Comments
brainwired1 t1_ixw4xk3 wrote
Yeah, all those mass shootings that they've had since then...
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.
hiim379 OP t1_ixw58e1 wrote
Fair enough, Was just trying to upload just one of those charts but it wouldnt let me without a linking the think, I couldnt figure out how to link it without just posting the entire link. Also this is a reply to another post that I saw yesterday https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/z489n8/in_1996_the_australia_government_implemented/
hiim379 OP t1_ixw5au9 wrote
Look at the bottom they adress that on the site
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.
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
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.
st4n13l t1_ixwaifb wrote
Any reason to expect firearm legislation to have an impact on non-firearm involved crime?
hiim379 OP t1_ixwb17i wrote
Well if someones dead why does it matter if its with a gun or not? If someones dead their dead.
Brill_chops t1_iy2yfg5 wrote
Agreed. Can we put a blanket ban on cancer, please!
JoshuaACNewman t1_ixw4rwx wrote
I don’t think you understand what “data”, “beautiful”, or “proof” means. But the entire argument hinges on the idea of establishing a trend looking at only the first couple years of the sample.
Since this is quite a mishmash and quite loudly a priori in favor of particular policies, I don’t think this meets minimum requirements for this sub.