In response to the extremely rare spree shooting in Australia, the gun nuts blamed the strict gun laws. That's pretty funny, especially since their shootings are now so rare that when they have one it's international news.
A pro-gun article I read said murders are only slightly down since the implementation of their stricter gun laws, but as we can see from the above charts, murders are down and population is up.
You know what that means, right?
Murders per capita have gone down in Australia after mass confiscation, therefore gun control worked.
ReplyDeleteMurders per capita have gone down in the US during liberalization of gun laws and a huge increase in gun prevalence, therefore we need mass confiscation.
Gotta love that loony liberal logic. What is wrong with you people?
orlin sellers
Ours would have gone down even more if we'd had proper gun control.
DeleteA completely unsupportable statement from someone who likes to accuse his opponents of being unscientific or science deniers.
DeleteMaybe there's would have gone down even more if they hadn't confiscated 700,000 guns? That is based in the same deduction you are using.
DeleteMikeB: "You know what that means, right?"
ReplyDeleteYeah, that means they're in the same situation as the US. You know what that means, right?
It means there are other factors involved and if the US had implemented proper gun control, our rate would have decreased even more.
DeleteOk, so it means the exact same thing in Australia then. How can you say one means something and the other doesn't?
DeleteThe comparison between one country and another is always faulty.
DeleteThe comparison between one country and another is always faulty.
DeleteBut we're supposed to draw unshakable conclusions about gun policy in one country, from data gathered in another, anyway, the "faulty" nature of such comparisons notwithstanding, right?
Then why did you just make one?
DeleteI didn't. My comparison is between Australia before the gun laws and Australia after.
DeletePut it this way. Both Australia and the US have seen a decrease in murders, but only Australia changed its gun laws. It's safe to assume that their decrease in murders is at least in part due to the stricter gun laws. And it's also safe to assume that if the US had enacted similar gun laws its decrease would have been greater.
Both Australia and the US have seen a decrease in murders, but only Australia changed its gun laws.
DeleteWrong. Concealed (and sometimes open) carry is legal in vastly more parts of the U.S., and is a legal option for vastly more Americans (with even Constitutional Carry expanding its foothold to a few more states), now than was the case twenty years ago (yes--I know that the animated map starts more than 20 years ago, but plenty of the change, obviously, has come in the last 20 years). Lots of new Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, too.
Maybe that's part of the reason for the precipitous plunge in the murder numbers.
Mike, you just said country to country comparisons are faulty, then you said you only compared Australia over time, and the very next paragraph you compared Australia to the United States.
DeleteIt is quite evident that you are incapable of unbiased analysis. You can't look at data and ask yourself the question "does gun control work?" because you've already built into your assumptions that gun control works, so it can't be part of the question. Any positive changes that could be attributed to gun control are done so, and any opposite results "would have been even better with gun control". You have no understanding of the scientific method.
This would be like doing a study to ask if smoking causes cancer, but built into the assumptions of the study is that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, so in every case where someone smoked and got cancer, you say "they would have got cancer sooner if they didn't smoke".
So I ask, how do you answer the question "does gun control work?" What methods would determine this?
MikeB: "It's safe to assume that their decrease in murders is at least in part due to the stricter gun laws. And it's also safe to assume that if the US had enacted similar gun laws its decrease would have been greater."
DeleteTo put it another way, how would you determine this without making assumptions?
Common sense and honesty.
DeleteI'll give you credit for one thing: funniest comment made while looking in the mirror: "It is quite evident that you are incapable of unbiased analysis."
Your conclusion rests on twice making the statement "it's safe to assume." I make no assumptions, I only show you the results. But you say I am the one who is biased...
DeleteKurt, both the US and Australia had loose gun laws until 1996. Then Australia changed that. The US still has loose gun laws - we did not change.
DeleteThe US still has loose gun laws - we did not change.
DeleteOh, now I see. The explosive growth in concealed carry, the growth of "shall issue," at the expense of "may issue," the growth of Constitutional carry, at the expense of "shall issue," the passage in numerous states of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground laws, the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to thwart meritless, predatory lawsuits, intended to bleed the gun industry dry--all that equals "we did not change."
I suppose that explains why you haven't complained bitterly about all those dramatic changes--oops, I mean all those examples of U.S. gun laws not changing (shrugging my shoulders). But wait a second . . . you have complained bitterly against those laws, that you now claim do not represent any change.
Do you even read what you write, Mikeb? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume someone hacked your Blogspot account, to falsely make ludicrous comments in your name, in order to discredit you?
U.S. gun laws have indeed changed, and in the favor of gun rights, and the murder rate has gone down.
Oh, and how did I forget this (non?)-change--the demise of the federal ban of so-called "assault weapons," and so-called "high capacity" magazines? Those don't count as "changes," in your view, either, Mikeb?
DeleteYou might have a point (as in literally a single data point) if Australia had better results than the USA.
DeleteThe US still has loose gun laws - we did not change.
DeleteSo, just to make sure I'm following here, let's see if I've got it. There are precisely two possibilities for describing the "gun control" laws of a country: "loose," and . . . ("tight?" "non-loose?" "draconian?"--oops, sorry--I know you don't like that one, "strong?"--now that's a gun ban zealot favorite, "restrictive?"). For an alteration in gun laws to actually constitute a "change," that line must be crossed.
We haven't been told where the dividing line between these two possibilities lies, but we know that Australia crossed it, from "loose" to . . . whatever, in 1996-1997, while the U.S. stayed on "loose." Therefore, when a country with already "loose" gun laws drastically expands concealed carry, rescinds bans of so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "high capacity" magazines, implements Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws in many states, as the U.S. has since 1996, all of that adds up to "did not change" gun laws.
Apparently, then, since we already have "loose" gun laws, if we now went all the way to shall not be infringed, with every gun law struck down, just as the Constitution and decency demand, that would not be a "change," right Mikeb? Likewise, if Australia, with it's . . . "non-loose" gun laws, went all the way to an all out, confiscatory prohibition of any private ownership and use of firearms, that would not be a "change," either, right, Mikeb?
You would thus not consider U.S. gun law to be adversely affected by the passage of federal Constitutional carry, elimination of the concept of "prohibited persons" with regard to gun purchases, no more regulation of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, large bore "destructive devices," etc., because all that would not constitute a "change," right, Mikeb?
I don't deny that the US gun laws have become looser, but that's not the kind of change the Australia had.
DeleteI don't deny that the US gun laws have become looser . . .
DeleteOh? So there is a way to reconcile "we did not change," with "US gun laws have become looser"?
. . . but that's not the kind of change the Australia had.
Which is precisely my point. We had the same change in terms of the direction of the results, but with the opposite change in policy. Doesn't that kinda undermine the argument that Australia's policy change should take the credit for the improved results?
You say this: (edited only to correct your false claim that only Australia's gun laws changed):
Both Australia and the US have seen a decrease in murders, but only Australia [made its gun laws more restrictive]. It's safe to assume that their decrease in murders is at least in part due to the stricter gun laws. And it's also safe to assume that if the US had enacted similar gun laws its decrease would have been greater.
Why should anyone accept that argument as any more valid than this one?
Both Australia and the US have seen a decrease in murders, but only US gun laws became less restrictive. It's safe to assume that our decrease in murders is at least in part due to the less restrictive gun laws. And it's also safe to assume that if Australia had enacted similar gun laws its decrease would have been greater.
Only by evaluating those two opposed arguments through the lens of a preconceived bias can one accept one of the two as more valid than the other.
Exactly, Kurt. Both those paragraphs are equally biased, and you don't see me saying that the second one is true (certainly not by merely saying"it's safe to assume"). But you say that I am the one with extreme bias.
Delete"We had the same change in terms of the direction of the results, but with the opposite change in policy."
DeleteLying, twisting bullshit. US policy went from loose to looser. Australian policy went from loose to strict. But, you call that the same change but in opposite directions.
I'm tired of pointing out your bullshit, Kurt.
I'm tired of pointing out your bullshit, Kurt.
DeleteProbably because pointing out "bullshit" where there is none is exhausting. You could try limiting yourself to pointing out bullshit only where it exists--think of all the effort you'd save!
This post didn't go the way you thought it would, huh? Hopefully the evidence will cause you to reexamine your beliefs, Mike.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
On the contrary, Orlin. Just because two of you guys said what you did, doesn't really have much effect.
DeleteMikeb has a superhuman imperviousness to evidence, Orlin.
DeleteNo, they don't know what that means.
ReplyDeleteNothing on the mass stabbing deaths of eight children in Aus Mike?
ReplyDeleteMBIAC.....
This blog is about gun rights and gun control - hadn't you noticed? I also have omitted all talk about the Ebola deaths in West Africa as well as the serious problem of people falling down in the bathroom.
DeleteThis blog is about gun rights and gun control . . .
DeleteAnd, judging from Laci's "contributions," also about Christmas and other winter celebratory traditions. For some reason.
You beat me to it Kurt..
DeleteSo Mike your readers can have a reasonable expectation of no further post allowed on your blog not relating to firearms issue's from here on out?
MBIAC.....
I give my co-bloggers carte blanche to post what they want. I thought the comment was directed to me. I should have said "my posts" rather than "this blog."
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/redneck-humor.html
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/pope-francis-turns-78.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/9-absurd-justifications-for-police.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/republican-response-to-torture-report.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/american-holiday-traditions.html#comment-form
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/john-mccain-on-torture.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-for-president.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/china-has-just-overtaken-united-states.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/pelosi-hate-combined-with-obama-hate.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/zappadan-2014-day-2-san-berdino.html
"This blog is about gun rights and gun control - hadn't you noticed?"
"I should have said "my posts" rather than "this blog."
It is your blog you can post what you want but the above quotes are not exactly accurate are they Mike. Be honest
MBIAC.....
You're right. I often stray from the strict gun control and gun rights themes. So? I was really complaining about your unspoken argument in suggesting the knife murders story. Why don't you be honest and tell us what's on your mind?
DeleteThere was nothing dishonest in my ? Mike. I find it laughable that you sometimes avoid stories about mass murder that do not involve guns.
Delete"You're right. I often stray from the strict gun control and gun rights themes."
"This blog is about gun rights and gun control - hadn't you noticed? "
Honesty?
MBIAC.....
So, I just read this entire string in one read. Mike, your inability to see and accept the logical fallacy of your arguments is truly monumental.
ReplyDeleteYou argue repeatedly about causation of the decrease in the homicide rates in both countries except you argue opposite positions depending on which country.
You provide no basis for your argument that the US homicide rate would have decreased more rapidly with a different legislative solution.
You ignore the cultural, geographic and governing differences between the two countries. This would include an evaluation of the types of homicides (suicide, drug/gang, crime, DV, accidental) between the two countries.
Basically, you believe that more restrictive gun laws (primarily confiscation) are the only viable solution and anything the disturbs that narrative is ignored. That sir, is what a reasonable person would interpret from this exchange.