Talk:National Firearms Agreement

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal National Firearms Agreement is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Firearms Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistical Bias

From everything written here, in spite of the citations provided, the article in general seem to be a bit biased toward the narrative that gun control somehow worked for Australia. Actual statistics show that violent crime rose before tapering off to levels before the NFA was passed. In short, the article should reflect that the NFA didn't really curb violent crime at all instead of providing stats that only indicate a convenient drop in the crime rate because of the NFA. 72.197.9.171 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel free to add reliable sources for such claims if you believe they are true and can find reliable sources to support them. Everymorning (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weebly.com

A study of murders and attempted murders with firearms and knives in Australia from 2001 to 2015 using statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that a victim has a 1.34 times greater chance of death from knife attack than if a gun was used.^[1]

References

^ http://gunfactsaustralia.weebly.com/knives-more-danger.html

"gunfactsaustralia.weebly.com" is not a "study" - it's a page on a blog. I cut it from the article. If a reputable source makes the same point then add it back. Felsic2 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent mass shootings

Subsequent to the act, mass shootings (defined as 5 or more deaths) in Australia ceased, and this seems to have been a result of the act. There has been some reduction in most other types of gun deaths, although to what extent this is due to the act is less clear.

Also in 2016, Simon Chapman and colleagues reported that there were no mass shootings in Australia between when the NFA became law and May 2016. The same study also found that "there was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude." Chapman, Simon; Alpers, Philip; Jones, Michael (22 June 2016). "Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013". JAMA. 316: 291. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8752.

The first quote, from the intro, summarizes the second quote, from the body of the article. It is a simple statement of fact, not an opinion. Felsic2 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is not a "quote"; rather, it is a rather undue statement that seems extremely biased. In other words, it appears to be editorializing, and is presented more like an opinion. A "summary" should not go above and beyond the statements in the cite. And, who defines a mass shooting as 5 or more deaths? This looks like an opinion, not a summary of a "fact". Also, there have been 8 months elapsed since any claim was made. Recentism notwithstanding, we should not make a statement that something that was possibly true 8 months ago remains true, today. Besides, there were several shootings involving multiple victims covered in the press since May 2016. No, the "quote" is not a summary. It appears to just be an opinion and undue editorializing. It does not add any real information to the article, but appears to be pushing an agenda that is POV driven. It is not a valid summary. Hence, it was removed. My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have called them "excerpts", since they are text from this article.. I used template:quote so the word came to mind. (The template isn't worth the trouble, IMO).

The legal definition of "mass shooting" in Australia requires five fatalities.

The source is :

Chapman, Simon; Alpers, Philip; Jones, Michael (22 June 2016). "Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013". JAMA. 316: 291. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8752.

'JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association is one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Death rates are certainly within their area of expertise. Here is the entire conclusion of the article.

"Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms."

The summary in excerpt #2 looks correct. As for excerpt #1, from the intro, maybe it could be restated more succinctly:

"A study found that there were no mass shooting deaths of five or more in Australia from 1997 through 2016, though the authors notes that is is impossible to prove the agreement was the cause."

Does that sound correct? Felsic2 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this study received considerable attention when it was released.[1] I don't see any dispute over its findings, but if there is one we should include it. Felsic2 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New summary is much better. No problems with it. It would be fine for insertion. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Felsic2 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there was a shooting of 5 people on 2014 (including the gunman if that counts) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/hunt-family-inquest-reopens-pain-of-tragic-deaths/news-story/6c46b2d3b86210e4d8568d16201ade01?nk=c1fb4c95c44e4e8741f235a754575661-1507122886 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PENGAmurungu (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that one doesn't count because it didn't happen in a public place. Everymorning (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Firearms Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 2 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

This reference, inserted multiple times on the page, is not relevant to the text it is attached to. It seems to be a reference bomb by a non-neutral contributor and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psypablos (talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://gunfactsaustralia.weebly.com/knives-more-danger.html

[1]