Responses

Download PDFPDF

Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Why not freedom to own rocket launchers?

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform.

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Response to Simon Chapman

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: “Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform”

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Author's response inadaquate
    • Peter W. Whelan, President, CLASS Action (Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters Inc.)

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Regulatory reform: no real effect on public health and safety
    • Jeanine Baker, SA President, SSAA (Inc.)
    • Other Contributors:
      • Samara McPhedran

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Authors'Reply
    • Joan Ozanne-Smith
    • Other Contributors:
      • K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis and A Clapperton

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Monash Uni Report "junk science"
    Dear Editor

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.