Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[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. |
I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What? You just went from intelligent and reasoned to... well I'll just say you know what this is. C'mon...do better.
|
I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?