Australian Report Says Gun Laws Work

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,136
Location
Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
Published on Thursday, December 14, 2006 by the Associated Press
Australian Report Says Gun Laws Work
by Rod McGuirk


Australia hasn't witnessed a single mass shooting since a massacre 10 years ago prompted nationwide gun law reforms, according to a study Thursday that linked the tough laws with a dramatic reduction in firearm deaths.

The federal and state governments agreed to ban semiautomatic and pump action shot guns and rifles days after a lone gunman went on a rampage at the Port Arthur tourist precinct in Tasmania state on April 28, 1996, killing 35 and wounding another 18.

The massacre was the 13th mass shooting in Australia in 15 years. Mass shootings had killed 104 victims and wounded another 52 since 1981, according to the University of Sydney report published Thursday in the journal Injury Prevention.

The federal government responded to the Port Arthur massacre by funding a gun buyback scheme. More than 700,000 guns were surrendered by Australia's adult population of 12 million.

The study found the buyback coincided with an end to mass shootings and dramatic decreases in shooting deaths in Australia.

“The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and accelerated declines in total firearms-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides,” the report concluded.

The report said it could not directly comment on the association between the new gun laws and firearm death rates because of the observational nature of the available data.

Prime Minister John Howard welcomed the report as proof that his gun buyback had been a success.

“Gun-related deaths in Australia are still too high but this study shows that governments and the community can make a difference,” Mr. Howard said in a statement.

Peter Whelan, president of the Australian lobby group Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters Inc., said that attributing the improved statistics to the buyback and tough laws was a “gross distortion.”

The report ignored factors such as whether Australians were resorting to other methods to kill or commit suicide, he said.

“For example, suicide by hanging has increased dramatically,” Mr. Whelan told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

But the researchers, headed by Prof. Simon Chapman, a former member of the national anti-firearm lobby group Coalition for Gun Control, found there was no evidence of method substitution in homicides or suicides since guns became more restricted.

The report found that gun-related deaths per capita had been declining 3 per cent annually in the 18 years before the new gun laws were announced. That rate of decline doubled to 6 per cent in the seven years after the new laws were introduced.

The annual reduction in firearm homicides accelerated from 3 to 7.5 per cent annually and firearm suicides, from 3 to 7.4 per cent, the report found.

I guess that settles that... ;)

Actually, can't fault the logic. A lot like some people around here that keep saying, "Well, we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9-11, so what they're doing must be working." OK, I can fault the logic...
 
“The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and accelerated declines in total firearms-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides,” the report concluded.

I have to agree with the logic - if a country makes guns next to non-existant, firearm homocides, firearm suicides, and firearm deaths are going to go down.

I think the better question is why should we care whether firearm homocides, or firearm suicides are going down.

Seems to me we should be concerned with homocide rates. Seems to me we should be concerned with suicide rates. If homocide and suicide rates haven't gone down since the firearms ban, then is the firearms ban doing any good?

Interestingly, the article makes no mention of where homocide and suicide rates, as a whole, are going.

Of course, any sort of gun control in the US should take into account much more than just homocide rates and suicide rates. There are constituitonal considerations as well.
 
isnt 12 million people of a few large U.S cities put together???? and thats the size of their whole country??

In England, they banned guns, and took a while, but their gun crime rate rose after the criminals FIGURED OUT that they would be the only ones with guns....

The logic is crazy...We had a buyback program, and no more mass shootings!
Couldnt be ANYTHING ELSE!!!!!!!

mmmmmk.....
 
Seems to me we should be concerned with homocide rates. Seems to me we should be concerned with suicide rates. If homocide and suicide rates haven't gone down since the firearms ban, then is the firearms ban doing any good?
Although the article doesn't say, I'm sure that the data they use would show the rates declining. The only way it could not is if the population was also decreasing in size. That's how we get some statistical chicanery in the US...homicides are up! Well, so is the population. Turns out rates went down, etc. For that to happen here, the population would have to decrease, for the raw numbers of homicides to conceal a rate increase.

In order to criticize the article's basis, one would need to look at the study. As in, the actual study, not what the article says it says. What data did they use, how was it obtained, what was included, what was excluded, etc. Also, what other social and societal factors were in play during that timeframe as well.
 
Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

Biased researcher confirms his own hypothesis!

Extra!

But the researchers, headed by Prof. Simon Chapman, a former member of the national anti-firearm lobby group Coalition for Gun Control,


12 million people = pop of Pennsylvania.

During hunting season, PA boasts the world's largest body of actively armed men, over a million. ;)

New york CITY has a pop of 8 million.
 
Last time I looked at the data, Australia's homicide rate didn't change at all. There was some talk that it increased, but it really didn't increase significantly. It didn't go down either. This was looking at a 10 year span.

Australia's murder rate was very low before the ban and is still low.
 
The thing is, a mass shooting is a rarity in a civilized country.

It could be that completely random factors, or completely unrelated factors, have led to their being none in the past 10 years. One nut-job in a country of millions of people will commit this crime. If there don't happen to be such nut-jobs at this point -- a random factor -- you won't see the crime. The overwhelming number of people with guns, whether homeowners, sport shooters, or even hardened sociopathic criminals, anywhere in the world, don't use them for this purpose.

The thing about rare occurrences is that they could happen three times in the next month, or never for five years, and we could make no real inferences about it. You'd need to look at the record over 100 years to even begin to surmise anything.

You'd still have to look at other possible causes, of course, but your basic data won't even be meaningful until you have a long enough time period to do meaningful statistical analysis.
 
12 million? About the population of Los Angeles, the Extended Version.

How about their OVERALL violent crime rate? Going down too? I doubt it.

Australia is sitting on an immigration time-bomb. Good luck to them.
 
Coronach,


Two words: "per capita"
Like I said...
Although the article doesn't say, I'm sure that the data they use would show the rates declining. The only way it could not is if the population was also decreasing in size. That's how we get some statistical chicanery in the US...homicides are up! Well, so is the population. Turns out rates went down, etc. For that to happen here, the population would have to decrease, for the raw numbers of homicides to conceal a rate increase.
Mike
 
Typical media spin. Associated Press
is very anti-gun, always has been.
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital.
 
12 million? About the population of Los Angeles, the Extended Version.

How about their OVERALL violent crime rate? Going down too? I doubt it.

Australia is sitting on an immigration time-bomb. Good luck to them.
__________________

Gee..thanks, I think. :scrutiny:

One thing that springs to mind is that I think there have been attempts at mass shootings since the laws were introduced, but they haven't been successful. I think there was a student who tried it at Monash university, which prompted introduction of more laws regarding pistols.
 
Even if true, gun control has other effects which may be more harmful than the benefit it might bring. For one thing, it reduces or eliminates the ability to defend oneself, or one's family from a violent predator, armed or unarmed. There might have been a time in my life when I believed that I could handle an intruder into my home, without my using a firearm. But at 63, with a heart condition and some other challenges, I don't want to be reduced to grappling with one or more bad guys who break into my home. My right of self defense would be meaningless if my ownership of a firearm was criminalized. I have several family members who live in large cities who buy into the illogic of stricter and stricter gun control laws, believing that even if criminals want to ignore the laws, over time the laws will reduce the number of available guns for them. In addition to the reality that if criminals want guns, that will create and maintain a market for illegal guns that will always be met by clever entreprenaurs, while the law abiding will remain unarmed, the unintended consequence of very restrictive gun laws is the loss of our right of self defense. Even if gun control could reduce gun crime, it could not eliminate violent crime and I would not buy into it since it would make me and my family more vulnerable to predatory criminals.
 
Ugh! I knew we should have invaded Australia instead of Iraq! No semiautos in the hands of the populace, nicer beaches, and more oil to boot!
 
The report said it could not directly comment on the association between the new gun laws and firearm death rates because of the observational nature of the available data.

Let me translate:

We can't comment on the association between the new gun laws and firearm death rates because our heads are shoved so far up our backsides that we can't see anything other than what we were looking for.
 
So the fanatic dictators who enact draconian laws conduct surveys and find that the laws work. I am sure Hitler's surveys found that the solution to the "Jewish problem" worked.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top