All you have here is 1: A law was passed; 2: Mass shootings dropped Thus: post hoc ergo propter hoc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Hey...um... why did you give up trying to defend your post hoc fallacy? Should we just figure you decided to "go silent"?
Funny, isn't it, how you predicted your own behavior? It's almost as if that was your plan, all along.
I work to my timetable, not yours. I'll be back when I feel like it. Believe it or not most of us have lives that don't revolve around internet arguments, though for someone averaging over 20 posts per day in just one forum that must be hard to believe. Meanwhile you can parade your little 'victory' around if it makes you feel important. I'm sure some of the NRA clone army will give you some likes to make you feel special. My self esteem isn't so low that someone not replying to a post for a couple of days makes me feel clever.
No, it is not necessary for me to explain it to you. The restrictions went into place and the mass shootings ceased. The laws worked. You can make up any reason that makes you feel happy as to why that was about something other than the laws. I don't care. Neither do the vast majority of Australians who know that the laws worked.
We have a number of insurmountable problems here that are going to make further debate pointless. One of them is that you clearly believe that having the last word means that you 'win'. As you post ten times the amount I do per day that gives you an advantage. This place is clearly a huge part of your life. I can't compete with that and I don't plan to. The second is that you have made it clear that you have no issue with misrepresenting and distorting facts simply to get that which you most desire - a 'win' on the internet. You have done this since the OP. Worse, when you get caught distorting facts you pretend it was some sort of 'trap' rather than just laziness & possibly dishonesty. Even if I had the time to waste dealing with this, I am far too honest to compete. Perhaps the biggest issue is that you are debating from what is essentially an ideological/religious position. You are simply incapable of accepting that firearms restrictions can work. This isn't just about your own society, it is something that you have a profound need to believe is true everywhere and under all circumstances. This isn't based on anything remotely resembling evidence, it is based on what you need to believe. All the 'logical argument' BS is just a distraction from the core of your argument - an ideological/religious belief. I entered this thread to correct what was an obvious factual distortion to anyone actually interested in facts. I did that. You want this to be about your ideological beliefs rather than your misrepresentations. It isn't. It never has been. I don't need to believe that what happened in Australia somehow applies everywhere & in all circumstances because I am not burdened by ideology. I just need to observe what did happen and be pleased that it worked. That you cannot and will never accept that it happened is not my problem to fix. Now, you and the others can declare 'victory', give each other 'likes' and do whatever else it is that makes you feel special. Hell, go all out & reply to me 20 times just so I know you got your day's quota in. I'll feel better knowing that I helped.
Only in an repressed society of orderly people. For example Mexico has some of the strongest firearms restrictions in the Americas yet their murder rate is 4 times higher than the U.S., likewise Venezuela which has all but prohibited the private ownership of firearms has a murder rate 10 times higher than the U.S. Clearly there is more to the subject than simply claiming firearm restrictions work, because they clearly do not work in many parts of the world.
Then why did the firearm-related restrictions in the nation of Australia suddenly cease working? Why was the latest mass shooting able to be committed? How did a known criminal manage to acquire a firearm? Specifically a firearm that is supposedly prohibited from ownership in the nation of Australia, that was among those that were confiscated after the Port Arthur incident?
Yes - your inability to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the change in Aussie gun laws and the fact Australia has gone 22 years w/o a mass shooting, and while doing so, account for the fact Aussie gun laws allow for legal access to firearms more than capable of being used in such a shooting. That is, your inability to support your claim. When you can support your claim, let us know - until then, I expect you will continue to offer any number of irrelevancies to avoid the fact you offered a post hoc fallacy. Or, you will "go silent".