[ChrisLomont]

>Yes, they bloody well did.

Yes, they passed one in 2019.

They didn't pass one in 1990s and they saw the same violence reduction that pretty much all first world countries saw from then till now. So attributing changes in Australia to a 1996 law without noticing the evidence for the same reduction elsewhere without such laws is still the same erroneous logic.

>Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion.

Maybe if you read what I wrote "For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. " and understood that to mean what it says - there was a reduction over that time without such a law. Passing one 20+ years after the fact does not change that those reductions were seen around the world, including New Zealand.

If they pass more next year it doesn't invalidate that without such a law they saw reductions. If they remove all laws in a decade it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. If the world ends it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions.

See the difference?

>Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further.

Indeed.

[notacoward]

> They didn't pass one in 1990s

Wow, those goalposts sure moved a long way! We were talking about the Osmington shooting in 2018, so 2019 is totally relevant. Also, New Zealand did pass an amendment to the Arms Act in 1992, in response to the Aramoana massacre. So even if you did want to restrict this to that narrower time range you're still very very wrong. You cherry-picked the numbers for reduction in deaths (without citation) and claimed it was unrelated to any law change only because you failed to do the basic research which would have shown that there was such a change after all. That's exactly the dishonesty you project onto others.

According to the guidelines, we're supposed to be curious, and not merely polemical. If you're not willing to learn the facts on your own, maybe at least engage people in actual dialogue instead of always attacking them for having reached different conclusions based on those facts.

[ChrisLomont]

>Wow, those goalposts sure moved a long way!

Read the thread your replying into. Here's the descending comments:

1. Topic: Australia confiscated 650k guns. Murder and suicides plummeted. This was 1996

2. Death plummets in the decades following 1996.

3. There were more mass shootings in Australia before the 1996 law than after.

4. List with shootings since 1996.

5. List doesn't compare to the shooting in 1996.

6. Question on evidence about effectiveness of such buybacks, asking about the buyback from Australia working.....

7. Me: It doesn't necessarily work. Similarly to Australia since 1996, other countries saw similar reductions in murder, even without passing such a law. New Zealand for example saw this reduction without passing such a law (around the same time clearly implied, since we were talking about reduction in crime from around 1996....)

8. You: derailed by ignoring the thread and pointing out New Zealand passed a law in 2019, well after the crime drop.

You are really the only one in this thread confused about how to demonstrate if such laws work by looking at the evidence.

>We were talking about the Osmington shooting in 2018

Um no, we were not. It was mentioned in a comment about items on a list. The nest comment went back to asking about effectiveness of laws like the 1996 law, and the one after that clearly went back to discussing evidence for or against such laws by using other places, again from 1996. No one else jumped back to it except you much later...

>Also, New Zealand did pass an amendment to the Arms Act in 1992

Yep, and tell me exactly how many and which guns this removed? Oh, none? So they didn't remove any guns.... And how is this evidence in a thread asking about gun buyback law effectiveness? The summaries of the law even state that it did not change much, because like the US Assault Weapons Ban, it was based on scary looking things instead of important things like lethality.

But it didn't remove guns, and apparently didn't change much at all.

Since you seem unable to note the discussion is about homicide rates dropping pretty consistently despite local laws, here is New Zealand's homicide rate over the entire period in question [1]. Which laws caused this? Is there clear jumps?

Now do the same for pretty much any first world country, note the same reductions, note the variety of laws passed or not, and pretty soon you notice the laws do not seem to be the driving force in homicide reduction.

But go ahead and keep losing the thread and moving the goal posts.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NZL/new-zealand/murder...

[notacoward]

> tell me exactly how many and which guns this removed? Oh, none?

What a convenient assumption ... but a false one. There was no headline-making gun buyback, but changes in classification and licensing requirements led to guns not being purchasable or leaving the system in the normal course of events. And when did this happen? Oh look, big drops in 1992 (right after Aramoana) and 2009 (after more amendments). All easy to find BTW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand

The fact is that New Zealand has repeatedly tightened gun laws, and repeatedly seen corresponding drops in gun homicides. Let's not forget gun suicides and (mostly preventable) accidents, either. Reducing gun deaths is an ongoing process, but it's pretty obvious which approaches work and which don't. "Good guy with a gun" has failed the empirical test quite spectacularly, because - as we just saw in Uvalde - the "good guys" are often pretty bad. Overall, the people who love guns the most are disproportionately likely to be risk-naive (if not actively risk-seeking) and prone to escalation of conflict. Like some people on the internet.

The mental health issue we should be dealing with is not just individual violent ideation, but socially reinforced infatuation with tools that do have legitimate and safe uses but also have significant downsides when not properly regulated.

[ChrisLomont]

> Oh look, big drops in 1992

The data I just posted shows a 22% increase in 1992, 38% down in 1993, 35% up in 1994, 32% down in 1995, 12% up in 1996, 23% up in 1997, .....

There was drops before 1992 also, e.g. 16% down in 1991. Maybe the laws were not the magic cause of all this?

Know what trendlines are? Time smoothed analysis?

>and 2009

Data shows up 30% in 2009. I just posted the data.

I guess you ignore trendlines, right? Can I point to the large years of increase and simply claim the laws completely failed? You only seem able to point to successes and ignore failures.....

>The fact is that New Zealand has repeatedly tightened gun laws, and repeatedly seen corresponding drops in gun homicides.

The fact is also that the US saw fewer laws and had a much bigger drop [1] in homicide rates during the same period.... Is this evidence New Zealand's laws reduced the drop they would have gotten without any laws? This is the kind of voodoo you're chasing.

The fact is, as I've now written many times, is lots of countries saw the same drops without such laws. The question was do such laws cause the reductions, or are there other causes. Since cross country data shows these drops without such laws, that is strong evidence that the laws are not responsible for the drops. Criminology rese3atrch points more likely to reduction of lead in the environment being the cause.

If you really want to learn - lead paint was banned in New Zealand in 1979, gas phased out starting in 1986.... Australia stopped most lead paint use in 1970, and slowly banned it completely. US banned paint in 1978, This repeats all over the first world......

Want to see a source? [2]. Go ahead and keep beating the dead horse, and ignore that there is a really plausible, well-researched explanation for these drops, and it's not the one you keep implying is the reason.

You keep picking small pieces of data, ignoring counter facts, missing the overall trend, and ignoring the evidence I cite. Your "about" comment on your profile seems apt. I'm done.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murd...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Effect_on_crime...

[notacoward]

The relevant data point for 1992 is the year after the amendment. That's a 39% drop from 1992 (1.9) to 1993 (1.16). Similarly, the relevant data for 2009 is the year after. That's down 36.5% from 2009 (1.55) to 2010 (0.98). Those are the two biggest drops on the chart. Citing the years before the law changes - in anticipation of changes that hadn't happened yet - is either asinine or dishonest. We don't do time travel around here.

> Know what trendlines are?

The trend line is from 1.86 in 1990 to 0.74 in 2017, as successively more restrictive laws were enacted. Apparently I'm not the one who needs to learn how to read a chart.

> lead paint was banned in New Zealand in 1979, gas phased out starting in 1986

And what were the effects on gun deaths in New Zealand? Why don't you cite those? Oh, I think we know. Those arguments are both post hoc and red herrings. You can add those to your collection, along with cherry picking and goalpost moving. Yes, you're done all right. Positively toasty.