Guns buyback has no effect on murder rate (Australia).

[LoginName]

Perhaps "Mumbles" could learn a lesson from this... but I doubt it.

"Guns buyback has no effect on murder rate


HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.

In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world's toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.

"I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate," she said.

The findings were clear, she said: "The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued."

Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear "who we are" and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.

The significance of the article was not who had written it but the fact it had been published in a respected journal after the regular rigorous process of being peer reviewed, she said.

Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

Dr Baker said many more lives would have been saved had the Government spent the $500 million on mental health or other programs rather than on destroying semi-automatic weapons.

She believed semi-automatic rifles should be available to shooters, although with tight restrictions such as those in place in New Zealand.

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said he was not surprised by the study. He said it showed "politicians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before".

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

 

[number9]

I think, since 1996, I remember that there was one case where it was believed that a person whom shot and killed another actually had a licensed firearm and was a sporting shooter -- virtually the only way to get a gun legally in an Australian city, and even then with massive restrictions.

Virtually every other murder was carried out with an illegal weapon, which brings up the same old story that I can't quite understand why it's continually ignored: when you have a buyback, criminals don't hand in their guns. Only law-abiding citizens do.

 

[highlander]

why leta few facts get in the way of rhetoric?

 

[Mike508]

Perhaps "Mumbles" could learn a lesson from this... but I doubt it.





http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

The ones who need to learn a lesson from this are the boneheads who keep voting Mumbles into office.

 

[drgrant]

Virtually every other murder was carried out with an illegal weapon, which brings up the same old story that I can't quite understand why it's continually ignored: when you have a buyback, criminals don't hand in their guns. Only law-abiding citizens do.

It's important to note though that in AU the "buyback" was more or less
an amnesty with a coupon carrot attached to it. The $ incentive wasnt
really an incentive- it was only a cover to make the government look like
it wasn't stealing people's property. The premise was "turn
in your guns, and we wont arrest you, and heres some cash to shut
you up about the theft of your property."


-Mike

 

[number9]

It's important to note though that in AU the "buyback" was more or less
an amnesty with a coupon carrot attached to it. The $ incentive wasnt
really an incentive- it was only a cover to make the government look like
it wasn't stealing people's property. The premise was "turn
in your guns, and we wont arrest you, and heres some cash to shut
you up about the theft of your property."


-Mike

Right, but the whole thing was predicated on the government needing to have a reaction to Pt. Arthur. So, I guess a buy-back was the best way to execute a bad idea, but it was still a bad idea nonetheless. Then again, Australia doesn't exactly have eminent domain laws like the ones that exist in the U.S. At least, until Kelo v New London was decided