“The third mass murder by gunfire in Australia since they passed their extreme gun laws in 1997.”
You mean to say that the bad guy didn’t turn in his gun like the good guys do????? Shocked, I say, I’m shocked. Sarcasm....intended. Goes to show you the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
“The third mass murder by gunfire in Australia since they passed their extreme gun laws in 1997.”
You mean to say that the bad guy didn’t turn in his gun like the good guys do????? Shocked, I say, I’m shocked. Sarcasm....intended. Goes to show you the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
No guns = No crime!
(Dumbasses)
Oh, wait....
I’d love to live in a country that only had three mass shootings in 22 years. If anything, this is red meat for the gun grabbers, not a repudiation.
The thing is, you shouldn’t need to pick a single data point out of the pack to prove a logical point. The mass gun confiscation in Australia was admittedly performed as an emotional act and likely it made a negligible change in shooting deaths since mass shootinns were already quite rare and a lot of people still kept their guns, particularly the criminal class.
Australia had a low rate of shootings to start with because it’s a big place with not too many people living there. Australia is practically the same size as the continental US and has less than 1/10th of the population. The population isn’t nearly as stratified ethnically as the US, and even though school shootings get the lions share of the press, most mass shootings occur in high crime and economically depressed areas filled with drugs and corrupt democrat-led government. Even if there were as many shots fired per capita, there aren’t nearly as many targets and they’re more spaced out.
Sorry if I missed it, but how many “mass shootings” (define, please) did they have before 199y?
I understand that the Port Arthur shooting was a false flag, and suspect that the recent Christ Church NZ one was, too.
The Buff Club? Is that like Man’s Country?
It appears people are more afraid of a mass killer than a serial killer who will rack up a bigger score over a longer period of time.
Go figure.
How long until Trump thinks this is a grand idea, like banning bumpstocks, suppressors, and supporting red flag laws?
That's incorrect.
There are what I would consider valid statistical and criminological reasons for the claim that Australia did not suffer a single gunman spree killing between 1996 and 2019 - and that is the actual claim made, although it's sometimes simplified to 'no mass shootings' , but even if you discount those reasons, this is not the third such incident.
It's the fifth.
Oakhampton Heights, New South Wales, 20th March 2005 - Sally Winters shoots dead her husband and two children before killing herself (three murders, four fatalities (including the perpetrator)).
Hectorville, South Australia, 29th April 2011 - Donato Corbo shot and killed three people and wounded three others in an attack on his neighbours, and subsequent siege by police. (Three murders, three woundings, perpetrator arrested).
Lockhart, New South Wales, 9th September 2014 - Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife and three children before killing himself (four murders, five fatalities (including the perpetrator))
Osmington, Western Australia, 11th May 2019 - Peter Miles shot and killed his wife, granddaughter, and four great grandchildren, before killing himself (six murders, seven fatalities (including the perpetrator))
I actually do think there are reasons why the Australian statistic is cited the way it is - none of the above were spree killings and that is what the Australian statistic relates to even if some people misrepresent it by simplifying it in their reports - but if you're going to use the measure I think you are using (and I think I'm interpreting you correctly - and it is a valid and truthful position), then you should probably be talking about four previous incidents not two.
Note - I am not including in this the Monash University Shootings, because only two were killed, the Wedderburn Shootings, because only two were shot and killed on that occasion, although a third victim was murdered by stabbing, or the Moorabbin Police Murders, because only two were shot and killed - none of those reach the (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) definition of three shot and killed, that is used to define a mass killing. There could also be other cases where two were shot and killed that I am not aware of.