(December 3, 2015 at 10:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Except that this is my thread and it's a thread about the per capita murder rate. The gun deaths stat was brought it by you to derail my discussion. Also I asked earlier for an example where the per capita murder rate went down with gun bans and you brought in an article showing that gun deaths went down.
Also we don't live in a bubble where gun laws have never been enacted. I'll answer your question if you can answer this Do you know what happened to the murder rate in the UK when the UK enacted their gun laws?
Now you'll have me believe that this thread is specifically dedicated to per capita murder rates and has nothing at all to do with the mass shooting thread discussions from which it sprang. I now have my choice of turning your bubble analogy around on you or accuse you of attempting to take your ball and go home.
UK? Why are you ignoring the more appropriate example of Australia? Here's more. The actual study can be linked in the article:
Quote:So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.Bolding mine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...australia/
