The result is important because recent data have provided an unequivocal argument in favor of gun ownership.
Previously, pro-gun ownership arguments centered around the data that showed that countries, states, even municipalities that banned firearms had higher crime rates than those that did not (even though the gun banners would argue that this was counter-intuitive).
Unfortunately, the counter-argument was that the locations where guns were banned had high crime rates for other reasons; typically demographics and average income level were cited (ignoring the obvious racist overtones of such an argument). The classic example was Washington DC, which banned guns and had a high crime rate. The mitigating factors that were sited was the ease of purchasing firearms in Virginia and the relative poverty in DC.
Although there are many problems with these arguments (they are obvious and I won't repeat them), the fundamental issue was that this social issue was a multi-variate problem. How could one, in general, tell what the cause was when there were so many different possibilities??? The argument went: "Because of these other factors, the crime rate in DC would have been even worse without gun control."
This argument has been obliterated by the nice data, which you have linked to, from Australia, the UK, and also New Zealand (which you did not link to).
In all three cases guns were banned and confiscated. Moreover, they were confiscated precipitously. The loss of guns by the general population ocurred on very short time scales (i.e. a year or so). In all three cases the crime rate went up and it went up precipitously and by a considerable amount. These three countries provide a differential measurement of the effect of gun control. No other variables could be involved in the change in crime rate because no other variables could have changed that quickly (or at all). Same country, same people, same income levels, same criminal justice system, same everything. The only change was the gun restrictions. The problem is no longer multi-variate; it is single variate.
All of the gun control arguments become manifestly invalid with these data.
You can extend the analysis (although it is unecessary). The idea that guns could be brought in from neighboring countries is also manifestly nonsense. If that were the case then effect would be only to vitiate the effect of the gun ban law. Namely, crime rates should have merely stayed the same. However, they increased. Moreover, in the case of three island nations, the notion of easily importing firearms is a bit of a stretch.
The same rationale applies to Canada. Again, if the US were exporting "our" violence and guns to Canada, then the effect should only have been that violent crime rates stayed the same because our access to firearms would have undermined their law. However, their crime rates went up. Moreover, their crime rates are higher than ours, so the gradient is in the wrong direction.
Paradoxically, the article's authors are probably right about one thing. Access to firearms in the US probably means that Canadians can get guns from the US. However, the effect of that illicit gun trade is to reduce the violent crime rate in Canada.
Shooters seek handgun law change (UK). All, look at comments# 17 and afterwards on this link to see where ukman is coming from.
2ndreconmarine, your critique that the precipitous imposition of gun prohibition makes it a single variate analysis is spot on. My only disagreement is with your last paragraph.
Paradoxically, the article's authors are probably right about one thing. Access to firearms in the US probably means that Canadians can get guns from the US. However, the effect of that illicit gun trade is to reduce the violent crime rate in Canada.
I don't think law-abiding sheeple will take advantage of the black market for the right of self defense until the sh@t hits the fan. At that point, it's probably too late for most of them.