John Howard's gun legacy: - 200 lives saved a year

[depakid]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald



TEN years of suicide data after John Howard's decision to ban and then buy back 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns has had a stunning effect. The buyback cut firearm suicides by 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year, according to research to be published in The American Law and Economics Review.

A former Australian Treasury economist, Christine Neill, now with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada, said she found the research result so surprising she tried to redo her calculations on the off chance the total could have been smaller. ''I fully expected to find no effect at all,'' she told the Herald. ''That we found such a big effect and that it meshed with a range of other data was just shocking, completely unexpected.''

Mr Howard's agreement with the states to ban and buy back more than 600,000 weapons after the massacre at Port Arthur in April 1996 cut the country's stock of firearms by 20 per cent and roughly halved the number of households with access to guns.

...Dr Neill says that while it seems surprising that a 20 per cent cut in the number of firearms would have cut the number of suicides from firearms by 74 per cent, none of her academic colleagues have found fault with her finding. Her co-author is the Australian National University academic Dr Andrew Leigh, elected nine days ago as Labor MP for the ACT. They used what is known as a difference-in-differences approach, exploiting the fact that some states withdrew guns more quickly than others and examining whether their firearm suicide rates fell faster.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html

[hlthe2b]

1. Well, I am sure this will unleash the wrath...

of many..... In this country, CDC has been so bullied that these kind of studies, regardless of outcome, are near impossible.

[depakid]

2. It's also why legal efforts are used to hide firearms data in the US

[hack89]

36. No - the facts are on our side

we are enjoying historically low levels of violent crime at the same time that gun ownership is skyrocketing.

[hlthe2b]

41. and record rates of suicide...

It remains to be studied, how many of these are gun-related, but one can not argue a correlation of guns with crime or any other outcome, including accidental injury and death-- without study. And the NRA and its most rabid supporters are damned determined that there be no study, even if it might prove your theory and justify your positions.

I, for one, am amenable to being convinced if these studies were conducted and proved that guns are everything "good" that you purport. But, the very fact the NRA is so scare so as to lobby Congress to all but eliminate CDC's injury program (including the non-gun related research) sends a very negative signal.

[DongHa69]

42. Overall suicide rates have

been falling even as gun ownership has skyrocketed, I don't know why, but, it is what it is.
BTW, thank you for being civil, that is refreshing.

[hlthe2b]

45. I don't believe that will remain true in more recent statistics...

There are already signs of an uptick. While social stress (including bad economy) is undoubtedly strongly correlated, I don't know that guns will not also be implicated.

And again, because focused studies are not allowed to be funded by the government, you are left citing ecologic (simple correlation) studies that can not really implicate cause and effect. Saying increased gun purchase is a reason for a time-related trend of anything is hypothesis only. One could also point to other factors that have changed over time as being "causal" for that effect. E.g., somehow, I'm doubting an increase in soy consumption is causal to a reduction in violent crime. :sarcasm:

[DongHa69]

54. I agree that an uptick is probably occuring

but that happens in every downturn of the economy and if someone wants to commit suicide, they will find a way whether they have a gun or not.
BTW, thank you for a civil debate, that is refreshing

[SteveM]

139. You have mis-read what was said...

"Saying increased gun purchase is a reason for a time-related trend of anything is hypothesis only."

Many gun-controller/prohibitionists have utterly insisted that pro-2A folks here believe the ownership of guns is linked to the drop in violent crime. That argument is a STRAW MAN, for purposes of discrediting arguments made in favor of the RKBA. Who is "saying?" Who made the hypothesis?

What most of us DO say is that the gun-controller meme "more guns = more crime" has not been proved by the:
(1) huge uptick in gun sales since 1995;
(2) the significant drop in violent crime during the same time.

[Kolesar]

144. Crime rates went down because the population aged

This was predicted decades ago as the "baby boomers" aged.

[Euromutt]

157. "I don't know that guns will not also be implicated"? What does "implicated" mean in this context?

I ask because to my ear, "implicated" sounds suspiciously like "linked to," "risk factor" and "associated with"; standard weasel phrases used in research papers to suggest a causal link was established when, in fact, all that was found was correlation.

If there is an increase in the suicide rate, I'm sure firearms will be "implicated" in the sense that a sizeable percentage of those who commit suicide will use a firearm to do it. But given that over the past two decades, we've seen a steep increase in firearms ownership concurrent with (until recently) a decline in the suicide rate, firearms possession in and of itself is not correlated with the suicide rate. And while correlation is not a sufficient condition for causation, it is a necessary condition.

It's not as if "focused studies" are somehow prohibited by law, incidentally. Any researcher who wants to set one up is welcome to get funding from the private sector, e.g. the Joyce Foundation or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Those outfits are perfectly happy to fund agenda-driven junk science that draws a preconceived conclusion regardless of the data "focused studies."

I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of a study that was cited as supporting gun control measures that didn't rely on "simple correlation." Well, okay, maybe not so simple; sometimes it's taken quite a lot of work on the researchers' part to twiddle the numbers until there was even a correlation. An illustrative example being "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault" (Branas et al. American Journal of Public Health 2009 http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1), in which the researchers managed to take a study population of shooting victims in which the ratio of non-gun carriers to gun carriers was 16:1, and conclude that carrying a gun made you four times as likely to become a shooting victim(!) This in spite of the fact that the researchers "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault" (i.e. that people who considered themselves more likely to be the victim of a firearm assault might consequently be more likely to carry a firearm).

Note, incidentally, that lack of federal funding didn't prevent that particular "study" from being carried out.

[hack89]

55. But if violent crime is at an all time low and still going lower

why waste time on pushing gun control? While there may not be a direct correlation, the problem of gun violence seems to be solving itself. Lets declare victory and spend our time, money and political capital on other issues that need to be be solved.

[safeinOhio]

87. If crime has a sudden big uptick

your argument goes out the window and will used against you. Sure you want to go down that path? Using the current data only works for the present and not the future.

[hack89]

94. It is a twenty year trend

it is hard to imagine a large uptick. What social or economic event could possibly trigger a massive crime wave?

Besides, what reason is there for more gun regulation when it is irrelevant to crime rates?

[safeinOhio]

117. Not so hard to imagine

http://www.lvrj.com/news/economic-worries-taking-toll-in-recent-deaths-101744543.html

[hack89]

134. This is the third major recession I have lived through.

none of other others stopped the steady decline in violent crime rates. There may be minor increases in isolated area but the overall tread will continue downwards.

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. I'll go there. Crime had a big uptick in DC *after* they banned handguns

How does that work for you?

[Euromutt]

159. There is some nuance required there, f_i

The DC de facto handgun ban was clearly a response to an increase in violent crime in the late 60s and early 70s. And in the immediate wake of the ban, violent crime did decrease. Temporarily. Violent crime then rose to previously unseen levels in the early 1980s (in spite of the handgun ban) before subsiding in the mid-80s and then rising to even higher levels in the late 80s and early 90s.

Now, it does behove us to acknowledge that decreases in firearm-related assaults and suicides do occur in the wake of impositions of restrictions on private firearms ownership. However, as we keep pointing out on this forum, "correlation does not (necessarily) imply causation." The fact is that restrictions on private firearm ownership are generally imposed in response to some event, be it a mass shooting or (the realization of) a precipitous increase in misuse of firearms, and it would be naive to think that tightening gun control is the only response to such events, both on the part of government and the citizenry.

What I'm getting at is that nothing provokes "homicide/suicide awareness" like a mass murder-suicide; law enforcement agencies. social services and private citizens are going to be at an increased awareness level for signs in an individual signalling potential harm to self or others. It's a typical "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted" response, and we see it everywhere. When I went through basic training in the Royal Netherlands Army infantry, we'd just had a senior NCO killed by a negligent discharge on a 25mm IFV cannon, and as a result, our training cadre emphasized firearm safety more than usual. The following year, a supply corps truck driver parked his truck too close to an M109 self-propelled howitzer; he was so focused on the distance between his truck and the M109's tracks that he didn't notice the gun muzzle extended beyond the body of the AFV until it came through the windshield and decapitated him. As a result, the cadre training truck drivers suddenly became a lot more safety-conscious. Not that in either case, access to firearms or trucks was restricted; rather, the safe use of both was emphasized.

My point being that increased gun control measures are generally accompanied by other measures to prevent a recurrence of the events triggering the measures, and that maybe it is those other measures that really provide the effect of reducing "gun violence," rather than the gun controls. Certainly, any "awareness" effort wanes with time, whereas gun control measures do not, and thus we can argue that a resurgence in firearm-related violent crime is due to the waning of those "awareness" efforts, and utterly unaffected by the gun laws that remain in place.

[SteveM]

140. You persistently push this straw man. I think that is disingenuous...

"your argument goes out the window and will used against you."

What argument is being made?

How will that argument be used against "you?"

You agree that the gun-controller meme: "more guns = more crime" has not been proved, do you not?

[Kolesar]

145. A cowed Congress...not surprising...eom

[Euromutt]

158. "Record rates of suicide"?

If you're only looking at the data since 2003, maybe. But the suicide rate has been higher within living memory than it is now.

[flamin lib]

3. I'd also be interested in the crime rate and crimes involving guns.

Those opposing gun control maintain that gun related crime will increase. I suspect that it might in the short term but will reverse over time. Can't say for sure as I've never seen any long term research.

[DongHa69]

4. Lets see, here in the U.S.

gun ownership has increased while violent crime has decreased, not saying more guns=less crime, but more guns certainly doesn't=more crime.
As far as crime rates involving guns, criminals with guns do crimes, the average law abiding gun owner is just that, law abiding and the chances that lawful gun owner will commit a gun crime is very low, but you won't hear that from the OP because he has a long history of opposing law abiding citizens owning guns.

[depakid]

6. Let's see some more sophistry!

;)

The NRA is going to be scrambling on this one, to be sure- just as they were with a previous peer reviewed study that demonstrated decreased overall homicide rates.

Have at it...

[DongHa69]

7. You know your claims have been

debunked many many times by FBI stats, FL. DOJ stats, but just keep on keeping on, your side is why the NRA is what it is today.

[depakid]

9. No, but I get that people will say anything and flail about

like Glen Beck in order to justify obsessions.

Seen that in personal and professional life all too many times- as I'm sure most sensible folks here have too.

[DongHa69]

14. So the FBI and FL DOJ stats

are just people flailing about saying anything? For every stat you bring up, there is an opposing stat. We could go on like this till the end of time and neither of us will change each others mind, I get it, you don't like guns and would like to see Australia type bans in place here in the U.S., and I, OTOH, will never cave to the controllers or give up the good fight for all civil rights.
Have a peaceful life, and I mean that in all sincerity

[valerief]

19. Only criminals shoot themselves with guns? nt

[DongHa69]

21. Now just where did I say that?

Criminals do shoot other criminals with guns and they do shoot innocent people with guns, but by far and large, the vast majority of lawful gun owners don't shoot other people during a criminal act.

[valerief]

27. The findings were about SUICIDES.

TEN years of suicide data after John Howard's decision to ban and then buy back 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns has had a stunning effect.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. NO. The finding were about GUN suicides, NOT about all suicides.

There are many ways to kill yourself. People have been doing that since long before guns were invented.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Notice that the article never mentions *any* change in the overall suicide rate.

I daresay if it had decreased, we'd be hearing all about it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. CORRECTION- The overall suicide rate in Australia did go down.

But as I asked in another post- How do we know the decline in firearms suicide was caused by the gun ban, and not just
a part of a larger trend?

[JDPriestly]

47. It would be interesting to see whether the change in the Australian

gun policy affected the rates on gun-related crime.

[Euromutt]

105. That's a very tricky question to answer

In the wake of the National Firearms Agreement, the percentage of violent crimes committed using firearms did go down. Problem is, the violent crime rate overall didn't show a significant longer-term decrease (raising the possibility that method substitution occurred), and moreover, when it came to homicide specifically, the percentage of homicides committed using a firearm had already been on the decline since 1969.

Basically, there's no evidence to support an assertion that the NFA increased public safety in Australia. Which is not to say (like some pro-gun figures claim) that there was a massive adverse effect on public safety, but in my book, whenever government seeks to restrict citizens' freedoms, it needs a better argument than "it won't hurt public safety."

[DongHa69]

5. And if you want to see proof of how thats not true

just look at Chicago which had a total handgun ban in effect for years and yet the violent crime kept increasing, the only people who obey gun control laws are the law abiding citizens, the criminals don't give a hoot about gun laws, same thing with DC.

[jgraz]

8. Is there some sort of NRA requirement that members lack a basic understanding of statistics?

Correlation is not causation. Find a peer-reviewed study that links the handgun ban to the increase in violence. Then we'll talk.

[DongHa69]

11. You don't need a peer review

real world experience tells us that after Daly instituted the handgun ban, violent crime skyrocketed and did not go down in the years it was in effect, and you might want to stop with the snarky remarks that you are so famous for.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DongHa69]

70. What did I make up?

The fact that Chicago and DC became more violent after the handgun bans?
Try not being so snarky as usual.

[bossy22]

13. same thing goes for gun control proponents as well

they seem to lack the causation/correlation distinction. The point is not that handgun bans directly increase violence but that they have such little or no significant on the rate of violence. Thats an easy thing to show. Just look at the states between homicide rates before and after the handgun bans were in place in chicago and D.C.. You will see that they fluctuate year to year before and AFTER the ban. in D.C. homicide rates decreased for about 3 years after the ban and then sky rocketed to almost double what they were the year before the ban. Now is this the ban's fault- no, but you can argue that the ban had very little effect on the homicide rate

[DongHa69]

17. The U.K. is also a great example

of how gun bans have no effect on violent crime, when the U.K. banned handguns the violent crime rate stayed the same as before the ban.

[whopis01]

91. Doesn't that counter your previous argument?

Wouldn't that indicate that increased gun ownership does not lead to a lower crime rate?

I'm not arguing it one way or the other but your UK example makes it appear as if the two are not correlated.

[DongHa69]

93. I've said that in other posts as have many others here

more guns does not=less crime, but at OTOH, more guns certainly doesn't=more crime. There are a lot of variables as to why violent crime has been decreasing.

[depakid]

20. As long as states like Virginia have irresponsible laws encouraging proliferation

it's not possible to make a reasonable statement about DC.

As the OP indicates, problem solving has to be done as part of a comprehensive plan in order to see the benefits and the savings.

[DongHa69]

22. And Virginia

has a very low gun crime rate, hell, a low rate of crime overall.

[depakid]

26. ,,,

[DongHa69]

29. Yep

and if VT weren't a gun free zone and just one of the victims were legally armed, maybe the outcome would have been far different, would you agree?

[depakid]

31. hard to resist...

[DongHa69]

33. I have no idea what that means

but you didn't answer my question, if just one victim had been legally armed, could the oucome have been far different?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

79. So we are back to the name calling again. Don't make you look any brighter. n/t

[MichaelHarris]

80. gonna find me

a case where a CWP holder stopped a mass shooting or continue to avoid the question?

[DongHa69]

83. Sorry I don't talk

to people who start off insulting other posters
Have a good life. and I hope your hatred of gun owners who carry doesn't burn you out.
Peace

[MichaelHarris]

85. so that would

be a no?

[shadowrider]

135. I think that would be a "I'm not going to respond to

an obvious anti-gun person who will twist anything I say to suit their agenda".

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Here's one. Unlike others I could mention, hatred hasn't impaired my google-fu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Pearl High School shooting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his sleeping mother, Mary Woodham. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,<1> he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. He went on to wound seven others before leaving through school and intending to drive off the campus. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car....

[Taitertots]

110. By what metric do you determine this?

How do you determine which people shot by CPL holders would have continued shooting? It is an impossible task.

[Euromutt]

131. Why should anyone want to play your rigged game?

The obvious problem with any incident that was prevented is that it didn't happen, and therefore, you can never say with certainty that it would have happened. The very fact that you're not even willing to consider the New Life Church incident is a strong indication that you're similarly going to dismiss any example that is offered by asserting it would not have become a mass shooting absent the CCW holder anyway. Heads, you win; tails, we lose.

Why should we even want to a play a game that's so obviously rigged?

[beevul]

154. Google " Jeanne Assam: and "concealed", Mike.

She was a concealed carry holder, and most definitely stopped a mass shooting.


I await your moving of the goalposts.

[Euromutt]

155. Michael dismissed the example of Assam in his now deleted post #78

He didn't give any reason for dismissing the New Life Church incident, other than baldly asserting that Assam "didn't stop shit"--not that he proffered any evidence or argument why anyone should accept that--so I strongly suspect that any example provided of a CCW permit holder preventing a mass shooting will be summarily dismissed or ignored.

[friendly_iconoclast]

163. This thread is full of "gun control as young-Earth creationism"

In which the believers stoutly maintain their article of faith is ***TRUTH*** (TM), where the evidence must conform to the

premise. If it does not, said evidence is ignored, ridiculed, or flat out denied.

[DongHa69]

86. You know you are winning the debate

when they start insulting and calling names.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Another marker is: Lack of links to, or lack of citation of, primary source material.

Note that there are no links to the actual paper under discussion in the OP.

We are supposed to take it as Gospel, and not question it.


You will also note that when such links and citations don't fit the memes, they are rarely (if ever) discussed by

the 'experts' here.

[Euromutt]

164. Admittedly, that's because the paper hasn't been published yet

But that should raise a red flag right there, because that means we're dealing with "science by press release": the media parroting what the author claims the research shows, which is all too often a rather... optimistic assessment of the research's significance. This blog post has a good explanation of why one should be wary of "science by press release": http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3813

Dr. Tuteur makes an important point in that post:

Moreover, journalists appear to suffer from a misunderstanding of the scientific literature. Publication of a scientific paper is not the end of a process confirming the truth of a paper; it is only the beginning. Publication does not mean that the findings should be accepted uncritically; it merely means that the findings are worthy of being included in the ongoing public discussion that characterizes science. The findings of the paper may ultimately be deemed worthless or wrong.

There are a number of people who frequent this forum, including depakid, who don't understand that either.

[shadowrider]

136. You're new here, so here's a hint

Anti's ALWAYS resort to name calling etc. They are also famous for making ridiculous statements regarding gun ownership and use, and requiring someone else to disprove their statement (they NEVER back up their own statements with facts). Failure to disprove what they said is defacto surrender to a blatantly false statement they made.

There are several posters here who provide me with a variety of chuckles daily. Hang around long enough and you'll learn who they are.

[oneshooter]

167. Many, if not most, of the anti's here start at insults, and go downhill rapidly. n/t

[MichaelHarris]

96. did

I hurt your feelings? Did you find that CWP holder yet who saved a city?

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. I found one that saved a junior high school. That should be good enough for anyone, even you.

Actually, it was the one I previously mentioned. It turns out the shooter wanted to continue his rampage at the local
junior high school:

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

This article was originally published in the Boulder Weekly, and is posted here by permission.

Oct. 15, 1999

A principal and his gun
by Wayne Laugesen

Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week."

The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.....

[SteveM]

146. Punking: It's what's for dinner. All full-up yet? nt

[X_Digger]

81. "She didn't stop shit".. no?

The pastor of the church stated that Assam shot Murray before he entered 50 feet (15 m) inside the building, after she encountered him in the hallway, and that Assam probably saved "over 100 lives."

Funny that you want to discount that one. Why exactly, is that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Because it doesn't help promote the faith, that's why.

Like the Pearl City or Appalachian School of Law incidents, it contradicts the Gospel of the Prophets Sugarman and Brady and
so must be ignored or denied.

[DongHa69]

92. Love these drive by posts don't you?

[beevul]

156. It gets better.

"The writing, first reported by 9News, was confirmed as Murray's work by investigating authorities. He posted the message at 11:03 a.m. on a website for people who have left organized religion, almost 11 hours after the Arvada shooting and two hours before the Colorado Springs attack. "You christians brought this on yourselves," Murray writes in his 452-word harangue. "I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denverpost.com%2Fbreakingnews%2Fci_7686929&ei=x2N8TLq9MMX_lgfe17nsCw&usg=AFQjCNH6BKshpLXfYjXMmzO-DJMHcoBveQ

So we have clear proof positive of the shooters plan and intent.


"Then Murray, who was armed with clips for 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and two hand guns, began firing an assault rifle in an corner of the parking lot."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e-NNdZmnGGEJ:www.denverpost.com/ci_7682958+matthew+murray+1000+rounds&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And whats this? A VOLUNTEER security guard? One with a concealed weapons permit?


"About 12 hours later, Murray killed two people at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, 65 miles south of Arvada. He was wounded by a volunteer security guard before committing suicide.

Murray also had more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition on him or in his car at New Life..."

http://cbs4denver.com/local/murray.gunman.arvada.2.686576.html

"At about 1 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), 30 minutes after the 11 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell, 40. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, 59, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings


Hmmm...Mike? Mika? Makes one wonder doesnt it?

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/12/2007-12-11MSNBCMJMika.wmv

[SteveM]

143. Hard to resist cutting the cheese? Well, have at it. nt

[SteveM]

142. Is he your hero? You seemed fascinated by him. Maybe some displaced anger? nt

[bossy22]

25. yes it is

it is because we live in the real world. We judge things based on reality not on the theoretical when it comes to crime. Local handgun bans are an insignifcant factor affecting homicide rates. you are saying that its unfair to judge them because a factor that makes them useless, according to you "skews" the results. Thats like a researcher saying "well if i took all the evidence/results not proving my theory than my theory would be correct"

[PavePusher]

61. Please cite which of their laws "encourage proliferation"...

I'm betting there aren't any.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Picking on someone who suffers from citation deficiency is unfair, PP.

Please continue doing so.

[PavePusher]

75. I'll try to keep up the effort... 8>) n/t

[krispos42]

132. DC enacted unreasonable laws in denial of the market economy.

And then everybody blames Virginia for not copying them?


I bet if DC put a $20-per-gallon tax on cigarettes, they'd be bitching about the effect on the District and demand that Maryland and Virginia follow suit!



Besides, the UK has had a comprehensive plan, and their end result is that, year to year, while the number of people murdered has steadily climbed, fewer of them have bullet holes in them. Yay.

[Euromutt]

152. That hasn't quite been the result in the UK

The homicide rate has actually been on a slight decline since 2005. However, from 2000 to 2008, the number of non-fatal shootings almost tripled, most likely indicating that shootings are becoming less a matter of assassinations between organized criminals and more a matter of amateurs shooting each other without necessarily intending to kill. Which would also mean that non-organize criminals are not having significant difficulty getting hold of firearms, British gun laws notwithstanding.

[onehandle]

15. Yes.

The only thing that matters is what some guy in his basement posts on one of many right-wing gun blogs.

And of course to spread the link to that post far and wide.

[oneshooter]

95. Do you have a point that is not covered by your hat? n/t

[SteveM]

147. Oh, it's just the cat in the crypt again. nt

[PavePusher]

34. The point is that it didn't reduce the crime rates.

Which was the stated intent.

After several decades, you'd think it should have worked, if it was going to...

Maybe they should have banned them harder?

[depakid]

53. That's simply untrue

though like most of what Krugman calls "Zombie lies" they just keep coming back and people believe them.

Which is one reason why America is looking to see Republicans back in power, riding a tide of disproven economic "theories."

The previous study on point:

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

(you can see the effect in the plotted data on the graph(s). The trend line looks like it's stepped off of a curb).

[PavePusher]

62. My apologies, I was refering to U.S. location gun bans.

Interesting article. Something looks odd about those graphs, but I'm not sure what it is. I'll look at it again after I'm fully caffeinated.

Thanks!

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. "....a decade without mass shootings" Can we assume your other posts are just as accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on October 21, 2002.....

....At 11:24am on October 21, Huan Yun "Allen" Xiang, a commerce student at the university, armed with five loaded handguns, opened fire in room E 659 of the Menzies Building on Monash's Clayton campus in an econometrics class containing twelve students. People in the classroom were initially confused by the noise and by Xiang screaming "You never understand me!" from the desk he was standing on.

Xiang killed two students in the room:

Xu Hui "William" Wu, an international student from Hong Kong and neighbour of Xiang's in Melbourne; and
Steven Chan, a student from Doncaster.
Xiang wounded five others:
lecturer Lee Gordon-Brown, who was shot in the arm and knee;
student Daniel Urbach, who was wounded in the shoulder and arm;
student Laurie Brown, who was wounded in the leg and abdomen;
student Christine Young, who was shot in the face; and
student Leigh Dat Huynh, who was discharged from hospital within a day.....

I give the disinterested observer another clue to the accuracy of the linked article. Another quote from the original link:

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards.

[Euromutt]

153. Monash University shooting, October 2002

Seven people shot. Sounds like a "mass shooting" to me. The only thing stopping it from becoming a "fatal mass shooting" appears to have been dumb luck. And the gunman had more loaded weapons on him, so he probably would have shot more people if he hadn't been overpowered while trying to switch weapons.

It's interesting to note that, in that BMJ article, the trend line for non-firearm homicide and suicides don't just look like they "stepped off of a curb"; they actually both go from an upward trend to a downward one. That can hardly be attributed to tighter firearms laws, so there must have been something else at work. And if that something else affected non-firearm homicides and suicides so strongly, why couldn't it have affected firearm homicides and suicides as well?

It's also interesting to note that when mass fatal homicides are omitted, the trend in firearm homicide continues more or less as it did prior to the NFA.

In short, it looks like this is one of the many, many articles in the medical and public health literature (not just on the topic of firearms) in which the authors' conclusions do not appear to be supported by the data.

[crim son]

50. Indeed there is.

It's the same sort of disorder that enables people to kill in the name of their god.

[PavePusher]

63. Nice accusation there. Stay classy... n/t

[SteveM]

148. "Classy?" Why did you add the "cl"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. Why don't you cite a peer-reviewed study to support *your* position? We'll wait while you find one.

Wouldn't want you to not do what you advocate for others....

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Since we agree that "Correlation is not causation"....

...how do we know that the decline in Australian suicides via firearm isn't just a part of the overall decline in Australia's
suicide rate, and not caused by the gun ban?

[SteveM]

141. I note your Orwell quote. Orwell was strongly pro-civilian gun ownership...

in England. Wanna talk about that?

[jgraz]

10. The suicide data has always been the gundamentalists' achilles heel

The data linking suicide to gun ownership are so strong, both in this country and others, that pro-gunners have taken to saying that suicides don't actually count as gun deaths.

[bossy22]

16. no...actually the complete opposite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

if anything, suicide rates and gun ownership show no correlation whatsoever. Just look at the chart above, japan is in the top 5 and it almost completely bans gun ownership. in fact the u.s. is number 1 in gun ownership yet number 41 in suicides.

Far from being a pro-gun achillies heel its a pro-gun control achillies heel because there is no correlation at all

there are many ways to kill yourself besides using a gun remember that

on edit: the article only mentions firearm suicides results...what about other suicides? If all those firearm suicides were replaced by CO suicides- would it really be that much better? Dead is dead

[spin]

24. Please explain why the United States with all its firearms is not the leading country for suicide...

but instead ranks #41. Many countries that do have strict gun control have a far higher rate. Japan, for example, comes in at #4.

Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DongHa69]

38. Resorting to insults now?

You still didn't answer my question, if just one of the VT victims had been legally armed, could the outcome have been far different?

[DongHa69]

44. Just as I thought

crickets.

[depakid]

48. Actually, it's a very good question

and there's a large body of literature on point.

But it has little or nothing to do with the results reported in this study.

Recognizing that is.. how best to say... important to the consideration of a whole range of issues.

[spin]

82. Damn, I missed the insult. You know you are winning when the other side ...

has to use insults.

[Euromutt]

124. If that is true...

...it must mean that jgraz loses every discussion by default. I'm not sure I've ever seen a post of his that didn't contain some denigrating remark.

[valerief]

52. Because people get shot by homocide or die by lack of health care before they can kill themselves

in the U.S.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. So why does Canada have a higher suicide rate than the U.S.?

They've got a lower murder rate, and the healthcare goes without saying. Something in the water, perhaps?

While you're at it, explain to us why all of these seemingly nice countries have a higher suicide rate
than the U.S. (per the Wikipedia article linked upthread):

4 Japan
14 Finland
15 Belgium
17 Switzerland
18 France
28 New Zealand
29 Sweden
32 Cuba
34 Iceland
37 Canada
39 Norway

[Euromutt]

122. It's not; you just keep asserting that it is

But you never provide persuasive evidence to support that claim, which is why you have to resort to abuse and outright fabrication when somebody points out why the evidence you do present is faulty. We've had this discussion last October (this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x261945 starting around my post #196), and you never did give an answer to the question I posed to you. Four times. And accused me of being evasive(!)

[onehandle]

12. The economic effect is always interesting to me.

Guns are a drain on economies worldwide for a multitude of reasons.

[PavePusher]

35. Please, list them... n/t

[Taitertots]

130. What evidence do you have to support this?

Demonstrate a correlation between firearms and GDP. Otherwise, why are you saying things when you know there is nothing to support it?

[SteveM]

149. "Multitudes" you say? Well, let's just have a few. Okay? Anytime. nt

[valerief]

18. I'm always surprised at people who are surprised that reducing guns has beneficial effects. nt

[DongHa69]

23. Really?

Tell that to the citizens of, oh say, Chicago, DC, L.A., NY, S.F..

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DongHa69]

30. So tell me

why do you resort to insults when I have been civil? I've seen your posts and you seem to be a very angry person, please refrain from insulting other DU'ers as it does not further your cause.
Thank you.

[DongHa69]

32. Per capita

Gary does not have a higher murder rate.

[SteveM]

150. When we see how "reducing guns has beneficial effects," we'll all be surprised. nt

[PavePusher]

39. Let's see...

The article lists no stats on Australian suicides to make comparisons, and the firearm pictured is available only to police and military. Not a good start on the credibility evaluation.

Anyone got a link to the actual L & E Review article?

[louis-t]

40. The DU gun forum will not be amused.

[onehandle]

43. They're already here.

Like flies to blood.

[DongHa69]

46. Just like your side is here

but I won't use that offensive analogy.

[onehandle]

49. What side is that?

Welcome back.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DongHa69]

58. Thank you

Kinder and gentler

[SteveM]

151. So, you "like flies to blood," eh? Explains a lot. About you. nt

[Euromutt]

160. More like flies to shit

The shit in this simile being the content of your posts.

[S_B_Jackson]

56. In reading this story, it seems that that only metric.....

is suicides by firearm. There is no mention of whether TOTAL suicides have increased, decreased, or remained static.

That would be the telling issue. If all that is happening is that the method of suicide has changed, but the total numbers remain unchanged, then the claim of "lives saved" is total bunk.

[DongHa69]

57. Maybe lives saved by gun ban

but made up for in other methods of suicide. I too would like to see a correlation of gun suicides as compared to other methods of suicide.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Non-gun suicides don't matter to some posters here. Those don't promote the faith

As an example, when it is pointed out that some quite civilized countries with stricter gun laws than the US have higher suicide rates....silence.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Your citizens make 2.5 million per year????

If saving 200 lives give a national savings of $500 million per year, then you are claiming that your citizens make $2.5 million per year. Please understand when I doubt the claim of such giant savings.

You claim that firearms suicides are down by 74%. However, overall suicides are not down by that much. Going to http://www.livingisforeveryone.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/LIFE-Fact%20sheet%203.pdf we find that the Australian suicide rate has dropped from 15/100K to 9/100K, or about 40%. And there can be multiple causes for that drop.

[ManiacJoe]

64. You have to love the graphic.

Just how many folks actually spend thousands of dollars on a submachinegun so that they can commit suicide?

[Hoopla Phil]

123. Well, if your gonna do it. . . .do it big.

please forgive the morbid joke. My apologies to anyone offended.

[Big Al Mac]

65. A couple of comments on the stats

First, John Lott has stated several times in his studies that overall suicide rates and trends are not effected by gun laws. Suicide tends to not be means specific over all.

Second, someone commented that there seems to be "steps" in the graphs at the 1996 point. That is an result of stopping one trend line and starting another (and is a very good way to lie with statistics).
The data are highly variable (look at how much the annual numbers diverge off of the trend lines).

Third, I find the rising trend in unintentional firearm deaths after 1996 to be quite bizarre considering, supposedly, there were fewer guns after that date.

Fourth, the Australian suicide rate peaked in 1997 and since, as I stated above, suicide is means independent, I find the claims of lives saved because of gun confiscation to be highly suspect.
Suicides: Recent Trends, Australia, 1993 to 2003

[divideandconquer]

107. You use insane decredited rightwinger John Lott/May Rosh the liar as a reference?

<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/>

[DongHa69]

109. How was it discredited?

Links please.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. How about the Australian government then?

Per the links in Euromutts' post #98, the gun suicide rate in Australia was in decline *before* the gun restrictions.

[Hoopla Phil]

126. You claim a good democrat to be discredited for finding fault with gun grabbers

data collection how exactly? Please source that claim.

[Euromutt]

161. Why not? The OP supports "discredited rightwinger" John Howard

I mean, if you're going to dismiss the results on the basis of the author, then you need to be militating against the idea that anything John Howard ever did could have provided a positive result.

Or you could revert to type, and be anti-corporation unless they restrict gun rights, and be anti-right wing unless they restrict gun rights, and just basically have no principles at all except thinking guns are icky, and be just fine with any violation of human/civil rights as long as it's aimed against people who own guns. Because they're icky.

[Taitertots]

77. What a steaming load of shit

200 lives somehow equals $500,000,000,000 per year. Over $2,000,000 per person per year, a laughably high figure.
One gun taken of the streets equals $800,000 benefit. A laughably high figure.
They take credit for suicide decreases which started while those guns were still on the street.
They mentioned that previous studies found no decreases in suicides.
Difference in Differences method is questionable at best.



They didn't link to the study.
They didn't name the study.
This is total BULLSHIT

[depakid]

97. Spoken like the typical American

who can't accept objective facts and analysis when they interfere with his dysfunctional ideology.

Oh and btw: a new suicide/family killing/mass shooting: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jsfxjJYQygA_bb516CTX8bi5Km3QD9HTFJ8G0

This one in gun lovin' Arizona.

[DongHa69]

99. Spoken like a typical

gun control person, Do you have killings in Australia?

[depakid]

100. The study's findings are what they are- and are there for all to see

The researcher herself couldn't believe the benefits- and went back and did the analysis again. Her colleagues and referees at the journal have scrutinized the accuracy of the findings.

[Taitertots]

104. They are what they are: Flawed assumptions and shoddy methodology

Everyone capable of interpreting it can easily see it. They even admit in the article that previous studies have found no effect.

[Euromutt]

165. Balls; this is "science by press release"

The article says that the study itself hasn't been published yet; what you--and we--are reading is what the author herself claims her findings are, copied verbatim by some journo without the scientific chops to assess the validity of the study for himself. You need to read this post on sciencebasedmedicine.org on "science by press release": http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3813
In particular, pay heed to this passage:

Moreover, journalists appear to suffer from a misunderstanding of the scientific literature. Publication of a scientific paper is not the end of a process confirming the truth of a paper; it is only the beginning. Publication does not mean that the findings should be accepted uncritically; it merely means that the findings are worthy of being included in the ongoing public discussion that characterizes science. The findings of the paper may ultimately be deemed worthless or wrong.

[Taitertots]

102. I take it you are going to defend the difference in differences approach

Despite the accepted fact that other studies show that the decreases in firearms suicides were part of an already existing trend, and can not be attributed to the changes in gun laws.

Are you going to defend the claims that one suicide equates to an over $2,000,000 yearly loss?
Are you going to defend the claims that each gun confiscated equates to a savings of over $800,000?

[depakid]

103. I'm going to read the study and until then, assume the findings are valid

based on the review(s).

Having done and read similar analysis, I can see how the figures can easily be that high when all things are considered in the equations.

[Taitertots]

108. Assume the finding are valid because they agree with your opinions

While not doing the same for studies that don't agree with you. Spoken like a true believer.

[depakid]

111. err... no- because they've been gone over by colleagues and peer reviewed

by scholars in the field prior to publication.

And yep- unlike a majority of Americans, I do in fact believe in scientific methods and processes.

[Taitertots]

114. So you believe anything in a journal without bothering to think, despite contradictory findings

Spoken like a true believer.

What about the studies mentioned in the article that contradict those findings? Believe without question because it supports your biased views.

[depakid]

115. LOL- you NRA types never quit with the projection, do you

:rofl:

I'm sure that the article will get a lot of scrutiny from the fun proliferation groups- and I'm sure the authors both expected and welcomed it.

Meanwhile, Australians have largely changed their culture to one that casts a jaundiced eye on guns- and have benefitted greatly from it.

No one outside of fringe groups or a few nutter pollies would ever consider going back.

[Taitertots]

116. How cute, trying to associate me with the NRA

What a nice little bit of association fallacy flawed thinking.

Followed by an intentional divergence from the topic. Who cares what you think about Australian gun policy? What does that have to do with the flawed study you think defends your opinion?

Followed by a pathetic example of ad hominem fallacious thinking.

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. Some Australians don't seem to have gotten the message:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x337052

The crooks in the first article linked there have found a workaround for the gun restrictions- Get them from the government:



http://www.smh.com.au/national/guns-and-poses-inside-the-drug-lords-deadly-world-20100829-13xnt.html

Guns and poses: inside the drug lords' deadly world

August 30, 2010

....Ayik's story sheds light on the changing battle against organised crime and the technologically savvy and highly mobile modern Australian underworld that is much harder to police and is capable of amassing great wealth with relative ease.

The plan's first public manifestation took place in May last year when NSW Police stormed an apartment at Kogarah. They found five automatic pistols, a Thompson sub-machinegun, a Kalashnikov, a military-issue automatic shotgun and three assault rifles. They also found explosives and what appeared to be police-issue bullet-resistant jackets, helmets and uniforms.

The media reported it as a development in the war between the Comanchero and the Hells Angels that had led to a man being bashed to death at Sydney Airport. But there were other links: the man arrested and charged with weapons offences in connection with the raid was Ayik's nephew.....

Late last year, the breadth of Ayik's connections was again revealed when NSW Police charged one of their civilian employees - who had access to sensitive police intelligence detailing the work of several agencies, including Operation Hoffman - with stealing files that were later leaked to Comanchero associates of Ayik.....

Stealing/buying guns from the government? Bribing cops for information? Sounds like Mexico to me! Except they can't

very well blame gun shops in Arizona and Texas, can they?

[Euromutt]

128. Peer review doesn't prove much of anything by itself

The overwhelming bulk of research that appears even in reputable peer-reviewed journals ultimately turns out to be wrong. And as most scientists will tell you, the real peer review begins after publication, when everybody else in the field--not just three other guys--gets to look at the paper, and poke at it, and maybe try to replicate the results.

Moreover, journals are known to suffer from what is called "publication bias"; they tend to give priority to studies that purport to have produced a significant positive result, because it's more exciting and newsworthy than studies that produce negative or inconclusive findings. Unfortunately, in real life, the negative and inconclusive studies are way more likely to be correct.

You may believe in scientific methods and processes, but I've gained the impression over the past year or so that you don't actually understand them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. But you believe in the conclusions of this paper *before* you've read it.

Isn't that - religious faith?

[friendly_iconoclast]

168. That's what you think- but you're wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x338689#338763

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3813

....The willingness of journalists to pass on the information in press releases without checking is not just a function of laziness. Journalists often lack the knowledge of science and statistics that is needed to analyze the paper. Moreover, journalists appear to suffer from a misunderstanding of the scientific literature. Publication of a scientific paper is not the end of a process confirming the truth of a paper; it is only the beginning. Publication does not mean that the findings should be accepted uncritically; it merely means that the findings are worthy of being included in the ongoing public discussion that characterizes science. The findings of the paper may ultimately be deemed worthless or wrong....


Combine this with a severe case of 'the new convert singing loudest', and wishful thinking becomes fact.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. "They said it, I believe it, and that settles it"

And some claim DU is hostile to religious believers....

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. That's not science, that's gun control as Creationism.

You assume a study that you have not read is correct because you like what the reviews say about it

That's no different than young-earth creationists coming up with a theory and adjusting the data accordingly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. Really- if *all* suicides are down, would that not also take gun suicides along with them?

And how can the restrictions on guns be said to have resulted in the decline in suicides, since the opposite is not necessarily true-
i.e. countries like Canada and Japan have more restrictive gun laws than the US while having a higher suicide rate.

[Pavulon]

112. To bad my shares in cache appliances did not go up.. My right to own a firearm is safe

your right to free access is threatened by your government. I would be quite worried about your rights domestically before taking a position of US firearms..

The fact that an idea like that could be put forward is a travesty and shows that people will give up their rights to privacy to quell a echo chamber of "safety and think of the children"

You can jump on all the bodies you want and it will not change the law. The people in the US who hold this position are on the same side of the law as those who protest in front of womens clinics.

That is where they are speeding to..

[proteus_lives]

119. Spoken like the typical fake Australian.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. Easy with the nationalist slurs- you're starting to sound like a lefty Alf Garnett

It must chap your ass mightily that Americans don't spend nearly as much time obsessing about Australia as (some) Australians do about the States...

[Euromutt]

129. Try to get a handle on your white Commonwealth inferiority complex

I've lived in the UK, I've worked with British, Canadians and Australians, and if there's one thing they all have in common it's that they love to console themselves about the crappier aspects of their own countries by telling themselves that at least they're better than the Americans. Even if they have to engage in gross over-generalizations or, more commonly, believe that characters on American television shows are representative of reality, to do it.

[Hoopla Phil]

127. Is there a way to recommend a post in a thread? I'd love to recommend this post!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. K&R- because this thread isn't going the way it was supposed to

I loves me some counterproductive OPs, I does....

[Euromutt]

98. As the SMH article notes, firearm suicides were already on the decline prior to the NFA

To provide an interesting comparison, let's look at "Firearms related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001" (http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/B/7/F/%7BB7F97201-1FCA-4183-8997-DAAB2B87EA62%7Dtandi269.pdf), published by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Specifically, let's look at Figure 1 and Table 1, both on page 2.

We see that from 1991 to 2001, the number of firearm suicides in Australia dropped from 505 in 1991 to 261 in 2001. However, roughly half of that drop occurred prior to the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement, and while the drop initially accelerated after the imposition of the NFA, it levelled off from 1998 to 2001. The same applies to the rate of suicides by firearm (see Table 2 on page 3).

In fact, if we examine firearms deaths in Australia, 1980-1995 (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics), we see that the decreasing trend in firearm suicides goes back to at least 1987, and in fact, the overall firearm death rate (from suicides, homicides and accidents) in Australia has been declining since at least 1980.

The long and short of it is that I'm highly skeptical that Dr. Neill adequately took into account these pre-existing trends, and that, as result, this study isn't at least partly (and possibly entirely) a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. All the more since, according to the ABS's "Suicide: Recent Trends, Australia, 1993 to 2003" (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/A61B65AE88EBF976CA256DEF00724CDE?OpenDocument):

However, over the decade strong trends were apparent such as the increase in the use of hanging, and a decrease in methods using firearms.

This calls Dr. Neill's conclusions further into doubt. There is a distinct possibility that the deaths that purportedly did not occur as a result of the NFA either would not have occurred anyway, or did occur by other means.

[Hoopla Phil]

121. I wonder how many illegal gun uses went unsolved as a result of "no questions asked" gun

buy back schemes.

[krispos42]

133. $500,000,000 ÷ 660,000 guns = $758 per gun, apparantly

Which would seem to be about 3 orders of magnitude less than $800,000 per gun.


Of course, in the year 3010 this answer would be right, cumulatively.

[Kurska]

166. Has the overall suicide rate changed?

What does it matter if people are offing themselves with pills instead of guns, the same number of people are dieing.