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.
Printable View
Reading the material which you quoted might help:
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...006/fig013.png
Or if you are specifically talking about gun deaths:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxGBvQWCMAEuw1e.jpg
With a smaller sample size, any fluctuations are going to be greater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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?
Plus we have many many people that deserve to be shot !!
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.