Summations Only

It does.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

A baseless claim for your first sentence.
Not a good start. If you being honest is you saying something that is untrue, then your need to try harder.Anyway... Australia banned guns and gun deaths went down dramatically.
You have not shown otherwise.Do you think that a gun ban would produce an instant reduction?
I think it would take several years at least.
How long do you think it should take?(I realise that you have a history of not answering questions - but repeatedly asking them makes that more obvious to others.)
...and still no link to a burglar being paid compensation. I'll add that to the list of your baseless claims.

Well, we know from Australia that society was improved by banning guns and people didn't try harder to get guns.Your analogy is proved wrong by reality.

But, as usual, you avoid the actual point of this thread: gun deaths were greatly reduced.
Gun deaths. Not car deaths. Not drug deaths. Not crime rates. Not homicides.
GUN deaths (or firearm homicides and firearm suicides if that helps you).http://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-control-work-in-australia

quote:

---

...Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

---

quote:

---

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study 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.

---

People that know what they are talking about disagree with you.

I don't recognize this text from anyone else's post, but you attribute it to someone. Can you show me where they made this remark?

Clearly, not you.
Fuck those kids, right? They weren't.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Oh, I see: no-one said it.
Strange that you think it is relevant then.Carry on...

I'll let you work it out yourself.
Your greater experience of posting them makes you more more of an expert than I.

Wrong.
Try again.

Wrong.
Try again.

I agree that the Patriot Act (from the small amount about it I have read) is morally questionable at best.But what effect has the ability to bear arms had on it?
(This is not rhetorical. I don't know the answer, and there was no mention of guns or arms on the Wiki page.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

They are good questions, though.

The document you linked has dubious content.
When you get time to read it, I doubt you will be impressed.
.

quote:

---

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact[sic] of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates.

---

Conspiracy much?
.

quote:

---

Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.

---

The number of firearms held by civilians in Russia is ~12,750,000.
1 in 10 Russian civilians own a gun.
(I am unable to find out how many murders in Russia involved guns, despite a thorough search. It appears Russia does not publish those numbers.)
.

quote:

---

Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.

---

That is completely made up - it even argues against itself: the last sentence contradicts the first.
.

quote:

---

America remained very well armed yet homicide remained quite low for over two hundred years, from the earliest settlements through the entire colonial period and early years of the United States.

---

That is because killing blacks, chinese or native americans was not considered homicide.
Not that I believe that there are any statistics available - and the article provided none.
.The amount of erroneous, flawed or baseless claims in your link is too much to be covered in one reply.
The document is nothing more than an 'opinion piece' disguised to look like a real research paper.
The authors' bias is showing.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Perhaps I should link Faith the video of Americans commenting on how well Obama/Romney did in their 2nd live debate....1 day before the 2nd debate was due to happen.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

We had hoped that data about gun deaths and gun homicides would have successfully conveyed the cause of death.
But it seems to have been too difficult for you to work out. Yeah.
Property is more important than people's lives.
That is what Jesus teaches, yes?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.