Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. According to your article gun-used deaths were already IN DECLINE in Australia.
2. According to your article a 3 percent decline to a 5 percent decline is "accelerated significantly". Seriously?? Maybe if it went from a decline of 3 percent to 15 percent, or 3 percent to 30 percent would I consider that "accelerated significantly," but your biased source is smoking dope if they think a difference of 3 to 5 is "significant".
3. You're deliberately side-stepping the most important fact: making guns illegal had no effect on HOMICIDES, whatever the way they were carried out.
Lol. Do you understand what statistical significance means? Oh, sorry I asked.
Am I going to believe your source or a scientific paper in JAMA (peer reviewed journal with an impact factor of 40+ or something like this)? I think you know the answer.
The devil's in the details. While there have been fewer mass shootings since then, the number of people killed in mass deaths of other means has skyrocketed, making the number virtually the same. While almost nobody died from arson before the gun grab, afterwards mass killing by arson skyrocketed, as did mass killings by beatings, stabbings and vehicles.
Cherry picking is never a good tactic for proving your point.
Mass murder by arson, beatings and stabbing s? WHat the bleep are you talking about?? Lol. I call bull on this one.
The devil's in the details. While there have been fewer mass shootings since then, the number of people killed in mass deaths of other means has skyrocketed, making the number virtually the same. While almost nobody died from arson before the gun grab, afterwards mass killing by arson skyrocketed, as did mass killings by beatings, stabbings and vehicles.
Cherry picking is never a good tactic for proving your point.
Lol. Do you understand what statistical significance means? Oh, sorry I asked.
Am I going to believe your source or a scientific paper in JAMA (peer reviewed journal with an impact factor of 40+ or something like this)? I think you know the answer.
Homicides were already in decline before the confiscation/buy back (whatever you want to call it).
And they remained relatively stagnant since the confiscation/buy back (whatever you want to call it).
A forced buy back is a confiscation. Hence the word force. When did we vote on the Constitution? We voted on gay marriage too.
Of all the first world nations with firearms controls, which ones had forced buy-backs?
The point of the word "voting" was to show it was what the citizens of those country CHOSE as in 'actual liberty and freedom of choice'?
You aren't so lucky. You're now stuck with arming yourselves to protect yourselves from your own citizens in the perfect illustration of a "catch 22" you cannot do anything but ballyhoo as something superior.
The rest of the world will consider themselves lucky to have avoided such a Constitutionally granted fear based conundrum.
Of all the first world nations with firearms controls, which ones had forced buy-backs?
The point of the word "voting" was to show it was what the citizens of those country CHOSE as in 'actual liberty and freedom of choice'?
You aren't so lucky. You're now stuck with arming yourselves to protect yourselves from your own citizens in the perfect illustration of a "catch 22" you cannot do anything but ballyhoo as something superior.
The rest of the world will consider themselves lucky to have avoided such a Constitutionally granted fear based conundrum.
Well actually not. I'm got a gang banger, can't legally CCW yet I'm still not worried about it one bit. I live in San Diego, we have a low crime rate. I can still own about any firearm I want. Matter of fact I am damn lucky.
Well actually not. I'm got a gang banger, can't legally CCW yet I'm still not worried about it one bit. I live in San Diego, we have a low crime rate. I can still own about any firearm I want. Matter of fact I am damn lucky.
How are those numbers gathered? Because Our Town or whatever Bloomberg calls his gun grabbing group this week includes suicides in those numbers. Does the EU do that as well?
Another contributor to our numbers are legal shootings. It's difficult to have a legal shooting in the EU when most of those countries ban personal firearms or restrict them so much that there is no such thing as legal self defense with a gun.
Another contributor to the higher gun homicide are gangs shooting gangs in the US. If they kept it to themselves, I'd encourage it but occasionally a citizen is hit with a stray and not is not acceptable.
So if you get down to your average citizen getting targeted by a perp with a gun then it is very rare. Not rare enough for me to stop carrying but rare none the less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
