stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am very proud of you, but I don't think you really read my post, and yes I did read up on Monash. I really have one question for you and all I request is that you reread my post and then answer it: What is my argument?

You didn't want argument; you wanted proof that gun legislation reduced mass murder by firearm. I gave you Australia, which is the only existing example...since Britian doesn't even really have the problem.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If this is your fabled defense, then I can only imagine the mental midgets you overcame.

Refute it instead of mocking it. Mental midgets mock. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It can be easily hypothesized through these observations that Australian gun laws did not "solve" the problem but as a culture, Australians were becoming less and less violent and lower gun violence was bound to happen.

[Humerox]

Oh yeah? I can cherry-pick quotes too.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

However, Australia did lower their gun injuries and deaths substantially after 1996 and obviously so.

[Faron]

The point is that societies do not exist in a vacuum where something like a crime rate is affected by a singular factor (the availability of a particular weapon). I don't understand why people don't focus on the actual problem: criminals. And in particular: people who want to kill as many people as possible. A gun sitting on their desk, or knowing that one can be easily purchased at Walmart does not cause people to be criminals or mass murderers.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You didn't want argument; you wanted proof that gun legislation reduced mass murder by firearm. I gave you Australia, which is the only existing example...since Britian doesn't even really have the problem.

What you linked was of highly questionable integrity. It read like a Chinese fiscal report honestly. Also, the source you linked did not prove it. There are many gaps in mass shootings and in the data collected and presented.

Now, I DO agree that restrictions on guns will reduce the number of gun related injuries and deaths. This is because they are not readily available and will thus constrict the sample size. However, mass shootings are entirely different. Mass shootings occur from a myriad of different reasons and generally involve a very devoted and unstable culprit. Can said culprit do more damage with an assault rifle than with a pistol? Most likely so and no one is arguing that. Can said culprit still take many lives with a legal gun? Yes, of course. So the next question is, did you really solve the problem? No, you just reduced the probable damage done. The culprit could still find a way to get an assault rifle. All the gun control laws did was make it harder for him/her to obtain one.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Refute it instead of mocking it. Mental midgets mock. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem with your argument is that it is inherently flawed. You are assuming a false pretense and asking what-if and then trying to make a case for your side. I can easily do the same with "Well if all the other students and teachers has assault rifles then much less people would have been killed since they could defend themselves and thus everyone should be assigned a SMG." Your argument is invalid which made it deserving of my mockery. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

Also on the subject of mass killings, which is what we should be arguing about, is that they don't need to involve guns. If some one wants to kill a school and can't get a high powered rifle, where do you think they are going to turn? Homemade bombs most likely which could actually drastically increase the number of deaths and injured when such tragedies occur.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you linked was of highly questionable integrity. It read like a Chinese fiscal report honestly. Also, the source you linked did not prove it. There are many gaps in mass shootings and in the data collected and presented.

Now, I DO agree that restrictions on guns will reduce the number of gun related injuries and deaths. This is because they are not readily available and will thus constrict the sample size. However, mass shootings are entirely different. Mass shootings occur from a myriad of different reasons and generally involve a very devoted and unstable culprit. Can said culprit do more damage with an assault rifle than with a pistol? Most likely so and no one is arguing that. Can said culprit still take many lives with a legal gun? Yes, of course. So the next question is, did you really solve the problem? No, you just reduced the probable damage done. The culprit could still find a way to get an assault rifle. All the gun control laws did was make it harder for him/her to obtain one.




The problem with your argument is that it is inherently flawed. You are assuming a false pretense and asking what-if and then trying to make a case for your side. I can easily do the same with "Well if all the other students and teachers has assault rifles then much less people would have been killed since they could defend themselves and thus everyone should be assigned a SMG." Your argument is invalid which made it deserving of my mockery. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that it's a fact that Australia has had no mass murders by firearms in 16 years...not since 1996 when they established common-sense legislation. In the preceding decade they had 13.

I'm glad that you agree on reduction of guns = reduction of gun-related injuries and deaths, but that's not my argument...although it would be a nice benefit.

The research I presented was done by the University of Sydney. Please illustrate what was questionable. Methods? Sources?

Here it is again so you can have at it. University of Sydney Research Report.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also on the subject of mass killings, which is what we should be arguing about, is that they don't need to involve guns. If some one wants to kill a school and can't get a high powered rifle, where do you think they are going to turn? Homemade bombs most likely which could actually drastically increase the number of deaths and injured when such tragedies occur.

What? You just went from intelligent and reasoned to... well I'll just say you know what this is. C'mon...do better.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The point is that societies do not exist in a vacuum where something like a crime rate is affected by a singular factor (the availability of a particular weapon). I don't understand why people don't focus on the actual problem: criminals. And in particular: people who want to kill as many people as possible. A gun sitting on their desk, or knowing that one can be easily purchased at Walmart does not cause people to be criminals or mass murderers.

I don't disagree that there aren't more factors. All of which need to be addressed. But an assault-style weapon easily purchased at Wal-Mart makes a future Newtown killer's job so much easier, don't you agree?

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that it's a fact that Australia has had no mass murders by firearms in 16 years...not since 1996 when they established common-sense legislation. In the preceding decade they had 13.

I'm glad that you agree on reduction of guns = reduction of gun-related injuries and deaths, but that's not my argument...although it would be a nice benefit.

The research I presented was done by the University of Sydney. Please illustrate what was questionable. Methods? Sources?

Here it is again so you can have at it. University of Sydney Research Report.

I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What? You just went from intelligent and reasoned to... well I'll just say you know what this is. C'mon...do better.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?

Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire