BREAKING: A recent systematic review study has showed that there has been no impact on firearm homicide rates from John Howard's firearms laws. None.
You can read the article yourself here: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.012
The article by Samara McPhedran at Griffith University reads:
"No study found statistical evidence of any significant impact of
the legislative changes on firearm homicide rates.
"...irrespective of the differences between papers in methodology, time periods examined, and level of geographical disaggregation, none found evidence for a statistically significant impact of Australia's 1996 legislative changes on firearm homicide rates.
"...if legislative reform is limited in its ability to reduce firearm homicide rates, then what interventions are most likely to be successful?...
"Indeed, there appear to have been few strategies implemented in Australia, other than legislation, which are specifically aimed at curbing firearm violence.
"...when the current evidence base is considered in a systematic fashion, there may be a notable discrepancy between empirical findings about the efficacy of Australian firearm legislation in regard to reducing firearm homicide, compared with what has been proposed within popular discourse about the impacts of those laws."
This vindicates what has been our position all along. Share this post and help us get the word out!
>>29496087
Bump, this is evidence that 20 years of solid gunlaws didnt do shit
Looks like we need some tougher gun laws, our current ones aren't effect enough!
>>29496087
the sad thing is no one will change their opinion on this just because it's proven to be inconsequential statistically.
people FEEL safer, and that's what really matters to them.
>Using systematic review methods, it emerged that a relatively small number of studies to date have specifically examined the impacts of Australia's legislative change on firearm homicide, using time series analyses that lend themselves to good quality policy evaluation. Howev- er, irrespective of the differences between papers in methodology, time periods examined, and level of geographical disaggregation, none found evidence for a statistically significant impact of Australia's 1996 legisla- tive changes on firearm homicide rates.
You didn't need to pay for a review of the laws, Samara. I could have told you all that shit for free.
>However, research has indicated strong connections between illegal firearm ownership and firearm homicide (Dauvergne & De Socio, 2008; Davies & Mouzos, 2007; Dearden & Jones, 2008; Mouzos & Houliaris, 2006), and between illicit ownership, firearm homicide, and the illicit drug trade (Fitzgerald, Briscoe, & Weatherburn, 2001), as well as identifying particular ‘high-risk’ typolo- gies for lethal domestic violence that predict homicidal behavior irrespective of firearm access (Folkes, Hilton, & Harris, 2013). This ap- pears to validate suggestions by Reuter and Mouzos (2003) that inter- ventions focused on restricting legal firearm ownership overall may primarily target ‘low-risk’ populations. If this is correct, then policies de- signed to increase restrictions on ‘low-risk’ populations, rather than to specifically address firearm access among ‘high-risk’ populations for firearm violence (such as disadvantaged young males involved in drug-related activity), or ‘high-risk’ populations for homicide offending regardless of method (such as highly maritally violent males), would not be expected to greatly affect firearm homicide rates.
Inb4 that article is taken down
>>29496087
> You can get the full-text article here... ...if you are:
> healthcare practitioner
> interested in pay-per-view article purchase
> researcher or librarian
> student or faculty member
> visitor or subscriber to the website
hey senpai some of us aren't on uni's PPV-internet meal ticket.
How about a non-faggot source? or at least a pastebin
>>29496642
>How about a non-faggot source?
It's a peer-reviewed article published in an actual academic journal. Those are very rarely free.
So a sign we need tighter gun Laws. - Average Liberal.
>>29496642
>pastebin
>uni's PPV-internet meal ticket
What do you want OP to hang himself 2 years and $2 million dollars in legal fees later?
>>29496087
>You can read the article yourself here
>no free full text
kys
Okay faggots I found the full text if anyone's interested
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/index.php?s=10.1016%2Fj.avb.2016.03.012&journalid=&v=&i=&p=&redirect=1
>>29496596
This.
Its been out for a long fucking time that banning things does jackshit for production and distribution.
See the failed War on Drugs and failed Alcohol Prohibition
Soon to be added: failed War on Guns
Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws. And what happens when you ban the guns? Only the law abiding citizens will be disarmed.
literally disarming the prey and dangling them in front of the predators
Found this interesting to explain why taking away guns from law abiding citizens and doing nothing else is retarded:
The current findings raise two key questions. The first question is
why a very significant set of legislative interventions have had no clearly
demonstrable impact on firearm homicide rates in Australia. From a
theoretical perspective, the possibility of misspecification of ‘high risk’
populations and/or inappropriately designed policy should be considered.
For instance, legislative reform has typically had at its foundation
the premise that reducing levels of access to firearms will lead to reductions
in firearm misuse. However, research has indicated strong
connections between illegal firearm ownership and firearm homicide
(Dauvergne & De Socio, 2008; Davies & Mouzos, 2007; Dearden &
Jones, 2008; Mouzos & Houliaris, 2006), and between illicit ownership,
firearm homicide, and the illicit drug trade (Fitzgerald, Briscoe, &
Weatherburn, 2001), aswell as identifying particular ‘high-risk’ typologies
for lethal domestic violence that predict homicidal behavior
irrespective of firearm access (Folkes, Hilton, & Harris, 2013). This appears
to validate suggestions by Reuter and Mouzos (2003) that interventions
focused on restricting legal firearm ownership overall may
primarily target ‘low-risk’ populations. If this is correct, then policies designed
to increase restrictions on ‘low-risk’ populations, rather than to
specifically address firearm access among ‘high-risk’ populations for
firearm violence (such as disadvantaged young males involved in
drug-related activity), or ‘high-risk’ populations for homicide offending
regardless of method (such as highly maritally violent males), would
not be expected to greatly affect firearm homicide rates.
The second question is that if legislative reform is limited in its ability
to reduce firearm homicide rates, then what interventions are most
likely to be successful?
1/2
>>29497217
To date, this question has not been empirically
addressed within the Australian context. The studies included in this review,
although at times acknowledging the complex network of factors
associated with violence, included no evaluation of alternative policies
to legislative reform. Indeed, there appear to have been few strategies
implemented in Australia, other than legislation, which are specifically
aimed at curbing firearm violence.
Potentially, given associations between various measures of social
disadvantage and firearm homicide rates (e.g., Langmann, 2012), interventions
to address social and economic disadvantage and to improve
social equality may be an effective way of reducing firearm homicide
(and, indeed, homicide more broadly). To this end, future work evaluating
legislative changes should ideally incorporate demographic, socioeconomic
and related indices that can reasonably be expected to
relate to firearm violence, swell as measures of societal and individual
well being. As noted previously, however, the majority of work examining
effective interventions has been undertaken in the United States,
and it is unclear whether findings about strategies such as proactive policing
and community-based crime prevention programs (Hahn et al.,
2005; Makarios & Pratt, 2012) are transferable to other countries.
Again, there is little international systematic and/or meta-analytic research
in this area.
2/2
Nothing to see here fellow Ausfags.
Move along
>>29498339
>peer-reviewed overview article stating that tough gun laws are ineffective
>nothing to see
you dense motherfucker. this is the best argument against strictening gun laws yet.
>>29499306
>implying libtards listen to reason
How new are you to this?
>Have a few dozen of your citizens shot
>Blame it on a retard
>Ban gunz
>Find out 20 years later it does nothing to lower murder rate
>yfw
>>29499366
>implying they gave a shit about safety in the first place
>implying it wasn't just to get guns out of citizen hands
>>29496087
>Well... Yeah, but what confidence level are you working at?
