Originally posted by SurturRemember when you disagreed with the word majority.
Democrat Presidential Candidates Asked To Define ‘Assault Weapon’Lol.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I'd like to see the proof of that claim.
It's my opinion, but according to what I found they changed the definition in 2006. after the shootings I linked to. rather convenient that their new definition allows them to claim no mass shootings have happened within 10 years of the changes.
The GVA list mass shooting as 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
They also didn't ban all guns.Also not sure why you'd say it didn't have an effect given the study outcomes
Yeah, that study is plain wrong.
Homicide rates went up after Australia's gun buyback program/gun ban.
Same in Japan when they did both of their gun restrictions/gun bans. Homicides went up.
And homicides had a near zero correlation with the gun ban if not a "negative" correlation. Ban guns, homicide rates increase.
I'll find my post where I broke this down.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Its the results section of that link quoted verbatim.Here's the conclusion section as well
Conclusions
Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid‐firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides
They still miss the entire point - homicide reduction.
And if they care about suicide, suicide reduction.
If their only target (pun!) is to reduce gun related violence, great, but that's a bullshit thing to try to do. You're not affecting change other than making it inconvenient for law abiding citizens if you ban guns but homicide rates go up.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Only if they used a definition that's different from the definition they used, which they didn't. Because they used the definition they used which is different from the definition they didn't use.
I see, you're saying that the people behind the report were dishonest and made up a new definition in order to retroactively reclassify shootings so that they could try and push a narrative.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They still miss the entire point - homicide reduction.And if they care about suicide, suicide reduction.
If their only target (pun!) is to reduce gun related violence, great, but that's a bullshit thing to try to do. You're not affecting change other than making it inconvenient for law abiding citizens if you ban guns but homicide rates go up.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They still miss the entire point - homicide reduction.And if they care about suicide, suicide reduction.
If their only target (pun!) is to reduce gun related violence, great, but that's a bullshit thing to try to do. You're not affecting change other than making it inconvenient for law abiding citizens if you ban guns but homicide rates go up.
And
Figure 1B​1B_and table 3​3_indicate that the rate of total non‐firearm 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 (see row 3, columns 2 and 3, respectively, in table 3​3).). The ratio of the pre‐law to post‐law trends differ to a significant extent (p = 0.05).Table 2​2_also shows the total homicides (by all methods) for the period 1979–2003. In the pre‐gun law period, total non‐firearm homicides were essentially stable and did not differ from steady state to a statistically significant extent (table 3​3).). After the introduction of gun laws, a significant downward trend was evident in total homicides, and the ratio of pre‐law to post‐law trends differed statistically from “no effect” (p = 0.01, table 3​3).). We conclude that the data do not support any homicide method substitution hypothesis
Originally posted by dadudemon
So let's directly guns and violence in Australia since 1996:Murders went up in 1999, in Australia, which was after your high prized gun laws went into place.
Additionally, several mass murders took place in Australia since 1996.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
And if you want to use Australia's numbers for homicide, then we can compare apples to oranges:
US Gun Homicides dropped more from 1993 to 2013 than Australia's murders did from 1996 until 2014:
USA: dropped 43%
Australia: dropped 23%Again, that's an apples to oranges comparison. Actual homicide rates in the US dropped by more than half since 1980. That's an apples to apples to comparison. Murders peaked in the US in the early 1990s so whatever we did in the US is better than Australia who saw a 23% drop in homicides sense then, right? By your logic, we're doing better than Australia, right? Since I am actually being intellectually honestly, I'll tell you the answer: it is not an apples to apples comparison so I cannot pretend like the US' policy on how to address violence is better than Australia's, despite the data being able to support that idea.
Works Cited:
https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/crime-rate-united-states-1980-2014
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand that there's nothing to debate regarding Australia. Which is why you've introduced a new topic about the US to move the conversation away from Australia's restrictive laws and regulations (putting it near the bottom of the G20 on the "freedometer"😉.But let's turn this into a debate about gun laws, gun ownership, and gun freedom in the United States because this is your thread and you've moved the goalposts in your own thread.
Regarding that article which employs an often used tactic by dishonest leftists who like to try and sneakily conflate "gun deaths" with "intentional homicide", there's a factual rebuttal for that! 🙂
1. How about not dishonestly correlating gun deaths with gun ownership and instead correlating the honest statistic of homicide rates with gun ownership rates? The point is not to stop gun deaths - that's retarded. The point is to reduce overall intentional homicide or violence. Shifting violence, like Australia did, is not the objective. Actually reducing homicides and violence is the objective.
2. How about not dishonestly sneaking in suicides with gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?
3. How about not dishonestly sneaking in accidental gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?
4. How about not dishonestly sneaking in police gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?
And this often cited study? Well well well, do I have some news for you. Here's what they say that is often cited by anti-gun peeps:
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.Here's what they did to massage their data:
They used derivative figure for gun ownership rates based on suicide-to-gun-ownership. Had they used the much more accurate data from Injury Prevention (who did not use a derarvative figure based on suicide-to-gun-ownership, but instead used a sample to represent the true population statistic) instead of this very dishonest but sneaky figure, they'd see a much lower gun ownership rate and now their correlation magically disappears. Imagine that, using data that reflects true ownership rates results in their correlation evaporating. Hmm...why would they do this?
Because on this particular topic, they have a political bias:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-journal-of-public-health-ajph/
And they've been in hot water, before, for their data selection biases:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343702/
If you don't read anything in my post, read and understand just this:
In the gun debate, anti-gun proponents often use the dishonest tactic of trying to correlate guns with only gun deaths (including suicide) instead of guns with homicides. If the goal is to reduce homicides, then we should look at solutions to reduce homicides. If you want to reduce Road Deaths, you don't look at just Semi-Truck (Lorry) caused deaths, you look at them all.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Well the issue in determining whether a buyback program was effect in Australia to begin with was the fact that Australia had so few mass shootings to begin with. So after the buyback when the number dropped to zero (prior to this latest one) it was within the margin of error. And also, the Australian buyback program confiscated around 650,000 guns or about 1/3-1/5 of the guns in Australia. Even though that by 2010, the gun levels in Australia rose to the point where they were as many guns in circulation as there were before the gun buyback:If that helped then guns death would have increased as guns came back into circulation. That didn't happen.
Also, a study from the University of Melbourne in 2008 says that the 1996 buyback program has, "not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths." A 2007 from the British Journal of Criminology also came to such conclusions. The study did say that the buyback resulted in lower firearm suicides (though it did see an initial spike in non-firearm suicides for the next couple of years with a decline after).
And John Lott (president of the Crime Prevention Research Center) has wrote that buyback programs simply don't work for several reasons.
Then you'll have to explain why a country like Switzerland with 2 million privately owned guns in a population of 8.3 million, has an overall murder rate that is nearly zero with just 47 homicides by firearms in the past two decades. Their deadliest mass shooting was in 2001 with resulted in 14 dead and that was the last mass shooting that country has had. The overall homicide rate in Australia is 0.98 per 100,000 people against Switzerland with 0.69 per 100,000.
So you can point to Australia all day but I can just point to Switzerland.
And finally there's just the difficulty of comparing these types of things across nations for several reasons. One if that the population of Australia is less than 10% that of the United States and Australia is a much more homogeneous society (very much like Switzerland) than the United States is.
ON Japan:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong:Q: Did the gun control laws in Japan affect homicide trends?
A: No, not at all. There is no correlation and even a slight negative correlation which should be concerning.The gun laws had no effect on the overall homicide trend. It had no correlation or even a negative correlation.
"Not the only factor" yet the US dropped homicide rates, since 1980, by almost 100% (half) so we showed more success over a shorter period of time.
Your job is to prove the gun control laws improved Japan's homicide rate (an improvement is a decrease) through a moderate to strong positive correlation. No such data exists and the correlation is not there. The rate was already significantly dropping before either 1958 (a red herring date introduced by you) or 1993 (the key factor, here).
So you acknowledge the facts on one of the core issues. Great. But then you pretend that a drop in homicides, which has no positive correlation with the strict gun control laws, is significant. That's bad.
This is the most important take away:
Q: Did homicides go down after strict gun control laws went into place in Japan?
A: No. And despite the downwards trend, they went up for a few years after strict gun control laws went into place. This happened in 1958 and 1993.Q: Did the gun control laws in Japan affect homicide trends?
A: No, not at all. There is no correlation and even a slight negative correlation which should be concerning.Q: Should we use Japan as a great example of how Ultra Strict Gun Control Laws reduce homicides?
A: No. The data does not fit. If we are to use Japan as an example of whether or not ultra strict gun control reduces homicide, we can only conclude it does not.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, question, how did those 11 people get killed by guns in 2008 if their gun laws are so strict? And were those gun deaths perpetuated by people who legally owned and purchased those guns? Also, did those gun laws demonstrably reduce homicides before being put into place? If not to any of those questions, then the entire argument goes out the window.So let me try to answer the question that should be asked:
[b]What were gun deaths, per capita, before their strict gun laws were put in place?
Let's frame Japan's homicide rate over time:
In 1960:
2.81
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#19601970:
1.9
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#19701980:
1.44
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#19801990:
0.98
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#1990In 2014 (the latest I could find from this site):
1.02
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#2014When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?
Well, some say it started as long ago as the Haitorei Edict in 1870 but that led to Samurai insurrections so we probably don't want to use that as an example of how "arms control" lowered homicides and violence, right? I like to be fair when presenting my arguments so let's skip this as it probably makes a very terrible case.
Looks like it was 1993 that the ultra strict gun control laws went into place (and amended in 1995):
So the next time someone brings up Japan for how righteous and amazing they are for their extremely strict gun control laws, remind them that:
1. Homicides were already absurdly low BEFORE those strict laws were put into place.
2. Homicides have actually increased since their extremely strict enforcement of gun laws went into place. [/B]
This part of your post is amusing to me.
And they've been in hot water, before, for their data selection biases:
Because this is the study I'm quoting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/#__ffn_sectitle