Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?

British Journal of Criminology ^ | October 18, 2006 | Jeanine Baker and Samara Mcphedran

[GailA]

GOA, NRA all give Harold Ford, JUNIOR F's

Check out some of his votes on 2nd amendment rights

click here

[Smokin' Joe]

When one understands the true agenda underlying this global push to provide governments with a monopoly on force, the pattern becomes all-too-clear.

You left out the pot of gold at the end of their rainbow: to consolidate all that government force under one roof, as one world government. We stand in the way of that.

[2harddrive]

YES....the new law made a BIG difference.....just not a GOOD one! lol....Dummies Down Under!

[blackie]

Bravo Zulu, Joe!!

[neverdem]

I think you might be interested. Are you on Joe Brower's list?

[Brian Allen]

#18 crystal-clear Absolutism BUMPping!

[Criminal Number 18F]

You don't need a firearm to commit suicide.

No, but it is a reasonable hypothesis that a handgun or other firearm increases the "convenience" factor of suicide and makes a successful attempt more likely than alternative methods. I'm not saying that's the case (pretty hard to determine causation in suicide reliably... you can't survey the participants!) just saying it's plausible. So with essentially negative results, I'm surprised that they decided to publish.

Well, if one is looking at it as a scientist, negative results are also interesting. Given the very low correlation quotients that are accepted in the social sciences, a determination of no correlation is very interesting. Not much surprise to those of us who support gun rights and have been reading this material for decades.

I suspect what you are saying is that from this source, you would expect them only to publish data that supports their a priori beliefs. Social scientists are funny that way. Some will publish regardless, and some will try to redesign the experiment to get the desired result. Unlike hard sciences, where, if the data do not match the theory, you are expected to discard the theory, not the data!

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[neverdem]

I suspect what you are saying is that from this source, you would expect them only to publish data that supports their a priori beliefs. Social scientists are funny that way. Some will publish regardless, and some will try to redesign the experiment to get the desired result. Unlike hard sciences, where, if the data do not match the theory, you are expected to discard the theory, not the data!

You got it. Part of my reticence on the keyboard is because I can only hunt & peck. Even in the hard sciences, they prefer to publish positive results. Had the results been positive, IMHO, the results would have been in either the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal or Lancet, if not Nature or Science. As it is, these authors had to depend on the good offices of the British Journal of Criminology.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Ah. Understood. Did you know that in my own lifetime, the NEJM was a medical publication that held to the scientific method and peer review?

Now it is The Nation written by MDs. Pity.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[ozzymandus]

Hmm. I always thought Finland was highest.