Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
13. Wrong again
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:45 AM
Oct 2015
So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks' speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks:

[center][/center]

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides. A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded (pdf) that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides; Leigh and Neill argue (pdf) that this paper's methodology is deeply flawed, as it includes the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted (pdf) that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I thought they did? Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #1
English ? orpupilofnature57 Oct 2015 #2
please explain. you thought they did what???? riversedge Oct 2015 #11
The gun control groups Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #14
Maybe Ms Clinton sarisataka Oct 2015 #18
She is free to try Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #21
I wish her good luck, sarisataka Oct 2015 #23
So do I Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #25
This - djean111 Oct 2015 #3
If only this had anything to do with the NRA...it is ridiculous pipoman Oct 2015 #4
Good post Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #5
We need a 50 state National buyback Publlic health program-VOLUNTARY. It will take riversedge Oct 2015 #6
That is the definition of futility 400,000,000 guns... pipoman Oct 2015 #7
If we can get one gun off the street to avoid another mass murder it will be worth it. riversedge Oct 2015 #10
You can't....people don't mass murder because of access to a gun pipoman Oct 2015 #12
I will stay on the positive realm-you can throw up your hands and give up. riversedge Oct 2015 #17
Who's giving up? pipoman Oct 2015 #28
"I will stay on the positive realm......." pablo_marmol Feb 2017 #41
it didn't reduce anything in Australia gejohnston Oct 2015 #9
Wrong again SecularMotion Oct 2015 #13
If you read what post #9 says sarisataka Oct 2015 #20
I'm glad you agree that there is "strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness." SecularMotion Oct 2015 #27
Key word being sarisataka Oct 2015 #31
I read the actual paper gejohnston Oct 2015 #30
And we need to let her know we want a progressive stance on the 2A. ileus Oct 2015 #8
*Presto!* The NRA is gone. Think things will change? I'll wait. Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #15
I am glad the Democrats are talking and setting up plans to riversedge Oct 2015 #16
Please re-read carefully... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #24
Ahem......there is no "killing epidemic" in our nation. pablo_marmol Oct 2015 #33
"National Movement." Those seeking control/prohibition have been trying for decades... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #19
Well, I like her tone (and her makeover!) NonMetro Oct 2015 #22
Sounds like bernie, jkbRN Oct 2015 #26
Hillary just wants to be able to call her azmom Oct 2015 #29
One of many reasons I'm supporting Bernie. pablo_marmol Oct 2015 #32
The first step would be ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #34
How is the national movement coming?? nt virginia mountainman Jan 2017 #35
II believe there's a movement, but not the type they're expecting... n/t yagotme Jan 2017 #36
Looks like Clinton and Schumer are hell-bent on destroying the party. pablo_marmol Jan 2017 #37
Dont forget.. virginia mountainman Jan 2017 #38
Oh yeah......I recall. Chuck hates guns and gun owners with a white-hot passion. pablo_marmol Jan 2017 #39
Post removed Post removed Feb 2017 #40
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Hillary Clinton Calls For...»Reply #13