Australia's Gun Problem

[lionking]

How effective are guns owned for self-defence at self-defence?

A very easy answer from AI

Guns kept for self-defense most frequently kill family members, intimate partners, or the gun owners themselves rather than attacking criminals. [1, 2]

 

[arthwollipot]

Nobody should need AI to tell them that.

 

[catsmate]

How effective are guns owned for self-defence at self-defence?

Based in USAian stats in general, awful. IIRR a gun owner is 35 times as likely to kill themselves or a family member.

 

[catsmate]

I'm pretty sure the numbers speak for themselves.

Number 1 cause of child deaths in USA: gunshot wounds.

That's honestly astonishing, and disturbing.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's not clear to me that examples will help you understand the concept that laws are things we choose to follow, not requirements that rob us of agency.

But I'm sure Australian prisons are full of examples that prove my point, if that's what your hang up is.

If following the law is not a requirement, then when and why do you choose not to follow the law? It's a simple question.

ETA: I mean, as amusing as it would be, I'm not going to confess to crimes just to prove you wrong. But I don't really have to.

If crimes are choices, and you are actively choosing to commit crimes despite the law, then you should have no problem confessing to those crimes, because that was the choice you made, right? If following the law is a choice and not a requirement, then what good are laws in the first place?

The Law: No murder.

Luigi Mangione: Not murdering people is a choice, not a requirement.

Arthwollipot: T̷͎̜̈́̄̈̽͋̈́͘ỳ̴̗̦̺̩͈̠̺͕͇̓̚͜p̴̧̠͍̭͓̥̃͋̉̈́̍̔̚͠͝͝ę̷̧̛͖̫̣͙̗̬̟̄̒̈ͅ ö̷͉͓̗́̒͝͠r̴͇͈̗̤̬̳͊͊̏̚͜͝ p̶̩̬̦̯̔͆͛̈́̽͝å̶̢͓̣̼͓͈̺̝̌͠s̶̨̧̠̜̜͂̾͆͛̔͐̆͘t̶̢̟̯̍͆̓̅̊̈̌e̶̛̗̻̱͕͓̲̹̊̐̆̓͊͝͠ t̶̢̧̩̝̲͓̝̠̩̆͐͒̒̽̓̐̓̚è̷̥͋̔͗̈́́̇̚̚x̴̡̨͚̟͓͚̟̤̱̔̒͒̆̃͗͊̅̚͘t̴̯̬̓ t̷͚̀̿̈͆͛̀o̸̧̟̜̦̥̓̆̇̃͘ ḡ̷̨̩̜̘͎͉̣̝͌́̈́́̈l̷͓̿ḯ̵̝͉̋̒̐t̸̼̝͊̾̈̀͜c̴̖͙͊̈́͑͐̋̽͒̄͠h̴̢͔͖̙͖̪̆͑̔͑̌͐̂̚.̵̧̛̱͚̙.̸̦͍̭̪̳̞̇͒́͑͗̇͛́̕͜͜͝.̷̻̭͓̙͌̀͆̀́̇̌͝

Arthwollipot (really): L̶̨̬̺͛̑̐͛̈́̐̈́̆͆͂̋̽̚̕͝u̸̡͎͖̞̯͈̐̀͂̍͂̏͛͝͝i̴͕͎̋́͌̅͛͘͝g̵̨̨̦̻̱̼̣̼̘̜̍͜ͅi̴̧͔̤̹̤̹͎͚̥͓̟̥͋́́̍̆͜͠ ̸̧̟̣͙̳̖̣̻͔͖͔̫̜̥̏͑́̉̐̀͐͑͂͘͜͝͠M̶̢̨̛̜̺̮̳̣̟̤̽̓̆̅̃̒̉͐͝ͅa̴͓̭̞̝̙̙̠͎͔̠͚̋̆͋͛̍̋̈́̈́̌̕ͅn̷̛̏̅̒̒͜͝g̴̡̠͓̣͙͖̣̟̬̬͋i̷̞̺͈̠̭̣͉̭̘͉͍̘̊̊͐͛͆̓͜͜ͅo̸͍͎͆̒̑̈́̆́̔̉̀̍͘n̸̢͚̤̹̗̲̰͖̗̆̋͒̂̔̉̋̈ę̵̲̗͙͉̙̰̥͓̫͍͂̄́͒̐̃̔̄̿̔͌̑̌͒͝ ̷̻̤̠͖͓̍͊̂͋͜͝ͅi̷̧̞͇͔̩̞̖̭͍͚̠̩̬̣̋̀͋̽̅͐̾͜s̶̳͍̰͚̗̲̗̭͉̫̫̳͉̪̍͑̽̑̕͝͝ ̴̡̼͎͇̟̪̔̂ŕ̵̡̧͉̯̱͚̘̠̬̗̳͜ö̷͚̘́͂̋̆̊̏̊͒̄̌̏͆͜͝ͅţ̵̛̜̙̥̰͚̥̟̮̝̬̼̩͇̄̊̍̋̑͗́̍̈́̕t̵̯͙̼̠̝̗̠̽͑̆̈̃̚͠i̸̛̺͔̤̙̲̜̤͔̾̓̒̓̈̌̑̓̃̇͘n̶̗̩̺̞̹̖̲͕͚͚̑̃̌̆̇͒̅̑̒͗͠ͅg̴͕̭̘̉͒ ̶̛͇͉̐͒̆̎͗̄̀̀̏̂̊̐͊͝i̸̢̛͎͍̣͓̗̖͍͑́̓̓͜ń̴̢͍̲̤̗͈͉͕̳̹̻͍̞͖̐͜ ̵̧̫͚̗̫̜͔̆̈́̌͒͑̎j̴̢̨͉̬̣̩̥̳̹͍̦̎̍̎͋̌͛̽̈́̎̅a̷̛̪̬͎̬̱͕̫̖̱̜͚ḯ̵̮̮̰͐̀̃͒͐̽̈́͠͠͝l̶̘̿̔̏͛́̐͑́͝,̵̻̺̠̺̗͔͍̳̩̮̔͗͐̃̈͗̀̽͊͘̚̕͘ ̸̥̩̫͔͇͚͎͎͕̦͇̬͎̀̀̒̍̒̚̚̚ẅ̷̨͚͕̥̞̟̦̤̪̞́͌͗̽̍̽͌̅̅̽̚͘͜͝͠h̴̡̡̢̛̛̻̬̪̙̹̫͔̬͈̜̾̀̀͌̑́̄͌̂̐͗̕͝î̷̡̧̛͈̟͚͎͙̻̺̰̩̫̍̊̀̈͛̓̀̒͋̅͌̄͠ͅc̴̨̛͕̬̩͙̖̽̍͊̚͝ḣ̵̨̼̳̤̫̺̤̼̫̙̬͎̀̒̀͑̌̃̐̍͑̆̓̈́̏̚ ̷̢̻͓͇͓̞͔̲͙̬͒̅̋̓̈̓̕͠ǐ̸̧̧̛͕̮͎̲̫͒̉̔͐͋̚ş̶͔̠̬̹͖̠̬̖̹̾̌̐̋̀̽ ̶̨̘͓͍̹͈̫͙̳̑ͅt̵̡̪̹̦͓̝̯̤̜̩͎͐͂̄̀̄̇͋̃̌̉̍͒h̵̢̧̡̛͉̫̭̔͋͋̔ȩ̷̱̙̯̝̙̲̻̠͈̩̓̔̑́̀͒̀̂̒͝͝ ̷̨̛̹̩̯̗͉̘̼̻̝̠̣̟̂̔̈́͛̽͋̇̓͛͊̑͌̽͠c̵̡̢̢̟͖̤͕̟̙̩̐̏̾͊o̸̢͖͐̀͗̑͛̑͋͋̀͠n̶̡̰̩̣̗̼̱͇̙̩̘͎̈́s̶̩͙̹̼͕̣̟͖͑̓̅̀̇̍͌̐̉̈̀̋̍̑̐e̵̹̪̳̝̠͇̥̳͒͂͒͐̈́̈́͗͆͘͘͝q̷̢̧͎̱̞̪͎͎̑͒̉̽̋̈́̿̑͂̀̆̕u̴̠̭̮̇̚e̶̛͓̗͐͂̅̃̀͊̎͐͘̕͠ń̵̢̺̳̙̯̥̣̺̲̯̣̈̃̒̌̈́͑̽͑̌̆̔͊̕̚c̴̦̬̻̩͈͇̉e̶͚̫̠̞͚͎̯̲͇̼͐̽ ̶̯͚̼̭̯̗̮͓͎̝͇͙̲͎̌̀͒͊̌̊̔̑͘͝ͅo̵̳͔̬͉̊͒̂͊͘͝f̵̡̛̭̗͚̱̗͙͈͍̣̖̬̱̾̆̆̑̓̾͂̆͂͛͒͗̓͐ͅ ̶̢̛̣̺͖͓͓̻̂͋͆͒̅̒͊͛̍͑̕̕ͅͅc̴̛̳̭̳͎͚̖̗̰͙͉̏̅̓̈̇̊h̵̰̗̮̀͂̄̍̓̓͛͂͐̉͘o̵͈̞̹͎̟͍̓̽̉̅̄͐͆̏̀͒͂̈́͘͜͜ớ̸̢̮̮͕͔̫̭̩͗̈́ṡ̴̱̙̠͓̋̀̂͌í̸̧̜̮̳͕͉̗̳̖̖̹̝͙́̿͒͒̈̈́͝͝͠n̵̮͚̼̯̥̺͍̗͈̓̑g̵͍̫̰̣̯͚͇̊̄̔͑̓͛͝ ̷̢̣̖͓̰͎̤̜̼̺̀̈́͜t̸̢̧͔͍̳͕̠̳̼͎̓̎̾͊̾o̷̡͙͍̹͈̎̊͛̃̓̈́̓̈́̐̕͝͠ ̵̬̰̑̈̃̂n̷̨̪̲̺͓̜͓͊͗̑̇̾̄̃̕̕o̶̙̳̳͙̥̬͕̱͕̠͈̭̫̾t̴̘̰̖̹̗̯̪̼̻̗̱͖̀ͅ ̵͔̖͖̼̲͖̠͖̗̟̗̍̽̓̓͌̏͊́͆͐̀͜ͅf̶̤͈̹̘̖̖̗̩̫͕͈̼̪̝̲͂̽̅͒̒͆̎̔́͛̎̕͠ơ̴͕̳̬̜̪̞͌̂̒l̸̢̢̨̪̳̦̜̪̬̼̝̎̇͐̽̊̓̈́͑̉̄͑͐̐ļ̶͍̠̱̖͆͗͐̋̃̎̀̄ö̷͇̬́̈̎͐̀͌̆̀͋̈́̽̈͘w̵̫̳͉̳̤̓̉̏̇͜ͅ ̴̛̜̄̑̎͆̃̀͘̕͠t̸̢̰̫̹̲̝̯̀̍̐̓͌͌̾̈́͋̌͊̇͛̂͝ͅh̵̲͇̖̟͕̉͑͂̇̆̀͒͌̓̈͋͘ę̴̛͉̘̠̱̩̻̻̻͎̣̲̻̪̐̇̀̑̌͊̕̕ ̴̲̟͉̜̝̱̗̰̚͝l̷͍̦̙͑̀̎̾͜͝a̷͉̰̙̥̓̍̇͊͊͝w̶̡̫͍͕̙͛̽͗͗̂́͗́̽̇̽̚͝.̸̢̖̞̼̬̞̆̆̕

 

[theprestige]

If following the law is not a requirement, then when and why do you choose not to follow the law? It's a simple question.

If you have an argument to make, make it.

If crimes are choices, and you are actively choosing to commit crimes despite the law, then you should have no problem confessing to those crimes, because that was the choice you made, right? If following the law is a choice and not a requirement, then what good are laws in the first place?


Arthwollipot (really): L̶̨̬̺͛̑̐͛̈́̐̈́̆͆͂̋̽̚̕͝u̸̡͎͖̞̯͈̐̀͂̍͂̏͛͝͝i̴͕͎̋́͌̅͛͘͝g̵̨̨̦̻̱̼̣̼̘̜̍͜ͅi̴̧͔̤̹̤̹͎͚̥͓̟̥͋́́̍̆͜͠ ̸̧̟̣͙̳̖̣̻͔͖͔̫̜̥̏͑́̉̐̀͐͑͂͘͜͝͠M̶̢̨̛̜̺̮̳̣̟̤̽̓̆̅̃̒̉͐͝ͅa̴͓̭̞̝̙̙̠͎͔̠͚̋̆͋͛̍̋̈́̈́̌̕ͅn̷̛̏̅̒̒͜͝g̴̡̠͓̣͙͖̣̟̬̬͋i̷̞̺͈̠̭̣͉̭̘͉͍̘̊̊͐͛͆̓͜͜ͅo̸͍͎͆̒̑̈́̆́̔̉̀̍͘n̸̢͚̤̹̗̲̰͖̗̆̋͒̂̔̉̋̈ę̵̲̗͙͉̙̰̥͓̫͍͂̄́͒̐̃̔̄̿̔͌̑̌͒͝ ̷̻̤̠͖͓̍͊̂͋͜͝ͅi̷̧̞͇͔̩̞̖̭͍͚̠̩̬̣̋̀͋̽̅͐̾͜s̶̳͍̰͚̗̲̗̭͉̫̫̳͉̪̍͑̽̑̕͝͝ ̴̡̼͎͇̟̪̔̂ŕ̵̡̧͉̯̱͚̘̠̬̗̳͜ö̷͚̘́͂̋̆̊̏̊͒̄̌̏͆͜͝ͅţ̵̛̜̙̥̰͚̥̟̮̝̬̼̩͇̄̊̍̋̑͗́̍̈́̕t̵̯͙̼̠̝̗̠̽͑̆̈̃̚͠i̸̛̺͔̤̙̲̜̤͔̾̓̒̓̈̌̑̓̃̇͘n̶̗̩̺̞̹̖̲͕͚͚̑̃̌̆̇͒̅̑̒͗͠ͅg̴͕̭̘̉͒ ̶̛͇͉̐͒̆̎͗̄̀̀̏̂̊̐͊͝i̸̢̛͎͍̣͓̗̖͍͑́̓̓͜ń̴̢͍̲̤̗͈͉͕̳̹̻͍̞͖̐͜ ̵̧̫͚̗̫̜͔̆̈́̌͒͑̎j̴̢̨͉̬̣̩̥̳̹͍̦̎̍̎͋̌͛̽̈́̎̅a̷̛̪̬͎̬̱͕̫̖̱̜͚ḯ̵̮̮̰͐̀̃͒͐̽̈́͠͠͝l̶̘̿̔̏͛́̐͑́͝,̵̻̺̠̺̗͔͍̳̩̮̔͗͐̃̈͗̀̽͊͘̚̕͘ ̸̥̩̫͔͇͚͎͎͕̦͇̬͎̀̀̒̍̒̚̚̚ẅ̷̨͚͕̥̞̟̦̤̪̞́͌͗̽̍̽͌̅̅̽̚͘͜͝͠h̴̡̡̢̛̛̻̬̪̙̹̫͔̬͈̜̾̀̀͌̑́̄͌̂̐͗̕͝î̷̡̧̛͈̟͚͎͙̻̺̰̩̫̍̊̀̈͛̓̀̒͋̅͌̄͠ͅc̴̨̛͕̬̩͙̖̽̍͊̚͝ḣ̵̨̼̳̤̫̺̤̼̫̙̬͎̀̒̀͑̌̃̐̍͑̆̓̈́̏̚ ̷̢̻͓͇͓̞͔̲͙̬͒̅̋̓̈̓̕͠ǐ̸̧̧̛͕̮͎̲̫͒̉̔͐͋̚ş̶͔̠̬̹͖̠̬̖̹̾̌̐̋̀̽ ̶̨̘͓͍̹͈̫͙̳̑ͅt̵̡̪̹̦͓̝̯̤̜̩͎͐͂̄̀̄̇͋̃̌̉̍͒h̵̢̧̡̛͉̫̭̔͋͋̔ȩ̷̱̙̯̝̙̲̻̠͈̩̓̔̑́̀͒̀̂̒͝͝ ̷̨̛̹̩̯̗͉̘̼̻̝̠̣̟̂̔̈́͛̽͋̇̓͛͊̑͌̽͠c̵̡̢̢̟͖̤͕̟̙̩̐̏̾͊o̸̢͖͐̀͗̑͛̑͋͋̀͠n̶̡̰̩̣̗̼̱͇̙̩̘͎̈́s̶̩͙̹̼͕̣̟͖͑̓̅̀̇̍͌̐̉̈̀̋̍̑̐e̵̹̪̳̝̠͇̥̳͒͂͒͐̈́̈́͗͆͘͘͝q̷̢̧͎̱̞̪͎͎̑͒̉̽̋̈́̿̑͂̀̆̕u̴̠̭̮̇̚e̶̛͓̗͐͂̅̃̀͊̎͐͘̕͠ń̵̢̺̳̙̯̥̣̺̲̯̣̈̃̒̌̈́͑̽͑̌̆̔͊̕̚c̴̦̬̻̩͈͇̉e̶͚̫̠̞͚͎̯̲͇̼͐̽ ̶̯͚̼̭̯̗̮͓͎̝͇͙̲͎̌̀͒͊̌̊̔̑͘͝ͅo̵̳͔̬͉̊͒̂͊͘͝f̵̡̛̭̗͚̱̗͙͈͍̣̖̬̱̾̆̆̑̓̾͂̆͂͛͒͗̓͐ͅ ̶̢̛̣̺͖͓͓̻̂͋͆͒̅̒͊͛̍͑̕̕ͅͅc̴̛̳̭̳͎͚̖̗̰͙͉̏̅̓̈̇̊h̵̰̗̮̀͂̄̍̓̓͛͂͐̉͘o̵͈̞̹͎̟͍̓̽̉̅̄͐͆̏̀͒͂̈́͘͜͜ớ̸̢̮̮͕͔̫̭̩͗̈́ṡ̴̱̙̠͓̋̀̂͌í̸̧̜̮̳͕͉̗̳̖̖̹̝͙́̿͒͒̈̈́͝͝͠n̵̮͚̼̯̥̺͍̗͈̓̑g̵͍̫̰̣̯͚͇̊̄̔͑̓͛͝ ̷̢̣̖͓̰͎̤̜̼̺̀̈́͜t̸̢̧͔͍̳͕̠̳̼͎̓̎̾͊̾o̷̡͙͍̹͈̎̊͛̃̓̈́̓̈́̐̕͝͠ ̵̬̰̑̈̃̂n̷̨̪̲̺͓̜͓͊͗̑̇̾̄̃̕̕o̶̙̳̳͙̥̬͕̱͕̠͈̭̫̾t̴̘̰̖̹̗̯̪̼̻̗̱͖̀ͅ ̵͔̖͖̼̲͖̠͖̗̟̗̍̽̓̓͌̏͊́͆͐̀͜ͅf̶̤͈̹̘̖̖̗̩̫͕͈̼̪̝̲͂̽̅͒̒͆̎̔́͛̎̕͠ơ̴͕̳̬̜̪̞͌̂̒l̸̢̢̨̪̳̦̜̪̬̼̝̎̇͐̽̊̓̈́͑̉̄͑͐̐ļ̶͍̠̱̖͆͗͐̋̃̎̀̄ö̷͇̬́̈̎͐̀͌̆̀͋̈́̽̈͘w̵̫̳͉̳̤̓̉̏̇͜ͅ ̴̛̜̄̑̎͆̃̀͘̕͠t̸̢̰̫̹̲̝̯̀̍̐̓͌͌̾̈́͋̌͊̇͛̂͝ͅh̵̲͇̖̟͕̉͑͂̇̆̀͒͌̓̈͋͘ę̴̛͉̘̠̱̩̻̻̻͎̣̲̻̪̐̇̀̑̌͊̕̕ ̴̲̟͉̜̝̱̗̰̚͝l̷͍̦̙͑̀̎̾͜͝a̷͉̰̙̥̓̍̇͊͊͝w̶̡̫͍͕̙͛̽͗͗̂́͗́̽̇̽̚͝.̸̢̖̞̼̬̞̆̆̕

The choice of which consequences to accept is still a choice. Laws don't remove personal agency and responsibility.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ibid. Section 12:

12 Genuine reasons for having a licence(cf APMC 3, 1990 Reg cl 22A)
(1) The Commissioner must not issue a licence that authorises the possession and use of a firearm unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.
(2) An applicant does not have a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant intends to possess or use the firearm for any of the following reasons—
(a) personal protection or the protection of any other person,
(b) the protection of property (other than in circumstances constituting a genuine reason as set out in the Table to this section).
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the reasons which the Commissioner may be satisfied are not genuine reasons for the purposes of justifying the possession or use of a firearm.
(4) Subject to this Act, an applicant for a licence has a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant—
(a) states that he or she intends to possess or use the firearm for any one or more of the reasons set out in the Table to this section, and
(b) is able to produce evidence to the Commissioner that he or she satisfies the requirements specified in respect of any such reason.

Table
Reason: sport/target shooting
The applicant must be a current member of a shooting club approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations, and which conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought.

Reason: recreational hunting/vermin control
The applicant must—
(a) be the owner or occupier of rural land, or
(b) produce proof of permission given by the owner or occupier of rural land, or by an officer or employee of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development or other authority prescribed by the regulations, to shoot on rural land, or
(b1) produce proof of permission given by a land manager within the meaning of the Forestry Act 2012 to shoot on land in respect of which the land manager is authorised to exercise functions as land manager under that Act, or
(c) be a current member of a hunting club approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations.
The regulations may provide for the manner and form in which any such permission is to be given, the extent to which it operates, and how it is to be produced as evidence by the applicant. A person does not, so long as the person is authorised to give permission to shoot on land referred to in paragraph (b) or (b1), incur any liability merely because the person gives the applicant permission to shoot on the land concerned.

Reason: primary production
The applicant must—
(a) be a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, or who is the owner, lessee or manager of land used for primary production, and
(b) state that he or she intends to use the firearm solely in connection with farming or grazing activities (including the suppression of vertebrate pest animals on the land concerned).

Reason: vertebrate pest animal control
The applicant must be—
(a) a professional contract shooter engaged or employed in controlling vertebrate pest animals on rural land, or
(b) a person employed by or in, or authorised by, a government agency prescribed by the regulations that has functions relating to the control or suppression of vertebrate pest animals, or
(c) a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, or who is the owner, lessee or manager of land used for primary production, and who is participating in an authorised campaign conducted by or on behalf of a government agency or public authority to eradicate large feral animals or animals that are affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis.

Reason: business or employment
The applicant must demonstrate that it is necessary in the conduct of the applicant’s business or employment to possess or use the firearm for which the licence is sought.

Reason: occupational requirements relating to rural purposes
The applicant must be employed or engaged in a rural occupation that requires the possession or use of the firearm for which the licence is sought.

Reason: animal welfare
The applicant must be—
(a) a person who, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, is an appointed officer employed by an approved charitable organisation, or
(b) a veterinary practitioner, or
(c) a person who is employed in the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development or is a member of staff of Local Land Services and who has responsibility for animal welfare, or
(d) an owner, transporter, drover or other handler of animals who may need to destroy animals to avoid suffering.

Reason: firearms collection
The applicant must—
(a) be a current member of a collectors’ society or club approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations, and
(b) provide a written statement by that collectors’ society or club confirming that the applicant’s firearms collection has a genuine commemorative, historical, thematic or financial value.

Pretty much the same as the UK.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, that's sure enough what we are talking about. Thoughts?

Eta: restating what the laws are does not defend the irrationality of them. Which is what we were talking about.

Why are they irrational?

 

[Andy_Ross]

A very easy answer from AI



No doubt gun owners in this thread will assert that they are superior marksmen and would use Rambo skills.

It depends on experience and training.
Most handgun owners in the USA that buy them for self defense have minimal or no training in their use. They don't know how to handle them safely and rarely go to a range to shoot them.

Unfortunately most of the advice on the web regarding home and self defence with firearms is terrible.
It either concentrates on which cool gun to buy or over the top movie style tactical situations.
Buying a gun, practicing jumping around and how to do tactical reloads like in videos on YouTube is no substitute for proper training in gun handling and time at the range learning to actually shoot.

 

[Darat]

A very easy answer from AI

Guns kept for self-defense most frequently kill family members, intimate partners, or the gun owners themselves rather than attacking criminals. [1, 2]

It would seem to have a gun for self-defence is the irrational decision. I can see why many countries don't find self-defence as a valid reason to issue a licence.

 

[lionking]

It would seem to have a gun for self-defence is the irrational decision. I can see why many countries don't find self-defence as a valid reason to issue a licence.

Crystal clear, but something US gun owners will deny.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Interesting stat from the UK's Metropolitan Police, outside of training Met firearms officers fire and average of five times a year, that's the force not the individual officers, last year they didn't shoot at all. I don't know if this is strictly on topic, but I think it speaks to the rarety of 'active shooter' gun crime in the UK.

 

[lionking]

Interesting stat from the UK's Metropolitan Police, outside of training Met firearms officers fire and average of five times a year, that's the force not the individual officers, last year they didn't shoot at all. I don't know if this is strictly on topic, but I think it speaks to the rarety of 'active shooter' gun crime in the UK.

No, it’s right on topic.

In Australia police carry firearms, but I know for a fact, each and every discharge is thoroughly investigated. I worked for Victoria Police for 8 years in the 1980s as the senior public servant so understand police culture here. While I heard many times from coppers “better judged by 12 than carried by 4” there were very few police shootings in my time.

 

[Thermal]

Strangely they are not irrational to Australians. Can you at least concede the possibility that US gun culture is in fact irrational?

Possibility? It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ insane.

 

[Thermal]

Wrt killing of women, the best source for the UK is the Femicide Census.
In the UK (and Ireland) most women (50-55%) are killed by 'intimate partners'. Including family (especially sons, a rather horrifying 17% in recent years) and the total is around 75%. Women are very rarely, <10%, killed by strangers

Those are not the stats The Atheist requested. He wanted to find defensive gun ownership by women, and how often the gun is taken away from them and used against them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Based in USAian stats in general, awful. IIRR a gun owner is 35 times as likely to kill themselves or a family member.

"There are lies, DAMNED LIES, and statistics."

 

[Thermal]

I'm pretty sure the numbers speak for themselves.

Number 1 cause of child deaths in USA: gunshot wounds.

In NZ & Aussie, they're so rare they don't make the table.

From mass shootings to suicides, USA is disgracefully far ahead of other western nations.

Yes. That's not what I am questioning though.

I repeat, you have your laws and we have ours. A proposal to allow more access to guns here and Aussie would be political suicide. We're very happy with the current laws.

Glad to hear it. Doesnt adress my point, though.

Funny how that question has been avoided.

Lol, it was posted a half hour before you commented that it was being 'avoided', at 3AM my time. Avoided? Try 'posted for a few minutes while the potential respondents were sleeping'.

 

[Thermal]

Why are they irrational?

For the reasons I've spelled out.

It depends on experience and training.
Most handgun owners in the USA that buy them for self defense have minimal or no training in their use. They don't know how to handle them safely and rarely go to a range to shoot them.

Unfortunately most of the advice on the web regarding home and self defence with firearms is terrible.
It either concentrates on which cool gun to buy or over the top movie style tactical situations.
Buying a gun, practicing jumping around and how to do tactical reloads like in videos on YouTube is no substitute for proper training in gun handling and time at the range learning to actually shoot.

This is what it boils down to, and I think what the Australian laws mean when they say self defense is not a justifiable reason.

It's not that protecting your life isn't a good enough reason, it's that it opens the door to uncontrolled purchasing, training, and poor home handling, which increases the odds of a bad outcome exponentially. On that, I would entirely agree with the Oceaniac and European laws.

But if sport shooting is a valid reason, and collecting (actually just telling police you want to start amassing guns) are legit, it would seem to be that similar strict handling standards could be applied to a defensive owner? Records required for training courses, hours logged in at the range, things like that, rather than 'saving your life is not a valid reason, but if you want to shoot at some paper targets, well hot damn, have yourself some deadly weapons'.

The issue seems to revolve around disciplined, responsible ownership versus uncontrolled, more than the validity of the reasons. On that point, I would fully agree. What I'd like to see over here in the States is the ability for (especially) women to own a gun for self protection, while keeping the average drunk from picking up a 9mm at the corner store and shoving it in his waistband or tossing it on the coffee table where his kids are doing their homework.

 

[Thermal]

A very easy answer from AI

Guns kept for self-defense most frequently kill family members, intimate partners, or the gun owners themselves rather than attacking criminals. [1, 2]

Yes, mishandling surely results in more body bags being filled, but that's not the full scope of defensive ownership. Over here, just knowing someone has/is likely to have a gun means you don't want to attack this person, or invade his home, because it won't work out well for you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, mishandling surely results in more body bags being filled, but that's not the full scope of defensive ownership. Over here, just knowing someone has/is likely to have a gun means you don't want to attack this person, or invade his home, because it won't work out well for you.

You just get a bigger gun and shoot first