so now that you see and agree that their study did reduce deaths (with no qualifiers) your objection was that because we are not an island, it would not work here. However, because you did not read to the end you missed what they meant by that.

this is the part you missed, literally the very end:

Quote :

"Australian borders are more easily controlled than in countries that have land borders. In addition, Australia’s government in general and its policing and customs services in particular are highly organized and effective. The NFA also had an extremely high degree of political support and was quite competently executed. And the buyback was accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registration of firearms. These factors should be borne in mind in considering the extent to which the results from the Australian NFA might generalize to other countries."

we have controlled borders and an organized government. They are talking about in relation to disorganized shitty European and third world countries with porous open boundaries and a disorganized government. we don't have political agreement, so yes in this atmosphere this wouldn't be passed, but that's the point of this discussion. What I am suggestion is accompanying the buy back with uniform licensing and registration and a buy-back on a large scale, I am suggesting something very similar to theirs.

so yeah, i told you it was going to bite you

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ^it was for homicides too]

1/3/2013 10:19:26 PM

^ so you think a program in a country with fewer homicides than the city of Detroit would substantially reduce murders here? A country that had a homicide rate already declining before the ban? A country where the total reduction since the ban is statistically nothing when considering the previously observed decline? A country without a huge border that effectively open and used by drug cartels to bring in narcotics and weapons? That's really your best argument that a gun ban would work well here? How about the increased violent crime in Australia since the ban? Are you going to accept that as a result of the ban as well? With such a low murder rate before the ban, there's barely even been a 10% drop!

Tell me this, what is your goal here? To effectively reduce the number of lives lost or to reduce the number of lives lost to firearms? If its the former then Australia shows that it's not really an effective solution in a country that is NOTHING like ours. If its the latter then you're not even worth talking to.

1/3/2013 10:20:21 PM

Quote :

"A country where the total reduction since the ban is statistically nothing when considering the previously observed decline?"

false

Quote :

" If its the former then Australia shows that it's not really an effective solution in a country that is NOTHING like ours."

false


If you have a problem with their methodology, lets discuss that. You guys are just ignoring it, why? Do you typically just ignore things that complicate your world view? Do you not like that maybe the NRA is not giving you the full truth? Do you think statistics are scientific gobbldy-goop?


-gun nuts

Do you see now how you all don't want, and are fighting, having a real discussion about this? There is a reason I am making fun of you, and some others are having fun at your expense. It's because you are ridiculous.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 10:22:26 PM

Quote :

"The estimated change in both firearm homicides and suicides is very large relative to their earlier averages, but confidence intervals on the estimated response of non-firearm homicides and suicides are large enough that it is not possible to rule out method substitution of a sufficient magnitude to offset the changes in firearm deaths. ... There is a question as to whether it is reasonable to suggest that a withdrawal of about 20% of the stock of firearms could have plausibly led to drops of about 74% in the firearm suicide rate and perhaps 35–50% in firearm homicide rates. It should be noted that the standard errors on these estimates are fairly large, so that estimates of the declines in firearm homicide rates are usually not statistically significantly distinguishable from no effect."

It seems to me that, they are pretty much saying you can't draw a conclusion about the buy back program and the effect on overall homicide from their study. They have some observations that indicate that the buyback may have had a positive effect, but they didn't study that and can't make a conclusion.

1/3/2013 10:33:07 PM

^^ Sorry to bust your bubble but I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't like them. I'm looking at the numbers from Australia's government. I also posted more that you ignored.

Do you accept that the increase in violent crime is a result of the gun ban?

Do you think a program in an island country can be just as effective in a country that effectively has an open border used by drug cartels to bring in narcotics and weapons?

As far as what you say is false, there has been ~15% reduction in murders in Australis since before the gun ban. In total, approximately FORTY-FIVE fewer murders. There was a downward trend that started before the gun ban. The current rate is within roughly 5% of that downward trend. What have I said that's false? Even if the gun ban was responsible for HALF of the decline, you're talking about less than 10% in a country that's nothing like ours. We're barely talking a double digit reduction in the total number of murders. You consider that significant?

Also, is your goal the reduction of murders or the reduction of gun murders?

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 10:35:00 PM

^^ those are shortcomings with a time trend study, which is why they did this more accurate and useful method and found the part that you did not paste:

Quote :

"However, two findings mitigate against the notion of substantial method substitution. First, non-firearm suicides and homicides fell substantially on aggregate in Australia in the period 1997–2006. Second, the estimated time pattern of the response of non-firearm deaths (suicides in particular) is not what we would expect to see in the case of method substitution. It is also inconsistent with suggestions, based on time series analysis, that the uptick in non-firearm suicides in the period 1997–2000 could have been a consequence of the buyback. Our results show, by contrast, that that jump occurred primarily in the states where the fewest guns were handed in, and where the gun buyback would have been expected to have the least effect. [...]"

The whole point of this is that:

Quote :

"The results in this paper—using a different and more reliable source of identification—support the general findings of those time series studies.We show that the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back. Compared to time series studies, this approach has some key benefits. First, it allows us to control for national-level trends in death rates through the use of national-level fixed effects and at the state level through state-specific time trends—the results show that, even after controlling for such trends, there was a statistically significant decline in firearm deaths in states with higher firearm buyback rates. Second, we are able to examine in more depth the time pattern of any response of deaths to the NFA—the results show that firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates fell relative to those with lower buyback rates and that this relative reduction in the firearm death rate was maintained subsequently. Finally, we use an instrumental variables strategy to allow for possible endogeneity in the gun buyback rate and find that this makes no substantive difference to the results. That the results in the baseline regression are robust to all three approaches suggests that the relationship between buyback rates and death rates is likely causal."

1/3/2013 10:40:34 PM

^^

1/3/2013 10:42:51 PM

Quote :

"we have controlled borders "

- dtownral

Hey guys. All those illegal drugs can't be from the cartel. They are all home grown. And illegal aliens/immigrants are myths. we have controlled borders, no way contrabands are being brought into the U.S. without us knowing!


Come on dude. Get out of your Utopia. It seems you are the one out of touch with reality.

The demand/market for contrabands like illegal firearms/drugs/human trafficking in the US is much, much higher than Australia. One of the many reasons Australia doesn't have these problems.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:49 PM. Reason : ,]

1/3/2013 10:47:17 PM

^^ good job at having a discussion. Thanks for finally admitting you're a troll.

1/3/2013 10:48:43 PM

Quote :

"The whole point of this is that:"

Yes yes, I read the report. And your notice in the paragraph you quoted, they are talking about firearms related deaths. The idea that a reduction in firearms reduces firearms related deaths is an idea that was acknowledged and granted in the first 5 pages of this thread. The question is whether or not a reduction in firearms has a significant effect on overall deaths and crime rates, not just firearms related ones. Your report seems inconclusive on that subject.

1/3/2013 10:50:35 PM

no, its not unclear. they find that there is no significant method substitution, no change to non-firearm deaths, and a reduction in firearms deaths. total deaths are reduced. your claim against looking at firearm deaths is that other methods will replace them, this is not unclear that methods were not substituted.

(ITT Hiro thinks that there is no smuggling or organized crime in Australia and ignores the last paragraph entirely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organised_crime_in_Australia)

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 11:20 PM. Reason : crayons man, crayons]

1/3/2013 11:16:20 PM

does the study show any trends for violent crime, home invasions, assaults, etc?

1/3/2013 11:25:04 PM

this study does not look at those. Is your argument now that we should ignore gun crimes because of non-gun crimes? And you seriously don't think that's silly?

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 11:31 PM. Reason : But thank you for taking the giant step to finally concede my point ]

1/3/2013 11:30:23 PM

no, i'm just curious about other effects. i have not been able to locate any reliable data on those crimes.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 11:35 PM. Reason : please stop putting words in my mouth]

i'd like to see post-confiscation data on assaults with and without firearms, home invasions with and without firearms, etc.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 11:37 PM. Reason : adsf]

1/3/2013 11:34:19 PM

http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/6.3/4%20-%20Guns%20and%20Violent%20Crime.pdf

Abstract
This study examines the relationship between gun availability and crime in a cross-na- tional sample of cities. Data from the International Crime Victimization Survey are used to examine three competing hypotheses. The results of the limited information maximum least squares regression analyses suggest that gun availability influences rates of as- sault, gun assault, robbery, and gun robbery. These findings suggest that increasing city levels of gun availability in this cross-national sample of cities increases the likelihood that violent crimes are committed and that guns are involved in these crimes. Impor-
tantly, these findings do not suggest that increasing gun availability reduces crime.

(and before someone posts a study, of which there are many, that gun control does not reduce crime very well let me make this clear. I agree with that, that is why I am suggesting a new path, reducing guns in circulation along with controls. Those studies do not cover my proposal, my proposal has shown to be effective at reducing gun numbers and deaths. Now here is a comparison netween guns and crime more broadly)

1/3/2013 11:37:57 PM

i'm more interested in australia at this point

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM. Reason : b/c i think that's the closest example we have to your proposal]

Quote :

"my proposal has shown to be effective at reducing gun numbers and deaths."

yeah, the threat of incarceration if you don't hand in your gun will certainly reduce gun numbers

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ads]

1/3/2013 11:38:59 PM

You got the email forward too? Cute. That's been around long enough it made Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

To answer your question, assault rose slightly through the 90's and leveled off, others dropped.


The assault increases were driven mainly by people under 15, the Australian Institue of Criminology attributed it largely "due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender."
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html

1/3/2013 11:51:42 PM

Quote :

"yeah, the threat of incarceration if you don't hand in your gun will certainly reduce gun numbers"

No, that's what money and taxes are for

1/3/2013 11:52:28 PM

Quote :

"You got the email forward too? Cute. That's been around long enough it made Snopes:"

no, never received an email. i did see a very biased video (via some gun website) about the australian confiscation that presented some data with no source, which i assumed was incorrect. i'm guessing that's what the snopes link is about.

can you please stop putting words in my mouth and assuming you know what i'm thinking?

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM. Reason : how much do you think it would take to entice the average ar-15 owner to turn his in?]

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 12:05 AM. Reason : what happened around 2001 to turn robberies around?]

1/4/2013 12:00:05 AM

I apologize, i mistook you for the person who posted that he had finished a critical reading of a 50 page document in 5 minutes. You have been very reasonable.

I enjoy guns, I support the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and I think that every human has an inalienable right to defend themselves. I also think that we have a violence problem in this country, and in addition to some real introspection about that problem, we need to look at treating the symptom. Gun controls are on,y effective at some things, and controls like the AWB are a waste of time, money, and political leverage. So far the only thing I've found that has a chance in my opinion is reducing the number of guns in circulation and better tracking the ones that are, along with some minor gun control changes I listed way back. I think a voluntary buy-back program has enough evidence considering its limited intrusion. If this was a mandatory action i would maybe want to see some more analysis too, but I think the support is sufficient for a large scale voluntary action.

Quote :

"what happened around 2001 to turn robberies around?"

Probably related to the economy, this would be around the dot com bubble

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

1/4/2013 12:12:33 AM

i'd guess the amount you'd have to pay to get enough voluntary forfeitures to have a statistically significant impact on violent crime or homicide rates would be very large. if you tried to finance this with taxes on firearm sales, the tax on a firearm would be so large that it'd be an unreasonable restriction on the 2A, imo.

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 12:45 AM. Reason : dfa]

1/4/2013 12:42:55 AM

Quote :

"While conflict between various clubs has been ever present, in 2008 the gang conflict escalated, with 13 shootings taking place in Sydney in the space of two weeks"

WAIT WHAT?! I thought Australia banned guns. How the hell did this happen.

-per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organised_crime_in_Australia

1/4/2013 1:40:59 AM

outlaws had guns

1/4/2013 2:17:13 AM

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14071-the-san-antonio-theater-shooting-the-media-ignored

1/4/2013 7:46:05 AM

Quote :

"i'd guess the amount you'd have to pay to get enough voluntary forfeitures to have a statistically significant impact on violent crime or homicide rates would be very large. if you tried to finance this with taxes on firearm sales, the tax on a firearm would be so large that it'd be an unreasonable restriction on the 2A, imo."

yeah, i tried to find some numbers for some napkin calculations but gave up, I'm okay not limiting the tax to firearm sales. another way to start would be to fund a certain amount and have a buy-back until those funds are exhausted (similar to the car buy-back). doing an initial run like this would give some information to decide if the program is worthwhile to extend.

1/4/2013 7:59:09 AM

if we assume it's all paid by taxing firearm sales, to simply break even (number bought back = number of guns sold), you'd have to collect enough from each gun sale to buy back one gun. seems to me you'd just have to double the price of every gun. does that logic make sense?

otherwise, you'd just be buying back a bunch of junk guns, which don't seem to be what folks are concerned about.

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 9:06 AM. Reason : aws]

1/4/2013 8:56:57 AM

And we're back to my buy-back program, while voluntary, includes a mechanism for funding itself by auctioning off the more valuable pieces purchased to offset the costs of buying the junk.

I am beginning to think that the violence is a symptom of a greater problem. Normally people do not kill without motive. Has anyone seen any studies that try to prove a correlation between violence/homicide/assault and other illegal activity?

1/4/2013 9:20:35 AM

I, once again, would like to say... gg duke.

1/4/2013 10:07:53 AM

Quote :

"And we're back to my buy-back program, while voluntary, includes a mechanism for funding itself by auctioning off the more valuable pieces purchased to offset the costs of buying the junk"

If this could be a self supporting model, wouldn't people already be doing it? Isn't it more likely you would get only junk, and not enough good stuff to pay the guy to sort through these guns trying to find the one gun in a million that might be worth an extra $100?

[Edited on January 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2013 10:53:37 AM

i think the destruction of collectible firearms sucks, but let the free market do its thing.

a WWII bring-back worth about $30k was turned in at a recent buy-back. it's in a museum now.

1/4/2013 11:05:01 AM

^ agreed

1/4/2013 11:24:14 AM

In the same way that private dealers were able to process cars that were sold back, I see no reason licensed gun dealers, or private clubs working through one, shouldn't be able to process buybacks also. I don't think it should be limited to them, but this would allow people to save collectibles.

1/4/2013 11:42:10 AM

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/japans-low-murder-rate-is-due-to-its-immigration-policies-not-its-gun-control/

Quote :

"Japan’s crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns. "

1/4/2013 9:23:27 PM

bye bye guns....

10 bills on the 1st day...

i would like to thank all the ignorant people blaming objects instead of the crazies wielding them.

back to the 90s and mass murders by bombings...

thanks for not fixing anything crazy people are still crazy.

remember ted?

1/4/2013 9:30:30 PM

Frontpagemag.com? Yeeaaaaahhhhh, okaaaay

studies or at least real media only

1/4/2013 9:50:48 PM

says the man who referenced wikipedia.

1/4/2013 10:15:18 PM

I've never written my elected officials before, but I just did. I don't think we need gun control, we need better mental health shit happening.

1/5/2013 9:30:51 AM

i guess now would be a good time to ask...again...for a link to the report that shows the UK and Japan have lower instances of mental health issues per capita than the US does

1/5/2013 11:35:40 AM

[Edited on January 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason : A lot of problems with those surveys though, less developed countries will be under reported]

1/5/2013 12:18:51 PM

Including substance abuse makes that chart worthless.

1/5/2013 12:56:03 PM

awesome. a chart from a 2004 report based on "research" from 2001-2003 that doesn't even cover 10% of the countries in the world and includes substance abuse.

Quote :

"Based on face-to-face diagnostic surveys in the homes of 60,463 adults,"

Quote :

"Interviewers who were not psychiatrists"

Quote :

"The most common ailments everywhere...were anxiety disorders, which include panic attacks, phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder"

Quote :

"Questions on some disorders, including bulimia and attention deficit disorders"

c'mon man

[Edited on January 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2013 12:57:30 PM

I wasn't being serious and didn't feel like scrolling up to find what the point was, but if you can be more specific about what you want to see I can look for published studies or literature reviews.

Do you want to show that there is not more mental health problems in the US than places with lower gun crime rates? Don't forget that if you are not accepting self-reporting surveys you also need to consider and control for different rates of access to mental healthcare.

Actually I'm not going to search, this is a good time for you guys to learn how to look for actual information and not a tidbit of a study that you find on a blog post. Google Scholar is a good start if you don't feel like doing a real journal search.

[Edited on January 5, 2013 at 1:29 PM. Reason : Also, you have to be more specific about what you mean by mental health problem as I pointed out ear]

1/5/2013 1:28:41 PM

On the problems with using "mental health" as your metric

Quote :

"So you shop around doctors until you find one doctor in this new gun-certification industry who is getting through as many certifications as they can who gives you a certificate. Also, what mental illnesses should disqualify someone? Caffeine-induced sleep disorder (When caffeine is consumed immediately before bedtime or continuously throughout the day, sleep onset may be delayed, total sleep time reduced, normal stages of sleep altered, and the quality of sleep decreased) is a mental illness listed in the DSM-IV. What about nicotine withdrawal, stuttering, bulimia, etc... All of these things are listed mental illnesses, should all of these people be prohibited from buying a gun? Or how about the fact that most mentally ill people (by large) will never be violent? ( mentally ill people account for just 3% to 5% of violent crimes http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deranged-and-dangerous ) If we want to do 90 day screenings, shouldn't we check for signs of violence rather than mental illness? Those would be much better indicators and have statistical support. Do we develop a standard test or leave it to the doctors? If we leave it to the doctors, isn't that what we already do except that some people never make it to a doctor? Should we require every American to see a psychologist? Being reactionary after a tragedy is how we end up with laws that erode our rights and freedoms with no or only marginal effectiveness. It's security theater to placate simple minds. 12/14/2012 6:17:44 PM "

-dtownral

The problem with using generic mental health info is that the vast majority of people with mental health problems will never be violent, you'll have to dig a lot deeper to filter that to only things that can make you more violent

1/5/2013 1:33:36 PM

On the problems with using "mental health" as your metric

Quote :

"So you shop around doctors until you find one doctor in this new gun-certification industry who is getting through as many certifications as they can who gives you a certificate. Also, what mental illnesses should disqualify someone? Caffeine-induced sleep disorder (When caffeine is consumed immediately before bedtime or continuously throughout the day, sleep onset may be delayed, total sleep time reduced, normal stages of sleep altered, and the quality of sleep decreased) is a mental illness listed in the DSM-IV. What about nicotine withdrawal, stuttering, bulimia, etc... All of these things are listed mental illnesses, should all of these people be prohibited from buying a gun? Or how about the fact that most mentally ill people (by large) will never be violent? ( mentally ill people account for just 3% to 5% of violent crimes http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deranged-and-dangerous ) If we want to do 90 day screenings, shouldn't we check for signs of violence rather than mental illness? Those would be much better indicators and have statistical support. Do we develop a standard test or leave it to the doctors? If we leave it to the doctors, isn't that what we already do except that some people never make it to a doctor? Should we require every American to see a psychologist? Being reactionary after a tragedy is how we end up with laws that erode our rights and freedoms with no or only marginal effectiveness. It's security theater to placate simple minds. 12/14/2012 6:17:44 PM "

-dtownral

The problem with using generic mental health info is that the vast majority of people with mental health problems will never be violent, you'll have to dig a lot deeper to filter that to only things that can make you more violent

1/5/2013 1:33:36 PM

which is part of my point. the other part of it being that nobody in 25 pages has done anything to show that, in the united states, it is mental health that is the problem and not the mass proliferation of firearms. yet a lot of anti-control posters here have brought it up at some point

my asking is simply to try and get any one of them to offer up some concrete proof as to what they say is the real problem in the US

[Edited on January 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2013 2:23:17 PM

^ it's more that there isn't much of anything that can be done about the mass proliferation of firearms.

Quote :

"Or how about the fact that most mentally ill people (by large) will never be violent? ( mentally ill people account for just 3% to 5% of violent crimes"

That may be the case, but they account for the great majority of mass public shootings.

1/5/2013 2:37:07 PM

And so do white males, so white males shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Or we can admit this is a terrible way to filter it.

We need gun control for more common gun crimes not mass shootings, mass shootings are statistically insignificant

1/5/2013 3:35:09 PM

Quote :

"We need gun control for more common gun crimes not mass shootings, mass shootings are statistically insignificant"

That's all I was fishing for. Let's agree to leave the black rifles alone, since even if the solution works--unlike the last time--it's at best a solution in search of a problem.

1/5/2013 5:07:57 PM

Quote :

"That may be the case, but they account for the great majority of mass public shootings."

and mass public shootings are the vast minority of firearm homicides

which is why the mental health thing is a bullshit canard that anti-control people use

[Edited on January 5, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2013 9:53:26 PM

Well, you guys wanted to ban production of black rifles as a move against mass shootings. We said, "No, if you're worried about mass shootings, that's not the smart approach."

So are we now not concerned about mass shootings anymore, which would make the black rifles OK again? What's it gonna be?

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to tighten up a few things with respect to mental health. I'd good with some additional background check stuff, too...but you are correct; mass shootings are dramatic, but nearly negligible (maybe that's the wrong word; I'm not making light of them) in number.

1/5/2013 10:33:48 PM