4 ms·

More correctly, Australia had a voluntary gun buyback program, and a significant amount of the returned money went to buying more, newer guns. Today they have f

More correctly, Australia had a voluntary gun buyback program, and a significant amount of the returned money went to buying more, newer guns. Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. This is easily checked from Australian news, govt stats, and research papers covering the issue.

claytongulick 4y ago
Also, the rate of firearm violence was already on a linear decline. The buyback program didn't have much, if any, effect on the rate of decline.
spicyusername 4y ago
Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns Oh, so it only affected those types of guns that can kill people? Note during the same timeframe, Australia saw the same decline in non-gun homicides as it did in gun homicides. Maybe there were bigger factors (lead removal from common goods for one) at play? Note that New Zealand saw the same declines, despite no such gun laws, and the US saw the same declines, despite massive increases in guns owned, all during the same period. Most of the world saw this, and it's much more attributable to removing so much lead from society, resulting in less at risk people, than it was to laws.
Youden 4y ago
> Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. Technically true but per [0], the proportion of households with guns dropped from 20% to 6.2% and the number of licensed gun owners has dropped from 14.27% to 3.41%. So yes, there are more guns but there are fewer people with guns. [0]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (looks like a random site but it's actually run by the University of Sydney)
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  Please don't cherry pick. Your source says gun ownership rate went from 13.58 / 100 people in 1997 to 14.83 in 2020. Selecting the sub category of those with licenses is dishonest. Also the 6.2% is from 2005, and you picked (I think) the 20% from 1979. Why not pick the date nearest the law (1997) and 2020 for your numbers? Didn't like them? In reality, it's best to look at academic literature on such topics, since there are nuances this low level stuff misses. A good report is from the Univ of Melbourne, 2008, which concludes: "there is little evidence to suggest that it [NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there does not appear to be any substitution effects, specifically that reduced access to firearms may have let those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods. 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 firearms deaths." People ignore the cost to Aus taxpayers to buy all those guns, money that could have been used for other things if, as these researchers claim, it had no effect on homicides. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australian-firearms-buyback-and-its-effect-gun-deaths https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australi... Your summary seems incredibly dishonest.
  - Youden 4y ago
    This was the result of a 5-minute skim of the statistics to check the (unsourced) claim that Australia has more guns than it did before the ban. You're assuming dishonesty but the reality is that this was a quick internet comment, not a peer-reviewed academic paper. There's no dishonesty or malicious intent here, just laziness and lack of effort. If people wanted to check my work or learn more, I gave my source so they could do so. That said, you do raise some valid points, even if they're wrapped in false accusations. The gun ownership rate isn't relevant to my point. My point was that while the number of guns (i.e. gun ownership rate) has increased, the number of people owning those guns has decreased. I "selected" (more noticed and found surprising) the subcategory of people with licenses because it was one of the the only available statistics indicating the number of people who owned guns (rather than the number of guns owned). This number is supported by the statistics for number of households with firearms. The dates were laziness. I couldn't remember the year the NFA was introduced and couldn't be bothered, so I took the earliest datapoint and the latest datapoint. Regarding the number of illicit firearms, I honestly just didn't think about it. Taking this feedback into account, let's do as you suggest and look at the statistics in 1997, when the law was introduced, and 2020, the latest data we have available. First we'll look at the number of registered firearms compared to the number of license-holders, to get an idea of the trends in the legal world, then we'll look at illegal firearms. In 1997, 6.52 of every 100 people was licensed to own a firearm. In the same year, there were 13.58 registered firearms per 100 people. This indicates that the average firearm license holder owned 2.1 firearms. In 2020, 3.41 of every 100 people was licensed to own a firearm. In the same year, there were 13.81 registered firearms per 100 people. This indicates that the average firearm license holder owned 4.0 firearms. So as you can see, despite all your objections, my point still holds: the number of firearms has increased but the number of people who own them has decreased. Gun ownership has consolidated. But you brought up illicit firearm ownership. What if there's an enormous number of people who own guns without a license? Well that would be an illicit or unregistered firearm. The statistics point to a pretty constant number of 260k illicit or unregistered firearms, with the data covering 2006-2016. The number of licensed firearm owners fell from 1.2M in 1997 to 868k in 2020, so even if we assume every illicit firearm represents one person who bought or retained an illegal firearm in 1998 and kept it until now, we _still_ have fewer firearm owners than we did in 1997 and my point still holds. Regarding the University of Melbourne report, it's not relevant to my point. The UoM report discusses gun deaths and gun violence. My point was only regarding the number of people who own guns. So yes, I was lazy. I was not dishonest, I did not cherrypick and it's quite rude of you to throw around accusations like that.

claytongulick 4y ago

Also, the rate of firearm violence was already on a linear decline. The buyback program didn't have much, if any, effect on the rate of decline.

spicyusername 4y ago

Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns Oh, so it only affected those types of guns that can kill people? Note during the same timeframe, Australia saw the same decline in non-gun homicides as it did in gun homicides. Maybe there were bigger factors (lead removal from common goods for one) at play? Note that New Zealand saw the same declines, despite no such gun laws, and the US saw the same declines, despite massive increases in guns owned, all during the same period. Most of the world saw this, and it's much more attributable to removing so much lead from society, resulting in less at risk people, than it was to laws.

Youden 4y ago

> Today they have far more guns now than before the ban. Technically true but per [0], the proportion of households with guns dropped from 20% to 6.2% and the number of licensed gun owners has dropped from 14.27% to 3.41%. So yes, there are more guns but there are fewer people with guns. [0]: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (looks like a random site but it's actually run by the University of Sydney)

ChrisLomont 4y ago
Please don't cherry pick. Your source says gun ownership rate went from 13.58 / 100 people in 1997 to 14.83 in 2020. Selecting the sub category of those with licenses is dishonest. Also the 6.2% is from 2005, and you picked (I think) the 20% from 1979. Why not pick the date nearest the law (1997) and 2020 for your numbers? Didn't like them? In reality, it's best to look at academic literature on such topics, since there are nuances this low level stuff misses. A good report is from the Univ of Melbourne, 2008, which concludes: "there is little evidence to suggest that it [NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there does not appear to be any substitution effects, specifically that reduced access to firearms may have let those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods. 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 firearms deaths." People ignore the cost to Aus taxpayers to buy all those guns, money that could have been used for other things if, as these researchers claim, it had no effect on homicides. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australian-firearms-buyback-and-its-effect-gun-deaths https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australi... Your summary seems incredibly dishonest.
- Youden 4y ago
  This was the result of a 5-minute skim of the statistics to check the (unsourced) claim that Australia has more guns than it did before the ban. You're assuming dishonesty but the reality is that this was a quick internet comment, not a peer-reviewed academic paper. There's no dishonesty or malicious intent here, just laziness and lack of effort. If people wanted to check my work or learn more, I gave my source so they could do so. That said, you do raise some valid points, even if they're wrapped in false accusations. The gun ownership rate isn't relevant to my point. My point was that while the number of guns (i.e. gun ownership rate) has increased, the number of people owning those guns has decreased. I "selected" (more noticed and found surprising) the subcategory of people with licenses because it was one of the the only available statistics indicating the number of people who owned guns (rather than the number of guns owned). This number is supported by the statistics for number of households with firearms. The dates were laziness. I couldn't remember the year the NFA was introduced and couldn't be bothered, so I took the earliest datapoint and the latest datapoint. Regarding the number of illicit firearms, I honestly just didn't think about it. Taking this feedback into account, let's do as you suggest and look at the statistics in 1997, when the law was introduced, and 2020, the latest data we have available. First we'll look at the number of registered firearms compared to the number of license-holders, to get an idea of the trends in the legal world, then we'll look at illegal firearms. In 1997, 6.52 of every 100 people was licensed to own a firearm. In the same year, there were 13.58 registered firearms per 100 people. This indicates that the average firearm license holder owned 2.1 firearms. In 2020, 3.41 of every 100 people was licensed to own a firearm. In the same year, there were 13.81 registered firearms per 100 people. This indicates that the average firearm license holder owned 4.0 firearms. So as you can see, despite all your objections, my point still holds: the number of firearms has increased but the number of people who own them has decreased. Gun ownership has consolidated. But you brought up illicit firearm ownership. What if there's an enormous number of people who own guns without a license? Well that would be an illicit or unregistered firearm. The statistics point to a pretty constant number of 260k illicit or unregistered firearms, with the data covering 2006-2016. The number of licensed firearm owners fell from 1.2M in 1997 to 868k in 2020, so even if we assume every illicit firearm represents one person who bought or retained an illegal firearm in 1998 and kept it until now, we _still_ have fewer firearm owners than we did in 1997 and my point still holds. Regarding the University of Melbourne report, it's not relevant to my point. The UoM report discusses gun deaths and gun violence. My point was only regarding the number of people who own guns. So yes, I was lazy. I was not dishonest, I did not cherrypick and it's quite rude of you to throw around accusations like that.