The industry financially supporting the NRA doesn't mean the NRA "work for" the industry. Obviously you disagree and that's fine.

"You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you?"

Yeah, 4 posts up from yours. I'd read it twice to prevent yourself from making another error.

No. While we're both wrong about their primary purpose (which after looking it up on their website is education and training people in firearms use), their other purpose is (from their about page):

"as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

"Downvote for lying".

Oh really? Lol.

I've produced peer reviewed research supporting my views. StukaFox produced none.

There are opposing research papers of course (it is a contentious issue). But it takes a very short sighted person to produce a limited set of ABS data (lol, 2 years) and a Snopes article to declare that I'm wrong. Keep in mind I mentioned in my first comment that there were studies on this topic.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Ah no. I didn't misquote this.

Go to the 16 second mark thank you very much.

Including rimfire was to point out that just because it is a rifle doesn't mean it is more powerful than a handgun.

Mental health is a pretty big issue that is connected. So are socio-economic issues. There is a bigger puzzle of which access to firearms is only the last piece.

I don't think anyone should expect the NRA to address mental health. This is not their mandate. They exist to champion firearm rights. Mental health or other issues are some other lobby group or the general population's responsibility.

The Australian and New Zealand law changes show that restricting the types of firearm, caliber, and magazine capacities has little to no effect. There are multiple studies (the majority in fact) concluding that the draconian Australian laws didn't even affect the homicide by firearm rate.

Good video. But...

"The speed of an assault weapon is substantially higher than the speed of a handgun".

No. The velocity of the projectile from a centerfire rifle is generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. It does not matter if the rifle is semi-automatic or not. The velocity of the projectile from a rimfire rifle is also generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. But rimfire rifles have very low projectile weights and deliver substantially less energy, have substantially less momentum, have generally smaller projectile diameters, and hence are much less lethal than centerfire pistols.

Some projectiles are designed to tumble. Most projectiles for disrupting flesh are designed to flatten out (and not fragment).

I'm glad you wrote "the far right". Because to a lot of the world, the Democrats are a right wing party, with the Republicans further right than they are (making the Democrats a "left" wing party within the narrow scale of American politics).

Personally I think people and politics are more nuanced than stereotyping people into "left" (progressive) and "right" (conservative) groups. Most people and parties are an eclectic mix of progressive and conservative stances depending on the issue - and these positions aren't fixed.

Not being able to check the background status of a potential buyer obviously makes background checks largely ineffective. Stupid? Yes. Insane? No.

The obvious solution is to require local gun shops to facilitate all sales. They will run the background check and take a small fee for this work. They can also hold guns and ammunition in escrow to protect both parties in a transaction.

But the next question is, will this stop criminal or crazy people from getting a gun?...

The narrow case (one guard failing to execute his duty) does not negate the broad case (that guards are effective at deterring and engaging threats).

I can't believe I have to point this out. On videosift no less. I'm flabbergasted.

"Destroys". Hyperbole of 2017.

You're not standing up for these kids.... until you agree with them.

Yeah, nah.

One of the two of us has a paramedic degree and worked as a paramedic... I spent 3 years at university learning what and how things make holes in people and how to plug them up and keep them alive.

So yes. I'm serious.

The barricades are an interesting point. The movable concrete blocks don't stand up to small trucks or larger. Large steel bollards on the other hand will stop everything bar a tank.

"There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort."

I disagree. Petrol and cars/trucks. Both are legal and easily used to commit mass murder (and have been). I'll add swords (long knives) into this with a caveat - you need to be a highly trained swordsman to commit such an atrocity.

Cars are so dangerous that they have killed more people in the US in the last 50 years by accident than guns have on purpose. It took 50 years of concerted effort by subsequent US administrations to get the yearly death toll by cars lower than that of firearms (the curve for cars only recently dipped below that of firearms).

Knives can cause as much or more vascular damage than a typical firearm wound. The difference is that knives require the smallest interpersonal confrontation distance (it is hand to hand combat - people don't like this), and to consistently achieve high levels of vascular damage requires a higher degree of training.

The right of non-restricted people to own firearms has little affect on murder rates. E.g. Australia has a higher rate of firearm ownership now than before its lauded firearms laws came into effect in 1997. The majority of studies done on this topic conclude that the restrictions had no effect (or no measurable effect) on the continued reduction in firearm fatalities.

I think the greatest issue in the US is that some people see the use of firearms as a solution to some problems where it is not a good solution. I.e. it is a cultural issue.

"How easy it was for the government to totally suspend civil rights".

Should be: "How easy it was for the Democratically controlled state government to totally suspend civil rights".

There is no useful parallel between the movie's show host and the president of the United States and the fact he hosted a TV show. Entertainers have made it to the position of president or governor well before this point in time. It's just a useless coincidence that has no bearing on anything.

The Running Man basically got nothing right about 2017.

"First you claimed .2 second split is 300 rpm, now you say it's 90rpm. I'm so over this. Have fun at the range. "

Ahh I see the confusion. I should have been clearer.

I'm reporting two different rates - max theoretical, and actual with aiming and magazine changes.

So using splits alone on an unlimited mag, 0.2 split is 300 rpm.

Using that same 0.2 split with fixed aiming time of 1 second per target and two mag changes (30 round mags) you'll get approximately 90 rounds per minute actual.

Etc. as per my other examples.

It's good to hear you've been shooting that long. If you've been doing it that long you must still enjoy it - which is great.

I don't know where you live, but you can hire or steal a truck pretty easily here in Australia (one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world). And our regulations haven't stopped recent idiots mowing down people with cars on purpose (Melbourne!!!). They're thinking of putting bollards in place in strategic locations - because you can't regulate away what we don't want happening.

Yes, some things kill at lower rates than the examples but I had to end somewhere.

Vehicle ownership is not essential. You can have public transport service everyone just fine (e.g. Singapore). Of course, some people argue that what is good for Singapore may not be suitable for themselves (i.e. it is essential in my scenario because I say it is). And you can extend that same argument to firearms (that they are essential in someone else's scenario). Firearms have a measured economic benefit, protection benefit, health benefit (active outdoor sports), military benefit, etc.

Modern civilisation works fine (I'd argue it works better) without private vehicles. Try having a civilisation without firearms - you'll have to have awfully large mobs of bobbies armed with nothing but sticks. Good luck with that