It just gets better and better for gun owners

[JimC]

I'm saying that in a civilised country like Oz we have no need to arm ourselves for self defence. Clearly, in a country with such a high murder rate as the US, you obviously live in a state of constant fear, due to the vast numbers of weapons circulating in your community, you feel a deep seated need to arm yourself...

Such a shame...

[Seth]

I'm saying that in a civilised country like Oz we have no need to arm ourselves for self defence.

Wrong:

Personal crime:

In the 12 months prior to interview in 2013-14, of the 18.5 million persons aged 15 years and over in Australia:

418,200 (2.3%) experienced at least one physical assault
538,500 (2.9%) experienced at least one threatened assault, including face-to-face and non face-to-face threatened assaults
65,600 (0.4%) experienced at least one robbery
Of the 17.6 million person aged 18 years and over, 48,300 (0.3%) experienced at least one sexual assault.


Australians were more likely to experience face-to-face threatened assault than any of the other selected personal crime types. Physical assault was the second most frequent personal crime type experienced in 2013-14.

HOMICIDE AND RELATED OFFENCES

There was a 5.3% decrease in the number of homicide victims in Australia, from 454 in 2012 to a four year low of 430 in 2013. In Australia:

§ The homicide victimisation rate decreased to a four year low of 1.9 victims per 100,000 persons in 2013;

§ Just under two in three victims of homicide (64% or 273 victims) were male; and

§ Two-thirds of all homicide investigations (67% or 290 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

Murder

There was a 2.0% decrease in the number of murder victims in Australia, from 254 in 2012 to 249 in 2013. In Australia:

§ The murder victimisation rate has remained steady across the past four years at 1.1 victims per 100,000 persons;

§ Just under two in three victims of murder (63% or 157 victims) were male;

§ Males aged between 25 and 34 years accounted for the largest proportion of murder victims (21% or 53 victims);

§ Just under two in three murders (64% or 158 victims) occurred in a residential location;

§ Of weapons used in murder, a knife was the most common (43% or 83 victims); and

§ 69% of all murder investigations (171 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

Attempted murder

There was a decrease of one attempted murder victim in Australia, from 158 in 2012 to a four year low of 157 in 2013. In Australia:

§ The attempted murder victimisation rate has remained steady at 0.7 victims per 100,000 persons over the past two years;

§ Just under two in three victims of attempted murder (63% or 99 victims) were male;

§ Males aged between 25 and 34 years accounted for the largest proportion of attempted murder victims (24% or 37 victims);

§ Around three in five attempted murders (62% or 96 victims) occurred in a residential location;

§ Of weapons used in attempted murder, a knife was the most common (41% or 54 victims), followed by firearm (39% or 51 victims); and

§ 70% of all attempted murder investigations (109 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

Manslaughter

There was a 43% decrease in the number of manslaughter victims in Australia, from 42 in 2012 to a four year low of 24 in 2013. In Australia:

§ The manslaughter victimisation rate was 0.1 victims per 100,000 persons in 2013;

§ Seven in ten victims of manslaughter (71% or 17 victims) were male; and

§ 40% of all manslaughter investigations (10 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

Clearly, at least 249 people needed a gun in 2013 and didn't have one and more than a million others needed some sort of defensive weapons.

You're either grossly ignorant or a liar...and I don't think you're ignorant.

Clearly, in a country with such a high murder rate as the US, you obviously live in a state of constant fear, due to the vast numbers of weapons circulating in your community, you feel a deep seated need to arm yourself...

Such a shame...

It's not about the number of weapons, it's about the number of people willing to commit violent crimes, with or without weapons.

[Collector1337]

I'm saying that in a civilised country like Oz we have no need to arm ourselves for self defence.

This is entirely false, as this is impossible. The only time you would never need to arm yourself, is if you are invincible.

Do you have some sort of super powers we are not aware of, or are you just a regular mortal human?

Clearly, in a country with such a high murder rate as the US, you obviously live in a state of constant fear,

LOL! no, funny though.

due to the vast numbers of weapons circulating in your community, you feel a deep seated need to arm yourself...

Nope. Not the reason.

My firearms are mainly for recreation. So, protection is just an added benefit.

When I was a boy, I was in the boy scouts and the boy scout motto is "be prepared." I would much rather have something and not need it, than need something and not have it.

Restricting your own preparedness is just plain stupidity. That would be like going fishing out on a boat or going kayaking and not bringing a life jacket. Sure, I highly doubt I will need it and I also used to be a swimming instructor, so I swim very well, but I still am going to bring a life jacket.

Limiting yourself, restricting yourself from some tools, because you think you will never need them is just stupid. I would rather be prepared for even a highly unlikely, worse case scenario, than not. In fact, the unlikely worse case scenario might be the most important to be prepared for.

This isn't difficult logic I'm trying to get across here. The statistics on the subject don't really matter. The statistics especially don't matter when something happens to you. When something happens to you, however likely or unlikely, what relevance do the statistics hold then? None. They are meaningless.

I am unlikely to get cancer. It doesn't run in my family. I try to take care of myself. The probability of me getting cancer is very low. However, if I did get cancer, the statistics no longer mean shit. The stats aren't going to save me.

Your claim of not "needing" to defend yourself is a very bold and wild claim. In order for that to be true you would need powers to predict the future or of invincibility.

[pErvinalia]

I'm saying that in a civilised country like Oz we have no need to arm ourselves for self defence.

This is entirely false, as this is impossible. The only time you would never need to arm yourself, is if you are invincible.

Do you have some sort of super powers we are not aware of, or are you just a regular mortal human?

He's Gin Man!!

[pErvinalia]

This isn't difficult logic I'm trying to get across here. The statistics on the subject don't really matter. The statistics especially don't matter when something happens to you. When something happens to you, however likely or unlikely, what relevance do the statistics hold then? None. They are meaningless.

Christ, not you too?!! Don't they teach basic logic and stats in school in the US?? By this silly reasoning (that one should be more concerned with an outcome rather than the likelihood of it happening) you should be locking yourself up indoors and ordering everything in off the internet in case you get H1N1. After all, you'll likely die, despite there probably being only a 0.0001% chance of you getting it.

Your claim of not "needing" to defend yourself is a very bold and wild claim. In order for that to be true you would need powers to predict the future or of invincibility.

As you well know, what he means is that we don't feel the need to defend ourselves as we find the risk structure appropriate in our society. Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh
the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

[Collector1337]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

No, it's not. You refuse to acknowledge the injustice of apportioning an individual's ability to defend himself according to some statistical argument. You say that because you ban guns, "handgun murders" are lower there than here, which is a statistical argument. This is true as far as it goes, but what you refuse to acknowledge is that by disarming everyone, you also obviously disarm those persons who might, or who actually demonstrably did need a handgun to protect themselves. And using the law to disarm law-abiding citizens does little to disarm, or dissuade violent criminals from victimizing people.

As I pointed out earlier, in 2011 there were 61 murders in NZ, more than half of which were committed without any weapons other than hands an/or feet! By disarming everyone, you failed to disarm the murderers of those 36 people, didn't you? Each one of those individuals had an absolute right not to be murdered, and an absolute right to defend themselves effectively against someone who would attempt to murder them. Your country's policies however completely disarmed them leaving them with only their own hands and feet with which to defend themselves, which obviously were not up to the task, so they died because of your hoplophobia. (AND SELFISHNESS)

Would any or all of them been saved if they had been armed? There is no way to tell. But what we do know, with absolute certainty, is that whatever tools or skills they had with which to defend themselves were entirely inadequate to the task of keeping them alive.

What your statistical argument says therefore is that it is better that those 61 people be helplessly murdered than that anyone, specifically them, be permitted to carry any kind of defensive arms at all, much less the most efficient and effective deterrent/defensive weapon ever invented: the handgun.

You have assigned those 61 persons a tiny fraction of the right to self defense to which they are entitled, based on your selfish, self-serving, abusive, dismissive and utterly morally reprehensible statistical calculus that says that their lives are worth nothing as compared to your discomfort with an armed citizenry.

That's what fucked-up socialism gets you...respect for one's rights only so long as it's convenient and acceptable to the majority. If it's not, then fuck you and your rights, and your life, and the lives of your wife and children, because you don't matter at all, only the statistics matter and you're just acceptable collateral damage in the impossible quest for a gun-free society.

Fuck you, fuck your system, and fuck your piece of shit socialist cesspool of majoritarianism.

Over here my right to effective self defense is not parceled out to me according to what some fuckwit who knows nothing about statistics, crime, or justice thinks is the right thing to do. I get to defend myself with lethal force when and if it becomes necessary to do so, and my right to be armed for that purpose cannot be infringed because someone else might commit a crime or act negligently with a gun. The government has to wait until I actually do something wrong before stripping me of my rights.

Not you, you're a fucking slave to your masters in government and you have to do whatever they tell you to do because you have no way to resist them.

Enjoy your chains, slave-boy.

And I'll remain a free citizen, armed and responsible for my own safety and the safety of others.

Added emphasis and single addition mine.

[JimC]

rEvolutionist wrote:

Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh
the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

Of course, they are psychologically incapable of understanding this, as the fantasy of the heroic minuteman saving the US from bad King George dominates their thinking in the same way as submission to Allah dominates ISIS...

[Collector1337]

This isn't difficult logic I'm trying to get across here. The statistics on the subject don't really matter. The statistics especially don't matter when something happens to you. When something happens to you, however likely or unlikely, what relevance do the statistics hold then? None. They are meaningless.

Christ, not you too?!! Don't they teach basic logic and stats in school in the US?? By this silly reasoning (that one should be more concerned with an outcome rather than the likelihood of it happening) you should be locking yourself up indoors and ordering everything in off the internet in case you get H1N1. After all, you'll likely die, despite there probably being only a 0.0001% chance of you getting it.

I took statistics and calculus in undergrad. Stats was a breeze compared to calc.

I used the program SPSS as a research assistant for psych research data.

Your argument is a joke. Being prepared versus individual isolationism aren't the same thing. One is reasonable and practical, the other is not.

Your claim of not "needing" to defend yourself is a very bold and wild claim. In order for that to be true you would need powers to predict the future or of invincibility.

As you well know, what he means is that we don't feel the need to defend ourselves as we find the risk structure appropriate in our society. Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh
the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

Australia, New Zealand, UK, or where ever, are they crimeless utopias? No, so there is still a need.

And none of those places would allow me to enjoy one of my favorite hobbies.

I understand your logic. It's just stupid. I prefer to rely on myself, not others. Waiting for the police to show up simply isn't good enough for my standards. Being dependent on others when you don't have to is just plain idiocy.

[Collector1337]

rEvolutionist wrote:

Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh
the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

Of course, they are psychologically incapable of understanding this, as the fantasy of the heroic minuteman saving the US from bad King George dominates their thinking in the same way as submission to Allah dominates ISIS...

I understand just fine. For me, the pros of firearms far outweigh the cons.

I have no heroic fantasies. That's a stereotype you believe.

I have the freedom to purchase firearms and I exercise and embrace that freedom.

You can call it a culture difference if you'd like. Firearms are not a part of your culture as they are mine. I don't expect you to understand. I wish that you understood though and allowed your fellow citizens to defend themselves with firearms if they so choose. I do expect that you don't try to restrict any of my freedoms, because if you do, you're going to have a really bad time.

[pErvinalia]

This isn't difficult logic I'm trying to get across here. The statistics on the subject don't really matter. The statistics especially don't matter when something happens to you. When something happens to you, however likely or unlikely, what relevance do the statistics hold then? None. They are meaningless.

Christ, not you too?!! Don't they teach basic logic and stats in school in the US?? By this silly reasoning (that one should be more concerned with an outcome rather than the likelihood of it happening) you should be locking yourself up indoors and ordering everything in off the internet in case you get H1N1. After all, you'll likely die, despite there probably being only a 0.0001% chance of you getting it.

I took statistics and calculus in undergrad. Stats was a breeze compared to calc.

I used the program SPSS as a research assistant for psych research data.

Your argument is a joke. Being prepared versus individual isolationism aren't the same thing. One is reasonable and practical, the other is not.

I'm not addressing the argument about whether to be prepared or not. I'm addressing the strange claims that both you and Seth make that statistics on the subject don't matter. Of course they do. And you accept they matter by realising that isolationism in the face of an infinitesimally small threat is just silly.

Your claim of not "needing" to defend yourself is a very bold and wild claim. In order for that to be true you would need powers to predict the future or of invincibility.

As you well know, what he means is that we don't feel the need to defend ourselves as we find the risk structure appropriate in our society. Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh
the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

Australia, New Zealand, UK, or where ever, are they crimeless utopias? No, so there is still a need.

WTF?!? Can you not read?? I just explained that it's a trade off between pros and cons. I never said that we are crimeless utopias. That's a strawman.

And none of those places would allow me to enjoy one of my favorite hobbies.

You can enjoy sports shooting here in Australia. You just can't do it with certain guns, and you have to operate under stricter regulations.

I understand your logic. It's just stupid. I prefer to rely on myself, not others. Waiting for the police to show up simply isn't good enough for my standards. Being dependent on others when you don't have to is just plain idiocy.

You clearly don't understand the logic of weighing up pros and cons and risk analysis. The logic is sound, as we have lower crime than you lot have over there.

[Seth]

This isn't difficult logic I'm trying to get across here. The statistics on the subject don't really matter. The statistics especially don't matter when something happens to you. When something happens to you, however likely or unlikely, what relevance do the statistics hold then? None. They are meaningless.

Christ, not you too?!! Don't they teach basic logic and stats in school in the US?? By this silly reasoning (that one should be more concerned with an outcome rather than the likelihood of it happening) you should be locking yourself up indoors and ordering everything in off the internet in case you get H1N1. After all, you'll likely die, despite there probably being only a 0.0001% chance of you getting it.

How you prepare for response to a threat has more to do with the potential impact of the threat than the probabilities involved, although probabilities do play a part in making strategic and tactical decisions. If the chances of catching a deadly virus are quite small, but still non-zero, then it's entirely prudent and reasonable to take some precautions against getting it, like avoiding infection hot-spots, washing your hands, not touching your eyes or mucous membranes, or wearing a surgical mask in crowded places like aircraft cabins where an infected person is more likely to transmit the virus. It's probably not prudent to wear a full containment suit with SCBA everywhere you go, unless you're going into a building that's known to be infected. But if you have occasion to do so, like working in emergency health care or law enforcement, it's certainly prudent to be trained to use such equipment and for it to be available should the need arise.

Or take the threat of a derailment of a trainload of chemicals from the rail line that runs less than 1000 feet from your home. It's perfectly prudent to have an escape plan and have a chem suit and full-face respirator readily available to each member of the family, despite the small statistical likelihood that a train will derail right next to YOUR house. The consequences of not being prepared in such a case are severe, and the costs and difficulties of having some sort of plan and equipment is small compared to the consequences of not doing anything because you think it will never happen to you.

I think I've related my experience in Florida before, but I'll repeat it again because its highly pertinent.

I was going to aeronautical college in Daytona Beach in the mid 1970s and I lived in Ormond Beach in an apartment complex that was built less than 100 yards away from a high-speed railroad ROW where freight trains went by at 70 mph four or five times a day.

On my way to Pensacola one day to mix sound for a band I worked with I drove Interstate 10 west from Tallahassee one night. I arrived in Pensacola and checked in to the hotel. As I was watching the news later that night I saw a report about a train derailment where several cars filled with chlorine had ruptured, causing a cloud of chlorine gas to roll about a hundred yards down from the tracks and over Interstate 10. More than a dozen cars drove into the cloud and many people died.

From then on I carried a Scott Ska-Pak, which is a self-contained breathing apparatus with a 15 minute air tank, in my car and a full-face respirator in my bedroom because I lived so close to the high-speed rail. You might think that paranoid, but I drove through the place where the train accident happened just ten minutes before the train derailed. And I would have died too if I'd been 10 minutes slower. The cost of buying the equipment wasn't that much, and I kept that equipment for 20 years. I've since replaced it with new equipment, and I keep masks available in my bedroom, right next to the rifle. It cost me $300 to buy and will last for years and thus costs me next to nothing to have available. I hope I'll never have to use it, but it's there if I do, and it could save my life.

The same is true with my handgun. The risk may be small, but the consequences are dire and the time, trouble and cost of being armed is insignificant compared to what happens if I need it and don't have it. And since my carrying a handgun is a threat to no one except a violent criminal or terrorist, it's nobody's business that I carry one.

As you well know, what he means is that we don't feel the need to defend ourselves as we find the risk structure appropriate in our society. Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

And nobody is criticizing your analysis of that risk and your decision to go about unarmed. You have that right. But what you do not have, and what even your government does not have, is the authority to make that decision for any other person.

My analysis of the risks of a rail disaster are mine, and my preparation and response is likewise mine to make, and nobody else has any authority to tell me I can't buy a Level A suit and full 30 minute SCBA kit if that's what I want to do. And my analysis of the potential risks of violent crime or terrorism are just as sovereign and my right to plan, prepare, train and equip to defend myself in such an event is likewise a sovereign decision that neither you nor anybody else has any authority to interfere with.

When you, and through your cooperation and advocacy, your government say "we, you are infringing on the rights of every person in your country who disagrees with your risk assessment and who wishes to be armed for self defense.

Once again, the right to effective self defense is not a matter for "democratic" allocation. It's a sovereign individual human right that no one has authority to deny absent some individual action showing the particular person cannot exercise that right properly.

[Seth]

rEvolutionist wrote:

Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh
the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

Of course, they are psychologically incapable of understanding this, as the fantasy of the heroic minuteman saving the US from bad King George dominates their thinking in the same way as submission to Allah dominates ISIS...

Er, the "fantasy" of kicking King George's sorry ass is actually a historical fact. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We won't be repeating the mistake you dipshits made by allowing your government to disarm you.

[JimC]

Trouble is, you think that you still need to be a figure from history...

[pErvinalia]

This isn't difficult logic I'm trying to get across here. The statistics on the subject don't really matter. The statistics especially don't matter when something happens to you. When something happens to you, however likely or unlikely, what relevance do the statistics hold then? None. They are meaningless.

Christ, not you too?!! Don't they teach basic logic and stats in school in the US?? By this silly reasoning (that one should be more concerned with an outcome rather than the likelihood of it happening) you should be locking yourself up indoors and ordering everything in off the internet in case you get H1N1. After all, you'll likely die, despite there probably being only a 0.0001% chance of you getting it.

How you prepare for response to a threat has more to do with the potential impact of the threat than the probabilities involved, although probabilities do play a part in making strategic and tactical decisions. If the chances of catching a deadly virus are quite small, but still non-zero, then it's entirely prudent and reasonable to take some precautions against getting it, like avoiding infection hot-spots, washing your hands, not touching your eyes or mucous membranes, or wearing a surgical mask in crowded places like aircraft cabins where an infected person is more likely to transmit the virus. It's probably not prudent to wear a full containment suit with SCBA everywhere you go, unless you're going into a building that's known to be infected. But if you have occasion to do so, like working in emergency health care or law enforcement, it's certainly prudent to be trained to use such equipment and for it to be available should the need arise.

Or take the threat of a derailment of a trainload of chemicals from the rail line that runs less than 1000 feet from your home. It's perfectly prudent to have an escape plan and have a chem suit and full-face respirator readily available to each member of the family, despite the small statistical likelihood that a train will derail right next to YOUR house. The consequences of not being prepared in such a case are severe, and the costs and difficulties of having some sort of plan and equipment is small compared to the consequences of not doing anything because you think it will never happen to you.

I think I've related my experience in Florida before, but I'll repeat it again because its highly pertinent.

I was going to aeronautical college in Daytona Beach in the mid 1970s and I lived in Ormond Beach in an apartment complex that was built less than 100 yards away from a high-speed railroad ROW where freight trains went by at 70 mph four or five times a day.

On my way to Pensacola one day to mix sound for a band I worked with I drove Interstate 10 west from Tallahassee one night. I arrived in Pensacola and checked in to the hotel. As I was watching the news later that night I saw a report about a train derailment where several cars filled with chlorine had ruptured, causing a cloud of chlorine gas to roll about a hundred yards down from the tracks and over Interstate 10. More than a dozen cars drove into the cloud and many people died.

From then on I carried a Scott Ska-Pak, which is a self-contained breathing apparatus with a 15 minute air tank, in my car and a full-face respirator in my bedroom because I lived so close to the high-speed rail. You might think that paranoid, but I drove through the place where the train accident happened just ten minutes before the train derailed. And I would have died too if I'd been 10 minutes slower. The cost of buying the equipment wasn't that much, and I kept that equipment for 20 years. I've since replaced it with new equipment, and I keep masks available in my bedroom, right next to the rifle. It cost me $300 to buy and will last for years and thus costs me next to nothing to have available. I hope I'll never have to use it, but it's there if I do, and it could save my life.

The same is true with my handgun. The risk may be small, but the consequences are dire and the time, trouble and cost of being armed is insignificant compared to what happens if I need it and don't have it. And since my carrying a handgun is a threat to no one except a violent criminal or terrorist, it's nobody's business that I carry one.

That's fine. However, we're looking at this from a society-wide perspective. If everyone carried a gas mask etc with them, there's no problem at all to society. But guns are a different story. They have a negative impact on society. That's the point we are making.

As you well know, what he means is that we don't feel the need to defend ourselves as we find the risk structure appropriate in our society. Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

And nobody is criticizing your analysis of that risk and your decision to go about unarmed. You have that right. But what you do not have, and what even your government does not have, is the authority to make that decision for any other person.

Yeah, they do, as very few people in Australia want expanded gun rights. The vast majority of the people want the gun regime we have to remain. And you guys ARE criticising our risk analysis when you give the silly answer that Collector did above (basically, 100% of people who die are dead; no shit, Sherlock).

When you, and through your cooperation and advocacy, your government say "we, you are infringing on the rights of every person in your country who disagrees with your risk assessment and who wishes to be armed for self defense.

Except there is no objective right to anything. Rights are set by society at large.

Once again, the right to effective self defense is not a matter for "democratic" allocation.

Once again, your attempt to substitute in religion into rational affairs is noted.

[Blind groper]

Two things.

1. Taking precautions against highly unlikely events is totally irrational. In 1911, a small dog was killed by a meteorite. Does that mean we should all wear steel helmets in case a meteorite hits us on the head? Of course not. Seth carrying a gas mask is really, really laughable, and reinforces my view of him as a totally irrational person. Even though he was close to a gas disaster, the odds against him ever needing that mask are astronomical.

2. The perceived need Americans have for guns to defend themselves is self generated. By far the best method of defending themselves against felons is to get rid of the bloody guns. Especially hand guns. Whenever guns are made more readily available, the ones to take them up with greatest enthusiasm are the criminals and the violent people. Make hand guns available, and you are arming criminals, far more than arming non criminals.

Simply having a gun at home in the USA doubles your chance of being murdered, so it is hardly an asset for self defence.