Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[LucidSDreamr]

∆the problem is that the ppl making the laws could never get there in the first place without the NRA money.

I feel like coming conservatives have a very strong grip on power bc everyone including Dems enjoy 1) more money in thier pocket and 2) getting rid of other races they have to look at compete with for work.

The higher the wage gap goes the more these two factors will sway voters to the right bc being worried about someone being racist or oppressing gays becomes less important to you when your family is hungry. The poorer and more screwed ppl get the more support the right gets.

The disadvantaged also cling to religion more as well, firther

 

[Xorkoth]

EDIT: This is directed at Jess, just took me a while to compose.

Okay I don't have time to reply to all your specific points here, I apologize. But okay I see your point. I'll stop saying assault rifles. What I mean when I've been saying assault rifles is semiautomatic guns, particularly ones with larger magazine capacity. I don't think semiautomatic guns should be allowed because of the reasons I stated. You say that "people suggest we ban one lot of guns but not another lot despite being identical". Pistols and slower firing guns are not identical to quick-firing, larger magazine guns and to say that they are seems silly to me. The latter are able to cause much more damage in a very short amount of time. Had the shooters in these mass shootings been armed with pistols, more people would have been able to react. Yes, people would have probably died still, but when someone shoots 10 bullets into a crowd within seconds, before there is time to react to the first shot or even register what's happening properly, the result is much more devastating than if someone can fire one shot, then another, then another, and has to reload after 6 shots or whatever (please don't get bogged down on actual numbers, I've only ever shot .22 caliber rifles and a small shotgun when I was in Boy Scouts to earn some merit badges, I'm just trying to make a point). It gives people a lot more time to react before it's too late when someone can't shoot very quickly and has to take time to reload more often.

I believe in total person freedom in an ideal world. But honestly, we have a huge problem right now in this country involving murdering sprees with guns. The difference between your needles and drug use example and semiautomatic guns is that giving drug users needles is purely harm reduction. People don't go around using needles to infect people with AIDs or inject them with drugs without their consent, they're using needles on themselves to do drugs. Giving them clean needles prevents the spread of disease. There is no negative scenario here, people can choose to hurt themselves by injecting drugs, or not, and it affects only them (and peripherally their loved ones), unless they start spreading diseases from unsafe IVing practices, which is why providing clean needles is a good thing.

On the other hand, allowing people to own semiautomatic weapons is not harm reduction by any stretch of the imagination. People are using these guns to inflict worse harm on others than they would be able to with less capacity/firing speed guns. It sure would be nice if we could let people own whatever weapons they wanted, but the state of the world begs us to reconsider this position. The best argument for allowing any guns people want is "cuz I want to own them and I should be able to because freedom, and 'murica!". Okay, that's nice, and if some people weren't such fucking crazy psychopaths that they want to murder as many random people as they can, I would be like, cool, go for it, what do I care? But I DO care, and it's because there ARE a lot of crazy homicidal maniacs, as is evidenced by the number of mass shootings that are happening. If policy change can lead to a reduction in the availability of crazed murderous sociopaths being able to get these weapons, and subsequently moving forward there are less deaths in these mass shootings because of less shots fired and more time to react, then why on Earth would we not do that? Do we let people have ricin, or VX nerve gas, or biological weapons, or nuclear warheads, or bombs? No, we don't, and rightfully so, because these things allow people to cause mass death/damage much easier than they could otherwise. It's the same thing here, although I am certainly not trying to directly compare nerve gas and weaponized viruses and nukes directly to semiautomatic weapons, I'm just using it as an example of something else we prohibit. Would you say you believe people should be able to purchase and own biological weapons and nerve gas and nuclear missiles? Because if not, your argument that we should have total personal freedom as the reason we should be able to own whatever guns we want is moot.

And before you say "we already tried this and it failed", can you link me to something or summarize when we tried before and it failed? I'm not aware of this but it's just because I've never really been a part of this debate since I don't care to own guns myself.

I always wonder at how it's just us Americans who are so obsessed with owning guns. Seems like everywhere else in the "first world" doesn't have this same idea of their "god-given right to guns", or many gun deaths. Generally when I'm trying to make a point and literally no one else shares my opinion, it causes me to stop and think about whether everyone else is just weird/wrong... or maybe, just maybe, it's me who's wrong.

 

[zephyr]

^ jess, theres lies and then theres stating an opinion.




I could say "gun control solves nothing" is a lie but would rather see it happen first then say it....oh wait I already saw it happen and yes "gun control wont work" is incorrect, tital nonsense.


I dont feel the need to back up Australias one goid deed by Howard. Either read or scroll your choice.


Homocides by GUN and suicides by gun and domestic disputes involving guns declined dramatically after the ban.


By GUN.

Given guns give someone the ability to injure and kill more people at a faster rate than other weapons, it is a fact that deaths by guns in Australia declined.

A lot of weapons including crossbows etc are registered or you need a license. Of course snyone deranged can kill using anything but the ease of killing many by gun just isnt there and theres a lot being done for domestic violence survivors to evict and convict their abusers.


Murder is murder. Not every murder can be prevented but can be decreased by simple things like gun control .



There has not been a massacre like Port Arthur since. The indiscriminate shooting like that and what happened in Mandalay. Theres nutbags around anyway and yes there are murders which happen but the average aussie can feel safe they wont get shot dead randomly .

Americans might feel perfectly safe and not an issue. Thats your call. I wonder why parents of the deceased kids are asking for something to be done then.


And what to do actually. Have perfectly innocent targeted as they look strange and could be a mass murderer? Have metal detectors and increased security and cctv?


Thats not freedom. Thats more scrutiny and more rules to dictate your lives rather than just getting rid of high powered weapons.

Yes there are still gun deaths, mainly accidental ie toddler who shot herself playing as the dad didnt bother using a gun safe. Also organised crime shootings in high crime areas. Those guns arent machine guns but still illegal.

Its difficult to get guns here esp high powered or modified so when shootings happen they are very rare.

 

[tathra]

Except your wrong. People keep throwing around words like assault rifle and assault weapon and hunting rifle. They don't really know what they mean, and if you're tathra perhaps you think to quibble about the meanings is just being pedantic.

It's an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon, they are weapons and rifles used in an assault right?

Wrong. That might be how you use them, but it's not how everyone uses them. Some of these words do have specific meanings. And the fact that they are continually misused paints a picture of reality which is untrue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92?33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

finding a definition was so difficult, it took me so many days to dig it out of obscurity. 8(

 

[JessFR]

Thank you for reading what I said with consideration. I appreciate it. My phones gonna go flat soon so can't write any more lengthly replies till I recharge it.

I'll answer everything you brought up but with the time I have ill just focus on one and add the rest later. In the meantime I'll see what evidence I can dig up about the last assault weapon ban, it's been a while since I looked.

Yes, one is harm reduction and the other isn't. My point was never that suggesting we shouldn't ban guns is any form of harm reduction. That's not what I'm saying is similar about it.

I'm saying that the mistaken beliefs follow the same kind of patterns that come into drug prohibition as come into a lot of gun control laws. As with the needle example. Sure, letting people have clean needles is harm reduction and letting people have guns isn't. But what I'm saying is that suggesting that we ban needles, and suggesting that we say, ban assault weapons, are similar in that they are both reactionary emotion driven policies that both reflect ignorance of the realities of the situation.

For needles its that clean needles have been shown to reduce the transmission of disease in the community. It has a benefit to the stats.and there's no evidence that it increases drug use.

But many believe it's obvious that it would enable drug use,and should be banned for that reason.

Likewise, many believe that assault weapons are clearly military, and clearly fundamentally different to a firearm that looks to them like a hunting rifle. And so one should be banned and the other shouldn't. But in reality there may be no difference at all. And even aside from the loss of freedom. If nothing else it's also a loss of time and effort that could have been spent on a more effective worthwhile policy. That's the way in which I say there's similarity. Body are reflections of bad policy stemming from a lack of understanding of the details and the stats.

As for magazine sizes. Well, it's worth nothing that I'm not entirely convinced yet that that's a bad idea. My strong suspicion is that it won't work. But I haven't done enough research to be completely comfortable in saying that. Unlike some of the other suggestions, it is a functional difference, so the idea that it might have a real impact is much more substantial.

The reason I tend to think it still won't work though is based on the math and timing. It takes a second or two to reload a semiautomatic. Perhaps if we banned say, all semiautomatic rifles. We'd just see more shootings like Virginia tech. Where the shooter just used two pistols instead.

When the reload time is so small, I really doubt it'd help much.

But, let's talk for a sec about banning all semiautomatics. Get rid of them completely. That's pretty similar to what Australia did. And based on that. I tend to think that that would be quite effective at stopping these kinds of spree killings.

But there are other considerations. Apart from how difficult such a policy would be to enact in the US.

Is it really worth stopping the spree killings if there's no net benefit to the overall stats? We as a society obviously and rightly get very upset when this shit happens. It's horrible. But in the interests of good policy, preserving the most freedom possible. Is it worth eliminating spree killings if they are statistically so small that they don't register in the stats. Should we ban things because of the level of emotional impact alone? I'm not actually saying we shouldn't. I'm undecided myself. Maybe we should. But it's a question that makes me nervous about supporting that suggestion.

Then there's another question. Is there a different policy that could be as effective but with less cost to freedom? Perhaps the Australian way isn't the only way to do it. Perhaps we could implement a strong licensing scheme like they have. Perhaps that would be just as effective. Controlling who has the guns rather than what guns they have. While still preserving the freedoms of people currently enjoying them.

That's the form of gun control I'm most supportive of by the way. A licensing system. From everything I've seen, I think that's the key to doing as much good as possible without the level of cost to freedoms in society as banning semiautomatics.

OK battery's at 2%. I was able to say a bit more than I thought I'd get out. But I'll get to the rest later.

But thanks again for listening. The few who do, even if they just rationally argue it without agreeing, is probably the only reason I try at all.

As I said before, I'm not against gun control, I'm not against gun control that would be more extreme and incompatible with the 2nd amendment than an assault weapon ban. I'm against bad and poorly considered gun control.

EDIT: Tathra don't have much time but like I said, it has to be selective fire. Either burst, automatic, or both. Semi autos aren't assault rifles. And the confusion only adds to the wrong idea that these spree killings are done with automatics. I don't know what you're on about acting like I said that finding the definition was hard. I said it was easy. But the conversations past that point now and I've already made the points I was gonna make when I was talking to you about it.

And as for the other new post, who cares if gun crime drops if knife crime takes its place? Are you that dead set on being stabbed but not shot?

Australians, that's the answer. That's who. That's why every news article talking about the success of the 96 gun controls only talks about gun crime. They don't want you to know that it had no effect on crime overall. Meaning other weapons took their place with no net reduction on the stats.

I said all this already. It's like you only care about how people kill each other. So long as it's not with a gun it doesn't matter if it costs an extra 200 lives a year. So long as that 200 was stabbed right? Nor do you care if people's freedoms were taken away to save Noone. Or even if it cost lives to do so. Cause as I said, you care about the guns, not the lives.

Tell me I'm wrong.


1%

 

[zephyr]

But, let's talk for a sec about banning all semiautomatics. Get rid of them completely. That's pretty similar to what Australia did. And based on that. I tend to think that that would be quite effective at stopping these kinds of spree killings.

Sometimes its just time to step up and pass a bill or law regardless of a noisy number of people who demand their right to have these stupid semi automatic weapons.


And say tough tits to those who dont want gun control.

Whats is more important- not upsetting people or just cracking down on these killings? Theres so many especially in gang areas its gonna be very difficult and thats just too bad. Maybe its too hard and govt cant be bothered?


Howard just did it. It got passed through swiftly due to timing. No one could really state a reason why anyone needed automatic weapons. We dont need them.

He was right. Years later after the gun buy back and all was said and done, still no one can say why they were needed as they are not.

 

[JessFR]

The US is not Australia. If you pass unconstitutional gun control it'll be challenged and it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws it out.

The US isn't Australia. There are no such rights in Australia. Parliament can do whatever it likes.

The US on the other hand has the bill of rights and I for one am thankful for that.

Also bravo ignoring absolutely everything else.

Yes yes, all that matters is guns are gone. And if people have to die for it to happen, who cares am I right?

Oh except. It's bullshit. I've seen guns everywhere in the criminal underworld in Sydney. It's a fucking joke. If I'd wanted I could have gotten a gun in 24 hours. It's a joke.

But doesn't matter right? Normal law abiding people can't just go and buy them and that's the only thing that matters.

 

[drug_mentor]

I've looked in great depth at the statistics pre and post the Australian 1996 Howard gun policies. There was no change to the numbers of people who died in violent crimes. No evidence that it saved any lives lost in crimes of any sort for the freedoms it took away.

Between 1981 and 1996 there were 13 mass shootings in Australia which resulted in 104 deaths and 52 injured people. Since the Howard gun policies, no mass shootings. In the couple of decades since, the annual rate of gun deaths has dropped from 2.9 per 100,000 to 0.9 per 100,000 (source). Even if deaths from violent crime remained the same since 1996 after gun control, it seems fairly obvious that if mass shootings had continued to occur at the frequency they did between 1981 and 1996 then the number of deaths from violent crime would have increased. So, it still seems fairly reasonable (albeit not conclusive) to infer that gun control has reduced violent crime.

Moreover, according to this source the national homicide rate has declined from 1.8 per 100,000 in 1989-1990 to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-2014. We all know that correlation does not entail causation, but prima facie the data does suggest that gun control has reduced deaths from violent crimes in Australia. A complete halt to mass shootings coupled with a near halving of the number of Australian's killed through violent crime might not conclusively show that the Howard gun control policy directly reduced the number of deaths due to violent crime; but, it certainly is evidence (and I would say reasonably strong evidence) that these policies have had such an effect. According to the sources I have linked, it is plainly false to assert that "[t]here was no change to the numbers of people who died in violent crimes.". How can you say an almost 50% reduction in the number of deaths due to violent crime is "no change"? In my eyes, that is a significant change. Admittedly, it might be due to some other factor (and almost certainly is due to several factors) - but it is far from implausible to think that gun control policies played some role here.

If you deny that these statistics constitute evidence that the Howard gun control policies reduced death from violent crime, could you please state what you would regard as evidence in favour of such a claim?

Can you provide any statistics to back up your claim that there has been no reduction in deaths from violent crime since Howard gun control policies were implemented? The author of my first source is the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the author of the second is an assistant professor in criminology. Of course, they could be mistaken - but they certainly have the relevant academic background to be analysing this sort of data.

 

[zephyr]

Im pretty certain there would have been mass murders and rampages involving the gunning down of innocent people going about their day if nothing had have been done, its not exactly a coincidence that there were no more shooting rampages.

 

[JessFR]

Yes overall deaths have decreased, that's true. I didn't mention it cause what I said was still true without it and I didn't expect anyone would bother to check. So props for that.

The problem is the crime rate has been decreasing for a long time. It was before the gun controls and it has continued since. Just as it has in much of the western world.

What theres no evidence of is any change to the rare or decreased, good or bad, correlated with 96 or the added gun controls sometime around 01-03.

As you said, correlation, but not causative. If the gun control has an effect of significance, keeping in mind that we can't easily control for other variables, you'd expect to see some change to the rate of decrease and there wasn't one. Which results in no evidence.

Just for record, most of the stats I used when I looked into it were the ABS crime data sheets as I recall. I looked up and plotted on a graph every year I could find. I wanted to know if it was true. If Australian gun control worked. And just as you said, crime has gone down but there's nothing to suggest 96 changed anything. It has been a steady downward trend that predates 96 going back quite some time. Not just Australia either. It's happening in much the western world. Which is why it's bullshit when people say crimes getting worse. It's not.

As for all the other points I've seen, ive already addressed most of them.

I do think there's evidence the 96 gun controls stopped mass shootings. But like I said before. I'm not sure i agree that we should be banning shit because we deem this particular crime far worse than say, another kind of crime that kills far more people but isn't hyped up by the news.

I don't think banning shit is OK unless the evidence suggests it'll have a net impact on the number of lives saved.

And as I also already said, even if we assume for arguments sake that school shootings have to be stopped even if it doesn't actually impact the stats because the number of dead is too small compared to the total. And maybe it is. Banning semiautomatics isn't inherently the only way to accomplish that goal. And my saying the 96 Australian gun control worked at that, and pretty much only that goal. Isn't the same as saying it's the only way to do it or the best way.

 

[swilow]

I've argued this with Australians countless times. I don't anymore I've long since given up even trying to discuss this kind of thing with Australians. Which is why I generally ignore them regarding this kind of thing on bluelight. It's a waste of my time I could be using talking to people who give a shit about the principle of reducing freedoms for no benefit. I gave up years ago after I convinced someone through the stats, a hard line antigun person, that the 96 gun controls didn't work.

Only for him to immediately retort that he didn't care. It got rid of guns. That nobody was saved doesn't matter. That pretty much was when I realized. Australians as a whole actually don't care. I was actually kinda shocked at the time.

I dunno Jesse, I think you are being kinda unfair here. You are making an enormous generalisation here. You've mentioned this debate you had with this friend in the past, and frankly I don't see how its even marginally relevant except as a pretext for you to dismiss the views of any Australian trying to participate in this debate.

Would you think it valid if all American opinions were dismissed because all Americans have the same views on guns?

I'm sure you don't care about the principles of freedom, that perhaps it's wrong to reduce freedom, including freedoms you don't yourself use, for not benefit to society. I've never found an Australian who did.

I think you are demonstrating that you don't understand the Australian view on guns and freedom. A lot of Australians I have discussed this with mention that the mere presence of guns in Australian society IS an infringement on the freedom to live without fear of guns and the extreme violence that guns are responsible for. The infringement on freedom to own guns is considered a lesser infringement. There is a validiity to that that perhaps an American cannot understand. You cannot deny the fact that America appears to have enormous amount of mass shootings, and its that violence that Australia has tried to escape. And its a type of violence that Australia has escaped.

Australia is not contemplating having armed teachers. Australia has not had one incident, with guns or otherwise, at schools this year that I can see. Australia, in general, has lower incidence of violent crime compared to the US. You can talk all you want about freedom, but the freedom to live without the threat of violence is something worthwhile, even if the particular violence is only of one kind.

It doesn't work to examine the ideals of Australians and guns in the light of American values. I don't support much of what our government does, but I support our societies view on guns, and its that view that government reflects.

 

[zephyr]

The US is not Australia. If you pass unconstitutional gun control it'll be challenged and it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws it out.

The US isn't Australia. There are no such rights in Australia. Parliament can do whatever it likes.

The US on the other hand has the bill of rights and I for one am thankful for that.

Also bravo ignoring absolutely everything else.

Yes yes, all that matters is guns are gone. And if people have to die for it to happen, who cares am I right?

Oh except. It's bullshit. I've seen guns everywhere in the criminal underworld in Sydney. It's a fucking joke. If I'd wanted I could have gotten a gun in 24 hours. It's a joke.

But doesn't matter right? Normal law abiding people can't just go and buy them and that's the only thing that matters.

Jess im not ignoring all youve written but havent ever multiquoted ad nauseum to anyone and never will, besides this isnt just you and I chatting and reading everyones and responding equally takes way to long. Sorry if you keep being offended but its nothing intentional.


As for the criminal underworld yeah sure there are guns. And no that doesnt mean everyone should as the common person wouldnt have any need or be involved in crimes.

Cops are pretty aware of the gang families and weapons being fired draws attention so the guns will always be looked for. Theres not that many thank god.

Even I could get a bloody gun in Melbourne but srsly why bother.


The common person can get a gun license and can get weapons and must be registered and have a gun safe. They must be kept stored.

So whats the use besides pig hunting whatever?


Here if we use excessive force to protect property in a break in we can go to jail as a life apparently is worth more than things and property. I dont really agree with that but thats the way it is.

Crimes with guns are treated far more seriously too.

Aussie isnt perfect indeed, sure some rules are over the top like having to wear shoes driving but tbh Id much rather that than this weird thing about bearing arms and to hell with the consequences.

Sure the mass murders might be statistically small in number but easily avoided . Who knows, maybe cops wont be so trigger happy knowing there are far fewer people walking around with a handgun on them?

 

[drug_mentor]

Yes. I can. But I won't if nobodies gonna read it.

I didn't ask for them just so I could ignore them. I like to think my posts here over the years indicate that I generally argue in good faith. You made a claim, I am asking you to back it up. If you can't back the claim up then you should retract it.

Yes overall deaths have decreased, that's true. I didn't mention it cause what I said was still true without it and I didn't expect anyone would bother to check. So props for that.

The problem is the crime rate has been decreasing for a long time. It was before the gun controls and it has continued since. Just as it has in much of the western world.

What theres no evidence of is any change to the rare or decreased, good or bad, correlated with 96 or the added gun controls sometime around 01-03.

But there is such evidence. My first source has a graph titled 'Gun-related death rates, Australia, 1980-2016', and this graph indicates between 1980 and 1996 the rate of gun homicide decreased from roughly 0.8 per 100,000 to 0.55 per 100,00 or so - a bit less than a third reduction in 16 years - and the rate fell to about 0.25 per 100,000 around 01 - a greater than 50% reduction in 5 years. There was a slight increase between 01 and 03, which declined quite significantly again after the 2003 buy back scheme. The second source has a graph titled 'Homicide rates per 100,000 people, 2000-2012' - and there is a marked decline in homicides after 2003, the year when a subsequent buy-back scheme was implemented.

According to the second source, only 14% of homicides in Australia involve the use of firearms. This is to be contrasted with 40% of homicides worldwide. There are not many things which make it as easy to kill another human being as a gun, I don't think it is clutching at straws to suggest that Australia's relatively low homicide rate is in part caused by a lack of access to firearms.

As you said, correlation, but not causative. If the gun control has an effect of significance, keeping in mind that we can't easily control for other variables, you'd expect to see some change to the rate of decrease and there wasn't one. Which results in no evidence.

But there was a change to the rate of decrease, as cited above. Hence, there is evidence.

I do think there's evidence the 96 gun controls stopped mass shootings. But like I said before. I'm not sure i agree that we should be banning shit because we deem this particular crime was a than another, virtually identical one.

What 'virtually identical' crimes to mass shootings are occurring in Australia? A couple of psychopaths driving cars through densely populated urban areas is all I can think of, and so far as I am aware they occur at a considerably lower frequency than mass shootings occurred between 1980 and 1996 - at least in cases where the number of deaths was comparable.

I don't think banning shit is OK unless the evidence suggests it'll have a net impact on the number of lives saved.

Overall, I agree with you here. But, I think I have demonstrated that there is evidence gun control policies have a net impact on the number of lives saved. I have only looked at Australia, but I would be surprised if Scotland didn't have similar reductions in deaths from violent crime following the gun control policy which was implemented after the Dunblane massacre.

 

[JessFR]

Perhaps then when you have time you should read my last few posts. I've covered all the things you've brought up that I've noticed.

Someone else here asked about the assault weapon bans effectiveness. I just wanted to mention that there's lots of interesting stuff over on the 94 assault weapon bans Wikipedia article. Obviously Wikipedia by itself isn't proof, but many of its sources are so it's a good place to look. So far what I've read has been consistent with what I've looked into previously. Which is that it had no real impact on anything. Not even gun crime which is particularly pathetic. But not surprising given all the problems with the concept that I've mentioned.

 

[JessFR]

I didn't ask for them just so I could ignore them. I like to think my posts here over the years indicate that I generally argue in good faith. You made a claim, I am asking you to back it up. If you can't back the claim up then you should retract it.



But there is such evidence. My first source has a graph titled 'Gun-related death rates, Australia, 1980-2016', and this graph indicates between 1980 and 1996 the rate of gun homicide decreased from roughly 0.8 per 100,000 to 0.55 per 100,00 or so - a bit less than a third reduction in 16 years - and the rate fell to about 0.25 per 100,000 around 01 - a greater than 50% reduction in 5 years. There was a slight increase between 01 and 03, which declined quite significantly again after the 2003 buy back scheme. The second source has a graph titled 'Homicide rates per 100,000 people, 2000-2012 - and there is a marked decline in homicides after 2003, the year when a subsequent buy-back scheme was implemented.

According to the second source, only 14% of homicides in Australia involve the use of firearms. This is to be contrasted with 40% of homicides worldwide. There are not many things which make it as easy to kill another human being as a gun, I don't think it is clutching at straws to suggest that Australia's relatively low homicide rate is in part caused by a lack of access to firearms.



But there was a change to the rate of decrease, as cited above. Hence, there is evidence.



What 'virtually identical' crimes to mass shootings are occurring in Australia? A couple of psychopaths driving cars through densely populated urban areas is all I can think of, and so far as I am aware they occur at a considerably lower frequency than mass shootings occurred between 1980 and 1996 - at least in cases where the number of deaths was comparable.



Overall, I agree with you here. But, I think I have demonstrated that there is evidence gun control policies have a net impact on the number of lives saved. I have only looked at Australia, but I would be surprised if Scotland didn't have similar reductions in deaths from violent crime following the gun control policy which was implemented after the Dunblane massacre.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody should give a fuck about the gun specific stats. It's not of help to society if we eliminate gun deaths but see a massive increase in knife deaths. The overall impact could result in more deaths than doing nothing!

I've mentioned this repeatedly so it's frustrating to STILL be seeing people bring up gun specific stats.

I never said that Australia's 96 gun controls didn't reduce gun crime. I never said it because it's not true. It did reduce gun crime. What it didn't reduce were the overall crime stats.

Which means either the gun crime was already so low that its elimination didn't impact the overall picture. Or other weapons or means filled in for the loss in gun deaths.

And frankly. I'd rather not die by getting stabbed to death either. And I'd especially rather not be at increased risk of being stabbed to death cause people cared more and exclusively about the gun deaths and nothing else.

Now in actual fact, this is what I'm saying the 96 Australian gun controls did. They reduced gun crime. They did not reduce overall crime. Crime rates did go down after 96,but at the same rate as they had already been dropping by from long before 96. They thankfully did not increase your likelyhood of dying in a homicide. But they didn't reduce it either. My point in suggesting the possibility of gun control resulting in more people dying isn't because it's true. Ive seen no evidence of Australia's gun control increasing anyone's risk of anything. My point is that for arguments sake, had it been true, it would be the case that you could be pointing at the gun stats saying how successful it was and you'll have gotten people killed to get it. You'd have made things worse. Which is why you shouldn't judge gun control by its effectiveness on gun crime. It's a serious mistake. You have to look at the whole picture or you could entirely miss the destruction you've caused as a side effect. Or as in this case, miss the evidence that it simply did nothing good or bad.

The overall picture is still as I said. No homicides prevented by the 96 gun control.

 

[Tubbs]

"It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon."

That's the definition of an assault weapon.

 

[drug_mentor]

Perhaps then when you have time you should read my last few posts. I've covered all the things you've brought up that I've noticed.

I have read most of them and have not seen the statistics I asked for.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody should give a fuck about the gun specific stats. It's not of help to society if we eliminate gun deaths but see a massive increase in knife deaths. The overall impact could result in more deaths than doing nothing!

I've mentioned this repeatedly so it's frustrating to STILL be seeing people bring up gun specific stats.

(My emphasis.) I agree with you - that is why I did not mention gun specific stats in a vacuum, but contrasted them with a correlation in the reduction in deaths resulting from violent crime - a trend that you denied exists, by the way.

I never said that Australia's 96 gun controls didn't reduce gun crime. I never said it because it's not true. It did reduce gun crime. What it didn't reduce were the overall crime stats.

I don't know about 'crime stats', broadly construed. But I cited evidence that showed deaths resulting from violent crimes declined after the gun controls. I acknowledged that there was already a downward trend, but pointed out that the trend clearly accelerated following buyback schemes.

Now in actual fact, this is what I'm saying the 96 Australian gun controls did. They reduced gun crime. They did not reduce overall crime. Crime rates did go down after 96,but at the same rate as they had already been dropping by from long before 96.

The overall picture is still as I said. No homicides prevented by the 96 gun control.

This is false according to the reputable sources I have provided. Please provide some reputable source(s) which refute this, or concede that you are wrong. Please, show me the data. I have showed you mine. You have been quite critical of another poster in this thread for being vague; it is a little ironic that you keep dogmatically asserting this 'fact', in the absence of any supporting evidence - and without due acknowledgement of the counter-evidence I have adduced.

 

[JessFR]

In the interest of honesty and not being a hypocrite, there is something else I should mention. Something I've omitted because I suspect someone will ignore absolutely everything else I've said, and jump on it and only it.

I haven't said anything I know to be untrue, but I have perhaps been slightly deceptive in how I've said it. I've repeatedly said there's no evidence the 96 gun control didn't reduce overall homicide rates and similar crime. And from everything I've seen that's true.

There is however something else, in my opinion it's a small thing, but it is something worth mentioning that might be a positive impact of the 96 gun control. Probably the only thing it did that there's evidence of that's of any worth.

Its been a long time since Ive looked at the numbers, but my recollection from what I saw at the time is that there might have been a modest decrease in the completed suicides around 96. Which might have been a result of decreased gun availability.

Its a very small thing, in the sense that I think that it's way too small a benefit to justify the 96 gun controls. We might have saved far more through a million better policies that cost no freedom at all. But it doesn't feel right to me knowing that that and withholding it.

So yes, there might be one, very small thing that was a positive result of the gun controls in an overall, meaningful sense. It's been way too long for me to remember for sure, but at the time I was looking for any impacts good or bad that I could find related to it. And that's something I remember noting as a possibility.

But, keep in mind, it's only a possibility. in the sense that it's not something I could rule out. Not in the sense that it's definitely true.

Unfortunately showing this evidence would be quite difficult. At the time I was only able to find this information by manually looking up all the individual years the ABS had in record and plotting them onto a graph. I wasn't able to find any existing graphs that were accurate for what I wanted to know. Everything I found was clearly biased for once side of the other and I wanted to know the truth. So I wound up having to get it straight from the ABS and they only had the straight numbers for each year. Not as a ready to go graph.

You can easily find what I did though, as I recall they were the ABS crime statistic data sheets from early 80s to present. Present at the time being probably more than a decade ago now.

I'm not saying that I won't do it all again, just explaining why I'm not exactly jumping at the possibility of tracking them all down and plotting it again. Especially when i would likely have to get the software for my laptop to plot it again too. Assuming it's as hard to find as last time. Especially when I'm obviously thinking that even if I did all that work, it could just be ignored.

Thankfully the assault weapons ban should be much easier to find evidence of. Since much of that works already done.

Problem is in Australia, nobody wanted to know the truth. Some people wanted to prove it worked, a few extremists wanted to prove it failed and as badly as possible. I couldn't find anyone who had bothered to found out impartial truth about it.

And since the crime rates been falling anyway, you really need those individual years to show that 96 didn't do anything. Just getting a decades worth of reduction in one number is useless.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I would have thought after the Mandalay shooting there would be a push to clamp down on availabolity of modifications to guns to have practical machine guns legally available.

The NRA actually supported a ban on bump stocks.

 

[zephyr]

^ Yeah well thats great. How did this translate into actually doing something about it tho ?