stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[patriot1776]

fuck 'news' who cares

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You might want to actually try reading your own link, and compare its points with the ones I listed here. None of it was refuted.

Even if it was, I actually went to the primary sources. (You did read what I wrote, right? You didn't just see, "Australia blah blah guns blah blah." Right?) Snopes is only a secondary source.

I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.

And I'm right there with ya on gun violence. I was talking about mass shootings. People keep putting me on the wrong position on things...I agree that there's not any statistical evidence pointing to a decrease in overall gun violence when assault weapons are banned.

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.

Big difference. I don't want to dig for whatever article that was atm, lol. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.

What? My statement was directed at gloine, not you. He was talking about Snopes.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.

Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What? My statement was directed at gloine, not you. He was talking about Snopes.


Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

who cares that murder/violence has risen 300%, gun violence has now fallen 40%!!!!!!!!

[Vellatri]

No kidding. I guess it's okay to have much more blood in the streets as long as it doesn't get on the newspapers.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

who cares that murder/violence has risen 300%, gun violence has now fallen 40%!!!!!!!!

That's inaccurate in Australia.

I have two research studies here that prove otherwise. Research studies...not news reports, not biased or slanted journalism.

First...for Val.

University of Sydney

Then we have another study by:

Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada.

Now...if you guys seriously want to argue, pick those apart with equal contradictory evidence.

[Autotune]

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's inaccurate in Australia.

I have two research studies here that prove otherwise. Research studies...not news reports, not biased or slanted journalism.

First...for Val.

University of Sydney

Then we have another study by:

Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada.

Now...if you guys seriously want to argue, pick those apart with equal contradictory evidence.

From the University of Sydney link:

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm
deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass
shootings

From me here:

Originally Posted by Vellatri

Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

and here:

Originally Posted by Vellatri

This is why people keep saying "gun crime" instead of "all crime" or "violent crime." It's just a tactic to sometimes twist the figures in their favor.

Regarding the Wilfrid Laurier University link, its conclusion seems to be focused on firearm deaths, as well. Just as irrelevant.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the University of Sydney link:


From me here:

and here:

Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total nonfirearm
homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year
before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an
average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun
laws

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Regarding the Wilfrid Laurier University link, its conclusion seems to be focused on firearm deaths, as well. Just as irrelevant.

The study included non-firearm homicides and suicides. Suicides remain high and have slightly increased lending credence to the possibility that if you're going to off yourself, you will. Non-firearm homicides remain about the same. Since there has been a drastic drop in firearm related homicides, it's not irrelevant because overall rates have dropped.

You need to read the study and refute the statistics...not peruse the conclusions. I wanted some debate, lol.

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

Overall murder/violence in Australia HAS NOT increased. I want to see equally valid research articles that contradict what I linked. Not shit from Fox or the Examiner or The National Enquirer.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total nonfirearm
homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year
before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an
average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun
laws

Why are they only focusing on death rates Humerox?

From this survey: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/...%7Dfacts11.pdf

Since 1996, the rate of assault in Australia has been far higher than any other type of
violent crime. At its peak in 2007, the assault rate was 840 per 100,000 population.
In 2010, the rate fell to 766 victims per 100,000 population.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The study included non-firearm homicides and suicides. Suicides remain high and have slightly increased lending credence to the possibility that if you're going to off yourself, you will. Non-firearm homicides remain about the same. Since there has been a drastic drop in firearm related homicides, it's not irrelevant because overall rates have dropped.

You need to read the study and refute the statistics...not peruse the conclusions. I wanted some debate, lol.

It is all around death Humerox. I was actually trying to compile a list of sexual assault rates and other non-fatal violent crimes from 1996-2010, but the ABS doesn't always share those statistics every year.... I did see rises in sexual assault on the statistics they did post and then they stopped for 5 years and then started again. It makes it hard to make a case, but the trend was generally rising.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Overall murder/violence in Australia HAS NOT increased. I want to see equally valid research articles that contradict what I linked. Not shit from Fox or the Examiner or The National Enquirer.

Murder according to the statistics given has fallen. Violence has risen.