https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/ n the wake of the March 15 New Zealand shootings, advocates for new gun restrictions in New Zealand have pointed to Australia as "proof" that if national governments adopt gun restrictions like those of Australia's National Firearms Agreement, then homicides will go into steep decline. "Exhibit A" is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996 when the new legislation was adopted in Australia. There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates. A Trend in Falling Rates As noted by legal scholar Michael Tonry:
There is now general agreement, at least for developed English-speaking countries and western Europe, that homicide patterns have moved in parallel since the 1950s. The precise timing of the declines has varied, but the common pattern is apparent. Homicide rates increased substantially from various dates in the 1960s, peaked in the early 1990s or slightly later, and have since fallen substantially.
This was certainly the case in the United States. US homicides hit a 51-year low in 2014, falling to a level not seen since 1963. This followed the general trend: peaking in the early 1990s and then going into steep decline. And yet, we can't point to any new national measure that we can then claim caused the decline. In fact, the data suggests gun ownership increased significantly during this period. Australia followed the same pattern, although national homicide data collection was spotty before the early 1990s: Source: Standardized homicide rates per 100,000 population, four English-speaking countries, various years to 2012. See "Why Crime Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World" by Michael Tonry. Part of the reason that the collection of homicide data in Australia is so recent a phenomenon is because it has tended to be so rare. Politically, it simply wasn't a national priority. Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia's homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, it could swing overall rates noticeably. This brings us to our other problem with using post-1996 homicide data as definitive proof of anything. The numbers are too small to allow us to extrapolate much. As data analyst Leah Libresco wrote in 2017 in The Washington Post:
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths...
This doesn't stop many reporters for mainstream outlets from claiming that any decline in homicides can with certainty be attributed to whatever the most recent gun control restrictions were. But it rarely works in the opposite direction. For example, during the 1990s, many American states liberalized gun laws considerably, allowing more concealed carry provisions and lessening controls in general. Needless to say, The New York Times doesn't point to this and say "American homicide rates decreased in response to loosening of state gun laws." Of course, I'm not saying that these changes in gun laws by themselves indisputably "prove" that more concealed carry laws reduce homicides. But if I subscribed to the same standards of rigor as most mainstream journalists, I'd likely have no scruples about doing this in spite of what other factors ought to be considered. Faced with a lack of evidence that the 1996 law caused Australia to follow the same trend in homicides as both the US and Canada, advocates for laws like Australia's then fall back on the strategy of pointing out that Australia's homicide rates are lower than the US's. The problem with this strategy, of course, is that Australia's homicide rates were not comparable to those in the US either before or after 1996. The causes of the difference in rates between the two countries obviously pre-date modern gun regulation measures in both countries. (We might also point out that several US states—some of which have very lax gun laws—have very low homicide rates comparable to Australia's.) Attempts to explain this away have been numerous, and in many ways, justifying gun control policy has come down to endless attempts at using regression analysis to find correlations between gun policy and homicide rates. These can often be interesting, but their value often rests on finding the right theoretical framework with which to identify the most important factors. Those who work in public policy and who lack a good foundation in broader issues around criminality tend to just go directly to legal prohibitions as the key factor in homicide rates. But this isn't exactly the approach taken by those who engage in more serious study of long-term trends in homicides. Famed crime researcher Eric Monkonnen, for example, in his essay "Homicide: Explaining America's Exceptionalism," identified four factors he thought most likely explained the higher rates in the United States: the mobility of the population, decentralized law enforcement, racial division caused by slavery, and a generally higher tolerance for homicide. Monkonnen concludes: "To assume that an absence of guns in the United States would bring about parity with Europe is wrong. For the past two centuries, even without guns, American rates would likely have still been higher." Monkonnen's conclusions on this matter don't necessarily make him laissez-faire on gun control. But they do illustrate his recognition of the fact that factors driving differences in homicide rates between two very different societies go far beyond pointing to one or two pieces of legislation. And if gun control laws are to be posited as the cause of declines in homicide, there needs to be a clear "before and after difference" in the jurisdiction in which they are adopted. Comparisons with other countries miss the point. Suicide Rates Are Back at Pre-1996 Levels Perhaps recognizing that homicide rates haven't actually changed all that much in the wake of 1996, some defenders of Australia's gun legislation have tried to gild the lily by claiming that an additional benefit of legislation has been a decline in suicide rates. This is a common strategy among gun control advocates who often like to claim gun control is a suicide prevention measure. For example, it's not difficult to find media headlines proclaiming "suicide figures plummeted" in Australia after the adoption of the 1996 law. But Australia runs into a similar problem here as with gun control: suicide rates fell substantially during the same period in Canada, the US, and much of Europe. Moreover, in recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. There's little doubt that suicide rates fell from 1995 to 2006, dropping from 12 per 100,000 to under nine per 100,000. But after that, suicide rates climbed to a ten-year high in 2015, rising again to 12 per 100,000, or a rate comparable to what existed before the 1996 gun measure. In other words, suicides are back to where they were. But as recently as 2017, we're still hearing about how gun control also makes suicides decline. Overall, this is just the level of discourse we should expect from the media and policymakers on this matter. Even the flimsiest correlation to the passage of a gun control law is assumed to have been the primary factor behind a decline in homicides. Meanwhile, any easing of gun laws that coincides with declining homicides (as happened in the US) is to be ignored. In both cases, the situation is more complicated than reporters suggest. But don't expect this to be a restraining factor on the drive for new gun laws in New Zealand. In Australia, the 1996 gun control measure was passed only 12 days after the massacre used to justify the new legislation. New Zealand politicians look like they're trying to take an even more cavalier attitude toward deliberation and debate. Meanwhile, in Norway, where Anders Brevik murdered 77 people in 2011—67 of them with semi-automatic firearms—the national legislature didn't pass significant changes to gun control regulations until 2018.
想多了，先担心家里会不会枪支走火，会不会有精神病拿了枪去小学电影院滥杀，或者给自己灭门比较重要。
别扯了，NRA的经典理论就是坏人能拿到枪，好人拿不到。那就以后全民持枪算了，随时带着，超市，加油站，银行都带着，万一遇到疯子好能保护自己保护他人，这才是持枪的意义对吧！问题是mass shooting里有几个是坏人？坏人不是疯子，他们目的性强，就是要用枪来威胁普通人达到目的，老实讲有几个是以杀人为目的的？坏人无论怎样都会去找枪，那就是警察存在的意义了。而gun control是防止这种疯子的出现。
讲不过了，就转移话题，胡搅蛮缠了？看来我的说法讲到点子上了，讲到他们的痛处了。
就你这样的嘴炮还去干掉几个官僚，躲在屏幕后面YY一下而已，现实生活连和人吵架都不敢。
没逼到那个份上，我不会动手的。如果快饿死了，连讨饭都不允许我讨，我肯定拿枪动手了。要是百日无孩搞到我头上，把我怀孕的子女拿去流产了，我肯定拿枪动手了。毫不犹豫。
说到这我想起来当年北京有个解放军连长因为媳妇被计划生育拉去做手术死在手术台上，发狂抢了部队的枪上街。一个人和武警等对打，最后好像打死了路过的伊朗外交官的事情。
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BB%BA%E5%9B%BD%E9%97%A8%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6
建国门事件，又称“9·20事件”、“田明建事件”，是1994年9月20日上午发生于中华人民共和国首都北京市建国门外的一场枪击命案[1]。该案造成4名中国人民解放军干部军人、17名平民及数目不详的武警或公安民警死亡，凶手田明建最后被击毙。事件的发生时间正在国庆四十五周年的前十天，这个事件的发生，使得国务院总理李鹏在当年的国庆讲话中，不得不加上了“我国一些地方社会治安还有许多问题”这样的话[2][原創研究？]。
这样看的话，光禁止民间的枪也还不够。军警的枪支也应该禁止或者严格控制吧？万一某个警察突然发疯呢？他们可是随车配备AR15攻击性武器，随身还配手枪的。
驻守在通县的中国人民解放军北京卫戍区三师十二团中尉副连长田明建在出操时开枪打死团政委在内的首长和战友4人后，携枪劫持一辆吉普车衝向天安门广场。在建国门遇红灯时，司机把车撞向大树后试图逃逸，被田明建一枪击毙。田明建遂在大使馆区（加拿大驻华大使馆楼下）向平民射击，导致17位平民死亡，其中包括伊朗驻华大使馆政务秘书优素福·穆罕默德·皮什科纳里（Yousef Mohammadi Pishknari）与其子。 当时，北京的几个区均被封锁，军警赶到现场，被田明建的短点射压制，与之发生激烈的枪战。双方在城市道路两侧激烈交火，据称有多达7名武警或公安民警在交火中死亡。在交火过程中，一辆44路公交车驶进了交火区域，司机在惊慌中将车辆停在了交火区域中，结果造成了车上乘客的重大伤亡。另外，有多名路过的平民在交火过程中被打死打伤，包括驾车经过的伊朗驻华大使馆政务秘书优素福·穆罕默德·皮什科纳里和他九岁的儿子，另有两子受伤。这名军官在弹药快要耗尽的情况下，企图逃跑，经考证被随后赶到的持枪军警部队以交替掩护冲锋从正面击毙。北京市法医检验鉴定中心统计总死伤75人[3]。
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%89%E6%9E%97%E5%A3%AB%E5%85%B5%E6%90%BA%E6%9E%AA%E5%87%BA%E9%80%83%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6
Re: 前提是美国已经是几乎全民拥枪了，枪杀案太普通了，老百姓不买几把防身，万一有类似89年洛杉矶大动乱什么趁机入室抢劫的事，那就只有任人宰割的命，这就像车，车祸每天各种会死人，可在一个以车代步的社会里坚决ban车要走路，自己费劲不说，被车撞到的可能性更高，要呼吁大家都吸取车祸的教训去control车，完全行不通。
Gun control能在中国，日本这种国家行得通，因为本来老百姓买枪就不合法，所以不存在谁能买枪的问题，黑市流通的枪相对数量要少的多；而在美国，拥枪是合法的，老百姓本来就有枪，控制不了，只能说，Biden这么做，就是为了拿到Gun Control lobby groups的donations罢了，每届政府，在枪这个问题上都得选边站，要么这边要么NRA那边
I only protect myself and my family. You give up on your own rights is not my business.
Drugs are illegal but I don't think there are any less addicted out there.
seriously罪犯手里有的是枪，守法居民没法自卫
你这大部分人是你臆想的吧？
可笑，军火商在平民手里仨瓜俩枣能正几个钱，发动战争才是大笔钱
Policeman is just another job. They are not obligated to sacrifice their lives for yours.
我看是拥枪派在打着“反禁枪”旗帜在反控枪
禁枪 控枪 是两码事！
控枪也不会阻止你自己持枪自卫啊，自卫不需要你拿ar15 吧？只要你不是神经病没有暴力倾向，你照样可以啊 。
轻武器军火商才多大点实力，一年全加起来不见得有Target销售额高。何况枪械都是暴利，没多少商家，也就没有多大实力
保护自己和家人用得着机关枪？ 最有效的家防武器是霰弹枪（面积大）和手枪（空间小，灵活）。用大弹夹自动步枪来护家， 要么是借口， 要么是不懂枪。霰弹枪和手枪的射程/精度都不好， mass shooting的破坏性会降低很多， 而且枪支威力小，容易被警察制止。
大弹夹的自动步枪（机枪）是军火商利润最高的产品， 也是弹药消耗最大的产品。
大弹夹自动步枪（扣住扳机不放连发）平民（除非是ATF特许的dealer）是不能合法持有的。市面上的都是半自动（扣一下扳机打一发），最多有人打擦边球搞个bump stock（拉斯维加斯事件后被禁止了）或者binary trigger（扣一下扳机打两发子弹）。
真正能拥有自动武器的是美军，连警察都很少装备。自动武器的目的是火力压制，可能打几千发子弹都没打到一个人，但是能封锁开阔地。
真正大量的涉枪案件多是手枪而且是坏人手里的手枪。坏人拿着AR／AK上街的情况不是没有但是很罕见。
建议自己去研究一下有关法律。自动冲锋枪早就禁止了
AR不是Assault Rifle（突击步枪）是当年设计这个枪公司名字的简写（Armalite）
当年克林顿通过Assault weapon ban的时候也没有说把民间已经拥有的枪收缴上去，只是禁止新的枪上市销售而已。
有很多研究通过统计模型证明这些assault weapon 限制令没有用
当年著名的Unabomer没有用枪一样造成恐慌。把俄克拉荷马城联邦大楼炸了的是半卡车硝酸铵化肥
支持控枪也请先了解基本情况，你嘴里的自动步枪，机关枪已经被禁了几十年了，还要怎么控？
都不用打开链接看，你不觉得这个自相矛盾么？
标题里说没收”confiscated“，链接明明说的是赎买”buyback“
VOX本来就是左派媒体，但是文章里也说了，政府要禁的枪是按公平市价回购的（事实上很多时候是枪主当年买进价格的2，3，4倍），而且回购据估计也只是收回了市面上20%的枪。
文章还提到这是2011年的事情，说回购应该和治安好转有关系，但是不能说治安好转时因为限枪。
当时澳大利亚经济不错出口资源挺滋润，大家日子都过得去，又没有美国这样的AA历史遗留问题。
Faced with a lack of evidence that the 1996 law caused Australia to follow the same trend in homicides as both the US and Canada, advocates for laws like Australia's then fall back on the strategy of pointing out that Australia's homicide rates are lower than the US's. The problem with this strategy, of course, is that Australia's homicide rates were not comparable to those in the US either before or after 1996. The causes of the difference in rates between the two countries obviously pre-date modern gun regulation measures in both countries. (We might also point out that several US states—some of which have very lax gun laws—have very low homicide rates comparable to Australia's.) Attempts to explain this away have been numerous, and in many ways, justifying gun control policy has come down to endless attempts at using regression analysis to find correlations between gun policy and homicide rates. These can often be interesting, but their value often rests on finding the right theoretical framework with which to identify the most important factors. Those who work in public policy and who lack a good foundation in broader issues around criminality tend to just go directly to legal prohibitions as the key factor in homicide rates. But this isn't exactly the approach taken by those who engage in more serious study of long-term trends in homicides. Famed crime researcher Eric Monkonnen, for example, in his essay "Homicide: Explaining America's Exceptionalism," identified four factors he thought most likely explained the higher rates in the United States: the mobility of the population, decentralized law enforcement, racial division caused by slavery, and a generally higher tolerance for homicide. Monkonnen concludes: "To assume that an absence of guns in the United States would bring about parity with Europe is wrong. For the past two centuries, even without guns, American rates would likely have still been higher." Monkonnen's conclusions on this matter don't necessarily make him laissez-faire on gun control. But they do illustrate his recognition of the fact that factors driving differences in homicide rates between two very different societies go far beyond pointing to one or two pieces of legislation. And if gun control laws are to be posited as the cause of declines in homicide, there needs to be a clear "before and after difference" in the jurisdiction in which they are adopted. Comparisons with other countries miss the point. Suicide Rates Are Back at Pre-1996 Levels Perhaps recognizing that homicide rates haven't actually changed all that much in the wake of 1996, some defenders of Australia's gun legislation have tried to gild the lily by claiming that an additional benefit of legislation has been a decline in suicide rates. This is a common strategy among gun control advocates who often like to claim gun control is a suicide prevention measure. For example, it's not difficult to find media headlines proclaiming "suicide figures plummeted" in Australia after the adoption of the 1996 law. But Australia runs into a similar problem here as with gun control: suicide rates fell substantially during the same period in Canada, the US, and much of Europe. Moreover, in recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. There's little doubt that suicide rates fell from 1995 to 2006, dropping from 12 per 100,000 to under nine per 100,000. But after that, suicide rates climbed to a ten-year high in 2015, rising again to 12 per 100,000, or a rate comparable to what existed before the 1996 gun measure. In other words, suicides are back to where they were. But as recently as 2017, we're still hearing about how gun control also makes suicides decline. Overall, this is just the level of discourse we should expect from the media and policymakers on this matter. Even the flimsiest correlation to the passage of a gun control law is assumed to have been the primary factor behind a decline in homicides. Meanwhile, any easing of gun laws that coincides with declining homicides (as happened in the US) is to be ignored. In both cases, the situation is more complicated than reporters suggest. But don't expect this to be a restraining factor on the drive for new gun laws in New Zealand. In Australia, the 1996 gun control measure was passed only 12 days after the massacre used to justify the new legislation. New Zealand politicians look like they're trying to take an even more cavalier attitude toward deliberation and debate. Meanwhile, in Norway, where Anders Brevik murdered 77 people in 2011—67 of them with semi-automatic firearms—the national legislature didn't pass significant changes to gun control regulations until 2018.
麻烦你看看内容，buyback之后枪支是全部销毁的，这是buyback计划的一部分，虽然只减少了20%的枪支，但是禁止了automatic和semi automatic的出售，加强了新枪支的出售的审查，所有枪支都有网上登记，效果很明显，跟枪支有关的自杀率和杀人案都大幅度下降，最重要的是澳大利亚枪支管制之前18年间发生过13次mass shooting, 管制后22年只发生过一次。
美国市场上大弹夹的有连射功能的步枪都禁止了吗？ 大弹夹到底有什么作用？是家防还是打猎需要？Mass Shooting时不管是杀伤力还是精度， 手枪都相差很远。 霰弹枪的射程/穿透性更是渣。
严格控枪， 对于美国老百姓有百利无一害。说买枪为了保护自己， 家防手枪和霰弹枪足以。
seriously罪犯手里有的是炸药，守法居民没法自卫，所以应该开放C4, 人手一箱，应该够安全吧？