For whatever reason when mentioning australia has not seen a gun massacre since our semi automatic gun ban in 1996. The response is typically, that is due to other causes. Then a counter argument is made, violent crime has increased since the gun ban. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880 But those some people who make the correlation/causation claim in the above go missing for this one? Why is that? Why is it when Data goes against guns its human nature or something else that is bad, when data goes for guns, it has nothing to do with something else but guns are good. For the record I am on the side of guns being neither good nor bad but ultimately its up to a society to show whether they are working for the societys benefit or making it worse. Blind freddy can see how that is going in america. Also, there is an argument that since the gun ban gun related crime is increasing in australia thus the gun ban didnt work? Odd, I figured if you went from legal drugs to making drugs illegal you would see drug related crime massively increase as societys tolerance for drugs and users of drugs diminishes and an increasing in policing of these activities. Keep at it my favorite echo chamber, a lot of you blokes are good guys, prisoners of your passion notwithstanding your good guys and I hope you all have a nice day.
The proper response is that Australia only collected 70% of the banned guns, so you still had plenty of dangerous weapons out there. You're still trying to collect them. You only count 5 or more dead, while in the US we count 3 or more dead, or 4 ore more shot. In US terms, You've had Monash University, Hectorville and the Hunt Family shootings. You still allow 9mm pistols with 10 round magazines, which are commonly used in mass shootings in the US. So no, it's hard to say that your gun "ban" stopped mass shootings. You had more homicides in four of the six years after your ban and confiscation. http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/#incidentsJurisdiction see table 3. Sexual assault increased over the next ten years. Robbery increased over the next five years. Meanwhile the US saw continuous declines in all of those areas. https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359
I have met many Australians, and they all were the nicest people, once, I met this guy, Steve, living in the U.S. temporarily, his truck had broken down, and I pulled over to help him out, I got the shop tow truck take his truck in and repair it, I offered to drive him around, he had a table at the Portland Expo Center. If everyone was a nice person, nobody would have anything to worry about. Problem is, to varying degrees, there are some very bad people out there.
to be fair if you follow the whole graph for all three, they have all been trending down. Only two real notable things with respect of Port arthur and 96. - cause of death was very high that year (probably mostly due to port arthur). - and for whatever reason 96/97 had a very low rate of partner crime compared to both before and after the gun ban. Whilst I acknowledge the US may have made some gains in terms of decreasing crimes, overall Australia maintains a much lesser violent crime rate, and per your three graphs its trending south here too. Look in all fairness, we may not have had a gun massacre had we not changed the gun laws either, but it is a bit purposefully dishonest if people (not anyone in particular) continue to run the argument when data goes against them that it is other factors not guns, but when data goes for them, guns are good. And doctorwho, thanks for giving steve a hand
In US terms, you have had massacres. Your citizens still possess the means to commit them using the most commonly use firearm type in the US mass shootings. First they went up, then then start to trend down. In the US they just went up. Armed robberies increased 80% before they started to decline. We've always had a higher homicide rate than Australia, even when you had laxer gun laws. What we saw is the we had similar declines in our homicide rates. You attribute yours to confiscations; the only major law change we had in that time was the expiry of the assault weapons ban. We added 10 million "assault weapons" and saw a decline in our homicide rate. We also saw a significant jump in the amount of citizens carrying guns in public for protection.
This is exactly my point. I wonder if this is on purpose? Whenever the data goes against guns its post hoc fallacy / causation etc. Whenever the data supports guns, its guns are great / people work better with the freedom and guns etc. Why is it that only data that supports your argument is due to the causation of guns being great but when data goes against guns there are causation issues?
By the same token, the GCA side says the opposite. Regardless of what either side says, the Constitution, the Second Amendment and SCOTUS is on the gun rights side. Shouldn't your name be papadropbear?
Are you in fact claiming a causal effect for the 1996 NFA, the law that left 260,000 banned guns in the hands of your citizens and still allows 9mm handguns with 10 round magazines?
Oddly enough, your homicide rate is higher despite having the death penalty and a much harsher punishment for murder / manslaughter in most states with a much worse prison experience. You have to wonder? Eitherway, I agree that despite our gun control measures there are a lot of legal and illegal firearms floating around, although I believe illegal firearms are much much more heavily policed here as it is expected and if someone really wanted to they could massacre a bunch of people in australia tomorrow. That said, if its just an angry teenager, he will more then likely have a much harder time obtaining a good firearm for that job then what he would in the US.
Pointing out the fallacies associated with a position is the nature of debate; in this instance there's no need to address a post hoc fallacy any further than pointing out is it a post hoc fallacy. If and when you think I offer a post hoc fallacy, I invite you to point it out.
What do I have to wonder, and why? Only because he lacks the resources; someone like the guy in Las Vegas could do it easily and legally.
Why is the homicide rate higher, when the consequences are so much worse. One would think that a country where the punishment is much worse for x crime would see less x crime. But for whatever reason punishment doesn't seem to have as big a bearing as normal logic would assume it does. I agree with you regarding the Las Vegas person, I think a pretty simple analysis you or I could do, is go through the list of massacres and consider which one would happen anywhere (i.e. by a cold, calculated, somewhat sophisticated killer) and those committed by someone who is a bit more simple but had easy access to the means and hadnt sorted out his mind. We may not be 100% correct but we wouldn't be too far off.
Exactly. He wouldn't even know where to start, to try and access some kind of firearm. Most would never be able to.
Thank you for the invitation. Fair play though, it isn't people using data to draw conclusions (which may or may not have a logical fallacy in them) which perturbs me. It is the willingness to only do it for one side and then blindly overlook them for the otherside. Both sides of the debate do it, gun control or gun rights neither side is more innocent. This board though has a lot more regulars from the gun control side though, as that is the vacuum it attracts, it probably has 6 or 7 regular posters on the gun rights side (some less educated then others) and only really las vegas guy who is on the gun control who posts regularly, form my observation anyways. Thus, why the post above was exactly my point, he found what is arguably the post hoc fallacy used by the gun control side without pointing out the same logical post hoc fallacy by the gun rights side.
Plenty of well heeled angry teens about the place. It's not an issue of funds, it's an issue of guns just not being in the community generally. Obtaining a gun would be perceived as equally difficult to obtaining a white tiger. Only something that happens in movies.
Simple - while the potential consequences are high, the -actual- consequences are not. My guess is not many would fall unto the latter category and it seems most of these events are planned.
All it takes is someone willing to wait. Someone not willing to wait might use a cement mixer or gasoline tanker.
Its not my job to diminish the arguments of those that I agree with. Fortunately not too many here give me reason to do so. VG's vapidity has earned him a spot on my ignore list, so whatever inanity he may have posted in that regard, I did not see.
I have no idea why your crime rate went up. How you run your country is completely up to you. Just don't pretend that we want to hear from you on how to run ours. Australia and USA are two completely different societies with different social norms, practices, heck even though we both speak English words have different meanings in our cultures. The biggest difference between the rest of the world and the USA is that your societal norms are all about the collective good of your society. America was built on the idea that each individual is his own country. Each state is its own state. And we come together for common purpose but remain individuals. Somewhere along the line the liberal side of our country has forgotten that.
It always has been higher, even before your gun laws. The ratio of US to Australia homicide rates has been around 4:1 or 5:1 for decades.
Its not your job at all. but if an argument supports your position but has is based on weak logic (or is a weak argument in and of itself), the fact that it supports your position shouldn't dissuade you from being critical of the weaker parts of that argument. In fact, weeding out the weaker arguments in support of your position, will only strengthen your gun support position. With the added bonus of giving an impression of integrity over the internet, something I am sure we all strive for
The states remain individual or the individual remains individual. Obviously Australia and the USA are different in many respect and to be fair similar in many respects. Also if you view the world as the USA and the rest of the world then that in itself says a lot about your perspective on things.
As others have noted, the nation of Australia has always had a lower homicide rate than the united states, even prior to the restrictions implemented after the Port Arthur incident.
