Oh dear onthebeach,

There really isn't a lot of substance to you is there.

When people do some research and present figures to you call them poor researchers but you never offer anything up yourself. In some ways this might be viewed as parasitic behaviour but ultimately it is a little sad.

If you don't have the skills or knowledge to find information to back up what you are saying then perhaps being a little more circumspect when inflicting the rest of us with your ignorant and silly claims might be advisable. Take o sung wu, he and I do not see eye to eye but he will readily admit on occasion to not having a great understanding on a particular issue, something I respect.

Cont..

Cont..

But hell I'm on holiday so let's go through some of your offerings.

You wrote;

“What you don't admit because it is inconvenient to your emotional rhetoric, is that overall suicide rate was unaffected. The very few who might have used a firearm were undeterred and used another method.”

Firstly since the gun laws after Port Arthur suicide rates full stop have dramatically decreased, in some age groups by over 50%.
http://www.mindframe-media.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/9986/Suicide-Figures-2014.pdf

Further firearm related suicides have dropped far more significantly than non-firearm suicides.

“In the decade following the NFA, there has been a substantial drop in
firearm deaths in Australia (Figures 1a and 1b). Firearm suicides have
dropped from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.8 per 100,000 in
2006. Firearm homicides have dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in
1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006. These are drops of 65% and
59%, respectively, and among a population of 20 million individuals,
represent a decline in the number of deaths by firearm suicide of about
300 and in the number of deaths by firearm homicide of about 40 per
year. At the same time, the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27%
and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%.”
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf

The leading cause of gun death in the US is not 'black gang' inflicted but is suicide.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/

As whites are nearly twice as likely to commit suicide then unless you can show otherwise it is safe to say they literally and proportionately make up the bulk of gun related deaths in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/rates01.html

Now how about parking the unsubstantiated mantras and stop being a parasite feeding off other posters research and produce some of your own. I have my doubts you are capable of it but surprise me.

SteelRedux,

Australia
Gun crime in Australia was trending down before and after Howard and at the same rate.

Howard's gun control has never been proved to have had any appreciable positive effect in reducing gun offences.

Suicide

Your claim that Howard's 'gun control' saved potential suicides is absolute rot. I have covered that previously.

Just to repeat for others who may not read back some posts, the number of people who suicide by firearm was always very low, especially compared with other preferred methods. Suicide by vehicle for example isn't even factored in. The number who suicide with a firearm is so small that your claims are ludicrous. Where 'N' is low, a small change either way is not significant and shouldn't be reported as such.

Such frivolous, misleading and politically motivated claims - that 'gun control' prevents suicide - detract from the superb work of the many highly skilled and earnest professionals and volunteers involve in the national suicide initiative.

Re my last para above, I was in a rush and should have referred to 'The National Suicide Prevention Strategy (NSPS)'

- "(which) provides the platform for Australia's national policy on suicide prevention with an emphasis on promotion, prevention and early intervention" http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-nsps

Hi FOXY...

I read your citation from the 'National', an insert of the 'Washington Post' newspaper. A lengthy article dealing with F/A's and suicide(s) using a F/A ?

Specifically, the interview dealt with a Mr & Mrs James & Janett MASSOLO, who lost their daughter (Shannon) from her suicide, with a F/A they'd kept in their house ?

The curious, or rather the strange part of the article that I couldn't quite understand, the gun their daughter used to kill herself with, was returned to Mr James MASSOLO as he'd requested, for sentimental reasons ?

Personally, I just don't understand that reasoning ? If my daughter killed herself with a gun belonging to me, it would be the last thing I'd ever wish to see again, least of all returned to me !

When I was working I was case officer on a job where a young 20 yoa bloke, ate his father's 'el cheapo' 'Boito' single barrel shotgun, while sitting on the toilet, which was separate from the bathroom. Consequently this lad had blown the back of his head out, as you'd expect with a 12g. Clearly a suicide. After the Coroner had returned his findings, I sought a disposition order of the property, which was given (the gun, the clothes he was wearing, watch etc).

What generally happens, you determine who's the lawful owner of the property, other than the deceased. If no other claimant, it's usually returned to the NOK in most instances (unless valuable property's involved, then the executor of the deceased's estate).

Would you believe, the lad's father wanted his 'rubbishie' old, Boito Shotgun returned to him ? Brand new, it would only be worth about $90-$100 maximum ? I was stunned, I really was. Considering how emotionally distraught the father and mother were at the time ?

Go figure ? There's no accounting for how some people think ? The father could've just as easily surrendered it to the Commissioner of Police, and it would've been destroyed. And that would've been the end of it !

Dear onthebeach,

Well no surprises then.

Let me count the references in your reply to data, to any kind over evidence, to a mere skerrick of anything other than mumbo-jumbo mantra. Nope nothing, zip.

You now claim “Gun crime in Australia was trending down before and after Howard and at the same rate.” and “Howard's gun control has never been proved to have had any appreciable positive effect in reducing gun offences.” but without any evidence they are just something you have read somewhere or are making up.

Then this piece of delightful rubbish;

“Just to repeat for others who may not read back some posts, the number of people who suicide by firearm was always very low, especially compared with other preferred methods. Suicide by vehicle for example isn't even factored in. The number who suicide with a firearm is so small that your claims are ludicrous.”

What utter bollocks!

Here you go son;

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/suicide-australia-meta-analysis-rates-and-methods-suicide-between-1988-and-2007

Now scroll down and click 'Box 1'. It will open up a delightful little table showing that from 1988-1997 the second most common form of suicide by males after hanging (6.23/100,000) in Australia was by firearm (5.19/100,000). In fact in Queensland, Tasmania and the NT it was the most common method of taking your life if you were a male.

In the years after the gun laws the hanging rate climbed 50% but the shooting rate dropped by 60% to fall behind gassing.

You really aren't very good at this are you.