(June 23, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(June 23, 2016 at 2:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: So you can't just point to low crime countries have always been low crime and say 'it must be the gun control' To be convincing to me you'd have to show that gun control was the actual cause of....something at least.
I'm fairly certain the number of gun massacres dropped to almost zero after gun control laws were adopted in Australia. Look at the numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma..._Australia
After the gun control laws were brought in, there were still some shootings, but they killed very small amounts of victims. The highest being 5, but that was a guy killing his wife and 3 kids plus himself.
Well is that what Brian was talking about, just shooting massacres? I mean I think the reason he cherry picked two low murder societies is because they have low murder rates. That list is interesting and I'd say inconclusive considering that in the 20 years before the Port Authur massacres there weren't really very many mass shootings either. If you take the 20 years before there were 80 massacre victims in Australia and in the 20 years since there has been 64 massacre victims. It's pretty hard to draw the conclusion that gun control prevents massacres from that data.
I'm not a pro-gun person. I don't own guns and really haven't made up my mind on the subject.
I just am in favor of having honest conversations on the subject. Too often it turns into emotional arguments that use vague language and unsubstantiated claims. When someone says something like 'Gun control works in civilized countries' I want to know what they mean by that. What they mean by works, what they mean by civilized, why civilized is an important factor. I want to know what data or reasoning they draw their beliefs from. To me that's an interesting conversation and the one that needs to happen. Instead even trying to start that conversation normally just generates propaganda and insults, which is a shame.