Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 5 January 2005
- Published on: 4 January 2005
- Published on: 23 December 2004
- Published on: 6 December 2004
- Published on: 6 December 2004
- Published on: 26 November 2004
- Published on: 12 November 2004
- Published on: 3 November 2004
- Published on: 3 November 2004
- Published on: 5 January 2005Why not freedom to own rocket launchers?Show More
Dear Editor
Despite James Lawson’s best efforts to suggest otherwise [1], ordinary people – and thankfully nearly all politicians on all sides of Australian politics -- understand that 10 mass shootings involving 66 deaths in 10 years, followed by 103 months with no such incidents is a positive development. Opinion polls before and after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre repeatedly showed overwhelming proportions of A...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 4 January 2005Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform.Show More
Dear Editor
I note with interest Chapman's contribution to the discussion[1] on the paper by Ozanne-Smith et al. on firearm law reform in Australia.[2] Chapman's claims are not incorrect, as far as they go. However, like Ozanne-Smith et al, it is what Chapman has left out that may confuse readers.
There have been several mass murders (defined as four or more deaths in one incident) in A...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 23 December 2004Response to Simon ChapmanShow More
Dear Editor
I read the response from Chapman with interest.[1] In referring to the number of guns handed in during the 1996/97 buy back, Chapman fails to disclose that those firearms, legally owned by farmers and sporting shooters, had never been a problem in society. I refer to the submission by Australian Institute of Criminology to the publication "Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence" published...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 6 December 2004No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reformShow More
Dear Editor
The 1996 national gun law reforms in Australia saw 660 959 semi-automatic and pump action shotguns removed from the Australian community. The impressive fall in the Victorian and Australian gun death rate and the falls in reported gun ownership in Melbourne homes reported by Ozanne-Smith et al plainly have much to do with this.[1] However the impact of the gun law reforms on mass killings is even mo...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 6 December 2004Re: “Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform”Show More
Dear Editor
I read with interest this paper by Ozanne-Smith and co-workers.[1] I congratulate the authors on their meticulous confirmation of the intuitive expectation that fewer firearms in the community correlates with a reduction in firearms deaths and injuries. Unfortunately, the authors confine themselves to the limited objective of studying firearm deaths in isolation. They do not ask whether the reduction...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 26 November 2004Author's response inadaquateShow More
Dear Editor
In responding to my critique of the report,[1] Joan Ozanne-Smith failed to address my specific comments.[2] I therefore call upon her and her colleagues to explain more about their methodology: a) Why were the Victorian results not compared with those of Western Australia? Western Australia had draconian, restrictive firearms laws dating back many years, prior to the Vicorian laws, but they still have...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 12 November 2004Regulatory reform: no real effect on public health and safetyShow More
Dear Editor
We note with interest and concern the exchange between the Monash Research Group and Mr Whelan,[1] regarding serious flaws in the Monash study.[2]
Upon close scrutiny, the claim that Victoria’s 1988 firearm legislation led to significant declines relative to the rest of Australia is unsupported by the actual data. Rather, we see that firearms suicides and assaults/homicides have been decl...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 3 November 2004Authors'ReplyShow More
Dear Editor
I am writing in response to a letter from P Whelan of the organization Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters Inc.[1]
The authors of this recently published article would like to rebut attacks on the scientific facts and study design related to our research. The authors were careful to state that the dramatic reductions in firearm related fatalities in Victoria and Australia occurred in the cont...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 3 November 2004Monash Uni Report "junk science"Dear EditorShow More
The article by Ozanne-Smith et al surely indicates the low standard of Scientific Study being carried out by Monash University Accident Research Centre.[1] In claiming that the drop in firearm related deaths, from 1979-2000, was because of "strong regulatory refom", is to ignore all the other important factors which may have occurred during that period. To claim that Gun Laws were the single reason for...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.