After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Sinc - Polidicks

Australia is a whole lot smaller than the USA is. It's easier to enforce gun control laws there. Besides, there's (probably) very few networks of criminals you can obtain guns through there. I'm not really sure what this article is trying to point out.

[QUOTE=mysteryman;38876799]Uh. Yes he did. [URL]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf[/URL] There we go saw your edit there. Really though in the first 2 pages alone there is enough evidence to support that the australian buy back did infact help australia. But that it was also a rare occurance as almost all other gun buybacks elsewhere are effectively useless. So we're both right....kind of.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to read it (it's 50 pages) but quickly skimming through to the graphs and it would once again appear that the gun death rate had been declining since the 80s (see page 9) To save you the time: [img]http://i.imgur.com/altO8.png[/img]

[QUOTE=download;38876826]The Hoddle street massacre lead to licensing, I don't disagree that was a good thing. The crime was falling at the same rate before and after the buyback. The authors conclusion do not support the data, look at it yourself[/quote] Who cares? You say that as if we know that without the buyback, gun crime would've kept falling. It did, after the buyback, and supposedly, despite you saying otherwise, at a more appealing rate. [QUOTE=download;38876826]Now, this Harvard study. Firtly, it's not peer reviewed, secondly it doesn't really discuss anything[/QUOTE] I honestly don't know why people bother with you on this topic. You disregard anything that is supporting of your opposing view, and you select little snippets out of different studies. I've read your posts, and so far, nothing you've said or proven is convincing. Simply going, 'it's not true, look at this graph' is all you do.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876860] You disregard anything that is supporting of your opposing view, and you select little snippets out of different studies. [/QUOTE] Facepunchdebates.txt

[QUOTE=download;38876826]The Hoddle street massacre lead to licensing, I don't disagree that was a good thing. The crime was falling at the same rate before and after the buyback. The authors conclusion do not support the data, look at it yourself Now, this Harvard study. Firtly, it's not peer reviewed, secondly it doesn't really discuss anything [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] I don't see it, could you point it out?[/QUOTE] I have a feeling you either didn't read the paper or skimmed over a broad amount or that we didn't read/thumb through the same paper here because i'm finding some preeeeeeetty good examples in the paper which offer evidence that the stricter gun laws were to blame for the decreasing trend.

But were there over 450 million guns in Australia when this happened?

[QUOTE=download;38876826] I don't see it, could you point it out?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38876842]To be honest, Australia's gun laws are a bit overkill. Port Arthur excluded, gun homicide rates were overall low, there was no need to ban nearly fucking everything as they did. New Zealand on the other hand still allows those, yet I've honestly never heard of a shooting in NZ.[/QUOTE] You won't find many people that agree it was overkill because regardless of it's results, people do feel safer because of it. But your example about NZ shows why apply one country's gun control solution to another is not always appropriate.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876860]Who cares? You say that as if we know that without the buyback, gun crime would've kept falling. It did, after the buyback, and supposedly, despite you saying otherwise, at a more appealing rate. I honestly don't know why people bother with you on this topic. You disregard anything that is supporting of your opposing view, and you select little snippets out of different studies. I've read your posts, and so far, nothing you've said or proven is convincing. Simply going, 'it's not true, look at this graph' is all you do.[/QUOTE] The papers are full of opinions, the only way to get unbiased infomation in any study is the look at the data

[quote]Now, this Harvard study. Firtly, it's not peer reviewed, secondly it doesn't really discuss anything[/quote] Right. It only matters if it's peer reviewed and had its rectum checked for HIV if it opposes your view.

[QUOTE=Strongbad;38876849]Australia is a whole lot smaller than the USA is. It's easier to enforce gun control laws there. Besides, there's (probably) very few networks of criminals you can obtain guns through there. I'm not really sure what this article is trying to point out.[/QUOTE] We're a huge country with a small population, the only reason gun control works is of course our population, and tbh i feel quite safer, of course you got dickheads with knives who still go out and stab people but that's a small attack not a huge massacre

[QUOTE=download;38876883]The papers are full of opinions, the only way to get unbiased infomation in any study is the look at the data[/QUOTE] Data from people with biased opinions [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;38876887]We're a huge country with a small population, the only reason gun control works is of course our population, and tbh i feel quite safer, of course you got dickheads with knives who still go out and stab people but that's a small attack not a huge massacre[/QUOTE] Exactly. My point being that America's population is much larger and more diverse - passing gun control laws would be difficult. Forget actually ENFORCING them.

-broke my automerge-

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38876870]But were there over 450 million guns in Australia when this happened?[/QUOTE]

I don't think the argument is whether there should or shouldn't be strict gun laws, I think the argument is whether strict gun laws actually matters. This article demonstrates that it does, but at the same time I don't think someone about to go on a mass murder spree really cares about whether his guns are legally obtained and used or not.

[QUOTE=Strongbad;38876889]Data from people with biased opinions [/QUOTE] Data is much more reliable than an opinion

[QUOTE=download;38876883]The papers are full of opinions, the only way to get unbiased infomation in any study is the look at the data[/QUOTE] Of course they're full of opinions - based upon years of collecting and collating different sets of data to produced an informed opinion. You just trawl through all sorts of different studies, select one little part, normally a graph, give your opinion based on that, and then disregard any proper conclusion or educated opinion they give.

It should be noted that the guy who did the port Arthur massacre had mental retardation, we have proper health care for mental people iirc

[QUOTE=download;38876915]Data is much more reliable than an opinion[/QUOTE] Data collected from people with biased opinions that support your argument, you mean?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876917]Of course they're full of opinions - based upon years of collecting and collating different sets of data to produced an informed opinion. You just trawl through all sorts of different studies, select one little part, normally a graph, give your opinion based on that, and then disregard any proper conclusion or educated opinion they give.[/QUOTE] Hardly an informed opinion if it disagrees with the data [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strongbad;38876941]Data collected from people with biased opinions that support your argument, you mean?[/QUOTE] The author doesn't agree with my view, how can that be biased?, you're jumping to unfounded conclusions here

[QUOTE=download;38876946]Hardly an informed opinion if it disagrees with the data[/QUOTE] You're not very good at interpreting data are you? Not because I disagree with you, but because there are hundreds of non-bias, objective studies out there that disagree with you, even though they're using the same single selected bit of data as you. Anyway, you might as well get used to it. You can keep telling yourself that the buyback scheme did nothing, that Australia's gun control is useless, but we won't get rid of it in Australia, nor will gun laws ever be loosened here. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Are you serious download? [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1213392&p=38876978&viewfull=1#post38876978[/url]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876962]You're not very good at interpreting data are you? Not because I disagree with you, but because there are hundreds of non-bias, objective studies out there that disagree with you, even though they're using the same single selected bit of data as you. Anyway, you might as well get used to it. You can keep telling yourself that the buyback scheme did nothing, that Australia's gun control is useless, but we won't get rid of it in Australia, nor will gun laws ever be loosened here.[/QUOTE] Your ability to lie to yourself and agree with the author rather than make your own conclusions from the data is mind boggling [QUOTE=DogGunn;38876962] Are you serious download? [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1213392&p=38876978&viewfull=1#post38876978[/url][/QUOTE] Yep, learn to make your own conclusions from the evidence rather than listen to it because someone else said it

Just because it worked in Australia doesn't mean it'll work in America. Our gun culture is so different it isn't even comparable. As many as 60,000 Americans belong to Militias and not all of them are friendly. There are nearly a hundred (if not more) militia groups in the US, some of these are paranoid gun-toting right wingers, just waiting for the day big gob'mint comes in to take their guns away. We could be looking at a new wave of Ruby Ridges, Waco Sieges, and Oklahoma City bombings. If we tried to enforce a ban all types of firearms, we'd have a law enforcement [I]nightmare[/I] on our hands.

[QUOTE=download;38876987]Your ability to lie to yourself and agree with the author rather than make your own conclusions from the data is mind boggling[/QUOTE] What an idiot. That's all that needs to be said about you. "look at the data" "seriously, the data says otherwise" "omg, the data" "you're lying to yourself because the data says otherwise" "bias" That's all you've ever posted in topics about this. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=download;38876987]Yep, learn to make your own conclusions from the evidence rather than listen to it because someone else said it[/QUOTE] An idiot will still make conclusions of an idiot. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Studies use vast amounts of data to make a conclusion. You use one little segment of data, and conclude that all those studies which are based upon vast quantities of data are wrong.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38876998]What an idiot. That's all that needs to be said about you. "look at the data" "seriously, the data says otherwise" "omg, the data" "you're lying to yourself because the data says otherwise" "bias" That's all you've ever posted in topics about this. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] An idiot will still make conclusions of an idiot. Studies use vast amounts of data to make a conclusion. You use one little segment of data, and conclude that all those studies which are based upon vast quantities of data are wrong.[/QUOTE] And an idiot will follow another idiot. What else do you expect me to say when you refuse to look at the data?

[QUOTE=download;38876883]The papers are full of opinions, the only way to get unbiased infomation in any study is the look at the data[/QUOTE] And it has given plenty of data to suggest that the new laws were effective. You seem to contradict yourself in some of these arguments too.

[QUOTE=IForgotPassword;38877028]And it has given plenty of data to suggest that the new laws were effective. You seem to contradict yourself in some of these arguments too.[/QUOTE] I would very much like to have that pointed out

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;38876918]It should be noted that the guy who did the port Arthur massacre had mental retardation, we have proper health care for mental people iirc[/QUOTE] That's an interesting point, perhaps the reason for the decrease in gun violence was not entirely due to the stricter gun laws, but also due to other factors like increased focus on mental health care.

[QUOTE=download;38877014]And an idiot will follow another idiot.[/QUOTE] Ahh, so now someone who made a 50 page, referenced study, full of different sets of this thing you seem to call "data" (don't know what that is), who seemed to conclude that such legislative measures were effective in Australia is an idiot? But the person who disagrees with it, using this single set of "data" concludes that it's a complete and utter lie, is not. I see, thanks for clearing it up. I was clearly mistaken as to who the idiot was. [QUOTE=download;38877014]What else do you expect me to say when you refuse to look at the data?[/QUOTE] Here's that data again.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;38877052]That's an interesting point, perhaps the reason for the decrease in gun violence was not entirely due to the stricter gun laws, but also due to other factors like increased focus on mental health care.[/QUOTE] Well not many people know about the 2002 massacre that happened in an Australian university but again the person suffered from a mental illness you can seriously in this country get a semi-automatic firearm if you have a license, got a registered club and your background is clean. They're still obtainable and you can still get your hands on one like the black market just that our mental healthcare system here is great, and I think if America got a similar one you'd see a sharp drop in these sorts of crimes hopefully