Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[lepustimidus]

shaman:

"Fully-automatic arms have been banned in the Australian mainland since the 1930s, but remained legal in Tasmania until 1996."

Wait, stop the press! You admit that fully-automatic arms were legal in Tasmania from 1901 to 1996? Yet for those 95 years, not one shooting spree occurred in Tasmania.

shaman:

Secondly, if you go back 83 years you go though periods where there were strong gun laws.

Either you can't read, or you're being selective and dishonest (a trait you picked up from James R, perhaps?)

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Through the 1920s; Australia, Canada and Great Britain were concerned about the rise of Communism in light of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and imposed restrictions on handguns[4]. These restrictions have increased over the succeeding decades.

You neglected to mention the sentence in bold. Why not? Gee, perhaps because it states very clearly that while restrictions on handguns did indeed exist decades ago, that these restrictions have become more tight as time passed. Strange how the Monash shooting in 2002 occurred despite handgun laws which were more restrictive than those during the Cold War period, during which no shooting sprees perpetrated by handguns occurred. I smell a correlation!

You also forget to quote this:

Rifles and shotguns were considerably less restricted in Australia.

Implying that restrictions on rifles and shotguns increased over time.

You also neglected to quote this:

In the 1940s and 1950s, Cold War concerns about ex-military rifles falling into the hands of communist radicals led a number of states to place restrictions on the legal ownership of rifles of a military calibre while at the same time, allowed firearm owners who are members of rifle clubs and military rifle clubs to own ex-military rifles.

So citizens were allowed to own ex-military rifles, yet there were no shooting sprees during that period. Why not?

The laws were relaxed in the period leading up to the massacres.

And you neglected to quote this:

By the 1980s, the relative popularity of shooting and the prevalence of firearms in the community began to fall as social attitudes changed and urbanisation increased.

Wait, the prevalence of firearms decreased, which was followed by numerous shooting sprees. We have a clear correlation here! Decreasing firearm prevalence clearly causes shooting sprees, hence we must pass laws to increase firearm circulation. Hmm, how about a law to make firearm ownership mandatory?

Game, set, match.

 

[lepustimidus]

lepustimidus:

Do not insult other members of sciforums, or you may be banned.

Go suck on a frozen turd, you pompous asshole. I've had it with your bullshit moderation.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No you misunderstand. 112 people were killed in mass shootings alone. After the change in laws there have been no mass shootings.

Being murdered is being murdered, it doesn't matter what the weapon is.

Now what will you claim if in the next year some one go's off on a shooting spree, as sure as the sun rises in the east, it will happen again.

Come on you can't multiply the crime rate by the population. How would the US compare to China and India then? It is a misuse of statistics.

In China it is the government that murders people.

Democides in China account for some where between 5,999,000 to 102,671, 000 deaths

So much for gun control in China:

How about Hammer Control?

Wang Ye, 32, who said she had a history of mental illness, hammered her husband to death one night in October 2006 because he had complained about her skin before they went to bed.

250,000 Chinese take their own lives each year

Chinadaily BBS - World Affairs Today - India on top in the list of ...
More murders are committed in India than in any other country in the world ... Experts say the real crime rate in India is even higher with many cases going ...
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=605986

Yes, lets look at India shall we, so much for gun control keeping the murder rate down:

Record 32719 killings in India last year - The Irish Times - Wed ...
INDIA: MORE MURDERS were committed in India last year than in any other country ... that many people with criminal records were fighting elections in India. ...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0604/1212513052295.html

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 Record 32,719 killings in India last year

MORE MURDERS were committed in India last year than in any other country in the world, an official report has revealed.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report released by the federal interior ministry, 32,719 murder cases were registered across India last year, double the number recorded in the US and three times more than in neighboring Pakistan - both of which have far smaller populations.

Senior police officials in India concede, however, that the national crime rate, including murder, was "even higher" as numerous cases go unreported for a variety of administrative and societal reasons, with largely corrupt authorities often refusing to register them.

Sure what worked in Australia may not work in the US but don't be so quick to dismiss it.

 

[James R]

Go suck on a frozen turd, you pompous asshole. I've had it with your bullshit moderation.

When did you become incapable of having a discussion without insulting people?

What's wrong with you?

 

[shaman_]

Are you the type of person who thinks the only guns are military guns. The gun laws you are suggesting elimnated 2 calibers and maybe a dozen types of guns of HUNDREDS. The laws were lax current standards. Also note that criminals by and large DO NOT OBEY LAWS.

So your claim of 84 years of lax gun laws is blatantly false and now are dodging and weaving.

The availability of legal weaponry has NEVER had an impact on their use in crime. Wheter or not a M-16 is legal criminals will still acquire one and use it. The fact that so far no shooting spree has happened in 10 years is coincidence just like the 13 in 15 years. there was a law against murder the whole time and there were people being killed all along.

But it’s much easier to get a M-16 in the US than it is here. More powerful weapons and more of them within easy reach of the next person who snaps... Who do you think feels safer? There were mass shootings nearly every month last year in the US.

Actually my argument is perfect your's is just inanely stupid. I said lax gun laws and you have even pointed out they are relaitvely lax.

You are welcome to keep squirming.

You are going to stop none of them and all you end up doing is disarming a populace and making it unable to defend itself. thus you are robbing the law-abiding people the fundamental right to defend themselves.

Is a gun the only way to defend ones self? It probably seems that way in a society where everyone has guns...

I lock it to keep the honest people out. I have alarms to catch the crooks and guns to get the intruders who dare come while i am still there. .

Ok you chose to miss the point there.

However outlawing crack coacine has done NOTHING to amke it more difficult to get. Same goes with guns. In fact not having stores with their markup makes those balckmarket 100 dollar ak-47 damn attractive.

Nonsense, getting cocaine would be a whole lot easier to get if it were legal. You could get it from a shop. I have a feeling we have been through this before though.

Buying something on the black market is more work, more expensive and illegal, so yes you are making it harder.

 

[shaman_]

shaman:


Wait, stop the press! You admit that fully-automatic arms were legal in Tasmania from 1901 to 1996? Yet for those 95 years, not one shooting spree occurred in Tasmania.

.. and then our worst in history.

Shooting sprees clearly became more prevalent in the later part of the century for various reasons, possibly including the relaxing of gun laws.

It seems that you are trying to prove that gun laws aren't the only factor that leads to shooting sprees. Why I don't know. Perhaps you think you are making an important point. I have explained that there are other factors.

shaman:

Either you can't read, or you're being selective and dishonest (a trait you picked up from James R, perhaps?)

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


You neglected to mention the sentence in bold. Why not? Gee, perhaps because it states very clearly that while restrictions on handguns did indeed exist decades ago,

Thats kind of the point I was trying to make. Remember your theory that there were no restrictive gun laws until 1996?

Perhaps that is in the garbage like your theory that there were no massacres in the ten years before the change...

that these restrictions have become more tight as time passed.

Until the Olympics...

"but the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games sparked a new interest in the sport of pistol shooting and laws were changed to allow the sport to develop"

There is a timeline in that article so I think the "have" in that sentence is a mistake. "These restrictions have increased over the succeeding decades." At that point the 1920s were being discussed. Not that it contradicts you any less...

Strange how the Monash shooting in 2002 occurred despite handgun laws which were more restrictive than those during the Cold War period, during which no shooting sprees perpetrated by handguns occurred. I smell a correlation!

So do I. Thirteen in fifteen years and then none for ten years.

Perhaps the handgun laws were not restrictive enough. Fortunately they have been altered since the Monash shooting.

You also forget to quote this:


Implying that restrictions on rifles and shotguns increased over time.

No you claimed that there were lax gun laws for 80 something years. I have shown that this was not the case. You are now desperately trying to adjust your argument.

You also neglected to quote this:



So citizens were allowed to own ex-military rifles, yet there were no shooting sprees during that period. Why not? .

I have given you some reasons why shooting sprees became more prevalent later in the century. You have chosen to ignore this for obvious reasons.

At the time that the laws were introduced, shooting sprees were a problem, as with America now. Since the introduction they have stopped. You could at least try to find alternative explanations (I'm open to suggestions) but instead you're just pretending that it's an amazing coincidence.

And you neglected to quote this:
Wait, the prevalence of firearms decreased, which was followed by numerous shooting sprees. We have a clear correlation here! Decreasing firearm prevalence clearly causes shooting sprees, hence we must pass laws to increase firearm circulation. Hmm, how about a law to make firearm ownership mandatory?
Game, set, match.

..Which contradicts what has happened over the last ten years. After the largest reduction in Australian history, accompanied by tightening of laws the almost annual massacres ceased.. and one hasn't happened since.

Anyway the numbers in the country would certainly not have dropped much, if at all. It's not like they were destroyed.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Shaman, Australia didn't relax it's gun laws over the last 84 years, they toughened them and made it harder for the Honest Citizen to have or acquire firearms.

Now how about India?

It would seem that you are the one squirming, India Leads the world in murders, I thought it would be a paradise according to you? all because of it's strict gun laws.

Murder is Murder, doesn't matter what the weapon is.

Chinadaily BBS - World Affairs Today - India on top in the list of ...
More murders are committed in India than in any other country in the world ... Experts say the real crime rate in India is even higher with many cases going ...
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=605986

Yes, lets look at India shall we, so much for gun control keeping the murder rate down:

Record 32719 killings in India last year - The Irish Times - Wed ...
INDIA: MORE MURDERS were committed in India last year than in any other country ... that many people with criminal records were fighting elections in India. ...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...513052295.html

 

[shaman_]

Being murdered is being murdered, it doesn't matter what the weapon is.

We are discussing gun laws here Buffalo Roam... It is the the subject of the thread.

I have clarified for you that lack of spree killings after the law change and that is all you have to say?

Now what will you claim if in the next year some one go's off on a shooting spree, as sure as the sun rises in the east, it will happen again.

What are you talking about? You mean you are certain that there will be a shooting spree in Australia in the next year?

In China it is the government that murders people.

Democides in China account for some where between 5,999,000 to 102,671, 000 deaths

So much for gun control in China:

How about Hammer Control?

Wang Ye, 32, who said she had a history of mental illness, hammered her husband to death one night in October 2006 because he had complained about her skin before they went to bed.

You managed to completely miss my point. China and India have about four times the population as the US. So, following your logic, to compare them to the US you need to multiply the US homicide rate by four. Make sense? No it doesn't. Understand now?

Chinadaily BBS - World Affairs Today - India on top in the list of ...
More murders are committed in India than in any other country in the world ... Experts say the real crime rate in India is even higher with many cases going ...
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=605986

Yes, lets look at India shall we, so much for gun control keeping the murder rate down:

Record 32719 killings in India last year - The Irish Times - Wed ...
INDIA: MORE MURDERS were committed in India last year than in any other country ... that many people with criminal records were fighting elections in India. ...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0604/1212513052295.html

So we're done with using Oz as an example and now we're down to comparisons with second and third world countries with religious violence and democide... Not the most relevant example for the US is it?

If it makes you feel better, if you live in a country where the government is trying to kill you then yes you should probably have a gun.

Maybe Australia isn't the best example either. I haven't heard a good reason why yet though.

Shaman, Australia didn't relax it's gun laws over the last 84 years,

Have you been reading the posts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

 

[Buffalo Roam]

We are discussing gun laws here Buffalo Roam... It is the the subject of the thread.

I have clarified for you that lack of spree killings after the law change and that is all you have to say?

What are you talking about? You mean you are certain that there will be a shooting spree in Australia in the next year?

You managed to completely miss my point. China and India have about four times the population as the US. So, following your logic, to compare them to the US you need to multiply the US homicide rate by four. Make sense? No it doesn't. Understand now?

So we're done with using Oz as an example and now we're down to comparisons with second and third world countries with religious violence and democide... Not the most relevant example for the US is it?

If it makes you feel better, if you live in a country where the government is trying to kill you then yes you should probably have a gun.

Maybe Australia isn't the best example either. I haven't heard a good reason why yet though.

Have you been reading the posts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Guess what this is my thread, I posted it, and we are also discussing murder as a part of society, and the fact that murder is still murder.

So guess what all the gun laws in the world don't lead to a murder free society, in fact, as India proves murder is still murder, and people are the problem not the means.

As for Ozz, no we aren't done, how about knife controal, more murders are commited with knives than any other weapon.

Australian Bureau of Statistics

2006 Homicides

Homicide.......Males.......1,917.......Females.......150.......Total......2,067​

But these figures are only those cases that have been adjudicated, it doesn't count those that haven't gone too trial.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Or how about murders not charged?

On 26 January last, a date known as Australia Day by whites celebrating their "settlement" (Aborigines call it Invasion Day), something very unusual happened. It was announced that a police sergeant, Chris Hurley, would be charged with the manslaughter of Mulrunji Doomadgee. In 2004, Hurley arrested Mulrunji for swearing and drunkenness; once in police custody, Mulrunji had his liver torn in two. "These actions of Sergeant Hurley," said the deputy coroner, "caused the fatal injuries." However, Queensland's director of public prosecutions decided not to lay charges. This is standard practice. In 1989, a royal commission inquired into more than 100 deaths in custody, many of them demonstrably murder or manslaughter. "I had no conception," wrote the chief commissioner, Elliott Johnston, "of the degree of . . . abuse of personal power, utter paternalism, open contempt and total indifference with which so many Aboriginal people were visited on a day-to-day basis."

So spoke the voice of Australian liberalism and justice. Of the 339 recommendations made by the royal commission, not one called for criminal charges. The prosecution of Sergeant Hurley is the first of its kind, and it happened only because the Queensland government was virtually dragooned into seeking the independent opinion of a retired chief justice of New South Wales.

 

[S.A.M.]

More guns = more people likely to be shot.

A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) found that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide and gun accidents. The differences in rates of violent death to children across states are large. The higher death rates in high gun states are due to differences in deaths from firearms. This elevated rate of violent death to children in high gun states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press02192002.html

You managed to completely miss my point. China and India have about four times the population as the US. So, following your logic, to compare them to the US you need to multiply the US homicide rate by four. Make sense? No it doesn't. Understand now?

Thats way too complicated a notion for Buffalo.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

More guns = more people likely to be shot.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press02192002.html



Thats way too complicated a notion for Buffalo.

Live in India and you are more likely to be Murdered, wether by Gun or other method.

India leads the world in recorded murders pure plane and simple, and that doesn't include all of the rest of the murders and crimes that are ignored by the police.

So does it matter if its a Gun? Knife?

Chinadaily BBS - World Affairs Today - India on top in the list of ...
More murders are committed in India than in any other country in the world ... Experts say the real crime rate in India is even higher with many cases going ...
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=605986

Record 32719 killings in India last year - The Irish Times - Wed ...
INDIA: MORE MURDERS were committed in India last year than in any other country ... that many people with criminal records were fighting elections in India. ...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...513052295.html

Violent Crime in different parts of the world - a small analysis ...
Aug 16, 2007 ... But not only are assaults underreported in India, so are rapes. .... and there are certain parts of India which are more murder prone, ...
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/violent-crime-different-parts-of-world/

Nationmaster.com:

Murders per 1000 people, from highest to lowest:

Russia: o.201534
South Africa: 0.0562789
America: 0.042802
India: 0.0344083
France: 0.0173272
Canada: 0.0149063
Britain: 0.0140633
Denmark: 0.0106775
Japan: 0.00499933

Japan has the least violent crime. India doesn’t fare too well. But why am I not comparing the total crime figures, which paint a better picture of India’s crime rate? Well, I don’t trust the total crime figures. But what proof do I have that crime in India or any other country is underreported? And by how much is it underreported anyway? Unless I find that out I won’t get any idea of the actual level of crime in this country.

Data for countries which report crime accurately:​

America has:
1) The 177 times more assaults than murders
2) 25 times more assaults than rapes
3) 7 times more rapes as compared to murders.

Germany has:
1) 121 times more assaults than murders
2) 15 and a half times more assaults than rapes
3) 8 times more rapes as compared to murders.

France has:
1) 100 times as many assaults as murders
2) 12 and a half times as many assaults as rapes
3) 8 times more rapes as compared to murders.

Denmark has:
1) 169 times more assaults than murders
2) Almost 20 times more assaults than rapes
3) 8 and a half times more rapes than murders

Tentative conclusions reached:
1) Assaults are a hundred times and more than the murders in these countries
2) Assaults range from 12-25 times more than rapes
3) And almost all these four countries had 7-8 times more rapes than murders

If these ratios are taken as a kind of benchmark (because of their accurate crime reportage), Japan doesn’t compare favorably.
Japan has:
1) Just 67 more assaults than murders
2) 19 times as many assaults as rapes
3) 3 and a half times as many rapes as murders

After I discovered this, I searched the net and found, not surprisingly, that Japan is known to underreport crime. Assuming that the murder figures are better reported, then it means that assaults are underreported. And so are rapes…because inspite of assaults being underreported, the ratio of assaults to rapes seems to match with the four benchmark countries.

India’s figures are shocking!
1) There are only about six and a half times as many assaults in India as murders!
2) 15 times as many assaults as rapes.
3) 2 and a half times more murders as compared to rapes.

What makes the Indian situation worse is that there are two and half times MORE murders as compared to rapes! Now this is impossible. Remember that in the benchmark countries rapes are about 7-8 times more than that of murders. Rapes are more, not murders!! No one knows how many women are raped in India. Why, in our country marital rape is not a crime.

What makes the Indian situation worse is that there are two and half times MORE murders as compared to rapes! Now this is impossible. Remember that in the benchmark countries rapes are about 7-8 times more than that of murders. Rapes are more, not murders!! No one knows how many women are raped in India. Why, in our country marital rape is not a crime.

 

[lepustimidus]

shaman:

.. and then our worst in history.

Your point being? One shooting spree in Tasmania over the span of 86 years is pretty good.

Shooting sprees clearly became more prevalent in the later part of the century for various reasons, possibly including the relaxing of gun laws.

As wikipedia demonstrated, the general trend in Australia over the past century involved increased restriction of firearms, not relaxing gun laws.

It seems that you are trying to prove that gun laws aren't the only factor that leads to shooting sprees.

Wow, your powers of deduction amaze even me, Sherlock.

Why I don't know.

Umm, probably because if shooting sprees are attributable to factors other than the gun legislation in place, it makes more sense to address those factors instead of further limiting the freedoms of citizens?

Perhaps you think you are making an important point. I have explained that there are other factors.

And which is the predominant factor? How do you know? What evidence do you have? I hope it's not the 'evidence' you've put forward so far, because you'd be laughed at by anyone who had a clue as to what a correlation actually is, and the difference between correlation and causation.

Numerous factors may have varied in Australia over the past few decades, including the prevalence of mental illness, organised crime, increased immigration from Asia, a more intrusive govt. etc,. But instead of acting to address the root of the problem, politicians use fear mongering to introduce band-aid solutions which demonise gun owners and restrict the freedoms of their citizens.

Thats kind of the point I was trying to make. Remember your theory that there were no restrictive gun laws until 1996?

No, I said the gun laws were lax. And they were, in comparison to today's gun laws.

Originally Posted by lepustimidus
that these restrictions have become more tight as time passed. ”

Until the Olympics...

"but the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games sparked a new interest in the sport of pistol shooting and laws were changed to allow the sport to develop"

Wrong. Learn to quote in context:

Through the 1920s; Australia, Canada and Great Britain were concerned about the rise of Communism in light of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and imposed restrictions on handguns[4]. These restrictions have increased over the succeeding decades. In New South Wales, handguns were effectively banned after World War II but the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games sparked a new interest in the sport of pistol shooting and laws were changed to allow the sport to develop.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the English language would interpret the above as the general trend involved the increased restriction of handguns over the decades. Yes, handguns were banned at one point in NSW for a short period before the laws in that state were slightly relaxed to make allowances for shooting sports. However, as the article also makes clear: These restrictions [on handguns] have increased over the succeeding decades.. A minor relaxation of very restrictive gun laws in one state does not change the fact that the general trend across Australia was towards more restrictive handgun laws as time passed.

So do I. Thirteen in fifteen years and then none for ten years.

Like Bells, you're engaging in dishonest selectivity. Why do you place so much value in THAT 'correlation', but not the 'correlation' that I pointed out. Just in case you've forgotten:
"Strange how the Monash shooting in 2002 occurred despite handgun laws which were more restrictive than those during the Cold War period, during which no shooting sprees perpetrated by handguns occurred. I smell a correlation! "

At the time that the laws were introduced, shooting sprees were a problem, as with America now. Since the introduction they have stopped. You could at least try to find alternative explanations (I'm open to suggestions) but instead you're just pretending that it's an amazing coincidence.

At the time the Patriot Act was introduced, and Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, terrorist attacks in the United States were a problem. Since the laws mentioned previously were introduced, there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S.A. Why do nay-saying liberals pretend that this is an amazing coincidence, instead of clear proof that invading Iraq and Afghanistan have made the U.S.A safer against terrorist threats?

 

[lepustimidus]

More guns = more people likely to be shot.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press02192002.html



Thats way too complicated a notion for Buffalo.

One article? That's all you require to come to a firm conclusion, S.A.M? Aren't you meant to be a career scientist? Oh wait, I almost forgot, you didn't even know about Cochrane reviews. So if you are a career scientist, you're a shit one.

But assuming you are correct, and more guns = more people likely to be shot, why is that point actually of any relevance? What is actually relevant is whether fewer guns = decreased crime rate. If you get rid of guns, and murderers kill their victims with knives or axes instead, you've accomplished nothing. No, worse. You've restricted the rights of citizens, and wasted millions of dollars on a pointless initiative.

 

[James R]

If you get rid of guns, and murderers kill their victims with knives or axes instead, you've accomplished nothing.

It isn't only murderers who use guns, of course. You also should look at injuries, accidents, suicides etc. to decide whether gun bans are a good idea or not.

It seems to me that it would be harder to kill somebody with a knife than a gun, too.

 

[TW Scott]

It isn't only murderers who use guns, of course. You also should look at injuries, accidents, suicides etc. to decide whether gun bans are a good idea or not.

It seems to me that it would be harder to kill somebody with a knife than a gun, too.

harder, not really. A gun on it's own is a rather clumsy club, you need ammo and aim to kill some one. Meanwhile a knife to gut, neck, thigh, wrist, chest, .....well if you're not dead you damn lucky. No different that a Gun with ammo and good aim.

 

[Mr. G]

It isn't only murderers who use guns, of course. You also should look at injuries, accidents, suicides etc. to decide whether gun bans are a good idea or not.

It seems to me that it would be harder to kill somebody with a knife than a gun, too.

Marginally.

A well delivered rock accomplishes the deed quite adequately.

The instrument may afford energy efficiency, but the perp is the motivating impetus.

It's perps you have to worry about.

Not our guns.

 

[Asguard]

there is a difference between a gun death and other vilont deaths, that is the fact that with a knife or hands the person has to be right up against there victom, they have to look them in the eyes, smell them, feel them as they die.

Now sociopaths love this but most people dont, its much easier to quickly pull a triger than to cut someones throat

 

[Mr. G]

there is a difference between a gun death and other vilont deaths, that is the fact that with a knife or hands the person has to be right up against there victom, they have to look them in the eyes, smell them, feel them as they die.

Now sociopaths love this but most people dont, its much easier to quickly pull a triger than to cut someones throat

What makes us believe you are a credible arbiter of the method of arbitrary death difference?

State your professional credentials.

Funny to watch you folks trying to get us to ask your permission to act in our own self-defense.

You aren't even part of the equation.

 

[shaman_]

shaman:

Your point being? One shooting spree in Tasmania over the span of 86 years is pretty good.

I assure you, the people of Port Arthur don’t think so.

But again, going back to the beginning of the century when the weaponry used in the Port Arthur massacre didn’t even exist, and there were no copycat spree killers, and including that in your 'statistic' is absurd.

As wikipedia demonstrated, the general trend in Australia over the past century involved increased restriction of firearms, not relaxing gun laws.

As wikipedia demonstrated, there were periods where the gun laws were reduced. One of these coincided with a period of regular massacres. Just to clarify, (and I feel that I need to) I'm not saying that reducing gun laws causes spree killings.

Wow, your powers of deduction amaze even me, Sherlock.

Umm, probably because if shooting sprees are attributable to factors other than the gun legislation in place, it makes more sense to address those factors instead of further limiting the freedoms of citizens?

But there are factors that are beyond our control. People have mental health issues that can go unnoticed. The internet and news media are so advanced that millions of people see the killer’s photo and hear their name within a day of the incident. Gun restrictions, however, are not beyond our control.

You haven’t as yet mentioned any of these factors or any alternative explanations for the results seen after the change in laws. Your arguments so far have consisted mainly of insults, mistakes and sarcasm and a refusal to see some very clear results. Perhaps you could think of some better ways to reduce shooting sprees? If not reducing the tool which enables you to kill a dozen people in less than a minute then what? I’ll help you out with one - Banning the media from mentioning the killers name. Obviously the media aren't really interested in this idea.


Is it worth having more “freedom” if there are school massacres every month?

Enforcing seatbelts and drink driving laws also limits “freedom” but they save lives. Is your life worse off?

And which is the predominant factor? How do you know? What evidence do you have? I hope it's not the 'evidence' you've put forward so far, because you'd be laughed at by anyone who had a clue as to what a correlation actually is, and the difference between correlation and causation.

Numerous factors may have varied in Australia over the past few decades, including the prevalence of mental illness, organised crime, increased immigration from Asia, a more intrusive govt. etc,. But instead of acting to address the root of the problem, politicians use fear mongering to introduce band-aid solutions which demonise gun owners and restrict the freedoms of their citizens.

There are task forces devoted to organised crime. The immigration laws are constantly being debated. These problems are being addressed but the availability of guns is a factor that needs to be addressed as well. This is only reinforced by what we have seen in the last ten years.

No, I said the gun laws were lax. And they were, in comparison to today's gun laws.

..and there are many other things that are different today.

Wrong. Learn to quote in context:



Anyone with a basic understanding of the English language would interpret the above as the general trend involved the increased restriction of handguns over the decades. Yes, handguns were banned at one point in NSW for a short period before the laws in that state were slightly relaxed to make allowances for shooting sports. However, as the article also makes clear: These restrictions [on handguns] have increased over the succeeding decades.. A minor relaxation of very restrictive gun laws in one state does not change the fact that the general trend across Australia was towards more restrictive handgun laws as time passed.

In the six months before the Monash shooting, the killer legally bought seven handguns. Clearly the restrictions weren’t that tight in 2002 were they? They couldn’t have increased the restrictions very much after that “minor relaxation”.


A buyback and restrictions to handgun laws were not part of the changes following Port Arthur. This happened after the Monash shooting.

Like Bells, you're engaging in dishonest selectivity. Why do you place so much value in THAT 'correlation', but not the 'correlation' that I pointed out. Just in case you've forgotten:
"Strange how the Monash shooting in 2002 occurred despite handgun laws which were more restrictive than those during the Cold War period, during which no shooting sprees perpetrated by handguns occurred. I smell a correlation! "

You can't draw a correlation from one incident. Anyway being able to buy seven in six months isn’t much of a restriction is it?

So no. No correlation.

At the time the Patriot Act was introduced, and Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, terrorist attacks in the United States were a problem. Since the laws mentioned previously were introduced, there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S.A. Why do nay-saying liberals pretend that this is an amazing coincidence, instead of clear proof that invading Iraq and Afghanistan have made the U.S.A safer against terrorist threats?

It’s not a subject I know much about but that sounds reasonable to me. I don't know, why do they say that?