Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
When did you have one previous to that?
|
"In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded (table 1Go).8 In the 10.5 years since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."
18 mass killings in the 13 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre. 0 since. Telling statistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin3
So you're saying that prior to that event, when guns were still legal there was no mass killing. But one event is enough to enact a law?
Even though in a previous post you used the arguement that
.....
So when that statistic fits your side of the argument is suddenly does become worth talking about.  |
Read above. There were other spree/mass killings. I wasn't aware of them, to be honest. Certainly none were nearly as large. So my statement was misinformed. But read my response to Eric. The data regarding previous spree killings only supports the gun control arguement even further.
A spree killing is not some minor fluctuation in the homicide rate because it is not a regular homicide. Very few murders happen for no reason. There's usually a motivation. Personal malice. A disagreement. Some sort of conflict. When someone goes out and kills 35 people because he's fucked in the head, that is a whole other ball game.