here are the videos, and here is what wikipedia says about the effects of the 1996 legislation:







In 1997, the prime minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[30][31]

Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[32] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[33] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[34]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[35] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[36] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[37]

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[38]

Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[39] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[40]

A study co-authored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[41]

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[42]

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[43]

the take home message from the empirical literature as summarized by wikipedia here seems to me that the actual effects of this legislation have been fairly negligible/highly equivocal - hardly the smashing success that is being presented on this piece of american t.v, though the videos are funny.

JC Denton wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:


There were a string of mass shootings in the decade or so before the gun laws were brought in - and since then there has been precisely zero. So thats one area you can definitely tick off as being a smashing success.

With regards to more regular gun crime and violence, I think the problem is that the gun laws didn't extend to handguns - and the spike in gun crime in the last decade or so has been in handguns. Its very difficult to separate the banned-gun crime data from the non-banned-gun crime data.

Yadda wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:35pm:


Where do you think illegally acquired handguns come from Yadda? Mostly stolen off people who had acquired them legally. Its something I call the 'saturation effect' - the more guns floating about within society (legally owned), the more that will find their way into the hands of criminals - simply through osmosis.

Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:


in \the summary of the data i posted, this was addressed:

Quote:


it sounds to me that the effects of this legislation were fairly nebulous. i would not doubt it has had some effect but it appears difficult to measure given the available research. certainly, to pretend that there is no discussion or debate to be had here like in these daily show videos would be highly mendacious at best.

Well the yanks have an agenda there. They want to do the same thing so of course they will portray it in a good light. Other TV stations will be saying the opposite though unlike aussie TV where its all the same story the same way or slightly different but same message.

SOB

Chard wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 2:13am:



Gandalf is like every other anti-gun hysterical genius, and believes that disarming the law abiding population will stem gun crime.


Couldn't comprehend the fact the crims will import weapons along with every other thing they bring in (illegal drugs) through the back door.


Just to let everyone know australia has had mass murders since 96, just weren't gun based murders; so it is best we ignore them and treat them as acceptable.

Chard wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 2:13am:



It's not an "absurd claim": It's simple mathematics.