Support NeoGAF

[soxinthebox]

The Guardian

From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.

We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.

Chapman said more than half of those who had conducted mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand had been licensed gun holders.

“When these laws came in the hope was they would curb mass shooting, but what we didn’t realise was the laws would be followed by huge changes in other types of shootings, particularly in suicide,” he said.

“The breadth of the change was unexpected. But in America, things will get worse before they get better. In Australia we had a government that was prepared to act, and what [the then prime minister] John Howard did amounted to the confiscation of private property.

“You just can’t imagine the US ever seeing that as feasible.”

Australia had a gun buy back program and banned firearms after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre where a semi automatic was used to kill 35 people and wound 23.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The Guardian









Australia had a gun buy back program and banned firearms after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre where a semi automatic was used to kill 35 people and wound 23.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L


Basically!:O

 

[Trokil]

What strict gun laws stop gun violence???

Who would have thought?

Too bad, that gun culture in the US is not based on facts or rational thinking, else it would have had some impact.

 

[FortuneFaded]

Whoop-de-doo.

 

[Eidan]

Huh. Whodathunkit?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Keep your studies and maths and sciences away from my rights, ya hear?

 

[Izuna]

What?! I would have thought it would have INCREASED the number of shootings. It's physics. Bullets will move from a region of low concentration to a region of high concentration. If everyone has guns, no one will shoot.

 

[Tenebrous]

Huh. Whodathunkit?

I can't think of a better message than this. It's like... No shit? Really?! What else can be said.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Yea but America isn't Australia

 

[therealist]

Honestly speaking, all this study says is that the gun ban made it a little bit safer. Australia was already really safe before the gun ban took place.

 

[Elandyll]

 

[danm999]

Best decision Howard ever made. And FYI Howard's government was a right wing one.

 

[StudioTan]

It's a shame Australians don't understand freedom.

 

[Strike]

No shit.

Yea but America isn't Australia

Yeah, they don't have the NRA to fuck it up.

 

[geardo]

Queue the "it won't work in 'Murica 'cause reasons" crowd in 3... 2... 1...

 

[GhostBed]

B-b-but criminals will just get guns no matter what! They'll just use knives instead! People will just start strangling each other to death if they can't murder with firearms! You guys just don't get it!!!

Edit: I never even considered a gun buy back program, that makes so much sense.

 

[Lead]

Honestly speaking, all this study says is that the gun ban made it a little bit safer. Australia was already really safe before the gun ban took place.

Lets not get in the way of a good old liberal echo chamber.

United Kingdom-
Firearms per 100 people: 6.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Denmark-
Firearms per 100 people: 12.0
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Sweden-
Firearms per 100 people: 31.6
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Switzerland-
Firearms per 100 people: 45.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.5

Germany-
Firearms per 100 people: 30.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Czech republic-
Firearms per 100 people: 16.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.7

Sources: 1 and 2

 

[Trokil]

It's a shame Australians don't understand freedom.

Well, if we are honest, no country on Earth can deal with so much pure freedom like the US. It's just too much freedom for any other country, so we have to be protected from so much freedom.

 

[Crisco]

Wait a minute, you're telling me less guns means less people getting killed by them? Bullshit.

 

[Fat4all]

Honestly speaking, all this study says is that the gun ban made it a little bit safer. Australia was already really safe before the gun ban took place.

But this study does show what you asked to be in a study about a week or so ago, and concluded that the reform/buyback accelerated the reduction in homicides and suicides.

Because they see it as a drastic reduction of liberty in exchange for dubious promises of a safer society. Even in Australia where the buy back program worked, there has not been definitive proof that the buyback was the reason for reduced gun crime. Gun crime was reducing before the ban got enacted, and merely continued reducing afterwards.

 

[bundaberg]

Australia had a gun buy back program and banned firearms after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre where a semi automatic was used to kill 35 people and wound 23.

Firearms aren't banned. I know plenty of people who still own firearms for hunting and sport shooting.

Certain guns are limited or banned.

 

[CheDominik]

Lets not get in the way of a good old liberal echo chamber.

United Kingdom-
Firearms per 100 people: 6.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Denmark-
Firearms per 100 people: 12.0
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Sweden-
Firearms per 100 people: 31.6
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Switzerland-
Firearms per 100 people: 45.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.5

Germany-
Firearms per 100 people: 30.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Czech republic-
Firearms per 100 people: 16.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.7

Sources: 1 and 2

These numbers mean absolutely nothing without context. All of these countries have strict regulations when it comes to purchasing and/or storing firearms. Simply put, you can't legally have a loaded handgun next to your bed in these countries and can't buy one at a gun show without a background check.

 

[Trokil]

B-b-but criminals will just get guns no matter what! They'll just use knives instead! People will just start strangling each other to death if they can't murder with firearms! You guys just don't get it!!!

There is also another argument about criminals and guns

 

[GK86]

Yeah, but second amendment means we can't do anything about it. Our hands are tied.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Lets not get in the way of a good old liberal echo chamber.

United Kingdom-
Firearms per 100 people: 6.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Denmark-
Firearms per 100 people: 12.0
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Sweden-
Firearms per 100 people: 31.6
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Switzerland-
Firearms per 100 people: 45.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.5

Germany-
Firearms per 100 people: 30.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Czech republic-
Firearms per 100 people: 16.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.7

Sources: 1 and 2

How is firearms per 100 people a valuable statistic to your point? Wouldn't gun owner-to-non ratio be more useful?

 

[gutter_trash]

Yea but America isn't Australia

yeah, a former British colony is very different from another British colony

 

[therealist]

But this study does show what you asked to be in a study about a week or so ago, and concluded that the reform/buyback accelerated the reduction in homicides and suicides.

What's your point though? When I first researched the gun buyback program in Australia I was expecting much bigger results but did not find what I wanted to see. I hate guns and want a reduction in America. That being said I do not view Australia is the shining example that people here view it as. The results of the study are somewhat tenuous. If you want to convince people to give up the 2nd amendment, I don't think Australia is a good example to use, it's weak evidence. Keep in mind, you are trying to convince people who LOVE guns and are passionate about them. More compelling evidence is needed, in my opinion.

 

[Lead]

How is firearms per 100 people a valuable statistic to your point? Wouldn't gun owner-to-non ratio be more useful?

It's a valuable statistic because it shows there's no corelation between the amount of overall homicides and firearms in public hands.

The United Kingdom have the strictest gun laws in Europe by far, but on the list I provided they have more (or the same) murder ratio with other countries that have far more firearms in civilian hands.

These aren't cherry picked either, pick any number of European country and it shows the same thing.

These numbers mean absolutely nothing without context. All of these countries have strict regulations when it comes to purchasing and/or storing firearms. Simply put, you can't legally have a loaded handgun next to your bed in these countries and can't buy one at a gun show without a background check.

You can defend yourself legally with firearms in most? (all?) of the countries listed, and probably all countries in Europe. I'm not aware of a single country that specifically prohibits the use of firearms for self defense. It's true that most European countries doesn't consider self defense a valid reason to own a gun, but there's nothing standing in the way of using your hunting shotgun or sporting pistol for the purpose, given you're within your general limits of self defense force.

As tiny as Denmark is, I have a case here with a guy that shot people in a robbery and got off for doing it.

 

[lastplayed]

 

[humansarehorses]

This is bad research. Causal effects are determined by looking at the counterfactual i.e. what would have happened if the gun laws weren't passed. There's no real counterfactual in that paper.

Something tells me that they would still sharply drop because, you know, people with better standards of living have a lot more to lose and not much to gain by shooting another. Suicide by shooting could still be high but the other methods used might be negatively affected.

But man, the medical community produces awful social science research.

 

[HK-47]

But this study does show what you asked to be in a study about a week or so ago, and concluded that the reform/buyback accelerated the reduction in homicides and suicides.

Pay no attention to the data in this study but if you do I want you to know its definitely not saying what its clearly saying.

 

[The Giant]

One of many reasons why Australia is superior to America.

 

[stonesak]

yeah, a former British colony is very different from another British colony

India says hi.

 

[jason10mm]

Hasn't the same thing been happening in America? Gun violence is WAY down and we didn't have to ban anything.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

It's a valuable statistic because it shows there's no corelation between the amount of overall homicides and firearms in public hands.

But a person with many guns (such as several members in my family) throws the point off, making it misleading as if there are more guns in hands. Like my father has over 25 guns, so if he were part of a random selection of 100 then the count is at least 25 guns /100 people. But that doesn't mean a quarter of people wield guns.

 

[Feep]

It's a valuable statistic because it shows there's no corelation between the amount of overall homicides and firearms in public hands.

The United Kingdom have the strictest gun laws in Europe by far, but on the list I provided they have more (or the same) murder ratio with other countries that have far more firearms in civilian hands.

These aren't cherry picked either, pick any number of European country and it shows the same thing.
You can defend yourself legally with firearms in most? (all?) of the countries listed, and probably all countries in Europe. I'm not aware of a single country that specifically prohibits the use of firearms for self defense. It's true that most European countries doesn't consider self defense a valid reason to own a gun, but there's nothing standing in the way of using your hunting shotgun or sporting pistol for the purpose, given you're within your general limits of self defense force.

As tiny as Denmark is, I have a case here with a guy that shot people in a robbery and got off for doing it.

Gun laws are still vastly different in these nations; you cannot boil gun laws down to "number of guns in country". Not only that, but you can't possibly control for the various societal factors in each country that would have an enormous effect on the actual homicide rate: police force presence, general crime rates, economic conditions, and so on.

You need to compare, within a single country, the effect of change in gun laws on that country's change in gun deaths per capita. You're isolating the factor and can draw reasonable results from that.

Study design 101.

 

[Fat4all]

What's your point though? When I first researched the gun buyback program in Australia I was expecting much bigger results but did not find what I wanted to see. I hate guns and want a reduction in America. That being said I do not view Australia is the shining example that people here view it as. The results of the study are somewhat tenuous. If you want to convince people to give up the 2nd amendment, I don't think Australia is a good example to use, it's weak evidence. Keep in mind, you are trying to convince people who LOVE guns and are passionate about them. More compelling evidence is needed, in my opinion.

I'm not saying the same exact rules or laws should be enacted in America, but you asked for a study concluding that the program and reform did indeed accelerate the drops, and here it is, days after you asked for it. You say it's not up to your specific standards, but I don't see how that matters to Australians. All of your points seem to be objective to you and not to Australia.

 

[Drencrom]

It's a valuable statistic because it shows there's no corelation between the amount of overall homicides and firearms in public hands.

What?

Barely any weapons in those countries are available to the public and are most definitely not in the hands of civilians. Gun laws are very strict in all the countries you listed.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

The only way a gun buyback program in the US is going to work is when they offer fair value for them. Most people (myself included) that have a few thousand dollars invested in firearms wont turn them in for 100 buck and a thank you.

 

[ISOM]

Lets not get in the way of a good old liberal echo chamber.

United Kingdom-
Firearms per 100 people: 6.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Denmark-
Firearms per 100 people: 12.0
Homicides per 100.000 people: 1.0

Sweden-
Firearms per 100 people: 31.6
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Switzerland-
Firearms per 100 people: 45.7
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.5

Germany-
Firearms per 100 people: 30.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.9

Czech republic-
Firearms per 100 people: 16.3
Homicides per 100.000 people: 0.7

Sources: 1 and 2

There's probably a lot of context you're leaving out here.

 

[Lead]

But a person with many guns (such as several members in my family) throws the point off, making it misleading as if there are more guns in hands. Like my father has over 25 guns, so if he were part of a random selection of 100 then the count is at least 25/100. But that doesn't mean a quarter of people wield guns.

You're right, I might take these numbers instead (they're available).

Gun laws are still vastly different in these nations; you cannot boil gun laws down to "number of guns in country". Not only that, but you can't possibly control for the various societal factors in each country that would have an enormous effect on the actual homicide rate: police force presence, general crime rates, economic conditions, and so on.

You need to compare, within a single country, the effect of change in gun laws on that country's change in gun deaths per capita. You're isolating the factor and can draw reasonable results from that.

Study design 101.

I would if I could. I know it's a lazy cop out, but it's literally the case. European countries doesn't write these sorts of reports in English, but their native language, if they even do this at all. It's a clusterfuck to sort based on your perimeters that admittedly would be more useful.

What?

Barely any weapons in those countries are available to the public and are most definitely not in the hands of civilians.

Sorry but you're ignorant on this matter. I live in Denmark, I own an AR-15 and a Glock 17DK and they're sitting in a safe with ammunition 10 feet from where I'm at now.

There's no country in Europe other than the United Kingdom that prohibits people from owning semi automatic rifles and pistols, it just requires the proper licensing like a hunting license or a sporting license.

 

[GTI Guy]

Obligatory

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

 

[CheDominik]

It's a valuable statistic because it shows there's no corelation between the amount of overall homicides and firearms in public hands.

The United Kingdom have the strictest gun laws in Europe by far, but on the list I provided they have more (or the same) murder ratio with other countries that have far more firearms in civilian hands.

These aren't cherry picked either, pick any number of European country and it shows the same thing.
You can defend yourself legally with firearms in most? (all?) of the countries listed, and probably all countries in Europe. I'm not aware of a single country that specifically prohibits the use of firearms for self defense. It's true that most European countries doesn't consider self defense a valid reason to own a gun, but there's nothing standing in the way of using your hunting shotgun or sporting pistol for the purpose, given you're within your general limits of self defense force.

As tiny as Denmark is, I have a case here with a guy that shot people in a robbery and got off for doing it.

The threshold of using lethal force in Germany is a lot higher compared to the US. And if you abide by the law a gun isn't really a feasible tool for self defense as it has to be stored in a locked safe with no ammo.

 

[Grym]

Imagine how quickly that would drop with more good guys with guns tho /NRA

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Pfffft.

Everything works backwards down there.

You need more guns to curb mass shootings and suicides in the land of the free.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

"Congress attempts to pass law to prevent people reading on studies that deal with gun related violence from any country."

 

[Protome]

Pfffft.

Everything works backwards down there.

You need more guns to curb mass shootings and suicides in the land of the free.

It's true. Less suicides would occur if someone was there to shoot the gun out of the poor depressed person's hands.

 

[Lead]

The threshold of using lethal force in Germany is a lot higher compared to the US. And if you abide by the law a gun isn't really a feasible tool for self defense as it has to be stored in a locked safe with no ammo.

Sure, this is a given. I'm not sure if I misunderstand something, but in Germany it's perfectly legal to have ammunition at home. If they have to be stored separately I don't know, again these laws are written in native language and only the general gist is gotten when reading from other firearms enthusiasts in the given countries.

Speaking of Germany, it has one of the more free gun laws in Europe, I went there during an IPSC tournament and several of them had private owned Desert Eagle .50 AE there showing of.
A good friend of mine also bought a real original STG-44 from a German arms dealer, it had obviously been converted to semi automatic only, but still.

 

[Freakinchair]

There's probably a lot of context you're leaving out here.

the context must be outside our echo chamber

 

[Eyeh4wk]

This is bad research. Causal effects are determined by looking at the counterfactual i.e. what would have happened if the gun laws weren't passed. There's no real counterfactual in that paper.

Something tells me that they would still sharply drop because, you know, people with better standards of living have a lot more to lose and not much to gain by shooting another. Suicide by shooting could still be high but the other methods used might be negatively affected.

But man, the medical community produces awful social science research.

How the hell can we research something that hasn't happened?

Also from the OP:

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.

“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

Edit: If anything you can see USA as an example what would happen if there weren't such laws.