By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 11 November 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
curl-6 said:
Kasz216 said:
curl-6 said:
Kasz216 said:

 

Guns bans successful in lowering both gun homicide and gun suicide rates in Australia:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_media.pdf

"their findings discount a previous study in the British Journal of Criminology in 2006, which found the buyback had no impact on either gun homicide or suicide rates."

"models used in that study [the ones that found no reduction] were not appropriate and results were  inconsistent."


Have you read the actual study or are you just supporting it because it fits in view with what you want to believe?

I noted you quoted the press release instead of the study.

Why it's often discounted?

They use gun buyback rate per capita in each state... without controlling for number of guns in each state.  

As opposed to gun buyback rate as a percentage of gun ownership.

Reduced gun homicides and suicides followed the introduction of semi-auto control, while non-firearm homicide remained stable for the same period.

But this is going nowhere. We'll each google studies that support our side, and argue round in  circles, and neither of us will change our opinion.

I'm happy to live in a country where guns are controlled, and I assume you're happy to live in one where they're not.

Actually no.  That's not true.  You either didn't read the study and look at the statistics or didn't understand them.

Non-homicide rate also dropped over the same period... and all three led the gun control measures.

 

Additionally, Non-gun sucicide INCREASED after the gun ownership ban, as the study noted, the increase was over 100% the amount of the loss in gun suicide rates after a few years.

 

Since you got this wrong, i feel like I might need to explain why the study was flawed more in depth.

 

The study you cited stated the buyback effected crime because the raw number of guns bought back saw the highest reductions of violent crime.  Even though those areas weren't the biggest percentages of guns bought back.  

 

Also, they actually walk back the claims on homicide

"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"

 

Which usually in the science community would mean "There is no effect".  

 

If you want to press a point though......

 

If you actually read the study you googled... I think this very much could go somewhere, as you can note the faults first hand.

You're selectively picking and choosing only the data that supports your predetermined opinion and looking for excuses to try to discredit anything that contradicts you.

If you only ever examine one side of an issue, you can make a compelling argument that the earth is flat.