Society New Zealand to Ban All Assault Rifles

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
Deaths from Massacres in the 12 years before Port Arthur Massacre in Australia: 79

At which point Australia, an island of essentially homogeneous population, enacts the strictest firearms controls in the developed world.

Deaths from Massacres in the 12 years after Port Arthur Massacre in Australia: 120
A) It's fucking Wikipedia.

B) I count 46 deaths from 'massacres' in that list in the 12 years after Port Arthur. You were only wrong by about fucking triple the actual number.

That list includes arson attacks, domestic murders and gang violence. Not the type of random mass killings these gun laws are meant to prevent. The number of people who died in an attack comparable to Port Arthur - the mass killing of people unknown to the attacker - in the 12 years after it is 2 according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia. The number of people, not including Port Arthur itself (and it makes no sense not to include it), who died in the 12 years before it was 43.

Falsehoods and stupidity.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
That list includes arson attacks, domestic murders and gang violence. Not the type of random mass killings these gun laws are meant to prevent.
Gun laws are given to the public as general public safety measures. They're given to people under the guise that if gun violence decreases the public is safer. The problem arises when violent crime doesn't actually decrease. "Gun violence" is a demonstrably meaningless term no matter how emotional you get about it.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
Gun laws are given to the public as general public safety measures. They're given to people under the guise that if gun violence decreases the public is safer. The problem arises when violent crime doesn't actually decrease. "Gun violence" is a demonstrably meaningless term no matter how emotional you get about it.
We can never know the counter-factual. We don't have the luxury of controlled trials. But what we do know from the Australian example is that gun control appears to have had a positive impact on lessening random spree killings, which is the type of crime it was enacted in response too. It also appears to lowered the amount of suicides.

I'm not a gun control nut. I don't think it would jack shit in the US. But it can have some positive impacts.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
I decided to expand your range a little.

Port Arthur 1996

We are 22 years since then and there's data on that page until the latter part of 2018. So let's go that far on both sides...

96 deaths before

117 deaths after


Obviously deaths dont' tell the whole story but it is interesting.
You should be better than Wikipedia, mate.

Note that there are only 3 entries for the 1970s. It's highly unlikely that there were only 3 'massacres' in the 70s considering that the murder rate was higher than it is now.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
We can never know the counter-factual. We don't have the luxury of controlled trials.
Not entirely true. We can look at 94-96 when countries either did or didn't go down the path of gun control and look at how their violent crime stats moved. If you do that, you'll see they pretty much all follow the same pattern even though they had vastly different gun control plans. If a country that did a lot about gun control and a country that did half as much both saw the same outcomes it stands to reason that gun control wasn't the catalyst for change.

QUOTE="lordofthepies, post: 1392837, member: 1568"]But what we do know from the Australian example is that gun control appears to have had a positive impact on lessening random spree killings, which is the type of crime it was enacted in response too. It also appears to lowered the amount of suicides.[/QUOTE]

Overall murder rate didn't decrease any more than any other developed country. This idea that if we kill people one at a time rather than in batches of 10 is better even though we end up with the same number of dead doesn't hold water. Australia's suicide rate is also on the rise, they just aren't using guns to do it anymore.

But it can have some positive impacts.
It hasn't had any in Canada. We're actually seeing a spike in gun violence here by criminals using guns illegally smuggled into the country.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
I'd like to think that I am. All I'm doing is tightening up his original numbers to see what happens.
Fair enough. I think it's an interesting discussion anyway. I have read Australian government reports that suggest that the 1980s-1990s were a distortion for mass shootings and that we simply returned to a normal state of affairs. So I can fully believe that there were less gun mass shootings in the 70s. What I'm not buying is the near total absence of mass death killings of any type in the 60s and 70s considering the homicide rate. It's just extremely unlikely and points to a recency bias in what people have bothered to upload to that list.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
Not entirely true. We can look at 94-96 when countries either did or didn't go down the path of gun control and look at how their violent crime stats moved. If you do that, you'll see they pretty much all follow the same pattern even though they had vastly different gun control plans. If a country that did a lot about gun control and a country that did half as much both saw the same outcomes it stands to reason that gun control wasn't the catalyst for change.

QUOTE="lordofthepies, post: 1392837, member: 1568"]But what we do know from the Australian example is that gun control appears to have had a positive impact on lessening random spree killings, which is the type of crime it was enacted in response too. It also appears to lowered the amount of suicides.
That's not how controlled trials or counter-factuals work, mate. We can't control for all the other complex variables that drive homicide rates in Australia. Maybe gun control has had a positive impact on the homicide rate, maybe it hasn't. We don't really know.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
We can't control for all the other complex variables that drive homicide rates in Australia. Maybe gun control has had a positive impact on the homicide rate, maybe it hasn't.
But we can look at the homicide rates of other developed nations over the same period of time. They all saw similar decreases evne though few of them went after guns as hard as Australia did. It stands to reason that the biggest impact on homicide rates are all of those complex variables and that it probably has little to do with guns. Right around the mid-90's the poor people of the developed world started bettering their positions materially. Seeing as poverty is that all time champion of driving violence it would stand to reason that it's what had the positive impact rather than the removal of guns from some countries.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
A) It's fucking Wikipedia.

B) I count 46 deaths from 'massacres' in that list in the 12 years after Port Arthur. You were only wrong by about fucking triple the actual number.

That list includes arson attacks, domestic murders and gang violence. Not the type of random mass killings these gun laws are meant to prevent. The number of people who died in an attack comparable to Port Arthur - the mass killing of people unknown to the attacker - in the 12 years after it is 2 according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia. The number of people, not including Port Arthur itself (and it makes no sense not to include it), who died in the 12 years before it was 43.

Falsehoods and stupidity.
considering there were exactly ZERO incidents like Port Arthur before Port Arthur, what problem did the sweeping firearm legislation seek to solve?

Correct out whatever data points you like, but the end result is that there have been MORE mass casualty incidents since Port Arthur than before.

And we aren't even talking about the incidents where there were massive serious injuries, like the Russell Street bombing or the car attack in Melbourne. Maybe people didn't die, but never walking again is a pretty serious outcome of an attack.
 

mysticmac

First 1025
Oct 18, 2015
14,907
17,649
We can never know the counter-factual. We don't have the luxury of controlled trials. But what we do know from the Australian example is that gun control appears to have had a positive impact on lessening random spree killings, which is the type of crime it was enacted in response too. It also appears to lowered the amount of suicides.

I'm not a gun control nut. I don't think it would jack shit in the US. But it can have some positive impacts.
Have you ever been to Australia? There are constant knife attacks.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
considering there were exactly ZERO incidents like Port Arthur before Port Arthur, what problem did the sweeping firearm legislation seek to solve?

Correct out whatever data points you like, but the end result is that there have been MORE mass casualty incidents since Port Arthur than before.

And we aren't even talking about the incidents where there were massive serious injuries, like the Russell Street bombing or the car attack in Melbourne. Maybe people didn't die, but never walking again is a pretty serious outcome of an attack.
Are you on drugs? You're just talking utter shit, posting false numbers and making demonstrably untrue statements.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Are you on drugs? You're just talking utter shit, posting false numbers and making demonstrably untrue statements.
I think if you look closely at the numbers you'll see that, regardless of the definition that you put on 'Massacre', the sweeping gun legislation enacted in Australia had no positive impact on the rate of mass homicides.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
I think if you look closely at the numbers you'll see that, regardless of the definition that you put on 'Massacre', the sweeping gun legislation enacted in Australia had no positive impact on the rate of mass homicides.
Ok mete.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
I'm guessing you tried correcting out data, and discovered that what I said was true.
Or are you going to go looking for the hidden history data from the 1970s that shows a spurt of mass casualty incidents?

There have been more, and deadlier, mass casualty attacks in Australia in the years after Port Arthur.


Please provide some evidence to the contrary. And it's not enough to show that it's equal, because the deprivation of rights and centralization of firearms with the government isn't without cost or consequence. I want to see the big upside of Australia's firearms regulation.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
I'm guessing you tried correcting out data, and discovered that what I said was true.
Or are you going to go looking for the hidden history data from the 1970s that shows a spurt of mass casualty incidents?

There have been more, and deadlier, mass casualty attacks in Australia in the years after Port Arthur.


Please provide some evidence to the contrary. And it's not enough to show that it's equal, because the deprivation of rights and centralization of firearms with the government isn't without cost or consequence. I want to see the big upside of Australia's firearms regulation.
Ok mete.