birth of liberty, 800 years ago in Britain.

[Blind groper]

Murder rate depending on who is in possession of the guns?

Certainly. The problem is, though, with the lax rules applying in the USA, the criminals get them rather quickly. Nothing to stop them, since the rules are so ineffectual. So the murder rate is high and two thirds done with guns.

Stanford University, and University of Chicago.
They use indirect methods of estimating gun ownership. Such methods are a staple of statistics, and have been used very successfully for over 100 years.

So their conclusion that number of people owning guns is going down is very sound.

[JimC]

Murder rate depending on who is in possession of the guns?

Certainly. The problem is, though, with the lax rules applying in the USA, the criminals get them rather quickly. Nothing to stop them, since the rules are so ineffectual. So the murder rate is high and two thirds done with guns.

Stanford University, and University of Chicago.
They use indirect methods of estimating gun ownership. Such methods are a staple of statistics, and have been used very successfully for over 100 years.

So their conclusion that number of people owning guns is going down is very sound.

And I know that Seth is going to say that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns in any society, which is true to a degree.

However, in Oz, it is difficult and expensive. Serious career criminals and bikie gangs certainly have them, but other than a threat in an armed robbery, they mostly use them to knock each other off, which doesn't worry me too much. The key point is that young punk wannabe crims are much less likely to lay their hands on guns here than in the US.

[Hermit]

...the 2.5 million times a year that guns DO save lives...

I wonder why so few lives are lost in Australia. You know, without the unalienable right of open or concealed carry we're all sitting ducks, aren't we?

Because you're a nation of servile convicts of course.

That was almost funny. The poms shipped 162,000 convicts to its Australian colonies. That stopped 150 years ago. Since then millions of non-convicts migrated to Australia.

[pErvinalia]

And besides, since when are criminals thought to be servile?!?

[Brian Peacock]

I wonder why so few lives are lost in Australia.

Because you're a nation of servile convicts of course.

[Seth]

Murder rate depending on who is in possession of the guns?

Certainly.

Right, so shut the fuck up.

The problem is, though, with the lax rules applying in the USA, the criminals get them rather quickly. Nothing to stop them, since the rules are so ineffectual. So the murder rate is high and two thirds done with guns.

Actually, the rules are quite effective. So much so that fewer than 0.004 percent of the 250 million or more guns in the US are ever used in a crime.

Of course your red herring argument of "effectual" rules actually means universal gun bans so it's not worth even consideration.

Stanford University, and University of Chicago.
They use indirect methods of estimating gun ownership. Such methods are a staple of statistics, and have been used very successfully for over 100 years.

Exactly, indirect, which is hoplophobe Newspeak for "grossly inaccurate, biased and unreliable."

So their conclusion that number of people owning guns is going down is very sound.

No it's not.

[Seth]

Murder rate depending on who is in possession of the guns?

Certainly. The problem is, though, with the lax rules applying in the USA, the criminals get them rather quickly. Nothing to stop them, since the rules are so ineffectual. So the murder rate is high and two thirds done with guns.

Stanford University, and University of Chicago.
They use indirect methods of estimating gun ownership. Such methods are a staple of statistics, and have been used very successfully for over 100 years.

So their conclusion that number of people owning guns is going down is very sound.

And I know that Seth is going to say that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns in any society, which is true to a degree.

However, in Oz, it is difficult and expensive. Serious career criminals and bikie gangs certainly have them, but other than a threat in an armed robbery, they mostly use them to knock each other off, which doesn't worry me too much. The key point is that young punk wannabe crims are much less likely to lay their hands on guns here than in the US.

Which is of cold comfort to their victims who die because they, law-abiding citizens with rights, have been turned into helpless victims by their government.

They are, to you, inevitable and acceptable collateral damage and their rights mean absolutely nothing to you so long as you maintain a false sense of security because you think that criminals only kill people with guns.

Idiocy.

[Seth]

And besides, since when are criminals thought to be servile?!?

When they get caught, disarmed and sent off so some hell-hole in the South Pacific where their masters tell them what they can and cannot do, have, live or say of course.

[Blind groper]

Seth continues to act the troll. However, at least he is honest enough to admit that he is a troll. So at least he is an honest troll.

It is kinda laughable when he responds to solid points by simple denials without anything to back them, or accusations that people or organisations are hoplophobes. I think we can all treat those arguments with the contempt they deserve.

But I would like to point out one thing to Seth. No one is calling for a total gun ban. Some guns do actually have legitimate uses, apart from the fraudulent claim they are good for self defense (the fact that possessing one increases, not decreases your chance of getting murdered shows that they are not), or the possible end use of committing homicide. The legitimate uses include hunting meat for the table, and for some land owners, the elimination of some pest animals.

Personally, I think the priority in gun control in the USA is to reduce the number of hand guns in improper hands (meaning any civilian). The reason this should be the priority is that more than two thirds of all gun murders are done with hand guns, meaning that a reduction in hand gun numbers will reduce the number of people murdered, dramatically!

This is shown by the fact that places with few hand guns in civilian hands also have a much, much lower number of murders.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, he's in full he-said-she-said contrarian mode now.

[Seth]

Seth continues to act the troll. However, at least he is honest enough to admit that he is a troll. So at least he is an honest troll.

It is kinda laughable when he responds to solid points by simple denials without anything to back them, or accusations that people or organisations are hoplophobes. I think we can all treat those arguments with the contempt they deserve.

I've rebutted your bullshit Harvard et al studies time and time again and I've got better things to do.

But I would like to point out one thing to Seth. No one is calling for a total gun ban.

Red herring.

Some guns do actually have legitimate uses,

All guns have legitimate uses.

apart from the fraudulent claim they are good for self defense (the fact that possessing one increases, not decreases your chance of getting murdered shows that they are not),

More bullshit Brady Campaign bullshit that ignores the 2.5 million times or so guns are used for lawful self defense each year.

or the possible end use of committing homicide.

Or the possible use of preventing someone from committing homicide.

The legitimate uses include hunting meat for the table, and for some land owners, the elimination of some pest animals.

See what I mean? Red herring bullshit. That you simply refuse to recognize that guns are frequently used for self defense and are suitable for that purpose doesn't make it so.

Personally, I think the priority in gun control in the USA is to reduce the number of hand guns in improper hands (meaning any civilian).

And there it is, right there, the standard hoplophobe paranoiac excuse "I'm a 'fraidy cat and don't trust anybody..."

The reason this should be the priority is that more than two thirds of all gun murders are done with hand guns, meaning that a reduction in hand gun numbers will reduce the number of people murdered, dramatically!

I'd suspect that two thirds of the 2.5 million defensive uses of guns also involve handguns, not that it matters at all if that's just a guess. If a handgun in private hands saves JUST ONE LIFE it's worth it.

This is shown by the fact that places with few hand guns in civilian hands also have a much, much lower number of murders.

Cherry picking mendacity. Fact is that places with few handguns have quite high violent crime rates that tend to go up the fewer the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Brian Peacock]

Nothing more than anecdotes and assertions.

[pErvinalia]

And besides, since when are criminals thought to be servile?!?

When they get caught, disarmed and sent off so some hell-hole in the South Pacific where their masters tell them what they can and cannot do, have, live or say of course.

Ah ok. So black is white. Gotcha.

[Blind groper]

Seth is again quoting the John Lott exaggeration of 2.5 million DGU's per year. The FBI is a much more reputable source of information, and they estimate 70,000. However, even the FBI do not know how many of those DGU's were actually needed.

Since there are, on average, only 400 times each year where a civilian shoots a criminal, and that is accepted as legal, then it seems that the number of times a gun is needed for self defense is pretty minimal. Obviously more than 400, since a threat can be effective. But a damn sight less than 70,000. The fact that such gun use is found to be unneeded in every western nation except the USA would indicate that it is unneeded most of the time inside the USA also.

So, 400 times a civilian legally kills, and 100,000 times a person is killed or wounded with a gun. Definitely out of balance.

[Seth]

Seth is again quoting the John Lott exaggeration of 2.5 million DGU's per year. The FBI is a much more reputable source of
information, and they estimate 70,000.

Actually, it was 80,000, and those were only the actual shootings reported to the police, which are but a fraction of the total number of DGUs each year.

However, even the FBI do not know how many of those DGU's were actually needed.

Um, if it was a legal DGU, then it was "needed." If it was not "needed", then it would be a criminal offense.

Since there are, on average, only 400 times each year where a civilian shoots a criminal, and that is accepted as legal, then it seems that the number of times a gun is needed for self defense is pretty minimal.

No, there are 400 times civilians KILLED a criminal by gunfire in a particular year, which is the actual number you're misrepresenting. And that's 400 people who aren't dead themselves. Then there's the other 79,600 DGUs you admit to where the criminal was not killed that you so mendaciously ignore.

Obviously more than 400, since a threat can be effective.

Indeed. 2.5 million times more.

But a damn sight less than 70,000.

And yet you admit that the FBI has certified "70,000" DGUs (actually more than 80,000), which means you're either a mathematical moron or lying.

The fact that such gun use is found to be unneeded in every western nation except the USA would indicate that it is unneeded most of the time inside the USA also.

"Not allowed" is hardly the same thing as "not needed." And when you need a gun to save your life, well, you need one to save your life and if you don't have one, you will die.

So, 400 times a civilian legally kills, and 100,000 times a person is killed or wounded with a gun. Definitely out of balance.

Not really, since you're lying to begin with and even if your bogus statistics were anywhere near the truth that would still be 400 people not dead because idiots think disarming them makes everybody safer.

If it saves even one life, it's worth it.