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 in 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?
--> @TheDredPriateRobertsi'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.
--> @TheDredPriateRobertsAccording 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.
--> @TheDredPriateRobertsIgnorance masquerading as knowledge.
--> @GreyparrotSee above.
--> @GreyparrotAnd the chance of the gun owner or family member being killed is 60%, yes?
--> @draftermanprobably...this gives them the required time to cool down and come to their senses. Ban high speed internet or suffer the consequences.
--> @vagabondThis 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.
--> @GreyparrotFrightened little fokker aren't ya. Run away, you won't be missed.
--> @Greyparrotthey 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.
--> @linateSaves 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.
--> @linateI mean..we could save around 40,000 lives a year if we simply banned cars right? Cars have a purpose.
--> @linatewhat countries or states don't have gun control, I skimmed your article, I can easily pick it apart if you like.States With The Most Murders1
District of Columbia
10https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-capital-of-the-us-states-with-the-most-murders.html9 States with the loosest gun laws (in bold above)1. Arizona2. Alaska3. Wyoming4. Vermont5. Kansas6. Kentucky7. Mississippi8. Utah9. South Carolina9 States with the strictest gun laws (underlined)1. California2. New Jersey3. Massachusetts4. New York5. Connecticut6. Hawaii7. Maryland8, Rhode Island9. Illinoisthe 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 1.3/100kCalifornia 3.3/100kcopied over from
--> @TheDredPriateRobertsSomething 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.
--> @linateIf 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.
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
--> @SmithereensAre 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.