Australia's Gun Problem

[Darat]

As far as I know, that 35 times figure is not USA stats in general; it is King County WA. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7154956/
For the USA as a whole, it is about 3 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, as far as I know. Still too high.

See also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

 

[Darat]

You're being too philosophical. I'm simply observing that when someone enters your home and threatens you, the law as written in your locality does not matter. It does not exist there. It cannot help you.

It also appears that most times having a gun won't help you, and that having access to a gun in your home substantially increases your risk of being harmed by a gun. It might make you feel safer, but it doesn't make you safer.

 

[arthwollipot]

Still too high.

What do you propose to do about it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

How often has that happened to you? Off the top of my head I think it has happened to me somewhere in the vicinity of never.

It seems to be particularly American fear

 

[Andy_Ross]

Thanks. I would never have guessed in a million years that this was the argument you were making.


That guns are effective at taking life is already known. I don't need to look up statistics for this. What the suicide rates of the two countries tells us is that easy access to guns doesn't have much of an effect on overall suicide rates.

The UK is a good example of the principle. You ban guns to try stop the violence, and end up issuing your cops stab vests, and you end up trying to regulate pointy kitchen knives, because the violence is still there. The suicide rate is still there.

But the death rate is much lower.
Plus we don't have the thousands of accidental deaths of children playing with guns, adults playing with guns and gun owners shooting themselves while they are cleaning their guns. Do you think criminals in the USA don't use knives?

 

[theprestige]

How do the death rates from knife crime compare with the death rates from gun crime?

If you have an argument to make, make it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It also appears that most times having a gun won't help you, and that having access to a gun in your home substantially increases your risk of being harmed by a gun. It might make you feel safer, but it doesn't make you safer.

It comes down to training and practice.
Most people buy a pistol for home defence, they are the most dangerous weapon for someone without training.
They are easy to sweep both third parties and the shooter accidentally with the risk of an an unintended discharge shooting someone.
9mm the most popular ammunition will penetrate a house partition wall and shoot someone on the other side 9mm is not a good home defence round, it was developed as a military round.
A pistol is the hardest gun to shoot and hit a target with for an untrained shooter, there's a reason the US military started using the .30 Carbine as a personal defence weapon in place of the pistol in WW2 for second line troops.
Guns in untrained hands are a bad idea.

 

[theprestige]

Yes there are stabbing by children happening. I would never deny that. But stabbings down by 13% is a good thing, right?

The whole point of the article is that the stabbings down by 13% stat is misleading, and that knife violence among children has actually gone up in spite of the new ban on knives.

 

[theprestige]

But the death rate is much lower.

Agreed.

Plus we don't have the thousands of accidental deaths of children playing with guns, adults playing with guns and gun owners shooting themselves while they are cleaning their guns.

Agreed.

Do you think criminals in the USA don't use knives?

I know they do.

 

[Thermal]

It's not really about Israel. It's simply the observation that laws are fiction. They exist only to the extent that we pretend they exist. When someone breaks into your home, or threatens you on the street, at that moment and place the law is whoever has the most force. Which is why it's so misguided to deny people the right to defend themselves.

While I get your point here, the law is not a fiction. If you choose to ignore or violate it, Mr Policeman may come a-knocking regardless of your beliefs about it, and put your assin the pokey, no matter your philosophical waxing.

In the moment, you may very well be on your own, true enough. Mr Policeman will not come in time to help you and enforce those 'fictional' laws. But that doesn't translate to the law being a choice. Many are in prison for life, scratching their heads about how realistic that fiction turned out to be.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's not really about Israel. It's simply the observation that laws are fiction. They exist only to the extent that we pretend they exist. When someone breaks into your home, or threatens you on the street, at that moment and place the law is whoever has the most force. Which is why it's so misguided to deny people the right to defend themselves.

I think I can probably bring more force than you, I think I'll come for your TV.
Remember, laws are fiction.

 

[Thermal]

Doesn't need addressing, then. Gun laws are about what society wants, and ours doesn't want guns.

This guy called The Atheist disagrees with you, and went on at great length about how many guns were all over his country.

Mate, if I post in the thread that shall not be named and someone wants to argue the toss, three seconds is enough.

Fair cop, but this thread ain't That Thread.

It's now been a day and a bit and there's still no answer.

I'm not even sure what the question is? If its "did you know some knuckleheads will be criminal and/or irresponsible with guns?", then the answer is "yes, I knew that". Is it supposed to follow that saving your own ass needs to take a back seat to the refusal to try other solutions, like strict regulation?

In my state, there's no carry. Handgun permits (one required for each handgun, including BB pisols) are applied for individually, and reviewed by the Cheif of Police in the town you live in. You have to provide character references from non-family people of good standing, too.

We can have a handgun at home, but not walk the streets with it. My fair state has some of the lowest rates of gun ownership, lowest gun violence, and lowest suicide rates in the nation, despite having some particularly violent cities (only a few years back, we had 3 in the top ten, including Camden claiming the #1 spot).

There may be alternatives here that value that most basic human right of defending your own life, while knocking down the abuses.

You're the one saying women needs guns for defence against rapists

I am not. I said I consider that a valid reason.

and USA has legal self-defence weapons

It does.

, so it should be easy to tell if it works or not.

You mean find a case of a woman who wants a gun to protect herself? I dont see the point in giving me that busy work.

I'll await your evidence.

Don't hold your breath. If I make a claim that is so outlandish as to need evidence, we will deal with that. If you are knee-jerk responding to keywords and not inderstanding what I'm saying (there's a lot of that ITT), that's a seperate and less interesting thing.

 

[theprestige]

It also appears that most times having a gun won't help you, and that having access to a gun in your home substantially increases your risk of being harmed by a gun.

In the US, this statistic is very heavily weighted by armed gangs whose members keep illegal guns in their homes and often attack each other in their homes.

Get rid of those contributing factors, and your chances of getting shot go way down, even if you do have a gun in your home. The innocent child who gets their hands on their somewhat careless but generally peaceful parent's firearm is a tragedy, but also a drop in the statistical bucket. The vast majority of American gun violence consists of poor people with illegal guns that they use in the commission of illegal acts.

ETA: I'm sure it's much the same in the UK, s/guns/knives. Which raises the question of whether it's the weapons that are the issue, or whether it's the poverty, and what we allow poverty to do to people in our society. Banning guns, and banning sharp knives after you've banned the guns but the violence is still there, doesn't really treat the problem. It just puts a band-aid on it. And I think we can all agree that gunshot or stab wound, a band-aid is not really up to the task.

 

[Thermal]

A lot of posters here keep altering the statistics to "if you have a (legal) gun in your home for self defense, you become a killer or suicide". That's not the case, nor do the citations provided support that.

In the PubMed study cited by lionking and Darat, it looked at 626 urban shootings in Memphis (the #1 most violent crime ridden city in the US), Galveston, and Seattle. Really surprising that there would be disproportionately violent outcomes, yeah?

Even so: for every legit self defense usage, there were 4 accidental shootings, 7 criminal shootings, and 11 suicide/attempts. Sobering data, but not directly related to a responsible gun owner who follows the law for defensive use.

What do you say to the ones who used the gun to save their own asses, not hurting themselves or any innocent? They should have laid down and taken what was coming to them?

 

[Thermal]

It also appears that most times having a gun won't help you, and that having access to a gun in your home substantially increases your risk of being harmed by a gun. It might make you feel safer, but it doesn't make you safer.

Lumping the gangbangers in with responsible owners is not a reasonable comparison.

Do you have any evidence that garden variety responsible gun owners were unable to use their weapon in self defense? The PubMed study you cited indicates that legit defensive usages definitely exist, and does not indicate any instances of failure to use a gun in self defense? Citing that murderers use guns too is a wildly different comparison, although a valid talking point in its own right.

 

[theprestige]

What do you say to the ones who used the gun to save their own asses, not hurting themselves or any innocent? They should have laid down and taken what was coming to them?

Last time I checked commonwealth law tends to frown quite heavily on people who try to get an unfair advantage over a violent attacker or a home invader.

 

[Thermal]

Gotta give them a fighting chance to hurt you, I suppose. You know what stickler their criminals are for a fair shot at you.

 

[Thermal]

How often has that happened to you? Off the top of my head I think it has happened to me somewhere in the vicinity of never.

Me neither. I can, however, introduce you to a couple of people. The PubMed stats indicated that defensive usages are solidly documented. Some of us don't care to risk becoming one of them, slim.though the odds are. When it comes to death or grievous harm, low odds are not reassuring if you were to find yourself in the situation. See lottery winners, above. Statistically, it's going to happen. "Never thought it would happen" is a sad thing to be read at a eulogy.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

What do you say to the ones who used the gun to save their own asses, not hurting themselves or any innocent? They should have laid down and taken what was coming to them?

You need to provide the statistics on that.

 

[Thermal]

You need to provide the statistics on that.

I don't need to provide anything. It's not a statistical question.

Use the data you re-linked, if you like. Of the 600 some firearm related hospital treatments, 10 were private citizens lawfully defending themselves. What do you say to them about how "justified" their defensive gun ownership was? Was their desire to have a weapon to defend themselves not legally justified? Should they have just taken what was coming? Maybe should've had a chainsaw handy? You know how smaller people love to test their mettle against larger attackers.