion on the driving force behind legislation being more media, community and Government based than on the initaiative of activists. The thing is its like campaigns on law and order generally - based more in posturing than in 'what works'. Hanging car thieves who kill young families in the course of their joyriding is popular in certain shock-jock listeners minds, but isn't practical politically. The same emotion however drives gun control. Gun control aligns better with 'cosmopolitan values' so has massive press support, and that is why it is so successful. ChrisPer 04:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but as wikipedia is an exercise in active democracy do you feel like making some changes that might appeal to the cosmopolitan masses ? I think everything we've discussed is very reasonable and would contribute significantly to the article. Merry Christmas and see you in the new year. --Nickj69 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Gun control over gun rights in the gun politics debate"

I'm loathe to go and outright revert a series of edits that have just been made, but I'm certainly sorely tempted. Apart from an being ugly and unwieldy substituion made in quite a number of places, the phase "gun control over gun rights in the gun politics debate" isn't really necessary in the Australian context. The concept of "gun rights" has never held serious currency in Australia, and "gun politics debate", while not a phase that sees any significant use, is synonymous here with "gun control debate". So I think we should go back to the previous clear and consise terminology but will wait for comments before being so bold. --Russell E 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the language is unweildy. I don't have much opinion on "gun control" v "gun politics", but I'll take your word for it. Friday (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling gun politics by the term gun control is not NPOV. Rather, it pre-supposes the outcome of the gun politics debate to be solely one of gun control rather than even considering the opposing viewpoint of gun rights. Gun control and gun rights are simply the two sides of the gun politics debate. If Australians have already made up their minds and prefer gun control in all parts of the country, then why is there such reluctance among the more rural areas to accept this, and move on. We should at least respect both sides in this debate, regardless of where we personally stand in this article. As for the wording, perhaps a different wording would be better and read better. If so, lets discuss it here. But, lets at least respect both sides in this debate. Cheers. Yaf 03:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I will come back to this later but for now I'll just quickly say, that's like saying that the phrase "the abortion debate" is POV: you'd say it should be "the abortion or not aborting debate" or "gestational politics" or somesuch. Yuck. --Russell E 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Russell, the old wording was succinct and accurately reflects the terms in which the debate was conducted here. Revert. --Robert Merkel 12:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It no doubt accurately represented the terms by which one side has largely framed and argued their points; however, the old wording did not and does not represent the feelings in at least two of the states, nor among Sportsmen groups in these and other states. For NPOV, we should frame this article to present un-biased viewpoints from both sides, without favouring either side through crafting words that are clearly POV and favour but one side. Yaf 05:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with all of that. While the article may seem POV to you as an American, the discussions in other sections of this talk page indicate that most Australians would find the article balanced, or if anything somewhat slanted towards the "gun rights" viewpoint — the opposite of what you're suggesting. --Russell E 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, I agree the framing of debate by word choice is important, but this change is not helping clarity. I support a revert for clarity.

In Australia our choice is between more excessive and less excessive control. Gun 'rights' have been extinguished by statute. ChrisPer 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarity is important. It is regrettable that the gun politics views of those in more rural states with a long history of gun culture won't be represented in this article, which by my point of view is definitively POV in representing just the urban areas' gun control side of the gun politics debate. This article, with the reversion, definitely does not represent the rural areas that so many somehow seem to think of as uninhabited "fly-over" properties when traveling between heavily-populated areas. Nonetheless, reversion seems to be the correct course of action in this article. It just seems odd that the "buy-back" has collected such a small percentage of all weapons believed still to be extant in rural areas, if this article "truly" represents the beliefs of all in Australia in the gun politics debate. (My relatives in the rural areas in question claim otherwise, incidentally.) At least I tried to insert their views into this article. I suppose the first part of newspeak is simply to pretend that there is no debate, while squashing any opposing viewpoints by claiming that alternative views do not exist when held by those not in metropolitan areas. Revert. Yaf 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. --Russell E 02:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As I feel this article does not reflect the beliefs of all from a neutral point of view, I have added an NPOV tag to it, which seems only fair. Yaf 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that that is unjustified since a majority of editors here have reached agreement on the balanced treatment of issues of the article. I am tempted just to remove the NPOV tag but I will seek advice from more experienced wikipedians doing so. Just so you're aware of who you're arguing with, I myself am strongly opposed to gun control and am a keen hunter and shooter, so it would be fairly strange to accuse me of being biased in favour of gun control. You will also note that the last person to rant and rave about POV (above) was claiming bias against gun control. IMO you're both wrong. --Russell E 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for external input on Wikpedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board.--Russell E 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A google search of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia gives about 167 hits for gun control, and only about 5 for gun rights. If pro-gun advocates do not represent gun ownership in terms of gun rights, neither should a wikipedia article on gun politics in Australia. Andjam 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To add a bit of original research, Australia in many respects does not have the same notion of "rights" as the US does. For most states there is no bill of rights, freedom of speech is only implied in the constitution rather than explicit, there's often no right to abortion but merely laws largely unenforced due to vague loopholes, some have argued that mandatory detention of undocumented arrivals means Australia has no equivalent of habeas corpus. Much of this has been criticised by some people in Australia, but some of the criticism is from people who dislike the incumbent Coalition government, and much was only voiced after the Coalition government came to power, so you can draw your own conclusions as to how genuine the criticism is. Andjam 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Andjam, good contribution thanks.

Yaf, I am following this fairly closely as a pro-shooting activist and author of a paper on biased presentation of research by the AIC. I also come from a farm. I think that you and I would find a lot to agree about here. I suggest though that you propose - or make - some approriate change to represent the views you feel are missing and the rest of us can improve it or remove it as we go. ChrisPer 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too, come from a farming community, with both sets of grandparents being farmers, and am a pro-shooting activist of sorts, although I moved into an entirely different culture upon graduating from University. The POV that I have trouble with is that the gun rights of sportsmen, and the beliefs of many in at least two states, but especially NSW, are not being fairly represented by identifying and framing the debate or issue as one solely of gun control. Gun control is but a single POV side in the gun politcs debate, with the gun rights of sportsmen in Australia being the other side. (In America, the two sides of gun politics are gun control and gun rights of both sportsmen and self-defense advocates, the latter of which which is not at issue in Australia as there is no equivalent to the American's 2nd Amendment and their Bill of Rights in Australia.) It is more of an urban vs. rural issue, as I see it, with apparently no or little respect for the beliefs of many of those who happen to live in rural areas. As I presently do not live in Australia, so what? I have relatives there that should at least have their admittedly minority viewpoints represented in a truly NPOV article. The argument should at least be framed in NPOV terms, as one of gun politics, not one of solely being gun control. Then, the positions of gun control is but one side in the argument, not the only side, and the beliefs widely held in at least two states will be represented. Otherwise, change the title of the article, and make it one that is strictly addressing gun control. (Caution: a POV fork is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Articles should include significantly sizeable minority viewpoints.) If 5 out of 167 articles frame the gun politics debate down under to include gun rights, it is likely that the viewpoints of rural areas are largely getting trampled by urban bias. Cheers. Yaf 03:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The SSAA is trampling on rural people?? Andjam 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Gun debate"? - Randwicked Alex B 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any such thing as "gun rights" in Australia? There isn't anything explicitly in law. --Martyman-(talk) 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there's not.--cj | talk 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a long standing gun culture among the rural areas. Yaf 03:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As an analogy, fornication has existed for a fair while in Australia. If someone tried to introduce sharia into Australia, would a wikipedia article have headings labelled "Sharia and fornication rights" rather than "Sharia"? Andjam 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It, unfortunately, is not an issue of gun control. Gun control is but one side of the debate. Gun politics include both gun control and (implicit) gun rights that depend on English Common Law precedents. It would be much the same if we were talking about Aboriginal culture in terms of the Rabbit Fence cultural suppression era, without including any recognition of the need to preserve the pre-existing culture. That would be offensive, and so is the present POV of the article to members of the gun culture. Yaf 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a member of the gun culture and I'm not offended. (I'm just about to call the local police to invite them to invade my home to inspect my safe storage conditions, that kind of presumption of guilt I find offensive... but the term "gun control", no). You're being ridiculous. You don't hear the "pro-life" campaigners objecting to the term "abortion debate", nor monarchists objecting to the term "republic debate". Just because you're on the "no" side of a debate doesn't mean that you can object to the common description of the debate, even if the very existence of debate offends you. If you can verifiably document the existence of a segment of Australian society that objects to the term "gun control debate" and actively says "I'm in favour of gun rights" instead of "I oppose further gun control", then your edits should stand. But I bet you can't and they shouldn't. --Russell E 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand Yaf correctly, he is saying that the term "gun controls" has been co-opted by supporters of restrictive gun legislation, to the extent that it is now so strongly associated with their position that it can no longer be used neutrally according to its dictionary definition in this context. It sounds a little as though "gun rights" and "gun controls" are terminological banners under which the two sides rally, just as "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are in the abortion debate. If that is true, then Yaf has a legitimate point that should be addressed.

Having said that, I actually think the article shows bias in the other direction. Arguments for restrictive gun legislation are dismissed as an emotional reaction to the Port Arthur Massacre, and supporters of restrictive gun legislation are characterised as "those who wished to avoid a repeat of the massacre at any costs" - not a very in-depth analysis of their position and arguments, is it? On the other hand, the arguments against restrictive legislation are covered more thoroughly and far more sympathetically. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Drew, regarding the supposed rallying of the two sides under the banners "gun rights" and "gun controls", this is absolutely not the case, and as I said above I challenge Yaf to prove otherwise. Perhaps it is the case in the US, but not here. --Russell E 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. In the AUSTRALIAN SHOOTERS JOURNAL, June 1997 Editorial, by Keith Tidswell in A REPLY TO A QUESTION, he writes, "A few people have asked why we run our regular columns on to later pages in the magazine. This is a cause of irritation to some.

The reason is simple. At the SSAA we have to spread our efforts in order to make best use of our resources. We derive some income for the running of the Association from advertisements in the Journal, and the magazine is actually constructed around the booked advertising, allowing a cash flow into the fight to retain your firearms.

When the magazine is assembled, the colour-fall is extremely important, and the space bookings for this are made long before the columns and other articles are in place. That means the text is spread around the advertisements, which in turn necessitates the running on of some of the text. If it were not done this way, the Journal would take much longer to prepare and it would need more staff time. Preparing it as we do keeps more people on the ground with their time going into defending your gun rights. We think it is only a small inconvenience to readers, and we ask your tolerance.

Incidentally, the circulation of the ASJ is now well over three times the size of that of its nearest competitor, and growing at unprecedented rates. Any time you tell a gun dealer you saw his advertisement in our magazine you reward him for advertising, and thus you support your own firearm ownership."

Clearly, this editorial is using the very phrase gun rights, with no mention of gun control. Looks like a rallying call to me! And yes, it is much like the pro-choice and pro-life terms debated so often among the 2 sides in abortion discussions. Gun control has clearly been co-opted by just one side and is no longer a neutral term. To claim otherwise is to choose to extend ever increasing gun controls in place of the recognition of inalienable and fundamental gun rights extending from English Common Law principles. And, incidentally, after re-reading the article earlier, just before putting the POV disputed label on, I felt that the article was somewhat pro-gun, too. But being pro-gun myself, I felt it was another's responsibility to fix this. In both cases, I felt it was a valid reason to put the POV label warning on the article, with the hopes of us collectively getting it corrected into an NPOV format. Yaf 06:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok so you searched the SSAA website for one of the uses of "gun rights", which are outnumbered by references for "gun control" by about 80 to 1. You could be right that a 1/80th minority of Australian gun activists reject the neutrality of the term "gun control"; if this is the case, that tiny minority is accounted for in the phrase "Australians have not had an emphasis on gun rights". We could prefix it with "By and large, " if you prefer, I think that's about all it deserves even if your assertion is true. Far more likely, I think, is that the author chose to use the phrase "for gun rights" as a more proactive-sounding term than "against gun control" but nevertheless wouldn't outright object or take offense to us phrasing the debate in terms of the term "gun control". The abortion analogy is false: neither side has co-opted the generic term "abortion", just as, in Australia at least, neither side has co-opted the term "gun control". Finally, you have said that you think the article is biased in both directions at once! And not only that, significantly so to whack a NPOV tag on. Please explain your reasoning as this makes absolutely no sense to me! 1-1=0--21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from AWNB

Note, the following material was moved over from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board -- Russell E 05:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm hoping some experienced Australian Wikipedians can come and lend a hand at Talk:Gun politics in Australia. I reverted a series of edits by User:Yaf which more or less replaced all instances of the phrase "gun control" with "gun control over gun rights in the gun politics debate". Apart from being ridiculously unwieldy, it is completely unnecessary. He claims that the very term "gun control" is biased towards the gun-control POV... as if the term "abortion debate" is also inherently pro-abortion, or "republic debate" is pro-republic. The three most active editors of the page (myself included) agreed it should be removed, so I did so. Now User:Yaf has slapped a NPOV tag on the page, claiming it is biased against gun owners. I am unsure how to proceed. I think this is unjustified, since the page has arrived at its present balance by careful editing including response to previous NPOV disputes where bias was claimed to exist in the other direction. Moreover although we strive to present a NPOV, I and at least one other editor are strongly opposed to present levels of gun control so it's fairly ludicrous to suggest we're supporting bias in favour of gun control. It's my view that an article is acceptably NPOV if a majority of active, well-informed level-headed editors reach consensus, and this doesn't change due to one dissenting view from someone who hasn't edited the article before and doesn't even live in Australia (and therefore doesn't know what is "neutral" in that context). However I've not been involved in a dispute were negotion/capitulation has failed before so that's why I'm asking for more experienced opinions as to how things should proceed and whether I'm right or wrong in objecting to the NPOV tag. This article seems to have it slapped on so regularly, from both sides of the debate, that I fear it will spend more time with the tag than without, despite being (IMO) quite a good article. Thanks. --Russell E 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. The title of the article is Gun politics in Australia, not Gun control in Australia. Also, the changes were not made unwieldly in every case where the gun control phrasing was used; the unwieldy phrasing was used only in a few key places where the argument was being framed in terms of terminology. (See the history of the article for the exact wording.) The positions of individuals who favored gun control was identified correctly. However, where arguments are being framed, it is not valid to simply ignore the views of a significant and sizeable (although admittedly) minority viewpoint in the country. The POV that I have trouble with is that the gun rights of sportsmen, and the beliefs of many in at least two states, but especially NSW, are not being fairly represented by identifying and framing the debate or issue as one solely of gun control. Gun control is but a single POV side in the gun politcs debate, with the gun rights of sportsmen in Australia being the other side. (In America, the two sides of gun politics are gun control and gun rights of both sportsmen and self defense advocates, the latter of which which is not at issue in Australia as there is no equivalent to the American's 2nd Amendment and their Bill of Rights in Australia.) It is more of an urban vs. rural issue, with apparently no respect for the beliefs of many of those who happen to live in rural areas. As I presently do not live in Australia, so what? I have relatives there that should at least have their admittedly minority viewpoints represented in a truly NPOV article. The argument should at least be framed in NPOV terms, as one of gun politics, not one of solely being gun control. Then, the positions of gun control is but one side in the argument, not the only side, and the beliefs widely held in at least two states will be represented. Otherwise, change the title of the article, and make it one that is strictly addressing gun control, but a POV fork is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Articles should include significantly sizeable minority viewpoints. Thanks. Yaf 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. The term "gun rights" implies the existence of "rights" with respect to gun ownership, which is a matter of dispute between the two sides. One side asserts the existence of gun rights, they other denies the existence of gun rights. Therefore describing gun politics in terms of gun rights would be taking sides. In contrast, the term "gun controls" implies the existence of "controls" with respect to gun ownership. Both sides admit the existence of controls; what is under dispute is whether the current controls are appropriate, not whether they exist. I cannot see any bias in the term. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I understand your position. It is largely the result of only ever having heard one side of the debate, what one side calls gun control, but which is really one of gun politics. The two sides of the debate on gun politics are gun control and gun rights. Gun control is simply a matter of infringing, to a greater or lessor extent, the possession and use of legal, legitimate, and historically-practiced sporting purposes of guns. Gun control advocates believe that doing so (controlling guns) somehow manages to control or lessen crime.

Gun rights, on the other hand, in Australia (not in America), is the recognition of the long-standing gun culture that has existed in (admittedly) the rural parts of Australia since circa 1855, at least. Gun rights is simply the respect of the rights of sportsmen whose families have long been hunters and who represent the historical roots of the founders of Australia, and who have largely maintained the gun culture as it existed in England at that time to the present day, only in Australia. The rights to which gun rights refers is to the long-standing Sporting culture and traditions, for which the urban view of life is attempting to change. Such rights are largely based on principles from English Common Law, to respect precedent and the implied existence of rights with the people, dating from the time of the Magna Charta.

To frame the argument in terms of gun control is offensive to those who are aligned with the gun culture. To frame the argument in terms of gun rights is similiarly offensive to those who are aligned with the Coalition Government, who think of themselves as progressives. (In many ways, it is analogous to the fox hunting debate in England.) Neither gun control or gun rights should be used to describe the debate, in all fairness.

To be fair, the debate should be identified as one of gun politics, not solely as gun control with a fair representation of both sides of the argument. Admittedly, the urban areas control most of the votes, and have largely been the most supportive of the present gun control position, but the views among those of two or three states, who favour the continuation of a long-held tradition of Sporting purposes of firearms in Australia, should at least be recognized in the Article for it truly to be NPOV. Recognition in the article should consist of calling the present Coalition government's position as being on the gun control side of the gun politics debate. Howard and his circle represent the gun control side of this debate. There are still two views to the debate.

Controls presently exist, yes, and provide the present framework of attempting to reconcile the traditions of the past with the perceived needs of the present. It is more of an urban vs. rural dichotomy, rather than a Progressive or Conservative split. Yaf 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Terminology arguments aside, have you actually read the article? It does give recognition where you have requested it to, and it does "call the present Coalition government's position". The whole section devoted to the Howard government begins "The Howard Government strongly favours gun control". Can't get much clearer than that!! Geez.--Russell E 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, allow me to declare my personal opinions on the subject before going any further. I hate guns and I hate the guts of gun owners - I would very much like to take a very sharp grafting knife, skin them alive and allow them to rot in the exact spot where they are hanging from their thumbs. Now that I have got that out of my system, I agree 100% with Snottygobble, gun controls exist and the use of the term is not in favour of one side or the other. I also think, given the subject matter, that it is an extremely well written article, and I cannot imagine anyone improving on its NPOViness - not even myself, and I consider myself to be a well adjusted, level headed and thoroughly rational human being. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you didn't say you'd like to shoot all gun owners, ρ¡ρρµ, but perhaps given the violent urges you've revealed we ought to think about banning grafting knives. (waarom? omdat je gek bent.)--Russell E 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

lol. Touché! Nee, dat ben ik niet, ik ben alleen maar een humorist. Daarom! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice Yaf is American and suspect there may be some US/Australian confusion here. In the US gun rights are in the Constitution, and that (and its interpretation) is pretty central to the political debate. In Australia there is no such fundamental right - guns and the right to bear arms are not mentioned in our constitution - so the debate tends not to be so rights-focused, with the various laws regulating gun ownership and use more central. -- Danny Yee 05:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. No US/Aussie confusion. Its simply a matter of recognising the gun culture within Australia, and clearly seeing the attack on it for what it is, on a historical and long-practiced Sporting culture in Australia, that of which is practiced more in rural areas than in urban areas. The rights are the rights defined under English Common Law principles, of respect of legal precedent and historical rule of law for citizens, with rights reserved with the people since the time of the Magna Charta. (Napoleonic Law is an entirely different construct.) It looks like we have this topic being discussed; let's move it over to the talk page on the article. Yaf 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, the article devotes a whole large section to the viewpoint of firearms users. The section is larger than the sections representing politicans or gun control groups. Moreover, just about every section of the article has a sentence or two stating the viewpoint of firearms owners relative to what has just been discussed. I really don't understand what your problem is!?! Regarding "framing the issue as one of gun control", it is one of gun control, what else could it be?? The debate is should we have more gun control or less gun control? Ban guns or make them free from restrictions? If that's not about gun control, I don't know what is!

By the way, should we move all of this over to Talk:Gun politics in Australia?--Russell E 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

End of material moved over from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board --Russell E 05:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag - comments post AWNB discussion

I have read the article, the only concern I have is a reference to the Hoddle Street massacre as a spree. Spree might be recognised in Australian English but is not a term we use in relation to such tragedies. In the lead there is also a reference to killing sprees. As this is an article about an Australian topic, Australian English should be used. The debate about control has been reasonably vigorous in the last few years and I think it is well-represented in this article. I note it is in the news again as the Tasmanians are proposing a change, for example, this ABC news item. I see no reason for the NPOV tag at all. Could the tagger please articulate succinctly why it is there?--A Y Arktos 07:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

'Spree killing' is one of the terms used in relatively neutral discussions of one-man massacres such as Hoddle Street and Port Arthur. I don't think it is particularly Australian. Google it.

The term 'gun rights' is actually a term of art like 'political correctness'. It was introduced by US gun rights supporters to help reframe their position in a positive sense. In Australia, the media has framed 'gun rights' as a US invention that has no prior existence in Australia, but this is a falsehood. The historic British common law right to arms is documented in Blackstone (c1770). However, Australia like the UK has a doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. Common law rights are extinguished by conflicting statute law. Those rights are now just history even though the journalists were speaking in self-righteous ignorance when they claimed Australians had no such historic right.

Your arguments for the NPOV tag are not adequate, Yaf. This article surprised me with its neutrality when I read it first, and most alternatives are worse for NPOV.ChrisPer 08:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While Yaf's comments on this page do display a certain amount of ignorance of Australia, the issue doesn't seem to be simply one of US/Australian difference regarding the existence of "gun rights". but one of language use. In normal use of English, at least in Australia, "gun control" is not one of the sides of the debate, it is the issue being debated. (Strict) gun control is indeed favoured by one side of the debate, and there may even be a certain number people on the other side who against any form of control, but that doesn't make "gun control debate" a POV term. It is a debate about gun control. Apparently in some parts of the world, people have used the terms in other ways as a political move, but that hasn't happened in Australia, so there's no reason for this article to do that. On top of that, there's definitely no reason for this article to describe things like the position of the government or the campaign for gun control as supporting "gun control over gun rights in the gun politics debate", unless we are expecting readers to be incredibly stupid. Such a phrase is incredibly convoluted and superfluous, although it's better than the opening sentence at gun politics, which has been so torture by someone's desire to explicity mention the sides of the debate in particular terms that it doesn't make grammatical sense. JPD (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your statement "Apparently in some parts of the world, people have used the terms in other ways as a political move, but that hasn't happened in Australia, so there's no reason for this article to do that.". This is an international encyclopaedia. We are writing for an international audience. If a term is POV to some of our audience, then that is a problem that should be addressed. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV concerns lack of bias towards or against any of the parties represented in the article -- not perceived bias towards or against any potential reader. We can't be responsible for every possible misreading of an article. If we did it would quickly descend into an unreadable morass of qualifications and explanations. --Russell E 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, the two main organised bodies in support of restrictive firearms legislation are "Gun Control Australia and the National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC)". Note the occurrence of the term in both names. Note the fact that in both names the term "Gun Control" is used to define a position that favours stringent controls, not as a neutral description of the subject under debate. These are Australian organisations.

As far as I'm concerned, if you just changed most occurrences of "gun control" to "controls on gun access" or "controls on gun ownership", then you would have my support. I don't see this leading to an "unreadable morass of qualifcations and explanations". Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that seeing the Australian Republican Movement have the word "republic" in their name, discussions of the debate should consistently be phrased not in terms of us becoming a "republic" but rather "moving to a system of government with an Australian head of state"? It's very common, in fact probably the norm, to name a debate in terms of one side of the debate. We've already mentioned republic debate, abortion debate, how about death penalty debate, drug legalisation debate, land rights debate, logging debate, nuclear power debate. None of the "no" sides of those debates outright objects to the phrasing of the debate in those terms... just because a subset of the "no" side of the gun control debate in one country that this article doesn't even pertain to has objected to the term, so what? I just don't get it... could you perhaps identify which particular sentence in the article is the strongest candidate for a change in wording of this kind? --Russell E 04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JPD above. As an Australian I don't see "Gun Control" as the oposite of "Gun Rights" gun control ranges strict to relaxed. I think it would be a very rare individual who would argue that there is no need for any form of gun control at all. Selling of unregistered guns to minors anyone? --Martyman-(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is so sad. Unfortunately, it also means that the anti-gun lobby has already won the war of words in Australia, and in the misguided hearts of the majority of the population, through the gradual manipulation of data to usurp the rights of the people. The outcome is inevitable, and perfectly predictable. To see where this ends, look to the UK. In the case of British gun rights, the right was defended by some MPs only on sporting grounds, and not on the fundamental right of self-defence, which was firmly established in English Common Law, and which formed the historical basis of the fundamental rights of self-defence in the UK, most of America, most of Canada, and Australia. That meant that British gun rights were viewed as similar to the rights of those who love cricket, football (soccer), and any other interests, but especially those who loved their old fuddy-duddy, e.g., eccentric, hobbies. This also framed the argument on the basis that it was only of value for its sporting characteristics, rather than being representative of a gun culture associated with protecting one's loved ones from dangerous criminals, and for protecting one's life and property in times of civil unrest. This English right existed for centuries before being deftly ignored and forgotten by the media of the UK and Australia. The argument, framed this way, set in place the slippery slope so as to always lose to ever-increasing gun control arguments, including up to the banning of all guns. Why? Because it is impossible to avoid the risk of someone, somehow, being killed by a firearm. Hence, to be perfectly safe, the fallacy in reasoning is to then make the leap to the idea that the only safe gun is no gun at all. Why? Because the gun prohibitionists' argument is intellectually stronger and more defensible on grounds of apparent reasonableness. It is this gun elimination path which Australia is now set upon. The acceptance of the very phrase gun control as representing the debate, in place of gun politics sets up the inevitable loss of all gun rights. After all, the press tells us (in Australia and the UK) that there are no such things as gun rights!

This sporting purpose argument is fallacious because it frames the wrong argument. The value of arms and historical precedent in English Common Law is instead ignored by the media, to the extent that in the British as well as in the Australian media, there is often made the case that there are no gun rights in either land. (Yes there are, but the Parlimentary forms of government in both have elected to trample the historical rights of the common people that had previously existed for centuries under English Common Law.) The correct argument would be to frame the debate around the need to weigh the benefit of owning and using guns not on sporting grounds, but on the basis that they represent an embodiment of the the historical right of individuals to protect themselves from dangerous criminals, and even from dangerously-criminal governments, as free men, on rare occasions. In America, this was stated by Madison, in explaining the break from British rule, as "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment of our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen ... did not wait til usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in legalistic precedents. They saw the consequences in the principle, and avoided the consequences by denying the principle." If the argument is framed around gun control, then the battle is already lost, and the consequence of the loss of all guns is ultimately inevitable.

What I find most interesting is that the rates for crimes in the UK, and now even in Australia, are rapidly increasing on a per capita basis, and have (in the case of the UK) long been at levels much higher than those seen in those states in the United States where concealed carry rights now exist. Ummm. This wasn't the case 20 years ago. It wasn't the case 15 years ago. But, the trend is now clear. In those American states with concealed carry rights, burgularies and other occupied dwelling crimes have fallen immensely. The reverse is true in the UK now. The reverse will be true in Australia within but a few years. But the press largely says, "move along, there is nothing to see here, move along."

The paradox is that the rights of freemen have been usurped, and no one seems to even notice.

I shall remove the POV label that I previously put on this article. This article is nonetheless still offensive to me, as a citizen of the world looking in. But, I won't waste my time arguing this point any longer. It strikes me much the same as the futility of trying to change the minds of those who are soon to be the victims of inevitable and total disarmament. If one looks like prey, then one becomes prey. It is but a matter of time. Yaf 05:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is not an appropriate forum for the holding of a discussion about whether or not gun ownership is a right. I encourage you all not to respond to the above post. No disrespect to Yaf is intended by that; I just don't want this page to turn into a bulletin board. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 100% - Russell has done a terrific job on the article - to all looney tune bloggers, go share your thoughts with your good mates, the Iraqis, there is a significant element there that is also in favour of the right to bear all manner of arms, and to use them any way they wish. You should be able to drum up some strong support in the back streets of Tikrit. Just show up with a shot gun over your shoulder, a sash of bullets across the chest, a 10 gallon hat, they'd love to see ya! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I wish wikipedia had emoticons :rolleyes: --Russell E 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dat kunt u wel doen. Alst u nodig om te hulp roepen hebt, kunt u me hier vinden, tot uw dienst! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(If you need any help, I am at your service.)

Maar jij wilt me doden met een mes, toch!? ;) --Russell E 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(But you still want to kill me with a knife anyway?)

Leuk! Twee Australiërs die zijn in het Nederlands aan het praten. Plotseling vind ik wikipedia verre interessanter. Ga verder met het goede werk! En alstublieft, hebt geen ongerust, ik wil je niet dood maken, ik ben alleen maar een onschadelijke borden wasser. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(Wow! Two Australians who are talking in Dutch. Suddenly I find wikipedia far more interesting. Keep up the good work! Oh, and don't worry, I do not want to kill you. I am just a harmless waterboarder.)

Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(perfect! except for the last bit, I am actually a harmless dish washer - although it's possible that I got that wrong - anyway, must run, this morning's dishes are piling up)

"borden" and "wasser" means "board" and "water" respectively, but in German not Dutch. I thought you were joking that instead of killing Russell you would subject him to water boarding, "harmless" indeed according to recent U.S. claims that it doesn't constitute torture. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

aah, well in that case - given the present circumstances and physical surrounds - an appropriate, logical and acceptable translation! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys..., het trekken van me door de chocolade :-) (And to think I ever thought I would never use my Radio Nederland free records and lessons on idiomatic Dutch by shortwave AM radio:-) Cheers. Yaf 16:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who would have thought...4 anglophiles talking Dutch on a discussion page about Gun politics in Australia...this got me thinking....and no, there is no Dutch equivalent in nl:. This is the closest I got - nl:Vuurwapen (or firearms) which opens with Een vuurwapen is een wapen dat door middel van een ontploffing een projectiel kan afschieten. A reasonable summation of the various medium to long distance killing implements that are available - needless to say the grafting knife is not included - all I can say is that if you are ever using one, be careful, they're bloody sharp! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed a bit...

The recent edit seems to match with my own recollections (though this article does remain, unfortunately, a bit undersourced). One bit I am rather hesitant about and removed is as follows:

The extremely low level of compliance, while not officially noted by the Government due to the negative implications it had for the success of the enterprise, is also noteworthy. Anecdotally, it is thought that between just 25% and 50% of shooters complied with the new legislation. This is reflected both in the large number of shooters who did not renew or acquire licenses, and the significant sum of money that the Government was left with after supposedly completely the 'buy-back'.

Does anybody have a verifiable source for this? --Robert Merkel 03:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had previously seen a document on the AIC website which mentioned a speculative 40%-60% compliance rate. I have searched their site and only found a lot of statements that it was difficult to estimate compliance. I did however find this article cribbed from the Australian:

http://www.policeworld.net/vb/archive/index.php?t-1891.html

Gun buyback a success

By Sian Powell

October 03, 2002

POST-PORT Arthur gun control measures, which featured a massive weapons buyback, have dramatically reduced the rates of gun murders and robberies, according to

Between 1996 and 1997, 643,726 banned long arms were handed in, which possibly represented 20 per cent of all stock in Australia, depending on the accuracy of the figures.

The paper's authors estimate the success of the buyback varied widely. In Tasmania, for instance, it is thought 90 per cent of banned guns were handed in, compared with 50 per cent in NSW and Queensland, where the shooters lobby is more prominent.

Hope this helps! Chrisper 202.154.75.76 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bryant's possession of firearms

I thought it was well-established that Bryant obtained the firearms illegally, e.g. [5] (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)

John Howard, "American disease" quote

I have just reverted the following text:

"we do not want the American disease imported into Australia." ^[6]. Howard's pejorative views on gun control are notorious among foreign diplomats and foreign commentators, as "some diplomats and foreign commentators still believe that Howard announced, in September 1999, that Australia would be "deputy sheriff" to the United States in the Asian region", a view hardly consistent with gun control.[7] His view that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is an "American Disease" has similarly not won him any friends among Americans. As a result, to try to assuage the damage with his pejorative quote, Howard often switches his pejorative line to a more palatable "I don't want Australia to go down the American path."[8]

My reason for doing this is that all it adds to what was there before is pure opinion about Howard's views being "perjorative", that the "deputy sherriff" comment is inconsistent with gun control, and an unsubstantiated claim about his comments "not winning any friends", and pure speculation about deliberate attempts to craft language to assuage criticism... Yaf, please stop trying to push your barrow, and learn about Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, substantiation of information, etc etc... --Russell E 10:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Have attempted to craft a more NPOV version:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", and that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons". ^[9]. Howard often states "I don't want Australia to go down the American path."[10] While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

as calling the Second Amendment of the US Consititution an "American disease" is extremely pejorative. Replaced it with an equivalent yet NPOV quote stating the same position.

WP policies on NPOV were not being met by the original quote. It would be equivalent if one wrote that an American politician was attempting to "prevent the Australian Disease of victim disarmament from spreading to America" :-) Less inflammatory methods surely exist for Wikipedia than handpicking the most inflammatory quotations possible for Howard or other politicians. Yaf 16:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is about the neutrality of presentation, not of quotes. Quotes are not supposed to be NPOV, they're supposed to be authentic, verifiable and representative of the position of the person who uttered them. Since Howard's view of America's gun culture is extremely negative, it is entirely appropriate to illustrate that with a quote that gun culture members will find highly perjorative. What you're suggesting is no different to editing the article on Mein Kampf to eliminate quotes referring to the gassing of Jews, and replace them with ones saying something softer like "I'm a little bit unfond of Jews". --Russell E 01:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When equivalent quotes (in terms of content) are available, why use the inflammatory one, and compare John Howard to Hitler? I don't follow you. Meanwhile, as an American, I find it to be of extremely poor taste to call the US Constitution an American disease. Looks like you hate both Americans and JH. Have labeled section as NPOV questionable for now. Yaf 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't see your JH quote, unlike the one your removed. Also, inflammatory quotes are non-encyclopedic when equivalent ones that are not inflammatory are available. Yaf 02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'Deputy Sheriff' quote was not by John Howard, but a media headline which was taken up and criticised as though Howard said it. 202.154.75.76 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference for the "American Disease" quote says nothing about this quote. Yaf 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to NPOV edit, and removed unverified quote. (The reference previously cited said nothing about this quote.) Yaf 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Howard made the "deputy sheriff" remark in a 1999 interview with The Bulletin. The quote itself is true enough, but I hardly see what it has to do with gun politics in Australia. Snottygobble 04:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yaf states "inflammatory quotes are non-encyclopedic when equivalent ones that are not inflammatory are available". I disagree entirely. The whole point of the quote is to illustrate the extreme nature of JH's views. One that is not inflamatory is not equivalent.--Russell E 06:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

But that is your POV, and not a balanced approach. There are many (a majority, clearly) who obviously feel that John Howard's views are not "extreme". WP should represent their views as well as significant minority views, all with a balanced approach. Yaf 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when is deliberately choosing a quote that by your own argument does not reflect Howard's true views on the matter, constitute a "balanced" approach? Seeking to minimise differences between opposing points of view is NOT the goal of NPOV. The goal of NPOV is to accurately and even-handedly portray all points of view (or all "important" ones). Oh and by the way, the "American disease" quote is verifiable, it's in the interview clearly referred to straight after the quotation. --Russell E 06:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in your citation does the "American Disease" terminology appear. Hence, I have removed your POV inflammatory "quotation" as it is not substantiated by your own citation. Please work with me here. Have you even read what I have written? Please read it before deleting and inserting your own unsubstantiated JH "quotation". Have reverted to NPOV. Yaf 06:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, some points:

• John Howard did indeed describe private gun ownership as an American disease [11], and I think it is entirely fair to describe him as strongly opposed to it.
• Australian foriegn policy and its military alliance with the US has approximately nothing to do with the debate on foriegn policy. The "Deputy Sherriff" comment, ill-judged as it probably was, was referring to the use of military force to support the United States, something which Howard clearly thinks is a good idea. The two are completely different issues. --Robert Merkel 06:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A blogger hardly constitutes a credible source. The text version of the interview in your original citation does not use the "American disease" nomenclature. Could the blogger have an axe to grind, here, to which you have fallen prey? Surely there is a better source than a blogger.

As for the deputy sherrif quote, I am not advocating that. It is an urban legend, despite being widely believed by mis-informed foreign diplomats and reporters. Again, please read what I have written. Yaf 07:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote was clearly referenced. I have reinstated it. Here is the link again if for some reason you can't work out how to follow the reference clearly present in the article. It's on JH's own website. Once you follow the link, try your browser's search function if you can't be bothered reading the whole thin. Yes I have read what you wrote: if you read my comments you will see that I have given good reason all along for my reverts. You have also made some minor grammatical changes that were fine, you'll notice I didn't revert them. However some of them again were a clear attempt to stamp your POV on the article and they were rightly reverted, not by me but by Randwicked. --Russell E 08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Insults are not necessary. I had already searched your referenced citation (8), and even read it in its entirety, and the "quote" is not there. You then quoted a radical blogger and I questioned the validity since the text citation in (8) for the same radio interview presented no such "American disease" quotation. Have removed referenced "quotation" since it doesn't appear in your cited reference (8) in the article. But, I still don't understand why you want to use non-encyclopedic quotations to belittle John Howard, as you stated previously, "Since Howard's view of America's gun culture is extremely negative, it is entirely appropriate to illustrate that with a quote that gun culture members will find highly perjorative" (sic). This clearly shows YOU have an axe to grind in this, and are not presenting a NPOV, preferring instead to insert your POV. Have reverted your POV and non-encyclopedic and to date unsubstantiated "quotation". Yaf 13:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"My" quote (though I have no idea whether it was I or someone else who first included it) is not my POV. It is a quote from John Howard. It is there to represent his POV. As a major player in shaping legislation and even public opinion, his POV needs to be accurately illustrated in an encyclopedia article. Including the quote proves that the argument that he has a negative view of American gun culture is fact and not just the unsubstantiated POV of one of the editors. How you could manage not to find that quote over and over when it is clearly there really escapes me. --Russell E 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is still non-encyclopedic to include an inflammatory quote when a non-inflammatory quote exists. Your preference for insulting Americans, as well as John Howard and John Howard's admittedly majority support base in Australia, by the inclusion of this quote, is not honoring Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV. Referring to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as an "American disease" is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, nor does it help cement cordial relationships between Australia and the United States. The quote you found was intended for domestic consumption only (in Australia) by virtue of it being on a domestic radio broadcast. The LA Times newspaper quote, intended for a wider worldwide audience such as Wikipedia, I believe, is more representative of a real encyclopedia article reference and should be used instead. The wording I favor is:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", and that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons". ^[12]. Howard often states "I don't want Australia to go down the American path."[13] While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

instead of the inflammatory and non-encyclopedic version that you favor that insults American allies in the war on terror:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons", and that firearm ownership by ordinary citizens is an "American disease" ^[14]. While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

Such a narrow POV, showing intense hatred of Americans and John Howard, and a majority of Australians, should not be encouraged on Wikipedia. You don't even quote what JH said; rather, you only pick the most inflammatory words from a domestic broadcast that you can find to make JH look as extreme as possible, without regard for the impact on an international audience. This is not balanced, nor NPOV. It is simply an infantile plea for eliciting support for your admittedly-biased POV. Yaf 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pleeeeasssse go and read WP:NPOV and all of its suggested see-alsos. If an inflammatory quote is reflective of the point of view of a key player in a given topic, then it is 100% relevant and should be included. Please refer to my analogy with Mein Kampf above. It is extremely offensive and inflammatory to state that it would have been a good idea to gas large numbers of jews... yet it is vital that this quote is included in the article. Likewise for John Howard's quote. (Note, I'm not comparing him to Hilter. I'm merely trying to illustrate a point about the inclusion of offensive and POV material in the form of quotations. You'll also note the analogy extends as far as your argument about the quotes being from the domestic media, Mein Kampf being a work of German nationalism, published in the German language. Also note, I'm not defending my own text... I have no idea whether I wrote that text or not, I rather suspect I didn't. I'm just fighting to keep it in because it is factually accurate, unlike your attempts at revisionism) --Russell E 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The context of a quote and the exact quotation are both important. A domestic radio broadcast quotation was obviously intended for an Australian audience; the "American disease" quote was in this informal context. However, the LA Times quote was for an international audience. They are different. It is clearly POV to present a domestic context as an international context and attempt to divide Australians and Americans through mis-quoting the context of John Howard's position. He is not intentionally attempting to insult Americans; his use of an alternative form of the same message is clear. Yaf 05:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The "American disease" quote is more revealing of his feelings on the matter and their basis on a base hatred of guns and gun culture (references and quotes available if you think that's just conjecture) and a perception that the "evil" culture originates off-shore. The "American path" phrase is probably (by your own admission) a deliberate toning down of his views in order to make them more palatable to an American audience, by suggesting that the American situation is merely another legitimate option he dispassionately chooses to reject, when in fact he finds it morally repugnant ("diseased", i.e. sick) and "evil". That makes this quote less representative of his true views. If this were an article about JH's relationship with America then one could have both quotes and a discussion about them. Seeing it's about JHs view of guns, the more representative quote is preferable. --Russell E 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My primary concern is/was on the spin that was implied that Howard somehow hates Americans, or at least he hates the "American disease." With the proper context, the quote although factual and inflammatory, does not carry the implicit weight that Howard is somehow anti-American and attempting to break off relations with the Americans. Have attempted to craft a more NPOV approach, that still states the same points, while also implicitly implying that JH is not anti-American, through clearly stating the context of what was somewhat of an informal setting. I have also included the other formal quote as well, with citation, to show that Howard is not keen on destroying international relations with the Americans. JH was not attempting to alienate Americans while talking on a domestic radio station interview, in a somewhat informal setting; he was attempting to speak directly to Australians. I believe that the present edited version comes closer to respecting points of view of all parties, without putting a spin on JH that he is/was attempting to destroy relations with the Americans. WP is an international forum; it serves no one well when WP articles, unintentional or otherwise, convey false impressions that can impact foreign relations between countries. Yaf 04:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The context doesn't make an ounce of difference. I can assure you that Australians listening in Australia to that domestic Australian broadcast involving an Australian interviewer and the Australian Prime Minister would be left with no doubt that John Howard (a) hates gun culture, (b) thinks that gun culture is an American import, (c) thinks that that aspect of American culture is "sick", and therefore (d) that he hates that aspect of American culture. You are correct that they wouldn't think that he is a blanket anti-American or that he is attempting to break off relations with Americans -- but I contend that the plain quote without an explicit context also does not convey this impression. A point of criticism does not equate to outright rejection, and Wikipedia shouldn't have to bear the load of fending off all possible incorrect inferences of quotes it includes. One furher minor point, on what basis do you claim that there is something less "formal" about the 2GB interview than the LA Times interview?

Regarding your edit: I really don't see the relevance of the additional material. It is not Wikipedia's duty to attempt to re-write history in order to preserve relationships. Moreover, this is an article on gun control, not on international relations. Also, this is the third time you've changed your reason for making this edit. You started out complaining that JHs statement was POV, before apparently being convinced that POV quotes serve a purpose. Then you complained that it was inflammatory, before apparently being convinced that this is no reason for censorship. Now you are claiming it could harm international relations. I am trying to assume good faith but all this switching about really makes me think you have a motive for these edits that you are not being open about (perhaps even to yourself). In any case, although it contains quite a bit of irrelvant material, your edit leaves the important material too... so I won't unilaterally oppose it. I would agree with others though if they felt the irrelevant material should be removed.--Russell E 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not happy with the current version. I agree that Wikipedia should be written to be understood by an international audience, but that doesn't mean we should be going out of our way to sugar-coat the information it presents. That's how the current edit reads to me - "he said such-and-such, but don't worry, Americans, he didn't mean to insult you". A couple of specific points:

• "the Prime Minister often changes the wording of this belief" - can that 'often' be substantiated? AFAICT, the LA Times interview doesn't do so; while it offers one instance of Howard telling an interviewer that "I don't want Australia to go down the American path" is his "most effective line", that doesn't necessarily mean that Howard is offering the interviewer a verbatim description of the language he uses; it could be merely a one-time, more tactful rewording of the argument.

• "more formal interviews intended for non-domestic audiences" - given the plural 'interviews', this should be backed by more than one cite. As per others' comments, it's not obvious that a LA Times interview is "more formal" than a 2GB one... and it seems to me that "more formal" is being used here as a euphemism for "more significant", which would be at best POV and at worst outright wrong; Howard may well be one of the more pro-US prime ministers Australia's had, but the audience of 2GB are far more important to his political career than the readers of the LA Times. Radio interviews like this are a significant part of Australian politics, and not something Howard takes lightly. If "more formal" is not intended as such a euphemism, how is it relevant? --Calair 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Added another citation with the exact same quote from a prepared speech that JH gave in Canberra. I think it is fair to say that JH was speeking from a prepared speech for this newly-cited address of his. And, that he likely had "talking points" to give to the LA Times writer, prepared in advance, for that newsprint interview. An interview on a radio station would, however, be more informal, as he would not be reading a prepared speech in an on-air interview with back and forth dialogue :-) Changed the wording slightly to address your NPOV concerns. Yaf 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are probably correct that he would prefer to use the "path" phrasing when he has the presence of mind to do so. However, what is the relevance of that? This section aims to get the most accurate characterisation of John Howard's position. I think most people would agree with me that the difference in phrasing is due to a deliberate attempt in the more prepared contexts to conceal his true feelings on the matter, so as to reduce the amount of offense he provokes. In that sense, the "path" quote does not accurately characterise his position. As I said before, in an article about spin or about Australia's relations with the United States, some discussion of the use of the "path" quote might be valid as evidence for him being a two-faced brown-noser (like most politicians). In this article, all that is relevant is the most accurate characterisation of his position, which most people would agree is the "disease" quote. Including both quotes at best muddies the presentation and at worst obfuscates his true position on the matter. Could you please explain why you believe JH should be given the opportunity to hide his true position on the matter? --Russell E 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that that speech is not primarily about gun control. The relevant section is about litigation law, with gun laws briefly mentioned by way of a parallel; as such, his expression is obviously going to be influenced more by his attitudes on litigation law than on guns. If it is true that he "often" uses the 'American path' phrasing in 'speeches', plural, surely it should be possible to find one more directly concerned with gun control. I don't feel a claim of "often, in interviews and speeches" is adequately supported by one on-topic interview and one largely off-topic speech.

I'm not saying that this claim needs four references on the article page (two interviews, two speeches). But if we're going to pluralise "interviews" and "speeches", I'd like to see evidence at least on this talk page that those plurals are justified. It seems to me that if this largely off-topic speech is the best available example, the claim of "often" is shaky.

I'd be willing to countenance something along the lines of "Howard has indicated that he does not want Australia to go down the 'American path', in one radio interview going so far as to call private gun ownership the 'American disease'." But the current wording seems to be constructed with the intent of normalising his 'American path' phrasing and marginalising the 'American disease' phrasing, which I don't think should be done without better justification than I've seen so far. After all, a politician's least palatable remarks are often the most informative. --Calair 04:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Have added two more quotes, for a total of 4 of the "American path" quotations. From different sources. The most recent was March 1, 2006. Looks pretty consistent to me that he uses this line of thought regularly. Yaf 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that certainly justifies the plural for 'interviews'. But I'm still not happy with the 'more formal' claim. It seems to me that the 3AW interview is no more formal a format than the 2GB one where the 'American disease' line was used, and I'm yet to see anything beyond speculation to support the argument that the NineMSN and/or LA Times interviews were more formal than the 2GB one.

Note also that in the recent Nine MSN interview Howard also says: "And one of the things I don't admire about America is their ... slavish love of guns. They're evil." While a different wording from "American disease", I submit that that expresses a very similar attitude - and, IMHO, one equally likely to offend. Using that interview to support only the softer interpretation of his views is cherry-picking. --Calair 08:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, on all counts. --Russell E 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the John Howard section, as per my above comment, hopefully without removing anything people are attached to. In particular, I noted explicitly that Howard is generally known as a staunch friend of the USA; I hope this will both make it clear that those remarks didn't come out of any general antipathy to the US, and also emphasise that this is an exceptional issue for him. I've also put the references in roughly chronological order, since that seemed as good a structure as any.

I also moved the 'bullet-proof vest' incident to the discussion of the 1996 gun laws (equally relevant to either section, but structurally I think it works better in that section; the incident could do with some expansion) and corrected terminology. If that doesn't work for others, I won't be greatly bothered if it gets moved back. --Calair 23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for a point of reference: John Howard is wrong to generalize that America has a "slavish love of guns". Though that might be the perception you would get from reading media, listening to American politicians or watching TV. I live in the USA, and of my one hundred closest friends and relatives, I am aware of perhaps five that own a gun and only one that has slavish love. [In that one case I would call it pathological too, so calling it a 'disease' isn't far off, sorry Yaf, there *are* plenty of American pathological gun obsessions.] JH (and other Australians) can wrongly generalize about America, and that likely *is* relevant in an article about Australian politics, but it doesn't make such charaterizations broadly true. There is indeed a very devoted and vocal minority of Americans that have an obsession with guns, some pathological. And, the stylized guns in the American media skew wide from reality too, but is that a surprise? BruceHallman 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

From Bruce's description, I would guess that he lives in a "blue state", perhaps California :-) The percentage of gun ownership among South East US red states is considerably higher. I dare say, among my neighbors, guns outnumber humans by about 2 to 1, perhaps slightly more, and probably 80% + of households own at least one gun. Concealed carry permits probably run around 20-30% among families among my neighbors, with at least one family member having a permit. It is thus typical for over 20% of couples who are out shopping, for at least one to be carrying one or more concealed weapons. But, I can't say that I know anyone with a "slavish love of guns" nor of any with a slavish love of lawnmowers, chainsaws, or other tools that are also commonly used. There was a case last year where an elderly lady shot a burglar tourist from out-of-state who broke into her occupied dwelling in the middle of the night; she fired one shot. His remains were shipped home to a large city in a blue state amidst outcries from his shocked relatives. No charges were filed. There was another similar case 3 or 4 years ago. But, these are the only two gun "crimes" that I can think of. However, there have been around 15 murders among the urban areas of the county per year, largely from drug deals going down bad. This, in a population of around 1 million. So, I do understand JH's view that America has a "slavish love of guns". But, it is largely a culture war issue. Rural area gun crimes are extremely rare, despite a very high ownership of guns. Gun crimes in America are largely an urban issue and/or drug-related issue. JH's quote on America's slavish love of guns is most telling of his own misperception of American culture; I wouldn't object to this quote being added to the article, provided it was quoted in context. It wouldn't even likely raise an eyebrow among "red state" Americans, as they would instantly know otherwise, and "blue state" Americans would simply relish the quote. Yaf 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yaf wrote> "I would guess that he lives in a "blue state", perhaps California :-)", I am guessing that Yaf is being sarcastic, as I question whether there is credible statistical evidence showing that 'blue states' and 'red states' have different per capita gun ownership rates. There *is* a clear difference in political attitude about gun ownership between these regions of the USA, and I believe it is fair to say that a gun owner is more likely to speak proudly about owning a gun in the 'red' versus the 'blue' states. Perhaps it is this political attitude to which John Howard referred? BruceHallman 16:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We're way off topic but FWIW, I really rather suspect that the background behind JH's comment is the fact that most Australians (and probably, these days, many Americans) form their whole picture of American culture based on saturation screening of American television programs. These programs depict a world of commonplace homicide that only exists in reality in a very small segment of American society. Nevertheless that segment is so violent as to push the whole nation's homicide stats sky high. Then, as people go looking for an explanation, they start by looking for a simplistic scapegoat... then they see the NRA and other very proud and proactive gun rights groups. To them the temptation to assume a causative link between these two unusual features of US culture (high homicide, prominent gun rights) is irresistable, despite the fact that if they sought a deeper understanding they'd reach quite a different conclusion. The LA times interview more or less summed up this bit of "logic" from JH; it's quite a popular one and I suspect he knows that and uses it to his advantage -- but he also appears to genuinely believe it himself. --Russell E 21:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Quote is here, Yaf.

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)

Thank you. For some reason, I was unable to see the same information. Perhaps there is a routing difference based on whether the viewer is in .au or elsewhere. I still don't think it appropriate to include inflammatory quotations intended for a domestic Australian audience on an international forum such as WP, when equivalent and non-inflammatory quotations exist. Yaf 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Help save this article from vandalism

Would someone who knows about about WP policy on arbitration, etc, please help me out here with suggestions of how to proceed. Yaf isn't listening to reason and persists on sanitising the article of points that conflict with his POV. --Russell E 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that all parties re-read Wikipedia:Etiquette WP:EQ, and let it rest for a week or two. The dispute will probably be easier to resolve after a cool down period. BruceHallman 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair suggestion; I won't deny I'm becoming extremely frustrated with what I perceive as Yaf's refusal to even try to understand the meaning of NPOV. On the other hand I really regret the fact that this page spends a fair fraction of the time with the NPOV dispute tag on for no valid reason (i.e. this is not the first time). Perhaps in the coming week he would like to acquaint himself with WP:NPOV, in particular WP:NPOV#Morally_offensive_views.--Russell E 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means respecting views that differ from one's own. Calling private ownership of guns a morally offensive view, and saying this view is deprecated by the majority, is anything but NPOV. Or, do you mean to imply that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is the morally offensive view, being it is the "American disease"? The lack of context of the "American disease" quotation of John Howard in the article is morally offensive to red state Americans (although probably not blue state Americans or Green party individuals), as this POV pretends that a domestic view of JH's was intended for an international audience (when it wasn't). It is not NPOV to state this quotation without a context, nor without identifying JH's parallel quotation that was intended for an international audience. See Red state vs. blue state divide issues in America for a better graphical context of the red areas of America which likely do find your POV extremely morally offensive. Perhaps the North American tongue-in-cheek Jesusland map better demonstrates the extreme culture war battlelines :-) To refuse to respect majority views in many parts of the world is not a NPOV. Yaf 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV means equal coverage for all points of view (relevant to the article and held by at least a sizeable minority). Respecting people's views does not mean censoring all contradictory views. This is a necessary condition for universal applicability of the policy: i.e. without it you could not "respect" more than one view at a time.
• I am not calling private ownership of guns a "morally offensive view". I am saying that some people (e.g. yourself) take moral offense at John Howards's view that American culture is "diseased". Furthermore, I am citing WP:NPOV#Morally_offensive_views as an illustration that despite the fact that you take offense, censoring this view would be in violation of Wikipedia policy
• The intended audience of JH's comments is irrelevant. It is not an article about spin doctoring. It is an section about John Howard's views on guns, and whichever arena in which he is most frank is the arena from which we should draw quotes.
• It is not "my" POV. I am striving for neutrality here. If you must know my POV, I am a licensed firearms owner who is strongly opposed to JH's stance.
• I am not "refusing to respect majority view in many parts of the world". As evidenced by WP:NPOV#Morally_offensive_views, respecting a view is not equivalent to censoring all views that contradict it or offend those who hold it. See my first bullet (ha ha ;-) , above. --Russell E 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the 'American disease' quote ought to be included. Howard's views on gun control are obviously relevant here, and that quote conveys the vehemence of those views more clearly than the legislative record alone. That he would use these words to any audience, domestic or international, says a lot about how strongly he feels on this point and how unlikely he is to change on this point. (And if he were to change his mind, that quote would no doubt become a serious political embarrassment to him.)

As for the context of those remarks... I'm not convinced it's relevant; I think it casts much the same light on his gun-control views regardless of where he said it. But as long as it's appropriately presented, I don't think context would greatly harm the article; maybe something like this would work?

'Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general. In a 2002 interview on Sydney radio station 2GB, he stated: "we will find any means we can to further restrict [gun imports] because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."[15]'

IMHO, that gives the context of those remarks without making the wording too unwieldy or attempting to interpret beyond known facts. Does that seem reasonable? --Calair 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While not really necessary, I don't see much harm in your suggestion. I wonder though whether the context or the content of the quote is the true sticking point for Yaf.--Russell E 01:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is the content that he has a problem with them it is he who is not using NPOV. It is your POV that the second (?) amendment is a good thing. If you change an article so that someone's strong POV on gun laws in America are weaker, then there is a strong POV towards pro-gun. Should we change all of Bush's quotes for pro-gun because they offend me and every Australian who likes the new gun laws? Secondly, if the quote was just for domestic audiences, would he publish the interview on his own website!? --liquidGhoul 10:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunters do not use any (semi-)automatic!

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)

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)

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)

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)

The assertions about semi-autos not being relevant to hunting are (not correct). Sorry, I started to say what I thought, but decided to assume that the member was merely not experienced in the Australian scene, despite perhaps having read books about US/European hunting and certainly read an unhealthy leavening of journalist writing.

In Australia, we mainly hunt feral animals. This is largely for crop protection and pasture management. There is some deer hunting, but most of us hunt rabbits, foxes and if we are lucky wild pigs and goats, plus under control permits, roos and ducks. The world's most popular rabbit rifle is the Ruger 10/22 A SEMIAUTO, and Australians are not allowed to have it to deal with the world's biggest rabbit population problem. Similarly, a mob of wild pigs or goats is not taken by romantic one-shot methods, but taking several shots quickly. Your comments are completely off the mark.

We forgive your lack of actual experience, it comes with age, but please join with us to get this article better. All the best, ChrisPer 10:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The stupid prick who wrote this article probably hasn't ever been hunting, since before the '96 gun act, which itself was unfair and unjust, hunter very frequently used auto loading and pump action fire-arms, and I wouldn't be suprised if they still do, legally or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfishsolder (talk • contribs)

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)

Sorry, I'm a bit passionate about this topic.

Claims about Tasmania hunting pressure and Black Line incident seem bogus

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)

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)

My changes give way too much emphasis on conflict with aborigines for the topic. I will have another edit. ChrisPer 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Russel, apologies for doing it in two goes thus overtaking your excellent Wikifying. Could you point me to a source for doing referencing and linking correctly please? ChrisPer 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Causes of massacres - copycat effect

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)

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)

I have plenty of references and source articles, which is why I offer an email of my article for discussion. This is pretty new, but just uses the opinons published by the forensic psych who examined Bryant. Funnily enough the media did not adopt a 'media-driven copycat' story angle on Bryant. ChrisPer 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

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)

Fair enough, it is definitely not encyclopaedic style.ChrisPer 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Firearms Laws in Australia

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)

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)

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)

Soft Air guns

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)

Not sure, will have to investagate this further. --Goldfishsoldier

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)

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)

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)

NCGC "Astroturfing" claim...

Sorry, you're going to have to attribute a claim like that to make it into the article, as well as provide more evidence for it. --Robert Merkel 07:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Only have verbal references so far. I'll see if I can get a couple of web links. I believe that it is verifiable. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it there.

If you have any verifiable information that refutes it, I'd be interested to see it. --AtholM 08:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that calling an organization "astroturfing" is an opinion (and a rather derogatory one at that). So we not only need to attribute that opinion, I think we'd need a fairly important source to be saying it to mention it in the article. FWIW, I think this is a pretty tough call to make; "astroturfing" is generally associated with big business - whoever is backing the NCGC, I doubt that there's a multinational company behind it. --Robert Merkel 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to get into a flame war with you, and I respectfully request that you remove the derogatory reference (in backets) above.

If the structure and operation of an organization can be shown to fit the definition of 'Astroturfing', then it is fact, not opinion. That applies even if the orgnization does not want to be identified as engaging in 'Astroturfing'. Stating a fact about someone or something is not derogatory unless it is done using a derogatory term. 'Astroturfing' is a factual term and is the only term I am aware of for a fairly clearly defined activity (which does not have to be backed by big business, but simply has to use the relevant technique). I do not believe that the term is derogatory.

I inserted that statement in Good Faith and I will reinsert it when I am able to accompany it with an adequate set of references to prove the statement as verifiable fact. --AtholM 00:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, the last sentence of my comment was irrelevant, but the rest of it I stand by - that said, I certainly didn't mean to offend you in the process and I wasn't meaning to imply that your edits were in anything other than good faith. That said, calling an organization "astroturf" is not a factual statement according to the WP:NPOV policy, and can't stand written in that way regardless. That "astroturfing" is a negative term is uncontroversial - nobody self-identifies as an astroturf organization. Therefore, it should only be an attributed opinion in Wikipedia. It's like calling some group a "terrorist" organization - the article on Hamas doesn't say that "Hamas is a terrorist organization", it says that "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[7] Canada,[8][9] the United Kingdom,[10] the European Union,[11] Israel, and the United States,[12] and is banned in Jordan.[13]", where the bracketed numbers are citations. So, rather than saying the NCGC is an astroturf organization, you should say that "Fred Nurk, president of the Gun Owners Organization of Australia, called the NCGC an 'astroturf' organization", with a reference to establish where Mr. Nurk (and anybody else of note) said it. --Robert Merkel 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-Port Arthur Buyback had no effect on murder rates?

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)

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)

Baker and McPhedran paper

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)

I suggest Don Weatherburn's contribution in The Law Report on ABC Radio, and his op-ed in the SMH are good references for his assessment. Don can be regarded as a neutral expert with direct involvement in the Government response.

Andrew Leigh's blog post is particularly interesting. He offers a reason to be cynical about the paper, that is that it assumes the rate of murders would need to go below the confidence limits of the series. Because that would result in negative numbers he rejects the paper's reasoning. IMHO, this weakness reflects that of John Lotts paper 'proving' a drop in violence resulted from concealed carry laws in the USA. That is, the evil results some predicted (both ways) did NOT materialise; both papers showed no substantial change. This is far more significant than tenuous evidence of a positive result. This perhaps shows that not only were the gun laws irrelevant to violence, but that both sides of politics have some basic assumptions wrong. ChrisPer 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with citing one or all of those sources. The difficulty is that I've placed the Baker & McPhedran reference in the "facts" section (Firearms and crime in Australia) rather than the "opinion" sections (Gun control groups and Firearms advocacy groups). It may not be appropriate in that section to have much or any discussion of notable debate. I'll leave it to you sort it out but just thought I would flag that as a potential issue. P.S., FWIW Leigh's criticism is subtle... IMO he's more or less saying that using the B&McP's test, it would be impossible to find that the gun laws had any effect, even if they had made the rate drop to zero... but so what? This just means that, to the best of our knowledge (i.e. until someone comes up with a test of greater statistical power), there's no way to know whether the laws had an effect. Another way of phrasing that is that as of 1996, the rates were already dropping so quickly that it was a statistical possibility that they would fall to zero in the coming decade. Surely that is not an environment that justifies in the name of public safety such a major infringement of civil liberties as the 1996 NFA. --Russell E 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to reorganise?

The article is getting out of balance, and the 'current laws' section has added a lot of information perhaps less concisely than appropriate in an encyclopaedia article.

The divergence between some aspects of state laws is important but not yet well covered.

Contrasts with examples in other countries would be good too - eg the excessive treatment of target air pistols and airsoft guns, silencers and semiauto rimfires such as the Ruger 10/22.

There is more to say about the anti-gun organisations, especially in the light of their involvement creating the conditions to encourage copycat crimes, and the link between government funded and NGO organisations in the general area of public health.

Anyone want to suggest structure changes? ChrisPer 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What sort of re-organisation did you have in mind? --Commander Zulu 12:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is too long as a whole. Might be time to separate out the description of the laws as they stand, or reduce it radically. Its way too detailed, and at that level actually needs more detail to show existing differences between states.

Secondly, the modern (post 1984 to Major Players) part has lost coherence. The 'single member of NCGC' comment seems pretty gratuitous, and the article does not convey well the sense of the 1996-1999 witch hunt, or the general feeling in the population since.

Maybe a rewrite of that part with a short overview of players before a chronological review of major events? ChrisPer 00:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I Oppose re-writing the current laws section. There's no such thing as "too detailed", especially in an encyclopaedia article. Also, there aren't that many differences between the various State's Firearms Laws- everyone uses the "Category" section, all States require some kind of Permit to Acquire be issued before a gun can be bought, and you must have a "Genuine Reason" to get a gun licence in the first place.

Something on the witch-hunt might not be a bad idea though, along with something noting the improvement in attitudes nowadays- Victoria now issues Permits To Acquire in 24 hours via computer at the Gun Dealer, NSW is allowing hunting in State Forests, and Queensland has a Pro-Shooting Political Party (the Liberal Democratic Party) with policies that extend beyond gun law reform, and the Northern Territory does not require proof of "Genuine Need" for Category B firearms beyond simply having a gun licence in the first place. --Commander Zulu 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that there is 'no such thing as too detailed'. An Encyclopedia is not the definitive reference, but more of a survey article. A simple summary of the common aspects of Australian gun laws and some of the mismatches and inconveniences is what is required, in my opinion. If the article was called 'Gun Laws of Australia', it could be more detailed.

I agree the current laws discussion is distractingly long, but also agree that detail is good. How about putting it in a new article, Firearms law in Australia? Then Gun politics in Australia can have a few-sentence section on it with a link to the "main article".--Russell E 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What did you think of the changes from '1988 mass killings' to '1984-1996'? ChrisPer 08:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I did a re-write of the Current Laws section. Still needs some more work, but its rather easier to read imho, sacrificing almost nothing and adding a few useful points like no licneses for self-defense. ChrisPer 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! --Russell E 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"handed in to the Victoria Police for destruction 3 years earlier"

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)

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)

removing some original research

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)

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)

Sources:

Cantor C. 2001 Civil Massacres Ethological Perspectives. The ASCAP Bulletin Vol 2 No 1. 29-31.

Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, 2000 Mass homicide: the civil massacre. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28:1:55-63

Cialdini, Robert 2001. Influence: Science and Practice 4th Ed. Allyn and Bacon, pp121-130.

Cramer, C 1993. Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9.

Hansen, Jane 1995. “Tassie Guns”, A Current Affair 2 Oct 1995, featuring Roland Browne and Rebecca Peters of the Coalition for Gun Control. Nine Network broadcast.

Lovibond J. 1996. ‘Hobart gun death related to TV show’, Hobart Mercury, 21/05/1996, Ed: 1, Pg: 2, 511 words. Newstext

Mullen, Paul quoted in Hannon K 1997, “Copycats to Blame for Massacres Says Expert”, Courier Mail, 4/3/1997

Pinker, Stephen 1999. How the Mind Works, Norton and Company, 672 pp.

Phillips, D. P. 1980. Airplane accidents, murder, and the mass media: Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces, 58, 1001-1024.

OK addeed back a reference to the copycat model with solid references, no nutcases in that list.ChrisPer 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

'Legitimate' is an unacceptable term for one side in this debate?

[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)

Port Arthur Shooting

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)

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)

Jack V1, were you part of the scene at that time? Jeanine Baker was, and her membership application was rejected. I was not a shooter then but remember the articles in the media discussing many applications and the policy of rejecting them all. "Thousands" may be an exaggeration, but the tactic was widely discussed. Your "I find it highly unlikely" needs clarification - why is your opinion a reason for us to accept it? ChrisPer (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Culture wars?

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)

Sounds like an alright idea to me. CeeWhy2 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing or replacing these terms, but the anonymous person proposing it seems to wish to deny shooters are decent or normal people. If you would say so explicitly could lay out your argument to test its validity.

The terms are a touch loaded but the facts are true: this is a component of the 'culture war' and new-class or cosmopolitan values are replacing traditional values; shooting sports are declining as one direct result. ChrisPer 09:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on...

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)

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)

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)

You're kidding right?

"However the 2006 result has been analysed by an independent statistical analyst and it is believed that the result confirms the impact of the shooters' vote."

In my area urban north east Melbourne there was no hint of any pro-gun advertisement. I have no recollection of it being mentioned in the media. I'm not saying that I don't believe that there was a push from pro-gun groups but saying "an independent statistical analyst" (which, please?) confirms the impact seems highly spurious. The large number of unvertified statements also concerns me. Cherries Jubilee 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to know who they are talking about; the only ones I have seen writing on this are partisans.

Please be expliciat about which unverified statements you mean. I have edited a fair part of this article, and although I am not neutral I do not hold with the codswallop of conspiracy ideas or with facts pulled out of someone's backside. Sadly, this debate is riddled with that quality of thinking.

If you want to edit, do, and add sources we can use. I added quite a few of the existing references. ChrisPer 09:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up tag added

Because of all the uncited and unverified claims. Goldfishsoldier 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Through out the sections on the Port Authur massicare and Monash shootings. Goldfishsoldier 06:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for opportunities to reference, when I know where it comes from.ChrisPer 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Genuine Reason for Category A

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)

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)

Well, feel free to make it clearer then!:-) ChrisPer 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently purchased an air rifle (catagory A) and under the genuine reason section it exempted catagory A firearms. Goldfishsoldier 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional Sporting Shooters eligible for Category C?

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)

I checked on the Victoria police website and it was a genuine reason for owning a category C firearm. Goldfishsoldier 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional shooters - 'professional sporting shooters' must be a tiny class of people ;-). ChrisPer 04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "weapon".

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, and its fair enough to use the word weapon more generally if the intention is not pejorative. We use the word weapon about flaming aboriginal boomerangs and spears, after all. I agree with you that it sometimes not appropriate because we wish to step away from connotiations of violence, eg about target arms discussed in a public forum. We went through this argument on about 3 other forums among shooters, and the word is not loaded.ChrisPer 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also the sections about 'Legitimate is unacceptable term for one side in this debate' and 'Culture wars'. The misuse of loaded language is very important, but I suggest this one is not a winner. ChrisPer 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Kevin Rudd to release policy soon

[16]

Should this be noted in the Federal Government section? CeeWhy2 11:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Simon Chapman is a former 'convenor' of the National Coalition for Gun Control

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)

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)

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)

Links: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/docs/chapman.htm accessed 10/9/2007 3.01pm: Simon Chapman - Biography "Since 1991, he has run dozens of training workshops in Australia, the United States and Great Britain in media advocacy for public health. He was a key member of the Coalition for Gun Control, which won the 1996 Australian community Human Rights award."

Plus check out his Wikipedia entry:Simon Chapman ChrisPer 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well once you can provide a good citation you should add it in.Goldfishsoldier 04:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK...ChrisPer 12:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jobs that need doing on this article

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)

<< crickets >>

ChrisPer 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

<<crickets>>

Ah, Goldfishsoldier has moved the cleanup tags so they apply only to the sections on the two massacres that triggered more gun control. Agreed, go for it. ChrisPer 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for handgun ban

The stated reason why handguns were banned before WW2 because of fear of communists is nonsense. Handguns were banned because of their frequent use in armed hold-ups and bank robberies, and because they had no legitimate rural use.Eregli bob 06:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eregli, why do you say nonsense? Have you got sources to cite? I may be able to accept the claim about 'armed hold-ups and bank robberies' because these are an issue in any age, but your 'no legitimate rural use' is a projection of the values of modern people, not tenable in the context of 1920 values. There are plenty of photographs from the time of station women practising with revolvers, because they had to protect themselves during long absences of their men. Publicans had revolvers (at least in gold country), and country bank staff had guns until the late 1970s. So put up sources for your interesting claims please.

I would add that the sources I quote note that Hansard claimed the reasons were armed crime, but that this was a smokescreen. ChrisPer 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are some of the sources I read on the matter - it was a British Empire issue not just in Australia:

Australia: Kopel, David 1992. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, Prometheus Books, New York, p195.(I have read this book but don't have a copy to check the page cited, which is from Cramer below)

Great Britain: FEAR AND LOATHING IN WHITEHALL: BOLSHEVISM AND THE FIREARMS ACT OF 1920 http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm (This source is based on declassified cabinet discussions from the time)

Canada: http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/briefhistoryofguncontrolincana.html

ChrisPer 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore they were not 'banned' before WWII. They were restricted, and remember that laws were separately passed in each State. They were effectively banned - in NSW only - for a period roughly from WWII to a time after the Melbourne Olympics in 1956. ChrisPer 06:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Federal Labor support the shooting sports, or just Prime Minister Kevin Rudd?

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)

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)

I think what you mean by the "politically correct" faction is the "progressives". Rudd is apparently a pistol shooter and a clay target shooter, so while its obvious where his alliance is, both major parties have politicians supportive of shooting sports. I think for now the SSAA article on Labor's position on shooting sports should be added. Goldfishsoldier (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

changed to show that they are one of the same in policy and included the National Agreement on Firearms "The new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a sporting shooter, supports the National Agreement on Firearms and Labor's policy is to continue supporting the National Agreement on Firearms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack v1 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC) added, patron of two clubs, the Pistol Amateur Qld Sporting Club and the Clay Target Shooting Club —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack v1 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rebirth of Freedom Foundation article

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)

Citations needed?

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)

Wording

"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)

Sure, go for it. I tried a long time ago, calling their membership 'ephemeral'. ChrisPer (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New editors join us... welcome!

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)

Bah. Another drive-by gun control advocate, no time to even discuss changes.ChrisPer (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)