Here's the first paragraph of the link in my comment above:

"Australia has the tightest gun control policies in the Pacific and some of the most comprehensive regulations internationally. New Zealand is at the opposite end of the spectrum with some of the most permissive gun policies in the Pacific region. Among developed nations it stands alone with the United States as the only two countries without universal gun registration." This assertion is backed up with a number of citations (which, honestly, I did not check out).

You seem to be missing out on these qualifiers, you should read this more carefully. More importantly, do you agree or disagree with the premise that comparing AUS and NZ's gun restrictions against their incidence and prevalence of gun homicides for given periods of time vis-a-vis the time frames of their enacted gun laws suggests that the tighter gun restrictions in AUS (compared to other nations in the Pacific, specifically NZ) did not demonstrate that gun control restrictions reduced gun homicides?

Interpreting these stats really takes considerable time, not just a quick look. You also need to have some fairly high level knowledge of how the stats were developed and how to correctly interpret and make inferences from them, something beyond the level of most people (I've had some training in the area but certainly not enough to be more than an educated consumer). For example, does AUS and NZ gather and report their stats using the same protocols? Highly doubtful. The trend for media and most non-statisticians is to cherry pick the data they feel supports their positions. Never-the-less, I'll admit that it is difficult and time consuming to come up with solid statistical evidence that refutes the conclusion that both AUS and NZ seemed to reduce gun homicides as gun control measures were enacted. However, both countries have such low incidence of gun violence anyway the numbers are probably not large enough to show anything but minor trends which can be attributed to many other factors.

I would warn people that, like it or not, the more you look into these stats, especially when comparing them to the US and between individual US States with more or less restrictive gun laws, it is increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that the stricter the gun control, the lower the rates of gun violence. An argument can be made that the rates of violence in general just shift from guns to other lethal means of homicide, but I would also bet there is clear evidence (no I'm not going to spend more time looking that up) that many countries are just much safer across the board than the US. That, however, as is often pointed out, is more a function of social justice, inequity, crime, poverty, etc.