The other video is part two.
This is part three, pertaining to Australia's enactment of gun control and it's 20 year success of zero mass shootings.
Posted for it relevance to another pro-NRA video posted to the sift recently.

Not entirely cut and dry.
+ Gun suicide fell
+ Mass shootings fell.
- Gun homicide in general didn't fall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia

"Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[33] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[34] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[35]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[36] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[37] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[38]"

-scheherazade

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

A law concerning gun use that has an effect in Australia will not have the exact same effect in the U.S. because people in the U.S. will not react the exact same way to the law. For example, after Democrats began passing gun control legislation last year, gun manufacturers began refusing to sell guns to police departments in protest against the legislation. Democrats eventually backed down. This was a reaction to the law that was not observed in Australia; the effect of a law is defined by the reaction of those who are subject to it.

EDIT: You might also take into consideration why most of these mass shootings occur in places that are 'Gun Free' zones (e.g., schools, theaters, hospitals, shopping malls, etc.). By increasing the gun control laws, you are, in essence, increasing the number and amount of 'gun free' zones, but not reducing the number or amount of the mass shootings.

"Following a mass shooting, Australia instigated GUN CONTROL AND IT WORKED. The result ? 0 Mass shootings since 1996."

Just to contribute a little bit (I am neither here nor there). Here is something on the piece outside of Russian Times, not much more credible, however has some quotes from the police:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detained_n_1817484.html EDIT: Guess I cant post links on this site heh, Huffingtonpost is the site, guys name is Brandon J. Raub [admin edit: url restored]

Article Snippets:

•"In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads.""

•"Police – acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional"

•"One of his Facebook posts, ... pictured the gaping hole in the Pentagon and asked "where's the plane?""

•"Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency. "We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts," she said. "Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints.""

•"Authorities say it wasn't an arrest because Raub doesn't face criminal charges."

•"Col. Thierry Dupuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state's emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous.
He said Raub was handcuffed because he resisted officers' attempts to take him into custody."

Also we can do something about this. For the last four mass shootings, i have not shared anything about them on social media and avoided clicking as much news stories i can. We are part of the information network and carry part of the responsibility. If you don't read their news, they won't profit from them.

Mass shootings and irresponsible gun owners represent a small fraction of gun violence and as such they shouldn't be the main justification for gun laws.

The problem is that our gun culture creates an environment that makes illegal guns more available (in Mexico and urban environments, among others), and that it puts guns within reach when someone gets a violent urge (whether against themselves or others).

Laws should be tailored to help gradually change that gun culture over the long term.

Jesus Christ and the gun-bashing bandwagon is leaving the station. My ramblings lost in the ether regardless of facts or fucking figures (death stats by firearms or violence), become mute when you consider that more Germans die of complications from their annual Bratwurst intake than from violent crimes. MY POINT was to pooh-pooh quadrophonic who turned the thread in the direction it went with a simple comment.

Then comes the bandwagon, which I attempted to derail, and now everyone wants to jump in and whine about their take on issues surrounding firearms in the United States, like they are some fucking problem. The problems' with criminals being created by a broken criminal justice system, the fear mongering fomented by news organizations and the cunts proposing legislation whenever some imbecile snaps, and the lackeys that feed on their output like pablum.

All stats, all anger directed at senseless crimes committed by the uncommitted with guns (mass shootings), and all dumb assess who feed on news organization's and their editorializing on sensible laws for guns (that we don't already have) in order to justify more laws become IRRELEVANT when you consider, that by design disarming partially or completely the average citizen is the goal of any fascist.

Most of you who UP-voted ASMO's comment without this explained context or with it, are pretty much the lay-down-and-fuck-me types who, should some fascist regime pop-in and tell them what and how to do things now, would enthusiastically succumb, especially if the offer were candy-coated and the statistics looked good, and you could keep things like groceries and your fucking car.
(and yeah, I up'ed quad's comment...I love to jump head-first into threads hi-jacked by passionate fools)

Or, you simply live in another paradigm (being in a country who has not systematically programmed their inhabitants with violence, fear, and race-tensions) and have no reference for the consternation of a sane, reasonable person surrounded by minions of dutiful robots.

its weird. I'm pro gun control, but I also really don't have too much of a problem with 3d printing being used for something like this.

One way or the other. America (and the world) has to...grow up and re-evaluate weapons and/or the people using those weapons.

In other words, One way or another, we are going to HAVE TO (in order for the species to survive) figure out a way to NOT kill each other.

whether it's some magic gun control law/enforcement or whether or it's a revolution in mental health care and/or conflict resolution or whether everything gets worse and there are thousands more mass shootings/killings and the survivors finally crack and say enough is enough.

One way or another. It will get better. Because 3d printers aren't going anywhere and they're going to get better and better. So either we figure it out, or the species ceases to be.

to be..."fair" conservatives will rally against anything a foreign country does, no matter how beneficial it is. Not on the merits of the actual idea of course, simply because it's a foreign nation is all that is needed for conservatives to poo poo on it.

So he's right, but for the wrong reasons.

For conservatives to *ever* consider gun control, there would probably have to be an american city that enacted some huge gun control enforcement successfully.

or like @dag said, but I think he's being generous. Personally I don't think any real change will happen till no less than a dozen more big mass shootings.

or we abolish lobbying.

or republicans lose big in 2014.

I love how gun control proponents love to point to Australia as "proof" that gun control works. Hey, here's some proof that it doesn't work! Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun control in the country. It also has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country and guns are involved in the majority of those crimes.

Some fun facts:
1) Criminals don't care about gun laws and already obtain guns illegally.
2) Guns are a very effective deterrent against criminals (hence the reason why mass shootings almost always occur in the places where people are least likely to carry guns).
3) Banning guns won't make them disappear, just as banning alcohol didn't make it disappear and banning drugs hasn't made them disappear either.

As for murder sprees (which comprise a tiny portion of overall violent crime and murder), less access to guns wouldn't make them disappear. If someone really wants to kill a bunch of people, they'll figure out a way. The Seattle bombings are proof of that.

@kymbos The point should be obvious, the gun ban effected more than gun crime, and not in a good way. It may have stopped mass shootings (see below), but at what cost? The murder rate actually increased after the ban, and didn't fall below the pre-ban rate until 7 years later. The murder rate before the ban was already on a steady decline, and Australia now has more violent crime post gun ban.

Did the gun ban even stop mass shootings? Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence (PDF) concludes:

"The hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported. Rather, it can be seen that both Australia and New Zealand, a country where the firearms banned in Australia (self-loading longarms and pump action shotguns) are still available for the purposes of target shooting and hunting, have now experienced very similar periods of time without the occurrence of a mass shooting event. At the time of writing, this period exceeds 13 years, for both countries. This is not consistent with the expectation that, if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.

This finding cannot be readily explained by differences in population size or pre-existing differences in the occurrence of mass shootings between the two countries – both of which were controlled for during the analyses. It is also important to note that in New Zealand, there have been no major changes to firearms legislation since 1992, when the requirement of photographic licences and ‘safe storage’ of firearms was implemented (in this regard, Australian and New Zealand legislation is similar). Prior to 1992, the last major change to firearms legislation in New Zealand occurred in 1983, when the requirement for mandatory registration of hunting and sporting longarms was removed. Thus, the absence of mass shootings in New Zealand over the past 13 years cannot be readily explained by any legislative changes implemented around the period 1996/1997."

All those statistics were following the same trends pre gun ban. So at worst , the gun ban merely failed to slow the crime rate increase, but it still stopped mass shootings.

So no gun control: same crime rate plus mass shootings
Gun control: same crime rate, no mass shootings.

Call me crazy but I'd say one is better than the other.

@jimnms - so what? Sexual assault has increased? What's your point? Why would restricting access to weapons stop sexual assault? How often are they committed with guns?

If all the stats you have lifted from one site actually related to guns, you'd be advancing the discussion. Sadly, they don't.

You might expect the rate of mass shootings to decline once semi-automatics became more restricted. Maybe for suicides with guns and homicides with guns. This is what has happened. No one expected rape to go away.

I think you're just being silly, you silly.