shaman:
Handguns didn't exist in the 1950's? Assault rifles didn't exist in the 1950's?
You are going back to 1901! lol
They certainly existed in the 80s and 90s and there were thirteen mass shootings in fifteen years. See below.
Good strawman.
Ignoring your obfuscation, you need to explain why guns managed to exist for 83 years in Australia without a major massacre occuring, despite the absence of the restrictive gun laws now in place.
While I seriously doubt your claim, and understand that you're pretending that you don't realise that crime stats going way back are often not available, we'll move on to possible reasons. With the advances in technology improving the news media the lure to go down in a blaze of glory increased throughout the century. By the mid nineties we even had the internet. Somewhere along the line some spree killers received enormous notoriety for what they did and so others have noticed how famous you can get - fast. That is a factor as to why they became more common later in the century in Australia, as is population increase, as is the more effective weaponry and perhaps even the decline in military operations in Australia.
Then find them. If there were indeed mass shootings, they would be recorded, yes? Massacres tend to be highly publicised, not swept under the carpet.
.. and they were publicised. Thirteen of them were in fifteen years. None since the change in laws.
No, it's conjecture to assume that the guns in circulation 50 years ago were less lethal than those in circulation today.
Actually you were going back 100 years.... Not 50.
I also note that you failed to address my observation that your claim that guns were not as available prior to 1984 is... wait for it... conjecture!
My point was that weaponry in the 80s was somewhat more powerful and available that what it was at the beginning of the century, which you seem keen to go back to.
But these points are petty. You can look back into history if you want and you can convince yourself that there were no mass shootings but the key consideration here is that they
were happening regularly in the 90s when the law changed and then they stopped. That is very important.
What makes you think that it's significant?
Are you serious? Thirteen in fifteen years, then none for the ten years following the buyback and change in laws. Do you need to see it on a graph?
I'm not presumptious enough to claim that 83 years shooting spree free is evidence that restrictive gun laws promote shooting sprees, so why do you have the gall to claim that a meager 6 (or 8) years is proof that these same restrictive gun laws prevent shooting sprees?
I am saying that these laws and a buyback scheme will
reduce shooting sprees. The stats are blatantly obvious; A mass shooting nearly every year for fifteen years and the not one for ten years.
