As cited earlier princip, the gun ban in Australia did not significantly affect anything.

^sorry, I just read the article posted by JamieTuk, lazy to find what you're talking about. Anyway, it's exactly because I agree that data in general are not conclusive enough, tat I'm suggesting you should try more, better controlled experiences, and then try to apply reasonabel criteria to the data you get.

but, of course, as this wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Studies_and_debates says:

"Despite the potential for improved research design, the National Research Council review concludes that the gaps in our knowledge on the efficacy of gun control policies are due primarily to inadequate data and not to weak research methods. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics[29] and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues.[29]"

By the way, that 29 refers to this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ that has curious things to say:

"Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas..."

Humans are not guinea pigs. It would be irresponsible to "experiment" with the rights of an entire city.

I wouldn't say that. Sometimes new things should be tried, and the local level is a great place to try them. It's more that the Second Amendment in particular, being explicitly a nationwide law, is less than amenable to 'laboratories of democracy' shenanigans. (Not that it's prevented gun regulation from varying widely between local/state jurisdictions, of course.)

nah, I totally agree with Leon:

Humans are not guinea pigs. It would be irresponsible to "experiment" with the rights of an entire city... of guinea pigs...

furthermore, how could we divise a proper "experiment" involving guinea pigs and guns? maybe if we provide them with something than automtically shoots when an MRI shows aggresivity patterns? mmh....

https://www.facebook.com/fusionmedianetwork/videos/1447254475300526/

No need for experiments.

A lot of other countries do quite well with gun control.

Australia had escalating Gun crime prior to The Port Arthur Massacre.

Measures put in place and a massive drop.

It doesn't impact economy or other safety issues or out dated civil rights ( Australia currently the 6th biggest importer of guns in the world ) but they are in saner hands ..

Guns don't kill people ..people do is true BUT people with guns kill more people than people with other hand held readily accessible weapons.

"No need for experiments"

After thousands and thousands of experiment and observations to test general relativity, there are sitll some who doubt, and specially, there are still unsolved problems of the thoery in some extreme situations. I mean, even when thousands and thousands of experiments all confirm general relativity, no phisicist would say "no need for experiments".

It's clear that not everyone agrees with your conclusions Smokey, and even when I myself tend to agree that gun control would have positive results, I aknowledge, that we need finer, more cirtical ways of researching the truth, especially since research tools exist and no, don't limit themeselves to "guinea pigs - experiments"

My point is that people like Leon not only will deny the existent evident, they'll also refuse to try and get more evidence.

Does that question take into account that people with guns may be buying them because they are more at risk already? I mean, if a serial killer is tearing up your town (yes, this is a hypothetical) so you buy a gun to defend yourself, your odds of dying were already a lot higher than the average citizen. Just so, if you buy a gun in Gangland Chicago because people get shot up all the time, your odds of being shot were already a lot higher than the average citizen's.

As to "no need for experiments" its all well and dandy to say "we should have gun control" but that is an extremely broad statement. Suggestions so far have ranged from current levels (and maybe even cutting those back) to a complete ban. Which of those would work best?

The study claims to adjust for confounders like neighborhood risk factors. I suspect doing that well is really hard, though.

Useful viewpoint on how effective guns in the nightclub would have been:
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Pulse-club-crowd-not-incapacitate-the-gunman/answer/Joe-Buettner