I didn't dismiss it. I stated what he provided and implied it was inadequate.

I literally just wrote that there are opposing papers. I hope you don't think putting opposing papers up is some sort of "gotcha" moment.

"Are you calling them liars?"

No. Are you calling the authors of the papers I've put up liars? I'm sure you can see how silly a question that is now it's put back at you.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%"

I haven't been talking about suicide - but if you must then yes, it dropped the suicide by firearm rate. I never contended otherwise.

"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]"

43% variance is large. The reality is the data isn't very good (as multiple studies have pointed out) and it makes it very hard to measure, analyse, and draw appropriate conclusions.

"NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

Note the language, "seems to have". They aren't affirming that it has because they probably can't back it up with solid data.

"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings"

Again, non-concrete affirmations. The same data sets as analysed by multiple other studies points to no change in the rate. Are any of them liars? I doubt it.

I believe the McPhedron paper is one of the most important, illustrating that some of the key legislative changes had no effect when comparing it to our closest cultural neighbour who didn't legislate the same changes (and maintained a lower overall average homicide rate and lower average homicide by firearm rate for the last 20 years).

As I already wrote, it's a contentious issue and there are opposing papers on this topic.

Snopes included excerpts from at least two peer reviewed studies directly on topic that seem to contradict your contention....why dismiss it offhand?

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review in 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

Are you calling them liars?

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Wow, that a fascinating statistic you pulled out of your ass.

Let's see what literally THREE FUCKING SECONDS of searching on Google produces

(search term: "Australia homicide rate")

Oh, look!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2016~Main%20Features~Victims%20of%20Crime,%20Australia~3

Aaaaand I quote:

"Across Australia, the number of victims of Murder decreased by 4% between 2015 and 2016, from 236 to 227 victims

A weapon was used in 69% of Murders (157 victims). A knife was twice as likely to have been recorded as the murder weapon (71 victims), when compared to a firearm (32 victims). (Table 4)"

So there was a DECREASE in the murder rate in 2017. Furthermore, of 227 murders, only -32- were from firearms, or ~14%.

Let's look at mass shootings in Aussieland.

Oh, that's right, we can't: BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE!

How about the good ol' USA where any idiot can purchase a gun?

In 2016, there were 10,182 murders by firearms. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/). A total of 17,250 people were reported killed in the US in 2016, with the number of murders increasing by about 8.6% in comparison to 2015. (https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/)

Let's see here: ~14% of the murders is your maligned Antipodes were committed with a firearm and the murder rate was down while ~60% of the murders here in the US were committed with a firearm and the murder rate is up.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

Oh, yeah, there's this as well:

https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And a nb: I know you're going to howl and wail that Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the US and people are getting mowed down there left, right and center.

From NPR:
(https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work)

"A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns."

(actual study here: http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JCrimLC%202015%20Guns%20in%20Chicago.pdf )

In conclusion: maybe do a little research next time, hmm?

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.

Sorry, automatics, machine guns, are already illegal without a Federal Firearms License, so not available to the general public Pat. I think you know this and are playing dumb to sound reasonable. The recent school shooting was with a semi auto, as are most, nearly all, mass shootings.
That's not just semantics.
Saying bump stocks and other rapid fire devices aren't the same as full auto modifications (which the law does)...that's semantics.

Your video, Why Japan Has No Mass Shootings, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I like how he mentioned the inability of the CDC, due to regulations, to gather a comprehensive database on gun violence. As that seems to be an oft to ignored law. Undo that law, let the CDC gather all the various data points into one set, and then let that set be used for analysis. A gun used to commit a robbery, rape or other violent crime? That needs to be reported to the CDC database, along with any details known such as gun source, legality etc. A gunshot victim gets treated at a hospital or clinic, that gets reported to the CDC database along with cause, which in most cases is accidental. Suicide by gun, homicide by gun, mass shooting, all get put into that database. That data then can be used by all sides to support their cause, perhaps it will show that many of the proposed regulations would have little effect. I suspect, however, the fact that the gun lobby fights so hard to prevent the CDC from gathering the data for others to use, means they fear it will be far less favorable to their side.

I personally would be happy enough for now though for this step to be taken. So that we aren't making choices based on incomplete data and conjuncture.

I personally support the right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense. I'm not sure how an AR-15 or something like that would be useful in either case, short of an unrealistic scenario of a zombie apocalypse... and before the right-wingnuts suggest self-defense of in case of a military invasion, or from some odd right-wing fantasy of our own military, let me remind you of how well even better weapons and training worked out for the Branch Davidians. Admittedly, a military invasion scenario of either type is more likely than a zombie or otherwise apocalypse, but exceedingly low... Now if Trump gets us into WW3, and we lose power for years, and it becomes survival of the fittest, then there may be an argument, the solution to that, of course, is don't get the world into that situation with idiots like him at the wheel.

Mass=4
4 or more shot = mass shooting.
Derived from 4 or more shot to death=mass murder. (Amended to 3 by congress in 2013)
You may differ with that definition, most people don't. This is from the legal, federal definition of the term mass murder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

This was not the 500th mass shooting. You are using an unusable definition that shuts down debating anything on true mass shootings. Most people consider mass shooting to be the killing of innocent people indiscriminately - usually in a public place. Using such an overreaching definition just starts losing its intended meaning. It also shuts down dialog. I own guns. I support practical regulations. I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder. I can see regulations and restrictions on guns - safety courses, etc on saving lives, but not preventing crime and murder.

Knee jerk?! As if this wasn't beyond the 500th mass shooting in under 2 years, 1516 in 1735 days.
That's a total bullshit position, along with "this isn't the time" arguments. When mass shootings happen daily, pretending we must wait for a shooting free month, season, year before we can rationally tackle the issue is asinine. We can't make it 1/2 week without 3.
I agree, all those things you mention factor into the issue, but the easiest, simplest, most effective tool, proven effective in multiple cases, is gun control, and it is the best return for your investment, as it's by far the cheapest. (I own guns).
People intent on mass murder may not be deterred, but they are absolutely, unequivocally hindered by regulations from causing exponentially more damage. It's just retarded that some people don't grasp that fact and instead continue to advocate for fewer regulations....as if he wouldn't have purchased a Vulcan cannon if he could have.

Cars drive and kill. True. And all the regulations he mentioned didn't stop one crazy guy hopping in a truck and saying "fuck you" and mowing down a hundred people. This is an important point because he's talking about firearm regulation in the context of mass shootings, and that firearm regulation will lessen or prevent these mass shootings - which he then compares to mass murder by vehicle, and vehicle regulation - regulation which clearly failed to stop any sort of purposeful mass murder by vehicle. Vehicle regulation is to lessen the impact of accidents and provide the government with a revenue stream through taxes. If vehicle regulation was to stop mass murder by vehicle, and you were to use Australia's firearm laws as a blueprint, you wouldn't be driving to work tomorrow.

The scary thing is, cars have killed more people by accident over the last 50 years in the USA than firearms have on purpose. That's how truly dangerous they are. If people woke up and realised they are a fantastic killing machine, then you'd start to see an increase in the incidence of mass vehicle killings... oh wait.

The reality is, from a public health discourse, there are plenty of things that kill at higher rates than firearms. The difference is that firearms are sometimes used to murder people and as far as we know most medical malpractice, car crashes, etc. are accidental. They are emotively tackled very differently.

PS: I'm not arguing against some firearm regulations being introduced in America. I'd use a modified version of New Zealand legislation (which allows for semi-auto long arms, high capacity magazines, etc.). I'd add self defense as a reason to own, and add concealed carry permits for those willing to do a course (with the catch that they would become a form of quasi-deputy of the state - so there would be hurdles to jump to get this permit).

1. Mass shootings are <1% of the murder rate, and murder is <1% of the death rate. Getting wound up about mass shootings is as dumb as getting wound up about terrorism. They're both very small in relation to how much people freak out.
2. We already have lots of gun control. Especially in places like California, where the killer bought most of his guns legally and passed a background check.

3. Bump stocks were the real problem. Even the NRA is open to restricting bump stocks. Let's do that.

4. Let's not go overboard with the Australian solution. Australia's murder rate almost halved from 1990 to 2015, and people erroneously give the buyback credit for that, but in that same 25 year time span the US murder rate went down even more (from 9.4 to 4.5 per 100,000) The murder rate went down everywhere in that time frame due to banning leaded gasoline that causes brain damage. Also due to some smaller factors (more abortion, better software for predictive policing).

I think a 10% reduction is pessimistic, 90% like newtboy mentioned is likely optimistic.

One person being killed would have been tragic. A quick search says most recent count is 58 dead, 515 injured. Tragic has been surpassed by some orders of magnitude, and I while see what you're saying, I think it would have been meaningfully "less tragic" if he had only had access to traditional semi-automatic.

He had a bunch of weapons and a bunch of ammo. Reload time was partially mitigated by the number of guns. But finger fatigue like newtboy mentioned would have made it hard to keep firing over a prolonged time (~10 minutes of active shooting time?), and the increased time between shots plus potential for fatigue would have let people make a break for cover or to get out of line of sight.

It may well have still been the deadliest mass shooting even if he only had semi-auto. Banning bump stocks (and other full-auto conversions) won't prevent the next one, but any mitigation at all is better than nothing. And I think it would have been rather more significant than that.


Is access to full-auto or generally equivalent to full-auto the main problem? No. I fully understand your reluctance here, because I agree that GOP legislators and the NRA are likely to hold up opposition to bump stocks as a more significant badge than it deserves to be. "SEE?! I did something about it! Pat me on the back!"

...But, on the other hand, it really is a step in the right direction. And there are no real downsides, aside from that concern about giving those parties a sort of political card to play. The public will just have to make it clear that this, while good, isn't enough by itself.