By no means is that end of discussion. Don't ever take statistics.
absolutely
Then you should be aware that one isolated example is not sufficient to demonstrate any link whatsoever.
Sorry if you feel I have misinterpreted this point - perhaps I have. But the way I see it, one has a choice between two 'coercive influences' - the coercive influence of the state in banning the widespread possession of firearms, or the coercive influence of people using those firearms. I guess it comes down to a 'lesser of two evils' situation for me.
If I may address this point more fully, there are a couple of problems I have with this mentality. Firstly, although I hate a nanny state as much as the next person, we must remember that every individual has basic obligations towards the society they inhabit in order to function within that society, or whatever. Proceeding from basic moral premises, perhaps I could say one of these obligations would be to not kill your fellow citizens, for such an act would be seen by many as immoral. However, the widespread possession of guns increases the chances of such an infringement.
Yes indeed, but this is a false dichotomy. Its not about whether they are present or not; it's a question of quantity. If you make it harder to gain access to a gun, it logically follows that there are going to be less of them around. It may be possible to acquire a gun through the black market, but prices will be higher, availability lower than if they were fully legalised, if the police are doing their job properly. So, in my book, it is safer to legislate gun ownership and account for the possibility that a small fraction of the population may illegally acquire guns than it is to simply fully legalise gun ownership, meaning that a higher percentage of ill-meaning people are going to be able to gain access to them and use them to deprive the liberty of others.
Do you have statistics to back up your claims? Should we ban kitchen knives as well?
While gun crime may be higher in countries with high percentages of ownership, this is not to say that overall rates of crime will increase. In many cases, if guns are not available the weapon will simply be substitued. For example, in Russia where guns are much more tightly restricted, has a significantly higher homicide rate than even the united states. Spain and the UK have higher homicide rates than Germany and Australia, but much less guns per capita. The fact of the matter is that a law-abiding gun owner is no more likely to shoot someone than they are to stab someone or smach them over the head with a blunt object in a moment of rage.
You continue to conflate banning firearms with eradicating firearms. Every government in the world has consistently failed to wipe out things people demand like drugs and guns.
What evidence do you have that it increases the chances of violence? I'd argue it can have a deterrent effect. People are less likely to pick fights and attack weaker people if they know they may be armed and able to respond with lethal force.
Not at all. Many people buy guns hoping they will never, ever have to use them, let a lone use them to kill someone. If you are attacked, or your home is invaded, merely pointing a gun at the intruder will often be enough to protect you. Most guns are never actually used to kill anyone.
True. But there will be less in the hands of law abiding citizens which is a bad thing. Criminal groups in Australia seem to have no trouble getting access to guns.
You're misrepresenting the situation. Australians are not a homogeneous blob who are all affected equally by government laws attempting to regulate firearms. Sure, only a small percentage of Australians have guns and if you or I tried to buy one, we would probably find it difficult and expensive.
No, nothing's wrong with our gun restriction laws now. You can still own a gun if you prove your ability to handle one safely anyway.
Thanks for your bitter reply. Did you know these are forums for free discussion of political and philosophical issues and that reiterating another person's points is not only valued, but encouraged? Perhaps you'd like to limit the freedoms people have on here to express their opinions about certain issues?
For the second time, I never said government would entirely eradicate firearm usage, That is an unrealistic aim.
False dichotomy again. The intention is to minimise the level of people, criminals or otherwise, with access to guns. I've said this over and over.
Possibly, but there are problems with deterrence. This may be a stretch, but there's a reason governments around the world aren't advocating their neighbours to develop nuclear weaponry - actually there are several, but one of those is that more nuclear weapons = more chance of some being fired. Imo the same logic applies to firearms.
A poor application of an absolute moral principle. There are degrees of harmful weaponry - a stick is less harmful than a gun can potentially be, depending on whether you are clobbering or shooting. The difference between a gun and all of these other items is that a gun is designed with the express purpose of being used to kill someone. Any other function, such as being used as a cooking utensil, is secondary. The trick is to be reasonable - we don't need to ban the use of axes, but we do need to punish those who misuse them. I get the feeling you're going to seize on this and go 'ha! why can't we just do the same with guns'? The answer is because killing is a gun's primary purpose - any secondary use can be fulfilled by some other, less lethal implement.
Sorry but I feel like this is nitpicking. The purpose of the object serves as a deterrent, not the object itself. Why is pointing a gun at someone often enough to protect you? Because the assailant is aware of the gun's purpose: to kill or harm them, and the fact that the gun is pointed at them implies that the user is ready to operate the gun in accordance with the purpose for which it was designed.
Think of how many more criminals would have guns if they were fully legal. Any aspiring criminal could procure one.
I agree that this is a problem. However, its not as though fully legalising them is going to fix it.
It's not a false dichotomy. Explain how it is? Even if the government is successful at minimizing access to guns, as you admit, criminals will still have access to guns while law abiding citizens do not.
Governments that already have nuclear weapons don't want other states to have them because that would undermine their power.
You have just identified a difference between the two, but you haven't explained why the difference is important. If only punishing those who misuse axes works, why wouldn't it work with guns?
Any aspiring criminal can procure one anyway. Look at the amount of shootings and armed robberies in this country, or the caches of weapons police find bikies and other gangs in possession of. Despite the governments best efforts criminals are still getting their hands on guns.
'Criminals' are not just a homogenous group. Its a question of quantity. Minimising access to guns = minimising amount of criminals who can obtain guns. It's not a case of either the 'criminals' (whoever they might be) have guns or everyone does.
As I said before, there are several reasons. You've just listed another one.
Cuban Missile/Kashmir Crises are examples of times when we have been perilously close to the brink. Plus: nuclear weapons are far less likely to be used if none exist. This is simple logic imo: risk is increased by arms buildups, both on a national and individual level.
It does, but that's not the point.
Killing someone should be absolutely the last step. A situation where you must kill to prevent the deprivation of your own liberty is so extreme that it happens only very rarely, and does not warrant the right of the citizenry to carry around lethal implements as they please.
Can they now? Any criminal who wants a gun can acquire one? I doubt that. Besides, if they can, an effort should made to further restrict sales, clamping down on the black market or whatever. I am very grateful for the fact that caches of weapons are being taken from bikie gangs, evidence (in some part) that the police are doing their job. The less weapons in total, the better.
You fool! Of course firearm deaths are higher where there is easier access to firearms. But if we reduce firearm deaths and people just substitute other methods of killing each other and rates of suicide and homicide remain unchanged, we have achieved nothing.
But, you see, they don't.
There are hundreds of pieces of research on this topic, all with different conclusions. At the end of the day when you're comparing different countries with unobserved factors other than gun control that influence the data, its going to be impossible to say with much confidence either way whether gun control reduces or increases crime.
