(June 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 2:38 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Shall I recapitulate the experiences I've had while visiting 72 country on active duty with the USN or can you fucking Google?

Chill out. You are the one making the claim about..............something I guess. I'm not going to do your research for you when you can't tell me what you mean by 'works.' When you tell me what you are actually talking about by works then we can start having a conversation.

Fuck your stair-stepping questions. I've heard that quibbling and pettifogging enough to be well aware of it. (You're not original, just so you now.) I don't give a damn what you want, nor am I interested in conversing with you.

(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.

(June 23, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Chill out. You are the one making the claim about..............something I guess. I'm not going to do your research for you when you can't tell me what you mean by 'works.' When you tell me what you are actually talking about by works then we can start having a conversation.

Fuck your stair-stepping questions. I've heard that quibbling and pettifogging enough to be well aware of it. (You're not original, just so you now.) I don't give a damn what you want, nor am I interested in conversing with you.

You're the one that made the statement and now you can't even tell me what you mean by it. If you want to get upset over that, it's up to you.

(June 23, 2016 at 3:22 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: 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 think the conclusion is that gun control prevents (or reduces) gun-related massacres. I'm not sure you are counting correctly either.

If you look at the actual massacres where guns were the main weapon in the 20 year periods, you get the following:

1976 - 1996 (including Port Arthur massacre): 114 killed (all massacres in this 20 year period used guns)
1996 - 2016 (not including Port Arthur): 13 killed (only 4/10 massacres in this 20 year period used guns)

If you ask me, that data is pretty conclusive.

Not only were the number of gun massacres reduced, but the average number of people killed as a result of gun massacres dropped as well. An average of 7.6 people were killed in every gun massacre between 1976 and 1996, compared to 3.25 in the latter period. More people were killed by Arson attacks (36 people in 3 attacks) in the latter period.

(June 23, 2016 at 3:35 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:22 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: 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 think the conclusion is that gun control prevents (or reduces) gun-related massacres. I'm not sure you are counting correctly either.

If you look at the actual massacres where guns were the main weapon in the 20 year periods, you get the following:

1976 - 1996 (including Port Arthur massacre): 114 killed (all massacres in this 20 year period used guns)
1996 - 2016 (not including Port Arthur): 13 killed (only 4/10 massacres in this 20 year period used guns)

If you ask me, that data is pretty conclusive.

Not only were the number of gun massacres reduced, but the number of people killed as a result of gun massacres dropped as well. An average of 7.6 people were killed in every gun massacre between 1976 and 1996, compared to 3.25 in the latter period. More people were killed by Arson attacks (36 people in 3 attacks) in the latter period.

This is where there is a disconnect for me. I mean if someone intends to kill a bunch of people are they going to stop because they don't have guns? I mean the number of massacre victims are pretty similar, there are just more Arson attacks and less shootings. That does tell you something, maybe the guy who burned a bunch of children to death would have shot them up with guns buy choose a different method. I mean nobody denies that less guns=less shootings. It seems like it just changes people's method of committing mass murder, considering that other types of massacres went up. It's all pretty hard to tell when you restrict the conversation to mass shootings and massacres in a low violence society like Australia. That's why I think the per capita murder rate is really the most important stat when discussion gun violence or any other type of violence. I mean would you much rather live in a society with a high rate of murder, but the murders weren't committed by guns?

(June 23, 2016 at 3:23 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Fuck your stair-stepping questions. I've heard that quibbling and pettifogging enough to be well aware of it. (You're not original, just so you now.) I don't give a damn what you want, nor am I interested in conversing with you.

You're the one that made the statement and now you can't even tell me what you mean by it. If you want to get upset over that, it's up to you.

Upset? No, nauseated.

(June 23, 2016 at 3:41 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:23 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: You're the one that made the statement and now you can't even tell me what you mean by it. If you want to get upset over that, it's up to you.

Upset? No, nauseated.

That you can't tell me what you mean? I mean you made a statement, I asked for clarification because I didn't know what you meant and you exploded in a childish rage. Do you think you shouldn't have to explain your ideas? Sounds like you must love Trump or something.

(June 23, 2016 at 3:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:41 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Upset? No, nauseated.

That you can't tell me what you mean? I mean you made a statement, I asked for clarification because I didn't know what you meant and you exploded in a childish rage. Do you think you shouldn't have to explain your ideas? Sounds like you must love Trump or something.

You fuckin' gunners are all alike. Some song and dance. Meanwhile, children are shooting children. I know you have an acceptable number of dead children in exchange for keeping your guns, but that's really the problem here. You think that's okay.

He just told you he doesn't have any guns? 

 I do, and I don't know wtf you're talking about either.

(June 23, 2016 at 3:52 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: That you can't tell me what you mean? I mean you made a statement, I asked for clarification because I didn't know what you meant and you exploded in a childish rage. Do you think you shouldn't have to explain your ideas? Sounds like you must love Trump or something.

You fuckin' gunners are all alike. Some song and dance. Meanwhile, children are shooting children. I know you have an acceptable number of dead children in exchange for keeping your guns, but that's really the problem here. You think that's okay.

I never said anything like that. I'm not even pro-gun or anything. I don't own a gun nor see the point of owning one. I just asked what you meant by what you said because it was unclear. It's called trying to start a conversation. Then you started using Trump-logic and exploded in a temper tantrum rather then explain your ideas like an adult. I know it's the internet and people tend towards hyperbole and emotion, but come on.