When one understands the true agenda underlying this global push to provide governments with a monopoly on force, the pattern becomes all-too-clear.
Posted on 10/31/2006 4:10:45 PM PST by neverdem
Abstract
Mass murders in Dunblane, United Kingdom, and Port Arthur, Australia, provoked rapid responses from the governments of both countries. Major changes to Australian laws resulted in a controversial buy-back of longarms and tighter legislation. The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes. The findings have profound implications for future firearm legislation policy direction.
You don't need a firearm to commit suicide. So with essentially negative results, I'm surprised that they decided to publish. Rebecca Peters, go cry in your beer.
Beer is for real people. She's probably more of a whine and cheese type.
When you disarm the law-abiding public, only criminals your "govenment" have guns. What does that say??
And the liberals just continue to work hard at inventing rules that criminals will obey. Idiot morons.
Gary Kleck did an exhaustive study on the relationship between availability of firearms and suicide rate. Bottom line: there is no relationship. Only effect is on what methods people use to commit suicide, not on how many people do it. Substitution factor is 100%.
"You don't need a firearm to commit suicide."
Japan doesn't allow private ownership of firearms at all, but still has the highest suicide rate in the world.
Japan has a high suicide rate, but it's not the highest. Actually it's not even in the top ten.
http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html
"Publish or perish." Even though the results are negative, if it's a good-quality study, it's publishable. Since it got past the peer reviewers, it's a better than even chance it's quality research.
So, making guns very much harder to own, and essentially available for the government to confiscate at any time, had no effect on sudden death.
This is pretty much the result expected, although I might have thought an increase in crime would bias it somewhat in the other direction.
There is no implication for policy, however, as the aim of the legislation was never to reduce sudden deaths, but rather to prevent the population from being armed.
The abstract implies that the legislation passed in '96 authorizing the buy back program and other laws was ineffective in reducing homocides. At least that's what I got out of it. Someone will publish the whole study online soon and then we can read it for ourselves.
Your wish is my command. I hope you don't mind opening a pdf in a new window.
Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?
Not at all. thank you very much. I found this on page 12 to be of interest:
It should also be
noted that from an empirical perspective, the NFA regulated mechanisms of legal firearms
possession whereas evidence demonstrates that offenders are bypassing legal
methods of acquisition.
Who'd have thought that????
Caption Hillary prominently sporting her latest election accessory - a cross around her neck.
Thomas Sowell: Diversity's Oppressions
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
It's the high rents the zaiteku cross-ownership of real estate uses to vacuum up paychecks in the Japanese company-town environment.
Japanese can't get ahead unless they break into top management -- or become securities speculators or something.
When one understands the true agenda underlying this global push to provide governments with a monopoly on force, the pattern becomes all-too-clear.
Well said, well said. That's why I enjoy these posts.
Some time in the early 80s, I attended a speech by the late Arkady Shevchenko, then the highest ranking Soviet official to defect to the West. He had been their top guy at the UN.
He spoke, interestingly, at KENNESAW COLLEGE -- and we all know what Kennesaw is famous for! I’m proud to have played a a small role in helping Mayor Darvin Purdy get that legislation through the Kennesaw City Council.
His talk dealt with the clear intent of the leadership of the old Soviet Union to somehow take America. He mentioned their ICBMs and the nuclear blackmail threat they posed.
Then he broke from his prepared remarks and offered the audience this wisdom:
"The leaders of my country are as AFRAID OF YOUR 200 MILLION PRIVATE FIREARMS as they are of your ICBMs. NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS."
Frankly -- and, while he had to be careful as he was under FBI protection at the time, Shevchenko alluded to this in his remarks -- I'm as concerned about some domestic tyrant (say, a Hillary, Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Chuck Schumer) as I am about some foreign enemy.
And it is THAT threat about which the Founding Fathers were concerned that prompted them to leave us the Second Amendment.
The BIG question is: WILL WE KEEP IT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.