Any Thoughts on This and Implications? Other States Could Follow?

[SirReal63]

What is your reference? What I have read suggests that the vast majority of guns were turned in for starters. And, they had a dramatic drop in multiple shooting incidents. Their gun homicide rate was already trending down and low to begin with but their homicides in multiple shooting incidents dropped from 107 (1984-1996) before the ban to 16 (1996-2014) since the ban. There were an additional twenty or so deaths after the ban related to fire bombing incidents. Still, I'd hardly say that a drop from 107 deaths in 12 years to 16 deaths over 18 years can be called a "failure". List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gun homicide rate is irrelevant, the total homicides hasn't changed much and crime in general hasn't changed much, some violent crime is even higher. It is easy to cherry pick data to spin things but that is really just being dishonest.

There were 238 reported murder victims in Australia during 2014, compared to 245 in 2013.[8]

In Australia during 2014:

The murder victimisation rate fell to a five-year low of 1.0 victim per 100,000 persons;
Nearly two in three victims of murder (61% or 146 victims) were male;
The proportion of murder victims was largest for males aged between 35 and 44 years (16% or 38 victims) and males aged between 25 and 34 years (11% or 27 victims);
Two in three murders (66% or 158 victims) occurred at a residential location;
Of weapons used in murder, a knife was the most common (44% or 69 victims); and
Over three-quarters (77%) of all murder investigations (184 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

Crime in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MossRoad]

True. Sadly inner city gun violence has not responded to control efforts. It doesn't impact citizens other than young black and brown males for the most part. No evidence that assault rifles would help in any way.

Something not being mentioned is the gentrification rate in Massachusetts has chased out the poor and underprivileged, the group that is most affected by gun violence.... Its got the 5th highest per household income and the 2nd highest per capita income. I'd argue that your gun deaths are lower due to your incomes are higher, and well-off people just don't go around shooting each other.... they stab each other in the back and the H.O.A. meetings.

 

[MossRoad]

And yet, DC which has similarly strict rules has about the highest firearm associated death rate in the continental USA...

Aaron Z

Hey, don't forget about Illinois and Chicago...

 

[Pixguy]

..... they stab each other in the back and the H.O.A. meetings.

:laughing: so true.... :laughing:

 

[IslandTractor]

Something not being mentioned is the gentrification rate in Massachusetts has chased out the poor and underprivileged, the group that is most affected by gun violence.... Its got the 5th highest per household income and the 2nd highest per capita income. I'd argue that your gun deaths are lower due to your incomes are higher, and well-off people just don't go around shooting each other.... they stab each other in the back and the H.O.A. meetings.

Fair point but the data doesn't correlate too well. Of course you are correct that MA is a high income state but t other states with relatively high income still have much higher firearm death rates than MA (WA, VA, AK).

What seems to correlate better is tough gun laws. The five states with lowest gun death rate all have strong gun laws (MA, HI, CT, NY, RI) while the 5 states with highest gun death rates (WY, AK, AL, MS, LA) all have very lax gun laws. Indeed of the 20 states with highest gun death, 19 have minimal gun laws. Conversely, of the 20 states with the lowest gun death rates, only four have lax gun laws (ND, SD, VT, ME). Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence - Annual Gun Law State Scorecard 215

 

[NorTracNY]

It would take a committee of a hundred lawyers to hash out a textual definition of "assault weapon" and we all know that it would be imperfect. On the other hand, a dozen of your relatives would give a dozen different descriptions of your grandmother too. I betcha they would all still recognize her. An assault weapon is one whose primary purpose is to kill humans. They were designed for war. I wouldn't count any weapon designed or produced before WW2 and give the Germans credit for the first true modern assault rifle but I would agree that is a bit arbitrary (see 100 lawyers above). The market has developed knock off weapons to sell to civilians. I believe it was the Israelis who developed the first assault pistol type weapon. Those knock offs and auto pistols are still assault weapons to anyone with a brain. Even your grandmother would say so.

I'm not asking 100 lawyers. I'm asking you to understand if I agree with you about banning assault weapons. I guess you answer is "An assault weapon is one whose primary purpose is to kill humans." So that would exclude weapons people hunt with and likely any weapon not being sold to a military. I believe a lot of semi-automatic handguns are still sold to the military. Are these assault weapons? Can you give examples of what you consider and don't consider assault weapons? I'm guessing from what I've heard about the AR15, you would not consider it an assault weapon. Would anything that shoots 22 ammo be possibly an assault weapon? It sounds like brass knuckles and all swords are definitely assault weapons.

 

[IslandTractor]

The gun homicide rate is irrelevant, the total homicides hasn't changed much and crime in general hasn't changed much, some violent crime is even higher. It is easy to cherry pick data to spin things but that is really just being dishonest.

There were 238 reported murder victims in Australia during 2014, compared to 245 in 2013.[8]

In Australia during 2014:

The murder victimisation rate fell to a five-year low of 1.0 victim per 100,000 persons;
Nearly two in three victims of murder (61% or 146 victims) were male;
The proportion of murder victims was largest for males aged between 35 and 44 years (16% or 38 victims) and males aged between 25 and 34 years (11% or 27 victims);
Two in three murders (66% or 158 victims) occurred at a residential location;
Of weapons used in murder, a knife was the most common (44% or 69 victims); and
Over three-quarters (77%) of all murder investigations (184 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

Crime in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure what your point is. I stated that there wasn't much change in gun murder rate as that was already low before the gun ban. What changed dramatically was the incidents of multiple murder. That dropped remarkably after the mandatory gun buy back in 1996. 107 deaths in 12 years before gun buy back compared to 16 deaths in 18 years after the gun buy back. You don't need a statistician to tell you that is significant.

 

[SirReal63]

The point is the gun deaths haven't really dropped and are in relation to the trend that was already happening. Cherry picking data to find what fits your desires isn't being honest about the whole picture.

Your gun law scorecard website is rubbish as it doesn't tell the whole truth. According to it, only 18 states have background checks, but you already know that isn't true. Wanting background checks on private sales is wishful thinking, as no one who is going to use a gun to commit a crime would buy from someone who demanded a background check. You do realize that criminals get guns from other criminals? Tell me how you will prevent that? Criminals in your state buy guns from other criminals, what do you think should be done about that? More laws that will not be obeyed? All these extra laws do is hinder law abiding people. Could it be the agenda isn't putting a bite on crime but disarming this country? What could be gained from that? Who would want that, and why? Are there any correlations in history?

Try looking at crime city by city, because cities also enact strict gun laws. When you look at where the most gun deaths come from, it is cities where the strictest gun laws are found. Why is that?

 

[IslandTractor]

The point is the gun deaths haven't really dropped and are in relation to the trend that was already happening. Cherry picking data to find what fits your desires isn't being honest about the whole picture.

Your gun law scorecard website is rubbish as it doesn't tell the whole truth. According to it, only 18 states have background checks, but you already know that isn't true. Wanting background checks on private sales is wishful thinking, as no one who is going to use a gun to commit a crime would buy from someone who demanded a background check. You do realize that criminals get guns from other criminals? Tell me how you will prevent that? Criminals in your state buy guns from other criminals, what do you think should be done about that? More laws that will not be obeyed? All these extra laws do is hinder law abiding people. Could it be the agenda isn't putting a bite on crime but disarming this country? What could be gained from that? Who would want that, and why? Are there any correlations in history?

Try looking at crime city by city, because cities also enact strict gun laws. When you look at where the most gun deaths come from, it is cities where the strictest gun laws are found. Why is that?

Criminals can certainly obtain guns from out of state or illegally in state. That isn't the real issue. The real issue is what is the correlation of gun laws and gun deaths. You can quibble about the ranking system used on the gun law scorecard but it correlates pretty tightly with gun death rate.

Sure, some cities have very high gun death rates despite being in states with strong gun laws (Chicago is everyone's favorite example closely followed by DC). The issue in those cities isn't general mayhem however. Businessmen and shopkeepers are not being murdered daily. Housewives shopping for food are not being killed regularly. Nearly all those "excess" deaths in the big cities are young black males being killed by other young black males. Drugs and punk culture seem to be the real risk factors. That appears to be a different issue than the run of the mill crime of murder. For Illinois to have only a moderate death rate overall despite the very high death rate in Chicago shows that outside of Chicago the gun law seems to work. Strict gun laws may not protect young black males but they seem to protect the rest of us pretty well.

 

[SirReal63]

You obviously do not realize that criminals are the issue. Your gun death stats include suicides, those suicides will still happen without a gun, ask Japan. You have your head in the sand and I am sure no one will change your mind. That is kind of sad.