Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

[SlayerRondo]

starcraft said:

SlayerRondo said:

Aielyn said:
Clearly it can't be the fault of the NRA pushing so hard to deregulate the industry and get guns into the hands of more people, right?

That's why Australia's massacre rate has skyrocketed since the Port Arthur Massacre that triggered the massive gun buyback scheme and dramatic increase of gun control here that was implemented by a conservative government...

Oh, right. Since that gun control introduction, there has been a total of ONE gun massacre in Australia. In nearly 20 years. With that one happening more than 12 years ago. Here's the list of years in which gun massacres happened in Australia in recent history: 1984, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2002... and none since then.

Is it that we Australians are inherently less bloodthirsty than Americans? Or is it that gun control actually works, when it's applied across an entire country rather than having a different law in each state allowing those with intent to massacre being able to just cross state lines to get hold of the guns they'll use?

Yes, to hell with facts. What's important here is that those who like guns and want more of them out there are being unfairly slandered, while those evil liberals are getting off scot free when they should be attacked all-out for their abuse of 'facts'.

Are you seriously claiming that liberals do not often during gun control discussions, misrepresent the facts and make emotional arguments as opposed to reasoned ones?

Also gun deaths were already on the decline before the gun control laws were introduced in Australia in 1997.

Gun Deaths in Australia 1987 = 569

Gun Deaths in Australia 1997 = 333  Ten Year Deline = 236

Gun Deaths in Australia 2007 = 190  Ten Year Decline = 143

Australian Bereau of Statistics (ABS). Causes of Death publication series

Australia is just a more peacefull country than America is.

Whilst that is true, it was due to a lower prevelance of guns to begin with.  And that was due to individual states tightening gun laws before the Federal Government did - you just proved Aielyn's point.

Every credible study ever undertaken demonstrates that all things being equal, less guns in society leads to less gun-related crime. The fact that criminals will break laws doesn't remove the need for effective gun control - thats about as sensible as labelling terrorism a crime 'because terrorists will still carry out acts of terror.'

Many of the same studies indicate that gun control needs to be an ongoing initiative and targeted against crime trends.  Banning handguns has consistently proven to be one of the most effective long-term reductors of gun-related death.

The NRA and its affiliates are a politically savvy group.  But pretending that their views on gun control have any grounding in scientific consensus, letalone scientific fact, is ridiculous.  Of all the Western nations, the pro-gun lobby is far and away the strongest in the USA.  It is no accident that gun-deaths per head of population are also sky high.  Argue your rights all you want.  Donate to the political cause all you want.  But don't pretend that an appalling lack of gun control doesn't play a major part, not just in the massacres we see like this one, but in the ridiculously enormous number of day to day (hour to hour) gun deaths in America.  At the end of the day, the science doesn't just fail to support that notion, it blatantly opposes it.

And because everyone loves a graph, here is that per-head-of-population I was talking about:

And I would attribute the deaths not to gun availibility but other causes such as cultural differences, the war on drugs and damage caused to the lower classes by the governments interventionsit policies.