Summations Only

Hello Percy,I thought I might provide a link to a video that might help illustrate your point about 'criminal advantage.' ABC News

I have to respectfully disagree. Gun control regulations can reduce the incidences of mass killings, though they will never completely eliminate accidents or murders. A prime example of this is what happened in Australia after a 1996 mass shooting. In the 15 years after the gun-control measures were put into effect, there has not been a mass shooting in Australia. Not only that but homicides declined by 59%, suicides by 69%, while robberies using a gun dropped significantly and home invasions did not increase.

Complete BS. Being an 'open question' doesn't mean that the tools are NOT expected to work in the Us. It means that the writer thinks that there could be a debate on whether the tools would work or not.Unless you believe that Americans are somehow a special breed of humanity with cultural values that are not shared with many others. That is just your opinion and is not backed up by research. I agree that we need to change the mindset. I would start with the mindset that says having a gun buyback program and strict regulation of guns will not work with 'Americans.'

Thank you for the information on the Monash University shooting. If we include that in the statistics as a 'mass-shooting' (which it could very well have become) then that would be one mass-shooting, in the last 16 years. If we compare the previous decade's 11 mass shootings, from the time of the 1996 gun law, to the next decade's 1 mass shooting after the law took effect, then I think we can consider that statistically significant in regards to the effect that the gun law had on mass shootings. It should also be pointed out that the Australian government instituted more regulations in response to the Monash University shooting.Why you included arson in the discussion is confusing, and though I might speculate I would rather you tie it into the discussion than me trying to put words into your mouth. Do you have links to the data? I am curious where you got your data as my literature research did not show any statistically significant increase in gun crime after the gun law went into effect. It does show a steady decline in the use of firearms in robberies, starting from 1997, the year the gun law went into effect. (Notice figure 1 on page 2.) (I might also add that it was not an outright gun ban as you seem to imply. Rather it was a ban on only some types of firearms.)

Do you think that having a knife gives you the same ability to inflict a mass-killing as a firearm?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a prohibition on private ownership, but rather a set of regulations that would look similar to those implemented by the U.K. and Australia.As far as guns making people safe, I would point to this paper. and this paperpaper.If you'd like to see a more comprehensive list.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : Added additional literature.

Cops and civilians do get training, but in order for the cop to be an effective and safe user of a gun they need to renew their training every 2 months or less. Being able to distinguish between a criminal and a law abiding citizen or fellow cop in a firefight requires constant training and so does being able to fire the gun at the target. Iirc, the average is 1 bullet out of 5 hitting it's target in a firefight for a trained cop.The ability to react properly (mentally and physically) and safely fades away in at least 2 months, if not continued.You seem to be in the mistaken impression that a civilian, with a concealed weapon permit, will be able to react as well as a cop that undergoes constant training.

Could you not entertain the notion that the 'jeer' might be in response to what the 'jeerer' believes is a flawed argument. Jeers aren't just for showing disapproval for a lack of civility.Not that it matters, but I very rarely 'jeer' anyone and never for a perceived lack of civility. If I do jeer or cheer something I have read, it is for my belief in the strength of the argument.