Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK, I'll give you the reduction in mass shootings. Reduction, mind you. There are also studies that show home invasions and other violence increased drastically after the gun bans in Australia.
Regardless, this isn't Australia.
In the US gun onwership has increased, gun related violent crime has decreased and mass shooting stats are negligable.
As for your main point about "we arent we the safest nation in the world", it's a fuckign retarded question from get go. Which means you really do not have any point here. You just want to see guns banned. OK, we get it. Group up with the other nutters and get the constitution amended. Good luck.
Never said I wanted guns banned, but if you need to argue that to feel like you've won something. Have at it, I won't stand in your way.
Glad to see you can recognize that gun laws CAN have a positive impact. Now can we have a rational discussion about what gun laws could help us in this country?
Yes, by creating a new problem. In you example, mass shooting (which were already pretty rare), went down, while home invasions went up. I guess yuo could call that a positive. If you stick on some blinders.
I cant answer a subjective and ridiculous question such as "the safest coutnry in the world". It's a mind numbingly stupid question. Even in this context. Going by the study and the questions to research, they do not know of a correlation. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist. What it also means is, despite a large increase in gun ownership (and control mechaniosms for firearms for that matter), gun related violence is, and has been, in decline. So clearly guns aren't the problem here. So controlling or banning them is irrelevant. Counterproductive even, given the study cited by another poster in the thread.
Australia - There is no correlation between mass shooting reduction and gun bans. There is, however, a cited correlation between gun bans and increased home invasions and violence. You want to put control with ban and then roll it all up nice and neat. Then you have the nerve to insult me for your lack of both making a point.
No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?
Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.
Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.
Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters
Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?
No. Instead, lets take a look at the actual data that tells an entirely different story.
Australia - Homicide rate
The first and largest problem with the Reuters article is that it is not using valid data. The claim of gun deaths is a misnomer. Dead is dead. By measuring homicide with a specific weapon (guns) to the exclusion of other homicides, you are already creating bias in the data. You have to look at the data WITHOUT bias or filters to get the picture. If gun deaths decrease by 10 but knife deaths increase by 20 you have created a NEGATIVE effect even though your gun deaths statistic would make it look positive.
With straight homicide rates, we find that a law passed in 1996 banning most gun ownership has virtually zero effect on homicide rates over the next 6 years. All the way up until 2002, the homicide rate fluctuates but really does not drop. After that, you see a steep decline.
The question then becomes, why are you attributing that declining to a six year old law that had zero effect in the meantime. That is completely illogical. There is a MUCH higher likelihood that something changed (or a few somethings really) in 2001 that started the new trend.
Use source data rather than people that have taken it, filtered it and then tried to interpret it for you.
Another post from Spoonman, another post without any source for his "facts".
Let's face it. The reality of the situation is, you're just not a smart person and never have been. There are plenty of people in this world that are smarter than I am, but you're not one of them. This much is clear at this point.
Every time and I mean every time you and I debate something, you lose. Simply because you refuse to list sources for any of the dumb shit you say. I don't know if you honestly expect anyone to believe the crap you say, I use to think there is no way you could honestly believe the nonsense you're saying. But I've come to realize that you actually probably do believe this shit and the reason is you're just not a smart person.
Not everyone can be intelligent, I realize that. I do believe everyone has something that they are good at. Unfortunately critical thought is not "your thing". Perhaps you're good at finger paints or maybe you make a really mean peanut butter and jelly sandwich......who knows. But you should probably figure out what is you are good at, because having a conversation that involves using your brain obviously isn't it.
1993 homicides from guns - 18,253 2011 homicides from guns 11,101 a 39% decrease.
CDC data gun deaths per 100,000 per year by country. Look at that, The USA with the greatest decline. I guess gun deaths per year really have been dropping.
LOL, just LOL. Thanks for literally proving my point in your very next post.
I need to go make my lunch. Any tips?
Obama ordered a study on gun violence, and he got one, just not the one he may have been wanting. The new study is out and the conclusion is that there are more benefits to concealed and open carry than there are negative side effects.
Read at Obama's Gun Report Backfires--Guns Save Lives -
Actually, 2/3rds of ALL gun related deaths are suicides, with most of them, by far, committed by white men in Red States. It kind of changes my opinion of the value of handguns.
Makes sense. At the sight of a gun, men in blue states would clutch their pearls, get the vapors and piss their panties.
No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?
Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.
Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.
Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters
Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?
No. Instead, lets take a look at the actual data that tells an entirely different story.
Australia - Homicide rate
The first and largest problem with the Reuters article is that it is not using valid data. The claim of gun deaths is a misnomer. Dead is dead. By measuring homicide with a specific weapon (guns) to the exclusion of other homicides, you are already creating bias in the data. You have to look at the data WITHOUT bias or filters to get the picture. If gun deaths decrease by 10 but knife deaths increase by 20 you have created a NEGATIVE effect even though your gun deaths statistic would make it look positive.
With straight homicide rates, we find that a law passed in 1996 banning most gun ownership has virtually zero effect on homicide rates over the next 6 years. All the way up until 2002, the homicide rate fluctuates but really does not drop. After that, you see a steep decline.
The question then becomes, why are you attributing that declining to a six year old law that had zero effect in the meantime. That is completely illogical. There is a MUCH higher likelihood that something changed (or a few somethings really) in 2001 that started the new trend.
Use source data rather than people that have taken it, filtered it and then tried to interpret it for you.
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
1993 homicides from guns - 18,253 2011 homicides from guns 11,101 a 39% decrease.
CDC data gun deaths per 100,000 per year by country. Look at that, The USA with the greatest decline. I guess gun deaths per year really have been dropping.
LOL, just LOL. Thanks for literally proving my point in your very next post.
I need to go make my lunch. Any tips?
it proves my point. gun violence has dropped in the usa while the number of guns has increased. gun violence has decreased in the usa as much as any country with tough gun laws to tough gun bans. no county has outperformed the USA in a percent decrease in homicides with their tough gun laws. the USA has met or exceeded the levels of other countries while..... get this..... increasing the number of guns people have.
Yes, I have a tip. drink plenty of water to wash down the crow you are eating
Wow, look at that, Illinois is one of the most safe states.
kind of like your missing linksLOL, just LOL. Thanks for literally proving my point in your very next post.
I need to go make my lunch. Any tips?
it proves my point. gun violence has dropped in the usa while the number of guns has increased. gun violence has decreased in the usa as much as any country with tough gun laws to tough gun bans. no county has outperformed the USA in a percent decrease in homicides with their tough gun laws. the USA has met or exceeded the levels of other countries while..... get this..... increasing the number of guns people have.
Yes, I have a tip. drink plenty of water to wash down the crow you are eating
Sorry, I had to skip lunch. I was too busy clicking on the link and reading the source that you didn't provide.
No. Instead, lets take a look at the actual data that tells an entirely different story.
Australia - Homicide rate
The first and largest problem with the Reuters article is that it is not using valid data. The claim of gun deaths is a misnomer. Dead is dead. By measuring homicide with a specific weapon (guns) to the exclusion of other homicides, you are already creating bias in the data. You have to look at the data WITHOUT bias or filters to get the picture. If gun deaths decrease by 10 but knife deaths increase by 20 you have created a NEGATIVE effect even though your gun deaths statistic would make it look positive.
With straight homicide rates, we find that a law passed in 1996 banning most gun ownership has virtually zero effect on homicide rates over the next 6 years. All the way up until 2002, the homicide rate fluctuates but really does not drop. After that, you see a steep decline.
The question then becomes, why are you attributing that declining to a six year old law that had zero effect in the meantime. That is completely illogical. There is a MUCH higher likelihood that something changed (or a few somethings really) in 2001 that started the new trend.
Use source data rather than people that have taken it, filtered it and then tried to interpret it for you.
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
how about you presenting some facts to back up your argument. you seem to be pretty void on being able to do that. yet you are very vocal that others don't. time to drop the liberal hypocriscy and step up to the plate.
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
how about you presenting some facts to back up your argument. you seem to be pretty void on being able to do that. yet you are very vocal that others don't. time to drop the liberal hypocriscy and step up to the plate.
Already did that. Try and keep up. LOL.
No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?
Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.
Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.
Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters
Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?
No. Instead, lets take a look at the actual data that tells an entirely different story.
Australia - Homicide rate
The first and largest problem with the Reuters article is that it is not using valid data. The claim of gun deaths is a misnomer. Dead is dead. By measuring homicide with a specific weapon (guns) to the exclusion of other homicides, you are already creating bias in the data. You have to look at the data WITHOUT bias or filters to get the picture. If gun deaths decrease by 10 but knife deaths increase by 20 you have created a NEGATIVE effect even though your gun deaths statistic would make it look positive.
With straight homicide rates, we find that a law passed in 1996 banning most gun ownership has virtually zero effect on homicide rates over the next 6 years. All the way up until 2002, the homicide rate fluctuates but really does not drop. After that, you see a steep decline.
The question then becomes, why are you attributing that declining to a six year old law that had zero effect in the meantime. That is completely illogical. There is a MUCH higher likelihood that something changed (or a few somethings really) in 2001 that started the new trend.
Use source data rather than people that have taken it, filtered it and then tried to interpret it for you.
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
No. Instead, lets take a look at the actual data that tells an entirely different story.
Australia - Homicide rate
The first and largest problem with the Reuters article is that it is not using valid data. The claim of gun deaths is a misnomer. Dead is dead. By measuring homicide with a specific weapon (guns) to the exclusion of other homicides, you are already creating bias in the data. You have to look at the data WITHOUT bias or filters to get the picture. If gun deaths decrease by 10 but knife deaths increase by 20 you have created a NEGATIVE effect even though your gun deaths statistic would make it look positive.
With straight homicide rates, we find that a law passed in 1996 banning most gun ownership has virtually zero effect on homicide rates over the next 6 years. All the way up until 2002, the homicide rate fluctuates but really does not drop. After that, you see a steep decline.
The question then becomes, why are you attributing that declining to a six year old law that had zero effect in the meantime. That is completely illogical. There is a MUCH higher likelihood that something changed (or a few somethings really) in 2001 that started the new trend.
Use source data rather than people that have taken it, filtered it and then tried to interpret it for you.
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
That was not the topic; that was what you turned it into with another poster. Your post discusses homicides and directly quotes the homicide rates as well as mass shootings. Your article cited is also not sticking within that realm.
Are you telling me that you are going to ignore the very valid data that DIRECTLY counters one of your points? That is why having a conversation about gun control is almost impossible. You claimed to want to deal with facts and have a real debate but as soon as I hand you data showing that your conclusion that gun control in Australia might have been false, you ignore it out of hand.
Nice deflection but I am not going to fall for it. Thanks for the effort though.
how about you presenting some facts to back up your argument. you seem to be pretty void on being able to do that. yet you are very vocal that others don't. time to drop the liberal hypocriscy and step up to the plate.
Already did that. Try and keep up. LOL.
links or its just another one of your lies
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
That was not the topic; that was what you turned it into with another poster. Your post discusses homicides and directly quotes the homicide rates as well as mass shootings. Your article cited is also not sticking within that realm.
Are you telling me that you are going to ignore the very valid data that DIRECTLY counters one of your points? That is why having a conversation about gun control is almost impossible. You claimed to want to deal with facts and have a real debate but as soon as I hand you data showing that your conclusion that gun control in Australia might have been false, you ignore it out of hand.
Nice deflection but I am not going to fall for it. Thanks for the effort though.
That actually was the topic. I apologize for pasting in that second bit related to homicide stats as it wasn't totally pertinent to the discussion we were having around mass shootings and the impact seen on those after gun laws.
Go back and read the conversation that you made yourself a part of. It's pretty clear what was being discussed.
Clearlty YOU did not, as the numbers you cited are nowhere to be found in it.I'm sure that'll be wonderful news for the 105,000 American murdered in firearms attacks in 2010 and the 200,000 or so injured in the same year.
Did you actually read the report or just look at the pictures?
The 105,000 is on the first fucking page. GODDAM you people!
The 200,000 is not. It says there were twice as many injured compared to killed 73,505
Thanks for that, let's try and stick to the topic we were actually discussing which was mass shootings and the decrease that was seen after the gun laws enacted in 1996. Thanks for the effort though.
how about you presenting some facts to back up your argument. you seem to be pretty void on being able to do that. yet you are very vocal that others don't. time to drop the liberal hypocriscy and step up to the plate.
Already did that. Try and keep up. LOL.
Clearlty YOU did not, as the numbers you cited are nowhere to be found in it.
The 105,000 is on the first fucking page. GODDAM you people!
The 200,000 is not. It says there were twice as many injured compared to killed 73,505
my, my, my...,calm down, no need to get violent or radical high blood pressure has been known to cause strokes, and for heavens sake we do not want to lose any of our valued loberfool patients ..., yes !! patient, we view you libers as mentally ill and we want to help you all to recover.., so please follow us Doctors of logic and reasonability.
let me ask you liberfools a question, why not control the deaths by people using guns in the murders in Chicago, L.A., NYC, WDC and Atlanta, by implementing a total gun ban ?
being as you wish to quote numbers and foolish statistics, try the following on for size,
did you know, two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.
also...,
did you know 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks ?
did you know there are 14.82 murders per 100K by blacks versus 2.17 per 100K for whites?
there are 7x more murders committed by blacks than whites.
i did not make this up. It comes directly from the FBI. check it if you know how.
Obama ordered a study on gun violence, and he got one, just not the one he may have been wanting. The new study is out and the conclusion is that there are more benefits to concealed and open carry than there are negative side effects.
Read at Obama's Gun Report Backfires--Guns Save Lives -
In my opinion, the report also highlights the area of the gun debate that is going largely unanswered. The report further confirms that most gun deaths are at the hands of those who used the gun for suicidenot homicide. Suicide by guns outweighs the amount of deaths caused by violent crimes by 61%. This is not a gun issue; this is a mental health issue, but the President and friends dont want to focus on that side of things.
Actually, 2/3rds of ALL gun related deaths are suicides, with most of them, by far, committed by white men in Red States. It kind of changes my opinion of the value of handguns.
Makes sense. At the sight of a gun, men in blue states would clutch their pearls, get the vapors and piss their panties.
As opposed to being depressed by the constant fear they are bombarded with by the Republican Party. No wonder they've been pussified into not being able to face reality.
