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

[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. [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] Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you to his level and beat you with experience.

[QUOTE=download;38877014]And an idiot will follow another idiot. What else do you expect me to say when you refuse to look at the data?[/QUOTE] erm I looked at the data and found the only thing increasing was accidental firearm deaths

Wasn't the number of guns turned in afterwards only about 1/3rd of what was believed to be in circulation in the country at the time?

[QUOTE=Ridge;38877085]Wasn't the number of guns turned in afterwards only about 1/3rd of what was believed to be in circulation in the country at the time?[/QUOTE] popular belief has it a lot of gun nuts buried their weapons underground, there is probably a lot of illegal firearms the authorities don't know about

See, I told you. Gun control DOES work.

[QUOTE=download;38877051]I would very much like to have that pointed out[/QUOTE] Well, if you would read the thread, that might help.

[QUOTE=Strongbad;38877081]Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you to his level and beat you with experience.[/QUOTE] Funny, I was going to say the same thing

[QUOTE=Red scout?;38877091]See, I told you. Gun control DOES work.[/QUOTE] on a small population scale, well the UK has similar laws they have 62 million or something? It depends on how it's done, but right now I'd like America to get a mental health reform, that's very important

[QUOTE=koekje4life V2;38876730]Huh, over here in The Netherlands we have similar laws, and yet we have a mass shooting roughly every couple of years.[/QUOTE] If you could please cite your sources, that'd be great. All I can remember is some school shooting and that mall shooting, and google/wikipedia aren't particularly helpful since they only list the mall shooting.

[QUOTE=download;38877099]Funny, I was going to say the same thing[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/gnBT6.jpg[/IMG] [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Gun control measures in Australia have overall worked. They should not however be used as an example of measure that would work in the US (if they could even work).

correlation is NOT causation!! there's more reasons Australia has not had massacres the past years, strict gun laws is only a part of it.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38877173][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/gnBT6.jpg[/IMG] [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Gun control measures in Australia have overall worked. They should not however be used as an example of measure that would work in the US (if they could even work).[/QUOTE] How original and mature

Well that's fine and dandy but Australia is not the U.S. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] Also, who's to say there were no mass shootings because they enacted gun laws? Maybe Australians as a whole aren't prone to massacres? Just a thought.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38877298]Well that's fine and dandy but Australia is not the U.S.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I was gonna say, Australia doesn't share a border with Mexico, have a widespread drug and gang violence epidemic, or have 200,000,000 firearms in private ownership alone. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;38877298]Also, who's to say there were no mass shootings because they enacted gun laws? Maybe Australians as a whole aren't prone to massacres? Just a thought.[/QUOTE] Um, well, if they had mass shootings before the ban, and then no mass shootings after the ban, either some highly coincidental societal shift led to no more shootings, or it was the ban itself.

[QUOTE=catbarf;38877363]Yeah, I was gonna say, Australia doesn't share a border with Mexico, have a widespread drug and gang violence epidemic, or have 200,000,000 firearms in private ownership alone. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] Um, well, if they had mass shootings before the ban, and then no mass shootings after the ban, either some highly coincidental societal shift led to no more shootings, or it was the ban itself.[/QUOTE] Or it could be the result of mental health reforms, or a crackdown on crime, of the introduction of licensing or anything. Correlation does not equal causation

[QUOTE=catbarf;38877363]Um, well, if they had mass shootings before the ban, and then no mass shootings after the ban, either some highly coincidental societal shift led to no more shootings, or it was the ban itself.[/QUOTE] Correlation is not causation though. I'm not saying the gun laws didn't help, but to assume that gun laws stopped massacres outright is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=download;38877393]Or it could be the result of mental health reforms, or a crackdown on crime, of the introduction of licensing or anything. Correlation does not equal causation[/QUOTE] What mental healthcare reform? People who are mentally ill have been ignored by both state and Federal Govt until the past few years. Only this year have they actually gotten their act together and given the area some money to initiate reform.

I love how everyone focuses on the guns and not the fact that Australia's quality of living and care for it's citizens is levels above the US

[QUOTE=download;38876987]Yep, learn to make your own conclusions from the evidence rather than listen to it because someone else said it[/QUOTE] You do realise that to draw your own conclusions from somebody elses data you have to means test their method and repeat the study, or compile a new set of data yourself and means test that using the Scientific Method. Looking at data means nothing without context. This is why every 9/11 thread a few years ago went bad, because people looked at singular graphs, or data from pages of scientific papers that weren't done by people in their respective field. "Oh, I'm going to ignore what the architect and structural engineer said because this Psychologist found something else and wrote 8 pages on it." That's not science or fact. It's agreeing with somebody else's data because you prefer it.

violent crime in general here pales to the US

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38877449]I love how everyone focuses on the guns and not the fact that Australia's quality of living and care for it's citizens is levels above the US[/QUOTE] Which is why Australia's gun control measures are not applicable to the US - that doesn't mean that such measures have not had any useful effect in Aus.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;38877454]It's agreeing with somebody else's data because you prefer it.[/QUOTE] And yet that is what half of you in this thread are doing. You LIKE the conclusion the author of the article has come to, so you are calling download an idiot for disputing the conclusion, which as he said, doesn't match the data provided.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38877422]What mental healthcare reform? People who are mentally ill have been ignored by both state and Federal Govt until the past few years. Only this year have they actually gotten their act together and given the area some money to initiate reform.[/QUOTE] Our mental health system might be bad, but it was a lot worse

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38877459]Which is why Australia's gun control measures are not applicable to the US - that doesn't mean that such measures have not had any useful effect in Aus.[/QUOTE] But again, that's fine and dandy for Australia. It doesn't do a lick of good for the U.S.

[QUOTE=Mabus;38876639]This is more of an opinion piece than news.[/QUOTE] I think you're getting confused. Facts aren't called opinions

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;38877454]You do realise that to draw your own conclusions from somebody elses data you have to means test their method and repeat the study, or compile a new set of data yourself and means test that using the Scientific Method. Looking at data means nothing without context. This is why every 9/11 thread a few years ago went bad, because people looked at singular graphs, or data from pages of scientific papers that weren't done by people in their respective field. "Oh, I'm going to ignore what the architect and structural engineer said because this Psychologist found something else and wrote 8 pages on it." That's not science or fact. It's agreeing with somebody else's data because you prefer it.[/QUOTE] But this isn't an experiment, it's a study using existing data [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38877472]And yet that is what half of you in this thread are doing. You LIKE the conclusion the author of the article has come to, so you are calling download an idiot for disputing the conclusion, which as he said, doesn't match the data provided.[/QUOTE] Bingo Our mental health system might be bad, but it's better than the USs non-existent system

[QUOTE=DogGunn;38877459]Which is why Australia's gun control measures are not applicable to the US - that doesn't mean that such measures have not had any useful effect in Aus.[/QUOTE] I'm pointing out why half of these gun control debates we have on FP are retarded. Guns are just a means by which violent crime is carried out, it's not the cause. Sweden for example has an actual assault rifle in the house of almost every male, yet has ridiculously low firearm homicide. Why? Perhaps we need to stop screaming about banning firearms and start looking at the social and economic issues that might lead someone to spraying a bunch of people down on the sidewalk.

Gun control like Australia wouldn't work in america plain and simple. I am of course saying this with no data.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38877472]And yet that is what half of you in this thread are doing. You LIKE the conclusion the author of the article has come to, so you are calling download an idiot for disputing the conclusion, which as he said, doesn't match the data provided.[/QUOTE] No they're not. They have a report that's been scientifically means tested and supports a conclusion. He provided a graph that's been debunked by scientists and provides no substance. Give people something of raw substance (i.e, a proper conclusion by an expert and not yourself that counters their point) and they'll stop rating you dumb. Arguing that your data is best (When it's not), and going into other threads saying 'Oh these idiots don't understand me', is called trolling or being a spoilt brat who can't take argument.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38877472]And yet that is what half of you in this thread are doing. You LIKE the conclusion the author of the article has come to, so you are calling download an idiot for disputing the conclusion, which as he said, doesn't match the data provided.[/QUOTE] You know why? Because download did this: [QUOTE=download;38876717]This article is heavily biased and full of shit Carefully selected facts that ignore the full story[/QUOTE] Then what do they do? They find one study, pick out the graph, and make their own conclusion. And this is despite the study concluding the complete opposite to what they suggest from that one tiny tidbit of data. Then they do it again, with the study from the original opinion piece. The study itself is 50 pages long, contains references, and a plethora of data and statistical analysis. download picks out a single graph from the document, concludes that the [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1233601&p=38876987&viewfull=1#post38876987"]study is wrong because it is bias and lying[/URL], and [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1233601&p=38877014&viewfull=1#post38877014"]anyone that disagrees with them is an idiot[/URL]. There's plenty of arguments for and against gun control, or if gun control has worked in Australia, which is what the thread is about - but what download is doing is nothing but idiotic.