birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Wow, that was a longer response than I anticipated. I should know better by now, right? 
I'll break your response down to 3 things and respond briefly cause I don't have time for a long discussion.
MASS
2 people dead doesn't qualify as a mass gun killing. I said mass shooting. 7 people were shot. So, technically, you are correct. I meant incidents in which more than 2 people are shot to death by a gunman/woman (gotta be PC; equality and what not).
The fact remains that there was about one (mass gun killing) per year in Australia prior to the 96/03 amnesties. Since then there have been none... but if we look at it as mass shootings (ignoring deaths) and the only example is Monash uni, that's still a MASSIVE reduction.
SUICIDE
There was an insignificant reduction in overall suicides, but that is partly due to an increase in suicides within Aboriginal communities. There are so many factors at play, it's difficult to see trends for what they are. I don't have the time for a thorough analysis. Perhaps you're right. If I was going to kill myself and I had a gun in the house, it would be a thousand times easier. I might already be dead. If there was indeed a significant reduction in suicides, that works in favour of the gun amnesties. So, I don't care.
So far - mass gun killings have reduced massively and overall suicides have probably seen a significant reduction.
HOMICIDE
The 2003 handgun amnesty had more of a significant effect on the homicide rate than the 1996 amnesty, which makes sense because you can't really walk around with a rifle. There was a MASSIVE sustained reduction in the homicide rate around the time of the second amnesty. The homicide rate in Australia has nearly halved in the past 30 years. It's near impossible (considering how many factors are at play and how complex the underlying statistics are) to conclude that the gun amnesties are responsible for this decline. I don't give all the credit to gun control, but (at the same time) I'm not going to conclude that it had no impact. It's common sense that taking away weapons is going to significantly reduce homicide. To clarify what I'm saying here, 10% is significant.
To further clarify my position, one life is significant.

I'll break your response down to 3 things and respond briefly cause I don't have time for a long discussion.
MASS
2 people dead doesn't qualify as a mass gun killing. I said mass shooting. 7 people were shot. So, technically, you are correct. I meant incidents in which more than 2 people are shot to death by a gunman/woman (gotta be PC; equality and what not).
The fact remains that there was about one (mass gun killing) per year in Australia prior to the 96/03 amnesties. Since then there have been none... but if we look at it as mass shootings (ignoring deaths) and the only example is Monash uni, that's still a MASSIVE reduction.
SUICIDE
There was an insignificant reduction in overall suicides, but that is partly due to an increase in suicides within Aboriginal communities. There are so many factors at play, it's difficult to see trends for what they are. I don't have the time for a thorough analysis. Perhaps you're right. If I was going to kill myself and I had a gun in the house, it would be a thousand times easier. I might already be dead. If there was indeed a significant reduction in suicides, that works in favour of the gun amnesties. So, I don't care.
So far - mass gun killings have reduced massively and overall suicides have probably seen a significant reduction.
HOMICIDE
The 2003 handgun amnesty had more of a significant effect on the homicide rate than the 1996 amnesty, which makes sense because you can't really walk around with a rifle. There was a MASSIVE sustained reduction in the homicide rate around the time of the second amnesty. The homicide rate in Australia has nearly halved in the past 30 years. It's near impossible (considering how many factors are at play and how complex the underlying statistics are) to conclude that the gun amnesties are responsible for this decline. I don't give all the credit to gun control, but (at the same time) I'm not going to conclude that it had no impact. It's common sense that taking away weapons is going to significantly reduce homicide. To clarify what I'm saying here, 10% is significant.
To further clarify my position, one life is significant.