What did this girl have that she needed?

[Seth]

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.

Non sequitur. Your freedom to live and your freedom not to be murdered is enhanced and protected by my carrying a gun in your presence. I do not pose a danger to either. In fact precisely the opposite. I'd stand up and defend you if I were able even though you have decided to make yourself a helpless victim.

The fallacy in your claim is in assuming that the mere existence of firearms is a threat to you. It isn't. It depends entirely on who is in charge of the particular weapon that might be in your vicinity.

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.

Clearly I understand them much, much better than you do. Your inability to explain how you think I'm wrong is proof enough of that.

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.

Not really. But anyway, as your own experts tell you, destroying guns and banning them in Australia has not had any scientifically-supported effect on reducing crime. Therefore, the canard "Fewer guns, less crime" is not in fact true.

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.

Ah, the good old nuke canard. Let's see, which fallacy is that now...I forget. Let me look it up and I'll get back to you.

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.

Huh? Non sequitur. The NRA doesn't make policy or regulations, much less enforce them. Have you been drinking tonight? Your posts are getting much less and less coherent as time goes by. Perhaps it's time to take a nap.

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.

Well, as it happens, the Constitution was written in language that even inbred hicks can easily understand, which makes your inability to understand it something of an impeachment of your own genetic heritage beyond that of even inbred hicks. What would you call someone whose genetic makeup makes them so demonstrably stupid that they fall lower on the intelligence scale than "inbred hicks?" 'Tis a puzzlement.

Any thoughts on that...oh, wait, sorry, never mind, I forgot for a moment that you are incapable of rational thought. Sorry, my bad.

[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.

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

I dunno. But you certainly could be.

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.

Feel free to do so. Me, I'll live a long, happy life free of fear because I know what to do, and can do it, should my life be threatened. Knowledge is power. So is a .45.

And in Australia, you can live a happier AND longer life than in the US.

Many slaves find themselves happy in their chains, but they are chained slaves nonetheless. I prefer a life of liberty and freedom, even if it's harder work to achieve and maintain.

As I've said before, you guys can shoot each other as much as you want.

Thanks.

You can be as paranoid as you want.

True, but on the other hand you are paranoid despite not wanting to be paranoid. How sad.

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.

Tell you what, I'll live a long, happy, fear-free life of carrying around a .45 if it's all the same to you. Or even if it isn't.

[pErvinalia]

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...

Um, yes exactly.

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.

You really don't do statistics, do you? It's not a non-sequitur. The reason why the % figure you gave is so low is because individuals own multiple guns. A criminal can only use one gun to violently assault each person. Unless they are doing it Hollywood style with one in each hand blasting away. That stat makes no sense, as it is the number of gun criminals we are concerned with not the number of 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.

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.

We've got a lower murder rate than you. I think we're doing fine, thanks.

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.

Once again, we choose to live like this. There's very few people in this country that want relaxed gun ownership laws. We aren't Americans. And thank God for that.

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

I don't let fear rule my life either.

Yeah you do. And badly. You are totally paranoid.

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 actually do. You don't need armed citizenry to overthrow a despotic regime. You just need people power. See Egypt.

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.

Stats don't lie Seth (unless it is you abusing them). The risk of being a victim of violent crime is very low.

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.

It's a shame you can't fucking read. I've told you loons repeatedly I don't give a fuck what you do to each other in the US. I've only got involved in this issue as Collector and you like to stick your noses in our business and tell us we are "slaves".

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.

Bollocks. I can actually run away from the cricket bat wielder, or I could go towards him and confront him. I'm likely dead in either of those situations against someone who knows how to shoot a gun. It is about what is easier. If something kills people easier, it will lead to more killings. That's why gun deaths are higher than cricket bat deaths. Simple stuff.

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.

The point is, as explained multiple times, to reduce the risks of violent crime. In Australia, that would be defeated by increasing gun ownership. And strangely as it might seem, not very many people have a spear gun just lying around the house. In fact I've only ever known 1 spear fisherman in my life, and I grew up fishing and 4 wheel driving at the beach.

[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...

Um, yes exactly.

They also happen to be at the top of the list of most common weapons used to prevent murder and other violent crime, by a factor of at least 10-to-1 to a factor of 300-to1. Gotta keep some perspective dude.

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.

You really don't do statistics, do you? It's not a non-sequitur. The reason why the % figure you gave is so low is because individuals own multiple guns. A criminal can only use one gun to violently assault each person. Unless they are doing it Hollywood style with one in each hand blasting away. That stat makes no sense, as it is the number of gun criminals we are concerned with not the number of guns.

Non sequitur non sequitur.

Stats don't lie Seth (unless it is you abusing them). The risk of being a victim of violent crime is very low.

It's 100% for each and every victim of violent crime.

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.

It's a shame you can't fucking read. I've told you loons repeatedly I don't give a fuck what you do to each other in the US.

But I give a fuck what you do to your fellow citizens down under. You see, you don't have the right to deny anyone anywhere effective tools of self defense, including your next-door neighbor. When you say "we" what you mean is the tyrannous majority that disrespects the rights of the minority by prohibiting them from being armed for self defense, which is a moral outrage and an inherent and intolerable evil. And it makes YOU personally liable for every death and injury that occurs anywhere in the world where the right to keep and bear arms is infringed as a matter of public policy.

I've only got involved in this issue as Collector and you like to stick your noses in our business and tell us we are "slaves".

You are slaves. You do what your government tells you to do and you have no ability to resist those commands if the government refuses to respect your vote. Therefore you are slaves.

Bollocks. I can actually run away from the cricket bat wielder, or I could go towards him and confront him.

Non sequitur.

I'm likely dead in either of those situations against someone who knows how to shoot a gun.

Actually, you're not. Criminals are notoriously bad shots. They only hit their target about 15% of the time, and of the times they do, only about 15% are fatal shots. But if you can't outrun someone determined to beat you to death with a cricket bat, your chances of getting killed are quite high.

It is about what is easier. If something kills people easier, it will lead to more killings. That's why gun deaths are higher than cricket bat deaths. Simple stuff.

Guns make it much easier to prevent killings.

[pErvinalia]

You literally can't read, or you are trolling again.

[Collector1337]

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.

Psychosis is not paranoia.

You can be paranoid in a psychosis.

But, you can be in psychosis without being paranoid.

Your ignorance of psychological terms makes me laugh.

[pErvinalia]

Apparently you can't read either. Am I right in thinking you are actually a mental health professional of some sort? If so, holy fuck!

[Collector1337]

Apparently you can't read either. Am I right in thinking you are actually a mental health professional of some sort? If so, holy fuck!

I can definitely read. I don't think I would have made it through grad school if I couldn't read.

And yes, I am in fact a mental health professional. I studied clinical psychology. I diagnose and treat mental disorders. I'm a therapist. I'm the guy you tell all of your life's problems to. I enjoy my work, not the paperwork though, that blows.

It apparently is hard for you to believe, but I thoroughly enjoy shooting sports. I have colleagues who also enjoy shooting and I often shoot with them. I don't make millions, but I live a comfortable life and can afford my numerous hobbies of which one is shooting and since I make my own schedule, I get to browse the internet doing various research and read, even forums like this when I want to lighten things up and be entertained in between sessions in the rejuvenating solitude of my office. I am currently contemplating my next purchase, which I think will be a Barrett .50 cal. It is very pricy, but it will most certainly be the crown jewel of my collection.

I don't expect you to understand or appreciate it, but I find shooting, especially long range shooting, very therapeutic. I must learn to control my breathing, concentration, and things of that nature to build my mastery. It is like meditation. It is a form of mindfulness for me. I teach my clients mindfulness skills. Learning mindfulness skills are important for good health. Breathing exercises, meditation, and other mindfulness skills are very good skills to have. I practice these things myself. Shooting is just one way I do that. I'm thinking that this weekend I may go out to "the farm" as my family calls it and do some shooting. 300 acres all to just a friend and myself. No people, no idiots, no one to bother me, not even a passing car. Very peaceful. Even after all my gunfire starts.

If you noticed (but probably not) I speak very plainly. This is intentional and there is very good reason for this. I quite often have to speak slowly and simply. The sad fact is, most people are not smart, sheepish even. I see this consistently, over and over again. Many people here have shown that this forum is no exception.

But don't worry. I will reply to those who have responded to me momentarily.

Some therapist humor while you wait:

How many therapists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just one, but the light bulb has to want to change.

Who's this Rorschach guy? And why did he draw so many pictures of my parents fighting?

[pErvinalia]

Apparently you can't read either. Am I right in thinking you are actually a mental health professional of some sort? If so, holy fuck!

I can definitely read. I don't think I would have made it through grad school if I couldn't read.

I never equated psychosis with paranoia in any way shape or form. I accused Seth of being paranoid and he accused me of having some sort of psychosis. I'm not entirely sure what exactly "psychosis" is, but I have some mental health issues, so I expect they are covered by that. I was agreeing with Seth about my probably psychosis, but making the point that I was talking about "paranoia", and that's something I definitely don't have. You interpreting what was said by both of us in that exchange as equating psychosis with paranoia, was simply bad reading comprehension.

It apparently is hard for you to believe, but I thoroughly enjoy shooting sports. I have colleagues who also enjoy shooting and I often shoot with them. I don't make millions, but I live a comfortable life and can afford my numerous hobbies of which one is shooting and since I make my own schedule, I get to browse the internet doing various research and read, even forums like this when I want to lighten things up and be entertained in between sessions in the rejuvenating solitude of my office. I am currently contemplating my next purchase, which I think will be a Barrett .50 cal. It is very pricy, but it will most certainly be the crown jewel of my collection.

How is it apparently "hard for [me] to believe"?? I enjoy shooting too. I enjoy pretty much anything that tests my ability in any activity.

I don't expect you to understand or appreciate it, but I find shooting, especially long range shooting, very therapeutic.

Put yourself on your couch and investigate why it is you have such weird expectations.

Some therapist humor while you wait:

How many therapists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just one, but the light bulb has to want to change.

Who's this Rorschach guy? And why did he draw so many pictures of my parents fighting?

(do you want my biography? It's going to be a much crazier read than yours...)
ETA: I'm not actually going to give you my biography. Seth already knows too much about me.

[pErvinalia]

A bit of trivia... I've just started seeing a psychologist for the first time in years. Got into her office and she literally has big comfy couches there. My previous psychs just had normal chairs. I thought it was only a Hollywood thing that they had couches. At least she doesn't make me lie down on it...

[Collector1337]

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.

There is no such thing as "freedom from being murdered." It doesn't exist. There is nothing twisted about my logic. The best thing you can do to prevent yourself from being victimized is to possess a firearm. Preferably on your person.

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.

Can you own a pistol in Australia? Nope. That by definition is a lack of freedom.

I or Seth were never talking about Australia. Honestly, I could give a shit about Australia. However, I find it absolutely despicable and deplorable that you would deprive your fellow citizens from owning a pistol or any firearm for their protection. It's disgusting. You facilitate the perpetration of evil by preventing your own citizens from being able to defend themselves. Especially physically weaker people who would not be able to defend themselves from a stronger or multiple attackers.

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

:facepalm: Maybe I missed something. Who's arguing in favor of nukes?

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

"Inbred hicks?" I don't think bigoted statements count as arguments. It does a good job illustrating the quality of your character though.

[pErvinalia]

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.

There is no such thing as "freedom from being murdered." It doesn't exist. There is nothing twisted about my logic.

Yes there is. You claim such a freedom can't exist because you can be murdered. That's totally misunderstanding what rights are. Rights aren't a guarantee of anything. They are an expectation of something. Using your logic, there can't be a 'freedom to life' as you can be killed. There can't be a 'freedom of movement' as you can be imprisoned. It's faulty 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.

Can you own a pistol in Australia? Nope. That by definition is a lack of freedom.

Can you own a nuke in the US? Nope. That by definition is a lack of freedom.

I or Seth were never talking about Australia. Honestly, I could give a shit about Australia.

I have only ever been talking about Australia (except where explicitly otherwise) and I was the one to instigate a debate with each of you. If you two can't keep to the scope of the debate, that's not my problem.

However, I find it absolutely despicable and deplorable that you would deprive your fellow citizens from owning a pistol or any firearm for their protection.

I find it absolutely despicable and deplorable that you would deprive your fellow citizens from owning a nuke or any ICBM for their protection.

It's disgusting.

I know! Imagine not being able to own a nuke. I feel sick just thinking about it!

You facilitate the perpetration of evil by preventing your own citizens from being able to defend themselves. Especially physically weaker people who would not be able to defend themselves from a stronger or multiple attackers.

And yet after all the hyperbole, we still have a lower crime rate in Australia than the US.

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

:facepalm: Maybe I missed something. Who's arguing in favor of nukes?

Read above and I hope you will now understand why it's a handy rhetorical device.

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

"Inbred hicks?" I don't think bigoted statements count as arguments. It does a good job illustrating the quality of your character though.

So you are saying there aren't teabilly militias all over the country just waiting for the government to allegedly break the constitution so they can storm Washington and reclaim their God given rights?

[Collector1337]

And in Australia, you can live a happier AND longer life than in the US.

You can also live a longer and happier than Australians in America too. Some Australians live longer than some Americans and some Americans live longer than some Australians.

There are so many variables in life expectancy, it makes life expectancy stats essentially pointless. Do you have a healthy diet? Do you exercise? Are you a smoker? There are lots of personal life choices that go into your life expectancy.

As I've said before, you guys can shoot each other as much as you want.

Thanks. What's your problem then?

You can be as paranoid as you want.

You overuse the word "paranoid." I don't think you know what real paranoia looks like.

But on the latter, you probably don't have to be. CBT and medication could probably help you a lot.

CBT? I'm on the edge of my seat. I can hardly wait to see your expertise of CBT.

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.

Undoubtedly the most simplified explanation of CBT I've ever heard. You'd make Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and Marsha Linehan proud.

Let me guess, you've been a patient of CBT. I practice CBT, DBT, and REBT. I wonder which one of us has more credibility.

Seth's assessment of risk I've found to be perfectly rational. The possibility of being victimized is quite possible. Carrying a firearm is a rational precaution to take to minimize that risk.

You say not to catastrophize, but then talk as if citizens' firearm ownership would be anarchy in the streets and you would no longer have your "freedom from being murdered." Do you see the flaw in this line of thinking?

Something tells me that Seth is MUCH happier armed than he would be unarmed and his quality of life would actually be diminished if he were unarmed. You don't neuter a sheepdog.

I also don't think that being blissfully ignorant is any way to live either. At least if you have more than half a brain anyway.

Let's all just cover our eyes and plug our ears. Hear no evil, see no evil...

[Collector1337]

I've only got involved in this issue as Collector and you like to stick your noses in our business and tell us we are "slaves".

But... you are slaves.

This is in my signature for a reason: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

I see it the other way. I see it as you sticking your nose into other people's lives and imposing on them, keeping them from defending themselves appropriately because it interferes with your so-called "freedom from being murdered."

You prohibiting people from protecting themselves, making it that much easier for criminals, makes you just as guilty as the criminals. You are an accessory to the crime.

[pErvinalia]

And in Australia, you can live a happier AND longer life than in the US.

You can also live a longer and happier than Australians in America too. Some Australians live longer than some Americans and some Americans live longer than some Australians.

There are so many variables in life expectancy, it makes life expectancy stats essentially pointless. Do you have a healthy diet? Do you exercise? Are you a smoker? There are lots of personal life choices that go into your life expectancy.

As I've said before, you guys can shoot each other as much as you want.

Thanks. What's your problem then?

Who said I have a problem? I am commenting on your fallacious arguments concerning hypothetical gun scenarios in Australia.

But on the latter, you probably don't have to be. CBT and medication could probably help you a lot.

CBT? I'm on the edge of my seat. I can hardly wait to see your expertise of CBT.

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.

Undoubtedly the most simplified explanation of CBT I've ever heard.

Well it was for Seth, so I have to keep it simple.

Let me guess, you've been a patient of CBT. I practice CBT, DBT, and REBT. I wonder which one of us has more credibility.

You're just a redneck on the internet until proven otherwise. Your misuse of logic and bad reading comprehension certainly point to that possibility...

Seth's assessment of risk I've found to be perfectly rational.

Really? You find answering the fact that you are a very low probability to be a victim of terrorism, with the statement "Yeah, but 100% of dead people are dead" to be rational?!? He's quite obviously pre-occupied with Marxists and Islamist boogey men, let alone random criminals, and it interferes with his normal life (he has a bunker and has to be armed and have a bugout pack everywhere he goes; he's commented before he won't travel to certain states without reciprocal CC laws unless it is absolutely necessary).

The possibility of being victimized is quite possible. Carrying a firearm is a rational precaution to take to minimize that risk.

In America, it might very well be. You've got gun inertia there (the crims already all have guns). In Australia, it's not a rational precaution on it's own, as there isn't the need for it here as there is there, and the more guns in society will mean more guns in criminal hands. So it's not rational in our society at all. Unless you only look at it from an individual's perspective, which is what you guys do.

You say not to catastrophize, but then talk as if citizens' firearm ownership would be anarchy in the streets and you would no longer have your "freedom from being murdered." Do you see the flaw in this line of thinking?

Not at all. Do you seriously think that gun crime would drop in Australia with widespread introduction of guns? THAT is flawed reasoning. The more guns there are in society, the more will be in criminal hands. Remember, Australia isn't like the US. We share no land borders with anyone, particularly a mafia and drug centric continent to your south. Sure, stuff would come in on shipping containers, but it's much harder to organise and easier to police than a massive open border. And ultimately, there isn't the market for guns here.

Let's all just cover our eyes and plug our ears. Hear no evil, see no evil...

Let's all just argue in false dichotomies...