Arizona shooting range accident

[Starter]

Mass shootings in Australia:
1984 - Milperra Masacre - 7 people
1987 - Hoddle Street massacre - 7 people
1987 - Queen Street massacre - 9 people
1990 - Surry Hills massacre - 5 people
1991 - Strathfield massacre - 7 people
1992 - Central Coast Massacre - 6 people
1996 - Port Arthur massacre - 35 people

1997 - $350m Federal Gun Buyback Scheme - 643,000 firearms were handed in
Number of shootings where more than 3 people have been shot in a single incident since: 0
Yes, it does shoot a big hole in the theory.

Namely, that the policy worked.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the discussion was about shootings in general and not specifically mass shootings. So cherry picking isn't helping your point.

[Rollo]

Reading the material which you quoted might help:


Or if you are specifically talking about gun deaths:


With a smaller sample size, any fluctuations are going to be greater.

[Starter]

Reading the material which you quoted might help:

I could be mistaken, but I believe the discussion was about shootings in general and not specifically mass shootings. So cherry picking isn't helping your point.

Mass shootings in the US are becoming more frequent, while Australia has recorded none since the buy back.

??

[airshifter]

??

Just another attempt at misdirection since the subject at hand and facts show the argument to be flawed.

But based on twisted realities, maybe we should wonder why a country such as the US has approx 15 times the population of Austalia, with gun ownership approx 10 times higher per capita, yet once again statistics don't prove the country to be 150 times as deadly.

Nor have US mass shootings managed to top the death toll of the Port Arthur shootings. With so many people and so many guns, wouldn't that be a given based on the straw man debate principles?

[Roamy]

Plus we have many many people that deserve to be shot !!

[Rollo]

But based on twisted realities, maybe we should wonder why a country such as the US has approx 15 times the population of Austalia, with gun ownership approx 10 times higher per capita, yet once again statistics don't prove the country to be 150 times as deadly.

Because 15 times a population multiplied by 10 times per capita is 150% of a population?

If gun ownership is approx 10 times higher per capita, shouldn't we expect a 10 times higher per capita rate for homicide with firearms?
wiki magic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
Total Calculated:
US - 10.30
Aus - 1.06
10.30 / 1.06 = 9.71 (that looks about 10 times higher per capita, or thereabouts)

Homicides:
US - 3.60
Aus - 0.13
3.60 / 0.13 = 27.69

Surely you need to compare like for like.