Legal in Australia, able to kill 17 peope in 3 minutes

The number of people killed in the Parkland TX school shooting, and the amount of time in which they were killed

 

You sure that's not Parkland Florida?

 

Bingo

 

Whoops...

 

Your comparison is odious.

 

What "comparison"?
At the time, the anti-gun left bleated on and on about there being no need for guns that could kill 17 people in 3 minutes.
Indeed, that -is- odious - mindless as well.

 

Australia doesn't have the minority population we do, something like 95% of New York City murderers and victims are black or hispanic. If you took out the top five US murder cities (all with lots of minorities) we'd be near the bottom of world murder rates.

 

A minority population going on 3 generations of being raised in dysfunctional households with no regard for the sanctity of life.

 

You haven't bothered to define 'mass shooting' or, more importantly, provide any sort of reference for the US figure. What references have you used to get it? Have you used the same definition for both figures you provided? I only ask because the US figure seems a little low given the criteria you must be using to get the Australian figure.

Additionally, have you removed the deaths of shooters either by suicide or police from the Australian figures? I ask because the wiki data you used includes those figures and there are a number of them.

One last question, do you have figures post-1996 for Australia & the US? As this thread was started with a reference to Australia's more restrictive firearms laws, and people here are telling us they have failed, then surely that would be an important figure to provide.

....now we wait to see if you can back up your post or not......

 

Looks like gun owners in NZ are getting angry about many only getting 70% of the value of their banned guns.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...z-gov-refuses-pay-full-price-banned-firearms/
now some are refusing to turn in their banned guns.

 

I cited a source for the Aussie figure and used the definition for the US figured, below.
The US numbers can be found here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...about-assault-weapons-5-2-2019-update.555158/

Included, above.

 

I'll do some in depth analysis when I get time, but as I suspected you are applying different criteria to shootings in Australia & the US - a narrower definition for the US. It is the only way you can get that figure.

It means that the Australian figure is going to be lower and will drop very, very low after 1996.

 

I don't think so, Tim.

If true - Why?

 

That is only because you haven't researched this properly. Lets revisit the criteria used to arrive at your figure - from the Mother Jones article:

I have gone through the wiki page you gave as your reference for Australia. I did not count murders that took place in private residences or on property owned by the killer except where they were a small element of a larger mass killing that fitted the criteria (such as may have been the case in the Cangai seige). That removes all the instances of men wiping out their families (and the lone instance of a woman doing the same) as none fit that criteria. In all the cases where I did this I did actually research the killing to make sure it was outside the stated criteria.

I have also removed where I had the data to do so people murdered by a weapon other than a gun during a gun massacre (as happened at Strathfield). I left in the 7 dead at Milperra as the criteria are not clear on the status of gang shootouts - it was a clash between two motorcycle gangs.

So, what figure do we end up with? Around 80 dead. Of those 35 died in a single incident - Port Arthur 1996. That one killing was five times larger than any other comparable massacre in Australian history and constitutes over 40% of the sample. The nature of lower figures is that a single large killing can massively distort the sample.

Dividing 80 by 37 gives us the figure of 2.1 deaths per year. That is considerably lower than your figure. Much as I suspected. Now, if you want to widen the criteria on US shootings we can discuss bringing other Australian shootings into the figures. My bet is doing that will actually widen the gap between the two figures, so you might not want to go down that road.

Now, here is the really interesting bit. After 1996 there are a grand total of 4 deaths that fit the criteria. Just 4 deaths in a single mass shooting (using your criteria) in 23 years. I think that comes out to .17 deaths per year. I don't know what the US figures are over the same period, but I'm guessing it is vastly more.

After Port Arthur Australia instituted heavy restrictions on semi automatic weapons and bought back a lot of guns. We have had one mass shooting since - a few weeks ago. So the answer to your question is that we actually did something to address a growing problem and it worked. We had 22 years without a mass shooting (using your criteria).

To summarise, your data was poor so your conclusion was flawed. Further, Australia managed to get its average per year below 1 by doing the thing US posters claim never works - restricting ownership of & access to firearms. Probably not what you were hoping the data would say.

I suspect that I have wasted a fair bit of time here, as this is usually the point in the argument where the American poster generally does one of the following:
* Go quiet;
* Change the subject to other NRA approved talking points - 'substitution' and race are the favourites, though you may be more creative;
* Do a lot of handwaving and talk about anything but the mistake they made.

Maybe you'll surprise me and admit that you got it wrong. Maybe you'll shock me and admit that the assumption that restrictions never work is just as wrong. Not holding my breath.

 

And there it is -- the inevitable post hoc fallacy.
As expected. Well done.

 

And there it is - the inevitable refusal to admit error or engage with the issue.
As expected. Well done. You are true to your programming.

Anyway, thanks for playing. better luck next time.

 

Oh, no, no, no...

See, any error I may have made in compiling those numbers doesn't matter as it was bait, to get you to offer the fallacious post hoc argument I knew you would.
And you did. As expected. Because you are true to your programming.
Indeed, you made a fallacious post hoc argument you now will run away from, because you know you cannot support it.

So please - demonstrate the necessary relationship between the change in Aussie gun laws and the fact you have gone 22 years w/o a mass shooting.
Please be sure to account for the fact Aussie gun laws allow for legal access to firearms more than capable of being used in such a shooting.

Of course, this is usually the point in the argument where the Aussie posters such as yourself generally does one of the following:
* Go quiet;
* Change the subject to other anti-gun talking points - 'penis envy' and race-hatred are the favorites, though you may be more creative;
* Do a lot of handwaving and talk about anything but the mistake you made.

Maybe you'll surprise me and admit your argument is indeed fallacious and unsound.

 

So you have no problem with telling untruths online, including using them to cover up the untruths you already told. Good to know. Nothing you say can be treated as factual or reliable without reference. Also good to know.

The relationship between the gun restrictions and the drop in deaths is demonstrated by the outcome. From 1982-1996 (14 years) roughly 76 people died in gun massacres (according to your criteria). From the enactment of the firearms restrictions in mid-1996 until a few weeks ago (23 years) there were ZERO deaths in gun massacres. As of today that figure is four. Four deaths in 23 years. We went from 3.4 deaths per year to .17.

You can make up any old reason you want why this spectacular drop in deaths - none in 23 years - is not related to the legislation. I'm sure the NRA has schooled you well. You can wave your arms about and demand 'proof' all you want. The proof is in the outcome. We had a problem, we took action, it worked. That is called proof.

Watching you tell yourself you've 'won' this argument as a way to avoid accepting blatant misrepresentation of the facts is actually funny.

 

Here's something that is puzzling and quite ludicrous. Why do Americans so often have to use other countries as their idelogical battlefield for American domestic issues? Quite frankly, I find it ridiculously childish and simply disgusting. Why not clean that backyard of yours on your own and keep others out of this simplified black-n-white-good-n-evil stuff. For some reason it seems they can't do without throwing fecies at other nations to get their domestic point across.

 

We commonly don't, however, we are constantly being barraged by foreigners telling we need to clean up our country to make it like theirs and the rest of the world, so once in a great while a thread like this one appears.

Truth of the matter is, we like so many in the world who want to come here, have no desire to change this great land of ours and remold it into a s-hole such as where those foreigners currently reside.

All you have to do is read through the many threads in Gun Control and you will see a reoccurring pattern of foreigners who live in countries, were they have no prescribed rights, complaining about our clearly defined rights as being the problem in America, truth be told they are envious and bitter about that, so they find any reason possible to preach to us that we should give up our rights.

And the most common method they use for that purpose and to hammer that idea down is by attacking the Second Amendment, falsely blaming a tool, versus blaming the less than human person who misused the tool, the sick part of that mode of operation is every time one of their proposed ideas is tried out it just makes the problem worse, but they don't care, they are miserable to begin with and wish to bring us down to their level, something we will never surrender ourselves into doing.

 

And yet, as the last incident demonstrated quite clearly, the types of firearms still legally available in the nation of Australia are quite suited for committing a mass shooting, and leaving numerous individuals dead as a result. If such is the case, if the tools for committing mass shootings were indeed available the whole time, ultimately what really explained the absence of mass shootings for so long? Beyond that, why is that trend ultimately coming to an end now? What changed?

 

Here is the great thing about a policy that has worked spectacularly well - I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why it has worked. It did. I understand that there are people whose ideology precludes them from accepting that, but it happened.

No one at the time thought it would completely eliminate mass shootings and similarly no one imagined it would mean we would go 23 years without one. After the regularity with which such events had happened in the previous dozen years that was unimaginable.

If I were you I would be less concerned why we have had one mass shooting in Australia in 23 years and more concerned about the regularity with which they happen in the US. Clearly you have failed as a society on issues to do with gun violence. That probably warrants more of your time than four deaths in Australia in a 23 year period. I don't have a solution to your problem and I'm glad my society isn't required to provide one. We found ours and it has worked beyond all expectation.

 

Meaning it is not even possible for yourself to explain why there was a supposed absence of mass shootings for twenty three years, when the public still had legal access to the firearms capable of being used for such. Such a fact means it was not the availability of firearms that had anything to do with the development occurring.

What the above means is that the results of the nation of Australia are an outlier, and do not indicate a repeatable action.

 

How do you not understand that restating your post hoc fallacy does not change the fact you offered a post hoc fallacy?

So again:
Demonstrate the necessary relationship between the change in Aussie gun laws and the fact you have gone 22 years w/o a mass shooting.
Please be sure to account for the fact Aussie gun laws allow for legal access to firearms more than capable of being used in such a shooting.

I'll wait.
For a REALLY long time.
Because you can't.
And you know it.

 

Um... wut?