Vox
However, the paper's findings about suicide were
statistically significant — and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns
correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides
didn't increase to make up the decline.
There is good reason why gun restrictions would prevent suicides. As Matthews explains
in great depth, suicide is often an impulsive choice, one often not
repeated after a first attempt. Guns are specifically designed to kill
people effectively, which makes suicide attempts with guns likelier to
succeed than (for example) attempts with razors or pills. Limiting
access to guns makes each attempt more likely to fail, thus making it
more likely that people will survive and not attempt to harm themselves
again.
Bottom line: Australia's gun buyback saved lives, probably by
reducing homicides and almost certainly by reducing suicides. Again,
Australian lessons might not necessarily apply to the US, given the many
cultural and political differences between the two countries. But in
thinking about gun violence and how to limit it, this seems like a
worthwhile data point. If you're looking for lessons about gun control,
this is a pretty important one.
"Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline."
ReplyDeleteMike, this must be some sort of typo. And I'm guessing that this claim is just as valid as if I were to claim that during the time when gun sales reach record levels and more and more citizens are able to choose to carry firearms for self defense, homicide and violent crime rates in the US have fallen steadily.
There is one key bit of information that Mr. Beauchamp is leaving out in his display of what you call "common sense and honesty". And that is that this period of decreasing suicides corresponded with a period of increasing gun ownership. They confiscated 650,000 guns (kudos for not shying away from the word "confiscated") making for a sharp onetime drop in gun ownership. Since then, Australia's slowing built their gun supply back up. This time without semi-autos, but don't try to tell us that has anything to do with suicide. Bottom line: gun ownership was going up, while suicides were going down.
ReplyDeleteWrong, TS. The article even addressed that false claim. Since the big buy-back the numbers have not risen to the levels of prior.
DeleteFirst, that is in dispute:
Deletehttp://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504
Second, even if it hasn’t reached prior levels-, it has still been increasing-which the article did not dispute. If they only replaced half the guns, that is still an additional 325,000.
" If they replaced half the guns"
DeleteMaking shit up again, TS? Maybe it was only 10% or for that matter 1%. Plus, you're conveniently leaving out the attrition of older gun owners dying.
Nobody in Australia is denying that gun ownership is increasing. Nobody. Talk about making stuff up. The best you can do is say they haven't reached pre-Port Arthur levels, but I showed you an article from four years ago which says they passed it. Even Rebecca Peters is worried that the gun culture has returned (love how she's honest that her intent is to destroy the gun culture, and sees this as a problem even though violent crime, murders, and spree shootings are down). If you look at Australia's suicides, there was not an immediate drop in 1997 followed by is slowly going back up. Instead it slowly decreased while Australians were building back their gun supply.
DeleteBS,TS, I didn't know you had spoken to every person in Australia. Thanks for making things up. More proof of what a lying gun loon you are.
DeleteYou guys, stubborn to the end, have never allowed for the clear and obvious fact that gun suicide attempts are way more likely to succeed, compared to the other major methods - plus, most who attempt it once do not repeat the action.
ReplyDeleteYou mean “compared to cries for help”. Stepping in front of trains works just as well as guns, but I don’t see you wanting to restrict access to trains. Beside, even Jade-frickin-gold says we should not deny gun ownership for cases of depression. Do you think we should?
DeleteDeny deny deny, and then change the argument. When you're cornered, TS, you get very predictable.
DeleteWhat an I denying? That trains don't kill? Or that their not accessible?
DeleteWhen I ask you what you want to do about suicides, your answer was to make people meet with a special gun authorizing psychologist and tell them wether or not they are depressed before getting to buy a gun. You're banking on every now and then one of them screwing up and answering "yes" even though they know that will deny them the gun purchase (the whole reason why they are there). That's some solution there. Of course, those people were determined enough to make an appointment how ever many months (years) in advance, so you can't play the moment of anguish card and say they wouldn't go on to other methods.
You are denying that guns are the choice of weapon, and given time (say a waiting period) the person usually doesn't try suicide again.
DeleteWhat I want to do about suicides is cut the number of guns and gun owners in half.
DeleteWhat I want to do about suicides is cut the number of guns and gun owners in half.
DeleteWell, you can continue to "want" that for the rest of your life. but you're never going to succeed in killing half of us and destroying our guns.
But I would dearly love to see you try. Start with me, would ya'?