Thread: Darwin is getting slow in his old age.

An interesting study on the effects of the Australian National Firearms Agreement.

GUN LAWS AND SUDDEN DEATH
Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?
JEANINE BAKER and SAMARA MCPHEDRAN
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534...aper_40534.pdf

Originally Posted by ebf

Beavis, the raw data might be the same, but the interpretation sure as hell is not

"Wish" (a anti gun control lobby group by the way), tried to somehow prove that gun deaths in Aus are not decreasing, or that the decrease is not related to legislation implemented in 1996. The way they try to do this is by referring to the "difference" in yearly numbers. All that this proves is that the decrease is roughly linear...

Take a look at the Aus/USA graph. See what happens immediately following 1996 ? Those numbers are per 100k population, and compensate for increases or decreases in population. The anti control groups claim that "gun-crime" is falling in the USA. In my book the most serious consequence of gun crime, gun negligence etc is death. The green line seems to be fairly flat to me...

Not sure where you got the statistics regarding the USA but the Berau of Justice Statistics found that firearm homicide decreased by 39% between 1993 and 2011.

Non fatal firearm violence declined by 69% in the same period.

I figure those are pretty significant reductions. Neither pro nor anti gun laws really explain it. It was a pretty tumultuous period politically for firearms.

ebf I apologise I can't seem to find the report of that I had read and what I can find now seems to be from an obscure site with no reliable source whatsoever so I'm going to say it was bogus. But I do agree with what you have said. Gun deaths have declined, gun crime however is probably a different story but as you have mentioned earlier - who really cares?

On the topic of gun control though, which what I'm about to say might be a bit of a downer & I apologise on making a shit thread, even shitter... (We should really all be out shooting as much as poss and talkin about it) But lets be honest here ebf, it's not hard to see where the trends are taking us with gun control. Look at the stringent gun laws for AUS/NZ/UK & some states in the US. In the next 20 or so years where do you see NZ in it? We are unquestionably a guinea pig country and things are gradually tightening with gun control. I say gradual because it's exactly that, we are conforming to a slow process of gradualism.

The politicians along with the gun grabbers all lobby together to form stricter and stricter regulations on firearms. You regulate something and keep regulating it till it becomes redundant, unwanted or just plain useless. Take the "free standing pistol grips" for example?

Anyway, that's it for me rant over. Fire away

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I say gradual because it's exactly that, we are conforming to a slow process of gradualism.

Excellent, @Sasquatch...

Originally Posted by EeeBees

@Beavis, in the instance of Australia, I do not think it is necessarily a reduced availability of firearms...it is just that semi-automatic guns are no longer in the mix.

Not quite sure what you meant but if it's a proposed correlation between deaths and availability, I would say look at us - shit loads of semi's, not much death. Don't think I actually know a FAL holder who doesn't own a semi auto.

Originally Posted by BRADS

This is a shit thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just add 1080 then it will be terminated

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it Australia has changed the way it counts gun deaths at some point since the law change and self harm is no longer counted.

How about comparing the trends with another country with a similar culture and gun background as the USA hardly counts, I don't know ,but how about nz-we still have semis so what has our stats done one corrected for the different methodology.

I think the vid is a pile of shit to sway the uniformed, just as some in this thread are making very uninformed comments on a unrelated subject.-let alone the one at hand.

Having a degree in stats I find most of the ones in this thread worthless as presented from there sources, not a comment about those who use them in the thread-they just went looking for something to support there argument-and on the big wide web you can find stats to support anything.

Originally Posted by Dundee

Just add 1080 then it will be terminated

If only 1080 had worked that well on possums.

Threads like this just keep coming up on forums, and tend to make life hard on admin regardless on where they personally stand

Originally Posted by res

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it Australia has changed the way it counts gun deaths at some point since the law change and self harm is no longer counted.

How about comparing the trends with another country with a similar culture and gun background as the USA hardly counts, I don't know ,but how about nz-we still have semis so what has our stats done one corrected for the different methodology.

I think the vid is a pile of shit to sway the uniformed, just as some in this thread are making very uninformed comments on a unrelated subject.-let alone the one at hand.

Having a degree in stats I find most of the ones in this thread worthless as presented from there sources, not a comment about those who use them in the thread-they just went looking for something to support there argument-and on the big wide web you can find stats to support anything.

I figured the CDC, dept of justice etc would be fairly credible sources. As for Australian gun death...

Yip.
Try an keep to the original theme[ish] please ladies and gentlemen, or just let it die a natural.

it will die good night forumites past my bed time

Originally Posted by ebf

Here ya go Beavis:

Had to rework the deaths/100k to fit on the same X scale, so multiplied it by 100 (per 10M).

Attachment 32802

It would appear to me that the trend was well established long before the aberation of Tasmania and the knee-jerk legislation that resulted. That seems to be well born out by the research paper referenced a couple of posts above.

Yup, the paper that koshogi posted a link to was very interesting reading. Would help the debate a lot if there was more solid research as opposed to little snippits taken out of context just to support a particular side.

and res, yeah stats can be used to prove just about anything

i prefer looking at long term graphs for trends. whenever words are attached to it for an interpretation, things can get pretty screwy...

take the 39% drop in homicides "factoid"... the year used as the start of that "fact" was 93, the rate per 100k in US was 7.07 (Krug, E G, K E Powell and L L Dahlberg. 1998. ‘Firearm-Related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High- and Upper-Middle-Income Countries.’ International Journal of Epidemiology; Table 1 (27), p. 216. Atlanta: National Centre for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention / CDC. 16 April.)

but then if you look at this (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co...f_gun_homicide), a picture paints a very different story...

if the link does not work, go to http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states, click on Gun Homicides, and then the chart link next to Rate / 100K.

@ebf Looking at the OZ trend it was and has been clearly declining, so in 1996 there was a small extra dip, then back to long term trend. So really the claim that the 1996 ban achieved a great deal is questionable to say the least in fact its probably negligable.

The thing to do here is look at the actual stats for those 2 or 3 years and determine why. So for instance if the decrease deaths were 90% attributed to suicide by gun but those ppl topped themselves by another method anyway they are still dead just not in the stats for guns "being responsible", ergo the law appears to may have achieved nothing.

The other stat is to put up NZ deaths over the same period to see if there is a correlation, even look at the state of the economy might reveal something. Once done of course it cant be un-done.

=======
edit
=======
In fact if you take 87, 88 and 89 and trend it the decline is pretty close the the 1996-99 ban drop, so what happened in those 3 years?

@ebf I'd be pretty skeptical of any statistics compiled by Alpers. Just as you would rightly be skeptical of the ones presented by WiSH