Re: "Gun buyback scheme halves firearm deaths"


¿mÿ§t뮦@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


¿mÿ§t뮦@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


¿mÿ§t뮦@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Total nonsense. For starters NOBODY expected or claimed that the laws
would have an instantaneous, day one, effect.

Yet you are totally unable to show ANY effect whatsoever.

WRONG. The stated aim was to limit the possibility of firearm mass
murders and since that time there have been NONE.

ROFLMAO

I KNEW you'd fall back on this shit. But of course, we're talking
about

:Re: "Gun buyback scheme halves firearm deaths"

Once more- let's talk about DEATHS, not FIREARMS DEATHS. Death is what
we're trying to curtail. The graphs show your homicides to be about
the same, before, during, and after the confiscation.

You lose, sucker.


Good of you to proclaim yourself a winner, nobody else would.

You're obviously too stupid to see it.

The graph YOU quoted shows a flat number of homicides over a 17 year
period which,

Thanks for pointing that out. Now, show us where the gun confiscation
made any difference.

That's the point you keep dancing around. Wonder why? LOL

What a predictable response!

Conveniently snip out the part that exposes you as a total coward! Why
are you SO AFRAID to admit you got it wrong? You only have to say
something like, "I confused the number of incidents with the rate", but
clearly you are TOO GUTLESS to do that.

And notably after SCREAMING you wanted to talk about "DEATHS", when I
engaged with you on this you had NOTHING to say in response. Tough
crowd!

I'll give you one last opportunity to show you got some balls. You
claimed that using a graph you gave a link to, showing homicide
"incidents", that you (in your wiords) "demonstrated with data provided
by the Australian government, the rate is relatively flat, and it has
been for well over ten years, more like 17." Now using that flat number
of incidents and bringing in a 20% population increase over that time
shows a CLEAR RATE DECLINE. This totally contradicts your claim. Are
you ever going to admit your claim was false and that the rate is
declining or will you simply snip out this from your response and try
to pretend it all never happened? Which will it be?

The "gun confiscation" would seem to have made a major contribution to
the total absence of firearm mass murders since those laws were
introduced. And I should hope it has too, as that was the primary
reason for their introduction. Happily gun crime in Australia has also
decreased. Trying to use "homicide and related incidents" as a measure
is not the best because this category has 2 components which either
never could or would involve guns (death by dangerous driving) or
covers things such a workplace deaths deemed to be somebody's fault
(manslaughter). (Mind you, if that workplace was the US Postal Service
I may reconsider that category)

To judge the impact of gun laws you need to look at crimes where guns
are or could be used offensively or defensively, eg murder. And you
need to look at pre gun law usage and post gun law usage. And you need
to be very careful to avoid confusing correlation and causation.

Now, you would like to try again, this time making a claim that is not
destroyed in about 5 seconds?

.