What did this girl have that she needed?

[Blind groper]

People are not statistics and their right to effective self defense cannot be allocated on a statistical basis, that right is complete and absolute to each and every individual.

Totally and completely wrong!
People are definitely statistics, and their risk of being harmed is calculated statistically.

The basic statistic for the USA is that 1 in 50 people will, at some stage in their life, have a bullet pass through them. This is due to the idiotic gun laws. Of those unfortunates, nearly a third will die from the bullet, and another large fraction will be permanently disabled by the wound. The harm done is very nearly as bad as the harm done from car accidents. And tis harm can be reduced very easily, by just applying and policing some simple gun laws.

Seth is clearly obsessed with guns. He is prepared to permit 100,000 Americans each year to receive a bullet so that he can play with his guns. Seth is also very clearly uneducated in maths and especially instatistics. He has no understanding of how these mathematical tools are used, or interpreted.

[Collector1337]

People are not statistics and their right to effective self defense cannot be allocated on a statistical basis, that right is complete and absolute to each and every individual.

Totally and completely wrong!
People are definitely statistics, and their risk of being harmed is calculated statistically.

The basic statistic for the USA is that 1 in 50 people will, at some stage in their life, have a bullet pass through them. This is due to the idiotic gun laws. Of those unfortunates, nearly a third will die from the bullet, and another large fraction will be permanently disabled by the wound. The harm done is very nearly as bad as the harm done from car accidents. And tis harm can be reduced very easily, by just applying and policing some simple gun laws.

Seth is clearly obsessed with guns. He is prepared to permit 100,000 Americans each year to receive a bullet so that he can play with his guns. Seth is also very clearly uneducated in maths and especially instatistics. He has no understanding of how these mathematical tools are used, or interpreted.

What about using a firearm for defense to protect yourself from these bullets you make it seem are just flying around all the time?

I'd much rather take my safety into my own hands rather than relying on others.

Why would I rely on others for something so important and for something they can never guarantee?

My odds are much better if I have better control of my safety. I've found in my lifetime that relying on others is always a sure way to be disappointed. So, minimizing reliance on others is always the best way to go and this has worked out very well for me in my life. What's wrong with taking responsibility for yourself? Especially in the domain of safety which is so important.

[Seth]

People are not statistics and their right to effective self defense cannot be allocated on a statistical basis, that right is complete and absolute to each and every individual.

Totally and completely wrong!
People are definitely statistics, and their risk of being harmed is calculated statistically.

Not when it comes to apportioning out their right to effective self defense.

The basic statistic for the USA is that 1 in 50 people will, at some stage in their life, have a bullet pass through them.

This is, of course, your standard bullshit statistic. Even if, arguendo I agree that an individual's statistical chance of being shot is 1 in 50 (which of course is utter bullshit, as any actual math nerd knows), it is not the case that this means that one person in 50 will get shot. Which demonstrates YOUR ignorance of statistics and how they are used. What it means, again arguendo, is that an individual's chances of getting shot in a lifetime is 1 in 50, not that one out of 50 people will get shot. Jackass.

It's just like flood risk. When authorities say "100 year flood risk" they don't mean that there will be a flood every 100 years, it means that there is a one-percent chance that a flood of that magnitude will happen each year.

You see, you're trying to use statistics to claim that something will happen in the future, which everybody knows is something only an ignoramus does.

This is due to the idiotic gun laws.

I agree. All those laws that prevent law-abiding people from choosing to carry guns for self defense are not only idiotic, they are unconstitutional and really, really bad public policy.

Of those unfortunates, nearly a third will die from the bullet, and another large fraction will be permanently disabled by the wound.

Beats being shuffled into the ovens or sent to the gulags.

The harm done is very nearly as bad as the harm done from car accidents.

Not even close.

And tis harm can be reduced very easily, by just applying and policing some simple gun laws.

I agree. We need to pass a national concealed carry reciprocity law that allows any person who has been duly licensed in their own state to carry concealed anywhere in the United States, including airports, aircraft, federal buildings, Congress, the White House and anywhere else these law-abiding citizens choose to do so.

Seth is clearly obsessed with guns.

Not really, I'm obsessed with refuting idiots like you who would rather two and a half million more people a year were victimized, injured, wounded and murdered by criminals than admit the simple truth of More Guns, Less Crime.

He is prepared to permit 100,000 Americans each year to receive a bullet so that he can play with his guns.

There's no play involved. It's very serious business, which you will find out if you ever dare to threaten me or mine with physical violence or attempt to disarm me or mine.

Seth is also very clearly uneducated in maths and especially instatistics.

I'm not the one trying to tell people that their right to self defense is a matter of statistical apportionment based on what some fuckwit on the Internet thinks is a good idea. You are.

He has no understanding of how these mathematical tools are used, or interpreted.

Actually, what he understands is the fallacious, mendacious, dishonest, and frankly evil way that you try to manipulate statistics in order to get more people killed and injured by criminals.

[Blind groper]

To Collector

The reason you should put responsibility for your defense in other hands is that they do it far better.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine., if you simply have a gun at home, your odds of being murdered are immediately doubled. That alone makes it a bloody stupid idea owning a gun. In addition, the odds of losing a member of your family to suicide increases about 5 fold. Do you really want one of your loved ones to kill him/herself?

And if you look at any other wealthy advanced western country, apart from the USA, you will find the murder rate is a tiny fraction. My country has one fifth the murder rate, and this means I have one fifth of the chance of being murdered compared to you, in your gun loving nation.

To Seth

On the 1 in 50.
In fact, the number of bullets received is 1 in 40, when calculated out. But I made allowance for a few people who might get shot twice in their lifetime, and rounded it to 1 in 50 actually getting shot, which is realistic. Denying facts, Seth, is crappy debating technique.

[Seth]

To Collector

The reason you should put responsibility for your defense in other hands is that they do it far better.

No they don't. The police are only very rarely present to stop a crime in progress, and if you want to talk about trigger-happy, cops are eleven times more likely to shoot someone in a critical situation than a civilian is, according to the DOJ.

Using your "math" as many as two and a half million more people would be victimized every single year if we ban guns.

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away..."

According to the New England Journal of Medicine., if you simply have a gun at home, your odds of being murdered are immediately doubled.

Except that the NEJM article you are referring to has been thoroughly refuted and the fundamental errors of bias have been revealed long ago. The "researchers" who wrote this paper used, quite deliberately it seems, biased and inappropriate data by limiting their data set to a carefully selected set of data points that supported their pre-determined conclusion. They focused their data points on communities that are not in the least bit representative of most of America. They focused on some particularly crime-ridden, lower-income minority neighborhoods in specific urban areas carefully selected because the demographic suited their pre-determined conclusions.

In other words, it's horseshit, like the rest of your references.

That alone makes it a bloody stupid idea owning a gun. In addition, the odds of losing a member of your family to suicide increases about 5 fold. Do you really want one of your loved ones to kill him/herself?

If they really want to, that's their sovereign human right.

And if you look at any other wealthy advanced western country, apart from the USA, you will find the murder rate is a tiny fraction. My country has one fifth the murder rate, and this means I have one fifth of the chance of being murdered compared to you, in your gun loving nation.

Until you add in the 100 million people killed by despots because the citizenry was disarmed. At that point the US looks positively pastoral.

To Seth

On the 1 in 50.
In fact, the number of bullets received is 1 in 40, when calculated out. But I made allowance for a few people who might get shot twice in their lifetime, and rounded it to 1 in 50 actually getting shot, which is realistic. Denying facts, Seth, is crappy debating technique.

I'm not denying facts because you haven't stated any facts.

[Collector1337]

It's hilariously appropriate that blind groper has chosen such a name as he is so blind as to the evil he perpetrates. He is authoritarian. His blind obedience is laughable.

There are 2 kinds of evil. There is the direct form where evil is committed upon others. The other evil is permitting evil to happen by doing nothing about it, or even worse, doing nothing because the authority has made him blind to the evil being perpetrated. The ultimate conformist.

In the Stanley Milgram experiment, blind groper is the guy who goes all the way, all the way to the highest shock possible, killing the "learner" because his was blindly following the authority.

blind groper and people like him are the reason why the Holocaust is possible. He is an enabler, enabling disarmament, so that those who have the courage to fight against true evil don't have a chance. The Holocaust could have never happened without the masses being duped. You have been duped blind groper and are totally blind to see it.

That is so weak and pathetic it's intolerable. blind groper and people like him are literally what makes the world shitty.

[Seth]

It's hilariously appropriate that blind groper has chosen such a name as he is so blind as to the evil he perpetrates. He is authoritarian. His blind obedience is laughable.

There are 2 kinds of evil. There is the direct form where evil is committed upon others. The other evil is permitting evil to happen by doing nothing about it, or even worse, doing nothing because the authority has made him blind to the evil being perpetrated. The ultimate conformist.

In the Stanley Milgram experiment, blind groper is the guy who goes all the way, all the way to the highest shock possible, killing the "learner" because his was blindly following the authority.

blind groper and people like him are the reason why the Holocaust is possible. He is an enabler, enabling disarmament, so that those who have the courage to fight against true evil don't have a chance. The Holocaust could have never happened without the masses being duped. You have been duped blind groper and are totally blind to see it.

That is so weak and pathetic it's intolerable. blind groper and people like him are literally what makes the world shitty.

He's the Neville Chamberlain of Ratz.

[Collector1337]

To Collector

The reason you should put responsibility for your defense in other hands is that they do it far better.

Wrong. It is so wrong that it puts the magnitude of your ignorance on display. If you know anything about police you know how absolutely terrible marksman they can be often times. Those who "do it better" are those who train the most. I can easily train far better and far more than those who I would never rely on, knowing I most likely have more training than them.

Also, they can't protect me if they aren't there. Do you honestly not take into account police response time? The fact is, YOU DON'T HAVE TIME to wait around for someone to come and save you.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine., if you simply have a gun at home, your odds of being murdered are immediately doubled.

The stupidity of that statement is unbelievable. Have you heard of taking personal responsibility? Have you heard of gun safes? Have you heard of education and training?

That alone makes it a bloody stupid idea owning a gun.

Pure stupidity.

In addition, the odds of losing a member of your family to suicide increases about 5 fold.

You fail to take into account that I work in the mental health field. I know more about suicide than you ever will. You are beyond clueless. If you had a clue, you would know how rare firearm suicide actually is, but you don't. You blindly believe whatever bullshit statistic that will confirm your bias.

Do you really want one of your loved ones to kill him/herself?

Is that a joke? Did you really just try and make an emotional argument to me? Try again because that's pathetic.

And if you look at any other wealthy advanced western country, apart from the USA, you will find the murder rate is a tiny fraction. My country has one fifth the murder rate, and this means I have one fifth of the chance of being murdered compared to you, in your gun loving nation.

Are you only looking at murder? What about other crime? It's comical how you ignore how crime as been on the decline for decades, yet firearm ownership is increasing.

[pErvinalia]

Well, it seems that both Seth and hack are pushing the "democracy is a bad idea because the populace is stupid" barrow.

Just shows that strange bedfellow can exist in politics.

The position itself is dangerous, elitist and conducive to totalitarian regimes. The answer is better education and more genuine, widespread political conversations, not the arrogant dismissal of the "common people", more worthy of aristocrats in bygone days than any modern commentator.

I pretty much hold the position that the majority of the population is too stupid in the concepts of civics and political philosophy, not to mention economics, and therefore this is a BIG problem for our "democracies". The difference between the right wing and the left wing is that lefties like you and us usually see the solution being to educate the masses to bring them up to a level on these issues. The neoliberals are THE elitists in society and they want it to stay that way, which is why they are always chipping away at universal education (not to mention health and welfare etc).

Excuse me? Lefties want to educate the lumpen proletariat? You're insane. Leftists want to "educate" the lumpen proletariat about one thing only: Obedience to the Marxist Dialectic. The Marxists in charge of the American (and European) school systems are doing everything they can NOT to educate kids in anything but proper Marxist dogma. "Universal education" in Marxist Progressive Newspeak means, in point of actual fact, "Marxist indoctrination" that has nothing to do with giving any child the ability to reason, because anybody who can reason can see that socialism can do nothing but fail, ever.

You are a paranoid ranting bot. Get to a head doctor, quick.

Can I see yours? No, wait, never mind, he has his hands full dealing with your psychosis.

I may be a lot of things, but I'm certainly no paranoid. You should get medication. It's ridiculous the amount of fear you live in.

[pErvinalia]

Because philosophically speaking freedom isn't and never was supposed to be about solely "freedom to". It's also about "freedom from".

And the coalescence of societies is always going to require compromises. That's essentially the social contract.

Sure. What are you trying to free yourself "from?"

There definitely are already compromises indeed. You don't have the freedom to just do whatever you want to people.

But firearm ownership doesn't mean you get to victimize anyone. So, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, then what's the problem?

Freedom from being murdered. A freedom clearly reduced massively when guns are around.

Your right to be free from being murdered, stated as you have stated it, militates for banning cars, cricket bats, hammers and a host of other things that can be used for murder much more plausibly than it militates for banning guns, which can be used to PREVENT your being murdered.

I think you'd find more people are murdered with guns than with those other things. Accidental death isn't the same as murder.

Why not let everyone own a tank?

Everyone can own a tank if they want one,

I love how you guys give this answer without realising the mockery it is making of your argument.

Same with guns.

300 million guns in the US. About 175,000 of them are ever used to commit a crime. That's five out of every 10,000 guns or 0.00058% of all guns. Not much of a risk actually.

That's a pretty dumb attempt at statistics, even for you. You can't use more than one gun to kill a person.

Although, as I've said before, I do grant that you have a problem of criminal inertia in your country, and an argument can be made for self-arming to deal with that problem.

Indeed. But then again so do you. You just refuse to acknowledge it. You have a non-zero risk of being the victim of a violent crime. Therefore, according to the Human Rights charter you have the right to defend yourself. You may use any weapon in doing so. Some weapons are more effective than others. Handguns are the single most effective self-defense weapon ever invented or produced.

As i said, society is a trade-off between competing rights and the management of a well functioning society. We realise that to have everyone armed is a stupid action, and choose to live with the small risk we will be the victim of violent crime. I.e., we don't let fear rule our lives. That's why other countries are actually far more free than the US. We are free of the silly worries and fears some of you guys seem to lug around with you all your lives.

And if you can be trusted to carry a cricket bat, you can be trusted to carry a handgun because you are not the type of person who is going to use either for criminal purposes.

Both the cricket bat and the handgun are inanimate objects which cannot cause any harm unless wielded and operated by a human being. Therefore, fearing a handgun more than you fear a cricket bat is completely and totally irrational.

Not this idiotic argument, surely?? Obviously it is MUCH easier to kill someone with a gun than a cricket bat. What a dumb argument, even for you.

[Seth]

I may be a lot of things, but I'm certainly no paranoid.

That's what every paranoiac says, rEv. It's a classic hallmark of paranoia.

You should get medication. It's ridiculous the amount of fear you live in.

Actually it's quite rational to analyze potential threats and prepare to deal with them. What's ridiculous is sticking your head up your ass and thinking that it can't happen to you. It might not, if you're lucky, but if it does you die, whereas I survive. Your choice of course.

[pErvinalia]

Freedom from being murdered. A freedom clearly reduced massively when guns are around. Why not let everyone own a tank? Coz it's fucking stupid, that's why. Same with guns. Although, as I've said before, I do grant that you have a problem of criminal inertia in your country, and an argument can be made for self-arming to deal with that problem.

You can never have "freedom from being murdered." Nor do you need a firearm to murder someone. So banning firearms does not give you "freedom from being murdered."

Typical conservative false dichotomy. It's not about total freedom. It's about more or less freedom and a compromise between freedoms 'to' and freedoms 'from'. The same argument could be given for the "freedom to live (life)".

Not by any rational, non-paranoid person.

Freedom to life is inclusive of the freedom not to be murdered. If you can't have the latter under Collector's twisted logic, then you can't have the former.

I believe you are thinking about it and framing it completely incorrectly. Having a firearm increases your "freedom from being murdered."

No it doesn't, in countries that don't already have a problem with firearms. You clearly are less likely to be murdered in Australia than the US.

And yet, if you are murdered in Australia, your chances of being murdered are one-hundred percent. And, as it happens, people are murdered in Australia with some regularity. Your statistical probability of being the victim of a murder in either place does not factor in to your right to effectively defend yourself should someone try to murder you, even in Australia. Nobody can say "rEv, your statistical probability of being murdered is 0.00034%, therefore you are permitted to carry effective self-defense weapons only 0.00034 percent of the time." While your risk of being murdered may be quite small, if your number comes up, it comes up and your odds go from very small to 100% instantly. At that point it's far too late for you to call a halt to the proceedings and go obtain a means of effective self-defense. If you obey the law and only carry your self-defense weapon 0.00034% of the time, you figure out the odds that the small risk of being murdered and the percentage of the time you are effectively armed for self defense will coincide.

You really don't understand statistics, do you? Not that I'm the least bit surprised by this. The only thing you really properly understand is ranting like a paranoid delusional.

Freedom is NOT "clearly" reduced when firearms are around. I do not feel my freedom is reduced when firearms are around in any way. That's just a bizarre and asinine way to see things in my opinion.

The more guns in society, the more gun crime you will get. It's pretty simple logic.

Not true. More guns in America in the last 30 years, less crime of every description. Fact.

We're talking about Australia and our supposed lack of freedums. Please try and keep up. I know it's a lot to ask.

In America, you can own a tank. You can pay someone who does own a tank to let you drive it if you want even. There are literally Groupons for "drive a tank" services.

And this is supposed to convince me that owning guns is a good thing because why?

No, it's supposed to debunk your ridiculous rhetoric, which it does quite effectively.

Can anyone in the US own a nuke? No? Looks like my rhetoric is back in play.

In Australia and other sane places that allow firearms for sport or pest control, you have to store the firing mechanism and ammo and the rest of the gun in separate places under lock and key.

Why? Because Australians are universally deranged nutcases who fly into sudden uncontrolled rages and go out and kill dozens of people every other week?

No, it's because you are a slave and your government tells you to because it doesn't trust you to keep and bear arms in a responsible manner.

Logic fail AGAIN, Seth. Why have regulations at all? You people in the US are just slaves and your NRA doesn't trust you to bear arms in a responsible manner.

And a regime like that would still allow the loony libertarians to overthrow the government when they so such desire.

Well, yes, that is the primary purpose of an armed citizenry, to overthrow a despotic regime when necessary. Why is that a bad thing...unless you're the despot or one of his minions?

Because it relies on the premise that inbred hicks are intelligent enough to interpret the constitution.

[pErvinalia]

It's hilariously appropriate that blind groper has chosen such a name as he is so blind as to the evil he perpetrates. He is authoritarian. His blind obedience is laughable.

There are 2 kinds of evil. There is the direct form where evil is committed upon others. The other evil is permitting evil to happen by doing nothing about it, or even worse, doing nothing because the authority has made him blind to the evil being perpetrated. The ultimate conformist.

In the Stanley Milgram experiment, blind groper is the guy who goes all the way, all the way to the highest shock possible, killing the "learner" because his was blindly following the authority.

blind groper and people like him are the reason why the Holocaust is possible. He is an enabler, enabling disarmament, so that those who have the courage to fight against true evil don't have a chance. The Holocaust could have never happened without the masses being duped. You have been duped blind groper and are totally blind to see it.

That is so weak and pathetic it's intolerable. blind groper and people like him are literally what makes the world shitty.

He's the Neville Chamberlain of Ratz.

I thought I was the Neville Chamberlain of Ratz!

[pErvinalia]

I may be a lot of things, but I'm certainly no paranoid.

That's what every paranoiac says, rEv. It's a classic hallmark of paranoia.

Am I an alien too? I've never seen one alien admit it was an alien!

You should get medication. It's ridiculous the amount of fear you live in.

Actually it's quite rational to analyze potential threats and prepare to deal with them. What's ridiculous is sticking your head up your ass and thinking that it can't happen to you. It might not, if you're lucky, but if it does you die, whereas I survive. Your choice of course.

I thought as a moralistic conservative you would understand the concept that living to the oldest age possible isn't the only valid goal of humans, if in fact it is many people's goal at all. Most people would prefer to live a shorter happier life than a longer fearful life. And in Australia, you can live a happier AND longer life than in the US. As I've said before, you guys can shoot each other as much as you want. You can be as paranoid as you want. But on the latter, you probably don't have to be. CBT and medication could probably help you a lot. CBT is about thinking rationally about risks and fears and not catastrophising the future. You could actually live a happier life, Seth, and probably be no less likely to be a victim of violent crime.

[Seth]

I think you'd find more people are murdered with guns than with those other things.

Not exactly.

Top 10 most common murder weapons
Posted date: May 18, 2011In: Health, Lifestyle, Social115 Comments

The order of most common murder weapons used in the US murder cases has not changed very much in recent years. But there has been a very significant down trend in the number of killings involving firearms. According to the FBI stats on gun crime stat, violent crime in the US has significantly gone down compared with earlier figures.

Although fire arms still stand on top of the list of the most common murder weapons used in homicides, at least in the US other object such as knives and bats in combination pose as tools that are used far more regularly in homicides than guns. In other figures as reported by various reports, Americans are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a rifle.

Unfortunately, in the face of all factual data there has been a lot of suggestions for gun control, it is however, debatable that banning fire arms will lower the number of lives lost. History and stats show otherwise.

Australia is just a minor example of what happens when corrupt politicians take personal firearms away or restrict them:

***

FIND OUT HERE: Top 10 Reasons Why Any Gun Control Law is WRONG

Protected by the 2nd amended of the constitutional Bill of Rights, many American lives are actually saved by the millions of Americans who use firearms only to protect themselves, their families. In any case we have provided a list of the top 10 most common murder weapons used as reported by FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

most common murder weapons
10. Explosives used in murder cases:

Noting that this data does not include acts of terrorism, use of explosives as a murder weapon averagely takes the lives of10 individual yearly. This, as one would expect, is low in number, since murderers rarely create a chaos and uproar around their crime scene.
9. Drowning victims:

Collected stats from 2008 shows 10 known cases of individuals who were murdered by forced drowning.
8. Narcotics used for murder:

A total of 33 people were murdered using narcotics in 2008.
7. Fire induced killings:.

Fire has been one of the favorite methods amongst murderers to commit acts atrocity, where usually minimum evidence is left for investigation. In the US alone between 80 to 100 people die from arson induced fire as one of the most common murder weapons
6. Strangulation to death:

Strangulation or stranglingis literally the closing of a person’s windpipe by forceful compression, which leads to unconsciousness and subsequently death. The oxygen flow is cut off and the person’s brain is the first organ to die after a few minutes. Strangulation has taken the lives of 88 Americans in 2008.
5. Asphyxiation to death:

Asphyxiation is somewhat of different than strangulation in a sense that loss of consciousness is caused by impairing normal breathing using hazardous gases like carbon monoxide and sulphur. This common method has taken the lives of 89 in the US during 2008.
4. Use of blunt objects:

Let’s not be vague, these objects include anything from hammers, clubs, and baseball bats to bottles and tree branches, annually taking the lives of nearly 600 people in the States alone.
3. Personal body weapons:

The third most common murder weapons are body parts such hands, feet, fists and head. Throwing a punch, a head-butt or a kick against another person’s head usually has fatal consequences and unfortunately many people have been murdered as such. In 2008 it is reported that 861 lost their lives by fatal body blows in the US.
2. Knives and cutting instruments:

Cold arms usually in the form of sharp objects – mostly knives – have caused the death of 1897 people in 2008. There’s no way to regulate or stop people from obtaining sharp object and it is unfortunate that they are used in murders.
1. Firearms (misleading)

Nearly 75% of the cases involving firearms are actually gang related and another fraction of it are justifiable cases in self-defense. As stated in the opening paragraph, many lives are actually saved by those have them and use them for protection; hundreds of thousands of women use guns in the US to protect themselves against rapists and criminals. It is historically and socially proven that the more right to arms are taken away from the regular citizenry the more crime brews thereafter and more innocent lives are lost. Not only that, total freedom means freedom to protect one’s self without complete reliance on government, which in a majority of cases does not respond in time and is itself a threat when corrupted; the founding fathers understood this common sense.

Moreover, the states with the most strict gun control laws like Illinois and New York have the worst gun crimes simply because criminals can easily do what they want, whereas southern states like Texas with the least gun control have some of the lowest gun crimes since individuals can protect themselves against criminals. Ask this intellectual questions… WHY?
4. Blunt objects + 3. Body weapons + 2. Knives result in MUCH larger crime numbers than 1. Firearms

Also note that: Use of knives, bats, personal body weapons and blunt objects (as highlighted in red) are the tools, which the criminals use to take far more lives that guns. Criminals will always get their their weapons, no matter what. That is a FACT!

Why not let everyone own a tank?

Everyone can own a tank if they want one,

I love how you guys give this answer without realising the mockery it is making of your argument.

Er, the point is that no legally privately owned tank, or artillery field piece, or RPG launcher, or armored car, or bazooka has ever been used to commit a crime, and therefore such arms do not present a risk to the general public.

In fact, in the last 40 years that I know of, only one, single NFA item out of the hundreds of thousands of items on the NFA register has ever been used by its lawful owner to commit a crime, and that was by a deputy sheriff who used his legally owned machine gun to kill his ex-wife.

The point being, once again, that fewer than five ten-thousandths of one percent of all firearms in the US are ever used to commit a crime of any kind, and therefore there is no compelling need to ban the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens, who demonstrably do not use them unlawfully.

Same with guns.

300 million guns in the US. About 175,000 of them are ever used to commit a crime. That's five out of every 10,000 guns or 0.00058% of all guns. Not much of a risk actually.

That's a pretty dumb attempt at statistics, even for you. You can't use more than one gun to kill a person.

Non sequitur.

Although, as I've said before, I do grant that you have a problem of criminal inertia in your country, and an argument can be made for self-arming to deal with that problem.

Indeed. But then again so do you. You just refuse to acknowledge it. You have a non-zero risk of being the victim of a violent crime. Therefore, according to the Human Rights charter you have the right to defend yourself. You may use any weapon in doing so. Some weapons are more effective than others. Handguns are the single most effective self-defense weapon ever invented or produced.

As i said, society is a trade-off between competing rights and the management of a well functioning society.

True enough.

We realise that to have everyone armed is a stupid action,

That's because you are a stupid and unpredictable people, so that's probably the correct decision. That's not the case in America.

and choose to live with the small risk we will be the victim of violent crime.

Well, nobody's requiring you to own a gun...although in point of fact your government, just like our government and the Swiss government, have far better authority to require you to own and train regularly with a gun than they do to forbid you from doing so.

You get to make that choice...for yourself. You don't get to make it for anyone else, ever.

I.e., we don't let fear rule our lives.

I don't let fear rule my life either. I simply acknowledge that crime happens and it can happen anywhere, any time, to anyone, with any degree of harm from minor to death, and I choose to be prepared to deal with such a situation should it happen to me, or to anyone in my vicinity. I live free of fear because I know that I can defend myself effectively in almost every situation i might even potentially face. That gives me supreme confidence and allays any fear I might have for my safety against criminals.

That's why other countries are actually far more free than the US.

You're only as free as your government and your criminal element allow you to be. You have no way of enforcing or defending that freedom if either should decide to take it from you.

We are free of the silly worries and fears some of you guys seem to lug around with you all your lives.

No, you're just ignorant of the realities of life and you live your life in blissful ignorance. That's fine, I don't have any problem with that at all. You will be responsible for your own safety or lack thereof and so long as that decision only affects you, I have no complaint at all. What bugs me is that you have the gall and effrontery to try to tell anyone else how to manage their risks in life. You don't get to do that.

And if you can be trusted to carry a cricket bat, you can be trusted to carry a handgun because you are not the type of person who is going to use either for criminal purposes.

Both the cricket bat and the handgun are inanimate objects which cannot cause any harm unless wielded and operated by a human being. Therefore, fearing a handgun more than you fear a cricket bat is completely and totally irrational.

Not this idiotic argument, surely?? Obviously it is MUCH easier to kill someone with a gun than a cricket bat. What a dumb argument, even for you.

It's not about what's "easy" rEv, it's about what is, and you're just as dead after being beaten to death with a cricket bat as you are being shot with a gun. The difference between you and I is that if someone attacks me with a cricket bat or a gun, I have the capacity to render that person incapable of continuing that attack, whereas you do not. Therefore my chances of survival and injury avoidance are substantially greater than yours.

And the point is that you can ban guns, but you can't ban everything that can be used as a weapon with which to kill you, and therefore banning effective self-defense weapons like handguns does nothing but reduce your chances of surviving a vicious criminal attack. It doesn't inhibit the attacker one little bit, in fact it facilitates the ease with which he is able to beat you to death. You see, he's a murderous criminal and he doesn't care that it's illegal to beat you to death with a cricket bat or shoot you with a gun, or stab you with a dinner fork. If he wants to kill you, he will find a weapon with which to do it and you will be helpless to stop him because you have participated in banning the most effective form of self-defense against being spitted by a spear-gun (plenty of which exist in Australia) or bashed by a bat.

But, that's your choice to make...for yourself, but not anybody else, ever, under any circumstances.