stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Hitchens]

Unless someone has done so in the last five or six pages of replies I didn't read, no one is saying that Australia's ban on certain types of firearms results in less overall violence. The argument is that Australia's ban on certain types of firearms has resulted in the stopping of mass shootings.

[Lexical]

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

Unless someone has done so in the last five or six pages of replies I didn't read, no one is saying that Australia's ban on certain types of firearms results in less overall violence. The argument is that Australia's ban on certain types of firearms has resulted in the stopping of mass shootings.

I graced on the subject of that being inaccurate based on the article's definition of "mass shootings." But that is besides the point, the number of mass shootings is a terrible metric to illustrate the effectiveness of gun control.

[Hitchens]

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

I graced on the subject of that being inaccurate based on the article's definition of "mass shootings." But that is besides the point, the number of mass shootings is a terrible metric to illustrate the effectiveness of gun control.

I don't read your posts.

[Lexical]

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

I don't read your posts.

why?

[patriot1776]

who cares about our wives and daughters being raped by big burly PCP'd out criminals who dont follow laws anyway

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by patriot1776 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

who cares about our wives and daughters being raped by big burly PCP'd out criminals who dont follow laws anyway

Again, handgun = problem solved. You shoot someone in the head or kneecap and they're pretty much out of commission.

There is no reason to have a semi-automatic or automatic weapon on your person in a populated area. Very few people, if any, are arguing against handguns.

But I should stop posting here because it seems those who do listen already agree with me and those that don't agree refuse to listen anyway.

[Daldolma]

From what Humerox's study reported, Australia suffered from 13 mass shootings between 1979 and 1996. These resulted in 104 deaths, or what works out to 8 deaths per year. It should also be noted that the statistics are naturally skewed, as the study uses a 35-death massacre as the cut-off point between 'before' and 'after'. In other words, before that course-altering mass shooting, there had been 69 Australian deaths due to mass shootings over the course of the past 17 years -- which works out to about 4 per year.

Explain to me why such measures aren't alarmist, and why Australia's successful elimination of an almost non-existent problem should serve as a model for a country like the US.

[Vellatri]

Right. Mass shootings get a lot of attention, but why eliminate them at the expense of, say, increasing the overall murder or violent crime rates? The same logic applies to people who point to "gun violence." I don't give two shells about gun violence. I'm much more interested in reducing all violence, guns or not.

But hey, I'm sure the increasing masses of raped Aussie women are thrilled that the mass shootings have stopped.

[Resheph]

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

Right. Mass shootings get a lot of attention, but why eliminate them at the expense of, say, increasing the overall murder or violent crime rates? The same logic applies to people who point to "gun violence." I don't give two shells about gun violence. I'm much more interested in reducing all violence, guns or not.

But hey, I'm sure the increasing masses of raped Aussie women are thrilled that the mass shootings have stopped.

I would like hard numbers on the number of women who stopped their attempted rapist using an assault weapon. After you get me those, find me the numbers on the women who stopped a rape with a handgun (which I'm all for).

If someone is trained in the handling and firing of a handgun they shouldn't need more than 6 rounds to protect themselves from almost any situation. If there's 7 or more people after you and they're dumb/angry enough to let you shoot 6 of them, you're not getting away anyway...

[Lexical]

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

I would like hard numbers on the number of women who stopped their attempted rapist using an assault weapon. After you get me those, find me the numbers on the women who stopped a rape with a handgun (which I'm all for).

There is a mental factor in less strict gun control as well that you are forgetting. People of criminal intent can be deterred by the very threat of an assault rifle being present and this is shown in the many pages of statistics posted.

Also, your argument was applied to the American police force a while back: 'There is no good reason for an officer to be armed with anything more than a hand gun. More advanced weaponry is for the SWAT team.' Then the 1997 LA bank heist happened and now almost all police cars have an assault rifle in the trunk.

Since you keep bringing up handguns though, here is an interesting graph you should look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us...esbyweapon.svg