Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222
Not sure I see the relevance of your link to the discussion, other than to point out that the "massacres" are not mass-murders caused by guns. They include fires, car accidents.
You may wish to consider actual studies done on the topic, such as
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...agreement.html that show that gun violence has been reduced dramatically by the 1996 laws in Australia |
So we do not care about massacres using any other tool; it only requires bans if it's a gun that was used because it's a gun that was used? If massacres using other tools are way up after a gun ban, this doesn't signify anything? I guess this is largely about perspective, I would think the reasonable goal would be reducing killings and massacres, not shifting on an island the weapon used to commit the murder. An innocent stabbed is not less tragic than an innocent shot.
We'll list every gun massacre:
1970-1995: 14
Hope Forrest Massacre
Campsie murders
Party shooting spree
Wahroonga murders
Milperra massacre
Pymble shootings
Top End shootings
Hoddle street massacre
Queen Street massacre
Oenpelli shootings
Surry hills shootings
Strathfield massacre
Central coast massacre
Canai seige
1996: 2
Hill crest murders
Port Arthur Massacre
1997-2022: 14
Wright St. Bikie Murders
Monash University Shooting
Oakhampton Heights shooting
Hectorville Seige
Hunt family murders
Wedderburn shooting
Sydney hostage crisis
Parramatta shooting
Port Lincoln murders
Brighton siege
Osmington shooting
Hills District murders
Darwin shooting
Melbourne nightclub drive-by shooting
So.... it's exactly the same. Gun massacres have not changed, total massacres have almost doubled, even as overall crime and homicide has decreased for many many years before and after the bans.
I too can produce studies from my side claiming the opposite. I don't like to hide behind an appeal to authority though, I like to look at the data. I have other concerns, I don't think turning things people did when it was legal into a crime overnight like bans do, I like the Constitution, I believe a fellow has the right to defend himself and his family with the prevalent tools of the time and should not be forced to be outraged by the criminals. These are personal opinions I have though and on which we may all reasonably differ. Whether or not a particular action has led to the solution it was intended is something we can look at more objectively. The data does not suggest that these bans have accomplished anything.
I would even posit that there is somewhere in the world where heavy regulation probably HAS actually had an impact, in a place where arms ownership was not so commonplace, valued so highly, and there were far fewer millions with the technical know-how to maintain or build their own arms.