Why the necessity of guns?

[hypervalent_iodine]

I can see where comparing stats between countries might not be relevant, but individual instances can shed some light. I mean Aussies are superhuman, but still. I read a little about the Monash shooting and it supports the assault weapons ban argument very well. The guy was tackled by unarmed men when he stopped to grab another weapon.

 

Well, my point was more that I disagree with the comparison as most people use it; i.e. 'Australia has a ban on guns and we don't have a problem with violence, so America should ban guns too.' My reasoning, as I mentioned in the other guns thread, is that you cannot make that comparison and say what's good for us is good for them because in reality, gun control in Australia was put forth to solve a nonexistent problem. It was more of a knee-jerk reaction following the Port Arthur massacre, which though tragic, is a very isolated event. Traditionally, we're not a violent country.

 

Comparing gun ownership and violent crime statistics between the US and multiple countries can in fact be useful as it gives some indication of where the problem might lie.

[John Cuthber]

You say that you are in a low risk group.

So does (almost) everyone else, including those who will go on to shoot themselves one way or another.

That's what makes you undistinguishable from my point of view.

 

"Or you think that while being driven home from the hospital on side streets by your forty year old accident-free son, your odds of getting in a car accident are much lower than your odds of a seat belt damaging your colostomy bag."

strawman.

"Lousy definition, but it fits anyway. Why do you claim otherwise?"

Because the claim was that it had a specific meaning that differed from the one in the dictionary.

 

"Blunder is telling people about themselves..."

It's like saying that illegal means fraud.

A definition of fraud will (probably) say that it's illegal, but it doesn't mean that the words are synonyms .