Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

st4n13l t1_ixw52ov wrote

What is really evident here is that half-assing these policies does very little to impact gun deaths if all you really end up doing is paying people for their old guns so they can buy new ones a couple of years later... especially if crime is already on a downward trajectory.

1

hiim379 OP t1_ixw5ngy wrote

Ya regular gun buy backs like how they do it in the US are a joke and basiclly do what you said plus dispose of evidence. The one in Australia wasn't half assed and pretty much made anyone who is following the law have so many types of guns no longer available to them.

0

st4n13l t1_ixw7930 wrote

Indeed, analyzing policies from single data points without providing necessary context around them makes for poor judgment just like we see linked in your "source".

For a more rigorous, scientific analysis: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html

3

hiim379 OP t1_ixw9ev3 wrote

Thank you, thats a great study. I just wish they add non fire arm massacres to that, while massacres have massively decrease since the gun buyback their not non existent. A good example would be the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire.

1

st4n13l t1_ixwaifb wrote

Any reason to expect firearm legislation to have an impact on non-firearm involved crime?

2