4 ms·

>If it's such a "complicated issue", why did the frequency of mass shootings in Australia drop to negligible levels after they took the simple step of enacting

>If it's such a "complicated issue", why did the frequency of mass shootings in Australia drop to negligible levels after they took the simple step of enacting a comprehensive gun ban? It appears largely because the gun ban simply changed the method by which massacres occurred. Using the list from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia), using the Port Arthur shootings as the pivot point for a 25 year look back and forward, we find before Port Arthur ('71 to '96) there were 123 people killed in some form of multi death incident and a total of 22 incidents. After ('96 to april '21) there were 146 people killed in 37 incidents. There are some issues I take with that list as a whole, for example for this discussion familicide probably doesn't really enter into it, or a number of the incidents include the perpetrator (which I have tried to filter from the numbers above). If I try to cut the values down to just non-familicide incidents, it looks like 88 deaths in 16 incidents prior and 89 deaths in 23 incidents after. Admittedly yes the raw number of shootings did go down. But at least to me, that would be a cold comfort to know a dead relative or friend was burned to death rather than shot. If the end goal is to stop people dying by firearm, then fair enough, Australia's laws appear to have done that. If the goal however is to stop people from being killed or attacked in senseless acts of violence, then I think these numbers make the argument that killers will kill with whatever tools they can get their hands on and the issue is indeed more "complicated" than just making one such tool illegal.

robofanatic 4y ago
> If the end goal is to stop people dying by firearm, then fair enough we are not talking about 1 or 2 people dying here, these are dozens of helpless lives gone in a matter of minutes!! Those maniacs (first Sandy hook and now Rob elementary) wouldn't be able to kill dozens of innocent kids so easily if they didn't have access to firearm.
- robswc 4y ago
  >wouldn't be able to kill dozens of innocent kids so easily if they didn't have access to firearm There are much more destructive and arguably easier ways to kill _more_ people. Someone that is more than willing to march into an elementary school and take the lives of innocent children wouldn't just stop their plan to do such a thing because they can't get access to a gun. They'll go down to their local uhaul or start a fire.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    Neither of those would stand much chance of being more effective than a firearm.
    - robswc 4y ago
      >Neither of those would stand much chance of being more effective than a firearm One guy with a truck managed to kill more people than even the deadliest shooting in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack The deadliest arson attack on a nightclub in the US killed nearly 2x as many people vs the deadliest shooting at a nightclub. And again, more people than the deadliest shooting in the US _ever_. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting No idea how you can claim these methods are not as effective.
      - robofanatic 4y ago
        Yet most of these killers choose guns. The fact that this 18 year old kid was able to order so much ammunition online is so ridiculous
        robswc 4y ago
        >Yet most of these killers choose guns. Because most of these killers aren't trying to kill as many people as possible. They're trying to get attention and "revenge" on society. I'm convinced Columbine literally started this whole thing, due to the way society views it. >The fact that this 18 year old kid was able to order so much ammunition online is so ridiculous Sure... but I still don't believe this 18 year old kid would have just given up on his plan to seek revenge. What would stop him from ordering or acquiring a machete and doing essentially the same thing? There was a knife attack in Japan that left and equal amount of people dead. https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deat... I honestly believe that tighter gun laws would reduce gun deaths... but I think its disingenuous to suggest they would prevent these mass killings or even meaningfully reduce the amount of deaths. Shown in my other comment, other and arguably even easier methods have proven to kill more people.
- zbobet2012 4y ago
  Arson is historically a more effective mass murder device and used extensively. As well as bombs, cars, poison and many other things.
  - robofanatic 4y ago
    none of that was used in brutally killing dozens of elementary school kids. Where as guns were used, not once but twice.
wfme 4y ago
My take away from those numbers is the drop in deaths per incident: from about 5.5 to 3.9. A 30% drop in deaths per incident seems like a big win to me. Sure there were more incidents, but the population also grew considerably from an average of 15.6m over the first period, to 22.1m over the second - a 41% increase. Applying that increase to the 16 incidents gives us 22.5, almost exactly the actual number (23). So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%.
- robswc 4y ago
  >So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%. Honestly, to me that number isn't nearly as impressive enough to justify surrendering one of your only practical defenses against a tyrannical regime. This takes your chances of dying from a terrorist attack from 0.0000001% to 0.000000066% ?
  - wfme 4y ago
    How many of these "tyrannical regime"s have you had to defend yourself against in your lifetime?
    - robswc 4y ago
      Zero. Do you truly believe we are past the need to defend against tyrannical regimes?
      - wfme 4y ago
        Yes, in most countries I think we are well past that point. What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against?
        robswc 4y ago
        >What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against? The fact that many, many people have thought exactly as you do. That they had reached the pinnacle of governance to the point that they would never collapse or need to defend themselves. A significant portion of the population figured WW1 was the "war to end all wars" merely on the premise that the war was so great, like nothing they had ever seen before. We are seeing unprecedented peace but I see no reason to think that historical peace == future peace. If you want a more "objective" answer... Conflicts arise far too often to suggest one of them won't turn into a scenario that allows for occupation or tyranny. How many people seriously predicted Ukraine would be invaded? If you truly think "most countries are past that point" - which countries are you referring to and how long do you think they will last/remain stable? How would one come to this estimate?

robofanatic 4y ago

> If the end goal is to stop people dying by firearm, then fair enough we are not talking about 1 or 2 people dying here, these are dozens of helpless lives gone in a matter of minutes!! Those maniacs (first Sandy hook and now Rob elementary) wouldn't be able to kill dozens of innocent kids so easily if they didn't have access to firearm.

robswc 4y ago
>wouldn't be able to kill dozens of innocent kids so easily if they didn't have access to firearm There are much more destructive and arguably easier ways to kill _more_ people. Someone that is more than willing to march into an elementary school and take the lives of innocent children wouldn't just stop their plan to do such a thing because they can't get access to a gun. They'll go down to their local uhaul or start a fire.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Neither of those would stand much chance of being more effective than a firearm.
  - robswc 4y ago
    >Neither of those would stand much chance of being more effective than a firearm One guy with a truck managed to kill more people than even the deadliest shooting in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack The deadliest arson attack on a nightclub in the US killed nearly 2x as many people vs the deadliest shooting at a nightclub. And again, more people than the deadliest shooting in the US _ever_. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting No idea how you can claim these methods are not as effective.
    - robofanatic 4y ago
      Yet most of these killers choose guns. The fact that this 18 year old kid was able to order so much ammunition online is so ridiculous
      - robswc 4y ago
        >Yet most of these killers choose guns. Because most of these killers aren't trying to kill as many people as possible. They're trying to get attention and "revenge" on society. I'm convinced Columbine literally started this whole thing, due to the way society views it. >The fact that this 18 year old kid was able to order so much ammunition online is so ridiculous Sure... but I still don't believe this 18 year old kid would have just given up on his plan to seek revenge. What would stop him from ordering or acquiring a machete and doing essentially the same thing? There was a knife attack in Japan that left and equal amount of people dead. https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deat... I honestly believe that tighter gun laws would reduce gun deaths... but I think its disingenuous to suggest they would prevent these mass killings or even meaningfully reduce the amount of deaths. Shown in my other comment, other and arguably even easier methods have proven to kill more people.
zbobet2012 4y ago
Arson is historically a more effective mass murder device and used extensively. As well as bombs, cars, poison and many other things.
- robofanatic 4y ago
  none of that was used in brutally killing dozens of elementary school kids. Where as guns were used, not once but twice.

wfme 4y ago

My take away from those numbers is the drop in deaths per incident: from about 5.5 to 3.9. A 30% drop in deaths per incident seems like a big win to me. Sure there were more incidents, but the population also grew considerably from an average of 15.6m over the first period, to 22.1m over the second - a 41% increase. Applying that increase to the 16 incidents gives us 22.5, almost exactly the actual number (23). So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%.

robswc 4y ago
>So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%. Honestly, to me that number isn't nearly as impressive enough to justify surrendering one of your only practical defenses against a tyrannical regime. This takes your chances of dying from a terrorist attack from 0.0000001% to 0.000000066% ?
- wfme 4y ago
  How many of these "tyrannical regime"s have you had to defend yourself against in your lifetime?
  - robswc 4y ago
    Zero. Do you truly believe we are past the need to defend against tyrannical regimes?
    - wfme 4y ago
      Yes, in most countries I think we are well past that point. What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against?
      - robswc 4y ago
        >What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against? The fact that many, many people have thought exactly as you do. That they had reached the pinnacle of governance to the point that they would never collapse or need to defend themselves. A significant portion of the population figured WW1 was the "war to end all wars" merely on the premise that the war was so great, like nothing they had ever seen before. We are seeing unprecedented peace but I see no reason to think that historical peace == future peace. If you want a more "objective" answer... Conflicts arise far too often to suggest one of them won't turn into a scenario that allows for occupation or tyranny. How many people seriously predicted Ukraine would be invaded? If you truly think "most countries are past that point" - which countries are you referring to and how long do you think they will last/remain stable? How would one come to this estimate?