According to a study mentioned in the linked article:“the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”
is New Zealand a good analogue for Australia? also why wouldn't Australian gun policy effect New Zealand?
rural vs urban population
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9NC8BIuaEM
vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5hrUGFhsXo 4.4 million versus 22.6 million population
Per capita does not control for the effects of group size.
so I would say to the authors of that piece "why don't you know that?" the answer is International Coalition for Women inShooting and Hunting (WiSH), Glebe NSW, Australia. chair@ic-wish.org <-the author
That or a identification of propaganda.
My argument does not contain an ad hom though.
My argument is that New Zealand is a bad analogue for Australia and is misused by the study. My speculation is that paper used bad science because it was paid for by a pro-gun lobby.