In what context? I'm sure there are areas I am better than you, and areas you are better than me. And you took partial sentences to quote out of context. However, demonstrably through freely available statistics the average gun owner anywhere else in the western world is more law abiding than the average american gun owner.

@NoPlanetB google it yourself gun deaths by country and population by country. The statistics are obvious. My post though is not so much judging you as not wanting to be judged in comparison to you. That does imply that I think we're better. Deal with it.

@Cyklone The statistics are not obvious when applied in such a haphazard manner. [en.wikipedia.org]

@NoPlanetB and @beenthere
I would accept your argument if the data were contentious but when you're arguing about info so obvious the burden of proof is far less. This took a few seconds of searching.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]
Australia 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people
USA 12.2 deaths per 100,000 people.

Considering the extreme contrast, it's a bit difficult to see how one could misuse these statistics
Even if you argue that you have a lot more guns per head of population, the fact that we have far more stringent ownership requirements necessarily means that our AVERAGE gun owner is going to be more law abiding than your AVERAGE gun owner.

@Cyklone What are the deaths relative to gun owners, quantity of guns in circulation and how is it counted? For example, are deaths by law enforcement, private security and suicides counted in that number. Statistics can so easily be misused to appeal to preconceived notions and emotions.

@beenthere In aussie, all deaths by firearms are counted, including suicides. I'm not sure of the US stats, but any change would only increase the percentages.

@Cyklone always good to also consider that the vast majority of US guns are owned by a small percentage of gun owners who have dozens if not hundreds or thousands. That's legally registered ones - no idea what the stats are for illegal firearms in the US.

I don’t think you understood it.

@Jolanta I was responding to the replies, I fully support the Aussie laws

Oh, yeah because when the wife is being battered she is holding a gun.

@creative51 Definitions: "automatic" means a weapon continues firing as long as the trigger is held down. Almost nobody civilian owns an automatic weapon, outside of Hollywood studios, and those are strictly licensed and modified to fire blanks. Anyone else who owns one pays a stiff yearly Federal fee for their Class 3 license, and is a serious collector.

Next: While I don't wish to be rude, I have only this to say: "Fuck y'all back." You've apparently never had your life or family threatened. You've never worked in law enforcement. You've never had convicted felons and their friends know exactly where you work and exactly what your hours are. You've never been told, "I'll see you out in the world," by someone who has already assaulted and/or shot multiple people. I have good reasons to own and good reasons to carry. I'm a trained professional and I carry what I see fit.

Beyond that, people have jobs where they transport sums of cash. People have jobs late at night. People live in bad neighborhoods. If they feel the need for a carry gun, they have that right.

Last but not least, it's nothing to do with "needing". It's not your place, not my place, and especially not the government's place to tell anyone what kind of firearm they "need". As long as a person is 21 and law-abiding, their right to be free of interference is superior too what anyone thinks they "need".

I personally don't think people need to listen to rap music, play golf, or watch televised poker, but that's not up to me either.

You're correct, I have stereotyped and for that I apologise. It is a fact though that the USA has around 10,000 firearm related deaths per year, which is far more than the rest of the western world combined. There are NO circumstances in which it is legal for anyone other than police to use a gun on a person in aussie. And although our police are not perfect, you should be calling them. Battered wives also have choices besides a gun (not be there) and even in the US I'd suggest that a battered wife using a gun on her spouse was unusual. The idea of using a gun for defence is mainly fictional anyway as if the gun is safely secured it would be unlikely that you would get to it in time.

@Cyklone "There are NO circumstances in which it is legal for anyone other than police to use a gun on a person in aussie".... again, this bothers me. As a law enforcement professional and veteran, I'm well aware of the use of force guidelines. "Use only that force needed to protect oneself or another from death or serious physical injury. The force used must be proportional to the force presented by an attacker." So, it's illegal to use deadly force to save your own life, if deadly force is used against you?

I agree, by all means call the police. However, depending on where you are, average response time can be anything from 11 minutes to an hour (here in America). What do you do in the meantime? What do you do while someone is kicking in your door?

@Cyklone And apology accepted. Thank you.

@Paul4747 I think the gun problem is too generalized. Are the laws in S Dakota the same as in downtown NY? They shouldn't be. Some Texas rancher has a problem with packs of coyotes? Same law as downtown LA? Nope. Bump stocks and rapid fire weapons are not necessary for civilians. Nor are thirty round mags. They serve no purpose. But most owners have NO training for these weapons. Common sense has been absent from these decisions.

@Paul4747 it is not illegal to defend yourself but the moment they stop attacking you must stop defending. If you use a gun against someone who doesn't have one you will be tried for murder. And fortunately, because we have limited gun ownership now for 24 years there are few available and are very rarely used in crime. It's not perfect but it works better than many other systems. One defence strategy that works very effectively is "run like fuck".

@Cyklone Your laws (and mind you, I'm an outsider critiquing this from the perspective of a first responder and law enforcement professional of 20+ years) seem weighted against the victim. There are any number of scenarios where it's fully justified to use a gun in self-defense, considering the force used against you, the options available to you, the size and strength of your attacker, the possibility of escape, the likelihood of law enforcement or other assistance arriving in time, etc.

A gun is your last option, always, but I can't imagine considering it automatically as murder. Surely the courts will take all those factors into consideration, should push ever come to shove.

@Paul4747 I understand where you're coming from, but your understanding is from a person embedded within a culture where guns are very prevalent. Handguns in particular are extremely rare in this country and ownership of them implies great responsibility and unless you are law enforcement it is made clear to you that self defence with a pistol is never an option. Most people in aussie would never see or handle a pistol in their whole life. I own handguns and if I were facing home invaders I would either run or use a different weapon. The absence of handguns levels the playing field in the same way as the universal ownership of them does. As a first responder what would it be like for you if you knew you could go to work every day and never see a firearm used or have one used on you? There will always be criminals and victims but take away firearms and the death count reduces extremely dramatically. I would imagine that ownership of a handgun would not be that effective as a defence when every criminal is expecting you to have one.

And you're right, a court would take all info into account but the police will still charge you automatically.

To my way of thinking, IF one lives always in such a fear that one needs a gun to feel safe then there MUST be something desperately wrong with both the country and its laws.

@Triphid Thre's a difference between fear and rational caution. Average police response time is around 11 minutes. A lot can happen in 11 minutes,, and none of it is good.

@Paul4747 What, only 11 minutes? Geez Louise, we often have a lapse of anything up to 30 minutes to an hour or more around here, from report something to local 'bobbies' and them actually turning up you're lucky.
But at least and very thankfully WE don't have gun-toting idiots shooting up schools full of students, etc, etc.

Having a gun to feel safe doesn't seem to make a lot of sense because if it is secured in such a way that it is safe then it would take too long to get it out for defence.

@Cyklone i don't have children or others in my home so i keep it next to my bed. Loaded.

@Cyklone, @Triphid i agree but I choose to live over an illusion of peace in amerika

@Cyklone A biometric lock on a small pistol safe takes only seconds to open. A key lock takes only a little longer. Since I live alone, I don't feel at all unsafe if my pistol is in my holster when I'm awake.

I guess it's your individual judgement.

@Paul4747 As the old adage has always gone, "It is NOT guns that kill, it is the person using the gun that does the killing."
Me, for safety at home, there's nothing better than a good solid pick-handle, silent, less messy and makes its point very clearly.
Plus, as an Police Officer once told me, IF you wallop an intruder with a pick-handle no-one, absolutely no-one can dispute that the intruder surprised you while you were making it ready to fit on to a new pick-head.

All state officers are required to take the class and pass before being inducted. Most are required to carry at all times.

@clarkatticus He had his carry weapon. They wanted him to wait two weeks.

@PondartIncbendog as he should

@clarkatticus Its bullshit. He is a licensed officer. They don't have to have a concealed permit. The background checks go through anyway in two weeks. The guy could be a serial killer and if they don't get to it, he gets it. But a State Patrol officer has to wait two weeks? That's stupid.

We don't have any such thing as a concealed permit. Even if you are police or security it cannot be concealed.

@Cyklone No Detectives with bulges in their suits?

@PondartIncbendog nope!

@PondartIncbendog My girlfriend is a retired Parole Agent, she always carried, concealed. She had to qualify on a regular basis. Protocol changes on the use of weapons and she had to take regular classes on that too.

@Seeker3CO Yep. We have predatory capitalism, "government" is secondary.

Blimey, I have NEVER forgotten even a single word that my father drilled into me when he was teaching me about guns, how to handle one, how to carry one, etc, etc.
We ONLY ever used a rifle to hunt for fresh meat/food when on our bush-trips, me with his .22 bolt action rifle, him with his trusty .33 Enfield rifle, always with an empty breach chamber while walking and the rifles carried pointing down at the ground, six shot only magazines and always staying in line with each other and about 20 feet apart.

"We" don't sell to anyone with a previous conviction. You have to fill out and pass a Federal Firearms Licensing check (I may have the wording wrong, it's late at night) before purchase, and it will flag you if you have a felony record; also if you have a restraining order against you for domestic violence, and a few other factors.

This all depends on the issuing authority doing their job and entering the data in the system, though. Any system involving humans is imperfect.

@Paul4747 It takes several months at least for us to acquire a licence and then when you wish to purchase a gun you have to apply for a permit to purchase. That takes another month

@Cyklone You can go into a store and buy a AR 15 with magazines and ammo with a credit card here. And leave with it.

Random?