CATO Institute Sells Out RKBA

[TommyGunn]

The Wikipedia link? That's what I was responding to. It hardly makes your point.

No, the academic piece above

I think he means this:

Here's a peer reviewed study

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

I tried to open it myself but my computer said "file broken cannot be repaired."  Perhaps your computer will be OK;  I think I'll write down the URL and try it on my tablet later.

[JN01]

From the top of the first page of the study:

We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates

Utter horsecrap.  Where is the causation?  Since they only banned auto-loaders and pump actions and left other types alone (for now) firearms are still readily available to anyone who wants to use one to off themselves.  Most suicide attempts don't involve multiple shots anyway.

As to the availability of banned weapons to the criminal element: http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-national-gun-amnesty-to-be-announced-20160913-grfigm.html

[De Selby]

From the top of the first page of the study:

Utter horsecrap.  Where is the causation?  Since they only banned auto-loaders and pump actions and left other types alone (for now) firearms are still readily available to anyone who wants to use one to off themselves.  Most suicide attempts don't involve multiple shots anyway.

As to the availability of banned weapons to the criminal element: http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-national-gun-amnesty-to-be-announced-20160913-grfigm.html

This is covered in the article.   The licensing requirements were increased across the country to the highest level, and many who turned in guns did not repurchase them (it's only in the last year that gun numbers reached Pre 96 levels).

[JN01]

So those who turned in auto-loaders and pump actions didn't own any other type of firearm, nor did they buy one after the confiscation? 

From the second link in my previous post:

There are also more legally owned firearms in the country than before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, which sparked the original national amnesty and buyback.

The 1996 scheme led to the voluntary surrender of more than 700,000 firearms. More than a million new weapons have been legally imported since.

But assuming the study is correct (though they based their contention that there was a decrease in the number of gun owning households on the results of a survey), if there was a 80% decrease in suicides due solely to the unavailability of the prohibited weapons, it follows that most of the previous suicides must have been committed using those weapons.  Any stats to back that up?

Even the authors of the study had to admit:

Because there are so many more non-firearm suicides (and
homicides) than firearm deaths, we cannot reject the possibility that there
was 100% method substitution—i.e. that any reduction in firearm deaths
was accompanied by an increase in deaths by other methods. This is
unfortunate from a statistical perspective but is the inevitable result of
the fortunate fact that Australia already had relatively few firearm deaths
relative to non-firearm deaths.

[Hawkmoon]

The 1996 scheme led to the voluntary surrender of more than 700,000 firearms. More than a million new weapons have been legally imported since.

Given that the firearms "voluntarily" surrendered had been made illegal and the owners faced prosecution if they didn't turn them in, I'd hardly call the program "voluntary."

[Fitz]

Seems it might not be the panacea you suggest

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

[Scout26]

But wait !!!  There's more !!!

Apparently all is not as is seems in De Selby's Glorious Land of Gun Free Oz....


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN12L0P8?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

[Perd Hapley]

But wait !!!  There's more !!!

Apparently all is not as is seems in De Selby's Glorious Land of Gun Free Oz....


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN12L0P8?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

While Australia has some of the strongest firearm controls in the world, illicit firearms remain the weapon of choice for criminals.

[Fitz]

its almost as if criminals don't follow the law

[Scout26]

its almost as if criminals don't follow the law

Whodda thunk it ??


I wonder if gun owners down there have a magic card that allows them to buy, sell, and trade with out au.gov being involved ?

Inquiring minds want to know....

[TechMan]

its almost as if criminals don't follow the law

But...but...panacea!!!!111!!!!!

[De Selby]

Seems it might not be the panacea you suggest

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

Wait a second there?  Who said it was a panacea?  I posted an academic review of firearm deaths since the ban.  Of course they still happen, just not as often (at a rate of .93 per 100000 in your link....compare that to your favourite US statistic).

This is really a straw man.  You're making an argument against gun control being 100 percent effective, which is something obvious.  The point here is that controls can impact the level of gun use in crimes.

[De Selby]

But wait !!!  There's more !!!

Apparently all is not as is seems in De Selby's Glorious Land of Gun Free Oz....


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN12L0P8?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

This is a pretty text book example of the same straw man Fitz posted.

You can't possibly believe that it's reasonable to argue that because gun controls aren't 100 percent effective, they are therefore completely ineffective or unwarranted. 

[TommyGunn]

Wait a second there?  Who said it was a panacea?  I posted an academic review of firearm deaths since the ban.  Of course they still happen, just not as often (at a rate of .93 per 100000 in your link....compare that to your favourite IS statistic).

This is really a straw man.  You're making an argument against gun control being 100 percent effective, which is something obvious.  The point here is that controls can impact the level of gun use in crimes.

Given that Chicago has severe gun control laws and seems to resemble a battle zone,  thus appearing to have obtained a rather different situation than "Oz,"  I highly question the theory  that gun control results in lower murder rates very very dubious.  I think other societal pressures are involved, that cannot be addressed by government and laws.
I also tend to think many politicians who advocate gun laws have ulterior motives other than the safety of those people they supposedly serve.

[mellestad]

Wait a second there?  Who said it was a panacea?  I posted an academic review of firearm deaths since the ban.  Of course they still happen, just not as often (at a rate of .93 per 100000 in your link....compare that to your favourite US statistic).

This is really a straw man.  You're making an argument against gun control being 100 percent effective, which is something obvious.  The point here is that controls can impact the level of gun use in crimes.

The review you posted concludes that overall "successful" suicides were likely reduced somewhat but homicides couldn't be determined. It also says the control measures likely led to an overall increase in homicides. I'm not sure how much I trust the paper though--the summary and the conclusion didn't really have the same message and I'm not interested enough to process all the data in the paper.

It was interesting that, according to that paper, Australians typically killed themselves with long guns instead of handguns.

Also, it's curious that it's "long gun" but "handgun". You'd think the spacing would be consistent....

[De Selby]

Given that Chicago has severe gun control laws and seems to resemble a battle zone,  thus appearing to have obtained a rather different situation than "Oz,"  I highly question the theory  that gun control results in lower murder rates very very dubious.  I think other societal pressures are involved, that cannot be addressed by government and laws.
I also tend to think many politicians who advocate gun laws have ulterior motives other than the safety of those people they supposedly serve.

This is terrible reasoning.  "Chicago's very different gun laws in a country where cash private purchases are legal all over don't seem to affect murder rates.  Therefore the academic piece on guns in Oz is questionable."

[De Selby]

The review you posted concludes that overall "successful" suicides were likely reduced somewhat but homicides couldn't be determined. It also says the control measures likely led to an overall increase in homicides. I'm not sure how much I trust the paper though--the summary and the conclusion didn't really have the same message and I'm not interested enough to process all the data in the paper.

It was interesting that, according to that paper, Australians typically killed themselves with long guns instead of handguns.

Also, it's curious that it's "long gun" but "handgun". You'd think the spacing would be consistent....

do you want to quote the part that says there's an increase in homicides???

[Fitz]

This is a pretty text book example of the same straw man Fitz posted.

You can't possibly believe that it's reasonable to argue that because gun controls aren't 100 percent effective, they are therefore completely ineffective or unwarranted. 

When coupled with the whole "violates my rights" thing, yes, I can.

We could solve a lot of crime  in this country by force sterilizing certain ethnic groups.

That doesn't mean it's not a monstrously evil thing to do.

[mellestad]

do you want to quote the part that says there's an increase in homicides???

My mistake: "At a minimum, there is some time series
evidence against the notion that stricter gun laws have led to increases in
total homicides."

[TommyGunn]

This is terrible reasoning.  "Chicago's very different gun laws in a country where cash private purchases are legal all over don't seem to affect murder rates.  Therefore the academic piece on guns in Oz is questionable."

No , it isn't terrible reasoning.  I'm trying to tell you that the violence rates each country suffers is unrelated to gun laws.  
There are other more important sociological factors involved.    Get it?
Chicago,  severe gun laws=  high murder rate.
Oz,  again, severe gun law=low murder rate.
Is it clearer now?

[Perd Hapley]

Also, it's curious that it's "long gun" but "handgun". You'd think the spacing would be consistent....

Well, it's English, so...

[Hawkmoon]

This is really a straw man.  You're making an argument against gun control being 100 percent effective, which is something obvious.  The point here is that controls can impact the level of gun use in crimes.

What all your statistics overlook is that criminals will still exist, and will continue to commit crimes. Obviously, if you remove ALL guns from a society, there can't be any "gun violence" or deaths by gun. But there WILL still be deaths by crime, only the weapons will change. So will the tools of suicide.

Example: my daughter currently lives in Chile, which has pretty tight gun laws. Over the past two years she has made eight attempts to commit suicide. The method of choice in seven was drug overdose -- the eighth was an attempt to emulate Superman and leap from a tall building without a parachute.

Look what happened in England when they tightened up their gun laws. The incidence rate of "hot" burglaries ( translation: a "hot" burglary is one committed when the home is occupied -- we call it "home invasion") skyrocketed, because the goblins could be fairly well assured that the occupants were defenseless.

[zxcvbob]

Whenever someone (present company included) starts preaching about "gun violence" or "gun crimes", you can be certain that they don't really give a damn about the violence or the crimes, all they care about is the guns.

[De Selby]

What all your statistics overlook is that criminals will still exist, and will continue to commit crimes. Obviously, if you remove ALL guns from a society, there can't be any "gun violence" or deaths by gun. But there WILL still be deaths by crime, only the weapons will change. So will the tools of suicide.

Example: my daughter currently lives in Chile, which has pretty tight gun laws. Over the past two years she has made eight attempts to commit suicide. The method of choice in seven was drug overdose -- the eighth was an attempt to emulate Superman and leap from a tall building without a parachute.

Look what happened in England when they tightened up their gun laws. The incidence rate of "hot" burglaries ( translation: a "hot" burglary is one committed when the home is occupied -- we call it "home invasion") skyrocketed, because the goblins could be fairly well assured that the occupants were defenseless.

Hence the reason I quoted a study showing lower overall deaths.

Fitz, if your argument is about the violation of rights, why the triumphant citation about gun crimes??? On your point the costs of deregulating guns are irrelevant because of the "monstrous" violation of liberty that is the background check or licence.

Good luck selling that one.  Me, I wouldn't consider a nationally uniform and convenient to use licence monstrous compared to what we have now.

[De Selby]

Whenever someone (present company included) starts preaching about "gun violence" or "gun crimes", you can be certain that they don't really give a damn about the violence or the crimes, all they care about is the guns.

So you don't think anyone could honestly believe gun regulations might reduce deaths, and prioritise that over gun rights?

This is not even straw man territory - that's a straw clown you constructed there