[lelanthran]

> I don't understand at all what you say about those graphs. Homicide has gone down from 750+ to about 400, which you describe as "little correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer number of dead people".

The decline in dead people is not correlated with fewer guns.

The decline is a trend going down over time that did not start when the guns were taken.

The argument of "fewer guns == safer society" needs to show that when the guns were taken, a decline in corpses resulted. That did not happen.

[yesenadam]

Ah ok thanks. Yes, from the graph seemed like it was always going up, then 5 years after Port Arthur peaked and has been going down ever since. I wouldn't call that "little correlation" but sure, who knows.

Anyway, this is a weird topic. It seems only in the USA that "fewer guns = safer society" is not extremely obvious to everyone.

[lelanthran]

> Anyway, this is a weird topic. It seems only in the USA that "fewer guns = safer society" is not extremely obvious to everyone and where people are straining hard not to see the obvious.

Well, that's because it isn't obvious. I limited my data lookups to Australia because OP presented Australia as an example of where it is obvious that fewer guns == safer society.

In the example that is provided as evidence (Australia), the data does not support the assertion. Maybe it will in other examples, but the OP presented this example and so I only checked the stats for this example.