Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What you linked was of highly questionable integrity. It read like a Chinese fiscal report honestly. Also, the source you linked did not prove it. There are many gaps in mass shootings and in the data collected and presented.
Now, I DO agree that restrictions on guns will reduce the number of gun related injuries and deaths. This is because they are not readily available and will thus constrict the sample size. However, mass shootings are entirely different. Mass shootings occur from a myriad of different reasons and generally involve a very devoted and unstable culprit. Can said culprit do more damage with an assault rifle than with a pistol? Most likely so and no one is arguing that. Can said culprit still take many lives with a legal gun? Yes, of course. So the next question is, did you really solve the problem? No, you just reduced the probable damage done. The culprit could still find a way to get an assault rifle. All the gun control laws did was make it harder for him/her to obtain one.
The problem with your argument is that it is inherently flawed. You are assuming a false pretense and asking what-if and then trying to make a case for your side. I can easily do the same with "Well if all the other students and teachers has assault rifles then much less people would have been killed since they could defend themselves and thus everyone should be assigned a SMG." Your argument is invalid which made it deserving of my mockery. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] |
Except that it's a
fact that Australia has had no mass murders by firearms in 16 years...not since 1996 when they established common-sense legislation. In the preceding decade they had 13.
I'm glad that you agree on reduction of guns = reduction of gun-related injuries and deaths, but that's not my argument...although it would be a nice benefit.
The research I presented was done by the University of Sydney. Please illustrate what was questionable. Methods? Sources?
Here it is again so you can have at it.
University of Sydney Research Report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also on the subject of mass killings, which is what we should be arguing about, is that they don't need to involve guns. If some one wants to kill a school and can't get a high powered rifle, where do you think they are going to turn? Homemade bombs most likely which could actually drastically increase the number of deaths and injured when such tragedies occur.
|
What? You just went from intelligent and reasoned to... well I'll just say you know what this is. C'mon...do better.