Connecticut (et al)

[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 ?

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.

From a bit of googling there are around 300 murders a year in Australia which considering its size is basically the same rate as every other developed nation bar the US of couse. Of these around 15% or so use firearms ~ 45 . The numbers are tiny I doubt any change in any law is going to make a lot of difference on that. If the murder rate has doubled or halved it would be interesting but as it is changes in murder rates are irrelevant with such a small sample

[Coito ergo sum]

How did they kill monarchs in days of olde? Ear poison? Swords? Guillotines?

Monarchs? They were impaled on pins and stuck to boards.

[laklak]

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.

"Cosmoline", rEv. Vaseline is only good for diaper rash.

And Mr. Gummint ain't coming with a sub-machine gun, he's coming with M1A2s, Predator drones and killer robots.

[Hermit]

...I doubt any change in any law is going to make a lot of difference on that.

...and it hasn't, but the sample size has nothing to do with that.

Besides, I have come up with some verifiable numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. All you have done so far is to produce unsubstantiated assertions.

[Seth]

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.

You're not stating any sort of logic at all here. Correlation =/= causation. The fact that you don't carry a gun neither enhances nor reduces your chances of being violently attacked. What it does do is eliminate your ability to adequately and efficiently defend yourself should you be attacked.

It's absolutely no different from owning a fire extinguisher or buying an insurance policy for your car or home. Has your home ever burned down? Probably not. But it's likely that you, and most other people, carry fire insurance anyway because the consequences of realizing the very small risk of a fire in your home are so grave and economically devastating that it makes the investment worthwhile for your peace of mind.

Carrying a handgun routinely is exactly the same. I don't carry with the expectation that I WILL be attacked, I carry on the premise that if I AM attacked, I wish to be equipped to respond effectively to that attack. It's no different than the comprehensive trauma kit I carry in my car (which I've used to help others many times), or the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, or the tool kit I carry on my BMW motorcycle. One does not expect problems, one merely assess risk and prepares reasonable responses based on that analysis.

You get to analyze your risks of being mugged and prepare yourself, which you can certainly do without a gun. You can assiduously avoid dark parking lots, late-night streets, bad areas of town and exercise better situational awareness, all of which will greatly assist in keeping you from being victimized. But it can't guarantee it, and so you have to decide what you're going to do if someone waves a knife at you and demands your wallet. Maybe you think it's best to just give it to him, or give him your fake "mugger's wallet" instead. That's fine, you get to make that choice.

But what happens if your attacker isn't interested in mugging you, but simply wants to kill you? What if he wants to shove you in front of a moving subway train or bus on the street? What if he doesn't know or care about you personally, he just walks into the mall and opens fire on whomever happens to be there? What's your plan?

Are you going to see cover and try to escape? Fine, great planning if you actually are situationally aware enough to effectuate that plan because you have trained to do so.

But what happens when there is no escape, or it's someone you love, like your wife and kids who are being targeted for death, or worse and they can neither defend themselves nor escape? What are YOU going to do?

Nothing, most likely. Nothing at all. This is because you have neither trained nor equipped yourself to effectively defend anyone against an armed attacker in advance, so you'll just cower over your loved ones and be the first, but not the only one killed. Or raped.

I resolved long ago that I would do everything possible not to ever be in a situation where I am helpless and unable to respond effectively to a deadly attack on me, my loved ones, or anyone else around me.

That resolve, and the oaths I've taken to preserve, protect and defend, give me no other choice but to carry a handgun every single day in public. You don't have to do so if you don't feel compelled to do so, but you may not abridge MY right to prepare for the worst merely because you might have an unreasoning and irrational fear of inanimate lumps of metal carried by law-abiding citizens.

It's the thugs and murderers who carry those same inert lumps of steel that you ought to be worried about, and any sensible person prepares in advance to deal with such incidents, no matter how remote the chance might be of being attacked, because it DOES happen, even in the UK (or especially so) and the consequences of being improperly trained and equipped are as grave as it gets: your life and/or the lives of your family.

I find it to be ignorance and cowardice of the highest order that a parent of a child would NOT be armed to protect those helpless children. It's a duty and obligation of parenthood that one be trained and prepared for worst-case scenarios involving children in my opinion, and you shouldn't have a choice NOT to carry and be proficient with arms so you can defend them any more than you should have the choice NOT to put your kids in a car seat, or make them wear a helmet when they ride their bikes.

[aspire1670]

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.

You're not stating any sort of logic at all here. Correlation =/= causation. The fact that you don't carry a gun neither enhances nor reduces your chances of being violently attacked. What it does do is eliminate your ability to adequately and efficiently defend yourself should you be attacked.

It's absolutely no different from owning a fire extinguisher or buying an insurance policy for your car or home. Has your home ever burned down? Probably not. But it's likely that you, and most other people, carry fire insurance anyway because the consequences of realizing the very small risk of a fire in your home are so grave and economically devastating that it makes the investment worthwhile for your peace of mind.

Carrying a handgun routinely is exactly the same. I don't carry with the expectation that I WILL be attacked, I carry on the premise that if I AM attacked, I wish to be equipped to respond effectively to that attack. It's no different than the comprehensive trauma kit I carry in my car (which I've used to help others many times), or the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, or the tool kit I carry on my BMW motorcycle. One does not expect problems, one merely assess risk and prepares reasonable responses based on that analysis.

You get to analyze your risks of being mugged and prepare yourself, which you can certainly do without a gun. You can assiduously avoid dark parking lots, late-night streets, bad areas of town and exercise better situational awareness, all of which will greatly assist in keeping you from being victimized. But it can't guarantee it, and so you have to decide what you're going to do if someone waves a knife at you and demands your wallet. Maybe you think it's best to just give it to him, or give him your fake "mugger's wallet" instead. That's fine, you get to make that choice.

But what happens if your attacker isn't interested in mugging you, but simply wants to kill you? What if he wants to shove you in front of a moving subway train or bus on the street? What if he doesn't know or care about you personally, he just walks into the mall and opens fire on whomever happens to be there? What's your plan?

Are you going to see cover and try to escape? Fine, great planning if you actually are situationally aware enough to effectuate that plan because you have trained to do so.

But what happens when there is no escape, or it's someone you love, like your wife and kids who are being targeted for death, or worse and they can neither defend themselves nor escape? What are YOU going to do?

Nothing, most likely. Nothing at all. This is because you have neither trained nor equipped yourself to effectively defend anyone against an armed attacker in advance, so you'll just cower over your loved ones and be the first, but not the only one killed. Or raped.

I resolved long ago that I would do everything possible not to ever be in a situation where I am helpless and unable to respond effectively to a deadly attack on me, my loved ones, or anyone else around me.

That resolve, and the oaths I've taken to preserve, protect and defend, give me no other choice but to carry a handgun every single day in public. You don't have to do so if you don't feel compelled to do so, but you may not abridge MY right to prepare for the worst merely because you might have an unreasoning and irrational fear of inanimate lumps of metal carried by law-abiding citizens.

It's the thugs and murderers who carry those same inert lumps of steel that you ought to be worried about, and any sensible person prepares in advance to deal with such incidents, no matter how remote the chance might be of being attacked, because it DOES happen, even in the UK (or especially so) and the consequences of being improperly trained and equipped are as grave as it gets: your life and/or the lives of your family.

I find it to be ignorance and cowardice of the highest order that a parent of a child would NOT be armed to protect those helpless children. It's a duty and obligation of parenthood that one be trained and prepared for worst-case scenarios involving children in my opinion, and you shouldn't have a choice NOT to carry and be proficient with arms so you can defend them any more than you should have the choice NOT to put your kids in a car seat, or make them wear a helmet when they ride their bikes.

Shorter Seth: I carry a gun so that I can defend you and your children to death.

[Seth]

Shorter Seth: I carry a gun so that I can defend you and your children to the death.

You forgot a word. I fixed it for you...

[aspire1670]

Shorter Seth: I carry a gun so that I can defend you and your children to the death.

You forgot a word. I fixed it for you...

Nope, I forgot no word. You demand the right to defend others without their consent, the resort of all tyrants, and when your assumed right to defend others backfires and others die you will indeed have defended them to death. Fortunately for the rest of us you can only talk the talk. Now sit down, have another pie and tell us what you did in the great internet war, young Seth.

[JimC]

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.

However, what did not change was that there were very few handguns in private hands both before and after the Port Arthur shooting and the subsequent tightening of regulations, which was mostly about semi-automatic rifles. If BG is correct in his assertion that its the ready availability of handguns that is responsible for the high US figures, one would expect our already low rate to simply be maintained.

The tightening of the gun laws simply reduced the chances of another Port Arthur style massacre happening (note I do not infer making it impossible, just statistically less likely)

EDIT - Hermit, it was rather pointless to include the word "automatic" in the banned category. They have always been illegal in Oz...

[MrJonno]

Good guys with guns to protect us from bad guys with guns, isnt life simple

Difference between a good guy and a bad guy, a bad day at the office, finding out the wife has been unfaithful, mental illness, time basically there is no difference.
The more 'good' guys with guns the most chance of me getting shot, better 0.1% of people have guns whether they are police, army, serial killers than 99%

[Blind groper]

Good guys become bad guys.
Nicely stated Mr Jonno.

Seth continues to ignore that fact that murders by strangers are a minority of murders. 60% of women murdered in the home are murdered by their male partner, and the presence of a gun in the home increases that probability about 3 fold. Having a gun in the home most definitely does not make it safer for a woman. Totally the reverse.

Seth thinks that carrying a gun is like insurance. Nope. Insurance is a small cost to cover you against an unlikely but devastating problem. Carrying a gun actually makes a family destroying problem more likely, so it is the reverse of insurance.
Carrying or keeping at home, some kind of firearm and especially a hand gun, increases the risk of a member of the family being shot. It is the reverse of insurance. It does not protect. It puts your family at risk instead.

[laklak]

I don't care about bad guys or good guys or protecting innocents. What I care about is my ability to protect myself while in my home, in my car or on my boat. No one is going to take that ability away from me, I don't give one good goddamn what laws they pass. I'll literally bury the fucking guns till the stormtroopers leave, and if I ever have to use them to protect my life, my wife or kids, my dogs, or my property then I'll deal with the legal ramifications later. Not that I'm worried about it, because living where I do they are never, ever going to confiscate my weapons and if they do start that shit then I'll move to a different state. And yes, I did say property. I value my property higher then I value the life of some stranger.

This guy had the right idea. Naked dude choking your dog in your backyard? Bang bang. Problem solved.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Naked-Man- ... 11232.html

[MrJonno]

I don't care about bad guys or good guys or protecting innocents. What I care about is my ability to protect myself while in my home, in my car or on my boat. No one is going to take that ability away from me, I don't give one good goddamn what laws they pass. I'll literally bury the fucking guns till the stormtroopers leave, and if I ever have to use them to protect my life, my wife or kids, my dogs, or my property then I'll deal with the legal ramifications later. Not that I'm worried about it, because living where I do they are never, ever going to confiscate my weapons and if they do start that shit then I'll move to a different state. And yes, I did say property. I value my property higher then I value the life of some stranger.

This guy had the right idea. Naked dude choking your dog in your backyard? Bang bang. Problem solved.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Naked-Man- ... 11232.html

It's a bit different being 90 ish, stoned , in the middle of nowhere, no money or work worries and a beautiful wife 1/3rd your age to your average stressed out on the point of cracking up typical urbanite While I wouldnt say its impossible you wouldnt go on the rampage at your local school in your case its probably a lower chance than average.

I however do you have to worry about your average stressed out neighbour having a bad day at the office. this 'law abiding' citizen is a serious inconveience when you hear him arguing all night with his wife he become a significant danger if he gets hold of a firearm.

Sod fearing the government its never as remotely scary as the public law abiding or not

[laklak]

Well, I'll admit I'm a bit of an outlier, statistically speaking, but I'm digging it.

I do understand your point. When I lived in the UK I shared walls on both sides of my home, I could hear the neighbors fighting, fucking and shitting. It sucked, I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Now that I'm living the suburban lifestyle I've had to make a few adjustments - can't just go out the front door and start shooting, and bears don't eat the trash anymore. But at least I can get decent Thai and the liquor store is only 10 minutes away instead of 45 miles.

Fucking racoons are a pain in the ass, though. I'm considering a high powered air rifle.

[MrJonno]

Well, I'll admit I'm a bit of an outlier, statistically speaking, but I'm digging it.

I do understand your point. When I lived in the UK I shared walls on both sides of my home, I could hear the neighbors fighting, fucking and shitting. It sucked, I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Now that I'm living the suburban lifestyle I've had to make a few adjustments - can't just go out the front door and start shooting, and bears don't eat the trash anymore. But at least I can get decent Thai and the liquor store is only 10 minutes away instead of 45 miles.

Fucking racoons are a pain in the ass, though. I'm considering a high powered air rifle.

I don't think living in a big city sucks but their is a price which you mentioned. To be honest if I lived in the countryside I worry I would end up shooting myself out of boredom.