05-28-2022, 06:41 AM
(05-28-2022, 05:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: You keep saying that, and I know you have certainly good reason to. I want to ask though what the argument to dismiss the effects in Australia is. That's what I learned in my country, that Australia gave itself restrictive gun laws after a massacre in 1996 and that since then the number of gun deaths decreased significantly (it was halved from what I read). Folks make similar claims about Canada. Is that not true, was I duped.
Btw this is not to say that such laws would be the clear solution; socioeconomic factors, I suppose, indeed play a bigger part. Imho it's not an either or situation though, measures can be taken on more than just one prong.
The reason I ignore the effects of Australia's NFA is because the evidence isn't clear with them. There were observable declines in suicides and homicides by firearm, but they were not statistically significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/
Because of other factors surrounding efforts to reduce suicide rates in Australia, plus an already existing decline in firearm homicide rates pre-NFA, there is no way to say with any confidence that the NFA had any causal effect on suicide or homicide rates in Australia.
For Canada it is much more difficult to do any sort of statistical analysis on the effects of their gun control laws. They have had so many different ones within a relatively short time that it would be extremely difficult to measure the effects of any one while eliminating confounding variables to come up with a causal determination.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
