What did this family not have that it needed?

[Seth]

Avtomat

The important claim is that the gun availability restriction in Australia saved lives, and I think that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. 'Shifty goalposts' are unimportant in this context.

False. You cannot prove that someone did not perpetrate a crime, even a mass murder, because of the gun ban. It's just as likely that nobody sought to perpetrate a mass murder...oh wait, some people did, and succeeded in killing numerous people in spite of the gun ban.

You cannot base your argument on the assumption that banning guns reduced the number of mass killings because there are many other reasons why mass killings might be in a slump. You're trying to base your argument on the faulty premise that a number, X of mass killings before the ban, and a number Y of mass killings after the ban means the ban is the cause of the drop. This is based on the statistical fallacy that presumes that if the ban had NOT been implemented, that there would have been more mass killings than there were after the ban. This is unfounded speculation at best, and poor understanding of causation and correlation and statistics most certainly.

The same applies elsewhere. In the USA, it is not semi-automatic weapons that are the main problem. It is hand guns. There are 8,000 murders each year with hand guns. Relatively few murders happen with other kinds of firearm. So, to save lives, the obvious first step is to tighten the rules regarding ownership of hand guns.

And at least ten times as many crimes are prevented (80,000) by individuals lawfully using handguns, so the obvious first step is to get more handguns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, since that is at a minimum ten times more effective at suppressing crime than confiscating handguns from the law abiding.

[Seth]

Avtomat

FBI statistics show that half of all hand gun murders (that is : 4,000 killings) come from two people who get into a fiery argument. After a time, one pulls out a hand gun and shoots the other one dead. Now, it is possible that the argument was over criminal activities, but the FBI statistics I saw (published in American Skeptic magazine) indicated that killings among criminals was a relatively small part of the total.

Restrictions on hand guns are needed to reduce the toll of hand gun murder. How to go about this is unclear, but there is no requirement to solve the problem totally all at once. Even relatively small changes might save 1,000 lives each year.

The old saying is that a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. It is time for the USA to make that first step towards saving thousands of human lives each year.

No it's not because doing so will more likely cause at least ten times more criminal victimizations, and perhaps as much as 200 times more criminal victimizations including murder.

This is demonstrated by the high murder rates in jurisdictions in the US where concealed carry is not lawful for the average citizen versus MUCH lower crime rates in places where concealed carry is lawful on a "shall issue" basis.

In other words, you're wrong again, as usual.

[Seth]

Is very small amounts of hand gun murder done by people who follow rule. How is tighten rule fix for people not following rule? In America, biggest murder problem I'd gang in city fighting other gang in city. Newspapers is show this every day.

Are there any credible statistics on that aspect?

Here is an account of two people who followed rules. Both had concealed carry permits. One tail-gated the other, they pulled their cars over in a parking lot, got into an argument and shot each other dead. Should I feel bad about myself for laughing when I read that?

Spotlight fallacy.

For every incident like that I can show you a thousand incidents where a gun was used to lawfully protect someone.

[Seth]

Yes, carrying a hand gun is a stupid thing to do. A government permitting people to carry hand guns is an even more stupid thing to do.

Except demonstrably it is not, as our 25 year experiment in legal concealed carry proves unequivocally.

More guns, less crime.

[Hermit]

Horse, and shit. The only thing that matters, statistically, is whether or not the murder rate in the US went up or went down as the number of guns in the US increased.

The murder rate went down as the number of guns increased!

Get this through your thick head. Your claim of "more guns, more murders" is utterly and completely refuted by this one single fact. There is no disputing it, there is no arguing about it, it is quite simply a scientific fact that only a mindless zealot ignores.

Fact? Yeah. Right. I guess you think using really large letters, bolding them and adding an exclamation mark lends an air of truth to an assertion.

Now, let's look at facts.

Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 1962: 4.6. In 1963: 4.6. Gun ownership increases. Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 2013: 4.5. Ayup, you're right. Murder rate went down.

[JimC]

I'm glad we have our restrictions on hand guns and semi-automatic rifles, and very confident those restrictions have the support of the vast majority of Australians.

However, unlike BG, I will not offer an opinion on whether the US should change its laws - that's up to you folks, just like our own gun laws are our business...

[Blind groper]

Seth raises the bullshit of DGU's again.

For those who do not know, a DGU is a defensive use of a gun.

Make this clear. There is absolutely no way of knowing how many, if any, cases exist where a gun stopped someone being murdered. What we have instead is people asked : "Have you ever been in a situation where your gun protected you?"

Naturally, all the gun enthusiasts said : "Hell yeah!" And if you truly believe them, let me offer you some land I happen to own on the moon. I will sell it to you for a bargain price.

For every person in the USA who carries a gun, there are a number of others who do not. If carrying a gun saved 80,000 lives, or even the 500,000 that Seth claims, then at least twice as many people died because they did not carry a gun. Guess what folks. Even the disgustingly large murder rate in the USA aint that large.

In other countries outside the USA where DGU's simply are not even claimed, much less happen, the murder rates are usually about a quarter as high as in the USA. So DGU's saving lives? Bullshit.

[laklak]

Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 1962: 4.6. In 1963: 4.6. Gun ownership increases. Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 2013: 4.5. Ayup, you're right. Murder rate went down.

The murder rate spiked enormously between '62 and today, reaching a peak of 10.2/100,000 in 1980. It started gradually dropping in '94 (with the odd outlier) and has continued a downward trend until today. So other factors seem far more important than gun ownership.

Even if it had not spiked then the rate is almost the same, meaning the enormous increase in gun ownership since the 60s has not caused an increase in the murder rate. Apparently we're just a violent society.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

[Hermit]

Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 1962: 4.6. In 1963: 4.6. Gun ownership increases. Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 2013: 4.5. Ayup, you're right. Murder rate went down.

The murder rate spiked enormously between '62 and today, reaching a peak of 10.2/100,000 in 1980. It started gradually dropping in '94 (with the odd outlier) and has continued a downward trend until today. So other factors seem far more important than gun ownership.

Even if it had not spiked then the rate is almost the same, meaning the enormous increase in gun ownership since the 60s has not caused an increase in the murder rate.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at, but try getting it through to Seth. You'll fail. His skull is just too thick. Same applies to the appropriately named Blind groper who comes from the other side.

I have previously argued that not only is there no causal evidence between violence and gun ownership, but there is not even an approximate correlation using this graph:



BG ignored it altogether and Seth made up an instant ad hoc adjustment to his assertion by invoking a threshold of gun ownership of 85% per capita that suddenly discourages criminals from succumbing to their criminal urges.

The graph, by the way, comes from a pro gun site.

[laklak]

I decided to do some in-depth research on gun ownership and gun related crime in the U.S.. Spent many an hour trawling through Uniform Crime statistics, pro and anti gun sites, various polls and pundits, and found pretty much jackshit. There simply are no statistics. No one knows how many guns there are or how many people own them. No one knows what percentage of gun crime is gang related. There are no uniform requirements for reporting the data to the FBI. There are no hard statistics on defensive gun usage. It is, in short, a cluster fuck. The reporting problem could be solved at a federal level, but there is no way we'll ever know how many guns are out there unless the 2nd is scrapped or modified, and that stands zero chance of happening. So we're pretty much stuck with anecdote and partisan bullshit analysis.

EDIT We do know a couple of things. We know that the majority of murders are black people killing other black people. We know that murders are concentrated in the poorer areas of cities. We know that concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than off duty police. We know that owning a gun increases your chance of being accidentally or purposely shot. But to take those statistics and try to extrapolate social trends or mold public policy is an exercise in futility. Might as well look at sheep intestines.

[Blind groper]

To laklak

There are, in fact, heaps of statistics. Just not inside the USA. The American gun insanity is so bad that there is even an aversion to finding out what is true and what is not true. When Boston University had to use a proxy method of estimating gun ownership, state by state (because no statistics are gathered), the uncertainty involved led the gun lovers to crow that their results were invalid. They are not invalid. Just a little less certain.

However, outside the USA, there is no such insanity. Thus, basic statistics are gathered. And as I pointed out, comparing nations, there is a clear cut relationship between more guns and more killings.

On the spike in murder rate.
There is no mystery about the cause. It was the higher percentage of young men in the population. Young men are responsible for most violent crime, including murders. As men get past their early 30's, they become more mature, and way less likely to commit murder. This is a well known fact, that all criminologists will tell you.

As everyone should know, there was a baby boom after WWII. The first of those baby boomer youths reached the critical age (late teens) where their violent criminality rose, in the late 1960's. The percentage of young men in the population in that highly criminal stage remained high till the 1990's. More young men means more murders. Fewer young men means fewer murders.

Murder rates went up and down accordingly. Late 1960's saw a massive rise in murder rate. 1990's saw a massive drop. This happened not just in the USA where guns were a major issue, but in every western country, which had a baby boom. There is no mystery about it, and no need to come up with weird hypotheses about guns. We already know the cause.

[Seth]

Horse, and shit. The only thing that matters, statistically, is whether or not the murder rate in the US went up or went down as the number of guns in the US increased.

The murder rate went down as the number of guns increased!

Get this through your thick head. Your claim of "more guns, more murders" is utterly and completely refuted by this one single fact. There is no disputing it, there is no arguing about it, it is quite simply a scientific fact that only a mindless zealot ignores.

Fact? Yeah. Right. I guess you think using really large letters, bolding them and adding an exclamation mark lends an air of truth to an assertion.

Now, let's look at facts.

Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 1962: 4.6. In 1963: 4.6. Gun ownership increases. Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 2013: 4.5. Ayup, you're right. Murder rate went down.

Yup. Been up, been down, but the overall trend in violent crime (including murder) has been down for a long time, despite the increase in gun ownership.

Even if the violent crime rate had stayed steady, that would still refute the thesis BG proposes. The only way his thesis succeeds is if the violent crime rate (including murder) goes UP proportionally with the increase in gun ownership. Not happening.

[Seth]

I'm glad we have our restrictions on hand guns and semi-automatic rifles, and very confident those restrictions have the support of the vast majority of Australians.

Except maybe those who needed one in order to stay alive, and didn't have one...like all the folks killed in Port Arthur. I doubt they were willing to sacrifice their lives for your principles and comfort. Would you be willing to die for the principles and comfort of others if you had a choice?

Of course you have no choice so it's hard for you to even make a decision in that regard. I'd respect a principled pacifist stand to go about unarmed and a willingness to sacrifice yourself rather than use a weapon to defend yourself, but that's a decision that you can only make for yourself, and no one else.

For you to make the decision to disarm, or to support or advocate for disarmament of someone else makes you morally and ethically liable for any harm that comes to them that could have been prevented had they had the choice whether to be armed or not.

As I've said before, this is not a statistical argument. Not even a little. An individual's right to life cannot be honored statistically. It's either respected or it's disrespected, there is no in between or middle ground. Making abstract statements such as the one you made completely disrespects the basic human right of effective self defense of every other human being on the planet. It's selfishness made manifest and it's based in irrational fear of others being able to defend themselves.

Let those facts rest on your moral conscience.

[Seth]

Seth raises the bullshit of DGU's again.

For those who do not know, a DGU is a defensive use of a gun.

Make this clear. There is absolutely no way of knowing how many, if any, cases exist where a gun stopped someone being murdered. What we have instead is people asked : "Have you ever been in a situation where your gun protected you?"

Perfectly valid question.

Naturally, all the gun enthusiasts said : "Hell yeah!" And if you truly believe them, let me offer you some land I happen to own on the moon. I will sell it to you for a bargain price.

This is merely a manifestation of your bias and hatred of guns. You assume a priori that any gun owner will lie about DGUs, but you provide no evidence whatsoever that this has ever happened. I, on the other hand, have published dozens if not hundreds of reports of DGUs reported by the press and the police where firearms have stopped imminent or in-progress attacks, all of which you have consistently ignored. You haven't even had the courage to investigate even ONE of these incidents and provide even a scintilla of evidence that the presence of a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen did not serve its intended purpose of defending against or thwarting a criminal victimization. There's a good reason you evade this consistently: You're simply wrong, and you know it, but you're too ideologically biased and blind to admit it because it would destroy your entire reason for existing.

For every person in the USA who carries a gun, there are a number of others who do not. If carrying a gun saved 80,000 lives, or even the 500,000 that Seth claims, then at least twice as many people died because they did not carry a gun. Guess what folks. Even the disgustingly large murder rate in the USA aint that large.

That's a bullshit claim, as you well know. The vast majority of DGUs do not even require that the weapon be discharged, much less result in the death of the attacker. The mere presence and imminent threat of the firearm in the possession of the potential victim most often thwarts the attack entirely without a shot being fired, in exactly the same way as the mere threat by a criminal armed with a weapon (be it a handgun or knife or whatever) serves to frighten the victim into compliance. That threat works both ways, you see, because criminals want your boodle, they don't want to get killed trying to get it.

In other countries outside the USA where DGU's simply are not even claimed, much less happen, the murder rates are usually about a quarter as high as in the USA. So DGU's saving lives? Bullshit.

[/quote]

Hey numbnutz, there's a reason it's very unusual in most places for DGUs to be reported: The people are not permitted to carry concealed handguns (or knives, or beer glasses, or hammers, or OC spray or anything else) for self-defense, so they obviously can't claim a DGU if they don't have a gun.

And the fact is that other nations, including the UK and Austrailia, DO have reported DGUs, just not very many of them, in part because of the dearth of arms and in large part because the fuckwits in government tend to prosecute the victim for using a gun to thwart or defend against a crime because the fuckwits of that society think that violent criminals ought to enjoy immunity from being shot dead. Idiots.

The threat of being shot dead by a potential victim is a serious and effective deterrent to criminal activity, as our crime statistics here in the US demonstrate, where the crime rate in places where concealed carry is lawful is lower than places (like Chicago) where lawful concealed carry is illegal.

The facts are the facts, whether you wish to ignore them or not.

[Seth]

Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 1962: 4.6. In 1963: 4.6. Gun ownership increases. Murder rate per 100,000 in the USA in 2013: 4.5. Ayup, you're right. Murder rate went down.

The murder rate spiked enormously between '62 and today, reaching a peak of 10.2/100,000 in 1980. It started gradually dropping in '94 (with the odd outlier) and has continued a downward trend until today. So other factors seem far more important than gun ownership.

Even if it had not spiked then the rate is almost the same, meaning the enormous increase in gun ownership since the 60s has not caused an increase in the murder rate.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at, but try getting it through to Seth. You'll fail. His skull is just too thick. Same applies to the appropriately named Blind groper who comes from the other side.

I have previously argued that not only is there no causal evidence between violence and gun ownership, but there is not even an approximate correlation using this graph:



BG ignored it altogether and Seth made up an instant ad hoc adjustment to his assertion by invoking a threshold of gun ownership of 85% per capita that suddenly discourages criminals from succumbing to their criminal urges.

The graph, by the way, comes from a pro gun site.

What's the dispute? I believe it is clear, based on a county-by-county examination of the evidence, that concealed carry results in lower violent crime rates. But what's important here is precisely what you are saying. There is no correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, particularly and especially in the direction that BG hypothesizes. We can argue about whether guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce overall crime rates if you like, but the only salient fact with respect to BGs thesis is that crime has gone down, not up, with an increase of guns in society. This blows his theory completely out of the water, which is my point.