This cognitive disconnects in this editorial are amusing, but some light does, in fact, begin to penetrate the darkness....
hillbilly
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...ot-down-the-law/2006/10/25/1161749188302.html
Study no excuse to shoot down the law
Email Print Normal font Large font October 26, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement
AdvertisementRESEARCH showing that the Australian gun buyback had no effect on the rate of gun homicide in Australia may have surprised and disappointed many people. Given that countries where more people own guns generally have more firearm homicides, it seemed sensible after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 to try to reduce the number of people owning firearms in Australia. So why didn't the policy work?
Before answering this question it is important to be clear about what the research shows and what it does not.
First, although the authors of the study admit to being members of gun clubs, the study was well conducted and published in an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal. It would be unfair to accuse the authors of "cooking the books" to achieve a certain result.
Second, the study does not show that the National Firearms Agreement was a failure. There have been no mass shootings since it was enacted. We cannot be sure this is because of the agreement, but it is too early to dismiss the possibility, either.
Further, the study found evidence suggesting the drop in the number of suicides involving firearms accelerated after the agreement. This is good news although, as the authors of the study point out, we can't be sure it is due to the agreement or the gun buyback.
Third, it would be wrong to infer from the study that it does not matter how many guns there are in the community.
It may sound impressive to say that more than 600,000 guns were destroyed but that doesn't mean that there are 600,000 fewer Australians with ready access to a firearm. Many individuals or households would have given up more than one firearm. The overall percentage of households with access to firearms might not have changed by anywhere near as much as the figure of 600,000 firearms seems to suggest.
So why didn't the gun buyback reduce the rate of firearm homicide?
One possibility is the reduction in firearm ownership was too small to influence the gun homicide rate. There are only about 50 murders involving firearms in Australia each year. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners. This suggests that the risk of any gun owner using a gun to kill someone is very small.
Even if every gun owner were equally likely to kill someone with a gun (a dubious proposition) it would take a large reduction in the number of households with firearms to produce a noticeable reduction in the number of firearm homicides.
A second, more likely, possibility is that people bent on committing a crime with a gun may get one illegally if they cannot lawfully obtain one.
Research since the gun buyback has shown that more than 90 per cent of homicide cases involve an unregistered weapon and the alleged offender was not licensed to own a gun.
So how should policymakers respond to the evidence showing the gun buyback did not affect the rate of firearm homicide?
It's time to look beyond further restrictions on the level of gun ownership if we want to tackle firearm crime.
The challenge facing policymakers is how to limit the spread of illegal firearms (particularly handguns) among criminals, particularly drug traffickers.
The firearm homicide rate was in decline long before the gun buyback but shooting incidents surged in certain parts of Sydney in the late 1990s.
Although the number of these incidents is relatively small and has gone down since 2000, experience in the United States suggests that when young drug traffickers start using guns to settle their differences, the result can be a dramatic escalation in the murder rate.
It doesn't follow, however, that restrictions on firearm ownership should be dropped. The gun buyback may not have had any effect on the rate of firearm homicide but any policy that permitted large increases in the supply of guns in the community could still produce untoward effects.
The Port Arthur massacre graphically demonstrated the catastrophic effects that result when the wrong people get hold of guns. This is dangerous ground and we need to tread carefully.
Don Weatherburn is director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
hillbilly
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...ot-down-the-law/2006/10/25/1161749188302.html
Study no excuse to shoot down the law
Email Print Normal font Large font October 26, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement
AdvertisementRESEARCH showing that the Australian gun buyback had no effect on the rate of gun homicide in Australia may have surprised and disappointed many people. Given that countries where more people own guns generally have more firearm homicides, it seemed sensible after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 to try to reduce the number of people owning firearms in Australia. So why didn't the policy work?
Before answering this question it is important to be clear about what the research shows and what it does not.
First, although the authors of the study admit to being members of gun clubs, the study was well conducted and published in an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal. It would be unfair to accuse the authors of "cooking the books" to achieve a certain result.
Second, the study does not show that the National Firearms Agreement was a failure. There have been no mass shootings since it was enacted. We cannot be sure this is because of the agreement, but it is too early to dismiss the possibility, either.
Further, the study found evidence suggesting the drop in the number of suicides involving firearms accelerated after the agreement. This is good news although, as the authors of the study point out, we can't be sure it is due to the agreement or the gun buyback.
Third, it would be wrong to infer from the study that it does not matter how many guns there are in the community.
It may sound impressive to say that more than 600,000 guns were destroyed but that doesn't mean that there are 600,000 fewer Australians with ready access to a firearm. Many individuals or households would have given up more than one firearm. The overall percentage of households with access to firearms might not have changed by anywhere near as much as the figure of 600,000 firearms seems to suggest.
So why didn't the gun buyback reduce the rate of firearm homicide?
One possibility is the reduction in firearm ownership was too small to influence the gun homicide rate. There are only about 50 murders involving firearms in Australia each year. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners. This suggests that the risk of any gun owner using a gun to kill someone is very small.
Even if every gun owner were equally likely to kill someone with a gun (a dubious proposition) it would take a large reduction in the number of households with firearms to produce a noticeable reduction in the number of firearm homicides.
A second, more likely, possibility is that people bent on committing a crime with a gun may get one illegally if they cannot lawfully obtain one.
Research since the gun buyback has shown that more than 90 per cent of homicide cases involve an unregistered weapon and the alleged offender was not licensed to own a gun.
So how should policymakers respond to the evidence showing the gun buyback did not affect the rate of firearm homicide?
It's time to look beyond further restrictions on the level of gun ownership if we want to tackle firearm crime.
The challenge facing policymakers is how to limit the spread of illegal firearms (particularly handguns) among criminals, particularly drug traffickers.
The firearm homicide rate was in decline long before the gun buyback but shooting incidents surged in certain parts of Sydney in the late 1990s.
Although the number of these incidents is relatively small and has gone down since 2000, experience in the United States suggests that when young drug traffickers start using guns to settle their differences, the result can be a dramatic escalation in the murder rate.
It doesn't follow, however, that restrictions on firearm ownership should be dropped. The gun buyback may not have had any effect on the rate of firearm homicide but any policy that permitted large increases in the supply of guns in the community could still produce untoward effects.
The Port Arthur massacre graphically demonstrated the catastrophic effects that result when the wrong people get hold of guns. This is dangerous ground and we need to tread carefully.
Don Weatherburn is director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.