Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Can anyone post the data for cases of murder or manslaughter being cleared as true self defense with a handgun?

In my and many other states, such cases aren't charged by the DA (in blatantly obvious cases) or are dismissed by the Grand Jury ('no bill') prior to it ever being taken to trial. In the latter case, it is as if the offense did not occur as legally no offense did. So they aren't 'cleared' per se.

Some related reading from my state:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...micides-more-than-doubled-san-antonio-tx.html

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...fiable-homicides-rise-with-Castle-3676412.php

The stats in Texas and surrounding areas are running between one in ten and one in five or so being justified homicides.

In my own case, where I was compelled to shoot the armed car thief who wanted my Jaguar, no charges were ever filed, so there was nothing to clear.

It should also be noted that shootings, both justified and unjustified, usually don't result in fatalities - most gunshot victims survive. Therefore looking at homicides only isn't a good indicator either way.
 
Last edited:
You may be right, if you consider a 30% reduction as "not much". I and most statistaticians would consider this significant.
Where did you get 30%? And you have yet to address the fact that fatal stabbings and arsons are up...
 
Yes, I know what a "semi-automatic weapon" means. "Semi-automatic", "assault rifle" etc are generally used in these discussions as shorthand to make the sentences less cluttered and verbose, rather than as lightning rods for pedantic semantics.

Um, so, you drive a Mercedes van, right? I mean, it's gotta be the same thing as a BMW car, as they're both German, right? We can use that as shorthand to make sentences less cluttered and verbose, right?

All semi-automatic weapons are banned in Australia (apart from those in the hands of government agencies and a few occupational shooters). Pump-action and semi-automatic shot guns are similarly banned, as are hand guns.

Nope.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

They are legal, they are not banned, and that's not really even all that restricted. The Aurora shooter used a pump action shotgun of a type available with a 5 round magazine, the Remington 870.

For all firearms, one must provide a genuine reason for a licence. If one wishes to possess a (simple bolt action) centerfire rifle, one must additionally provide a genuine need in order to be able to licence the weapon.

Ah, the 'genuine need'.

For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting

"I collect WW1 memorabilia and I really need a Winchester Model 97 to complete my collection." "Okay!" One actual related exchange from a now defunct international firearms board; the guy got his permit and was allowed one of the most deadly trench weapons of WW1 - one so nasty the Germans lodged an official Hague Convention complaint. The Winchester 97 is a pump action 5-round 12 gauge shotgun and is actually a much more vicious weapon than the 870 - the 97 is much faster to cycle and you simply hold back the trigger while pumping the slide to continue to fire, something you can't do with an 870.

The Aurora shooter's weapon is banned here.

Except it isn't. Here is a six round 870 for sale in Adelaide to anyone with a Category C: http://www.adelaidegunshop.com.au/i...id=72&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=2

The Cumbria shooter used a motor vehicle to travel between shootings (making reloading a lesser issue) and took over 2 hours to kill all his victims.

Except at one location he fired a reported 20+ rounds at a taxi stand (involving multiple reloads).

The Texas guy had the protection of an isolated and elevated location, he also equipped himself with a multitude of other firearms (all banned in Australia, including his sniper rifle).

His Remington 700 was not banned in Australia. It's a Category B, even less restricted than the shotgun above - hunters are allowed to have them. Here's one for sale in Australia now: http://thegunsmiths.com.au/guns-shop/remington700spsbarifle308new-p-2548.html

In fact, his 6mm Remington wasn't even in a proper 'sniper' caliber. It was a fucking DEER RIFLE, of a type Australia cheerfully approves for sale every day. It's a bolt action and it's what he did the supermajority of his killing and injuring with.

Let's look at the rest of the things he had:
M1 Carbine: Category D rifle, highly restricted, occupational shooters only in Australia.
Sears Model 60 semi-auto shotgun: Category C hunting/target shotgun, legal in Australia.
.35 Caliber pump rifle, type unspecified: Category B hunting rifle, legal in Australia.
Galesi-Brescia .25 pistol: Category H collector/target pistol, legal in Australia.
Smith and Wesson Model 19 .357 Revolver: Category H target pistol, legal in Australia.

So all but one of his weapons are legal to purchase in Australia.

The bystanders shooting at the tower did nothing but damage the building .. the guy was only brought down by a cop (with a double barrelled shot gun - legal here), after another cop had distracted him from the other side of the tower. Despite his military service, such a (previously law abiding) citizen would not have been able to amass such an arsenal in this country.

Except the official investigation credits the bystanders shooting at the tower with suppressing the shooter, limiting the number of people he could shoot at (as he had to seek cover) and keeping his attention focused on them instead of the people sneaking up behind him.

Also, incorrect, as more than a few people in Australia happen to have large arsenals. Here is a forum full of them now.

Edit: Further and to be even more explicit, all of his immediately lethal shots occurred within the first 20 minutes, before people began returning fire. After that point, he was suppressed to the point where he was unable to hit or kill anyone else. The suppressing fire provided by the public made it impossible for him to pop up on the deck and target anyone else and he was restricted to occasional bad shots from cover that hit nobody. So, of the 96 minutes he was up there shooting people before he was in turn shot and killed, he had that first 20 minutes free and then the public's fire (which greatly outnumbered the police) made it impossible for him to kill anyone else for the next 76.

I wouldn't call that ineffective.


The vast majority of firearm homicides in my city are criminal on criminal (drug dealers in Cabramatta) .. and who really cares about that?

The vast majority of firearm homicides in the US are also criminal on criminal. What's your point? Criminal vs. victim still happens in both places.

Also, citations on your graphs, please.

- - - Updated - - -

You may be right, if you consider a 30% reduction as "not much". I and most statistaticians would consider this significant.

Debunked earlier in this thread
. Your own University of Melbourne has studied it and regretfully concluded that the firearms ban isn't responsible for it. The decline was already in process prior to the ban for several years and the rate of decline stayed largely the same.

I would also commend this post to your attention once again, as you seem to have overlooked it. It has evidence in it that all is not quite as rosy as you would have us believe it is in Australia: http://forums.finalgear.com/politic...ry-school-shooting-54902/page-33/#post2026083
 
Last edited:
While we're talking about Australia, I would like to mention this... Apparently a lot of people did not comply with the buyback/registration scheme. Keep in mind this is 16 years later and just one state.
c3ef9cec32d8e56a965eb32321c72490_zps1981b0bb.jpg
 
What's amusing about that is that per an Australian Broadcast Corp piece I saw in May, apparently something like 10-20 percent of the weapons turned in were weapons that were manufactured after it was illegal to possess them without the appropriate post-Port Arthur license and were never legally imported into Australia.

If you can't even keep such weapons off an island with theoretically sealed ingress and egress points...
 
Yep even though we are an island its still easy enough for criminals to get weapons in from overseas.
Meanwhile, the US shares an almost 2000-mile border with Mexico that's virtually unsecured, leading to human trafficking, drug smuggling, illegal immigrants as well as criminals, and, of course, weapons. Lot and lots of weapons, some of which are given to the Mexican drug cartels by our own government.
 
Meanwhile, the US shares an almost 2000-mile border with Mexico that's virtually unsecured, leading to human trafficking, drug smuggling, illegal immigrants as well as criminals, and, of course, weapons. Lot and lots of weapons, some of which are given to the Mexican drug cartels by our own government.

Not to mention an assload of unpatrolled coast.
 
Top