australia had about one mass shooting a year before 1996. then, they did a bunch of gun control in that year, and for decades after, they hadn't had a mass shooting. that's too big of a coincidence to say it's just an anomoly. the gun control included gun buy backs, outlawing certain types of guns, controlling how to store guns, among other things
mass shootings probably stopped because of gun control in australia
Posts
Total:
99
yeah they never really had a problem to begin with, prior to 1996 the rates were going down, continued to go down (after it spiked up) without any real steep decline. Not even their own law makers and countless studies can say with any certainty that these bans etc had any appreciable effect on the stats. If the spike after 1996 was an anomaly then why can't the reduction be as well? If it wasn't an anomaly how do you explain a spike after 1996?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i'm talking about mass shootings. apparently you are talking about regular homicides. but even if there was a spike right after the ban is irrelevant.... the only thing that went up is the pure number of homicides, not the rate. the rate of homicide went down consistently after the new gun law.
but anyways id rather talk about mass shootings, cause the above stuff should be hashed by now
I'd rather have the overhyped and rare "mass" shootings here than the chronic underhyped home invasions that occur in Australia. There is no Utopia Linate.
again, the number of mass shootings pre 1196 was extremely low to begin with, there's just not enough to make any kind of statistical inference. Australia also pumped a bunch of money into mental health and since most of their mass shooting was family and or mental health related I believe that if there was any reduction created it was because of that.
This story should be required reading in all schools. Banning things have consequences, and should never be done on an emotional whim.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
According to gunpolicy.org, if a thief randomly attacks a house in America, there is a 42% chance there will be a gun owner living there. In Australia, there is a 6% chance.
Thieves usually target the high reward, low risk areas.
It's probably because the latency is so high in their violent video games that it doesn't have the same ill effects as on American kids who can frag at 60 fps per minute.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
-->
@Greyparrot
See above.
-->
@Greyparrot
And the chance of the gun owner or family member being killed is 60%, yes?
-->
@drafterman
probably...this gives them the required time to cool down and come to their senses. Ban high speed internet or suffer the consequences.
-->
@vagabond
This will be my once and final time responding to you. Even if you manage to say something clever or witty or even if you post a link to facts to evaluate on this forum, I will forever regard you as a massive troll on this site, and will not bother to acknowledge your presence, nor shall I waste time responding. When the owner of the site adds the function to ignore users, you will be on the list.
Goodbye.
-->
@Greyparrot
Frightened little fokker aren't ya. Run away, you won't be missed.
-->
@Greyparrot
they have interviewed prisoners and they admit as much. If the odds aren't in your favor and the risk vs reward isn't there, you'll find a different victim. It's very simple logic. Does the biggest toughest kid get bullied? Nope he is probably the bully and it's usually the smallest and weakest that's the victim.
Rachel Carson....wow talk about risk vs reward or benefit in this case.
well, the consensus among scientists is that gun control saves lives. it's also common sense. it's amazing all the hoops you guys jump through when faced with the overwhelming evidence, in the following link, of that, and that guns cause deaths in society when they otherwise wouldn't occur without the guns.
-->
@linate
Saves lives at what cost? We could save alot of lives if we stopped people from reproducing too...but we don't.
Guns have a beneficial role to play in society, and so does reproduction.
-->
@linate
I mean..we could save around 40,000 lives a year if we simply banned cars right? Cars have a purpose.
-->
@linate
what countries or states don't have gun control, I skimmed your article, I can easily pick it apart if you like.
California
1,861
2
Texas
1,316
3
Florida
1,041
4.
Illinois
744
5
Pennsylvania
658
6
Georgia
615
7
New York
609
8
Michigan
571
9
North Carolina
517
10
Maryland
516
11
Missouri
502
12
Ohio
500
13
Louisiana
481
14
Tennessee
406
15
South Carolina
399
16
Virginia
383
17
Indiana
373
18
New Jersey
363
19
Alabama
348
20
Arizona
309
21
Mississippi
259
22
Wisconsin
240
23
Oklahoma
234
24
Washington
211
25
Kentucky
209
26
Arkansas
181
27
Nevada
178
28
Colorado
176
29
District of Columbia
162
30
Minnesota
133
31
Kansas
128
32
Massachusetts
128
33
Connecticut
117
34
New Mexico
117
35
Oregon
99
36
Iowa
72
37
West Virginia
70
38
Delaware
63
39
Nebraska
62
40
Alaska
59
41
Utah
54
42
Montana
36
43
Idaho
32
44
South Dakota
32
45
Rhode Island
29
46
Maine
23
47
North Dakota
21
48
Hawaii
19
49
Wyoming
16
50
New Hampshire
14
51
Vermont
10
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-capital-of-the-us-states-with-the-most-murders.html
States With The Most Murders
1California
1,861
2
Texas
1,316
3
Florida
1,041
4.
Illinois
744
5
Pennsylvania
658
6
Georgia
615
7
New York
609
8
Michigan
571
9
North Carolina
517
10
Maryland
516
11
Missouri
502
12
Ohio
500
13
Louisiana
481
14
Tennessee
406
15
South Carolina
399
16
Virginia
383
17
Indiana
373
18
New Jersey
363
19
Alabama
348
20
Arizona
309
21
Mississippi
259
22
Wisconsin
240
23
Oklahoma
234
24
Washington
211
25
Kentucky
209
26
Arkansas
181
27
Nevada
178
28
Colorado
176
29
District of Columbia
162
30
Minnesota
133
31
Kansas
128
32
Massachusetts
128
33
Connecticut
117
34
New Mexico
117
35
Oregon
99
36
Iowa
72
37
West Virginia
70
38
Delaware
63
39
Nebraska
62
40
Alaska
59
41
Utah
54
42
Montana
36
43
Idaho
32
44
South Dakota
32
45
Rhode Island
29
46
Maine
23
47
North Dakota
21
48
Hawaii
19
49
Wyoming
16
50
New Hampshire
14
51
Vermont
10
9 States with the loosest gun laws (in bold above)
1. Arizona
2. Alaska
3. Wyoming
4. Vermont
5. Kansas
6. Kentucky
7. Mississippi
8. Utah
9. South Carolina
9 States with the strictest gun laws (underlined)
1. California
2. New Jersey
3. Massachusetts
4. New York
5. Connecticut
6. Hawaii
7. Maryland
8, Rhode Island
9. Illinois
the question is why? When you look at this it appears the level of gun control or lack of, is beneficial to some states and detrimental to others. What is it about those with the loosest laws and the lowest rates? Or why do the states with the strictest have the highest murders? I think all these are unique and can't be looked other than individually. Because correlation does not imply causation, you can't say strict laws = more murders and loose laws = less murders. There's something else, there's more to it than gun laws. I believe the stats reflect that. It's also far more complex than believing a ban or more laws would accelerate the reduction of the murder rates which have been declining anyway.
Incidentally Vermont has a gun murder rate of 1.3/100k
California 3.3/100k
copied over from
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Something you can sadly conclude is that the liberal states that hold guns accountable over people are more likely to create an environment for the creation of mentally unstable people. There is a reason far left liberal states have the most homeless, least employed people, and most violent crime. Accountability of the individual is almost completely replaced by state control in places like California, Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Washington DC.
-->
@linate
If you'd rather talk about mass shootings... wait, how can i when you are already lying. There were zero mass shootings after 1996? Are you sure about that?
FBI gun violence report published June 2015 showed that, excluding suicides, 68% of ALL gun-related crimes where carried out by black males between the ages of 14 and 26. If you want to make the biggest impact to overall gun crime, deport those men.
-->
@Greyparrot
home invasions happen in both Australia and the US independently of gun laws. It doesn't make sense to say you'd rather have one over the other because you already have both.I'd rather have the overhyped and rare "mass" shootings here than the chronic underhyped home invasions that occur in Australia. There is no Utopia Linate
-->
@Smithereens
Are you also looking for a Utopia where nothing bad ever happens? The rates of home invasions are not even comparable when one country is 6% armed and another is 40% armed.
One of the people I work with is from Colombia. She said home invasions are common, (guns are banned there), but to deal with the problem, they have an emergency fund set aside to hand over to the criminals to ensure that they won't be beaten, raped or killed.
This is what US should strive for to stop the premature deaths of a handful of people proportally living in the country?
No way.
-->
@Greyparrot
They are comparable. Australia is #7, USA is #9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary#Burglaries_by_country
You're suggesting that the number of guns in the USA would mean nobody wants to risk a burglary. Below the United states however are all countries where gun ownership is very low. There's no correlation here between gun ownership and burglary rate.
'no mass shootings in twenty years - how'd they do it?'
-->
@linate
Anybody else remember when it broke that the CDC refused to publish and tried to hide their defensive gun use study? 2.5 million reported defensive uses a year 🤔, matched the rate of a previous study exactly.
-->
@Greyparrot
Saves lives at what cost? We could save alot of lives if we stopped people from reproducing too...but we don't.Guns have a beneficial role to play in society, and so does reproduction.
Wholly Crap you are the Master of Strawmen and Red Herring Fallacies!!
Just to be clear... Is your stance that more people would be killed with less guns?