Talk:Gun laws of Australia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:11, 6 December 2015 edit2602:306:374d:8d60:c911:5303:9041:d7b9 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:26, 14 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,858,123 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Firearms}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Australia}}, {{WikiProject Law}}. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(132 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Firearms~~\|class=C		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
			{{WikiProject Firearms\|importance=low}}
	\| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=low\|gun-politics=yes\|gun-politics-importance=low}}
	\| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
			{{WikiProject Australia\|politics=yes\|importance=mid\|crime=yes\|crime-importance=low\|politics-importance=low}}
	\| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=low}}
	\| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
			}}
	\| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Australia\|politics=yes\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{high-traffic\|date=21 April 2008\|site=Slashdot\|url=http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/21/0340249}}		{{high-traffic\|date=21 April 2008\|site=Slashdot\|url=http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/21/0340249}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}		\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/FSW_State_College/ENC_1102_(Fall_2016) \| assignments = ] }}
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 1		\|counter = 3
	\|minthreadsleft = 10		\|minthreadsleft = 10
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(365d)		\|algo = old(365d)
	\|archive = Talk:Gun laws in Australia/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Gun laws of Australia/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Archive box\|auto=yes \|search=yes \|bot=lowercase sigmabot III \|age=12 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}		{{Archive box\|auto=yes \|search=yes \|bot=lowercase sigmabot III \|age=12 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn \|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes }}		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn \|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes }}
			{{Annual readership}}

			== External links modified ==
	==Contention over the effect of the gun buyback scheme==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	The conflicting interpretations of what is essentially the same set of data can be confusing. The various claims and counter-claims need to be summarised accurately. I hope that my changes go some way in that direction. ] (]) 09:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::Your writing style and word choice is good. However, I feel the tweaks in emphasis might bear some adjustment. The remarkable things about the DeLeo et al. paper on possible suicide substitution were (1) that the rate of change increasing hanging suicides was exactly the same as the rate of decrease of gun suicides, clear evidence of possible one-for-one substitution; (2)that the hanging change started slightly before the shooting change, perhaps indicating an imitative behaviour pattern is the cause rather than 'darn, no gun, what now?'; (3) that Leigh and Neill totally missed it, when it addressed what became a key point of their paper - their claim that there was no evidence of substitution. When I forwarded it to Christine Neill for comment she noted that it didn't have Leigh and Neill or Baker and McPhedran in the references - ie she had missed the fact that it came out some years BEFORE their work.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113130203/http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf to http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18950038-7583,00.html
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentLCMembers
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826235136/http://www.ausparty.org.au/issues.html to http://www.ausparty.org.au/issues.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::Therefore it isn't that 'the question arises' of substitution - that question is directly addressed by the paper. A question that arises (for me) is whether the idea of substitution is the wrong way around, given the start of rising hangings before the fall in shootings. Is (imitative) behaviour choice the important factor rather than 'availability' of one or another method? ] (]) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Next, the pattern of claims and counter-claims as you say needs to be clear and simple for the purposes of this article. I re-wrote myself it a while back because it was fragmentary and incoherent. The Lee and Suardi survey paper is the most recent word on the time-series analysis, was conducted by mathematically knowledgeable statisticians and they have not (like Baker & MacPhedran or Chapman, Alpers et al.) been accused of partisanship. Feel free to make it more coherent and NPOV! ] (]) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
	::Two new papers out in the Dec 98 CICJ; http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~criminology/journal.htm
	::Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Volume 20 Number 2, November 2008
	::Issue Editor: Professor Duncan Chappell, University of Sydney
	::Articles
	::Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh Do Gun Buy-backs Save Lives? Evidence from Time Series Variation
	::Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker Enhancing Evidence-Based Policy: Principles and Practice from a Case Study of Australian Firearms Legislation

			== Removal of section about 2017 study ==
	::I have read the latter, need to get to a Uni library to get the former. ] (]) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

			A user has removed a whole section about a study considering state and territory compliance with the national firearms agreement. When I reverted this, i was reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/809576852. Rather than get in an edit war, I'd be happy to discuss in this page. I disagree with the user that it is irrelevant to the article. Thoughts? ] (]) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
			:Yeah, the section is rather long standing and relates directly to the gun laws in Australia. It should remain in the article. ] <small>]</small> 01:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
			The study was commissioned by a Gun control group, undertaken by a gun control advocate simply to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion and for their own gun control purposes. The report, along with the parties involved are highly biased, and not only does not represent a reputable / credible source, but the firearms industry, firearm owners as well as legislators disregard such material. The item relates to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) with is crucially NOT gun law but a 15 page agreement reached upon, which state laws were to be 'generally' based and importantly there was no obligation to implement all, or indeed any of the provisions, this sentiment has been restated recently by the Minister of Justice in relation to the recently revised NFA. Hence where there is no obligation; 'compliance' to this brief agreement is not relevant to the actual legislation, certainly not a page describing gun laws. There are many reputable academic reports published in relation to the firearm laws and the post 1996 environment, that are more insightful, more credible, and certainly more relevant, but not entirely necessary for such a page discussing gun laws. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:The study was reported by multiple third party sources, including the ABC, SMH and The Guardian. Here at Misplaced Pages, we says what sources say, not what our opinion is. You might think the report is "highly biased", but the reliable sources don't. ] <small>]</small> 05:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
			::I'm making further discussion regarding the additions to these sections. The edits are unsourced, and appear to be original research by the author. ] <small>]</small> 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

			== Primary sourced statements ==

			There's a couple of statements that are entirely sourced by primary sources and show no evidence of notability, as per the ] policy. As such I've reverted {{diff2\|814346933\|the addition}}. I see {{u\|CamV8}} also {{diff2\|809135091\|removed}} it too previously. ] <small>]</small> 08:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
	I'm glad that most of my edits have been accepted. However, I would like to discuss this one. My wording about the De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger study was that it:

			An interesting application by Stickee and CamV8 of the policy to remove an edit in this article which was under the sub heading "Statements by organisations". The edit removed contained extracts from the National Farmers’ Federation Submission to the Review of the National Firearms Agreements. That submission was published on the NFF's own website at <ref>http://www.nff.org.au/get/submissions/5086.pdf</ref> The Misplaced Pages policy includes "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In this case anyone may go to the NFF website and verify that the NFF did in fact make these statements because that organisation has itself published the submission.] (]) 05:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
	:...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 the same rate as gun suicides fell, the question arose of a possible substitution of suicide methods.'
			{{reflist-talk}}
			:The problem with using solely primary sources is there's no way to establish ] about the information presented by the primary source(s). At this stage, there's no evidence that statement is notable at all. Other content in the article is republished in notable secondary sources. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

			] applies to articles not the content in articles. ] ]. The history of this article with respect to the NFF statement shows that on 31 March 2017 Stickee said "Statements by organisations: this is pretty much a COPYVIO. It'll need to be reworded into our own words". In other words Stickee then accepted that the statement was suitable for inclusion in the article. I answered this by saying on 2 April 2017, "With respect, not COPYVIO but fair use of a submission to government" and the NFF statement extracts were then continued without any further objection from Stickee until now. It appears that Stickee has misapplied the notability policy. ] (]) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
	This was changed to:
			:As stated by ] (linked in your quote), it's republishing in reliable sources (aka notability) that's makes an item worthy for inclusion in an article. ] <small>]</small> 10:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

			The first criteria to note is that Misplaced Pages policies are ''in pari materia'', that is, they are intended to be read and applied in conjunction. In attempting to paraphrase the WP:DUE policy, Stickee says; “its republishing in reliable sources (aka notability) that's makes an item worthy for inclusion in an article”. That may be the case in the positive sense but to rely on notability to exclude an item when the principle policy on notability states that “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article” is perverse. In this last comment Stickee is again endeavoring to prevent the statements of the NFF from being included in the appropriate section of the article although as I showed above they are within the permitted use of a primary source. Stickee now claims the due weight policy should exclude the NFF statements but as I mentioned above the fact remains that from 2 April until 9 December 2017 Stickee accepted that the item was worthy of inclusion.] (]) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
	:'...studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides at the exact rate of the fall in gun suicides. As the rise in hanging suicides started slightly before gun suicides began to fall, the question arises as to what substitution mechanism is operating.'
			:"Stickee accepted that the item was worthy of inclusion." No, I never did. ] <small>]</small> 07:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

			On 31 March 2017 you objected to the inclusion of the item and on 2 April 2017 I answered your objection. From that date on until now you acquiesced in the items inclusion. Granted this is not the same as you making an outright statement that you accepted the item but you were a continuing editor of this article and you did not raise any further objections although you were otherwise constant in your vigilance of the article. I can only therefore assume that it did not occur to you to raise the worthiness of the item for inclusion, ergo you accepted it as worthy.] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
	The second wording implies that that the rise in hangings was a substitution for a fall in gun suicides. The only question is what kind of substitution method is involved. This, to me, smacks of original research. I believe that we are in no position to make that leap. I believe that my wording is preferable, as it does not presume to suggest that this is the only interpretation. Could I suggest that the following wording might incorporate the best of both previous edits:
			:I appreciate your effort to read my mind. However, not noticing something does not mean I agree with it or "accept it as worthy". ] <small>]</small> 14:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

			Thank you for your appreciation of my mind reading efforts. If you missed the inclusion, you are of course correct when you state, “not noticing something does not mean I agree with it or "accept it as worthy"”. But on 31 March 2017 you did notice it and said, “this is pretty much a COPYVIO. It'll need to be reworded into our own words”. That is, you then positively agreed it was worthy of inclusion but in a reworded form and that was only to avoid what you thought was COPYVIO. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:...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 exactly the same rate as gun suicides fell, the question arose of a possible substitution of suicide methods.'
			:I never said it was worthy of inclusion. But that's a pointless thing to argue anyway. Focus on policy-based reasoning for inclusion. ] <small>]</small> 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Improvement of Article / Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics ==
	This incorporates the word 'exactly' from the second version into the first version and so it helps to clarify the reason why people might suspect that there was substitution in methods of suicides. ] (]) 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

			This article should be improved, see ]. Some proposals are already here on this disc some may come additionally. --] (]) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
	:Its a good basis for discussion Michael. I do think "the question arose" is a little airy, because it is actually a serious point of contention. For the first two years after the buyback we saw gun suicides going down cheerfully claimed as 'lives saved' but total suicide went up 14%. As a result there is personal investment in the 'question' which 'arose' ;-) If substitution was excluded there are many lives saved; we who question the claims of the anti-gun movement saw their 'Nanananana cant hear you' response on substitution at the time so we see it as very politicised. ] (]) 05:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

			=== Sources for Improvements ===
	As one version reads 'the question arises' and the other reads 'the question arose' then my version and yours are equally airy. Perhaps this reference <http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/280> and this <http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/3/455> and this <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nChWOCgeX2oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA121&dq=%22Reuter%22+%22Australia:+A+massive+buyback+of+low-risk+guns%22+&ots=LMyLKXud2y&sig=Sdh41CUIxkO4Jy-OnxlCH9DRi-U#PPA153,M1> may help to throw some light on the situation. Also it is difficult to know what to make of this as some have claimed that the only thing that the gun buyback influenced was the number of suicides by guns. In any case, this reference <http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.33.2.151.22775> would suggest that the wording should be

			==== Literature ====
	::...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.'
			* Beattie, Stewart K.;
			* Chapman, Simon; ''Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control'', ISBN 978-1-74332-031-0 (275 Pages),()
			* Deckert, Antje; Sarre, Rick; ''The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice'', Springer, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-55747-2 () (P. 788 ff => history of gun laws development)
			* Noble, Keith Allan;. At p. 29 "''A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION ''" and more Info. () ISBN 978-3-47884512-0

			==== other Sources ====
	This explicitly says that the change in figures would have more than one cause. ] (]) 07:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
			* AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT: ''Commonwealth Position on Firearms, Submission 8325'', Canberra 1991 Oktober, 9 /
			* THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, House Hansard, Thursday, 9 May 1996 Page: 766 f. <small>("... Denison (Mr Kerr) proposing ... The need to give full support to the Commonwealth's initiatives to secure stricter gun control ...")</small>
			* Barbour, Bruce (NSW-Ombudsman) 2006; ''Review of the Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2002'',
			* NSW Police, Annual Report 2012-13, Page 99 "''On 6 July 2012 the Firearms Act 1996 was amended to authorise police officers to seize licences and permits that are suspended, revoked or otherwise cease to be in force. Before the amendments, police only had the power to seize a person’s firearms. ''" source:
			* THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, HVP No 43 - 27 March 2017, Federation Chamber <small>(" Mr Goodenough ... this House: notes that while Australia has some of the strongest firearm controls in the world, illicit firearms continue to remain a threat to community safety ...")</small>

			The link number 56 to a pdf is no longer available. https://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr02/mr02.pdf <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::Great. Go for it! ] (]) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

			<small>* signing area for additions to calm the bot :-p --] (]) 11:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)</small>
	Two new papers out in CICJ; one by Baker & McPhedran, one by Neill and Leigh. Haven't worked through them yet but it seemed to me that Leigh and Neill are "in hole, still digging", Baker & McPhedran are "darn, lets fix that and do better". http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~criminology/journal.htm sorry the papers are only accessible from subscription eg uni library.

			== Christchurch shooting and removal of McPhedran et al study ==
	:Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh Do Gun Buy-backs Save Lives? Evidence from Time Series Variation Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Volume 20 Number 2, November 2008

			{{ping\|CamV8}}, even though it is no longer true that NZ has had no mass shootings, we should not remove the McPhedran paper as it is still valid as of the time of publication. I've added a note that the claim of no mass shootings is no longer correct as of 2019 but that may not actually invalidate the conclusions of the paper. We would need to find a RS that says the paper is no longer valid before removal. ] (]) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
	:Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker Enhancing Evidence-Based Policy: Principles and Practice from a Case Study of Australian Firearms Legislation Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Volume 20 Number 2, November 2008 ] (]) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

			Thanks {{ping\|Springee}} for the clarification, yes I agree that at the time of publication this research was valid. However ] is also important. The intent of this research section is to help inform the reader via ] while maintaining a ] of the analysis of data. I removed ] this statement, as it may give the reader a misinformed view regarding the comparison of gun laws between the 2 countries. Your suggestion that we need to wait until a new RS that discounts this research is written is not something I would expect to see any time soon. Other relevant ] such as NZ action on changing gun laws is a clear example of refuting the McPhedran paper. If the conclusions in McPhedran's paper stood the test of time the NZ gun law changes would not be happening. This discussion would be better suited to the ] as comparison between countries is presented in that article. This article is about the Australian Gun Laws. Regards ] (]) 08:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
	Added reference to new Kleive et al. paper that found no particular effect of gun laws, and suggests social changes - ie higher acceptibility of hanging than guns in younger cohort - rather than gun laws produced the fall in gun suicides.] (]) 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

			:CamV8, I don't agree with the view that this isn't specifically relevant to Australian gun laws since the paper was comparing the two countries in context of the laws Australia implemented vs those in NZ. I also don't agree with refuting as justification for removal. In cases like this its common to have research papers on both sides. However, I think your 10 year test argument is harder for me to discount. Again I lean towards keep it as it doesn't harm the reader to have access but also keep the context of NZ has since had a shooting. Since I haven't read the paper I can't say how that single event changes the data in the paper. This is also an important point. For a while Norway lead the first world in terms of mass shooting casualties per capita, significantly exceeding the US, due to just one even. If I recall the study used a 10 year window. Once the Norway shooting was "too old" Norway once again dropped way down on the list. Anyway, I think you have made a good argument in terms of the 10 year test but I would rather qualify the scope of the study vs just remove it. Should we ping some other active editors on this page for a 3rd opinion? Regards to you as well, ] (]) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
	::Is the word "scheme" appropriate in the section "gun buyback scheme"? To me, scheme denotes partiality, as in ploy, plot, scam. In my opinion, there are dozens of more appropriate words. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			::Springee, lets stick to the question of whether the McPhedran paper is worthy (in the context of this article) of representing the position its conclusion states. I find this discussion a little perplexing as you have stated you haven't read the paper. Other incidents in other countries such as Norway have no context in this discussion on this article. As suggested earlier, if you would like the discuss the comparison of Australian gun laws with other countries then this discussion would be better suited to the ] as comparison between countries is presented in that article. While I understand your point, I think this paper is no longer relevant to this article. Cheers ] (]) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
	:::Scheme also implies a large and comprehensive framework plan. For example, the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It isn't partial. See may uses by other sources here: ] (]) 07:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

			:::I haven't tried to find the paper and there isn't a direct link. However, the paper is titled "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence" so it seems relevant to this article. I would presume based on the Misplaced Pages text that the article was assessing the effectiveness of Australia's legal changes by comparing them to NZ's laws. I will try to get a copy of the paper to get more context for the conclusion stated in the Wiki article. Have you had a chance to read it? ] (]) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
	== 2000 NRA Controversy ==

			==Research section in chronological order==
	I'm wondering if this section of the article could be expanded some more? Since the NRA responded to the Attorney General's criticisms not with a retraction, but rather a which appeared to support their original claims. Yet in its current state this entry gives the impression that Daryl Williams duly reprimanded the NRA for spreading misinformation and that the story ended there.
			Presenting the research section in chronological order helps the reader understand the progression of research prepared by the academic community. Rolling this up by author presents this research as a series of ] papers with ] conclusions making a ] situation which leads the reader away from ]. {{ping\|Stickee}} I disagree with your edits rolled up by author on this basis and will reordered these papers by date. ] (]) 10:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

			Also, as mentioned above many of the research papers cited in this section are ] papers with ] author conclusions with no ] cites. Obviously we should be citing ] ]. With many examples of this problem in this section it is not ideal and needs a cleanup. I will continue to challenge content that is not adequately cited in an effort to improve this article. I welcome some help. ] (]) 10:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
	That's also one example of a theme which I think the entry could explore more, namely the role Australian gun politics within the broader context of an international debate. Another such example would be televised debate between Rebecca Peters (who went on to work with IANSA following the 1996 reforms) and Wayne LaPierre in 2004.
	The Australian laws are now nearly 13 years old, and both sides within the international debate (whether in the US, Canada, the UK, Switzerland, etc) have used their own interpretations of these laws in their local political efforts. I'm not suggesting we need to go about listing a series of specific cases, just help to locate our debate within the larger picture.--] (]) 07:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

			:{{Re\|CamV8}}, you should ping the editor who made those changes so they can see the discussion here. ] (]) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
	:Yes, there was more to say but the NRA effort really did suck. It was only propaganda to support their own prejudices, and discredited the NRA brand in Australia (not that our rampant political correctness gave them any credit you understand!) Australian media did not give their response the time of day, which might actually be good - it didn't help at all.
			:: Thanks, done. plus new section may help discussion.] (]) 11:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
			:Definitely disagree. ] states that conclusions need to given weight in accordance with their prominence. Giving triple the paragraphs in an article because they published three times in not in accordance with policy. You can't override policy because it "helpds the reader understand" better. ] <small>]</small> 00:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

			:::gday @Stickee, I see your point, I was looking for a way of editing the research section that didn't read like a list of ] statements on both sides. However as you have pointed out this leads to difficulties balancing ]. For example how many McPhedran articles should be cited, she has published many more articles. Can I expect a complete list in this section? Are these articles considered rs or should we be citing other secondary rs sources?
	:In the broader context, now is the time we should be able to make a contribution, and we are. WiSH have done well at South Pacific arms control conferences for instance.

			:::Another example is the statement from McPhedran regarding ''significant expenditure on the gun the buyback may not have had any impact on youth suicide.'' This is a compelling statement however there was no research done in the cited article by McPhedran on whether government expenditure priorities were impacted by the 'buyback'. I fail to see how this statement can be supported. I interpret this statement as ] by the author and as such not meeting wiki policies.] (]) 10:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
	:If you have some useful stuff to add, go for it. I think that country paper story claiming '300% rise in murders' is a great example of the sort of bad work the debate is riddled with. ] (]) 09:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

			== Resolving an apparent inconsistency in the text. ==
	::I'd also suggest- if anyone can find a reference- that mentioning the NRA's meddling has also hurt the NRAA (National Rifle Association of Australia), which is entirely unrelated to, and has totally separate goals and aims from, the US-based NRA. But they've got similar names, which is enough for some people, alas. ] (]) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

			Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH) made several studies on the NFA. Their 2006 study found an effect on suicide but not on homicide though in later studies they questioned this. Hence my edit, which I hope clarifies the text. ] (]) 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::I'm quite happy for the NRA to keep involving themselves, since any debate about the role of small arms in a society is pretty disingenuous if (like the SSAA) it never addresses the elephant in the room; namely their function in the defense of individual life and liberty.
	:::It's fascinating how successful Australian gun control advocates have been in marginalising that position, to the extent that local shooters organisations aren't even willing to contest it for fear of being labeled extremists, and yet it is the raison d'être for small arms. So at least the NRA are keeping it in the collective consciousness until our local debate matures enough to start addressing it seriously.

			== National Shooting Council mention removed as non-notable ==
	:::Anyway they're personal musings; not something for a Misplaced Pages entry.--] (]) 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

			The paragraph discussing the National Shooting Council was advertising copy supported by a single primary source. It would have required rewriting in entirety to fit encyclopaedic tone, but as a non notable organisation (the online presence is limited to their facebook page, website, and adverts), I considered the most expedient solution deletion of the offending paragraph. ] (]) 08:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::: They are curious musings since Australians with less firearms have more life and liberty than Americans with more firearms. The US murder rate is three times ours. The US incarceration rate at ~770/100k is ~5-10 times ''any'' other industrialised nation (generally 50-150). 1 in 100 adults are ''currently'' in prison over there - a perhaps more salient explanation for their recent decrease in crime. As for personal freedoms, we're just as free here as over there, we just talk about it far, far less. There are a few things you can't do over here, a few you can't do over there, none of which are particularly necessary to getting on with your life. -] (]) 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::It is nothing but an opinion as to whether Americans or Australians have more "life and liberty." By your own figures of ~770 people incarcerated per 100,000, your statement that "1 in 100 adults are 'currently' in prison over there" is wrong. However, comparing Australia and the United States is impossible. For starters, the U.S. population is roughly 10X Australia's and the group making up the greatest percentage of U.S. inmates, African-Americans, outnumber the entire population of Australia. Also, the U.S. illegal alien population numbers at least 35% of the entire population of Australia and many estimates have this group numbering over 20 million which would be well over 50% of Australia's population. Finally, the areas in the U.S. from which the most people are incarcerated, have the fewest guns per capita, so U.S. crime and incarceration rates should have no bearing on Australian gun law politics.] (]) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Welcome TL36! Unfortunately the person you are disputing with made their remarks about 5 years ago and in any case wasn't worth arguing with in this venue. Feel free to suggest improvements for the article.] (]) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

			== Lede needs work ==
	Great to have you with us! How about getting a user name and logging in? Your stats give us lots of diversions to follow, (eg Americans kill more people with non-gun methods than we do in total, so their society plainly is more to blame than guns alone) but most importantly please continue to help create a quality NPOV article! ] (]) 03:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

	== New section for article: Recent Issues ==

	Things not covered in present article:
	# - Two years of breakdown in service in WAPOL licencing and QLD permit issuing due to bad or malicious system design.
	# - WAPOL not sending renewals, and delicensing over 6000 WA owners and farmers
	# - Actions against long range calibres like .50BMG and so forth
	# - ongoing database accuracy problems in all states
	# - Safe inspections, findings costs and outcomes
	# - Australia Post issues
	# - Driveby shootings in Sydney and the changes to ammo purchase rules.
	# - Access to national parks

	What other things could we add? Federal vs State issues - this isnt about knives or other weapons, but the Customs debacle over folding knives would be a good example of weapons-related abuse of power over a considerable period. What is noteworthy in the federal vs state relationship in gun politics?
	] (]) 03:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

	::I agree. I will try to source some material on the controversial proposal to allow hunting in National Parks in NSW, where people also go hiking and camping. And the fact that hardly a day goes by without someone's house or car being shot up in western Sydney.] (]) 07:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	I have just read this article and it is clearly very subjective, biased through selective use of sources, and certainly does not reflect the facts as accepted by the academic world. I fyou want to get this article to a state where it more closely reflects reality (rather than the fantasies of gun-lobbyists), you could start by having a read of this far more honest overview: http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/13/david-leyonhjelm/did-howards-firearms-reforms-have-impact-gun-death/
	I can't see how Misplaced Pages can improve its reputation if it allows activists to use these pages for disseminating propaganda that is contradicted by any rational and objective reading of the subject. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::Craig, Politifact is in no way an inclusive or balanced resource and the Leigh and Neill work they quote is itself dishonest and agenda-driven. It may come as a shock to you but the 'academic world' is in many areas not a harbour of rational, dispassionate science. In areas subject to political correctness it is a self-referencing circle engaged in a moral status auction. "any rational and objective reading"? Have you looked into the quality of work done by Professor Simon Chapman and his cronies, or Andrew Leigh now the Labor MHR for Canberra? I and others here are certainly partisan, but we capable of recognising an article that was corrupted by activist leftists rather than grounded in the history of Australia and the place of firearms use in that history.
	::You will note that I have not messed with the work of Professor John Quiggin, which has substantially improved the article while being somewhat biased the other way. Professor Quiggin moved the non-academic responses to research to a separate paragraph. Leigh and Neill is of course an extended response to Baker and McPhedran, and a rather shoddy one at that. ] (]) 07:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

	== John Quiggin ==

	He clearly should not be editing this article. All he has done is remove things and not contributed one bit.

	Furthermore, on his blog he is clearly extremely biased and should not be in a position of power to edit this article
	http://johnquiggin.com/2012/12/16/time-to-ban-guns/

	] (]) 13:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

	::Although his edits are clearly biased to discounting the views of people who actually use firearms, or know something about the subject, his purported reasons are grounded in encyclopedic standards. Reverts should include supporting references. The reorganisation to separate responses from the published papers is clearly intended to give a 'final' word to Leigh and Neills' dodgy study claiming 'hundreds' of lives saved, and is an NPOV violation. Nevertheless lets see if we can make the article BETTER. Find references to support what was unsupported. ] (]) 13:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::The section was a mess, mixing (as you note) unsupported editorial comment, published empirical work and lobby group responses. All I did was clean it up, and list the empirical work in (roughly) chronological order. If there is a published critique of Leigh and Neill, it should obviously be placed at the end. And, while I obviously have a POV, that appears to be true of most who have edited this page. ] (]) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

	::::Welcome to the page, John, and thank you for contributing. The section was indeed a mess because its a history of conflict. A tidyup is a good thing, but associating the agenda-driven research with its criticisms is necessary. Otherwise the academic credentials misused for activist argument from authority are given undue weight. ] (]) 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

	OK, so where have you put the criticisms of Baker & McPhedran's agenda-driven work? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::::Thanks for this, Chris. It's important that Misplaced Pages should present the evidence as neutrally as possible. That's hard with topics like this but that it can be done.] (]) 08:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

	As a general observation, we have

	(i) a substantial reduction in gun homicides and suicides since 1996
	(ii) some plausible arguments to suggest that these reductions might not be due to the bans, but no causal model
	(iii) only a limited amount of data

	In these circumstances, there's no chance that empirical studies will yield a finding that the bans had no effect or an effect near zero. Either they'll find a large and statistically significant positive effect, or they won't. The latter doesn't mean a finding of no effect, it means that the evidence is inconclusive. Editors who don't understand what I'm talking about here should read about ]. ] (]) 09:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

	A further observation is that quite a few editors need to read ], ] and ]. With a controversial topic like this, editors' summaries of papers are of zero or negative value. The best way to inform readers about what a paper says is to go directly to the abstract.] (]) 10:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
	: I agree this seems to have become rather messy recently (possibly a side effect of Newton in the US). I also agree regarding the abstracts, however there is no way to avoid summaries of external sources by WP editors that's their ''primary job'' and ], ] and ] are not not meant to outlaw or ban that, but to avoid its abuse.--] (]) 19:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

	::Being a Professor is no guarantee of intellectual honesty where there is an activist agenda. The research in this area is typically agenda-driven (references available), and requires careful reading of the papers and regard to experimental design to see how the agendas are promoted. Some authors' papers were mendaciously presented in the paper as though their academic credentials made them trustworthy, while concealing that as former members of the leading activist organisations, they had a lot to gain personally from 'proving' that their activism was beneficial. I draw the remarks of honest criminologist Don Weatherburn on public health propagandist Professor Chapman to your attention.

	::The work of Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill requires careful evaluation. Andrew Leigh is the person who by counting mentions of think-tanks in Parliament, somehow proved that the ABC is a biased right wing organisation. In at least two publications he has claimed that there is no evidence of method substitution in suicide, and that the fact that suicides were lower at the end of the period than the beginning was proof of non-substitution. After the first paper I drew the deLeo et al work to his attention and Leigh was cross they had not cited him; at least until I pointed out that the paper predated his own. Plainly he had not even checked the suicide literature. He ignored the work of those actual credible suicidologists in his subsequent paper. Leigh and Neill's work fails the sniff test. They have used stats in a way that ignores the real-world causes, mechanisms of causes, and the impacts of the millions of dollars in printers ink and TV hype on the national culture. Inspecting graphs of their data we see that there is a higher likelihood that the 1996 gun laws changed NON-firearm suicides than firearm suicides.

	::] (]) 08:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Reference does not support assertion and will be removed ==

	:In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia's gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions".<ref>{{cite book \|last=Vos \|first=T \|coauthors= Carter, R., Barendregt, J., Mihalopoulos, C., Veerman, J.L., Magnus, A., Cobiac, L., Bertram, M.Y., & Wallace, A.L. \|title= Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention (ACE–Prevention): Final Report.\|year=2010 \|url= http://www.sph.uq.edu.au/docs/BODCE/ACE-P/ACE-Prevention_final_report.pdf}}</ref>

	^ Vos, T; Carter, R., Barendregt, J., Mihalopoulos, C., Veerman, J.L., Magnus, A., Cobiac, L., Bertram, M.Y., & Wallace, A.L. (2010). Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention (ACE–Prevention): Final Report.. Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)

	The above cited reference has no mention at all of the gun buyback.] (]) 06:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Military style semiautos makes sense in the context used here==
	::25 January 2014. ‎50.32.54.97 (talk)‎ (→‎The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences: removed buzzwords "military style", what makes a semi-automatic rifle "military" as opposed to "civilian" semi-auto?)

	Your change destroyed the sense of the second affected sentence. I dont know if this is out of not undertanding the distinction or becaue of a pro or anti activist position.

	There are good reasons to conflate military centrefire semiautos with civilian designs, because there is little technical difference in their function. However in the sense used here they are distinguishing a relatively few centrefire, military styled or military surplus semiautos - higher powered round, higher capacity removable magazines, some with pistol grip and flash hiders with bayonet fittings; this is a military style design called in US anti-gunner jargon an 'assault weapon' (in reality it makes a great sporting firearm). The vast majority of semiauto rifles taken in the buyback WERE .22 LONG RIFLE chambering - ie civilian styling, low-powered rabbit rifles that have nothing to do with anti-gun fantasy 'assault weapons'. The anti-gun activists conflated humdreds of thousands of these sporting arms with military arms by the dishonest category 'automatic and semi-automatic'. It is useful to distinguish just what was destroyed compared with what the popular imagination understood from the rhetorical term. ] (]) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Remove sections on Hectorville and Martin Place Sydney hostage ==

	The sections 2011 Hectorville siege and 2014 Sydney hostage crisis appear to have little or no impact on Gun politics in Australia and have been removed. ] (]) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

	== Article moved/renamed without consultation ==

	I consider the new name slightly better in some ways, but the old name was the actual subject of the article and consistent with names of similar articles on about 27 countries. The editor who moved the article also removed the main reference to the State Governments and State Police as participants in the issue, who respectively enact the laws and regulations, and enforce them. ] (]) 04:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	(Copied from the user's talk page)
	: In some countries, notably the US, it is more appropriate to use the description "gun politics". But in the case of Australia gun control is not really a contentious political issue. I understand that it is part of a series, but that is no reason to contort the wording of the article to correspond with the social issues and outlook in another country. Perhaps they should all be changed to "gun laws" which is more neutral. Having said that, I have no issue with a change back to "gun politics". It was just an attempt to make the article more relevant to the actual attitudes in the country. ] (]) 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

	::That is a normal viewpoint, but not the whole picture. There are a couple of million Australians in households that own and use firearms, and they have had the fist of the law pressed to their noses for 20 years, their normal business greatly hampered by deliberate obstruction, plus self-righteous opprobrium from a chattering class who act as though people should not have different opinions to theirs. Australians have 800,000 gun licenses, 150,000 members in their largest organisation, formed a shooters' political party contesting elections in six states and federally, and are electing members to governments. This is not 'forcing the article to correspond to the social issues and outlook in another country' but dealing with Australian politics. The article was named politics, tagged as politics, and describes politics.
	::You are an awesome and fearless copy-editor and could be very good for this article but please, use the article Talk page to propose significant changes like moves, and to work with others. ] (]) 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

	'Major players' needs the only players with any actual power to be listed. A bucketload about the Feds has no meaning in the absence of mention of the States who have primary legal authority and act politically. ] (]) 23:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

	== Sydney hostage crisis fallout ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|answered=yes}}
	Please restore . Please add to this section that in August 2015, ] and ] announced a tightening of laws on bail and illegal firearms, creating a new offence for the possession of a stolen firearm, with a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. An Illegal Firearms Investigation and Reward Scheme has also been announced, and there will be a ban on digital blueprints which allow 3D printers to make firearms.<ref>https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases-premier/new-laws-combat-terrorism-and-illegal-firearms</ref> Thank you. --] (]) 08:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk}}
	:] '''Not done:''' The page's protection level and/or your ] have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to ]. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:ESp --> -- ] ] 15:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

			The lede of the article is a little short and doesnt introduce the article as well as it perhaps could. This could use some expanding, particularly the 4th sentence but in general perhaps it could use a small rewrite/expansion? ] (]) 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
	== Recent changes leave Port Arthur paragraphs indecipherable. ==

			:Also, the second sentence mentions several high-profile killing sprees. What high-profile killing sprees are these? I don’t recall them. Did they really happen, perhaps they did not gain much media attention at the time, or are we assuming there must have been some? ] (]) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
	The numerous changes in the last two days have left terrible flow, and it's difficult to understand what the last few paragraphs in this section are saying at all. Several pieces of information have been included that decrease understanding instead of increasing it, for instance, what does the decreasing percentage of attacks using firearms matter if the percentage of attacks does not itself decrease?
			::Posted very much in error. Please delete. ] (]) 18:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

			== shouldn't the hyperlink when referring to .45 caliber after mentioning single action shooting competition link to 45 long colt? ==
	It also appears (and I don't have the time to find out) that several more "facts" have been added that are not from the cited sources, or if they are, it's not clear how so.

			I think it would make more sense that way, as 45 ACP is generally used in auto-loaders and the only revolver I can recall off the top of my head chambered in it (m1917) was double action. ] (]) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
	My suggestion would be to revert to the edit labeled something like "added context" from Dec 4, but maybe I'm biased or too lazy to do all the typing myself. ] (]) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:26, 14 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun laws of Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Gun politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Crime / Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Gun laws of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 21 April 2008, Gun laws of Australia was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gun laws in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113130203/http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf to http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18950038-7583,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentLCMembers
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826235136/http://www.ausparty.org.au/issues.html to http://www.ausparty.org.au/issues.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of section about 2017 study

A user has removed a whole section about a study considering state and territory compliance with the national firearms agreement. When I reverted this, i was reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/809576852. Rather than get in an edit war, I'd be happy to discuss in this page. I disagree with the user that it is irrelevant to the article. Thoughts? Goldcactus (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the section is rather long standing and relates directly to the gun laws in Australia. It should remain in the article. Stickee (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The study was commissioned by a Gun control group, undertaken by a gun control advocate simply to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion and for their own gun control purposes. The report, along with the parties involved are highly biased, and not only does not represent a reputable / credible source, but the firearms industry, firearm owners as well as legislators disregard such material. The item relates to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) with is crucially NOT gun law but a 15 page agreement reached upon, which state laws were to be 'generally' based and importantly there was no obligation to implement all, or indeed any of the provisions, this sentiment has been restated recently by the Minister of Justice in relation to the recently revised NFA. Hence where there is no obligation; 'compliance' to this brief agreement is not relevant to the actual legislation, certainly not a page describing gun laws. There are many reputable academic reports published in relation to the firearm laws and the post 1996 environment, that are more insightful, more credible, and certainly more relevant, but not entirely necessary for such a page discussing gun laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatyoursoylentgreen (talk • contribs) 02:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The study was reported by multiple third party sources, including the ABC, SMH and The Guardian. Here at Misplaced Pages, we says what sources say, not what our opinion is. You might think the report is "highly biased", but the reliable sources don't. Stickee (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm making further discussion regarding the additions to these sections. The edits are unsourced, and appear to be original research by the author. Stickee (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary sourced statements

There's a couple of statements that are entirely sourced by primary sources and show no evidence of notability, as per the WP:PRIMARY policy. As such I've reverted the addition. I see CamV8 also removed it too previously. Stickee (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An interesting application by Stickee and CamV8 of the policy to remove an edit in this article which was under the sub heading "Statements by organisations". The edit removed contained extracts from the National Farmers’ Federation Submission to the Review of the National Firearms Agreements. That submission was published on the NFF's own website at The Misplaced Pages policy includes "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In this case anyone may go to the NFF website and verify that the NFF did in fact make these statements because that organisation has itself published the submission.Antihypocritic (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

References

http://www.nff.org.au/get/submissions/5086.pdf

The problem with using solely primary sources is there's no way to establish notability about the information presented by the primary source(s). At this stage, there's no evidence that statement is notable at all. Other content in the article is republished in notable secondary sources. Stickee (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability applies to articles not the content in articles. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. The history of this article with respect to the NFF statement shows that on 31 March 2017 Stickee said "Statements by organisations: this is pretty much a COPYVIO. It'll need to be reworded into our own words". In other words Stickee then accepted that the statement was suitable for inclusion in the article. I answered this by saying on 2 April 2017, "With respect, not COPYVIO but fair use of a submission to government" and the NFF statement extracts were then continued without any further objection from Stickee until now. It appears that Stickee has misapplied the notability policy. Antihypocritic (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

The first criteria to note is that Misplaced Pages policies are in pari materia, that is, they are intended to be read and applied in conjunction. In attempting to paraphrase the WP:DUE policy, Stickee says; “its republishing in reliable sources (aka notability) that's makes an item worthy for inclusion in an article”. That may be the case in the positive sense but to rely on notability to exclude an item when the principle policy on notability states that “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article” is perverse. In this last comment Stickee is again endeavoring to prevent the statements of the NFF from being included in the appropriate section of the article although as I showed above they are within the permitted use of a primary source. Stickee now claims the due weight policy should exclude the NFF statements but as I mentioned above the fact remains that from 2 April until 9 December 2017 Stickee accepted that the item was worthy of inclusion.Antihypocritic (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

On 31 March 2017 you objected to the inclusion of the item and on 2 April 2017 I answered your objection. From that date on until now you acquiesced in the items inclusion. Granted this is not the same as you making an outright statement that you accepted the item but you were a continuing editor of this article and you did not raise any further objections although you were otherwise constant in your vigilance of the article. I can only therefore assume that it did not occur to you to raise the worthiness of the item for inclusion, ergo you accepted it as worthy.Antihypocritic (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your appreciation of my mind reading efforts. If you missed the inclusion, you are of course correct when you state, “not noticing something does not mean I agree with it or "accept it as worthy"”. But on 31 March 2017 you did notice it and said, “this is pretty much a COPYVIO. It'll need to be reworded into our own words”. That is, you then positively agreed it was worthy of inclusion but in a reworded form and that was only to avoid what you thought was COPYVIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antihypocritic (talk • contribs) 07:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Improvement of Article / Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics

This article should be improved, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Gun_laws_in_Australia. Some proposals are already here on this disc some may come additionally. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Improvements

Literature

Beattie, Stewart K.; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)
Chapman, Simon; Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 978-1-74332-031-0 (275 Pages),(read online)
Deckert, Antje; Sarre, Rick; The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice, Springer, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-55747-2 (read online) (P. 788 ff => history of gun laws development)
Noble, Keith Allan;MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. (2.nd Edition) ISBN 978-3-47884512-0

other Sources

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

The link number 56 to a pdf is no longer available. https://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr02/mr02.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.3.0 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

* signing area for additions to calm the bot :-p --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Christchurch shooting and removal of McPhedran et al study

@CamV8:, even though it is no longer true that NZ has had no mass shootings, we should not remove the McPhedran paper as it is still valid as of the time of publication. I've added a note that the claim of no mass shootings is no longer correct as of 2019 but that may not actually invalidate the conclusions of the paper. We would need to find a RS that says the paper is no longer valid before removal. Springee (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Springee: for the clarification, yes I agree that at the time of publication this research was valid. However WP:10 year test is also important. The intent of this research section is to help inform the reader via wp:rs while maintaining a wp:npov of the analysis of data. I removed wp:bold this statement, as it may give the reader a misinformed view regarding the comparison of gun laws between the 2 countries. Your suggestion that we need to wait until a new RS that discounts this research is written is not something I would expect to see any time soon. Other relevant wp:rs such as NZ action on changing gun laws is a clear example of refuting the McPhedran paper. If the conclusions in McPhedran's paper stood the test of time the NZ gun law changes would not be happening. This discussion would be better suited to the Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation as comparison between countries is presented in that article. This article is about the Australian Gun Laws. Regards CamV8 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

CamV8, I don't agree with the view that this isn't specifically relevant to Australian gun laws since the paper was comparing the two countries in context of the laws Australia implemented vs those in NZ. I also don't agree with refuting as justification for removal. In cases like this its common to have research papers on both sides. However, I think your 10 year test argument is harder for me to discount. Again I lean towards keep it as it doesn't harm the reader to have access but also keep the context of NZ has since had a shooting. Since I haven't read the paper I can't say how that single event changes the data in the paper. This is also an important point. For a while Norway lead the first world in terms of mass shooting casualties per capita, significantly exceeding the US, due to just one even. If I recall the study used a 10 year window. Once the Norway shooting was "too old" Norway once again dropped way down on the list. Anyway, I think you have made a good argument in terms of the 10 year test but I would rather qualify the scope of the study vs just remove it. Should we ping some other active editors on this page for a 3rd opinion? Regards to you as well, Springee (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Springee, lets stick to the question of whether the McPhedran paper is worthy (in the context of this article) of representing the position its conclusion states. I find this discussion a little perplexing as you have stated you haven't read the paper. Other incidents in other countries such as Norway have no context in this discussion on this article. As suggested earlier, if you would like the discuss the comparison of Australian gun laws with other countries then this discussion would be better suited to the Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation as comparison between countries is presented in that article. While I understand your point, I think this paper is no longer relevant to this article. Cheers CamV8 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't tried to find the paper and there isn't a direct link. However, the paper is titled "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence" so it seems relevant to this article. I would presume based on the Misplaced Pages text that the article was assessing the effectiveness of Australia's legal changes by comparing them to NZ's laws. I will try to get a copy of the paper to get more context for the conclusion stated in the Wiki article. Have you had a chance to read it? Springee (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Research section in chronological order

Presenting the research section in chronological order helps the reader understand the progression of research prepared by the academic community. Rolling this up by author presents this research as a series of wp:primary papers with wp:or conclusions making a wp:synth situation which leads the reader away from wp:npov. @Stickee: I disagree with your edits rolled up by author on this basis and will reordered these papers by date. CamV8 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned above many of the research papers cited in this section are wp:Primary papers with wp:or author conclusions with no wp:secondary cites. Obviously we should be citing wp:secondary wp:rs. With many examples of this problem in this section it is not ideal and needs a cleanup. I will continue to challenge content that is not adequately cited in an effort to improve this article. I welcome some help. CamV8 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@CamV8:, you should ping the editor who made those changes so they can see the discussion here. Springee (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, done. plus new section may help discussion.CamV8 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely disagree. WP:WEIGHT states that conclusions need to given weight in accordance with their prominence. Giving triple the paragraphs in an article because they published three times in not in accordance with policy. You can't override policy because it "helpds the reader understand" better. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

gday @Stickee, I see your point, I was looking for a way of editing the research section that didn't read like a list of wp:pov statements on both sides. However as you have pointed out this leads to difficulties balancing wp:weight. For example how many McPhedran articles should be cited, she has published many more articles. Can I expect a complete list in this section? Are these articles considered rs or should we be citing other secondary rs sources?

Another example is the statement from McPhedran regarding significant expenditure on the gun the buyback may not have had any impact on youth suicide. This is a compelling statement however there was no research done in the cited article by McPhedran on whether government expenditure priorities were impacted by the 'buyback'. I fail to see how this statement can be supported. I interpret this statement as WP:OR by the author and as such not meeting wiki policies.CamV8 (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolving an apparent inconsistency in the text.

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

National Shooting Council mention removed as non-notable

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

Lede needs work

The lede of the article is a little short and doesnt introduce the article as well as it perhaps could. This could use some expanding, particularly the 4th sentence but in general perhaps it could use a small rewrite/expansion? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, the second sentence mentions several high-profile killing sprees. What high-profile killing sprees are these? I don’t recall them. Did they really happen, perhaps they did not gain much media attention at the time, or are we assuming there must have been some? 120.153.17.94 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Posted very much in error. Please delete. 2001:8003:7C10:DB01:AC17:77E6:AB48:7B6 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't the hyperlink when referring to .45 caliber after mentioning single action shooting competition link to 45 long colt?

I think it would make more sense that way, as 45 ACP is generally used in auto-loaders and the only revolver I can recall off the top of my head chambered in it (m1917) was double action. GastroGaming (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: