What did this family not have that it needed?

[Hermit]

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.

You require 100% effectiveness rate for an initiative to be regarded as a success?

Mass killings in Australia, including those not involving firearms. 1971-1996: 16 (137 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 6 (54 fatalities).

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

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.

You require 100% effectiveness rate for an initiative to be regarded as a success?

Mass killings in Australia, including those not involving firearms. 1971-1996: 16 (137 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 6 (54 fatalities).

You make claim of NO massacre after gun ban, I show is obvious lie. Now you is say LESS massacre, and compare 25 years to 17. Is... how is said.... shifty post goals?

[Blind groper]

Avtomat

The important claim is that the gun availability restriction in Australia saved lives, and I think that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. 'Shifty goalposts' are unimportant in this context.

The same applies elsewhere. In the USA, it is not semi-automatic weapons that are the main problem. It is hand guns. There are 8,000 murders each year with hand guns. Relatively few murders happen with other kinds of firearm. So, to save lives, the obvious first step is to tighten the rules regarding ownership of hand guns.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Avtomat

The important claim is that the gun availability restriction in Australia saved lives, and I think that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. 'Shifty goalposts' are unimportant in this context.

The same applies elsewhere. In the USA, it is not semi-automatic weapons that are the main problem. It is hand guns. There are 8,000 murders each year with hand guns. Relatively few murders happen with other kinds of firearm. So, to save lives, the obvious first step is to tighten the rules regarding ownership of hand guns.

Is very small amounts of hand gun murder done by people who follow rule. How is tighten rule fix for people not following rule? In America, biggest murder problem I'd gang in city fighting other gang in city. Newspapers is show this every day.

As to Australia, biggest difference in massacre level before and after gun ban was port Arthur. Was anomalous event for history of Australia, is impossible to tell if never would happen again either way, is still impossible to tell if won't happen again with gun obtained illegal.

[Blind groper]

Avtomat

FBI statistics show that half of all hand gun murders (that is : 4,000 killings) come from two people who get into a fiery argument. After a time, one pulls out a hand gun and shoots the other one dead. Now, it is possible that the argument was over criminal activities, but the FBI statistics I saw (published in American Skeptic magazine) indicated that killings among criminals was a relatively small part of the total.

Restrictions on hand guns are needed to reduce the toll of hand gun murder. How to go about this is unclear, but there is no requirement to solve the problem totally all at once. Even relatively small changes might save 1,000 lives each year.

The old saying is that a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. It is time for the USA to make that first step towards saving thousands of human lives each year.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Avtomat

FBI statistics show that half of all hand gun murders (that is : 4,000 killings) come from two people who get into a fiery argument. After a time, one pulls out a hand gun and shoots the other one dead. Now, it is possible that the argument was over criminal activities, but the FBI statistics I saw (published in American Skeptic magazine) indicated that killings among criminals was a relatively small part of the total.

Restrictions on hand guns are needed to reduce the toll of hand gun murder. How to go about this is unclear, but there is no requirement to solve the problem totally all at once. Even relatively small changes might save 1,000 lives each year.

The old saying is that a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. It is time for the USA to make that first step towards saving thousands of human lives each year.

Seems to Avtomat, if wanting to lower gun deaths on,American, would be better plan for end war on drugs, make better care for mental ill. If ban guns and people still have reason for kill, people will find way to get gun, or find way for kill without. Now all you do is take away gun from man who follow law and not do kill, killers still do killing. Problem of America is too much people with want for kill, better to remove reason for want to kill than try to take away tool for kill.

[Blind groper]

Avtomat

Ending the war on drugs would be an excellent step, indeed. Not the only step, since most murders have nothing to do with drugs. But it would still be an excellent step.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Avtomat

Ending the war on drugs would be an excellent step, indeed. Not the only step, since most murders have nothing to do with drugs. But it would still be an excellent step.

Drugs fuel gangs, gangs commit much murder, is probably have consequence of making less gang kill.

[Hermit]

Is very small amounts of hand gun murder done by people who follow rule. How is tighten rule fix for people not following rule? In America, biggest murder problem I'd gang in city fighting other gang in city. Newspapers is show this every day.

Are there any credible statistics on that aspect?

Here is an account of two people who followed rules. Both had concealed carry permits. One tail-gated the other, they pulled their cars over in a parking lot, got into an argument and shot each other dead. Should I feel bad about myself for laughing when I read that?

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Is very small amounts of hand gun murder done by people who follow rule. How is tighten rule fix for people not following rule? In America, biggest murder problem I'd gang in city fighting other gang in city. Newspapers is show this every day.

Are there any credible statistics on that aspect?

Here is an account of two people who followed rules. Both had concealed carry permits. One tail-gated the other, they pulled their cars over in a parking lot, got into an argument and shot each other dead. Should I feel bad about myself for laughing when I read that?

Seem for me is two less stupid in world. When carry firearm, is necessary to understand you now lose all argument. Man is tell you he see your mother sex with Chechen? Is not fight you can pick! Man is cut in front on road? Is necessary you not escalating to fight! Firearm on hip is for use only to win unavoidable fight. These men not understand this, now is learn the hardest way.

[Blind groper]

Yes, carrying a hand gun is a stupid thing to do. A government permitting people to carry hand guns is an even more stupid thing to do.

[piscator]

[Seth]

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.

So now they use gasoline. The biggest mass murder in US history (barring 9/11) was perpetrated with a can of gasoline. Fifty four people died.

And now you're down to "most" rather than all, which is good.

What's missing now is the ability of Australians to defend themselves against any kind of murder, mass or individual, not to mention any sort of violent crime.

It's typical of you to simply ignore all the other crimes that guns can prevent in favor of your particular bias. That, and you ignore how many times per year guns are used to protect people, which is ten to a thousand times more often than they are used for ANY sort of crime.

[Seth]

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.

Horse, and shit. The only thing that matters, statistically, is whether or not the murder rate in the US went up or went down as the number of guns in the US increased.

The murder rate went down as the number of guns increased!

Get this through your thick head. Your claim of "more guns, more murders" is utterly and completely refuted by this one single fact. There is no disputing it, there is no arguing about it, it is quite simply a scientific fact that only a mindless zealot ignores.

Causation of this correlation is utterly irrelevant because the claim being challenged is pure and simply "more guns, more murders." The facts demonstrate that this is not the case in the US. This means that there are other confounding variables that are responsible for the gross correlation you are attempting to support.

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.

Irrelevant to your claim. The observable fact is that there are more guns in the US than before, but the crime rate, including murders, is going down, not up. If your thesis were true, the murder rate in the US would be going UP with an increase in the number of guns in circulation. But it's not.

QED.

[Seth]

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.

You require 100% effectiveness rate for an initiative to be regarded as a success?

Well, ideally yes. Practically speaking however we must examine every violent crime, including individual and mass murders and determine if the possession of a handgun by one or more of the victims could or would have prevented the crime. Any situation in which the presence of a legally-carried firearm of any type would have, could have, or did prevent a victimization of any kind must be counted against any government gun ban policy.

Mass killings in Australia, including those not involving firearms. 1971-1996: 16 (137 fatalities). Mass killings in Australia 1997-today: 6 (54 fatalities).

Correlation is not causation. There are still mass murders. And just like the Port Arthur incident, in which the LACK of effective firearms in the hands of citizens (not to mention the police...an unconscionable and egregious violation of the rights of the victims) facilitated the killing of numerous people.

Dead is dead, whether it's a gun, a knife, a plastic bag or a can of gasoline. Denying individuals their right to be armed to defend themselves against ANY of those crimes, or any crime at all, is immoral, unethical and unvarnished evil. Unless the government is prepared to provide individualized armed security escorts for each and every person disarmed by law, it is not within the legitimate authority of government to disarm law abiding citizens. It's an abuse of power and nothing more.