Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is always this report released less than 2 months ago...

For immediate release 15 September 2008

The Jury’s In: $700 million plus spent on Australia’s gun buy-backs
has had no effect on firearm deaths


Topic: The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths, Dr Wang-Sheng Lee and Dr Sandy Suardi, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.


The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA) Inc has welcomed the findings of a Melbourne Institute paper that concludes the high expenditures incurred to fund the 1996 and 2003 Australian gun buy-backs have not translated into ‘any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths’.

The authors Dr Lee, a professional researcher, and Dr Suardi, a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne, examined all prior research on the buy-backs and applied numerous scientifically accepted statistical tests to data emanating from as far back as World War One.

The authors have no vested interest in their findings and no affiliations with any previous authors on the subject.

Not only do the authors find that there has been no tangible reduction in homicide, but they also find there has been no effect on suicide rates in Australia because of the buy-backs, initiated by the then Prime Minister John Howard in 1996 to ‘make Australia a safer community’.

Of course, the findings are of no surprise to the SSAA, which has long decried the buy-backs as nothing more than political ploys to placate an uneducated public’s fears.

With the benefit of more than 10 years hindsight and statistics available since the initial buy-back in 1996 now available to academics, the jury on the effectiveness of buying and destroying legal firearms from law-abiding and licensed sporting shooters is in. It is a shameful waste of public money.

At the time of the 1996 buy-back, the SSAA urged back that the money would be better spent on mental health initiatives. Unsurprisingly, research from the government’s own agencies has shown time and time again, that it is the mentally ill and the criminals who perpetrate acts of violence with firearms, not the licensed sporting shooter.

Our only hope is that today’s politicians of all persuasions have learnt from the lessons of the past and will think twice about targeting and persecuting licensed shooters for the acts of the criminal or mentally ill.

For a .pdf version of The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths by Dr Wang-Sheng Lee and Dr Sandy Suardi, go to http://www.ssaa.org.au/capitalnews/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf

For national-based SSAA queries, contact:

Tim Bannister
SSAA National Federal Parliamentary Lobbyist
[email protected]
www.ssaa.org.au
 
The argument is that preventing everybody from possessing firearms is better for society as a hole. Note this model doesn't take into consideration the individual.

The only problem is that a study conducted by the Center for Disease Control, a Harvard study & many real world examples continually prove that is not the case. The anti's continue to use deceit and lie to promote their agenda.
 
Gun control does NOTHING to reduce crime. All it does is make it harder for the law abiding to legally arm themselves and easier for the criminal to ply their "trade" The criminals will get guns. Bans encourage the black market. Remember Prohibition?
 
Interesting how this study is done by professionals using thorough methods; meanwhile, the "anti" crowd usually states one or two statistics which only superficially seem relevant but a simple logical analogy usually show it to be a weak form of evidence.

Of course, that is the difference between anti's and responsible firearm owners. One uses logic, the other does not; I'm sure we can all identify the more logical crowd.
 
I posted it for a couple of reasons.

First, I was very busy but needed to find a rebuttal for that particular article ASAP and I knew that my friends at THR would shred this article before I could spell Google.

Secondly, I thought it would be a good discussion and I wanted to see what directions it took. I expected that inconsistency, exaggerations etc. between the anti “logic” of 2000 and 2008 would be brought to light.


BTW: I have been a member hear for over 5years...you didn't think I was a Troll did you? I was completely unaware of the hubub going on between http://www.thehighroad and http://www.thehighroad.US until this a.m.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top