Matt Damon on Australia's gun confiscation...I wish that could happen in my country

Nothing in this entire topic supports your statement.

 

To quote you:
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

 

Why does anybody care what Damon says? He is a guy who literally lives in fantasy land, a guy whose life is spent pretending he is something he is not. Because he is good at playing make-believe he thinks he is an expert in real life.

 

Why did Australia have more homicides for four of the next six years? To be frank, mass murders with guns are rare enough and account for so few of total homicides, at least in the US.

 

Something like 0.1%.

 

Just ran the numbers, using the Mother Jones Mass Shooting data. For the last 35 years we've averaged 19 deaths by mass shooting murders per year. Your number is correct to two decimal places.

 

19/yr, eh?
The number of AR15s in this -- how many millions?

 

Estimated 10 million "assault weapons" in the hands of 3 million plus gun owners right now.

For the last 35 years, an average of 9.48 dead per incident in mass murders using "assault weapons"; that drops to 8.48 per weapon-incident for those shootings where multiple weapons were used. Over 35 years, an average of 6.7 people were murders in mass shootings where the shooter used an "assault weapon".

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

 

The horror.

 

Average number of homicides by drowning each year over that same time period: 48. Average number of homicides by suffocation each year over that same time period: 593

We should ban bathtubs and pillows.

 

All you need to do is show a country that has successfully banned bathtubs and pillows. I can certainly show some that have essentially banned guns successfully

 

Who's Matt Damon?

 

I came up with 258 deaths 1982-2017, for 7.37 deaths per year in mass shootings with 'assault weapons'.

I was as inclusive as I could be - some events involved the use of a Mini-14/30, which are not necessarily 'assault weapons', but I included them in the total.

Total deaths for mass shootings 1982-2017 is 685; 'assault weapons' account for37.6% of this total.

And so, 'assault weapons' aren't even the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

I think this deserved its own topic. Thanks for the source.

 

I didn't include the Mini-14 or M1 Carbine, as those have been specifically excluded from that categorization by the Democrats who wrote both the 1994 AWB and the proposed 2015 version, and I only counted 5 of the 12 deaths at Columbine as 7 deaths were from shotguns. We still don't know the weapon death split at Aurora, so for simplicity's sake I included them all. I did include the "assault pistols" in the 101 California Street shootings.

 

You left out the word "necessarily"

And that is correct but there can be a causal link when correlation is established and in this case there is a clear causal link

Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths

Or can you think of another rationale for why we have a firearm mortality rate that is 10th of yours?

 

But the outrage inherent within responses on this thread imply that it is so

"How very DARE anyone state that they would like to see fewer guns!!!"

thread after thread with the same theme and centred around, as in this case, ONE person's opinion - not a group trying for law reform, not a political lobby which may succeed but ONE person making A statement saying he WISHES something were so

Why get so outraged about one person's opinion?

 

They (Government) successfully banned various types of Kitchen knives in U.K because those knives could be used as
"Offensive Weapons" to hurt People.

Banning objects because of the mere possibility of someone getting hurt, makes no sense at all.

 

Duplicate post.

 

Then why are explosives and chemical weapons and Stinger missles banned or highly controlled?

 

All you have to support this is correlation - you cannot show the necessary link between correlation and causation.
But, you know this.

 

Relevancy ?

 

Holy cow. Do you read what you post?

"Banning objects because of the mere possibility of someone getting hurt, makes no sense at all."

Those are objects. DUH

 

That's your unsupportable inference - there's no necessary relationship between taking issue with what someone says and a desire to remove his right to say it.
But, you know that.

 

Source????

Oh! And make sure you get the facts correct because I remember a time back in the eighties when there were a lot of "skinheads" fighting in the UK and they used to wear thick boots with which they world kick each other - they were about to have a big fight in Brighton when the police swooped and confiscated all the boot laces.

My point - make sure that you have your story straight

 

Not really - the NRA has a history of trying to remove 1a rights