LA Times Admits Australian-Style Gun Control Would Do Nothing

Sorry its about saving lives. Which I am for.

 

you have to try better than that-tell us which specific laws would save lives

1) establish that these laws specifically have done that in an environment similar to the USA

2) establish that the law is constitutional

3) and don't rely on your usual tactic of making generic claims that unspecified gun control saves lives.

 

No actually you have to do that. Explain ....in detail.....your gun death reduction plan.

Please be specific

 

you made a claim-gun control saves lives. rather than supporting that specious claim, you refuse to answer.

 

Are you saying the steps taken in Australia have failed?

 

Is there a particular relevance in the analogy between a motor vehicle that is always visible by the public, and a firearm which is easily concealed within a clothing pocket, or under an outer article of clothing?

Pray tell how? Registration requirements in the state of California, for example, have done nothing to prevent straw purchases from being committed. The ATF has found that the largest amount of firearms found in possession of prohibited individuals were originally sold within the state of California itself, rather than in any other state that does not possess registration requirements.

If it is desired, accounts can be presented showing that those who obtained a permit to purchase and possess firearms knowingly trafficked firearms to prohibited individuals, one of which was used in the murder of a law enforcement officer. This was done despite them being registered to the original buyer, showing a complete disregard for concerns pertaining to the rule of law.

Then what is being stated by yourself, is that every registered owner of the firearm in question, even those who had long since sold it to someone else and no longer had any claim of ownership to it, were arrested and prosecuted for at one time owning the firearm that was used in the commission of a terrorist attack? Even though it was sold in a legal manner each and every single time, right up until the minor managed to acquire it?

 

Registered firearms are used just as often in the murdering of individuals as unregistered firearms. It is a proven fact.

 

They have been a huge success by every measure

 

It failed to produce results, yes.

 

Please, do tell. Exactly what did the buy back did that reduce gun deaths?

 

It reduced gun deaths. They are safer now than before. Isn't it wonderful?

 

credible evidence needed. we aren't going to buy your unsupported claims no matter how many times you repeat them

 

Except for the recent mass shooting committed just months ago. As well as the nearly-constant discovering of more firearms being smuggled into the country on a daily basis.

 

The trend was on the way down long before the buy back was implemented. At the same time, New Zealand, which didn't implemented the buy back program and has less restrictive gun laws than Australia, also had a falling gun death rate at a similar pace as Australia. In fact in some measures, New Zealand had and continue to have it better off. So the question still stands. What evidence do you have that the buy back program was the cause for the low death rate?

 

I see no evidence for your claims

 

He's fishing from a slow boat.

 

Yes...….go for the personal attack. I accept your concession

 

As in there has never been a repeat of Port Arthur or anything like it since. That sort of failed result?

 

Yet "assault type rifles" are still owned by criminals in Australia. Handguns with ten round magazines, similar to those used by the Virginia Tech shooter, are still legally owned in Australia. New Zealand still allows ownership of semi-automatic rifles - they've never had a mass shooting like Port Arthur.

 

If I said "post hoc fallacy", would you know what I'm talking about?

 

I am sure some Australian crims do have access to 'assault type rifles,' but I have not read of them being used to slaughter people even by the crims. Have you noticed that it is not 'crims' at large who are doing all the mass shootings in the US? Yes people in Australia can get handduns but it is an exhausting process over a period of about 12 months. As for New Zealand:

Some good material in this link.

Link.

 

No, you'll have to explain it in this context so please do.

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.
A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Or, in this case...
"After the law was enacted, there was not not another Port Arthur type shooting - thus, the law was successful" << Post hoc fallacy

 

We know that only 70% of the banned guns were collected, and only another 50k turned in since the ban. That's 200k-250k banned guns that are not used in mass shootings. With the same results we'd still have 5 million "assault weapons" in civilian hands, and most of our mass shootings happen with a pistol, anyway.

So it's only the law abiding committing mass shootings in the US, but even the law abiding can get "mass murder" weapons in Australia if they are patient. It's been 15 years since Monash University - do you think it's a law that's stopped someone from using a handgun in a mass shooting?

Then there's the whole issue that Australian laws would not be Constitutional here.

 

Oh, I am aware of that. But there is a far more direct connection between Port Arthur, the gun confiscation, and the lack of repetition than the context of "Oh it rained in California and so the rain in DC is a direst result of the Californian rain." Further, Port Arthur was 22 years ago, and in not one of those years has there been anything like Port Arthur in Australia. Whereas prior to Port Arthur, in the say preceding 18 years there were 13-gun massacres in which five or more people died, excluding the killer.