A cynical way of looking at it. Would love to see US homicide stats when you take out gangbanger and drug-related homicides. My bet is it would come down by quite a considerable margin..

Homicide stats would not be a true indicator of gun violence. Crimes in which criminals employed firearms would.

You're kind of trying to load the question in your favor by removing most of the criminals.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” --Edmund Burke

Whats the total number of people with a gun carrying permit in the U.S?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Touche my friend .. the very fact that controlled substances are illegal is exactly my point.

__________________
"I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid."
- Jerry Seinfeld

Yes they would if you compared UK guns deaths with US guns deaths...or violence for that matter..

In fact, I was trying to load the question in your favour by pointing out the US probably isn't that violent, just certain, minute aspects of it are..

There is a huge difference between gun control and making the owning of guns illegal.

But is it all that violent.

Could some of those who carry guns in the US give examples of a having a gun meant that they avoided injury, robbery or even worse?

One person has done so, so far.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

It isn't necessarily any more violent than any other countries, no. BUT, you have to remember that most criminals or undesirable elements of society in the US have and usually carry guns, as opposed to most other countries where it's only the most dangerous criminals or a stray case that generally carries guns. This doesn't mean the US is MORE violent - it just means the risk of getting shot at is far greater, not necessarily the risk of getting beat up with an iron rod though ...

Actually, I can't give any examples of where I could have avoided serious harm if I had been carrying a gun in the US (US is generally law abiding) but I can give plenty of examples from other countries where having guns WOULD have helped people.

I carry one regularly whenever I have to transport large sums of cash.
Otherwise, no.

Basically only if I have alot of cash on me and other people know it, such as when I collect rent from my tenants or when I pour concrete on an cash under-the-table side job and have the payroll on me. That is when people I may not be able to trust know I have lots of cash. I also make sure I am not alone when I have to carry that much cash.

Most of the time though, I do not carry a gun anywhere. Especially to a bar or party something. I'd probably shoot someone. It's best not to have a firearm when you are out partying.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes, you've been trained to believe that the inanimate object is the problem, not the person using it.

Yes, I am sure an unarmed, docile populace makes their job easier. It also makes being a criminal much safer and easier. Hence the reason Australia has more violent crime.

I see - your world view is sacrosanct, and we must respect it, but you do not feel able to grant the same consideration to conflicting views.

I find your assumptions about my attitude offensive. They are also wrong and ignorant, but don't let that stop you.

What I stated was a fact - that this "we must save the children" approach to gun control is based on faulty data.

The fact is that very. very few children are killed by firearms accidentally. Even fewer are killed on purpose.

What inflates the statistics is the inclusion of 18-21 year olds in the "children" category. When one 19 year old drug dealer kills a 20 year old drug dealer, this is not a "child" victim of gun violence.

In the cases where an actual child gets a hold of a real gun, the owner of that gun should be prosecuted, IMHO.

How, precisely, would you have the first tiny idea about my vulnerability?

A rather presumptuous statement, that.

BTW - still waiting to hear how my concealed, holstered firearm perpetuates violence?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I would have thought it was obvious.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Well, I'm off to bed. Just finished watching "Boston Legal".

I really, really wish that all conservatives were like Denny Crane!!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Matt I'm going to take issue with a couple of points you made to Enigma concerning firearms, police and crime in Australia.

Firstly, our violent crime rate isn't that high. Having said that it's important for me to be clear that I'm over-simplifying the situation. It's pointless for me to bat statistics around (particularly when I'm not that good at interpreting them anyway) but I will say that if you've been reading material from that asserts that we have a high level of violent crime then you've been given wrong information. Have a look at Australian Institute of Criminology - there's a lot of info there. One thing I'll say is that we have an inordinate amount of stabbings lately (or so it seems), every man and his bloody dog is using a knife these days, but as far as firearms is concerned we don't have a high rate of firearms-related crime.

Note - this has nothing to do with the two national buybacks which were, in my opinion, triumphs of panicky politics over decent policy. But that's another question.

In most states our firearms laws are pretty good. The overwhelming number of legal firearms owners/users are very responsible people. Police don't look to an "unarmed, docile populace" because there's no police philosophy of control of society, just criminals. However the fact that our society isn't swimming with firearms makes the job of the police that much safer.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I am not the one who made the determination that Australia (and the UK) are more violent than the US, my dear.

That was determined by the UN study, if you will recall.

I've still seen no evidence that the NRA tried to put it's nose in your business. The only sources I can find for it (including the Australian one I cited above) clearly show that the Australian government was attempting to censor materials the NRA published in the USA for an American audience.

As to "vulnerability", you presume knowledge that you truly don't possess.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Please do.

Indeed - and this speaks to my point. It is not the gun that is the problem, but rather the criminal. Take away the guns (which you only get from law abiding citizens at first, since the criminals won't be queueing up to turn them in), and you create a larger pool of available victims for the criminals.

When the criminals start losing their guns and cannot replace them, then they will turn to other deadly weapons to continue their endeavors. Hello, they are criminals. They don't care for bans, or laws. They will find other ways to hurt, maim and kill to further their criminal activities.

Buybacks are a fool's errand, IMHO. The ones conducted in the US achieve nothing except helping a criminal dispose of a firearm they know can be linked to a prior crime.

Likewise, the overwhelming number of firearms owners in the US are responsible people who never commit any crime. Why is it deemed acceptable to punish millions and millions of innocent people in order to possibly control the actions of a tiny fraction of that population?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum