So really what you are saying is you are just working on a “hunch” We know that it didn’t have effect on “normal” gun crime due to several studies that are newer than your cite.
As for the mass killings I am very very happy Australia hasn’t suffered any in a while and that is great news but to claim it was all even part due to the NFA is just not acceptable as a debate point without some form of cite.
Unfortunatly we have a much worse problem with gangs and murder here in the US but if you avoid violent felons and don’t sell or buy drugs your risk of murder is tiny.
I would appricate any cite that shows any correlation between the number of legal firearms owned and the murder rate or spree murder rate.
is thread drift OK here? should I attempt to prove racist ramifications of gun control or talk about how many similarities WRT economic and crime policies that both parties have? help me out here, my main forums allow thread drift and I’m up for it
Private gun ownership is racially motivated in this country. Whites want guns to protect them from Stokely Carmichael, blacks want guns to protect them from the KKK.
Stokely Carmichael gave up and moved to Africa, by the way. Maybe living in a USA pointing guns at each other over the color line wasn’t so stable.
Gun confiscation might actually make it less dangerous to be a black youth in America, if we tried it.
I didn’t think it was so much a claim as well-established fact that the roots of modern gun control in America were race-based. Is that seriously not something everyone here already knew?
Normal gun crime wasn’t targeted by the ban. Normal gun crime is not part of my argument for gun control. Spree shootings are the target of the ban. Since the ban was introduced there has been one incident in 16 years. This isn’t a hunch. This is a fact. What is a hunch - my hunch - is that the media frenzy that is often credited with an increase in copycat shoitings in the US should have a similar effect here and yet it doesn’t. Discredit my hunch on that front all want. It doesn’t change the fact that the mass shooting body count since 1996 stands at 2, and following a tightening of the laws ten years ago after that single incident there have not yet been any further incidents. Yes, it’s true that it didn’t greatly affect the rate of crimes it wasn’t targeting. What does that have to do with anything, given its effectiveness at reducing the kind of crime it was targeted at? Any reduction in other types of gun crime would be a happy side effect of that law, not the main aim.
You keep misdirecting the argument. Our gun laws have been effective against mass shootings. The effectiveness - or lack thereof - of different laws in different countries doesn’t change that. The overall homicide rate doesn’t change that. Gang activity and organised crime doesn’t change that. The specific thing these laws are targeted at reducing has reduced since they were introduced, and external factors that could conceivably have caused the rate to rise have not done so. And if there was a mass shooting in Australia next week, it still wouldn’t change the fact that we had over a decade without an incident after the introduction and then tightening of gun laws, down from 11 incidents in the decade and a half prior to their introduction.
For a start, there were two shootings in the 70s so that 58 year claim of yours is false right off the bat. I don’t have the time at the moment to search to see if there were others omitted.
On the second part, you just blatantly lie. My actual quote:
Unless you’re redefining “body count” to mean number of people wounded or killed, rather than the actual definition of a count of bodies, then 2 is correct for the 16 year period from 1996 to present, and zero is correct for the ten years since Monash.
If I said zero earlier in the thread, that was when I was using Simon Chapman’s definition of as mass shooting as incidents in which 4 or more people were killed. When someone challenged that definition, I switched to including Monash despite not having the corresponding figures for mass shootings prior to 1996 in which fewer than 4 people died, which may increase the figure of 13 prior shootings which I had been comparing to the post-1996 toll.
You don’t see the weirdness in passing a law focused on preventing something that kills fewer people than bee stings or lightning strikes? Especially one that inconveniences (at a minimum) millions of people? And one that, here in the US, will be resisted vehemently (and probably violently in some cases)?
Please note that accusing a person of lieing is against the rules.
Casualties were 7, if you are going to say 4 or more people were killed then OK but the only thing that limited the number of dead was poor aim not the effects of the legislation.
He had more than enough firepower to get into the double digits of dead and tried.
But it also sounds like you are counting family murder suicides? Note I also ignored the Whiskey Au Go Go fire where 17 people were killed with just two 23-litre drums of diesel fuel.
But all this name calling is must misdirection. Huan Yun “Allen” Xiang had six pistols and even if they were all 5 shot revolvers (which they were not) he had 30 rounds. A number of projectiles that is quite capabile of being a massacre despite your NFA.
I’d just hang out in London and you’d be too scared to come after me.
And if I had cited Kellerman or Bellesiles, then you might have the very humble beginnings of a rebuttal (although “debunked” is not how I’d describe Kellerman). So far, there have been plenty of studies in this thread, but from you we get opinion.
You seem to be afraid of many things, like freedom and London and rights. I don’t really have fears of any of those things. The rest of this is some of the more stupid bullshit I’ve read this week, but again, this is the proper forum for witnessing, so far be it from me to try and stop you.
Unless your gun regulations, or availability of guns were dramatically changed in the decade leading up to 1980, I’d have to say you are barking up the wrong tree. Regulation may have been the cure, but lack of regulation probably wasn’t the cause.
“Normal gun crime”? Why should anyone accept gun crime as normal?
You think the Melbourne gangland killings are acceptable? What is the difference if 4 people are killed in one shooting or 4 separate shootings? I seems to me that sensible regulation would address both.
The Oz is a weird place I think.
Laws and restrictions to clamp down on the gangland crimes are outside the scope of this conversation. The particular laws we are discussing were targeted at mass shootings. If you want more information on how Australia has attempted to deal with the gangland killings, start a thread or hit Google. I’m pretty sure the taskforce set up to deal with them aren’t sitting on their hands doing nothing.
Asking why a law that was introduced to deal with one specific thing doesn’t deal with every possible other thing is getting a little old, guys. The other permutation, “If it doesn’t address x then why are you doing nothing about x?” is just as tiresome. I’ve hung my hat on one thing: since legislation was introduced that made it damn near impossible to access the kinds of weapons typically used to commit mass shootings, we’ve had no mass shootings (except that one but there was a further change to the law after it that made it harder to access handguns). I don’t have an opinion on how to prevent other kinds of gun deaths or to stop rival drug gangs killing each other or eliminate gun suicides, or any of the other things you want to claim our legislation to prevent mass shootings should also have covered. You can’t call our law a failure for not impacting significantly beyond its intended scope, as though the only thing that could be called a success was a single law that solved every facet of gun violence.
So how does the current law stop someone from joining a shooting club, getting a 22LR pistol after their 6 months probation then start shooting IPSC where they buy a 10 round 9mm semi auto pistol 6 months later?
This is the exact same set of weapons Seung-Hui Cho used in the Virginia Tech massacre here, the one that killed 33 and hurt another 23.
Remember it is not uncommon for spree killers to plan their attacks well in advance, some times for more than the year that would be required.
Plus they would get good at shooting and reloading playing the IPSC game.
JSLE’s OP never specifically limited itself in scope only to the effect on mass or spree shootings. In fact homicides by gun is expressly mentioned.
This thread isn’t about how narrow you believe the scope of the law to be. It was offered as a why can’t this work in 'merica to reduce homicides by gun equally as well. But thank you for pointing out that it would be a horrible way for America to address the thousands of gun homicides as that is not the intention of such regulation apparently. :dubious:
Making automobiles virtually impossible to own would all but eliminate intentional vehicular homicides. Not to mention putting an enormous dent in the accidental vehicular homicides, and accidental deaths. To say this in any way addresses why one person kills another with an automobile is pure fantasy.
America needs a reduction in gun homicides, eliminating spree killings is just pissing in the rain.
I support the repeal of any worthless law. What does that matter here though?
It seemed obvious to me that restricting or banning guns (or cats or dogs or anything else) in one small area, when they can be carried int that area without the slightest chance of being caught, meant those laws would be worthless. Opinion, sure, but doesn’t seem controversial to me. Am I wrong?
Was that not covered in all those links I posted, or do I need to quote from them for you? What nature of data would accept as proof?
Well, assuming that those American federal laws were “worthless,” it shows the distinction you attempted to draw does not work. Here’s what you said before:
It seems that there have been American federal laws too.
It’s not obvious to me – not without looking at actual crime statistics. For example, let’s suppose they make it illegal to carry a gun without a license in the entire city of Chicago. Would it be outrageous to expect that after such a law is passed, fewer people would carry guns? And if fewer people are carrying guns, would it be outrageous to expect that there would be fewer shooting incidents? Seems to me one needs to look at the actual crime statistics.
Anyways, just so we are clear, I gather you oppose all laws which apply primarily to carrying of guns? For example the Bartley-Fox law; the Gun Free Schools Act; and so forth?
Well it depends how one reads your position. You seem to be saying that the only gun control which matters is controlling access to weapons and only if it’s done on a nationwide level. That laws concerning the carrying of those weapons, for example requiring a license to carry, are a pointless waste of time. And the same thing for laws which restrict access to weapons only for residents of a political subdivision. Did I understand you correctly?
Yes, please provide the data. The proof I would accept that gun control worked in Australia is two-fold. First, you would need to show that crime involving the use of a gun declined substantially in comparison to crime which did not involve the use of a gun. Second, you would need to show that this profile is significantly better (in terms of the relative drop in gun crime) from similar statistics for the United States.
And of course, as I mentioned above, if the statistics for Australia do not support the OP’s position, then the whole argument collapses. If they do support the OP’s position, it’s a solid piece of evidence in his favor.
