NationStates Jolt Archive

Study declares gun control laws have not reduced firearm deaths
PM - Monday, 21 April , 2008 18:26:00
Reporter: Michael Edwards
LISA MILLAR: The former prime minister, John Howard, recently told an American audience that one of his proudest achievements in office was introducing tougher gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

But a new study by researchers from the University of Sydney claims the previous federal government's gun control laws have done nothing to reduce firearm deaths in Australia. Gun control advocates though, disagree.

Michael Edwards has this report.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: In Tasmania in 1996, Martin Bryant murdered 35 people in what's become known as the Port Arthur massacre.

The killings prompted a tightening of gun laws with the Federal and State Governments uniting to remove weapons including semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns from civilian possession.

The laws are regarded as some of the strictest in the world and gun control advocates say they've played a role in reducing the incidence of firearm related deaths. The former prime minister, John Howard, regards them as one of his biggest achievements.

But researchers at the University of Sydney say otherwise. Dr Samara McPhedran is a psychologist and a self-described critic of gun control. Dr McPhedran has authored a paper which has reviewed existing analyses of the law's effectiveness.

SAMARA MCPHEDRAN: Firearm homicides were declining well in advance of the legislative changes and that downwards trend just continued at the same rate after the laws came in as before.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: The paper reviewed four previous studies of the gun laws and Samara McPhedran says while they differed in their methodology, they came up with consistent results which in her view indicate the reforms haven't played a role in reducing the number of firearm deaths.

Dr McPhedran says the numbers are consistent not only with homicides caused by firearms but also suicides using guns. She says the drop in the suicide rate is attributable to social changes and not gun reform.

SAMARA MCPHEDRAN: In the broader context, we're looking at social changes like the destigmatisation of mental illness, increased public awareness of illnesses like depression, better treatment methods and wider social changes - things like employment levels and other economic variables.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: But Dr McPhedran's findings are strongly disputed by public health experts and the proponents of gun control.

Simon Chapman is a professor of public health at the University of Sydney. He says the laws are effective and have helped reduce the rate of firearm related deaths in Australia.

SIMON CHAPMAN: The conclusions that they have reached are in fact absolutely reversed if you do the analysis properly.

What we've been able to show is that there has been a 59.9 per cent fall in the rate of decline of male firearm suicide between 1997 and 2005. In absolute terms, it fell from 3.4 per 100,000 to 1.3. That's a big, big fall.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: Philip Alpers is a gun control advocate. He says the present gun control laws are not perfect, but they have helped.

PHILIP ALPERS: One of the more … the least heralded improvements after the Port Arthur gun laws was that firearm thefts from sporting shooters dropped dramatically from 5,000 to 1,500 a year and that was simply because of the registration. Everybody was made personally liable for every gun in their possession and so they started registering them.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: Philip Alpers says the overall effect is that Australians are now at far less risk from guns than prior to 1996.

PHILIP ALPERS: They’ve been very effective in reducing the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia. The risk now of dying by gunshot in Australia has halved since 1996 and the new Port Arthur laws.

LISA MILLAR: Gun control advocate, Philip Alpers, ending Michael Edwards' report.

Link (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2223422.htm)

I found this line particularly fatuous:

"Firearm homicides were declining well in advance of the legislative changes and that downwards trend just continued at the same rate after the laws came in as before."

The speaker, Samara McPhedran, is also the Chair of the International Coalition of Women in Shooting and Hunting. Methinks she is pushing her favourite barrow.

A little off-topic, but I remember when in primary school when the teacher turned on the radio the day of the massacre and it was being reported. I don't remember it too well but I remembered their was like hysteria everywhere as it was reported children got gunned down etc.

What gets me about that is that even if gun control had no bearing on the actual decline of gun deaths, the stricter gun laws would still make it increasingly unlikely that the declining gun death trend will decrease or reverse. At the very least, it's good societal insurance.

I'm guessing that firearm ownership in Australia prior to the new laws was much like it was pre-Dunblane in the UK. I.e. it was legal (but still controlled) but realistically few people actually owned guns and those that did was mostly for hunting/sports purposes?

Then it is possible that the effect on gun deaths was relatively marginal, however it does make another massacre/school shooting even more unlikely and even marginal effects are significant when your dealing with people's lives.

I wonder also whether Bryant's rampage and the subsequent gun laws had the effect of making gun ownership socially unacceptable in Australia.

Question, what did the overall homicide rate do? I recall a few years back Canada's gun control laws coming into effect. Gun crime way down, knife deaths, way up.

Question, what did the overall homicide rate do? I recall a few years back Canada's gun control laws coming into effect. Gun crime way down, knife deaths, way up.

I don't know but, it seems to me, that knife attacks are reported in the news in Oz much more than they used to. I know that's not scientific. My apologies.

Mind you, there is much greater chance of surviving a knife wound than a gunshot wound.

I don't know but, it seems to me, that knife attacks are reported in the news in Oz much more than they used to. I know that's not scientific. My apologies.

Mind you, there is much greater chance of surviving a knife wound than a gunshot wound.

You also don't tend to get as much collateral with knife wounds i.e. the person knifed tends to be the intended target.

You really want to look at the interaction between gun death rates, other weapons and total homicides. I.e. if gun deaths drop really low but knife rates don't go up as much as gun deaths drop, then you do have a net positive effect.

Assuming her data is correct, she may have a point. If firearms crimes were going down in the first place, and kept going down at the same rate after gun confiscation took place, it's very possible that gun confiscation was not a major factor.

Actually, after looking at the raw data, I come to the same conclusion that she does. The only thing that Australian gun confiscation decreased noticeably are gun suicides. Homicide rates seem fairly consistent from 1991-2001.

Yeah, I have seen multiple studies done in areas where gun laws where lifted or put in place. I'm not sure it has any effect on crime rates.

She says the drop in the suicide rate is attributable to social changes and not gun reform.
Then do they have statistics that suicides not using guns dropped at an equivalent rate?

Actually, after looking at the raw data, I come to the same conclusion that she does. The only thing that Australian gun confiscation decreased noticeably are gun suicides. Homicide rates seem fairly consistent from 1991-2001.
And you are, similarly, coming from an anti-gun control stance if I recall.

I can't wait for the argument "but if they hadn't introduced gun control, gun crimes would have decreased at triple the speed!"

Also, you don't often hear of people dying from knives accidentally going off.

Perhaps a certain vice-president should go hunting with knives only.

And you are, similarly, coming from an anti-gun control stance if I recall.

I can't wait for the argument "but if they hadn't introduced gun control, gun crimes would have decreased at triple the speed!"

Indeed I am. But data does not lie.