What did this family not have that it needed?

[JimC]

I know that we can never make it impossible for criminals, loonies and terrorists to obtain guns in Oz, but the bans and gun laws ensure that there are much fewer around than would otherwise be the case, so they are at least not easy to obtain.

The critical element is having good intelligence about potential terrorists, and nailing them before they can strike. You are never going to get them all, but every one you do nab saves lives.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

More guns means more killings.

By corollary, fewer guns mean fewer killing, yes? That is not what happened in Australia in 1996 when several hundred thousand semiautomatic and pump action firearms were taken out of circulation in under 12 months.

However, BG made the reasonable point that only a relatively small number of the already low number of murders were done by gun, so the ban would have had little effect. In fact, it would be even more of a point, given that the number of murders committed by the types of guns that were banned (mainly semi-automatic rifles) was very low indeed, with the exception of massacres by lunatics. The number of criminals murdered by other criminals with hand-guns would not have changed - the ban had no effect on those...

Yup. And therefore the ban was useless, because anyone who really wants to perpetrate another Port Arthur can always find the weaponry required to do so, whether it's legal or not.

Australia is simply lucky that nobody's cared to try very hard. This may change as radical Islam fixes its eye on Australians as it did on the French. By the way, every weapon in the possession of the French terrorists was highly illegal and entirely banned in France and quite literally ever other Western European nation.

....and yet they still managed to obtain and use them....go figure.

Not difficult for determined killer to find gun if wanted, even in place where is ban. Australua is example, has been found that criminal is simply make gun of their own:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... 99535.html

Is not very difficult for build gun if killer wants. Avtomat is actually plan to attend "build party" in America soon to build glorious Kalashnikov rifle. Not much required for such task, but surely is preach to choir with comrade Seth!

[Hermit]

More guns means more killings.

By corollary, fewer guns mean fewer killing, yes? That is not what happened in Australia in 1996 when several hundred thousand semiautomatic and pump action firearms were taken out of circulation in under 12 months.

However, BG made the reasonable point that only a relatively small number of the already low number of murders were done by gun, so the ban would have had little effect.

Reasonable point? The gun control proponents quite rightly point out that there has been a massive reduction in murders by firearms. In the years prior to the gun buyback scheme firearms were used in 30% of murders even after subtracting mass killings such as the one that occurred at Port Arthur. This percentage has dropped to below 15%. Very good indeed. What is not so good is that the overall murder rate has not dropped by 15%. Nowhere near it, in fact. And this is why: Murderers switched to other means. Knives, for example.



A similar switch can be observed in relation to suicides. Suicide by firearm dropped a lot. Again, this drop id not reflected in the total number of suicides. Death by overdosing and hanging went up.

While it is statistically proven that both murder and suicide rates have been dropping, they have been doing so at the same rate in the years succeeding 1996 as in the years preceding it. In regard to the Australian record (with the exception of mass killings) there simply is not a shred of evidence for BG's thesis that fewer guns mean fewer deaths by murder or suicide. Fewer guns merely mean fewer deaths using guns.

As if that was not enough cherry picking, BG also comprehensively ignores the fact that the murder rate in the US has almost halved (from 9.4 per 100,000 to 5.2) in the past 20 years despite an apparent increase in guns circulating there.

So, I think you misspelled "reasonable point" in the context of BG's post. Here is the correction for your dyslexia: "fact-free zone".

[piscator]

More guns means more killings.

By corollary, fewer guns mean fewer killing, yes? That is not what happened in Australia in 1996 when several hundred thousand semiautomatic and pump action firearms were taken out of circulation in under 12 months.

However, BG made the reasonable point that only a relatively small number of the already low number of murders were done by gun, so the ban would have had little effect. In fact, it would be even more of a point, given that the number of murders committed by the types of guns that were banned (mainly semi-automatic rifles) was very low indeed, with the exception of massacres by lunatics. The number of criminals murdered by other criminals with hand-guns would not have changed - the ban had no effect on those...

Your gun ban hasn't been very effective against massacres by lunatics either.

[Hermit]

More guns means more killings.

By corollary, fewer guns mean fewer killing, yes? That is not what happened in Australia in 1996 when several hundred thousand semiautomatic and pump action firearms were taken out of circulation in under 12 months.

However, BG made the reasonable point that only a relatively small number of the already low number of murders were done by gun, so the ban would have had little effect. In fact, it would be even more of a point, given that the number of murders committed by the types of guns that were banned (mainly semi-automatic rifles) was very low indeed, with the exception of massacres by lunatics. The number of criminals murdered by other criminals with hand-guns would not have changed - the ban had no effect on those...

Your gun ban hasn't been very effective against massacres by lunatics either.

It has so. Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

More guns means more killings.

By corollary, fewer guns mean fewer killing, yes? That is not what happened in Australia in 1996 when several hundred thousand semiautomatic and pump action firearms were taken out of circulation in under 12 months.

However, BG made the reasonable point that only a relatively small number of the already low number of murders were done by gun, so the ban would have had little effect. In fact, it would be even more of a point, given that the number of murders committed by the types of guns that were banned (mainly semi-automatic rifles) was very low indeed, with the exception of massacres by lunatics. The number of criminals murdered by other criminals with hand-guns would not have changed - the ban had no effect on those...

Your gun ban hasn't been very effective against massacres by lunatics either.

It has so. Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _Australia

Is wrong.

[Hermit]

Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _Australia

Is wrong.

That's the source of my data. If they are wrong, provide a link to correct data please, or explain where I might have used them wrongly.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _Australia

Is wrong.

That's the source of my data. If they are wrong, provide a link to correct data please, or explain where I might have used them wrongly.

Childers Palace Backpackers fire 2000, Churchill Fire 2009, Lin family murders 2009, Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire 2011, Hunt family murders 2014, Cairns child killings 2014

[Blind groper]

Avtomat

You have shown one (count it, one) killing of 5 people with a gun. TYhe other killings did not involve guns. So it looks as if the ban on guns has in fact stopped most mass gun murders in Australia.

[Blind groper]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

To Seth, who believes that the USA has had more gun ownership leading to fewer murders.

That belief is crap. The drop in murder rate dates back to the 1990's, and was greatest in the few years after 1990, but as the reference above shows, the increase in gun ownership was only since 2011. In other words, the two are not related.

In addition, there is the inconvenient fact (inconvenient to you, Seth) that exactly the same drop in murder rates after 1990 happened all through the western world (everywhere there was a post WWII baby boom), even though none of those nations had any change in gun ownership. The drop in murder rate after 1990 had nothing to do with any increase in gun ownership, which did not occur till 2011, but correlated perfectly with a reduction in the percentage of young men in the population, as a result of the baby boom generation getting older.

On the other hand, the Boston University study shows that states where gun ownership is higher have more murders. As my correlations show, advanced western nations with more guns have more murders.

More guns means more killings.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Avtomat

You have shown one (count it, one) killing of 5 people with a gun. TYhe other killings did not involve guns. So it looks as if the ban on guns has in fact stopped most mass gun murders in Australia.

Maybe you are know something about death that Avtomat is unaware, but seems people killed with gun are the same amount dead as others. Piscator is say "massacres by lunatics", not specify what tool used for massacre.

[piscator]

More guns means more killings.

By corollary, fewer guns mean fewer killing, yes? That is not what happened in Australia in 1996 when several hundred thousand semiautomatic and pump action firearms were taken out of circulation in under 12 months.

However, BG made the reasonable point that only a relatively small number of the already low number of murders were done by gun, so the ban would have had little effect. In fact, it would be even more of a point, given that the number of murders committed by the types of guns that were banned (mainly semi-automatic rifles) was very low indeed, with the exception of massacres by lunatics. The number of criminals murdered by other criminals with hand-guns would not have changed - the ban had no effect on those...

Your gun ban hasn't been very effective against massacres by lunatics either.

It has so. Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

You're skipping a few massacres by lunatics.

[Hermit]

Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _Australia

Is wrong.

That's the source of my data. If they are wrong, provide a link to correct data please, or explain where I might have used them wrongly.

Childers Palace Backpackers fire 2000, Churchill Fire 2009, Lin family murders 2009, Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire 2011, Hunt family murders 2014, Cairns child killings 2014

We're talking about mass killings using guns, right? At least they are the only ones I tallied. You mentioned two mass killings using fires, one of which occurred over a decade before the gun buyback scheme was implemented, one using a hammer, one using a knife and one using a shotgun. I did miss the latter, but it should be mentioned that the shotgun was licensed to and registered with the murderer.

[piscator]

Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _Australia

Is wrong.

That's the source of my data. If they are wrong, provide a link to correct data please, or explain where I might have used them wrongly.

Childers Palace Backpackers fire 2000, Churchill Fire 2009, Lin family murders 2009, Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire 2011, Hunt family murders 2014, Cairns child killings 2014

We're talking about mass killings using guns, right? At least they are the only ones I tallied. You mentioned two mass killings using fires, one of which occurred over a decade before the gun buyback scheme was implemented, one using a hammer, one using a knife and one using a shotgun. I did miss the latter, but it should be mentioned that the shotgun was licensed to and registered with the murderer.

In the latter massacre (Manoora), the State of Queensland hasn't presented Her case, but the press indicates it was likely either the multiple stab wounds on the 8 victims or suffocation via plastic bags.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Mass killings in Australia 1971-1996: 15 (102 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 0 (0 fatalities).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _Australia

Is wrong.

That's the source of my data. If they are wrong, provide a link to correct data please, or explain where I might have used them wrongly.

Childers Palace Backpackers fire 2000, Churchill Fire 2009, Lin family murders 2009, Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire 2011, Hunt family murders 2014, Cairns child killings 2014

We're talking about mass killings using guns, right? At least they are the only ones I tallied. You mentioned two mass killings using fires, one of which occurred over a decade before the gun buyback scheme was implemented, one using a hammer, one using a knife and one using a shotgun. I did miss the latter, but it should be mentioned that the shotgun was licensed to and registered with the murderer.

If gun is ban for to prevent massacre, and loony killer still do massacre without gun, what is difference? Guns taken away, people still dead.