Connecticut (et al)

[Blind groper]

There's 100,000 to 2.5 million individual instances of citizens with firearms NOT being victimized every year. That's proof absolute of the utility of firearms in preventing criminal victimization.

Quite the opposite. 200 million Americans who do not own firearms are not being murdered, raped or maimed to any degree greater than the 100 million who do own guns. However, those who own guns are seeing spousal murder, and suicide of family members occurring at a rate far greater than among the 200 million without guns.

In addition, hundreds of millions of people living in the other 23 richest nations who do not have guns are being murdered at a rate a quarter or less than the USA.

The idea that owning guns makes you safer is shown clearly by the statistics to be utter, unmitigated hogwash.

To suggest that we ban handguns because they are "particularly bad" is to impute a motive and moral judgment on an inanimate lump of metal that cannot function without a human being operating it, which is both logical fallacy and a silly assertion

It is not a moral assertion at all. It is purely pragmatic. Half of all murders in the USA are with hand guns and ditto with suicides. To remove handguns is to reduce the carnage. Nothing moral about that, apart from the fact that saving lives is a very moral action.

[Seth]

No, because it's impossible to keep weapons (any weapons) out of the hands of criminals.

Not true. 23 out of the 24 richest nations show it not to be true. In those nations with good gun control, a few criminals will get hold of nasty firearms, like hand guns. But the vast bulk will have to rely on lesser weapons, that do not kill people as easily. This drops the murder rate dramatically and save human lives.

Taking the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does not reduce the murder rate, it just makes them more vulnerable to criminals. Criminals who want guns can get guns in any nation on earth, including the UK, where the prevalence of MACHINE GUNS in the hands of criminals continues to rise.

But even that's irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that every individual has a personal right to keep and bear effective tools for self defense because his or her individual life is not subject to statistical denigration and infringement by gun-haters.

[/quote]

[Warren Dew]

No, because it's impossible to keep weapons (any weapons) out of the hands of criminals.

Not true. 23 out of the 24 richest nations show it not to be true. In those nations with good gun control, a few criminals will get hold of nasty firearms, like hand guns. But the vast bulk will have to rely on lesser weapons, that do not kill people as easily.

Good point. Breivik used nice, safe rifles for the most part, and he did not get killed.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your second paragraph smacks of desperation, since you know your other argument is crap.

So you fall back on your religion and make an emotional and religious statement.

[Seth]

There's 100,000 to 2.5 million individual instances of citizens with firearms NOT being victimized every year. That's proof absolute of the utility of firearms in preventing criminal victimization.

Quite the opposite. 200 million Americans who do not own firearms are not being murdered, raped or maimed to any degree greater than the 100 million who do own guns.

Demonstrably they are, no matter how often you deny the truth.

To suggest that we ban handguns because they are "particularly bad" is to impute a motive and moral judgment on an inanimate lump of metal that cannot function without a human being operating it, which is both logical fallacy and a silly assertion

It is not a moral assertion at all. It is purely pragmatic. Half of all murders in the USA are with hand guns and ditto with suicides. To remove handguns is to reduce the carnage. Nothing moral about that, apart from the fact that saving lives is a very moral action.[/quote]

And sacrificing lives on the theory that it will save lives is entirely immoral. Removing handguns from the hands of law-abiding citizens will do nothing to remove them from the hands of criminals, and will just ensure 100,000 to 2.5 million more criminal victimizations per year.

[Seth]

You contradict yourself. If the nature of the tool doesn't matter, then you should be just as able to defend yourself with a knife, a bat, a car, a rock.

The nature of the tool doesn't matter in the MORAL EQUATION. A weapon used to murder someone is no better or worse, morally, than a weapon used to defend that person against a crime. The tool has no moral position, it's an inanimate object.

If a gun is particularly effective for all the reasons you say, then it's particularly effective for criminals too.

Can't have it both ways, Seth.

Of course it's particularly effective for criminals, which is precisely why law-abiding citizens must be allowed at least arms parity, and preferably arms superiority with criminals, so that they have a better chance at defending themselves than the criminal does to harm them regardless of what weapon the criminal might choose to use.

The first rule of gunfighting is "Bring a gun."

The second rule of gunfighting is "Trust an asshole to bring a knife to a gunfight."

[aspire1670]

You contradict yourself. If the nature of the tool doesn't matter, then you should be just as able to defend yourself with a knife, a bat, a car, a rock.

The nature of the tool doesn't matter in the MORAL EQUATION. A weapon used to murder someone is no better or worse, morally, than a weapon used to defend that person against a crime. The tool has no moral position, it's an inanimate object.

If a gun is particularly effective for all the reasons you say, then it's particularly effective for criminals too.

Can't have it both ways, Seth.

Of course it's particularly effective for criminals, which is precisely why law-abiding citizens must be allowed at least arms parity, and preferably arms superiority with criminals, so that they have a better chance at defending themselves than the criminal does to harm them regardless of what weapon the criminal might choose to use.

The first rule of gunfighting is "Bring a gun."

The second rule of gunfighting is "Trust an asshole to bring a gun to a cruise missile fight."

FIFY

[Blind groper]

Removing handguns from the hands of law-abiding citizens will do nothing to remove them from the hands of criminals, and will just ensure 100,000 to 2.5 million more criminal victimizations per year.

The evidence points to exactly the opposite.
More guns means more deaths. More murders. More suicides. The data shows that having a gun at home increases the risk to members of the family of being killed with a bullet. Self defense is a rubbish argument, when the self defense tool increases the risk.

And yes, removing guns from law abiding citizens will remove them from criminals, though not immediately. Criminals get their guns because they are readily available. Make them less readily available to every one, and criminals will also miss out.
Outside the USA, but still within the wealthiest nations, hand guns are very difficult to get hold of, and are impossible to buy legally. The result is that very, very few criminals have hand guns. Inside the USA, any fool who wants a hand gun can get one. Guess what? They are also very common among criminals.

[Hermit]

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

And any rights for civilians to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the military success of the allies in WW2. Neither did it have anything to do with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the demise of the Soviet Union, or anything that can be given an example of the end of tyranny in the modern era.

Actually it had a lot to do with both.

Eh? Virtually the entire contingent of tyrannical east block regimes was liquidated with nary a shot being fired, let alone a presence of armed militias or even a threat of armed insurrection. And, starting with India's independence movement from its colonial tyrants at the latest, these examples are by no means the only ones.

More guns means more deaths. More murders. More suicides.

That's what I used to believe, but according to the ABS figures pertaining to Australia, as well as the Wikipedia among other sources, the rate of increase in homicide rates overall had not changed in three years either side of the implementation of Australian gun control laws, and the rate of decrease in suicide rates had not changed in that time frame either. In short, the de facto prohibition of private gun ownership made no difference to either.

Before Seth starts gloating, let me also mention this: Sexual assaults per capita have risen steadily since gun controls were tightened, but the rate of increase is no greater than the rate of increase in the years leading up to that legislative change. Also, the criminal use of any weapons has never gone outside the 1.3 to 2.1% range there. Robberies, armed as well as unarmed, were no higher in 2006 than in 1996 on a per capita basis. The avalanche of violent crime he probably expected to occur after the passing of the 1996 gun control laws and subsequent compulsory gun buyback scheme did not eventuate, nor has a single one of our various governments turned into tyrannical regimes.

So, no, the statistics - should anyone be bothered to actually look at them, in Australia at least - are not as unambiguous as extremists on either side of the gun control debate would have us believe.

[MrJonno]

Has Australia ever had any signficiant gun crime to regulate in the first place, if a single gunman can double the gun murders in a year for example then statistics on such a small rate is meaningless ?

Reducing gun murders from 15000 to 12000 for example is signficant from 15 to 12 not so

[pErvinalia]

Australia banned a whole lot of gun types in about 1996 after our worst massacre - Port Arthur where about 25 or so were killed - and since that point there have been no massacres.

[JimC]

Australia banned a whole lot of gun types in about 1996 after our worst massacre - Port Arthur where about 25 or so were killed - and since that point there have been no massacres.

I handed in my guns after that, in the big gun buy-back...

I couldn't use 'em much anymore, due to some vision deterioration...

I'd bought 'em 2nd hand, and actually got more for them from the government than I paid!

I should be ashamed of myself...

[pErvinalia]

You should be, Jim. You should have covered them in vaseline and buried them in the back yard. All but one that is. You need one when Mr Government comes to visit with his sub-machine gun.

[Hermit]

Has Australia ever had any signficiant gun crime to regulate in the first place, if a single gunman can double the gun murders in a year for example then statistics on such a small rate is meaningless ?

There is no doubt that restricting the availability of firearms will decrease murder perpetrated with firearms, but to conclude that therefore murder rates will drop is not borne out by the facts. In 1995 Australia's murder rate stood at 1.8 /100,000. As a result of Martin Bryant's Port Arthur massacre in 1996 the Commonwealth government introduced stringent gun controls. Practically no automatic or semi-automatic weapons were allowed in private ownership. Those who owned any were compelled to sell them to the government. The buy-back was concluded in September 1997, half a billion dollars and 631,000 firearms later. Now wind forward to 1999. You'll find that Australia's murder rate stood at 1.8 /100,000, exactly the same as the year before the buy-back. Not exactly statistics to confirm that reduced gun ownership reduces murder, is it?

The news for gun control is even worse in relation to suicide rates. They have been climbing at a slow but steady rate for decades either side of the gun control laws.

[rainbow]

I've posted numerous examples of people who were saved from death or injury by their firearms, but like a petulant child you just ignore any facts that conflict with your mania.

There are examples of people who have been saved from death or injury that didn't have firearms.
You're not really making a valid point.

Of course it's a valid point. The fact that other tactics and tools work in some situations doesn't change the fact that the handgun is the most effective tool for self defense ever invented because it can be used to dispense at least four levels of force; warning (by merely saying you have or displaying the weapon); threat (by drawing and aiming the weapon); non-lethal discharge (warning shot or wounding shot...neither being recommended); and lethal force to stop an imminent deadly attack.

Other weapons can do the same thing, but not from a distance sufficient to keep an attacker out of direct contact.

No other weapon, except another firearm, can do that.

When someone invents such a tool that will allow instant incapacitation of an attacker from distances up to 50 yards or more away that is 100 percent effective in all situations (unlike Tasers) then I'll consider putting my handgun in the safe and carrying that tool.

Until then, I'll carry a pistol.

I, and a few billion others don't carry a pistol, and have never been mugged.
Numerous examples.
By your logic then, not carrying a gun will save one from being mugged.

You really didn't think this one through.