HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

Electronic Letters to:

ORIGINAL ARTICLES: J Ozanne-Smith, K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis, and A Clapperton Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform Inj Prev 2004; 10: 280-286 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

Why not freedom to own rocket launchers?

Simon Chapman   (5 January 2005)

Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform.

Dr. James B. Lawson, none   (4 January 2005)

Response to Simon Chapman

Peter W. Whelan   (23 December 2004)

No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform

Simon Chapman   (6 December 2004)

Re: “Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform”

James B. Lawson   (6 December 2004)

Author's response inadaquate

Peter W. Whelan   (26 November 2004)

Regulatory reform: no real effect on public health and safety

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran   (12 November 2004)

Authors'Reply

Joan Ozanne-Smith, K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis and A Clapperton   (3 November 2004)

Monash Uni Report "junk science"

Peter W Whelan   (3 November 2004)

Why not freedom to own rocket launchers? 5 January 2005
Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health University of Sydney Send letter to journal: Re: Why not freedom to own rocket launchers? simonchapman{at}health.usyd.edu.au Simon Chapman	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 Australians surveyed believed there was no place in a civilized society for virtually unrestricted civilian ownership of semi-automatic and pump action weapons capable of rapidly killing many people [2]. These were the guns that were banned in Australia in 1996 after the massacre. People like James Lawson mourn the loss of the ability to own such weapons and trivialize mass killings (“only 3% of all Australian homicides”) and gun deaths (“only 12% of Australian suicides and only 16% of Australian murders.”). The nub of their argument is that people intent on killing or suiciding will find other means to do so and therefore policies designed to reduce the ease with which people can kill many others quickly are ill-conceived. The reductio ad absurdum of the right to own rapid-fire weapons is presumably that civilians such as The Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters, in the name of freedom to play “sport” with such weapons, should be allowed to own flame throwers, rocket launchers, grenades, dynamite, and tanks. People who might one day be dangerous or develop terrorist proclivities should be identified, they’d argue, so that law abiding people could play with their rocket launchers, machine guns etc at will. With the world desperate to pre-identify terrorists, the profound naivety of this should be obvious to all. If this is not their position and that they believe the prohibitions on these things are sensible, we would all appreciate learning where they draw the line. By the same logic, Dr Lawson would presumably oppose effective suicide prevention measures that have been associated with reduction in overall suicide rates such as the strict control of barbiturates[3], the detoxification of domestic gas supply[4,5], and the construction of access barriers on high buildings. Do I believe gun deaths are more important than murders and suicides not involving guns, and whether it would not be more sensible to try and reduce all such deaths? The sub-text of the question here is “instead of going after guns, why don’t you go after larger fish?” This is a bit like saying “if you can’t fix all health problems, how dare you try to fix any” or suggesting that diabetes prevention specialists should abandon their efforts because cancer kills more people. Public health measures to reduce death and injury always consider the practicalities and cost-benefits of proposed strategies. The Childers back -packer murderer Lawson refers to, set fire to a hostel. It would be sheer folly to ban matches and petrol. Parents who kill their families use a variety of means such as suffocation, knives and car exhausts, where similar cost-benefit problems exist in proposals to ban the means. Plainly, none of these means can be controlled via legislation whereas gun access can be significantly reduced with the only cost being the loss of the “freedom” to not be able own one of these ultra-lethal weapons that the Australian community has repeatedly urged should be banned [2]. Finally, I thank Dr Lawson for his generous comments on my book. He may be disconcerted to know that I donate royalties to causes such as gun control. References 1. Lawson JS. Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform [electronic response to Chapman, S. No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform (eLetter) http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/5/280#142] injuryprevention.com 2005 http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/5/280#156 2. Chapman S. Over our dead bodies. Port Arthur and Australia’s fight for gun control. Pluto Press 1998. Table 3.1. 3. Schapira K, Linsley KR, Linsley A, Kelly TP, Kay DW. Relationship of suicide rates to social factors and availability of lethal methods: comparison of suicide in Newcastle upon Tyne 1961-1965 and 1985-1994. Br J Psychiatry. 2001 May;178:458-64. 4. Lester D. The effect of restricting access to lethal methods for suicide: a study of suicide by domestic gas in Japan. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1989;80:180-2. 5. Lester D. The effect of the detoxification of domestic gas in Switzerland on the suicide rate. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1990;82:383-4.
Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform. 4 January 2005
Dr. James B. Lawson, medical doctor none, none Send letter to journal: Re: Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform. lawbb{at}melbpc.org.au Dr. James B. Lawson, et al.	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 Australia since 1996, although none with guns. The worst was the arson attack in Childers, where 15 people were murdered. Others have involved knives and parents gassing themselves and their children in their cars. The effectiveness of the 1996 Australian gun confiscations ("buy- back" is a Government euphemism) in reducing suicide and violent crime has been examined in detail by Reuter and Mouzos.[3] They find, inter alia, that: 1. Mass murders account for only 3% of all Australian homicides.[4] Of the 13 such killings 1989-90 to 1996-7, only six involved guns.[5] (Chapman's comments are simply irrelevant to over 98% of Australian murders). 2. "Observed declines in ... homicide continued a long term trend rather than the effects of the Port Arthur incident."[6] 3. On mass murder, as raised specifically by Chapman, they state "there has been a modest reduction in severity and frequency ... none have involved firearms, although the frequency of these events is so low that not much can be inferred".[7] 4. The lowest Australian gun homicide rate was in 1950,[8] (when there were no virtually long gun controls at all). 5. "Suicide rates did not fall ... homicides continued a modest decline."[9] 6. There was a marked rise in total armed and unarmed robbery, particularly with knives.[10] 7. UK gun bans did not reduce violent crime.[11] 8. "All this is generally consistent with substitution."[12] The most enthusiastic endorsement Reuter and Mouzos can scrape together is "There may have been a modest effect on homicides. The number declined continuing a pre-existing trend ... one could not reject the hypothesis that it had reduced homicides by 10%."[13] (As the homicide rate before the 1996 confiscations fluctuated by up to 15% each year,[14] this is not significant). While Reuter and Mouzos do not say so, their findings suggest that the 1996 confiscations have wasted over half a billion dollars of Australian taxpayers' money. Chapman attributes the passage of the 1996 Australian confiscation laws NOT to hard facts, or any plausible theory, but to years of prior media advocacy extending over several years BEFORE the Port Arthur killings.[15] He further urges that such tragedies be "anticipated and planned for" by such activists to "exploit to advantage" the interest generated.[16] Chapman is well known for his enthusiastic use of media advocacy to bring about changes in the law and teaches tertiary courses on this subject.[17] Details of technique are provided in his outstanding text,[18] which is essential reading for political activists of all persuasions. Despite the reference to public health in the title, the book is about media manipulation, with minimal reference to public health principles. There is nothing on relative risk, cost-benefit analysis, correlation versus causation or outcome evaluation. There is no matching insistence on checking actual outcome of the law changes. In particular, Chapman insists the activist must " frame the debate".[19] In our current context, this means insisting that we are concerned only with gun murders, not total murders. He also recommends the use of "creative epidemiology" in advocacy work, ie reworking the data into "interesting and arresting forms."[20] He actually does this in his electronic letter where he compares 103 months with 9 years. Chapman describes how to facilitate misrepresentation of extremist opposing views as being typical of moderate mainstream opposing views.[21] Many will doubt whether such a simplistic "sound bite"[22] approach is likely to improve public safety. Browning, in particular, claims that political activists dress their agendas in public health clothes so as to claim respectability, moral superiority and sometimes government funds.[23] In addition, the mass media may well be part of the problem. Criminologists have repeatedly pointed out the media practice of concentrating on rare sensational events, thus misleading the public about crime risks in the real world.[24-26] It would be very helpful if Chapman and Ozanne-Smith could EITHER publicly clarify why they believe gun deaths are of much greater importance than non-gun suicides and murders OR confirm that the real issue is how to reduce TOTAL deaths, not just deaths from a particular instrument. We must decide whether the aim is to reduce deaths ONLY from GUN murders and suicides or deaths from total murders and suicides. Given limited resources, what is the best way to use them? Conclusions: 1) The 1996 mass gun confiscations were not nearly as effective as Chapman implies, if they were effective at all; 2) all political activists should study Chapman's book on media advocacy; and 3) the subtle distinction between "media advocacy" and propaganda, if any, is unclear and readers may wish to ponder for this for themselves. I have previously detailed the failure of mass gun confiscation in both Australia and the United Kingdom to bring about any significant change in total homicide rates.[27] References 1. Chapman S. No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform [electronic response to Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z, Clapperton A. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL direct link to eLetter . 2. Ozanne-Smith J et al. Firearms related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Injury prevention 2004;10:280-286. 3. Reuter P, Mouzos J. "Australia: a Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns".Chapter 4. In: "Evaluating Gun Policy- Effects on crime and violence". Eds. Ludwig J, Cook P J. Brookings Institute Press, 2003. 4. ibid. p127 5. ibid. p127 6. ibid. p134 7. ibid. p122 8. ibid. p126 9. ibid. p121 10. ibid. p138 11. ibid. p122 12. ibid. p140 13. ibid. p140 14. Mukherjee S, Carcach C. "Violent Deaths & firearms in Australia: data and Trends". Australian Institute of Criminology 1996. Derived from Table 3.1, p18. 15. Chapman S. "Over Our Dead Bodies-Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control". Pluto Press 1998. Preface vii, pp 5,8,9. NOTE: This book may be out of print. Contact Pluto Press Australia (not Pluto UK) pluto@plutoaustralia.com 16. Chapman S. Over our dead Bodies. ibid. pp 6,7. 17. http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/docs/chapman.htm 18. Chapman S, Lupton D. "The Fight for Public Health-Principles and practice of media advocacy". BMJ Publishing Group 1994. 19. Chapman & Lupton. Ibid. p12 20. ibid. p160-163 21. ibid pp158-9. 22. Chapman S. Over Our Dead Bodies op. cit. p90. 23. Browning RW. "Exploiting Health-Activists and Government v the people". Canonbury Press 1992. Pp 3,4,13. 24. Mouzos J., Segrave M. "Homicide in Australia. 2002-2003 National Homicide monitoring program Annual Report". Australian institute of criminology 2004. p3. 25. Weatherburn D. "Law and Order in Australia-Rhetoric and reality". The Federation Press 2004. pp 2,3,48 26. Grabowsy P., Wilson P. "Journalism and Justice-How crime is reported". Pluto Press Sydney. 1989. Especially chapters 2,8,9. 27. Lawson J B. Re: Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. [electronic response to Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z, Clapperton A. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL direct link to eLetter
Response to Simon Chapman 23 December 2004
Peter W. Whelan, President C.L.A.S.S. Action Group Fellow, Institution of Engineers (Aust) Send letter to journal: Re: Response to Simon Chapman peter.whelan{at}ozemail.com.au Peter W. Whelan	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 by Brookings Institute Wash. USA, in which the topic of Australia's gun laws was covered under the heading of "A massive Buy Back of Low Risk Guns"!! Murder by firearm has always been a relatively rare occurence in Australia. Since the harsh gun laws of 1996/97, contrary to Chapman's claims, there have been several mass murders; the Childers (QLD) Fire Massacre, in which 15 young backpackers were murdered, and the Snow Town (S.A.) "bodies in the barrels" case, in which 12 people were murdered (by piano wire!) as well as several cases where parents murdered their children (and sometimes themselves) by knife, bathwater, pillows and car exhaust. (ref. A.I.C. Research Report no 46). The tragic mass murders, where a firearm was selected as the weapon, should have been treated as problems of mental health, not of firearms ownership! As long as mental health is ignored in our community, murders and suicides will continue to be a problem. Those in the medical profession, who choose to place the blame for such occurrences, on legally owned firearms, are simply diverting attention from the real issues. On the topic of mobile telephones, I do not need to offer any supporting data, as reference was made to mobile telephone ownership, as an example of the many variables that should have been taken into account, in analysing what had happened since 1978. I might well have highlighted the increasing use of CCTV surveillance of shopping centres and railway stations, or of the dramatic increase in private security guards, armed with handguns, who now patrol our streets. All of the above, and many other factors, may have had an effect on "gun deaths" , but the original paper by Monash Uni Accident Prevention Unit, failed to take any of those factors into account. Further study should also be made of the useage of firearms for self- defence. It can be assumed that if just one person at Port Arthur in 1996, had been carrying a firearm, the number of deaths might have been as low as 2 or 3, rather than 35. References 1. Chapman S. No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform [electronic response to Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z, Clapperton A. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL direct link to eLetter
No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform 6 December 2004
Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health School of Public Health, University of Sydney Send letter to journal: Re: No mass shootings in Australia since gun law reform simonchapman{at}health.usyd.edu.au Simon Chapman	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 more impressive. Eighty percent of gun deaths in Australia are suicides. Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns (the only guns subject to the buyback) are irrelevant in suicides -- with only one squeeze of the trigger required, any of the bolt or lever action guns still available to licensed shooters can be used. The same applies to guns used in domestic slayings of the sort where angry or depressed men shoot their partners and children. As suicides and domestic killings together constitute the largest proportion of gun deaths, removing only semi-automatics from the community should not make any difference. But it certainly seems to have done so. The ban on semi-automatic rifles with their potential to kill many people quickly was introduced as a specific response to the horror of the Port Arthur killings. What all Australians can be thankful for is that, in the 103 months since Port Arthur, there have been no mass shooting incidents in Australia where four or more people were shot, let alone killed. Yet in the nine years before Port Arthur, there were 10 such incidents such as Strathfield (NSW), Hoddle and Queen Streets (Victoria), with 66 people being killed. Peter Whelan [2] fails to support his hypothesis with any data nor even one reference demonstrating that improvements in surgical techniques since 1996 and the proliferation of mobile phones (that might get ambulances to firearm injured persons more quickly) may explain the improved firearm death rates. As author of the main study that has examined the use of mobile phones in emergency situations [3] I can assure him that many hours of investigation to see if mobile phone use has indeed shortened the "golden hour" has failed to provide any evidence that this intuitive and appealing hypothesis is in fact the case. References 1. J Ozanne-Smith, K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis, and A Clapperton Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 280-286. 2. Whelan P W. Monash Uni Report "junk science" [electronic response to Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z, Clapperton A. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL diredt link to eLetter 3. Chapman S, Schofield W. Lifesavers and Samaritans: emergency use of cellular (mobile) phones in Australia. Accid Anal Prev. 1998;30(6):815-9.
Re: “Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform” 6 December 2004
James B. Lawson, Medical Practitioner none Send letter to journal: Re: Re: “Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform” lawbb{at}melbpc.org.au James B. Lawson	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 in firearm deaths has any influence on total deaths and injuries. They make only a single comment that “despite the declines related to homicide, overall suicide and homicide rates in Victoria did not show a similar decline.” However, review of the wider literature shows that changes in gun ownership are unrelated to total suicide and homicide rates. I am concerned that political activist groups will take this study beyond its frame of reference and misquote it as proving that “gun bans work”. Some moral zealots of anti-gun persuasion have had an ongoing campaign of media advocacy to manipulate public opinion and policy on this issue, starting some years BEFORE the Port Arthur killings which were the catalyst for the Australian mass gun confiscations of 1996. This is mentioned repeatedly in the work by Chapman,[2] one of the references listed by the authors. Indeed, Chapman suggests such groups form a prior contingency plan to maximise politically advantageous media coverage of any dramatic gun crimes which may occur in the future. Because of this controversy, it is vital that hard facts be obtained on the specific question of whether mass confiscation of legally owned guns causes a sustained and significant reduction in TOTAL suicide and homicide. Besides the AUS$340 million mentioned by Ozanne-Smith and co- workers, Australian taxpayers have paid another AUS$100 million for the 2003 handgun confiscations from legally licensed owners. This diverts valuable scarce resources from health, education and law enforcement. There is no point in paying huge sums to get people to hang themselves instead of shoot themselves and to stab each other instead of shoot each other. We must check whether there is a net benefit to public health and safety. Resources for compensation payments and for enforcement costs must come from somewhere. If taken from the health sector, such bans may indirectly end up costing more lives than they might save. For example, over the relevant time, is there a correlation between declining gun deaths and lengthening hospital waiting lists or frequency of ambulance bypass? No-one has attempted such a difficult assessment, apart from Lott and Mustard, who examined only crime costs.[3] Australia cannot afford not to get this wrong. Review of the wider literature shows: 1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found a steady decline in all types of gun deaths over 15 years from 1980-1995, before the law changes.[4] 2. Australian total murder rates were lower prior to 1970, when there were virtually no long gun controls at all.[5] The long term homicide rate is fairly stable despite annual fluctuations.[6] 3. Guns now account for only 12% of Australian suicides[7] and only 16% of Australian murders.[8] 4. Ninety percent of Australian gun murders are committed by criminals who are unlicensed and with guns which are unregistered.[9] Ozanne-Smith’s hope of achieving “vision zero” through confiscation of registered guns from licensed owners is therefore naïve at best. (NOTE: Only legal guns were confiscated. The authors’ findings are irrelevant to 88% of total suicides, 90% of gun murders and over 98% of total murders.) 5. The National Injury Surveillance Unit documented that the fall in gun suicides was accompanied by a rise in total suicide due to substitution of hanging and car exhaust gas.[10] 6. Britain has suffered massive rises in gun murder and total murder, about 70% over 1996-2003, despite the total confiscation of all legal handguns in 1996-7.[11] 7. The USA has had a 50% fall in murder over a similar period,[12] despite increased gun ownership.[13] This is most marked in those states which allow guns for self defence.[14] Readers should also be aware that some criminologists have made scathing criticisms of the quality of research done by medical doctors in this area, notably Kates et al.[15] I look forward to further research from Professor Ozanne-Smith and the Monash group addressing the relationship between gun availability and total suicide and murder rates and also the cost-effectiveness of mass gun confiscation in reducing these deaths, both in Australia and other nations. References 1. Ozanne-Smith J et al. Firearms related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Injury prevention 2004;10:280-286. 2. Chapman S. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia’s fight for gun control. Pluto Press 1998. 3. Lott JR, Mustard DB. Crime, Deterrence and Right-to Carry Concealed Handguns. Journal of Legal Studies. 26(1) 1-68 Jan 1997. URL direct link accessed 14 Nov 2004. 4. Firearms Deaths Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Feb 1997. Cat. No. 4397.0 5. Mouzos J. Homicidal Encounters: a Study of Homicide in Australia 1989-1999. Australian Institute of Criminology 2000. 6. Mouzos J, Segrave M. Homicide in Australia 2002-2003 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report. Australian Institute of Criminology 2004. 7. Year Book Australia 2002. Health Special Article-Suicide. Australian Bureau of Statistics. URL direct link accessed 29 Oct 2004. 8. Mouzos J., Segrave M. Homicide in Australia 2002-2003 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report. p42. Australian Institute of Criminology 2004. 9. Mouzos J. Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms used in Homicide. Trends and Issues Paper 151. May 2000. Australian Institute of Criminology. URL direct link accessed 14 Nov 2004. 10. Harrison JE., Steenkamp M. Suicide in Australia: Trends and data for 1998. Australian Injury Prevention Bulletin Issue 23 2000. URL direct link accessed 14 Nov 2004. 11. Povey D. Ed. Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Homicide and Gun Crime. January 2004. Home Office –United Kingdom. URL direct link accessed 14 Nov 2004. 12. Homicide Trends in the US. Long term trends and patterns. US Department of Justice 2003. URL direct link accessed 14 Nov 2004. 13. Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control. Table 3.1 pp 96-7. Aldine de Gruyter 1997. 14. Lott JR, Mustard DB. ibid. 15. Kates DB. Et al. Chapter 5, Bad medicine: Doctors and Guns. in “Guns: Who should have them?” Ed. Kopel DB. Prometheus 1995.
Author's response inadaquate 26 November 2004
Peter W. Whelan, President, CLASS Action (Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters Inc.) Fellow, Institution of Engineers, Aust. Send letter to journal: Re: Author's response inadaquate peter.whelan{at}ozemail.com.au Peter W. Whelan	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 one of the highest per capita murder/suicide rates in Australia. b) By what criteria was it decided that "suicide by firearm" was more significant than death by rope, car exhaust or other method. J Ozanne-Smith refers to the "thousand more lives lost to firearms" but that figure equates to those who suicided by other methods. What was the ranking system used to decide that "firearms deaths" were of greater importance that the many other methods used? Are those murdered, or who suicided by gun, classed as "REALLY DEAD", while those killed by other methods, are somehow capable of being resurrected? My own personal interest in this topic is because my wife's cousin had to hand in two of his late father's guns in the 1996/97 "buy back". So distraught was he, at parting with those family heirlooms, the only memory he held of his father, that he took the Government cheque, went and bought a bottle of scotch and some rope and hanged himself in his back yard. I have heard of several other similar cases, where the harsh gun laws "caused" deaths. c) What influence had the Victorian Government on the outcome of the report? I note that many of the references were from Vic Gov., or Vic Police reports... Was the funding for this report, conditional on production of a "favourable" outcome"? Reference 1. Whelan P W. Monash Uni Report "junk science" [electronic response to J Ozanne-Smith, K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis, A Clapperton. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL direct link to eLetter 2. Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z, Clapperton A. Authors' reply [electronic response to Whelan P W. Monash Uni Report "junk science"] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL direct link to eLetter
Regulatory reform: no real effect on public health and safety 12 November 2004
Jeanine Baker, SA President, SSAA (Inc.) Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) Inc., Samara McPhedran Send letter to journal: Re: Regulatory reform: no real effect on public health and safety jb{at}ssaa.org.au Jeanine Baker, et al.	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 declining across Australia since the 1980s, and that the pattern of decline is consistent Australia wide. The Victorian legislation did not, therefore, provide any unique impact upon firearms deaths. A comprehensive review of the statistical methods used in the Monash study is currently being compiled. Despite their very brief acknowledgement that suicide rates overall were unchanged by firearms legislation (indeed, we have seen a sharp increase in the rate of suicides by hanging), and the fact that they did not find any significant ‘effect’ of Victorian legislation on assault/homicides, the report puts forward the claim that firearms deaths overall were reduced in Victoria by legislative restrictions. This claim rests purely on the substantial proportion of ‘firearm suicides’ included in ‘firearms deaths overall’. In reality, the report only supports the already well known statistic that firearms suicides have declined over the years. Similarly, we are disappointed by the Monash group’s failure to appropriately contextualise their work. Firearms legislation – whether in 1988 or 1996 – has not made any genuine contribution to overall public health and safety. Homicide rates remain constant over time, the use of knives in homicides continues to rise, and the rate of serious assault and sexual assault is climbing. Suicide rates overall rose at an alarming rate until the introduction of intervention programmes. These programmes address the causes of suicide, and focus upon prevention strategies. We are, therefore, troubled by the Monash study’s covert acceptance of the counterproductive and outdated principle that restricting access to one of the many methods of suicide can have a legitimate effect on overall suicide rates. A more detailed report is in preparation. In the interim, we urge health professionals and legislators to ask themselves the difficult question of whether we wish to move forward and address overall public health and safety issues by focussing on genuine preventative measures and effective policing, or whether to take a step backwards by endorsing the view that legislation alone can prevent suicide, assault, and homicide. References 1. Whelan PW. Monash Uni Report "junk science" [electronic response to Ozanne-Smith J et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 URL direct link to eLetter 2. Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z and Clapperton A. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev 2004;10:280-286.
Authors'Reply 3 November 2004
Joan Ozanne-Smith Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis and A Clapperton Send letter to journal: Re: Authors'Reply joan.ozanne-smith{at}general.monash.edu.au Joan Ozanne-Smith, et al.	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 context of tightened regulations. It acknowledged also, in particular, the effects of associated publicity, community awareness and firearm buy-back schemes. It is not possible to precisely separate out these and other possible effects, though impact measures for registered firearms, licensed shooters, household ownership of guns and gun buy-back all trend in the expected directions. The study utilized a quasi-experimental design, with in-built controls, due to the "natural experiment" of Victoria tightening its firearm laws at an earlier point than the rest of Australia, whereby the rest of Australia became the control for Victoria. Later, when uniform national laws were implemented, Victoria became the control for the rest of Australia. Importantly, the analysis has shown the tight correspondence between death rate trends in Victoria and the rest of Australia in the pre-intervention period. We estimate that if pre-1988 trends in firearm fatalities had continued in Australia, more than one thousand more lives would have been lost to firearms. This would equate to multi-million dollar costs associated with lives lost. While method substitution was stated to be beyond the scope of our study, we are pleased to report that there has been a reduction in suicide rates in Victoria of 7% between the early 1990s and 2002.[2] References 1. Whelan PW et al. Monash Uni Report "junk science" [electronic response to J Ozanne-Smith et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform] injuryprevention.com 2004 http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/5/280#115 2. Victoria 2002. Injury Profile in press.
Monash Uni Report "junk science" 3 November 2004
Peter W Whelan, Company Chairman Fellow, Inst .of Engineers Send letter to journal: Re: Monash Uni Report "junk science" peter.whelan{at}ozemail.com.au Peter W Whelan	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 the fall in Gun Deaths, is to jump to an entirely irrational conclusion. It is an example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc or that flaw in logic, which assumes that because one event follows another, that one was the cause of the other. Consider the many variables during that period; many Medical Professionals point to the improvements in technology and provision of Emergency Treatment, for saving victims of crime, who would earlier have died. This is supported by the fact that Assaults and Attempted Murder increased by 50% from 1995-2002, but the Murder Rate only fluctuated slightly. Most people now have mobile phones, not even in existence in 1979, so contact with emergency services, following an attack, or accident, is now much quicker. Furthermore, through Legal definition, many deaths (Murders?) are now classed as "manslaughter". These have increased, peaking at 48, in 2000. It also appears that "Method Substitution" has been ignored. Murders in Australia increased by 20% in one year alone (2001-2002), while Suicides are at an all-time high. While Gun Deaths may have slightly dropped, death by knife, rope and car exhaust increased. It is of no consolation to the Family of a Victim to be told by the Monash Uni. "Never mind. A Firearm wasn't used!" For any scientific study to have credibility, a "control group" should be used. What better control group could we study, than New Zealand? N.Z. had no "Tough Gun Laws", no Gun Buy backs, no complex and expensive Firearms Registration System. Rifles and Guns banned in Australia, are readily available in NZ. The Authors even acknowledged that the N.Z. Firearms Death Rate is much lower than that of Australia! The Authors also ignored the fact that the lowest Homicide rate in Australia, at 0.8/100,000 and the lowest Firearm Homicide rate, at 0.4/100,000, occurred during the period from 1940 to 1950, when there were almost no Gun Laws and almost everyone had guns! Could we assume that the funding sponsors of this study, being the very Government that introduced the "Tough Gun Laws", may have had some influence in dictating the desired result? The Authors would be advised to study the report by Dr. Louis Christie, Emergency Physian and DCT, Orange (NSW) Hospital. That report, Titled "Australian Gun Controls: should more be done?" published in 1999, debunks the myths of Gun Control. Reference 1. Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, Stathakis V Z and Clapperton A. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev 2004;10:280-286.