michaelnewbern.com

Yesterday, I shared a simple analysis I performed on Australian gun policy and violent crime in Australia some four years ago. It was picked up by a couple of gun rights groups and shared several more times. This resulted in a few folks challenging my findings.

I admit that there are a lot of factors left out of consideration that are meaningful. However, the analysis was a simple regression exercise; one dependent and one independent variable. Any good, honest researcher will attest to the fact that no study is conclusive, especially in social sciences. However, a preponderance of studies with similar findings becomes more difficult to refute.

Such is the case with my simple analysis. Its findings are similar to those by academics much more qualified than I. In fact, one article a dissident posted in an effort to refute my stated lack of statistical significance made similar claims with respect to overall violent crime.

One thing wasn’t quite so black and white though. Because homicides of all kinds (not just shootings) have been on the decline since 1996, the team can’t statistically say for sure that gun laws were the catalyst that caused gun-related murders to drop.

The article also states that no evidence suggesting a crime modality shift existed. This means that the study touted in the article proving that Australia’s 1996 gun eliminated mass shootings could not be linked to any homicide reduction. My simple analysis four years ago stated the same.

No single study in social sciences can be conclusive. However, the data and analyses performed all point to the same conclusion: Australia’s gun ban did not impact violent crime or homicide. And since mass shootings were occurring at such a low rate prior to the ban, little can be inferred on its impact there as well.