This is an annoying article, as it reflects lazy research to support a predetermined conclusion. This is annoying as it's so bad, that it provides evidence tha

This is an annoying article, as it reflects lazy research to support a predetermined conclusion. This is annoying as it's so bad, that it provides evidence that "gun control reporting is misleading". My understanding, and other commenters seem to agree, the gun buyback program didn't reduce gun ownership, and it also can't be tied to the reduction in casualties as those numbers were already tracking down before the buyback. More accurate reporting would instead focus on the restrictions on types of guns that were legally permitted, and how those restrictions impacted the repeat of sprees (there have been none). Similar restrictions in the UK after their big shootings had similar near eradication of mass shootings. The restrictions basically meant a complete ban on * All self loading rifles * All self loading shotguns * All pump action shotguns Now in addition to that people had to demonstrate actual need for weapons that they owned. That meant you had to prove you had a occupational need, were an active member of a shooting club, or you were an active hunter - and had proof of access to hunting land. Gun licensing was divided into five different categories, which each had different requirements, but all required a pile of mandatory training. Most countries other than the US have a pile of rules requiring safety+security of gun and ammunition storage, but afaict that doesn't have any impact mass shootings (and I don't see why it would?), it seems mostly to be responsible for the far lower rates of accidental child/child-involved death in non-US countries. I say this as someone who apparently pulled a rifle on my mum as a 4yo, before NZ had real weapon security rules, so I could easily have been an orphan due to NZ's lack of gun security laws at that point.