4 ms·

Here's a list with many Australian mass shootings since 1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis

Here's a list with many Australian mass shootings since 1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Austral...

McP 4y ago
Good list, but the closest thing to a mass shooting after 1996 is a familicide with 7 killed [1]. It doesn't really compare to the Port Arthur massacre. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  So, it works? But it's not enough to prove that something works (or maybe it is), there should ideally be some hypothetical method of action. What's the best theory on a voluntary buyback program stopping mass shootings?
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    No, it doesn't work. Picking one place an outcome happened after a law was passed, while ignoring all places similar laws were passed, is not how you evaluate evidence. For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. The first world actually saw a massive homicide reduction during the same period. Some hypotheses include reduction of lead in the environment for ~prev 15-20 years, resulting in less violent people. Econ lit is full of references on all this stuff. If you do stuff like try to correlate overall homicide rate among OECD countries (or even US states, or all countries) with gun ownership rates, you get a slightly negative correlation. If you expect less guns means less homicides, this should surprise you. Lots of other countries also have passed similar laws - some saw increases in violence, some didn't. Picking one where violence went up and concluding laws don't work is as incorrect as picking Australia.
    - notacoward 4y ago
      > New Zealand didn't pass such a law Yes, they bloody well did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Magazines,_and_Parts)_Amendment_Act_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Mag... Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Not when others do it - an accusation you've slung in multiple branches of this thread - and not when you do it. Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further.
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >Yes, they bloody well did. Yes, they passed one in 2019. They didn't pass one in 1990s and they saw the same violence reduction that pretty much all first world countries saw from then till now. So attributing changes in Australia to a 1996 law without noticing the evidence for the same reduction elsewhere without such laws is still the same erroneous logic. >Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Maybe if you read what I wrote "For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. " and understood that to mean what it says - there was a reduction over that time without such a law. Passing one 20+ years after the fact does not change that those reductions were seen around the world, including New Zealand. If they pass more next year it doesn't invalidate that without such a law they saw reductions. If they remove all laws in a decade it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. If the world ends it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. See the difference? >Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further. Indeed.
        notacoward 4y ago
        > They didn't pass one in 1990s Wow, those goalposts sure moved a long way! We were talking about the Osmington shooting in 2018, so 2019 is totally relevant. Also, New Zealand did pass an amendment to the Arms Act in 1992, in response to the Aramoana massacre. So even if you did want to restrict this to that narrower time range you're still very very wrong. You cherry-picked the numbers for reduction in deaths (without citation) and claimed it was unrelated to any law change only because you failed to do the basic research which would have shown that there was such a change after all. That's exactly the dishonesty you project onto others. According to the guidelines, we're supposed to be curious, and not merely polemical. If you're not willing to learn the facts on your own, maybe at least engage people in actual dialogue instead of always attacking them for having reached different conclusions based on those facts.

Here's a list with many Australian mass shootings since 1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Austral...

McP 4y ago

Good list, but the closest thing to a mass shooting after 1996 is a familicide with 7 killed [1]. It doesn't really compare to the Port Arthur massacre. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmington_shooting

phendrenad2 4y ago
So, it works? But it's not enough to prove that something works (or maybe it is), there should ideally be some hypothetical method of action. What's the best theory on a voluntary buyback program stopping mass shootings?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  No, it doesn't work. Picking one place an outcome happened after a law was passed, while ignoring all places similar laws were passed, is not how you evaluate evidence. For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. The first world actually saw a massive homicide reduction during the same period. Some hypotheses include reduction of lead in the environment for ~prev 15-20 years, resulting in less violent people. Econ lit is full of references on all this stuff. If you do stuff like try to correlate overall homicide rate among OECD countries (or even US states, or all countries) with gun ownership rates, you get a slightly negative correlation. If you expect less guns means less homicides, this should surprise you. Lots of other countries also have passed similar laws - some saw increases in violence, some didn't. Picking one where violence went up and concluding laws don't work is as incorrect as picking Australia.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > New Zealand didn't pass such a law Yes, they bloody well did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Magazines,_and_Parts)_Amendment_Act_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(Prohibited_Firearms,_Mag... Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Not when others do it - an accusation you've slung in multiple branches of this thread - and not when you do it. Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >Yes, they bloody well did. Yes, they passed one in 2019. They didn't pass one in 1990s and they saw the same violence reduction that pretty much all first world countries saw from then till now. So attributing changes in Australia to a 1996 law without noticing the evidence for the same reduction elsewhere without such laws is still the same erroneous logic. >Cherry-picking and failure to do basic research aren't good for discussion. Maybe if you read what I wrote "For example, New Zealand didn't pass such a law, but had the same reduction. " and understood that to mean what it says - there was a reduction over that time without such a law. Passing one 20+ years after the fact does not change that those reductions were seen around the world, including New Zealand. If they pass more next year it doesn't invalidate that without such a law they saw reductions. If they remove all laws in a decade it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. If the world ends it doesn't change the fact that without such a law they saw reductions. See the difference? >Please do your part to keep this from deteriorating even further. Indeed.
      - notacoward 4y ago
        > They didn't pass one in 1990s Wow, those goalposts sure moved a long way! We were talking about the Osmington shooting in 2018, so 2019 is totally relevant. Also, New Zealand did pass an amendment to the Arms Act in 1992, in response to the Aramoana massacre. So even if you did want to restrict this to that narrower time range you're still very very wrong. You cherry-picked the numbers for reduction in deaths (without citation) and claimed it was unrelated to any law change only because you failed to do the basic research which would have shown that there was such a change after all. That's exactly the dishonesty you project onto others. According to the guidelines, we're supposed to be curious, and not merely polemical. If you're not willing to learn the facts on your own, maybe at least engage people in actual dialogue instead of always attacking them for having reached different conclusions based on those facts.