Time to follow the Australian example, where gun deaths have halved since 1996.

The story.

On 28 April 1996 Australia happened one of Australia's history's bloodiest mass murders. 28-year-old Martin Bryant, who later were diagnosed with mental disabilities, opened unprovoked fire at a cafe in Port Arthur. He killed 35 and injured another 23.
The policy response was immediate. Stricter gun laws were passed, and for a year the government bought 650,000 weapons declared illegal - including semi and fully automatic rifles and shotguns - from private individuals. In parallel instituted a weapons amnesty that allowed individuals could submit an illegal and unregistered weapons without risking prosecution.
Australia then did exactly what the US arms lobby opposes. The result was a sharp reduction in lethal violence in the country.

Janne...

It's not The Gun Lobby. Just a different Culture.

Those who will fight any attempt at Gun Confiscation, at necessary Gun Point:

Are the families of those in The US Military and Police.

Understand why it will not work.

Because the US Military and the Police will obey the law, if it is put in place to ban them.

And if they don't it would just again proves the US is not a civilised country.

well Gary lets see how the ratio goes in say 6 months . The Paris attack took 10 terrorists and seeing as 89 where in just one place I would say that attack is quiet different from what you are seeing in the states . France is a lot easy to get to than the U.S . So comparing France to the U.S is not the same . Compare Australia to the U.S is more correct as it's harder for the terrorist to get into both our country's .

But lets see how many more attacks in your country will occur and what the body count and ratio is then .

Compare the mass shootings in your country over the last 12 months to France and the body count is higher and so is the ratio .

I expect for every lone wolf attack in your country you will see at least 10 -15 dead I don't think you will see that in France . And you wont see it in Australia that's for shore

oh 7 terrorist where killed on the day of the attack 2 or 3 more at the house and 1 still on the lose . I wonder what would have happened if there had been 10 terrorists in 1 attack in the states a lot more than what happened in France i'll bet you . Ratio in France 12 to 1 and it took a major attack not 2 separate attacks and only 3 terrorists and the ratio so far is 6 to 1 and they where not major attacks

So far 2 attacks in France 139 dead and 12 attackers ratio 11.5 to 1 and both where planned attacks , in your country only 1 was planned really as this one seems to be more about revenge and not a planned and financially back attack like in France so what would the Ratio be if there where planned and backed by ISIS ? your already at 6 to 1 for unplanned not financially backed lone wolf attacks

Just wake up and get rid off the Assault rifles and do what your chief says make it very hard for these to occur . You will never stop all killing with guns but you can reduce it by 95% and still have the right to bear arms .

If it keeps going you will lose that right . AS more and more realise the cost is to high for a few to have there toys and that is what they are Adult toys

---

in your country only 1 was planned really as this one seems to be more about revenge and not a planned and financially back attack like in France so what would the Ratio be if there where planned and backed by ISIS ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-attackers-tried-to-cover-their-tracks-official-says/

One of the two people involved in the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, the clearest indication yet that this was an act of terrorism, according to two law enforcement officials.

The officials said Tashfeen Malik, 27, the Pakistani wife of the other shooter, made the statement on a Facebook page. It’s not immediately clear when she posted the declaration referring to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the terrorist group that says it has established a caliphate in Syria and Iraq.

Won't surprise anyone to find out ISIL is busy brainwashing the girls who are coming from western countries to return home and radicalize their new hubbies into being terrorists. Just like inserting a spy into another country cold war style.

---

Another attack on Wednesday morning in California.


Attacks like these are the scariest since the perpetrators up til Wednesday were thought to be likeable Muslim citizens.http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Are There More Arrogant Preachy AssHoles in Australia, Canada, UK per Million than in U S of A?

Yep.

'It' 'Is' Better to Be Un-Civilised.

Yup

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

So 2 terrorist attacks and the body count is 23 dead and 3 terrorists dead , not a bad kill ratio .

What was the kill ratio in France, where guns are banned?

Guns are not banned in France but:

Gun license are only issued to those who have special reasons, such as hunting or shooting interests, and only after a background check of criminal records and mental health.

The US.

According to a disputed clause in the US Constitution the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is not restricted. The laws vary from state to state. In 33 of the country's 50 states no background are required to check in order to buy weapons. In the most liberal states like Alaska and Idaho, the authorities are forbidden to keep records of who owns firearms.

Let's say the US adopt a law similar to France.
Would there be less mass shootings?
Don't think so.

Alaska and Idaho are GOP (red) states. They are not liberal.

So 2 terrorist attacks and the body count is 23 dead and 3 terrorists dead , not a bad kill ratio .

What was the kill ratio in France, where guns are banned?

Guns are not banned in France but:

Gun license are only issued to those who have special reasons, such as hunting or shooting interests, and only after a background check of criminal records and mental health.

The US.

According to a disputed clause in the US Constitution the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is not restricted. The laws vary from state to state. In 33 of the country's 50 states no background are required to check in order to buy weapons. In the most liberal states like Alaska and Idaho, the authorities are forbidden to keep records of who owns firearms.

Let's say the US adopt a law similar to France.
Would there be less mass shootings?
Don't think so.

Alaska and Idaho are GOP (red) states. They are not liberal.

OK. I rephrase:)
In Alaska and Idaho, the authorities are forbidden to keep records of who owns firearms.
Alaska

The US state of Alaska has very permissive gun laws, and very few regulations regarding the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition compared to those in most of the continental United States

Idaho
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Idaho

Whatever.
So far this year there have been 353 mass shootings in the United States. Here they are.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/2015-the-year-in-mass-shootings-20151203
Mass shooting is defined as when 4 people or more are either killed or injured in the same event.

Alaska and Idaho are GOP (red) states. They are not liberal.

He meant liberal in the sense of permissive.

---

Alaska and Idaho are GOP (red) states. They are not liberal.

He meant liberal in the sense of permissive.

Oh, I see. Still, I don't think the GOP would take well to being called liberals (that which they despise).

Alaska and Idaho are GOP (red) states. They are not liberal.

He meant liberal in the sense of permissive.

Oh, I see. Still, I don't think the GOP would take well to being called liberals (that which they despise).

I think they do:)
https://www.gop.com/
Black Republican Activists
GOP Hispanics
RNC Women
GOP Faith
Asian Pacific Americans
GOP Millennials
Veterans & Military Families

Are There More Arrogant Preachy AssHoles in Australia, Canada, UK per Million than in U S of A?

Yep.

'It' 'Is' Better to Be Un-Civilised.

Yup

Yup I agree better to be un-Civilised and then just think my country can be guilty of

Mass murder in the health system

Mass shooting every couple of weeks

Debts we can't pay

Have our pensions stolen so bad politicians can just spend money they don't have and is not there's by way of BONDS

Where if you can't get a job (GFC) your left with few options and will probably mean you will turn to crime

Yep being un-civilised is great can't wait for it to happen .

Na it wont we actually use our brains and aren't sheep and do what ever is the in thing attitude to do .

Plus we control our poly's as we actually vote for them and don't leave it to others to make decisions for us at all levels of government including our constitution

Can you make this statement about your country mmmmm no you can't . Forrest Gump principle is the norm over your way .

Back at ya !! Gooba hehehehehe

---

Are There More Arrogant Preachy AssHoles in Australia, Canada, UK per Million than in U S of A?
Yep.
'It' 'Is' Better to Be Un-Civilised.
Yup

Yup I agree better to be un-Civilised and then just think my country can be guilty of
Mass murder in the health system
Mass shooting every couple of weeks
Debts we can't pay
Have our pensions stolen so bad politicians can just spend money they don't have and is not there's by way of BONDS
Where if you can't get a job (GFC) your left with few options and will probably mean you will turn to crime
Yep being un-civilised is great can't wait for it to happen .
Na it wont we actually use our brains and aren't sheep and do what ever is the in thing attitude to do .
Plus we control our poly's as we actually vote for them and don't leave it to others to make decisions for us at all levels of government including our constitution
Can you make this statement about your country mmmmm no you can't . Forrest Gump principle is the norm over your way .
Back at ya !! Gooba hehehehehe

Glenn.
At very least you have Blakforce:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ8iAjhiJNk

BTW: 'Mass' killings, per percentage of total population:
Is lower in The USA, and using your definition of Uncivilized, than the following Countries. Which would then be considered more Uncivilized than The USA.
Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland.
Note: Since Belgium is just under the USA percentage of population killed in Mass Shootings. I would also place them in your Uncivilized Category.

Looks like you read this Clyde.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359
For heavens sake. Have you not listened to what Mark Twain said?

The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims.

In Norway Breivik shot 69 people to death in a couple of hours.
But Norway have had only that one mass shooting in 15 years!
Mass shootings between 2000-14 sorted by fatality rate.
Norway 1
Finland 2
Switzerland 1
United States 133
Israel 2
Germany 6

There's a simple enough answer that doesn't require gun control. Just restrict the supply & sale of ammunition...

...bet it wouldn't be long before that old chesnut crops up: - "But that will be putting jobs at risk".

Jann thanks for that , I haven't seen that show bloody funny as , takes the pee outa the American show Cops . "Bad boys bad boys what you gona do , what you gona do when they come for you "

I'll have to make a note to watch it on Wednesday

---

UK somehow manages fifth successive year with no mass shootings

---

Reality Internet Personality

UK somehow manages fifth successive year with no mass shootings

edited to work

No. One mass shooting in a year would in most civilised countries be an unusual event. In the US ONLY one mass shooting per day would be an improvement.
___________________________________

What most of the gun supports don't understand, is that if you have something, you will use it.

example 1.
Visit widowed mother-in-law, some kitchen cupboard doors and handles are loose.
If you have screwdriver available, you fix it.
If no screwdriver available you promise to bring screwdriver next time, but probably don't, because out of sight, out of mind.

example 2.
You live out in the country and at 6 pm find a necessary ingredient for cooking dinner has been used earlier by sons, there is no late opening local shop.
If you have a car, take quick trip to local town and purchase necessary item, dinner is served a little late.
If you don't have a car, make something else.

What happens when you can carry a gun.

example 1.
Someone insults you in a bar after you have had one too many, not being brave enough to give insulter a slap, you draw gun and shoot him and several others.
Guns banned, everybody usually lives.

example 2.
A family member is depressed.
Gun in house, easy way one, shots oneself.
No gun in house, eventually someone else notices and depressed person is taken to get help.

Therefore there is only one answer.

BAN the GUNS.

As that link by Es says, no mass killings for over a year is impossible says the gun lobby. The US should try in sometime. It's great.

Looks like you read this Clyde.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

Janne...
No.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/
As you will see: Rampage Shooting Fatalities (2009-2013) Per 1,000,000 (updated to 2014)
Places The USA #6 in the world. With Belgium right behind.
I fail to understand why Totals, and not Percentages of Populations, are used in this discussion of Mass Shootings.
Lets' say were we comparing two towns:
Town Alfa, with a population of 1000, has 4 fatalities (One Mass Shooting), over a time period.
Town Beta, with a population of 10,000, has 8 fatalities (Two Mass Shootings), over the same period.
It is Illogical to believe Town Beta is TWICE as dangerous, to any individual, regarding Mass Shootings.
Percentage, not Totals, is what matters.
Edit: It would be Intellectually Interesting, and More Instructive, to total the Western European Countries numbers, and compare them to The USA.

I have seen that article you refer too as well.
It doesn't change the fact that you cannot draw any conclusion from the data. You need more samples to do that.
That Norway and Finland are now very "dangerous" places is not true as far as I know.
The Norway "statistic" case is all about Anders Breivik!

Your Edit:
It would be interesting to compare US state numbers with EU numbers.
I'm convinced you will see a pattern.

No. One mass shooting in a year would in most civilised countries be an unusual event. In the US ONLY one mass shooting per day would be an improvement.

Deal with it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously. The rate of murder and manslaughter excluding negligence reached an apex in 1980, according to the FBI. That year, there were 10.8 willful killings per 100,000 people. Although not a perfect measure of the overall rate of gun violence, the decline in the rate of murder and manslaughter is suggestive: Two in three homicides these days are committed with guns.

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

More and more guns but less people dying. Your theory about less guns means less deaths seems to have a datum that doesn't fit and it doesn't seem to be experimental error either. Toss the theory is the correct scientific method response.

---