: @If we're going to talk anecdotes, I've read anecdotal evidence from crims who say that they would prefer not to use guns during burglaries, home invasions because it increases the risk of someone getting killed (an extra 20 years on a sentence) but feel they have to because the home owner might have one.
The escelation effect. Although it would be worth asking, from this angle, 'should we (victims) make it easier for criminals so as to spare the confrontation and their sentences?' Like a duty to your burglar!
: @Possibly slightly mute but not entirely. Call me crazy, but I feel a little uneasy with the idea of somebody with a history of mental illness buying a machine gun over the counter. I like to think that he'd have to make some kind of concerted effort to get hold of it.
The problem is that in criminal circles they are quite easy to get, I think the point over Mr Crazy is a good one though - but how do you know someone is crazy and must you have sociey assume everyone is unless they prove otherwise, if they must do so with guns then why not also cars, knives, kitchenware, bricks - anything that might be used? Where is the line?
: @I would say precisely the same thing about a state official (which is one of the more practical reasons why I am against the death penalty...but that's another debate). However, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the police have very rarely been the first section of the community to arm themselves. They have usually only become armed in response to a rise in the availability of fire arms in the wider community.
(agree on the death penalty). Anyway - once armed the police and state in general seek to disarm the public at large, why do they wish to have monoploy on force? Is it really just to keep an upper hand on crime? Would not a policeman welcome acts of self defence as helping pursue justice? It seems they find victism, especially ones who dont do their duty and roll over and die as something of an irritation (more anecdotal stuff)
: @I have to disagree with you there. I think that when talking about statistics the source is even more important than the content.
The source of the data and how it has been manipulated yes, but not the office it came out of.
: @I don't think so. Australia has the second lowest rate of taxation of the OECD countries (I'll have to find the reference for this - I got it from a real book so I have to make a trip to the library). The first is of course the US. Having lived in Europe, I can say that our government has nothing on them regulation wise.
Doesnt sound so bad then. And Europe are past masters of the 'i rule your life' red tape.
: @And the gun lobby ignore the fact that while gun ownership is high in these countries, state regulation of this ownership is also extremely high.The NRA would scream blue murder if the government in the US tried to introduce similar guidelines.
But it has done, there are thousands of pieces of legislation on everything from the size of the gun, the magazine capacity, the type of ammunition, who can own one (permits) and when and where you can carry them. The notion of the US being a place where you can go buy a gun like in "the Terminator" scene is just not true.
: @I'll vote against them or boycott their products :) And I'd probably write a stern letter to my local representatve. That'll teach 'em.
Given your response, I think you do appreciate your degree of power in relation to theirs. Quite a ratio huh?