PDA

View Full Version : Gun deaths in rapid decline since buyback , Australia


Can'thavenuthingood
12-13-2006, 09:00 AM
You will see this quoted in your City Council meetings. Homework and preparation ahead of time.

Vick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun deaths in rapid decline since buyback
Matthew Moore
December 14, 2006

AdvertisementTHE risk of dying by gunshot has dropped dramatically since the gun buyback scheme was introduced after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, a new report says.

Dr Philip Alpers, a University of Sydney academic who helped write the report, said the buyback saw the number of gun deaths a year fall from an average of 521 to 289, "suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide".

The Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced some of the world's toughest gun laws after the massacre, forcing people to surrender semi-automatic rifles, which reload each time the trigger is pulled, and pump-action shotguns.
The new report, titled Australia's 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides and a Decade without Mass Shootings, finds that in the 18 years before the gun buyback there were an average of 492 firearm suicides a year.

After the introduction of the buyback scheme, that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available.

The report also found the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56.

The latter finding contrasts with a report published in October which found that half a billion dollars spent removing guns had virtually no effect on homicide rates.
That report - by two Australian academics, Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, and published in the British Journal of Criminology - said gun homicide deaths were falling well before the buyback and the rate of decline hardly changed with the new laws.

Dr Simon Chapman, another author of the latest study, agreed that the rate of gun homicide was falling before the buyback. He said that while the rate had risen since then, the numbers involved were so small they were not statistically significant.

The most important impact of the buyback was that there had been no mass shootings.

He said 112 people had been killed in 11 mass shootings in the 10 years up to Port Arthur, and removing the semi-automatic weapons used in those shootings was a principal aim of the policy.

It was "bordering on academic dishonesty" for Dr Baker and Ms McPhedran not to have included that fact in their paper, he said.

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that while the two papers might seem to be in conflict, they were not.

"Both found that the rate of gun suicide declined faster after the gun buyback and neither found any significant difference in the rate of decline in gun homicide before and after the gun buyback," he said.

"The Chapman paper points out that there has been no mass shooting since the gun buyback. The earlier paper should have mentioned this, but didn't.

"The results on gun suicide and mass shootings are enough reason to be very cautious about reducing the restrictions on gun ownership."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article in the Coalition of Sports Shooters:
http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/Baker-McPhedran.htm

Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran research paper is here:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf


Vick

ZapThyCat
12-13-2006, 09:11 AM
Just quote the truth to them about countries that have MORE restrictive gun laws that have increased in Crime.....

mblat
12-13-2006, 09:15 AM
Why is a surprise? No guns = No Gun death.... No cars = No car death.... No spinach = No E.Coli.

Nobody questions that gun confiscation will reduce number of GUN-related crimes. Argument is that it won't reduce (or may even increase) number of crimes ever all.

jnojr
12-13-2006, 09:20 AM
I think this is much more likely to have been a response to "the report published in October which found that half a billion dollars spent removing guns had virtually no effect on homicide rates".

"That was the wrong answer. Go back and try again"

I'm willing to bet that, for this "study", every incident that had a gun anywhere within a few square miles was a "gun crime" for before, and much more restrictive criteria were used for after.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.

anotherted
12-13-2006, 09:43 AM
"removing the semi-automatic weapons used in those shootings was a principal aim of the policy"

I hope they keep an eye on those things. It would be horrible if they escaped and killed again!

gose
12-13-2006, 10:25 AM
"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia. The introduction of the NFA appeared to have a negative effect on accidental firearm death. However, over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with sub-stantial variability. Any conclusions regarding the effect of the NFA on accidental firearm death should be approached with caution."

Can'thavenuthingood
12-13-2006, 10:44 AM
From the research:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf

The lack of effect of a massive buy-back and associated legislative changes in the requirements for obtaining a firearm licence or legally possessing a firearm has significant implications for public and justice policy, not only in Australia, but internationally.

It is tempting to equate strict firearm legislation with effective firearm legislation.
If policy is to be truly effective, it must have clearly defined outcomes and it must be able to bring about those outcomes. The desired, and implied, outcome of firearms legislation is to achieve an improvement in overall public health and safety by minimizing firearms abuse and misuse. Such aims may be difficult to achieve when legislation is drafted in the political arena.

Consequently, we recommend that firearms policy development
should be based on empirical data, careful evaluation of that empirical data, and community understanding and acceptance of proposed legislation (Baker and McPhedran 2004). There is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.

xenophobe
12-13-2006, 12:31 PM
It is academic dishonesty failing to mention the violent crime rate statistics that don't include firearms in the same period....

gose
12-13-2006, 02:35 PM
It is academic dishonesty failing to mention the violent crime rate statistics that don't include firearms in the same period....

They dont really talk about violent crime, except homicides, and they do have tables for homicides, non-firearm homicides, suicides, non-firearm suicides and gun-related accidents.
What I would like to see though, is another column for non-firearm fatal accidents, maybe broken down into sub categories.

So no, I dont really see the report as being very academic dishonest.

AYEAREFIFTEEN
12-13-2006, 03:12 PM
Now they need to post the figures for non-gun related homicides and suicides.

I would be willing to bet those numbers are up. It seems they are very proud of their reduced suicide numbers considering they make up about 90% of total firearms deaths.

I hate to sound insensitive, but if someone wants to commit suicide, they will find another way to do it. Off the top of my head I can think of about 100 ways a person can commit suicide without a firearm.

Won't be long before they ban hair driers. They look a lot like guns, and if you plug them into the wall and jump in a full bathtub with them, they can be just as leathal.

bbq_ribs
12-13-2006, 06:21 PM
Now they need to post the figures for non-gun related homicides and suicides.
.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html

They're not up, just constant.

Charliegone
12-13-2006, 06:45 PM
http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html

They're not up, just constant.


Heres more...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html