MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Media Reports Australians 'Handed In' 57,000 Guns Last Year; 37,000 of Them Essentially Handed Right Back

Australia's lauded 1996 gun buyback also likely had no real effect on its gun death rates.

The Washington Post tells us today that "As U.S. gun debate rages on, Australians hand in 57,000 firearms."

bubbletea1 on Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SAbubbletea1 on Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

The story says that Australians "handed over 57,000 illegal firearms between July and September last year during a gun amnesty. In total, more than 35,000 rifles and more than 12,000 shotguns were turned in, among other firearms."

Given the context the Post itself provides—that the U.S. gun debate is now largely about semi-automatic rifles—it's worth noting that, according to the actual "National Firearms Amnesty 2017" report, only 2,417 were semi-automatic weapons, a far smaller number in this "amnesty" than air rifles, accounting for 4,816. (The report says 162 of the "guns" handed in were "imitation.")

That language of the Post headline implies, and nothing in the remainder of either story clarifies further, that citizens in Australia no longer have those 57,000 guns. That is the normal meaning of the phrase "turned in." But as the National Firearms Amnesty report explains, over 37,000 of those guns were merely being officially registered or even sold; only 20,000 of them, around a third of the headline-grabbing number, are actually being taken out of circulation.

In 1996, Australia famously reacted to a mass shooting in Port Arthur by initiating a ban and buyback on many kinds of semi-automatic and other (but by no means all) guns. That ban, like all gun bans, has been widely flouted.

It's understandable that Australia should interest those wondering if legal measures can curb gun violence and deaths. As a 2008 study from the Melbourne Institute (part of the University of Melbourne) on the effects of Australia's gun control measures after Port Arthur started by noting that

Australia's 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which involved the buyback and destruction of over 600,000 guns within a few months, is one of the most massive government adjustments to gun control regulations in the developed world in recent history. The extent of the buyback and accompanying swift nationwide change in the firearm regulatory environment following the enactment of the NFA (prohibition on certain types of firearms, registration requirements etc.) makes this policy a natural experiment in which the results of a methodical evaluation would be extremely interesting...

And their rough conclusion?

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.

The authors came to this conclusion after examining, using a variety of statistical techniques, nearly a century of homicide and suicide data, gun and non-gun, looking for "structural break points" that would indicate some policy or other change was clearly affecting the rates. They did not find any for any period around or after the NFA.

They concluded, "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public's fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."

Those who imagine Australia just manned up and removed any means for Australians to harm each other with guns should also note that Small Arms Survey data from 2007 (the last year the organization seems to have attempted a full world survey of civilian arms ownership) had Australia ranked number 26 among the nations of the world in terms of total civilian firearm ownership. It is quite misleading for Americans to assume that "buyback" means "a nation without guns," or even "a nation without lots and lots of guns in private hands." Over 3 million such remained according to that survey, around 16 per 100 people.

A 2006 Injury Prevention study finds a decline in firearm homicides had already begun in Australia before the buyback. It also finds that the decline in percentage terms did increase post-buyback. The study said "the rate of firearm homicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, [and] this increased to 7.5% per year after the introduction of gun laws. However, the ratio of trend estimates failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.15) because of the low power inherent in the small numbers involved."

At any rate, the study also says, "conclusions regarding causality of the association must remain interpretive rather than definitive."

Knowing that one element caused another rather than just being associated with it is always going to be tricky and undefinitive with the best possible information and social science correlation techniques. If that sounds absurd to you—why, of course if the firearm homicide rate went down in a countable even if non-"statistically significant" way after such a major change in law, the law deserves credit—it's worth looking at a country that ranks number one in civilian firearm ownership, has had no comparable buyback attempted, and also saw its firearm homicide rate fall by half in the two decades from 1993 to 2013. That country is, of course, the United States.

We have, then, seen dives in Western nation firearm homicides that had nothing to do with anything like a buyback. To conclude Australia's diminution in gun deaths was caused by that buyback and would not or could not have happened without it is to conclude more than available facts support.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They concluded, "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public's fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."

    But how did it make people feel? That's the true measure of a successful public policy.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Safer." According the the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Something something intermediate scrutiny.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I have heard and been told directly that the NFA changes in Australia were mainly designed to address public mass shootings like the one in Port Arthur, and they haven't had one since, so it's considered a success. Mundane gun crime and overall firearm deaths is irrelevant.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly. The buyback stopped mass shootings in Australia, and a similar buyback would stop mass shootings in the US. Correlation is causation.

  • ||

    The buyback stopped sensationalist reporting of mass shootings in Australia, and a similar buyback would stop mass shootings in the US. Correlation is causation.

    Plenty of stuff has happened in Australia, since the ban and including weapons covered by the ban that fall well inside the '18 mass/school shootings in 8 weeks' narrative.

  • sarcasmic||

    Way to piss on my sarcastic parade, asshole.

  • ||

    Sorry, I sold my old sarc-o-meter in a buyback program.

  • Palatki||

    Yeah, and it didn't end or even decrease mass sarcasms.

  • KevinP||

    It is unlikely that Australia's mass confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens actually had anything to do with reducing massacres:

    Justice Policy Journal: Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand


    Quote:
    The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.
  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hobbits don't mass kill people.

  • Thrackmoor||

    Especially after second breakfast.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Any country that encourages second breakfast is never going to have a mass shooting.

  • markm23||

    I first encountered "second breakfast" in German. I don't know if Germany has had mass shootings, but second breakfast is not incompatible with militarism and extermination camps.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Mundane gun crime. I recall Jay Carney calling that "every day sorts of crimes,"

  • FlameCCT||

    Or the Chicago way! They don't call it Chiraq for nothing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thanks for doing an article on this.

  • Brian||

    No one wants to take your guns away.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Liar

  • DiegoF||

    Wait, do people want to take our guns away?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    No, they are trying to take people away from guns.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Proggies want to take your guns.

    But they will lie to your face that they do not.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Well... to the extent that pro-death altruists qualify... Totalitarian SYSTEMS definitely prefer disarmed victims.

  • Ariel||

    Absolutely (not to the 'pro-death altruists', whatever that means). But Unitary Constitutional Monarchies like New Zealand and Constitutional Monarchies with a Federal system like Australia do want to limit access to guns, especially handguns. NZ allows long arms but handguns are severely restricted, Australia is just less severe. It isn't either armed or disarmed, it's a matter of degree. And frankly...

    It's a matter of culture...the USA having a real problem with its culture. The murder rates in Oz and Kiwiland are 1/4 of ours and that can't be explained away by gun control because they have knives, machetes, tire irons, and maybe that 18 inch breaker bar, and anger. The mass murders can, but they're just blips in the murder rate with the USA having most of the blips which then goes back to culture.

  • KevinP||

    No one wants to ban guns. Ever! It's a crazy and paranoid idea!

    New York City is advising rifle and shotgun owners that if their registered firearms
    meet the new definition of an "assault weapon", they must surrender them immediately. Note that the assault weapon definition in NYC includes .22 rifles with tube magazines that can hold more than 5 rounds.
    And the New York Daily News celebrates:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opi.....-1.1540358

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013.....ns-rifles/


    Quote:
    The demand came in the form of some 500 letters mailed out to owners of registered long guns that are in violation of a 2010 city ordinance. The first option for the letter's recipient is to, "Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct…
  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Rudy Giuliani did a pretty good job of gun grabbing in NYC in the 90s. Didn't bode well for minorities and their neighborhoods.

  • zazoo||

    Rudy Giuliani? "America's Mayor" and leading Republican. ?

    I didn't know he was a 'proggie'.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    No one wants to take your guns away.

    This goddamn gaslighting bullshit by Progtards needs to fucking STOP most ricky-fucking-tick.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    non-"statistically significant" way after such a major change in law, the law deserves credit—it's worth looking at a country that ranks number one in civilian firearm ownership, has had no comparable buyback attempted, and also saw its firearm homicide rate fall by half in the two decades from 1993 to 2013. That country is, of course, the United States.

    Two points on this... even if deaths had gone up, it would be written off with a "but-for" argument. A good example of this logic is safe injection site "Insite" in Vancouver. Overdose deaths in Vancouver took a brief dip after Insite was open. Insite took credit. Overdose deaths have now gone through the roof, Insite still takes credit, indicating they'd be much worse if it weren't for Insite.

    Secondly, I do believe that there are two visions for gun control-- one, a general vision to get guns out of the hands of everyone to stop shootings overall, and the other more focused on "mass shootings", namely the types we see in Columbine or Florida (the most recent). I'm not sure if those in the second group even care if it doesn't stop the occasional gang-banger from spraying a corner in a turf dispute.

  • colorblindkid||

    Mass shootings are

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They are indeed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ...impossible to prevent?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    If you don't support the National School Walk Out [still trying to find our exactly who is behind this] and support banning whatever should be banned, you clearly hate children. False dichotomy schmotomy.

  • BYODB||

    I remember high school, even though it was a long time ago in a universe far, far away. If a 'walk out' was based on the idea that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, students would still walk out and claim it was for that 'good cause'.

    In reality, it's just because if you all walk out the school system has a tough time punishing individuals and students generally don't want to be in school. Shocking, right?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I used to "walk out" of school several times a week when I was in high school.

  • Ron||

    Back in the 70's whenever there was a walk out at our high school if we didn't go party at the river we went to work.

  • FlameCCT||

    Although the schools have an easy way to fix the missed day(s) of a walkout, extend the school year.

  • markm23||

    That's pretty expensive. Teacher contracts must give them more pay if they work more days, and they have to keep the lights and air conditioning on longer.

  • DiegoF||

    It's a bunch of prog orgs, right? Mostly having nothing to do with guns whatsoever, exposing the increased polarization of our times. Like Planned Parenthood knows that nowadays the only Republicans who want anything to do with them are hardcore may-I-speak-with-your-manager suburban soccer mom types, and that anyone who cares about the right of anyone but cops to even own a flintlock musket probably already loathes PP even if they are slightly to the left of Kermit Gosnell on abortion. So they might as well join together (along with Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, of course) and energize each other in some sort of perverse bizarro version of the old "conservative coalition." Such are the times we live in.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    If they walked out and never came back, the problem would be solved

  • ||

    I'm not sure if those in the second group even care if it doesn't stop the occasional gang-banger from spraying a corner in a turf dispute.

    Given that the Australian buyback is held up as the model, you're pretty safe in saying that they don't even care if it stops mass shootings or school shootings. There have been plenty of incidents since 1996 that would meet the full definition of a mass or school shooting in the United States (unless you specifically stipulate semi-automatic AR-15, or assault style weaponry). The fact that the people touting the Australian model either don't know this or don't care speaks for itself.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Less guns, less crime. That is their mantra and details are just niggling.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    RACIST!!!111111!!111!!!11!!!1!!!!!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    nig·gle
    ˈniɡəl/Submit
    verb
    gerund or present participle: niggling
    cause slight but persistent annoyance, discomfort, or anxiety.
    "a suspicion niggled at the back of her mind"
    synonyms: irritate, annoy, bother, provoke, exasperate, upset, gall, irk, rankle with; More
    find fault with (someone) in a petty way.
    "colleagues say he loved to niggle and criticize people"
    synonyms: complain, quibble, nitpick, fuss, carp, cavil, grumble, gripe, grouse, moan
    "he niggles about the prices"

  • Earth Skeptic||

    What up, Niggle?

  • MichaelL||

    That made me laugh!

  • Bubba Jones||

    No one cares about Africa.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Of course not.

    That sort of thing only happens to people of color.

    Sinve when did they matter to the antigun cult?

  • colorblindkid||

    Does anybody actually think if there was a voluntary buyback program, even if they gave $500/gun, that any more than 2% of the "assault rifles" in America would be turned in? Do you think any of those people would have been the ones to shoot people with their "assault rifle"?

  • albo||

    NY's SAFE act got what, 10 percent compliance on existing assault rifles being called in for registration? Imagine what the percentage would be in a red state.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The last I saw it was about 4%.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    For what it's worth, take out NYC and NY is a gun loving, red leaning state.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    You'd probably also need to take out the state capital.

  • FlameCCT||

    Connecticut tried banning assault rifles and got nowhere. Most owners said no and most sheriffs refused to enforce the law. LMAO

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    From what I've read, the compliance rate in Australia has been estimate to be less than 20%; not so different from NY and CT.

  • Bubba Jones||

    $500 is about the minimum you can pay for a new AR. It hits $1000 pretty quickly with features and some are well beyond that.

    However, the serialized lower receiver is as cheap as $40.

    So, what part are they going to buy?

  • Thrackmoor||

    I have a few lowers in that range... I'd sell them back at $500 a pop.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You can get PMAGS for $89.99 for 10; I have a schload of them already but seriously consider buying a shit load as they may be worth several times that, with receipt showing they are "pre ban"

  • markm23||

    For $500, you'd only get broken guns. A new AR-15 will cost at least twice that, and a little care will keep it in operating condition for a century.

  • Rebel Scum||

    One cannot "buy-back" what one never owned in the first place. It was a confiscation.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Mandatory buy back; there, fixed that for you.

  • sparkstable||

    Still not right. It would be a mandatory selling. You are mandated to sell your firearm. The govt would have had to previously owned a particular gun for it to be a buy-BACK.

  • A_Spellman||

    Remember - To a lefty, everything is owned by the state.....everything

  • NYC2AZ||

    Not taking is giving dontchaknow.

  • albo||

    Nonsense. Everyone I argue with on the Internet says that it worked in Australia and it can work here.

    Does the author want more dead kids? You do, don't you?!

  • DD2TT||

    The author's right to free speech is more important to him than the lives of children!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Get on board, the bandwagon is leaving the station.

  • FlameCCT||

    I would note that Australia had a major increase in violent crime and homicide by other weapons when they instituted the ban yet the USA continued to see decreases in all areas. I would also note that the stats don't show mass murder using other weapons. So everyone you argue with is arguing apples vs. oranges; they are only focused on one weapon while evil will choose any weapon and prefers defenseless victims.

    I know it won't help when arguing with Progressive Plantation serfs who believe the propaganda just like Iraqis believed Baghdad Bob.

  • BYODB||

    I highly suggest that everyone go out and do a search for 'Australian Biker Gang Homemade Guns' or something like it. Some of the guns those random bikers built at home are pretty amazing and look professionally made.


    Of course, everyone knows that guns are holy objects that can only be manufactured by anointed magical brand names. An individual could never build and use something that's been out of the scientific 'box' since circa 1400-1500 A.D.


    /sarc

  • flyfishnevada||

    Better start buying back hand tools...

  • LarryA||

    You don't even have to live in the first-world. See "The Gun Markets of Pakistan."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE

  • FlameCCT||

    Philippines are also known for their high quality ghost guns, especially 1911s.

  • ||

  • sparkstable||

    That was such a good read. Very thorough analysis of the relevant stats. Thanks for the post... gonna have to drop some knowledge on my co-worker.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Nice link, thanks.

  • Karl Hungus||

    The most thoughtful, cogent argument I've read in a good long while on why gun bans don't work and why more guns ≠ more crime. Thank you so much for finding this.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Same answer as for Nationalsocialist Germany after Kristallnacht. Gassing, lynching, starving and beating people to death don't count in "gun violence" statistics unless the victims dare to use firearms to resist.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Thanks for the link; it is not part of my permanent data base to use as I feel like annoying progs with what they most hate: FACTS

  • markm23||

    First off, why focus on "gun violence" rather than "violence"?

  • TxJack 112||

    Yours is a play on words. Gun violence may be less but overall violent crime has risen dramatically. I love how people like you carefully parse words to make your point seem legitimate when in truth it is smoke and mirrors.

  • KevinP||

    Those who want to emulate the Australian gun ban in American must also
    support increasing the rate of rape and other violent crime in America?

    NCPA: Australia: More violent crime despite gun ban


    --Begin Quote:
    Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    * Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    * During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    * Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
    * Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    * At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    * Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
  • Bubba Jones||

    Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

    Is that because they have free college or somesuch?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Win.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Last time I saw stats for violent crime, almost every single EU country had double or triple the US rate. France, the UK, several others were four times as high.

    No one mentions those stats to emulate. Only the nanny government which created them.

  • silver.||

    People like to tout the UK's exceedingly low amount of gun crime, never mentioning the immensely higher rate of overall crime, rape, and assault.

    Even if the absolute-minimum estimate of ~70,000 defensive uses a year in the US is correct (and it's not - everyone I know who's used a gun defensively hasn't reported anything), does "eliminating" the ~7,000 murders justify whatever bad things would happen to those 70,000 people? Everyone assumes that they were muggings where people lost a cell phone and $20...

    I honestly just don't know how I'm going to find the patience to not slap everyone I know in the coming months. Even my best friends are calling me an accomplice to murder, and they're just wrong. They're totally wrong. I've been learning about gun rights my entire life; they started 2 weeks ago, and everything they've learned is a damn lie.

    I don't know how many MSM articles I've read about mass shooters using "automatic" weapons. Holy shit. There have been 3 murders with legally-obtained full-autos ever, and 2 of those were cops. It takes 2 seconds to search that.

    I hope I get shot so I don't have to keep dealing with this nonsense. It probably won't kill me, but I have a 35x greater chance of dying from a medical mistake in the hospital after it happens.

  • TxJack 112||

    In the UK, the number of attacks and deaths as a result of edged weapons has increased 389% in the past five years. People are still being killed, just not with guns. In addition, more are killed because they are helpless to defend themselves.

  • Hell Hound||

    It's amazing that some people want more laws, but complain about too much law enforcement. It's also funny that they want to pass laws that every knows will be ineffective. If someone is hell bent on shooting up a school they are gonna find a way. Banning any weapon isn't gonna work, Can't eradicate every weapon from the face of the planet. Law enforcement doesn't even take away the weapons from criminals now, what makes people think that more laws will make them start. If law makers had the guts they would look at immigration since most of the mass shootings were committed by first or second generation immigrants. Look it up.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • silver.||

    Great picture, better website.


    - 254,839 federal salaries were redacted in the federal civil service payroll (just 3,416 salaries were redacted in FY2016).
    - $20 billion in estimated payroll now lacks transparency.
    - A 7,360 percent increase in opacity hides one out of every five federal salaries.
    - [~$78,000 average per redacted salary -- $30,000 more than nat'l average]

    A fact every I post a lot because every tax-paying American should know: 5 Richest Counties are D.C. Suburbs

    Yes a minority of those are federal contractors, but is that really any better?

    Now get back to work, serfs.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "It's amazing that some people want more laws, but complain about too much law enforcement. It's also funny that they want to pass laws that every knows will be ineffective."

    To be honest, I find the people who claim to want smaller government and fewer laws, but practically worship law enforcement to be far more amazing, and not in a good way.

  • Raoul Duke||

    I know it shouldn't surprise me, but it still pisses me off to see such flat out dishonest reporting.

    "Democracy dies in darkness."

    No, assholes. Democracy dies when you (and others) lie and omit and exaggerate to push an agenda that is not based in reality or liberty.

  • ||

    One could argue democracy itself is the indication of the death of a nation.

  • Brian Richard Allen||

    .... In 1996, Australia's federal government infamously overreacted to the action of a single mass murderer and initiated what it called a "gun buyback."

    Or, more accurately, a mass confiscation of the privately owned guns of hundreds of thousands of Australians, Not one of whom had committed mass murder at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

    A mass confiscation that included 9 of my family's weapons - all antiques - that were worth a considerable amount of money but for which we received not a Cent!

    A mass confiscation that I recall was at the time remarked upon along the lines that a man's participating in a government gun "buy back," because the government said the criminals had too many guns was surely similar to his emasculating himself because the government said his neighbors had too many kids.

  • Raoul Duke||

    And this is why, if anyone asks, my guns were all lost in an unfortunate boating accident.

  • silver.||

    Indeed. Every body of water in America will need to be dredged to find the ~150mil firearms that fell overboard.

  • Hell Hound||

    Who is telling lies? I said look it up. Fort Hood, Pulse Night Club, San Bernadino and VA Tech just off the top of my head. Plus you have the whole immigrant with a bomb deal too. Some countries just don't like us much. Just saying.

  • Tony||

    Doherty... never take without a tall Snopes chaser.

  • NYC2AZ||

  • Hank Phillips||

    Australia is the transportee nation that enabled Brazilian National Socialism to perpetrate a similar fraud. As the FRD "bank holiday" or 1933 meant forcible closing, confiscation of gold and men with guns enforcing prison terms and huge fines, so these "buybacks" are the leper's bell of the approaching Kristallnacht law and Commando Order. Australia's gunpoint election law, once entrenched, led to the anti-libertarian "ranked preference" voting none of the rubes understand in Oz. The gun grab was imported into Brazil as "from the First World!" The Nixon anti-libertarian law, as copied by Brazil, means 16 tax-subsidized communist parties and another 16 tax-subsidized nationalsocialist and Italian fascist parties all blaring propaganda from the telescreens. Whee!

  • ||

    In Mother USA guns are walked or run back.

  • FlameCCT||

    Don't forget to look at the increase in violent crime and homicide by other weapons in Australia and UK after the gun bans were put in place yet the USA continued to decrease in violent crime, homicide by other weapons, and homicide by firearms during the same time period. With the exception of some outliers like Chicago, the remainder of the USA is on par with other nations including the UK and Australia for homicide rates and violent crime.

    In just the past year, the UK has had 3 mass murder events with much higher numbers of deaths and injured however these are never mentioned because they weren't firearm events, they were bladed weapons and explosives. Evil will always choose an available weapon and defenseless victims.

  • ||

    "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."

    Sounds like Canada when the AG found the gun registry and gun control as a whole has no real impact relative to the obscene cost.

    But keep hanging on to shadows.

  • TxJack 112||

    If you use the same definition of mass shooting for both countries (not the bogus one used by gun control groups), Australia is actually more violent. Between 1979 and 1996, Australia had 19 mass shootings. Between 1979 and present day, the US has had 49. Australia is a country of @28 million. The US is 11 times larger than Australia in population so to compare raw numbers is apples and oranges. If you make a fair comparison and assume Australia has a mass hooting rate of 19 per every 30 million, then the actual number would be 209 mass shootings or more than 5x the number in the US. However, if you do a valid comparison and compare Australia to Texas (which also has @28 million residents and "lax gun laws" according to the left), the numbers are even clearer. Texas has had 4 mass shootings between 1979 and present day. So again Australia has a mass shooting rate five times greater than Texas. Texas is a state with concealed carry, open carry and campus carry and yet has less mass shootings than California which highly restricts concealed carry and prohibits the other two. In Texas, your car is considered an extension of your home so you are permitted to care a firearm without a license. It is also legal to carry a long gun without a license except is certain locations.

  • TxJack 112||

    in the 1970s and 80s there were few, if any school shootings. In the 1990s, schools shootings became a problem that exists to this day. What changed? Simple, social engineering in schools. Before 1990, schools accepted there are winners and losers. There were no participation trophies and people were permitted to say what they believed without fear of punishment, even if it offended others. School shootings are the result of raising multiple generations who think "everything in life is fair" and when it is not, they get angry. In addition, schools have emasculated males by denying the reality of how teen boys think and act. In the 70s and 80s, when you got bullied, you had tow choices, take the harassment or beat the crap out of the person doing it. Today, hitting another student will get you expelled. It used to be when two boys fought, when it was over they shook hands and walked away. Today, situations are left unresolved until one of them decides to use a gun....

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online