View Single Post
  #185  
Old 09-28-2018, 03:23 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,717
Default

Qwert, I'd upload the pdf itself, but, it exceeds the size limit allowed in here.

I did ask in a group, if someone could condense it a bit to make a bit more sense and more shareable, here are some of the comments;

Studied that case (and the Japanese one) quite a bit since it kept coming up with.
To make it short : the Australian ban did not have any effect to lower homicides, all the "lives saved" by the ban were on suicide (and a few accidents), quotation marks because at the same time the other methods augmented by the same amount (should have banned rope and bridges as well I guess).
At the same time far from everyone surrendered their guns, that's why multiple amnesties keep coming up, and criminals did not turn in anything.
Homicide rates (per capita, not just absolute value) at the same time stopped dropping and even increased before government finally got their head out of their ass and acted against biker gangs.

Canada is essentially in the same situation right now with a government that does not want to act against biker gangs (C75 is cutting prison time big time, right after the C71 that puts a lot of red tape back in), ideologically motivated for some, a prelude to subjugation for the others.

And another one;

The problem with many 'studies' is that a) they are half-assed because researchers know the public will fall for anything that looks like it has numbers in it and b) the funding source for the study is not declared.

This study, from a statistical science point of view, is very good, they cover a lot of methods usually seen in more...valuable...studies but the diligence is clearly there. They almost had me right up until the final page where I read this:

It is imperative that this political moment,
which is so rare in the face of 20 years of
political action to restrain real action on
firearms-related mortality,7 not be squandered
on a law that will have limited impact.
To achieve real, sustained reductions in the
majority of causes of firearm-related mortality,
the United States needs a broader, more
comprehensive range of gun control measures
than those in the NFA.28 If American public
health policymakers focus on policy on the
basis of Australia’s full suite of gun policy laws,
they may be able to achieve real and sustainable
public health benefits and make real
progress toward minimizing this completely
preventable and uniquely American
problem.

To me, this gave away that the piece wasn't so much about proving that the introduction of the NFA was ineffective but rather that on its own, the NFA isn't enough and even tighter restrictions are, in the apparent opinion of the author, 'imperative'.

Don't be tempted to believe that this is either pro or anti-gun control, it is just a well-executed study. That said, if I were anti-gun (and I am most certainly not) I would be using this same research to claim that the Australian NFA does not go far enough and the whole end-to-end model of restrictions should be pursued in order to make a difference. The authors' opinion, in scientific terms, is unnecessary and one wonders why it is there other than to deliver a simple message on the back of unexpected research results, perhaps.

I'm still left wondering who actually funded the research work.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote