NRA takes shots at Australia. Again. Ignores fact.
- Page 1 of 1
Brisbane Times
Ignores fact, we like our gun laws. And lack of mass shootings.
Honestly it's the sort of advert that you'd see in b-grade scifi movies about how governments made their citizens live in fear with terribly run ad campaigns. It just shocks me that people think those ad's would work.
It scares me that they seem to work.
Ignores fact, we like our gun laws. And lack of mass shootings.
Honestly it's the sort of advert that you'd see in b-grade scifi movies about how governments made their citizens live in fear with terribly run ad campaigns. It just shocks me that people think those ad's would work.
It scares me that they seem to work.
In November last year, pro-gun NSW Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm appeared in an NRA video slamming Australia as a "nation of victims".scust
They aint takin our guns without a bloodbath
....
So you'll kill your sons and daughters serving in the military or your local police then?
....
So you'll kill your sons and daughters serving in the military or your local police then?
Australia is a nation of victims? Yeah I don't see thousands of children dying over there due to gun violence. Victims indeed, Australia needs more child homicide/involuntary manslaughter.
Yeah I hate being able to walk down any street in Sydney at any time of day and feel safe. Maybe Kings Cross excluded. I wish there was more feat of randomly getting shot
How is this a shot at Australia? It's saying "The Australian example" is simply getting rid of firearms, which has shown to be ineffective on murder rates and something that Americans don't want.
By diehard Go To PostHow is this a shot at Australia? It's saying "The Australian example" is simply getting rid of firearms, which has shown to be ineffective on murder rates and something that Americans don't want.The intentional murder rate is 4 times higher in the US than in other rich countries.
By Gabyskra Go To PostThe intentional murder rate is 4 times higher in the US than in other rich countries.Right, i'm saying that the gun buyback program did not have a significant effect on their murder rates.
By diehard Go To PostRight, i'm saying that the gun buyback program did not have a significant effect on their murder rates.You're looking at it in a vacuum on that one bit when it was in reality part of a larger effort to regulate guns, which I believe had a net-positive impact.
By reilo Go To PostYou're looking at it in a vacuum on that one bit when it was in reality part of a larger effort to regulate guns, which I believe had a net-positive impact.That increased gun control has not led to murder rates that are lowering faster than the norm. Comparing Australia's crime rates to a country that is similar socioeconomically (New Zealand) and has had far less restrictive gun control, has shown that it has largely been inconsequential.
It's totally fine if that's what the people of Australia want, but its not what the people in the U.S. want and that's what this stupid Ad is about.
By diehard Go To PostThat increased gun control has not led to murder rates that are lowering faster than the norm. Comparing Australia's crime rates to a country that is similar socioeconomically (New Zealand) and has had far less restrictive gun control, has shown that it has largely been inconsequential.
You have 5 to 6 times more guns per person in the US than in NZ.
Australia's murder rate is about equal with NZ (as in, much lower than in the US). They also have a similar number of guns per person.
We know that suicides go dramatically down when guns are regulated or outlawed. Any argument made by people to suggest that "homocides" or "violent crimes" aren't affected dramatically - always leave out suicides.
The 2nd amendment is fine, and we have a Supreme Court case which identifies it as handguns only. Which I think is sensible and fair. Certainly eliminating guns entirely from the US is something that would be near impossible with our Constitution.
But the facts is the facts - gun manufacturers sell things which kill people, and the less of them are out there, and the more they're regulated, the less people are dying from them.
John Lott - as everyone knows, is a disingenuous fuck face. He'll have things like this on his blog - which make it seem like the gun buyback doesn't affect homocide levels all that much - until you remember that population grows over time.
Australia's population was about 18 million at the time of the gun buy back. It's now 23 million. That's almost a 30% increase in population while also having a decrease in total homicides.
Come on 3SP, i know you love analytics.
https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
"Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests
that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths"
" In other words, we fail to find any evidence that show the NFA has an effect at reducing the firearm suicide growth rates"
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534/1/MPRA_paper_40534.pdf
"The pre-existing downward trend observed for firearm homicide continued post-NFA (Figure 4A). The ARIMA model did not predict firearm homicide as well as it did for firearm suicide (R2 = 0.52). The paired t-test comparing rates of predicted homicide by firearm with the observed rates for the years 1997–2004 indicated no significant difference between the two (mpred = 0.28, mobs = 0.27, std error = 0.01, P(T ≤ t)tone-tailed = 0.14). Based on these tests, it can be concluded that the NFA had no effect on firearm homicide in Australia. "
https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
"Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests
that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths"
" In other words, we fail to find any evidence that show the NFA has an effect at reducing the firearm suicide growth rates"
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534/1/MPRA_paper_40534.pdf
"The pre-existing downward trend observed for firearm homicide continued post-NFA (Figure 4A). The ARIMA model did not predict firearm homicide as well as it did for firearm suicide (R2 = 0.52). The paired t-test comparing rates of predicted homicide by firearm with the observed rates for the years 1997–2004 indicated no significant difference between the two (mpred = 0.28, mobs = 0.27, std error = 0.01, P(T ≤ t)tone-tailed = 0.14). Based on these tests, it can be concluded that the NFA had no effect on firearm homicide in Australia. "
DH,
You really going to act like there aren't other studies done by other universities indicating that gun control works, not only there, but in lots of other civilized countries?
C'mon son.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
Gun Homocides and Gun Suicides declined post NFA. The argument that your cited study is making, and that very many scholars disagree with, is that the reduction would have been largely the same and thus the NFA contributed little if anything to this decline.
I would be comfortable with accepting that conclusion if there was widespread acknowledgment in the scholarly community with that conclusion but there isn't. In fact, it's not even close. For the same reason I wouldn't listen to someone who insists that the recoveries under FDR and Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with their policies. It's a highly charged political issue where the results are good and so the obvious counter-argument is "correlation correlation correlation"
You really going to act like there aren't other studies done by other universities indicating that gun control works, not only there, but in lots of other civilized countries?
C'mon son.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.
The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.
Tasmania did a quicker buyback, and saw a large decline in suicides, while the Australian Capital Territory did a slower buyback, and a slower decline. The study fits with a pattern of research in the United States that finds a strong correlation between gun possession and suicide rates, as University of Chicago public health Professor Harold Pollack details here.
Gun Homocides and Gun Suicides declined post NFA. The argument that your cited study is making, and that very many scholars disagree with, is that the reduction would have been largely the same and thus the NFA contributed little if anything to this decline.
I would be comfortable with accepting that conclusion if there was widespread acknowledgment in the scholarly community with that conclusion but there isn't. In fact, it's not even close. For the same reason I wouldn't listen to someone who insists that the recoveries under FDR and Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with their policies. It's a highly charged political issue where the results are good and so the obvious counter-argument is "correlation correlation correlation"
Gun Control Works. You have to be one helluva ideologue to believe that limiting access to guns has no affect on people dying from guns. The fact that anyone would refuse to accept that super obvious logical conclusion is just an example of the failing of human psychology.
Lower sugar intake lowers diseases caused by a high sugar diet. Lowering speeding incidents reduces car accidents resulting from speeding. Lowering cigarette smoking reduces cancer caused by smoking. Lowering the amount of guns in circulation reduces the number of people killed by guns.