I read it. There seems to have been a bunch of studies that reached the consensus that the laws had little impact on a trend that existed before the laws and c

I read it. There seems to have been a bunch of studies that reached the consensus that the laws had little impact on a trend that existed before the laws and continued afterwords. >The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported >In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide. >In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[49] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. One of the only 'wins' seems to be that people who committed suicide were less likely to use guns, but more likely to use other methods. >As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling. >Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.