A gun buyback didn't work! Say it isn't so.
Buyback has no effect on murder rate
October 24, 2006
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".
Sydney Morning Herald
argh, can't edit the topic.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
A gun buyback didn't work! Say it isn't so.
The purpose of the legislative changes in order to take away guns is NOT designed to influence homicide rates. That's purely the guise being used. Like I've said MANY times before; "They" are desperately trying to "defang" citizens globally in order to avoid any type of revolution by the common man(woman).In Trenton, NewJersey theChief of Police was quoted as saying "The ban on assault weapons has not decreased the homicde rate in Trenton at all". Now you mean to say that the lawmakers didn't know that banning assault weapons wouldn't affect crimes comitted with guns??? That's absurd! Of course they knew it wouldn't! They just want to make sure that REAL patriots don't have the ability to "stand" up against tyranny, which is right around the corner!
In previous posts I've mentioned MANY massacres and it's ALWAYS the same "people" that show up EVERY SINGLE time.
Jersey Ron, who exactly are "They"?
And how do "they" operate without being exposed?
I agree that most governments would love to disarm their minions, that all falls on the power corrupts theory. But an organized group, coordinated and with world access that can stay covert for decades is a stretch for me.
cs9c1, there is nothing covert about what"they" are doing at all.That's why I say don't tell me there isn't a gorilla sitting in my living room when there obviously is one. I chose not to get specific because that's when the smear tactics and labeling begins. It's one of "their" ultimate weapons and it works because most people refuse to see the gorilla sitting in the livingroom. This is a forum for Open Carry issues so I don't want to get too far "off base", but if you kindlyresearch theweird massacres that Imentionedmy previous post, you will CLEARLY see the gorilla sitting in your living room.
PS- Food for thought. Can anyone please explain how our Director of Homeland Security can be a dual Israeli/American citizen?? If that's not a direct conflict of SERIOUS interest I don't know what is!