It's because most mass shootings happen in an area where lawful gun owner's are disarmed. Are you being obtuse intentionally?
No. I am being consistent with the research which does NOT support your contention If most mass shootings occur where gun owners are disarmed then why are there not more mass shootings in Aus and the UK?
Most mass shootings occur at schools, or malls, or movie theaters, places that are forbidden to us law abiding gun owner's in regards to carrying our weapons on us. We are not allowed to carry at schools. If a movie theater or mall is posted 30.06 or 30.07, and most are, us law abiding gun owner's aren't allowed to be armed there either.
Funny how rarely I reviewed studies outside textbooks about anything, We did not need a peer reviewed study to understand the first so called "Assault Weapons Ban" would have little to no effect on crime, especially in places like N.Y.C.
Reminds me of the old story of an 80 year old woman found by a cop to be carrying .357 mag. Hiloding the gun up he said, ‘Hmmm, a big damn gun. Lady, what are you afraid of? Not a damn thing, was her reply’.
I knew a lady, Mary Jo Lynch, a younger Granny, She never went anywhere without her S&W M-19 .357 Magnum, sigh..........
Good question. Guns useful for mass shootings and that have been used in mass shootings are still legal to own in both of those countries. Why aren't they used more often?
I once built a straw bale house, basically a stick frame structure filled with bales as walls. We built it in four weekend because of power tools, but it would have taken months with a hammer and nails. Your tools will obviously make a huge difference in efficiency, whether with walls or death.....welcome to construction and war.
Because unlike America we enforce our laws And good luck getting a licence for a rapid fire high powered weapon in either country
That's one problem we have for sure. SMLEs are still legal to own in both countries. NZ still allows ownership of "rapid fire high powered weapons". How many mass shootings have they had with them? Are 9mm handguns with 10 round magazines still legal to own in Australia? You can still get fully automatic AK47s in France, evidently. Bolt action rimfire rifles are still legal in the UK.
Your gun laws do not prevent people from owning firearms that can kill 17 people in 3 minutes . Thus, your gun laws are not the reason (you believe) you are safe.
NYC passed its AWB in 1994. NYC banned 10 round magazines a few years later. take a look at NYC's murder rate since 1994.
I was trained in firearms and safety when I was young too; my grandfather was a cop who started teaching me about firearms when I was 4. Over the years, I have studied the subject of, shall we say, interpersonal conflict extensively. I have studied the realities of firearms during that time as well, often making very blunt reassessments of my own opinions, and I have only become more convinced of the merits of firearms ownership on the part of responsible, free people. My "person experience" was very different. I saw a number of victims of home invasion and street violence who died horrible deaths because they did not have the means (or the mindset) to fight back. I also was present at more than one post-incident clean-up where a shaking, scared (but still very much alive) individual had successfully defended themselves because they had the right tools for it. And I had two friends of mine who were helped in dealing with violent criminals when armed citizens stepped in and offered timely backup. Constitutional gun ownership does indeed require responsible exercise; but that is up to the individual to make sure he or she is responsible in the exercise of his rights, and until and unless he or she does something as an individual to prove themselves unworthy of firearms ownership their rights must be respected. Gun ownership in and of itself may not be a "panacea for crime" as you say; but it would achieve far more if people did actually exercise that right more consistently. Bump stocks are a range toy no serious shooter wants any part of IMHO. They're a silly waste of ammo that has no real-world utility in a self-defense firearm. Yes, they were used in Las Vegas; but even the most ardent anti-gunners recognize no law would have prevented that incident. But full capacity magazines, on the other hand, are crucial for proper defensive firearms, and there is exactly zero legitimate reason to limit capacities on firearms magazines available to the American public.
