ot: the mass shooting elephant in the room.

Read this instead, you supercilious, pretentious, mouth- breathing, knuckle dragger:

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

Well said.

One might also ponder that for two generations children do not regularly work, have no responsibilities, are incessantly praised without any real achievement. Many do not even accept the yoke of adult responsibilities at 18. Or

1. Or 30...

Yes, the victims of mental deficiency and of psychiatric drugs probably cannot but even more, as Bartleby, "would prefer not to".

FDA approved drugs to treat so-called 'mental illness'

Yep.

There are many drugs on the market that have side effects of violent and sucidial behavior. Every one of these shooters has been on one or more of them or records are sealed so we can never know what they were on.

There is nothing in it for the powers to be go after the drugs. Worse there's something to lose by going after them. Going after the guns on the other hand has numerous benefits for them.

psychiatry is an arm of the state Look up Dr. Thomas Szasz if you're interested. The new psychiatry manual that is due out soon apparently will make it possible to declare anyone as being mentally ill and thus subject to drugging and worse.

You might want to consider all the people murdered in home invasions and other crimes that exploded in Australia after the gun ban.

BTW Read this:

No gun required.

>

It's your point. Why don't YOU research it instead, provide some documentation as to its reality and causation, if any, and get back to me.

Correlation does not imply causation

And yet you just presented Australia's stricter gun law as a cause for the lack of similar massacres since....

>>

It's well known amungst those who understand the Australia gun ban at even a cursory level. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had at least some clue and weren't someone who was just copying and pasting stuff from his political 'team'.

And yet correlation is the basis of your claim. Since you have invalidated your own claim, I need not spend any more time on this.

>> >> hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html >> >

You clearly either suffer from severe reading comprehension issues or simply didn't even attempt to read the Slate article that provided substantiation via numerous quoted studies.

>>>

You clearly either suffer from severe reading comprehension issues or simply didn't even attempt to read the Slate article that provided substantiation via numerous quoted studies.

And again: You clearly either suffer from severe reading comprehension issues or simply didn't even attempt to read the Slate article that provided substantiation via numerous quoted studies.

Yes your bullshit pretense has been so severly trumped that I can understand how such a craven coward would believe that he had no choice but to quickly flee from yet another lambasting.

Quote something relevant.

YOU are the one who noted that correlation doesn't imply causation.

>> >> >> t_s

You too are undoubtedly and inarguably a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging poseur if you can't simply and easily locate conspicuously glaring, multiple links in the article itself that quote supporting studies.

Sorry, but it is not my job to look through your sources.

If what you claimed was there wasn't, I could look through it all and say so, and you could simply claim I hadn't looked hard enough.

If you claim there is something in there that shows causation as opposed to correlation, let's see a quote.

Do your own homework, I've spoonfed you not only enough already, but much more than you're worth or your brain-dead responses could begin to warrant.

Sorry, but it is YOUR homework to do.

And just FYI, there was a mass shooting in Australia after the gun laws were passed:

You've quite obviously confused me for someone who could care less about your opinion, what you believe ...

I'm afraid you have that in reverse.

I don't care about YOUR opinions. You want to show facts, that's a different story, but for some reason, you don't.

That is revealing... ...and not just to me.

:-)

Well? That's not an opinion, now is it?

>>>>

I really don't have much faith in slate, so I didn't read it. However it does not matter how many studies they cited, in the end you are left with the idea that there have been no such events after 1996 and it's correlated with the gun ban. Now what constitutes a similar event is a big part of it too.

Now let us look at your own cite, where it states suicides by gun dropped, well so that's to be expected. Duh. Does not say others didn't increase. The study itself regarding a decrease in murders is behind a pay wall and sourced unread by the slate author from "Wonkblog".

Furthermore your own cite states there have been studies showing that the gun ban had no effect on the homicide rate as it was just a continuation of previously existing trends. Of course it deomonizes the study as being done by people who are 'pro-gun', while of course 'anti-gun' folks are completely unbiased. This is the kind of thing that makes me not really trust stuff in Slate. Anyway they use the term 'gun related'. Well of course, if alcohol were banned again there would be less drunk driving, right? Make it harder enough to get, you get less of it. But the thing is, what do you get instead?

Ultimately your cite of Slate concludes that correlation is all there is. After all the studies it cites second hand were done to show a correlation. So after all your blathering, all you ultimately have if everything turns out to be on the up and up from the pro-ban studies cited by Slate, is correlation.

You should stop projecting. Your own cite states that it is correlation based and then you decided to take the line that correlation is not causation. True. However by doing so you invalidated your own argument and your cite. Congradulations.

You throughly destroyed your own argument. Therefore you lost. It's over. Since correlation is not causation your cite which relies on summaries of studies trying to show a (strong)correlation is now irrelevant by standard of proof you set.

Furthermore your producing this article against the argument that drugs cause these violent acts in some people is nonsensical. The gun-grabbers can get their dream in the USA and then these people who become demented on these drugs use axes or kitchen knives. Do you really think a class room of toddlers can fight off a fully grown man armed with a sword? No. Masscares of defenseless people happened long before firearms were invented. You would have to show that Australians are using these very same drugs in high enough numbers to see the outlier side effects but don't.

The article, which you have demonstrated proof positive that unlike even a retarded 10 year old in a hurry, you're wholly incapable of reading and comprehending, clearly states and provides supporting studies replete with documentation, that "similar massacres" (one need not have read any further than the headline for that conspicuous point alone) have been greatly reduced. Notwithstanding your pathetically feeble, pretentious allusion and attempts at misdirection otherwise, no claim whatsoever has been made by anyone involved that all murders or suicides have been altogether eliminated.

>>>>>

Once someone freely admits to being a liar and bullshit artist, there's really no further point in continuing a dialog with them.