Study On Australian Gun Laws: No Effect

[Bono]

www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2240

Shot Down: gun law study shows no effect

21 April 2008

In the spirit of the 2020 Summit, academics have released startling new evidence about the impact of Australian gun laws, and argue that future public policy must differentiate between what does and does not work.

In a new peer-reviewed study, Dr Samara McPhedran from the School of Psychology, and her colleague Dr Jeanine Baker, who also hold executive positions in the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, show that the accumulated studies on Australia's 1996 gun bans and half billion dollar 'buyback' do not point to an impact.

The authors say that this provides a clearer foundation for evidence based policy development, particularly within the area of suicide prevention.

"This research will enhance the ability of policymakers to build upon inclusive programmes that have delivered outcomes, such as the National Suicide Prevention Strategy, rather than pursue measures that do not achieve the stated goals."

The study evaluated whether past published studies on the impact of the 1996 laws on firearm related homicide and suicide are consistent with one another.

"Using different analysis methods and time periods, none of the four studies found evidence for an impact of the laws on the pre-existing decline in firearm homicides," said Dr McPhedran.

"The statistical outcomes were in complete agreement, even though the conclusions varied."

According to the new study, disagreement over whether or not the 1996 legislative changes had an impact has not arisen from inconsistent results, but from different ways in which the same results are interpreted.

"We identified a series of interpretive misunderstandings that give the appearance of inconsistency. For example, some studies conclude the laws had an impact on firearm suicides, without realising that non-firearm suicides also began falling from the late 1990s onwards."

"This coincides with the introduction of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies, and implies that social changes such as greater awareness of mental health influenced suicides across the board."

The overall consistencies revealed in the review, and identification of how the appearance of incongruent findings has been created, show that disagreement can be put to rest.

"Just as one swallow does not make a summer, a single study cannot definitively answer whether or not the laws had an effect. Collectively, though, the research has become a flock of swallows with a very clear direction."

This issue was debated on the ABC's PM program on 21 April. For a full transcript of the program go to the hyperlink.

[dead0man]

Most reasonable people (pro and anti-gun) have realized that gun laws don't do anything.

[7,052,770]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

[Alcon]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

If you have no effect either way, shouldn't one err on the side of individual rights instead of spending extra money to unnecessarily restrict them?

[dead0man]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

If you have no effect either way, shouldn't one err on the side of individual rights instead of spending extra money to unnecessarily restrict them?

The answer to this should be entertaining....or non existent.

[7,052,770]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

If you have no effect either way, shouldn't one err on the side of individual rights instead of spending extra money to unnecessarily restrict them?

What about my individual right not to be around guns, which kill thousands every year by accident?  If they're not going to cut down on crime either way, let's restrict them to cut down on accidental deaths.

[dead0man]

If somebody is forcing you to be around guns against your will you should call the local authorities.

Cite for "thousands" of accidental gun deaths a year?

[Bono]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

If you have no effect either way, shouldn't one err on the side of individual rights instead of spending extra money to unnecessarily restrict them?

What about my individual right not to be around guns, which kill thousands every year by accident?  If they're not going to cut down on crime either way, let's restrict them to cut down on accidental deaths.

What about the thousands of accidental car deaths a year?

[John Dibble]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

If you have no effect either way, shouldn't one err on the side of individual rights instead of spending extra money to unnecessarily restrict them?

What about my individual right not to be around guns, which kill thousands every year by accident?  If they're not going to cut down on crime either way, let's restrict them to cut down on accidental deaths.

What about the thousands of accidental car deaths a year?

And my individual right not to be around cars?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Gun control doesn't work?  What a shocker

[7,052,770]

Cite for "thousands" of accidental gun deaths a year?

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm
Also, accidental gun deaths are underreported (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/4/741)

What about the thousands of accidental car deaths a year?

And my individual right not to be around cars?

Pretty transparent logical fallacy there.  Cars have plenty of legitimate purposes other than killing other people, unlike guns.

[dead0man]

Cite for "thousands" of accidental gun deaths a year?

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm
Also, accidental gun deaths are underreported (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/4/741)

What about the thousands of accidental car deaths a year?

And my individual right not to be around cars?

Pretty transparent logical fallacy there.  Cars have plenty of legitimate purposes other than killing other people, unlike guns.

So a country of 300,000,000 has a thousand (not thousands) accidental gun deaths a year.  Not only that, we're known for being a little "nutty" about our guns and still only a thousand a year.  It's amazing if you think about it.

[John Dibble]

What about the thousands of accidental car deaths a year?

And my individual right not to be around cars?

Pretty transparent logical fallacy there.  Cars have plenty of legitimate purposes other than killing other people, unlike guns.

And you're the only one to decide what 'legitimate purposes' are? People use guns for a number of other things that could easily be considered legitimate. Furthermore, how is personal and familial defense not a legitimate use?

[Iosif is a COTHO]

There were relatively very few guns and very little gun crime before that anyway. And even before 1996, our gun laws were far stricter than most of the U.S.

So it's gone from very small to very small.

[SPC]

Since the crux of the pro-gun argument relies on this idea that more guns will bring down crime, once this is shown to not be the case, there's no reason to have them so widely available.

If you have no effect either way, shouldn't one err on the side of individual rights instead of spending extra money to unnecessarily restrict them?

What about my individual right not to be around guns, which kill thousands every year by accident?  If they're not going to cut down on crime either way, let's restrict them to cut down on accidental deaths.

More people are killed on the highways than by guns.

[CultureKing]

Hey Look I can make an equally biased post on the exact same thing (except mine is from the AP):

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1214-08.htm
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.