sorry, posted before editing there. It should read:

But Andrew probably over-states the benefits of gun control if he assumes that all of the decline in firearm suicides represents survivors (its not clear from the article what assumptions he makes here).

Ref. crime in Japan and Australia.

Japan far outdoes us in Sarin related deaths.

Our last massacres were performed with motor fuel and matches.

Damn good thing we didn't have these fool gun laws back in 1940.

If the general male population couldn't competently handle a gun in 41, we would not have been able to raise an effective militia, to stop the japs in New Guinea.

You would have been too busy digging where instructed by your Japanese masters to have been able to flit around university campuses half your life.

One amazing fact in this developed world is how many highly educated people are just too dumb to know which way is up.

I love the idea that the world was ending due to firearm deaths prior to a white knight riding over the horizon in 1996.

The ABS shows that firearm deaths in Australia declined from 1968 at a slowly increasing rate from then until the present, with the greatest change of rate between 1989 and 1993, exactly that period which Mr Leigh and others refer to as "before 1996".

It doesn't explain the experience in New Zealand, which didn't make wholesale changes and has had a similar lack of mass shootings to Australia.

Further afield, Canada enacted registration of long arms, which have recently been discarded as a waste of resources.

The experience in Australia is similar, with very, very few offences by licensed persons. So much so that it is generally hidden data.

Despite all of this legislation, criminals use firearms with little apparent difficulty procuring them. The suggestion of criminal's firearms being primarily sourced from licensed owners, having being debunked by various police agencies.

What is missing in the article, the discussion and the debate on this point in general, is the distinction between those within the system, ie licenced owners and those who aren't.

Those who operate within the system are directly affected by this debate and any changes in legislation. Those who don't will continue as entirely unaffected as ever, at least until the authorities catch up with them.

Significant changes to mental health programs were made in the same period. Now we have all sorts of services and awareness campaigns making a significant difference to the way mental health is managed, treated and most importantly, perceived within the community.

How much have these changes affected firearm deaths - both suicides and murders - and are they still working? Nobody knows.

In short, the simplistic premise in the article that the legislation changes of 1996-7 made all the difference is at best shallow.

Focusing on the NRA in this article is nothing more than fear mongering. The author should be ashamed of himself, but given his occupation, that is unlikely.

>If you need a gun to feel safe, you are not in a safe place.

I would argue the reverse. If you're scared of your fellow citizens having guns, I would look for the problem in the mirror. I'm more worried about my fellow citizens having the right to vote, than gun ownership (I don't own a gun).

author, "The rarity of mass shootings is almost certainly a direct result of the gun buyback"

Love the science in that (NOT). The rarity of sabre tooth tigers in my backyard is almost certainly a direct result of the garden gnome.

author, "..impact of the buyback on firearms suicide rates. Again, we found that the firearms suicide rates fell more rapidly after the buyback, and that there was a strong correlation between the share of weapons bought back and the drop in suicide rates"

Firearms were never popular for suicide. Hanging is.

As well, what you are not saying is that the number of suicides overall did not drop because the very few who might have chosen a firearm found rope instead.

However the really interesting problem, again not stated, is that the gun buy-back was for pump action and self-loading firearms. -Just wondering why the unavailability of a second or more shots would deter someone contemplating suicide.

There are plenty more holes in this article but those will do for starters.

If this is the quality of the 'research' being done, Australia is in a pickle.

It was politically inspired, right?