Gun ownership poll

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.