Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 2 September 2015

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

Firearms C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-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.

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.

Contention over the effect of the gun buyback scheme

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. Michael Glass (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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? ChrisPer (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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! ChrisPer (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (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

I have read the latter, need to get to a Uni library to get the former. ChrisPer (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (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:

...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.'

This was changed to:

'...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.'

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:

...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.'

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. Michael Glass (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2009 (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. ChrisPer (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

...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.'

This explicitly says that the change in figures would have more than one cause. Michael Glass (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Go for it! ChrisPer (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

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 ChrisPer (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (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.ChrisPer (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2009 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.176.164 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2013 (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: Google for "gun buyback scheme" ChrisPer (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

2000 NRA Controversy

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 series of 1997/98 figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and local (Australian) newspaper articles 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.

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.--TheCappy (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2009 (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.

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.

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. ChrisPer (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (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.

Anyway they're personal musings; not something for a Misplaced Pages entry.--TheCappy (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2009 (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. -59.167.194.48 (talk) 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.TL36 (talk) 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.ChrisPer (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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! ChrisPer (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New section for article: Recent Issues

Things not covered in present article:

1. - Two years of breakdown in service in WAPOL licencing and QLD permit issuing due to bad or malicious system design.
2. - WAPOL not sending renewals, and delicensing over 6000 WA owners and farmers
3. - Actions against long range calibres like .50BMG and so forth
4. - ongoing database accuracy problems in all states
5. - Safe inspections, findings costs and outcomes
6. - Australia Post issues
7. - Driveby shootings in Sydney and the changes to ammo purchase rules.
8. - 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? ChrisPer (talk) 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.Eregli bob (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Z Thomas (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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. ChrisPer (talk) 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/

219.90.214.222 (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 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. JQ (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so where have you put the criticisms of Baker & McPhedran's agenda-driven work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Z Thomas (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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.JQ (talk) 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 statistical hypothesis testing. JQ (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A further observation is that quite a few editors need to read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN. 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.JQ (talk) 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 WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN are not not meant to outlaw or ban that, but to avoid its abuse.--Kmhkmh (talk) 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.

ChrisPer (talk) 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".

^ 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.ChrisPer (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 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. Enthusiast (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 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. ChrisPer (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sydney hostage crisis fallout

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please restore the section on the Sydney hostage crisis as of January. Please add to this section that in August 2015, Mike Baird and Troy Grant 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. Thank you. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Vos, T (2010). Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention (ACE–Prevention): Final Report (PDF). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
2. https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases-premier/new-laws-combat-terrorism-and-illegal-firearms

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Sam Sailor 15:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• C-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• C-Class Australian politics articles
• Mid-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Articles linked from high traffic sites