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

[MossRoad]

My only interaction with gun lovers is on TBN.

How's that working for ya? :laughing:

 

[IslandTractor]

How's that working for ya? :laughing:

Good exercise

 

[MossRoad]

You're right. I guess I should have specified high capacity magazine automatic weapons.

Now you're being almost reasonable.

Change "automatic" to "semi-automatic" in your above sentence (automatic weapons already have some pretty restrictive federal rules that most folks that want them seem to have no problem paying for).

 

[MossRoad]

Good exercise

Yeah, I gotta switch mouse hands due to carpal tunnel-like issues after a long night on TBN. :laughing:

 

[aczlan]

Actually suicide rates in Australia dropped significantly when guns were removed after 1996. Easy access to a very efficient mechanism of killing is highly correlated with successful suicide.

Ummm you might want to revisit correlation vs causation again.
Gun confiscation in Australia started in 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997. Suicide rates rose in 1996, were only slightly down in 1997 and only started really dropping off in 1998.
Also, note that there was a large spike in male suicides in many age groups during the 1996-1999 timeframe. (all data per http://www.mindframe-media.info/__d...018/12834/Suicide-figures-ABS-2016_final3.pdf look especially at the suicides by age group)

Now, to Comparing Canadian vs US suicides by methods, the overall total for 2000-2007, the US averaged 11.0 suicides/100k people vs 11.5/100k people in Canadia.
From a post I made a while back:

It appears that Canadians prefer hanging/suffocation to handguns when committing suicide.
Per: Political Calculations: U.S. vs Canada: Suicide Edition which appears to use good data, from 2000 to 2007 44% of Canadian suicides were by hanging/suffocation vs 21% in the US.
A full list (Canadian numbers vs US numbers):
Hanging/suffocation: 44% vs 17%
Poisoning: 25% vs 17%
Firearms: 16% vs 53%
Other: 15% vs 8%

However, the rate of suicides has averaged 11.5/100k people in Canada vs 11.0/100k people in the US over that same time period, so if someone wants to kill themselves, it they will find a way.

On the effectiveness of the Aussie gun ban/confiscation:

Contention over effects of the laws
Research

In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The institute has published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime.[43][44]

Many studies have followed, providing varying results stemming from different methodologies and areas of focus. However, Harvard University summarized the research in 2011 and concluded, 妬t would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect. [45]

Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[46] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[47] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[48]

Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding in his book 擢irearms and Violence in Australian Life�49] where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that 努hatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[50] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; 田ultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available."

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[51] said that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[52] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[53]

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[54]

Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" but also stated that "it would be wrong to infer from the study that it does not matter how many guns there are in the community." Simon Chapman stated this study ignored the Mass Shootings issue such as Port Arthur Massacre.[55] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[56]

A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[57]

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980?996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[58]

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[59]

A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[60]

A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%. The study,[61] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.

Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[62]

A 2013 report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24% increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[63] A 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian 'grey' or black markets", and discussed the potential problem of people using 3D printers to create guns. NSW and Victorian police obtained plans to create 3D printed guns and tested to see if they could fire, but the guns exploded during testing.[64]

In a 2013 report Lemieux, Tim Prenzler and Samantha Bricknel compared mass shootings between America and Australia and found that no mass shootings had happened in Australia since 1996, but that there were reductions in America that were evident during the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban, with increases subsequently.[65]

A 2016 study using data from the Australian National Injury Surveillance Unit reported that there were no mass firearm killings following the 1996 gun law reforms through May 2016. They also reported a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with between 1979 and 1997, but there was also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, the investigators concluded it was not possible to conclude with any certainty that the change in firearm deaths could be attributed to the gun law reforms.[66]

Aaron Z

 

[BigCountry1689]

While I don't think that high capacity, rapid succession weapons should be available to all. I don't think all should be denied the right to own a weapon. I work in a field that deals directly with this issue and I can tell you that 90% of my incidents are relating to guns that are illegally owned. The percentage of the populous that is going out robbing, burglarizing, murdering and otherwise furthering this lawless trend we are seeing have no regard for laws, if they don't care about murder they don't care about a carrying an illegal gun. I can assure you that if they could find a foot hold in these high income states were they could get the subsidies and survive you would see an increase in gun violence. As others have stated the laws have nothing to do with the crime committed. Crime has everything to do with the populous you serve. I could legalize RPG's in a rural town in Montana and you would never hear of anything short a moose getting blown up. I could start selling them in Detroit and every bank vault and jewelry store would be demolished. It comes down to populous and that particular populous propensity for violence and lawlessness. If you look at statistics for gun violence you will see the demographic where these crimes have the greatest potential. We study this very thing to determine areas of the community that require particular attention at any time. I work for the largest county by mileage and population in Florida(The Gunshine State), and I can assure you that if we closed every gun store and confiscated every "legal" gun owners weapon we would see an exponential increase in violence over night for the shear reasoning that criminals knowing that the victims had no defense mechanism would be ripe for picking. And for arguments sake you do take guns it will be a knife, a bat, a rock, a pointed stick, I've interviewed people that were robbed by a cellphone. If someone has the nature to kill they will do it, a gun just speeds it up. This is the very reason that you can look at a district map for enforcement and see the communities that can be larger by area can require less officers for patrol, and the smaller areas that require 3 times the officers because of the higher potential for violence and the kind of people living there. Unfortunately given the very diverse nature of the country you cannot paint that broad brush that say's that everyone should be barred from something with the thinking that; No one would have it and then you wouldn't need it, in the end there is always that percentage that will perpetuate violence and live by the "you owe me code." And I can tell you if yall think that gun violence is bad now just wait this next generation has ZERO regard for life. We just arrested a 14 year old who figured out that it was easier to kill his drug dealer than continue to steal money from his mom to pay for the drugs. The gun he committed the crime with he bought from another dealer, guess what stolen so a background check and waiting period were mute. These millennials are of the instant gratification you owe me nature that they should not have to work and should be given everything. I get to see the worst of the worst and the best of us all. And I can tell you the latter is loosing ground. We have become so worried about not hurting feelings, blaming the next person, Daddy didn't hug me enough, and I wanted it so I took it that we have incubated a society of what we call Sheep(The pushovers), Sheep dogs (The stead fast & ever shrinking class) and Wolves ( #!%%&). I can only hope parents will step up, citizens will speak up and the American society as a whole will wake up because if not in 20 years there will be nothing left but burnt buildings and people arguing over who gets the last can of beans.

God Bless Us All in these days to come!

 

[jerrybob]

You'd probably put your eye out...

Well....then I could go on disability and food stamps and be like many others.......that's a good thing!:laughing:

 

[jerrybob]

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

Aaron Z

Well....they are 25% black and live pretty close to Baltimore........I think that clears it up.

 

[crash325]

An old sayig
ONCE A FOOL ALWAYS A FOOL
There may be 1 o2 here on TBM. What you think???

 

[4570Man]

I guess we should ban lever guns too. Unlike a magazine fed gun I can continue stuffing shells in the side and never stop to reload. On a more serious note is my Springfield which holds 19+1 rounds an "assault pistol" I have also seen an extended magazines for most any gun.