The Shotgun Blog
Monday, December 15, 2008
Australia's gun laws don’t reduce homicides or suicides: study
New research on Australia's gun laws published in the Sydney University journal Current Issues in Criminal Justice examines the strengths and weaknesses of a series of papers on Australia’s firearms legislation, and highlights “best-practice approaches to evidence-based policymaking.”
What is the conclusion of the report? Two things. First, there is no evidence that gun laws save lives. Second, “anti-gun extremists” rely of flimsy evidence.
According to study co-author and International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH) chair Dr. Samara McPhedran, "the studies all point in the same direction - no impact on firearm homicide, and no conclusions about firearm suicides because non-firearm suicides were also falling."
The report challenges the methodology of the available research on Australia’s gun control laws. "Sound policy relies on the quality and weight of the evidence. Our study shows that quality and weight of evidence does not come from ‘flimsy evidence appearing real.’ This is a predictable trick of anti-gun extremists, who present flawed conclusions designed to cause fear,” concluded McPhedran.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Australia's gun laws don’t reduce homicides or suicides: study:
Gun laws are about Control. The only ones who genuinely feel safer because of gun control are the legislators and politicians who want us to live in fear of them, and not the other way around.
I really hope PM Harper does repeal the long gun laws. And maybe goes a step further by letting us defend ourselves and our homes. Self defense is moral even if the government says otherwise.
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-15 5:09:28 AM
The only ones who genuinely feel safer because of gun control are the legislators and politicians who want us to live in fear of them, and not the other way around.
Posted by: JC | 15-Dec-08 5:09:28 AM
Maybe CEO's will think twice now about laying off employees.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-15 5:46:19 AM
Maybe CEO's will think twice now about laying off employees.
Posted by: The Stig | 15-Dec-08 5:46:19 AM
Again someone uses an emotional argument, so...
Again, I'll refer to logic. The disgrunteld employee could have used a knife, a car, a bat, a sharpened spoon or a firebomb to implement the attack. Criminal assault is a behaviour not a device. Perhaps the CEO should have had the option of defending himself.
There is no argument for gun control that I can't "shoot full of holes". :)
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-15 6:19:08 AM
JC-I certainly don't worry about ex-employees. If they want a piece of me, they know it's going to cost them. Besides, I'm probably the best boss they ever had.
My family's had a tradition of owning guns since 1783, when the first of us landed in Canada(before it was Canada). As an ex-soldier, he was allowed to carry any weapon he wanted. It became a tradition, if not a task, to provide meat for the community. That tradition carried on until my generation gave up the hunt.
I'll always have access to every kind of weapon, short of a machine gun. If they're banned, they'll be reported stolen. There are just too many of us for any government to ever get full control over us.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-15 8:02:59 AM
There are just too many of us for any government to ever get full control over us.
Posted by: dp | 15-Dec-08 8:02:59 AM
Thank God for that.
Did you se my post about "56 million reasons to own a gun"?
It was on another thread.
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-15 8:14:52 AM
And on the day the registry lies in ashes, I'll be buying a .44 magnum to celebrate. There's a funny thing in common with shootings; virtually all of the victims were unarmed.
"Real guns have blued steel, real guns have walnut stocks, real guns have iron sights, and if God had wanted auto pistols to be double-action, He would have had John Moses Browning invent them that way in the first place."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-12-15 8:40:05 AM
When I think of the quantity of perfectly serviceable sporting arms that were destroyed in Australia--over 650,000, many of them gold-decorated presentation models and family heirlooms--it makes me want to puke. Such is the result of legislation based on emotion instead of objective fact.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-12-15 8:44:48 AM
JC- Read it.
Shane- You need a new Delta Elite. Colt is building a new and improved model. Definitely the new light-heavyweight champ.
My uncle had a WW1 45 cal. revolver. It now belongs to my cousin. To me, it's a symbol of the horrible sacrifice we made building this country into a free nation. I'd rather see 100 politicians thrown into the incinerator, than one of those tarnished old relics.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-15 9:09:44 AM
Hoping you could clarify for us your position on inneffective and dicriminitory gun possesion laws vs inneffective and discriminatory drug possesion laws?
You believe that the state has "a duty to promote moral activity", so how do you reconcile your different opinions?
Posted by: Q | 2008-12-15 1:54:42 PM
Good question Q. I think you'll find that most people don't want freedom in a philosophical way. They just want their habits to be legal.
When the gun guys understand MJ rights and the MJ people understand gun rights, we'll be able to put the gov't on the run. The gov't will use fear to keep both parties divided.
Posted by: Duder | 2008-12-15 3:53:23 PM
Gun control doesn't work, no kidding! It's simple, criminals don't follow laws! Originally, gun control was implemented by the european elite. The goal was to keep guns away from the masses. It was fear of potential socialist uprisings that led to Britain's original gun control legislation(in 1903, 1938, and 1953). Unfortunately, all of this occurred under the Conservative Party. In Germany, you had the rise of Hitler and gun registration. In the 1960's, the left seemed to embrace gun control. In europe, this led to virtual handgun bans in Britain(Labour Party passed handgun ban), Netherlands, and Belgium. Amazingly, the Scandinavian countries are far less restrictive. Gun control legislation was passed in 1968 and 1994(assault weapons ban now repealed) in the United States. Legislation was passed in 1969(thanks Trudeau), around 1991(thanks Mulroney) and 1994(gun registry, thanks Chretrien) in Canada. In Australia, the Labor party passed laws in 1973(requiring licensing) and 1985(requiring registration). John Howard(in one of his few bad moves) supported further restrictions in 1996. This is particularly sad because until the 1980's, the shooting sports were very popular there. These restrictions did nothing to lower crime. The one big success seems to be the current U.S. approach. Long sentences(including death penalty, chain gangs, 3 strike laws)and allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons concealed or otherwise.
Posted by: Jethro | 2008-12-18 4:33:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.