Poll for gun control activists:

[organofcorti]

I can't vouch for the data, but it appears to show that although there are twice as many assault victims in Australia than in the US, there are 158 times more firearm murder in the US as in Australia. That's 15700% more.

Australia does have strict gun laws, and they seem to be useful. There are more assaults in Australia than in the US, but far fewer result in firearm murders. Maybe the assaults are all pub violence, but maybe keeping firearms out of drunk hands is a good thing when the assault rate here is so high.

Thoughts?

"Firearm murder" is a useless statistic and its very use is an indication of a predisposition to a bias against firearms. Outlawing seatbelts and airbags would reduce deaths involving seatbelts and airbags.

There are a lot of these? Source, please.

Then there's the tradeoff, murders vs rapes vs home invasions vs mugging. Guns offer a level of defense otherwise unobtainable for those not a physically fit adult male.

That's a rationalisation, not a provable conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that Americans less likely to be murdered than Australians? The most current data I can find shows that the US has 4.8 times as many murders as in Australia, regardless of the weapon. Why should Australians need guns when they don't suffer the same depredations as US citizens?

[jago25_98]

I used to be anti gun but now I can see advantage in the Swiss approach of everyone having to own a gun by law.

20 dead kids seem worth it for the ability to defend the country from the various powers that be.

[Lethn]

I used to be anti gun but now I can see advantage in the Swiss approach of everyone having to own a gun by law.

20 dead kids seem worth it for the ability to defend the country from the various powers that be.

I think that's the best solution as well, I don't agree with giving an armed mob weapons but getting people who want to own guns to train with them properly will allow people to keep an eye out for crazies too, the swiss have proven gun ownership can work, but of course from what I've seen lately being anti-gun is more of a religion than anything to do with rational thought and whenever a something horrible happens involving guns it's only then they get riled up about it.

I'm actually fully supportive of what the swiss do, I just wish it wasn't compulsory, but you shouldn't be able to get a gun either if you're not willing to do the training anyone sensible would do before getting one.

[Richy_T]

There are a lot of these? Source, please.

A couple, or, even none of these is enough for my point which is that you can't focus on a single statistic (if that is the avenue you are going to pursue.) If you are going to be strictly utilitarian, you must weigh all the pros and cons.

I can tell you this, however: The drummer from Def Leppard's only got one arm.

Then there's the tradeoff, murders vs rapes vs home invasions vs mugging. Guns offer a level of defense otherwise unobtainable for those not a physically fit adult male.

That's a rationalisation, not a provable conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that Americans less likely to be murdered than Australians? The most current data I can find shows that the US has 4.8 times as many murders as in Australia, regardless of the weapon. Why should Australians need guns when they don't suffer the same depredations as US citizens?
[/quote]

No, it's a straight-up fact. Granny with gun, granny without gun. Who's in a better position when the sound of the door being kicked in comes floating up the stairs?

In many ways, the murder rate is irrelevant in any case. It's you who needs to show an overwhelming case for removing the freedom of others.

[organofcorti]

There are a lot of these? Source, please.

A couple, or, even none of these is enough for my point which is that you can't focus on a single statistic (if that is the avenue you are going to pursue.) If you are going to be strictly utilitarian, you must weigh all the pros and cons.

I can tell you this, however: The drummer from Def Leppard's only got one arm.

Then there's the tradeoff, murders vs rapes vs home invasions vs mugging. Guns offer a level of defense otherwise unobtainable for those not a physically fit adult male.

That's a rationalisation, not a provable conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that Americans less likely to be murdered than Australians? The most current data I can find shows that the US has 4.8 times as many murders as in Australia, regardless of the weapon. Why should Australians need guns when they don't suffer the same depredations as US citizens?

No, it's a straight-up fact. Granny with gun, granny without gun. Who's in a better position when the sound of the door being kicked in comes floating up the stairs?

In many ways, the murder rate is irrelevant in any case. It's you who needs to show an overwhelming case for removing the freedom of others.
[/quote]


A stupid non-argument. What percentage of 90 year women can reliably fire a handgun without injuring themselves or others? Who's in a better position? I'd say the granny who lives in Australia rather than the one who lives in the US. At least in Australia handguns are not required to ensure personal safety.


Yes, you're rationalising with made up scenarios.

[organofcorti]

Who's in a better position? I'd say the granny who lives in Australia rather than the one who lives in the US.

I wish we could all just up and move to where we feel is the best place for us to live. Unfortunately, there are rules and regulations regarding even this, making it unnecessarily difficult and costly.

I absolutely agree.

My post was about differences in national character as they apply to gun control, not gun control ingeneral. I think Richy_T either misread or misunderstood my post which quite clearly was no pro or anti guns, but simply noting a difference between two countries and suggested reasons.

[Lethn]

Why do you lot think I want space exploration so much?

[FirstAscent]

I can't vouch for the data, but it appears to show that although there are twice as many assault victims in Australia than in the US, there are 158 times more firearm murder in the US as in Australia. That's 15700% more.

Australia does have strict gun laws, and they seem to be useful. There are more assaults in Australia than in the US, but far fewer result in firearm murders. Maybe the assaults are all pub violence, but maybe keeping firearms out of drunk hands is a good thing when the assault rate here is so high.

Thoughts?

"Firearm murder" is a useless statistic and its very use is an indication of a predisposition to a bias against firearms. Outlawing seatbelts and airbags would reduce deaths involving seatbelts and airbags.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns'? According to what you've just stated, that favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is rendered invalid.

So which is it?

1. You're using invalid logic in your argument.
2. A favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is invalid.

[FirstAscent]

I used to be anti gun but now I can see advantage in the Swiss approach of everyone having to own a gun by law.

20 dead kids seem worth it for the ability to defend the country from the various powers that be.

If you're going to bring up Switzerland, then be sure you understand their laws. I doubt you do.

[organofcorti]

Why do you lot think I want space exploration so much?

I think there is significant gun control in the ISS - in fact I would be surprised if there are any firearms on the space station at all

[Lethn]

I'm talking about private exploration noob where's your imagination?

[organofcorti]

I'm talking about private exploration noob where's your imagination?

I still don't think there'll be much need for firearms, in this solar system at least. They'd be very dangerous on a spacecraft. Unless you have a more sci fi view of space with aliens, indestructible UFOs, blasters, teleporters and the like? In that case I'm with you, believe me.

[FirstAscent]

I'm talking about private exploration noob where's your imagination?

I still don't think there'll be much need for firearms, in this solar system at least. They'd be very dangerous on a spacecraft. Unless you have a more sci fi view of space with aliens, indestructible UFOs, blasters, teleporters and the like? In that case I'm with you, believe me.

That would be space opera, as in Star Wars. On the other hand, 2001: A Space Odyssey is science fiction. No guns in sight on the Discovery. Great movie, by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4

[Lethn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9fA

I love you science, now make me spaceships!

[FirstAscent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9fA

I love you science, now make me spaceships!

Do you regularly read Centauri-dreams.org? It's mostly quality reporting on interstellar propulsion studies and extrasolar planet discoveries. Pretty much everything gets covered.

[organofcorti]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9fA

I love you science, now make me spaceships!

This will be right up your alley - Jules Verne wrote about going to the moon in what was essentially a very large bullet propelled by a very large gun:

[Richy_T]

I can't vouch for the data, but it appears to show that although there are twice as many assault victims in Australia than in the US, there are 158 times more firearm murder in the US as in Australia. That's 15700% more.

Australia does have strict gun laws, and they seem to be useful. There are more assaults in Australia than in the US, but far fewer result in firearm murders. Maybe the assaults are all pub violence, but maybe keeping firearms out of drunk hands is a good thing when the assault rate here is so high.

Thoughts?

"Firearm murder" is a useless statistic and its very use is an indication of a predisposition to a bias against firearms. Outlawing seatbelts and airbags would reduce deaths involving seatbelts and airbags.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns'? According to what you've just stated, that favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is rendered invalid.

So which is it?

1. You're using invalid logic in your argument.
2. A favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is invalid.

I don't see how that follows. Or is even relevant or matters.

[FirstAscent]

I can't vouch for the data, but it appears to show that although there are twice as many assault victims in Australia than in the US, there are 158 times more firearm murder in the US as in Australia. That's 15700% more.

Australia does have strict gun laws, and they seem to be useful. There are more assaults in Australia than in the US, but far fewer result in firearm murders. Maybe the assaults are all pub violence, but maybe keeping firearms out of drunk hands is a good thing when the assault rate here is so high.

Thoughts?

"Firearm murder" is a useless statistic and its very use is an indication of a predisposition to a bias against firearms. Outlawing seatbelts and airbags would reduce deaths involving seatbelts and airbags.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns'? According to what you've just stated, that favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is rendered invalid.

So which is it?

1. You're using invalid logic in your argument.
2. A favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is invalid.

I don't see how that follows. Or is even relevant or matters.

Then don't waste my time or everyone else's by posting things about how outlawing seatbelts would reduce seatbelt deaths.

[Richy_T]

Then don't waste my time or everyone else's by posting things about how outlawing seatbelts would reduce seatbelt deaths.

Maybe I just don't get what you're getting at. If seatbelts are outlawed, only outlaws would have seatbelts. So how does that invalidate the gun version and what is the relevance of this?