Did she say what you say she said? If so, quote it.

"Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres." (at the end of the story)

freeman2 wrote:"Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres." (at the end of the story)

Any fair interpretation would include Britain. Has there been a massacre since the limitations on guns there?

It might have been accurate for Great Britain but it wasn't true with regard to Australia and that sentence implied it was true with regard to both.

freeman2 wrote:"Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres." (at the end of the story)

Her points are true as far as they go. Gun crime and violence still happens in those countries and the decreases are nominal. Additionally, there are still large number massacres. Are there less, yes but do the stil happen. Yes. Therefore, she is correct when she says that complete bans do not stop them.

You may not agree with her findings because there are less mass killings. However, there could be other reasons for that as well.

I respectfully disagree, Archduke. I think she was being intentionally misleading. Instead of saying after stricter gun control there were no mass shootings in the last 16 years she cites a study in 2003 claiming that there was a modest reduction in massacres (but massacres are defined as only being 4 indiscriminate homicides). She notes that the massacres involved knifes, gas or arson and not firearms. I think equating these homicides with someone killing 35 people is ridiculous. At the very least there should be the admission that mass shootings have been eliminated but there are much less severe multiple homicides that are occurring ( I cannot tell whether these non fire-arm multiple homicides had gone up or down after stricter gun control was instituted; she should have discussed this point, indicated by how much and clearly if they did not go up then her citing this statistic as evidence that the gun regulations did not prevent massacres is ludicrous)
She also failed to note that while firearm homicides had declined before stricter gun control the rate had accelerated after stricter gun regulation ( she cites a study indicating that the firearm homicide continued its modest decline)
No, I don't believe her characterization of what happened in Australia is acceptable.

freeman2 wrote:"Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres." (at the end of the story)

It might have been accurate for Great Britain but it wasn't true with regard to Australia and that sentence implied it was true with regard to both.(emphasis added)

Um, no.

She made her argument that the people of Australia aren't "safer" by arguing that assaults and sexual assaults are up substantially. That point is arguable, since homicides are down 9% and robberies are down.

However, the "nor have they prevented massacres" means if there is even ONE in EITHER country she is right. She did not say, "nor have they prevented massacres in either country," or you would be correct. (I suppose one could make the argument there need to be two, but that would not mean there has to have been one in Australia, but that is arguable either way).

Now, is it wordsmithing? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes.

[url]For example:[/url]

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

archduke

Her points are true as far as they go. Gun crime and violence still happens in those countries and the decreases are nominal. Additionally, there are still large number massacres. Are there less, yes but do the still happen. Yes. Therefore, she is correct when she says that complete bans do not stop them.

Her story is an "editorial". It derives its information from other sources, which she distorts in her interpretation.
The study I linked and which I posted the summary of is an academic study of the results of the gun ban in Australia.
In Australia there have been no mass shootings in 10.5 years after the ban came into effect, according to the study.
Since the aim of the ban was to end mass shootings, the Australian ban has been successful.

Is it possible to replicate that result elsewhere? Possibly, but in a country like the US, probably not. To begin with the problem is much bigger in the US. Mass shootings are a common occurrence now, and gun violence is the worst in the developed world.
Is it possible, with a ban and effective policing to eliminate many of the mass shootings? Would a ban and effective enforcement reduce the frequency of mass shootings, or indeed the frequency of gun violence.?
The answer has to be yes. The correlation between the presence of such weapons and events is too high to even countenance a different result in the long run... It would not be perfect, for a lot of the reasons Tom and Fate point to... but it would be better...
However, If the opposition to such a ban is that better isn't good enough only perfect will do ..... I find that irrational.
In almost any circumstance, a person facing risk, would choose better odds if the cost wasn't too great. (I'll buckle my seat belt in the car, because it improves my chances in an accident, and because I definitely avoid a ticket for not doing so...)
The question is not, can a ban make an improvement in the frequency of mass shootings.... The question is, would the improvement be worth the cost?
One cost appears to be highly questionable. Contribution to crime prevention. Non-gun Crime rates appear to be the same in the US, or worse, than in nations where automatic and semi automatic weapons are not allowed.And the idea that armed citizens will short circuit a mass shooter, is contradicted by evidence. Its never happened. And the counter argument that armed citizens will generate more damage through impulsive use of firearms then they ever prevent... (They knew this even in Tombstone where cowboys had their guns confiscated upon entering town.)
The other cost is the question of liberty. Is the cost of some people not being allowed to enjoy the freedom to own, carry and fire semi and automatic weapons worth the benefit of the reduction in mass shootings?
When people adjudge this balance after the event of Sandy Hook, I'm surprised that more people aren't making this case.
I'm certain that many people who were saddened by the events at Sandy Hook, can imagine themselves being in a position to intervene in a similar situation and I'm sure most would like to believe they would have been willing to risk themselves to save innocent children in a similar circumstance...
But when asked if they would give up the liberty to carry arms even if it would reduce future incidents many, or most, are unwilling... (as, for example, Bbauska has admitted) .
Its a curious equation.

Mass shootings are a common occurrence?
Yep, we read about them every day, first we check the ball game scores, check the weather, clip some coupons and then sort through the daily mass shootings ...well, that's how most Americans start their day I suppose?
Well, FIRST we clean our guns, THEN we read about the mass shootings of the day

She argued that strict gun laws have not prevented massacres. For that to be true, she has to prove that the laws did not the reduce the number of massacres (whether firearm related or not).I went back and found that study she relied on. http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_v ... os_2003.pd

The study found that there were 6 non fire-arm related mass homicides from 1989-1990 to 1996-1997 (prior to the ban)and 4 after the ban from
1996-1997 to 2000-2001. So it looks like 6 non firearm massacres in 7 years and either 4 in 4 years or 4 in 5 years after the ban. In any case, the non fire-arm related massacres stayed roughly the same while gun-related massacres have been eliminated. If non gun related massacres had gone up to replace gun-related massacres, you might could make the argument that massacres have not been prevented by stricter gun laws ( it still would not be really valid without an extended discussion but it might be technically true). Here, her statement that Australia's strict gun laws did not prevent massacres is untrue no matter how much you word-smith it
Here is a discussion from Harvard regarding the effect of Australia's stricter gun laws.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... g_2011.pdf

Would that discussion from Harvard be an editorial?

I would guess that RickyP discounts the validity there also...

freeman2 wrote:She argued that strict gun laws have not prevented massacres. For that to be true, she has to prove that the laws did not the reduce the number of massacres

Here we go again. Let's look at the two sentences and see if they conflict:

1. She argued that strict gun laws have not prevented massacres.

2. For that to be true, she has to prove that the laws did not the reduce the number of massacres

If "prevent" is a synonym of "reduce," you've got a case. However, looking at the fuller quote, you wrote "have not prevented massacres." That would mean there cannot be even one. If there is one, then massacres "have not (been) prevented." There was one.

"Prevent" means to stop something, or to attempt to do so, not to "reduce the number of (some incident)."

Imagine a system designed to "prevent" burglary. If one occurred, would it be a successful prevention measure?

No.

Actually, I think you have the meaning almost reverse of what the sentence signifies. She states that gun laws have not prevented massacres. Well, let's assume without gun laws there would 10 massacres in 10 years and with gun laws there would be 5 massacres in ten years. In that scenario gun laws would have prevented massacres, five of them to be exact. Your interpretation would be correct only if she said gun laws have not prevented ALL massacres.
Have a nice, linguistic day...

And in any case even under your interpretation it would be a misleading thing for her to say. In a story about the ineffectiveness of gun laws she is going to argue that Australia's gun laws should have to get rid of not just all gun massacres but all non-gun massacres to be effective? it doesn't make any sense. Based on her previous cite that massacres had only been modestly reduced, I think it is fairly clear that she was saying that the gun laws did not reduce the overall number of massacres and she was not trying to say that they failed to totally prevent all massacres.

freeman2 wrote:Actually, I think you have the meaning almost reverse of what the sentence signifies. She states that gun laws have not prevented massacres. Well, let's assume without gun laws there would 10 massacres in 10 years and with gun laws there would be 5 massacres in ten years. In that scenario gun laws would have prevented massacres, five of them to be exact. Your interpretation would be correct only if she said gun laws have not prevented ALL massacres.
Have a nice, linguistic day...

If there's one massacre, massacres have not been "prevented."

You're using what you wrote. Let's go back to what she wrote:

"Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres."

So, her claims are that the people of Britain and Australia are not noticeably safer--violent crime, overall, is fairly similar. And, she claims massacres have not been prevented.

I think it's clear she's saying a massacre, or more, has taken place.

You say she has it backward. You say if 5 may have, theoretically, been expected, but only one takes place, four have been prevented.

I say you not only have her meaning upside down, but you've tried to establish something via projection.

How many Newtown school-like massacres will be prevented by the Feinstein bill? If you can answer that with a number and give a rationale, I'll not only agree with you, but I'll sign on to whatever gun ban you like.

In other words, you can't.

No laws other than a ban would have stopped that shooting.