Responses

Download PDFPDF

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings
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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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:
    Criticism and Comments on Alpers/Chapman paper

    Dear Editor

    It is not my plan to revisit the detailed AIC/ABS data and statistical analysis covered by the Alpers/Chapman report and other specialists (McPhedran/Baker). This response will offer comments from the aspects of clear thinking and logical deduction.

    Firstly, since there was never any Judicial Inquiry, nor Coronial Inquest into the Port Arthur Massacre, there was never the opportunity for any...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Author's reply to Dr Lawson

    Dear Editor

    Re: Profs. Chapman and Alpers reply to Dr Lawson. E-letter 9 Jan 2007.

    I thank Professors Chapman and Alpers for their interest in my letter[1] in response to their paper[2].

    It seems that all parties[3,4,5] agree on the facts, that there was a steady decline in gun murder and suicide before the Australian National Firearms Agreement of 1996 and that this trend continued at a slight...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    More of the same from Alpers and Chapman

    Dear Editor

    I would not have expected any different from concerted 'public health advocates' and long time anti-gun campaigners Philip Alpers and Simon Chapman than a vindication of the John Howard gun bans.

    Could it be that they have discovered the one instance in the world where gun bans can be shown to have saved lives? Could Australia be the exception to the rule that gun laws are ineffective the worl...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Author's reply to Dr Lawson
    • Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health
    • Other Contributors:
      • Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    Dear Editor

    Dr James Lawson [1] seeks to summarise similarities in our findings [2] with those of three other reports, particularly that of Baker and McPhedran [3]. He notes that we agree that there was a “continuation” of the pre-existing trend in falling firearm deaths following the implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of 1996. The word we used purposefully was that there was a sta...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearms, deaths firearms suicides and a decad

    Editor

    Re: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearms, deaths firearms suicides and a decade without mass shootings. Chapman et al. Injury Prevention: 12; 365-372. Dec 2006.

    Chapman et al. use official Australian Government statistics to demonstrate a continuing fall in firearms murder and suicide following the implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of 1996. T...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.