3 ms·

You can find cherry picked data here: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ http://crimepreventi

by wisty 11y ago

You can find cherry picked data here: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-... They don't mention Australia, because the murder rate gradually decreased (though it was on a trend down anyway). Or you can find cherry picked data about how gun related crime falls if you ban guns. The only reason this debate keeps going is that there's bugger all hard evidence on either side. Sometimes overall crime rates drop. Sometimes they rise. So both sides just cherry pick stats, and call the other side idiots. If the occasional mass shooting is acceptable, there's no reason to either ban guns or keep them. "Guns cause crime" and "guns stop crime" are both red herrings. Whether the freedom to have a gun (which won't make you statistically more or less safe) is more important than stopping mass shootings is a value judgement. The statistics are a wash. I'd say something similar to Australia is a good compromise - allow single-shot long guns (for sport), and ban semis / handguns (unless you have a really good reason). There's also laws about gun safes, safety tests, etc. The most well-known mass shooting in Australia since guns were banned left three people dead - a shooter with a double-barreled shotgun, and two victims. Australian style laws do a good job keeping mass shootings from causing too much damage.

sudioStudio64 11y ago
I think that sounds completely reasonable.
shoo 11y ago
Regarding Australia, there's an analysis here from 2006, 10.5 years after the gun law reforms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/ Here are the key points from the paper: > A radical gun law reform occurred in Australia after a gun massacre (35 dead and 18 seriously injured) in April 1996. Semi‐automatic and pump‐action shotguns and rifles were banned; a tax‐funded firearm buyback and amnesties saw over 700 000 guns surrendered from an adult population of about 12 million. > The total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides had been falling in the 18 years preceding the new gun laws. In all, 13 mass shootings were noticed in the 18 years preceding the new gun laws. > In the 10.5 years after the gun law reforms, there have been no mass shootings, but accelerated declines in annual total gun deaths and firearm suicides and a non‐significant accelerated decline in firearm homicides. No substitution effects occurred for suicides or homicides. edit: it is interesting that they looked for substitution effects. Like `sdenton4` commented, the lethality of the weapon matters. If it is difficult to access firearms and there isn't really a similarly lethal alternative to easily kill someone else or yourself, it seems intuitively reasonable that we might expect to see less death.

by wisty 11y ago

sudioStudio64 11y ago

I think that sounds completely reasonable.

shoo 11y ago

Regarding Australia, there's an analysis here from 2006, 10.5 years after the gun law reforms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/ Here are the key points from the paper: > A radical gun law reform occurred in Australia after a gun massacre (35 dead and 18 seriously injured) in April 1996. Semi‐automatic and pump‐action shotguns and rifles were banned; a tax‐funded firearm buyback and amnesties saw over 700 000 guns surrendered from an adult population of about 12 million. > The total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides had been falling in the 18 years preceding the new gun laws. In all, 13 mass shootings were noticed in the 18 years preceding the new gun laws. > In the 10.5 years after the gun law reforms, there have been no mass shootings, but accelerated declines in annual total gun deaths and firearm suicides and a non‐significant accelerated decline in firearm homicides. No substitution effects occurred for suicides or homicides. edit: it is interesting that they looked for substitution effects. Like `sdenton4` commented, the lethality of the weapon matters. If it is difficult to access firearms and there isn't really a similarly lethal alternative to easily kill someone else or yourself, it seems intuitively reasonable that we might expect to see less death.