|
|
|
|
|
|
by notacoward
1483 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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...