It just gets better and better for gun owners

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

On homicide versus murder.

We could end in a semantics argument here, which is kinda pointless. So let me just say that killing another human when your own life is not on the line is not justifiable.

Well, not quite. The usual standard is "imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm."

American law is weird in that it seems to take the value of a human life very lightly, and permits killings which are not really necessary.

"Not really necessary" according to whom? Here in the US the "necessity" is pretty clearly spelled out in the laws regulating the use of physical force in self defense. Some states have "retreat to the wall" statutes and others have "Castle Doctrine" statutes that specify under what circumstances a person may lawfully use deadly physical force. It's all very carefully regulated and due regard is given to the life of the attacker. This subject has been debated in legislatures nationwide for more than 200 years, resulting in a very good metric for allowable use of force in self-defense.

Personally, I value human life more highly, and believe that taking another person's life is the worst of crimes (except taking more than one life), and can only be justified for the very strongest of reasons.

Well, there's no real disagreement there from me. I must have cited the specific language where I live to you a hundred times and you blithely ignore it every time I do. I suspect this is because if you acknowledge that the law actually does take your concerns into consideration you wouldn't have anything to bitch about.

You see, it's not actually a "Wild West" free-for-all over here...although you would like it to be. But it's not, which makes your comparisons nothing more than strawman fallacies. And I think you'll find that even your country authorizes the use of deadly force in similar circumstances. The difference is that I have the present ability to use deadly physical force in self defense while you do not.

So, in the event of an attack that fully justifies the use of deadly physical force because it is an imminent lethal threat, I'm much, much more likely to survive than you are. And I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six.

[rainbow]

On homicide versus murder.

We could end in a semantics argument here, which is kinda pointless. So let me just say that killing another human when your own life is not on the line is not justifiable.

Well, not quite. The usual standard is "imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm."

Yes.

Now in a civilised country that happens like about never in a lifetime.

[Seth]

On homicide versus murder.

We could end in a semantics argument here, which is kinda pointless. So let me just say that killing another human when your own life is not on the line is not justifiable.

Well, not quite. The usual standard is "imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm."

Yes.

Now in a civilised country that happens like about never in a lifetime.

Tell it to the Charlie Hebdo folks.

[Blind groper]

No. Charlie Hebdo events are very, very rare. But in the United States, according to the FBI, there are 4,000 occasions each and every year in which two people get into a heated argument, and one pulls out a handgun and shoots the other one dead.

In my country, that never happens. In fact, in my country, there are fewer than 6 firearms murders in a year, any year. The demand to be able to carry a handgun for self defense is pointless in a place where people do not carry concealed firearms. So I do not need to carry a firearm, and I do not.

The statistics do matter. Because those statistics are about human lives, and human lives lost. In the USA, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, simply owning a gun doubles your risk of being murdered. When you look at a statistic like that, you realise how idiotic it is to insist that you need a gun for self defense.

[Seth]

No. Charlie Hebdo events are very, very rare.

That's not the point. To the people who got killed, it was a 100 percent certainty and every one of them needed a gun, or two, or three, and body armor.

But in the United States, according to the FBI, there are 4,000 occasions each and every year in which two people get into a heated argument, and one pulls out a handgun and shoots the other one dead.

And most of those are gang-related, not that it matters. Everyone else's right to effective self defense cannot be restricted or denied based on what 0.00001 percent of people might do to one another.

In my country, that never happens.

Liar. In 2011 there were 61 murders in New Zealand, of which 3 were committed by firearm, 16 were committed with edged weapons, 6 were committed with "other weapons," and the majority, 36 were committed with no weapon at all.

In other words, Kiwis may not shoot each other, but they knife each other and simply beat or strangle one another to death instead.

And every one of those victims is just as dead as if they had been shot with a gun used by a criminal.

Which means that YOU have the blood of 61 people (in 2011 alone) on YOUR hands because they were prohibited from possessing effective weapons of self defense, like a handgun, or a knife, or even a fucking pepper-spray cannister, and so they got shot, knifed, beaten and strangled to death thanks to jackasses like you who want to apportion their right to self defense out to them based on some statistical probability that they will be attacked.

I hope every one of them comes to haunt you for the rest of your life.

In fact, in my country, there are fewer than 6 firearms murders in a year, any year. The demand to be able to carry a handgun for self defense is pointless in a place where people do not carry concealed firearms. So I do not need to carry a firearm, and I do not.

Wrong. Handguns are quite effective self-defense tools against people who are trying to beat you to death with their bare hands or knife you, which is what you absolutely refuse to believe.

The statistics do matter.

Not to the people who needed a weapon and didn't have one because of pricks like you they don't.

Because those statistics are about human lives, and human lives lost.

No they aren't, they are mendacious and misleading lies that disrespect the lives of those who need to defend themselves.

In the USA, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, simply owning a gun doubles your risk of being murdered.

Hoary old lie that has been repeatedly refuted because it was fatally biased.

When you look at a statistic like that, you realise how idiotic it is to insist that you need a gun for self defense.

Unless you do need one, in which case your agenda does nothing but create helpless victims.

[pErvinalia]

No. Charlie Hebdo events are very, very rare.

That's not the point. To the people who got killed, it was a 100 percent certainty..

Not this again. You really shouldn't mix with statistics.

By your retarded statistical reasoning, there should be no preference between living in a society where the chance of getting the plague is 95% vs a society where the chance of getting the plague is 5%. Surely even you can see how retarded this is?

[JimC]

With about 3 times the murder rate in the gun-happy USA compared to NZ or Oz, I know where I prefer to live...

[pErvinalia]

But you'll be just as dead when you get shot in Australia, Jim, you moran! That's why we all need anti-tank shoulder missile launchers. Duh.

[JimC]

But you'll be just as dead when you get shot in Australia, Jim, you moran! That's why we all need anti-tank shoulder missile launchers. Duh.

I'll bash them over the head with a bottle of gin!

[Hermit]

You do have enough good sense to empty it first, yes?

To the people who got killed, it was a 100 percent certainty..

Yes, and the reality of it is experienced by a lot more people on a per population basis in the country made "safe" by privately owned bang bang sticks than in those that don't rely for the safety of their lives on them.

And don't bother with citing exceptions. I heard your bullshit too many times already. That's why I only get to read your rubbish any more unless someone else quotes you or I choose to look into a post of yours in a thread that is unlikely to to be more vomit about lolbertardianism or guns. We have statistical variations too, as well as gangs, drug trading gangs, differences between rural and urban areas, and differences within urban areas, and differences between states and so on.

[Blind groper]

It would be really nice if Seth would do a course on practical statistics, so that he could actually understand what we are talking about.

[JimC]

It would be really nice if Seth would do a course on practical statistics, so that he could actually understand what we are talking about.

Will the ends justify the means?

Or the medians and modes?

[klr]

It would be really nice if Seth would do a course on practical statistics, so that he could actually understand what we are talking about.

Will the ends justify the means?

Or the medians and modes?

What would be the poisson of all this?

[Seth]

No. Charlie Hebdo events are very, very rare.

That's not the point. To the people who got killed, it was a 100 percent certainty..

Not this again. You really shouldn't mix with statistics.

By your retarded statistical reasoning, there should be no preference between living in a society where the chance of getting the plague is 95% vs a society where the chance of getting the plague is 5%. Surely even you can see how retarded this is?

Nonsense. If you live in a society where your chances of getting plague are high, you can substantially reduce your personal chances of getting plague by engaging in a program of plague self-defense. Just because the overall statistical risk is 95% doesn't mean that any particular individual's risk is 95%. There's a reason that one society has a 5% risk and the other has a 95% risk and it's primarily to do with individual behavior and actions. That's why Ebola hasn't taken hold here like it has in Africa. We understand the risks of transmission vectors so we don't expose ourselves to them by washing and otherwise handling infected corpses.

Talk about not understanding statistics, you're a prime example of a utter inability to reason or use logic.

The statistical probability that the victim of a violent crime will be the victim of a violent crime is, of course, 100 percent.

However, the statistical likelihood that any one specific individual will be the victim of violent crime is indeterminate. In other words, neither you nor anyone else can accurately predict your specific individual risk of victimization.

This is because your personal statistical risk depends on so many individual factors that it's impossible to make any such prediction with any sort of statistical certainty. The overall risk of being "murdered by a gun" as BG loves to argue may be X in any particular society, but the risks are not evenly distributed throughout the entire population. Thus, the risks of a person living in a small-town rural area are extremely low whereas the risks of a person living in a densely-populated minority neighborhood in a major city are substantially higher, and even higher if they are of a particular ethic extraction.

And that's just considering a couple of factors like location and race. What makes your analysis so ridiculous is that you completely ignore the effects of personal behavior on one's risk of being victimized. One does not leave one's doors unlocked in metropolitan Chicago because your chances of being victimized jump drastically. On the other hand, people living in small towns commonly leave everything unlocked and are never victimized.

Likewise, those who pay no attention to what's going on around them, who walk with their heads down or buried in their cellphones in urban areas are much more vulnerable to being victimized by a criminal, or falling into an open manhole, than someone who remains situationally aware and practices good urban tactical movement by keeping their head up and on a swivel so that they can identify potential dangers far in advance. That behavior alone substantially reduces your risks of being victimized even in a densely populated urban area.

And being armed reduces your risks even more, no matter where you are, because you have the ability to engage in active self-defense rather than prophylactic crime-avoidance measures.

And with respect to using statistics to justify banning guns, as I said it's not a matter of statistics because no matter how low your "gun murder" statistics are in your particular community, unless they and every other form of criminal victimization are zero, which we all know is not possible and does not occur anywhere on the planet and never has, your right to not be victimized and to engage in effective self-defense is individual and indivisible and 100 percent fully formed as a part of your basic human rights, which means that if you are victimized you have the absolute right to use any form of self defense, and any tool of self defense that is required to prevent or stop the victimization.

And since, as I have established above, it is utterly impossible to predict when or where any particular individual will be subject to criminal victimization, it is therefore the absolute right of every individual person on the face of the earth to prepare for and carry the effective tools of self defense against such threats if they so choose. Your notion that you are immune from "gun murders" cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on my right to be armed in anticipation of being the intended victim of a violent crime...or a pit bull.