birth of liberty, 800 years ago in Britain.

[Blind groper]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... per_capita

It is extremely easy to make up a list of the wealthiest nations. The reference above is an example. Every nation publishes its total GDP, and it is easy to divide that by population, and form a list like the one above.

And no, Seth, it is not cherry picking.

I did not make the statement of 85% myself though. It was from a journal reference a couple years back, where the journalist took the official figures for gun murders for each of the top 24 wealthiest nations, added them up, and found that the USA had 85% for the top 24.

Not cherry picking, but most certainly a cause for shame for any American.

[JimC]

...the 24 wealthiest nations on Earth...

List them please, and tell us by what criteria they are ranked as such.

But first explain why that particular selection criteria is even relevant in the first place, because in point of fact it's not, it's cherry-picking.

Not really, it is simply comparing like with like; developed, wealthy, rule of law, democracy of some form or another.

Compare yourselves with third world failed states or corruption riddled ex-Soviet satellites, I'm sure you'll do well, and that will be a great comfort to you...

[Brian Peacock]

...the 24 wealthiest nations on Earth...

List them please, and tell us by what criteria they are ranked as such.

But first explain why that particular selection criteria is even relevant in the first place, because in point of fact it's not, it's cherry-picking.

Not really, it is simply comparing like with like; developed, wealthy, rule of law, democracy of some form or another.

Compare yourselves with third world failed states or corruption riddled ex-Soviet satellites, I'm sure you'll do well, and that will be a great comfort to you...

Seth's view is more than mere denialism about gun deaths, it goes further to assert that things would be far worse without the estimated c.90 private firearms per 100 people in the US. This, I think, speaks to a different issue, that which might be referred to as social violence, for if we look at Switzerland, for example, which also has a high level of private firearm ownership we don't see even a remotely comparable amount of gun-related violence.

[Seth]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... per_capita

It is extremely easy to make up a list of the wealthiest nations. The reference above is an example. Every nation publishes its total GDP, and it is easy to divide that by population, and form a list like the one above.

And no, Seth, it is not cherry picking.

I did not make the statement of 85% myself though. It was from a journal reference a couple years back, where the journalist took the official figures for gun murders for each of the top 24 wealthiest nations, added them up, and found that the USA had 85% for the top 24.

Not cherry picking, but most certainly a cause for shame for any American.

It's exactly cherry picking precisely because you cherry-pick the data pool.

[Seth]

...the 24 wealthiest nations on Earth...

List them please, and tell us by what criteria they are ranked as such.

But first explain why that particular selection criteria is even relevant in the first place, because in point of fact it's not, it's cherry-picking.

Not really, it is simply comparing like with like; developed, wealthy, rule of law, democracy of some form or another.

Compare yourselves with third world failed states or corruption riddled ex-Soviet satellites, I'm sure you'll do well, and that will be a great comfort to you...

Which indicates that the issue may not be simply a matter of the number of guns in a society but may also have much to do with politics and cultural norms, which is precisely why BG cherry-picks his data pool to make the US look bad.

[Seth]

...the 24 wealthiest nations on Earth...

List them please, and tell us by what criteria they are ranked as such.

But first explain why that particular selection criteria is even relevant in the first place, because in point of fact it's not, it's cherry-picking.

Not really, it is simply comparing like with like; developed, wealthy, rule of law, democracy of some form or another.

Compare yourselves with third world failed states or corruption riddled ex-Soviet satellites, I'm sure you'll do well, and that will be a great comfort to you...

Seth's view is more than mere denialism about gun deaths, it goes further to assert that things would be far worse without the estimated c.90 private firearms per 100 people in the US. This, I think, speaks to a different issue, that which might be referred to as social violence, for if we look at Switzerland, for example, which also has a high level of private firearm ownership we don't see even a remotely comparable amount of gun-related violence.

Indeed. As BG has himself admitted, the rate of gun violence is not in fact causally related to the number of guns in a society. That being the case, reducing the number of guns in a society by banning law-abiding citizens from possessing them can have little or no positive effect on reducing violent crime rates. This is proven by the simple fact that in the US, as the number of guns in law-abiding hands continues to go up, and the number of guns being carried in public for lawful self defense has exploded in the last 30 years, our violent crime rate continues to decline. Whether the correlation indicates causation is a matter of much debate, but what is indisputable is that the increase in privately-carried firearms in public has not, contrary to gun-ban advocates wild assertions, resulted in an increase in either violent crime or unlawful use of firearms. And that is proof that there is no need to further restrict gun ownership and/or possession by law-abiding citizens.

[JimC]

For the US, awash with guns as it is, and deeply immersed in a romantic gun culture that it is, it is very probably true that there will be no shift to seriously restrict guns. It may even be true that were any such move to occur, it could actually (if temporarily) increase gun deaths, since the restrictions would only affect law abiding citizens, not (at least to begin with) violent criminals.

However, in societies such as Australia, maintaining our current restrictions, which mainly prohibit hand-guns and high powered semi-automatic rifles, is our best option. It is certainly what the overwhelming majority of citizens want.

[Blind groper]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/polit ... declining/

No, Jim.

A reduction in guns, if the emphasis is on hand guns, will reduce death toll. That is because pre-meditated hand gun murders by criminals is actually a minority of all gun murders. Most such murders are known as 'crimes of passion', the passion involved usually being anger. And so-called "law abiding citizens" are also prone to murderous anger feelings.

Half of all hand gun murders are the result of a vigorous argument, with one person losing his rag, pulling out his hand gun and shooting the other person.

Seth carefully ignores another fact. While gun numbers increase, the number of gun owners is reducing. See the reference above. The murder rate is related to the number of people who possess guns, and especially hand guns. It matters not at all whether a person owns one gun or a hundred (and many gun nutters do own that kind of number of guns). His chance of committing gun murder is the same if he owns one or a hundred.

So an increase in numbers of guns is irrelevant. It is the number of people who possess guns that matters, and that number has been dropping.

[Seth]

A reduction in guns, if the emphasis is on hand guns, will reduce death toll.

The facts show you are incorrect.

That is because pre-meditated hand gun murders by criminals is actually a minority of all gun murders. Most such murders are known as 'crimes of passion', the passion involved usually being anger. And so-called "law abiding citizens" are also prone to murderous anger feelings.

And this is an example of the fallacy of composition. You claim that because of the whole population A, sub-population Z, those prone to killing during "crimes of passion", has a higher rate of handgun murders, that therefore populations X and Y represent the same degree of risk with respect to crimes of passion and therefore must be regulated the same as population Z. This is not the case, as the statistics for the remarkable LACK of criminal activity, passion-based or otherwise, on the part of licensed CCW permitees. In order to justify banning guns to populations X and Y you must show that the public risks of not doing so are equal to or greater than that of population Z. Otherwise you are just tarring everyone with the same brush.

Half of all hand gun murders are the result of a vigorous argument, with one person losing his rag, pulling out his hand gun and shooting the other person.

The actual question is, however, what population segment do those who pull guns and commit murder belong to? The answer, the vast majority of the time, is known criminals, known felons already debarred firearms by law, and inner city gang members. The evidence of the law-abiding nature of CCW permitees already cited numerous times shows that it is mendaciously inappropriate to lump them in with everyone else and claim that all persons present an equal risk to the public if armed. This is simply not true and you know it.

Seth carefully ignores another fact. While gun numbers increase, the number of gun owners is reducing. See the reference above.

Specious reference, as I've demonstrated many times.

The murder rate is related to the number of people who possess guns, and especially hand guns.

No, the murder rate is related to the character of the individuals who possess guns and nothing else.

It matters not at all whether a person owns one gun or a hundred (and many gun nutters do own that kind of number of guns). His chance of committing gun murder is the same if he owns one or a hundred.

[/quote]

Which means that if his chance of committing murder is next to zero because he is not a criminal or an insane person prone to murderous outbursts it doesn't matter whether he owns one gun or a hundred, his risk factor remains the same. Since the vast, vast majority of US citizens are not criminals or insane persons prone to murderous outbursts it is therefore both unnecessary and imprudent to restrict their gun ownership as if they were members of the class of criminals and insane persons who aren't allowed to have guns, by law, in the first place...laws which do not seem to prevent them from actually getting guns I would note.

So, thank you for finally shooting this sick dog of an argument you've been pandering for so long. It's not about how many guns there are in society, it's all about the characters of those who possess guns and absolutely nothing else.

[Blind groper]

The problem with your argument, Seth, is that there will always be a fraction of those people who are potential murderers. If 100 people buy guns, certainly most will never commit a murder. It might be only 1 out of 100 who ever do that.

But if 200 people buy guns, that is 2 murders. The more people who buy guns, the more murders there are.

This is also borne out by the various correlations I have already presented. Both Harvard University and the University of Boston have checked the murder rate across all 50 American states, and found a clear correlation between gun ownership and murder rate. Harvard has also done the same for western nations, and found the same correlation. I have done the same for 20 western states, and also for all OECD countries except Mexico, and found very strong correlations between gun ownership and murder rates.

The data is clear cut. More people with guns = more murders.

[Seth]

The problem with your argument, Seth, is that there will always be a fraction of those people who are potential murderers.

It's not a problem, it's the most essential and fundamental point of my argument. There will ALWAYS be a fraction of people who are potential murderers, whether they have a gun or not, and all disarming everyone else does is leave them helpless to defend themselves against the tiny minority of people who are sociopaths.

If 100 people buy guns, certainly most will never commit a murder. It might be only 1 out of 100 who ever do that.

But if 200 people buy guns, that is 2 murders. The more people who buy guns, the more murders there are.

The problem with your analysis is that it falsely presumes that the one-percenters won't commit a murder if they are denied legal access to a gun. This is the core failing of your entire argument and always has been. Sociopaths prone to murder and insane people who have a psychological "need" to murder are going to murder, whether they have legal access to a gun or not. The worst intentional homicide in US history (other than 9/11, which was committed with box cutters and aircraft) was committed with a can of gasoline and a match.

So, when you deny the 99 percent the right to be armed to defend against the one percent you do little to nothing to prevent the one percent from committing murder and quite a lot towards ensuring that they can do so without fear and without themselves being killed, which means that they can go on to commit multiple murders (not to mention other crimes) because the 99 percent of the public who aren't sociopathic or insane murderers aren't allowed to effectively defend themselves.

And what happens then is that you see MORE murders and other violent crimes, not fewer. Taking guns out of the hands of the non-sociopathic, non-insane public INCREASES violent crime and INCREASES criminal victimization WITHOUT significantly affecting the ability of killers to obtain and use weapons with which they can harm and murder others.

You simply choose to ignore the fact that murders take place with weapons other than guns, and that guns are more often used to prevent violent crime victimization than they are to commit it because of a very personal bias and anti-gun agenda that consistently denies irrefutable physical facts: more guns, less crime.

[jamest]

http://m.tvnz.co.nz/news/world/6339494

Some Merkins like to think they brought in the birth of human liberty. Not so. The beginnings of the freedoms we enjoy today were with Magna Carta in Britain, and especially with the habeas corpus principle, which prevented the king or other authorities taking control of individuals as 'punishment' without charge or trial.

Further human liberties grew from that most important beginning, and spread to other nations. But it all began in Britain 800 years ago.

Actually, we 'Merkins built the first effective system of defending human liberty on the foundation of the Magna Carta and it's principles.

The people who created 'Merkins' were not themselves Merkins until AFTER they created that nation.

[Blind groper]

Seth

The facts show that guns increase murder rate. Two thirds of all murders in the USA are committed with guns. Countries with fewer guns have fewer murders. The relationship is clear cut and the correlation is very high.

The reason is also clear cut. It is extremely easy to kill someone with a gun. With a knife or club, it is much more difficult, as shown by the fact that one in 400 stabbing wounds causes death, while one in 7 bullet wounds cause death. A bullet is not stopped by the human body's protective structures, like rib and the skull.

Even if we accept your argument that only 1 in 7 or 8 bullets actually hit the target, that simply reduces the differential to 50 fold. That is, guns are 50 times more lethal than knives.

[Seth]

Seth

The facts show that guns increase murder rate.

No, they don't.

Two thirds of all murders in the USA are committed with guns. Countries with fewer guns have fewer murders. The relationship is clear cut and the correlation is very high.

And yet you still cannot explain why, with a burgeoning number of guns in the US over the last 100 years or so, the violent crime rate, including the murder rate, continues its steady decline. That's also a very high, and much more causally convincing correlation that puts paid to your assertion.

The reason is also clear cut. It is extremely easy to kill someone with a gun. With a knife or club, it is much more difficult, as shown by the fact that one in 400 stabbing wounds causes death, while one in 7 bullet wounds cause death. A bullet is not stopped by the human body's protective structures, like rib and the skull.

Which has nothing to do with the subject.

Even if we accept your argument that only 1 in 7 or 8 bullets actually hit the target, that simply reduces the differential to 50 fold. That is, guns are 50 times more lethal than knives.

[/quote]

Especially when they are used in lawful self defense by the victims of violent crime up to two and a half million times a year. That's a good thing.

[Blind groper]

That's a good thing.

Not when 10,000 Americans each year are killed by guns, and 100,000 are wounded each year by guns. Over the average lifetime, one in 50 Americans will receive a bullet through some part of their body. That is most definitely NOT a good thing.