I'm not arguing about the general ease of acquiring a gun. I'm talking about individual cases. You're being way too rigid with this topic. You are clearly making it seem like anyone who would shoot up a school would have the desire to do anything to get it done. Not everyone will be the same. My argument is not about what would yield the best results in terms of numbers and statistics.

You're selectively picking and choosing only the data that supports your predetermined opinion and looking for excuses to try to discredit anything that contradicts you.

If you only ever examine one side of an issue, you can make a compelling argument that the earth is flat. 

that's an extremely flawed outlook.

There hasnt been a massacre since?

When was the last one before that? and then the one before that?

you're basically arguing, that you bought elephant repelent for your yard, off a rather convincing infomercial, and since you've been using it, you havent had any elephants in your yard.

Actually, I've got to take his side on this one... for at least this specific point.

Between 87 and 96 there were like 5-6 mass shootings. 

Really was quite crazy.

That was more mass shootings than had happened in the history of Australia before. 

So there was a significant stretch of shootings in that time period.

Personally, I think it was more just the extreme horriblness of Port Arthur that broke the streak.  Since one guy somehow killed 3 dozen people before the police could stop him.

It was I think, by far the worst shooting in the history of the "Western" world. 

I mean... I guess yeah that's the point of difference, I don't see there being any "Casual" school shooters.

I feel like when you get to the point of "I want to murder a bunch of people at my school."

You've entered a phase where a 5 minute phone call isn't that much of a hassle.

In general, of the mass shooters that we've caught alive, they've tend to be planned or thought about for some time, with some level of prep... often MONTHS of planning.

Though the amount we catch alive are limited, outside the "Jihadist for a cause type" political type,

The psycological  profile seems to be... well very similar.  They plan out their rampages well in advance.... etc. 

EDIT: Here's a good article on it.  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052

I mean, MAYBE you'd get 1 person over the course of a decade who doesn't fit the profile?   It's such a small group though, i wouldn't bet on it.

The current rash of mass shootings seems to be caused by the reporting on the rash of mass shootings.

What might of really stopped in in Australia for good, was just how terrible it was.  That it had a 9/11 type effect, that made it so that people in australia no longer looked up to making THAT kind of statement.

Also, it's worth noting... that Austrlian Police have such faith in their fellow officers, that they want the authorization to bring home their own guns and body armor while they try and take down some Motorcycle clubs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/fearful-qld-police-want-to-take-guns-home/story-fn3dxiwe-1226752578735

Quite honestly, I don't care what the police think on this matter. Even if they said gun control works, it doesn't make it correct. I say that as a pro-property, pro-liberty, anti-social control, anti-constitutionalist (sorry, federalists were obviously wrong in the first party era, and we would've been better off without the constitution and central government), proponent of gun rights. Any state that takes guns from its people is not doing so for the safety of its people, but for the maintenance of its structured monopoly on force. Agents of the state (law enforcement/police) are biased toward the state. The only thing the polling shows is that the truth of the matter is so evident that choosing the state's position on gun ownership would be detrimental to the state's position, consequently, law enforcement choose to tell the reasonable conclusion of data. If the state felt that it could persuade the population that the best way is gun control, the police would be behind gun control. Frankly, I don't care what the police think nor do I care what the state thinks. If one cannot own a piece of property that is used for a variety of purposes, or otherwise an entity will come with that same type of property and put one in a cage, that is not a society of voluntary interactions among free individuals, that is a statist collectivist society based on force, and one which I will peacefully (on my end) disassociate from.

Getting your facts from John Lott is like getting your fair and balanced Nintendo news from Seece, yes. Because John Lott is not so much an expert as a partisan hack. Anyway, what you should be doing is look at a claim as the one you originally made and think "Wow, that's pretty definitive information, perhaps I should check these numbers for myself". If you did you'll find within 10 minutes of looking around that there are many more then 2 "gun free zone" mass shootings committed in the USA the last 50 years.

John Lott is a man with books to sell, his research is most likely financed by the NRA and other gun lobbyists and has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar before making claims about gun crime that were completely bogus and fabricated. Using John Lott as an expert to prove your point proves nothing other than that you will latch onto anything that supports what you want to believe without spending a seconds effort acctually trying to verify the accuracy of anything.

That's... specifically not true. 

His research is still academically considered to be the most authortative and cited as such... still holding sadly holding the most credible mass gun violence research out there specifically because no side ever takes it up straight down the middle.

He has his bias, but his methods have so far been the best, the big differnece between major gun reports on gun violence and the prevention of crime basically differeng between "Self reporting of stopping a crime" and "Self reporting of stopping a crime after you've been stabbed or shot first."

For example the National Academy of Science vaguely supported Lott's study over opposing studies.   Deeming neither really great, but agreeing with Lott's conclusion on right to carry lowering murders, and saying outside that, it has no effect on any crimes.

Your fighting against the accepted science with nothing more then a naked claim at bias that's never held any merit.

Yeah, John Lott being accepted science... If you have no idea what you are talking about just don't bother. John Lott's research is widely discredited and he has been and continous to be under heavy critisism for massaging data, not being able to provide raw data cited in his research, cherry picking and a number of other transgressions. To claim that John Lott is considered the best research available on gun crime is plain false.

I am sure he is universally lauded as a beautiful mind on Fox News where he is a frequent contributor, but do yourself a favor and check the facts a little better. John Lott is a scientist who sold out to the gun lobby, and has pretty much no credibility left. He is not above cooking his numbers, as he has done in the list of mass shootings in non gun free zones that started this whole debacle.