(December 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 9:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate
That is not the per-capita murder rate. Let me just say it again, when the UK banned guns in 1968, the murder rate didn't drop. People just switched to different means. What I asked for is a stat showing that it did. Not a fabricated stat like firearms related deaths where people are using it like it's a per capita murder rate. All that link shows is that when guns are unavailable people use other instruments to murder. What I'm looking for is someone backing up the claim that banning guns would cause a lower murder rate, which you claimed would happen with a ban on assault rifles. I mean if you are going to make a claim like that, you should be able to come up with an example.
Quote:This was not the first shooting massacre we had suffered, but it was the largest in living memory. The tragedy ignited an explosion of public outrage, soul-searching and demands for better regulation of guns. We changed our laws. As a result, gun deaths in Australia have dropped by two-thirds, and we have never had another mass shooting.
Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...aves-lives
