Does gun ownership reduce the crime rate?

I voted the 3rd option.
Nobody is going to want to break into a house if people have guns.
I think gun ownership is a good idea for home security.
Strictness should be applied for people wishing to get a gun license.
The only types of guns that should be allowed to be owned by civillians are rifles and large shotguns.
These cannot be concealed like pistols or in the case of small rifles and shotguns under a trench coat.
Guns not permitted to be outside the house of the owner.

I agree with Aussie N.  I used to be completely against guns, but it seems that now they are readily available to criminals and not those who would use them carefully.

I don't know about having rifles for personal protection - how would you get it out quickly - load it and fire to scare off an intruder.  Personally I think responsible citizens who have never been in trouble should be allowed to keep a concealed gun at home for personal protection.

Of course it would have to be well hidden from children and visitors. but with the amount of crime and break ins, it would be handy to have a small gun for protection.

Guns kept in the house are far more likely to be used to kill the owner of the gun than vice versa, or a friend/family member. A thief is going to go straight for whatever secure lockup facility you have, which means he may well have your gun in his hands when you stumble upon him half asleep.

but it seems that now they are readily available to criminals

It doesn't seem that way to me. The majority of store hold ups that you read about are committed with other objects like baseball bats, knives, syringes or spearguns. They often get chased away. This is a far preferable scenario than having guns everywhere.

I've gotta agree with Ausnat on this one.

Ever since they banned guns, petty crime in Australia has seemed to skyrocket. Although, I have no stats to back this up.

Of course it would have to be well hidden from children and visitors. but with the amount of crime and break ins, it would be handy to have a small gun for protection. "

mantra I agree with that..used responsibly..why not?

Is the druggie who steals it from you going to use it responsibly?

If someone enters your house illegally, and has an expectation they could be shot, they will arm themselves accordingly. Applying the pro-gun argument, everyone will be entitled to arm themselves, so then all criminals will be forced to carry a gun to "defend" themselves against retaliation when they are illegally entering a property. Because a gun can inflict lethal force without being in immediate proximity of the target, a shoot first, think second mentality will ensue. The innocent occupant is likely to come off second best, because it is less likely they will have a loaded gun at hand, whereas the better prepared criminal is ready for action. Shoot first, think second... dead occupant.

In addition, if criminals don't have a gun, they will rob an easy target, such as the old lady who lives by herself.

By having a gun in the house, all you have done is raise the stakes of being killed in a home invasion, or moved the problem to those less able to defend themselves.

I think the penalties for armed break and enter are far higher than unarmed.

If your house is protected enough (bars on windows, alarms, Dogs etc), nobody should be able to break in.
perhaps new gun owners should attend training courses?
The only reason why people are talking about arming themselves is because the police are UTTERLY USELESS.

They are too busy with their radar traps and other revenue raising activities.

The house I am currently in has bars on many windows. Not much help in a fire  :-/

Always have a window without bars as an escape route, which is hard to get into but easy to jump out.

Quote:

The only reason why people are talking about arming themselves is because the police are UTTERLY USELESS.

They're probably scared the criminal will sue them for preventing his break-in.  ;D

Quote:

I think the penalties for armed break and enter are far higher than unarmed.

Penalties arent a deterrent... most crims believe they will never get caught!

Quote:

The only reason why people are talking about arming themselves is because the police are UTTERLY USELESS.

I see the problem as more closely related to social policy, and inconsistent sentencing.

Police only do the job they are instructed to perform, so you can't blame them. Most of them are pissed because they spend hours filling out paperwork (evidence), only to have a judge dismiss the case, or issue a non-custodial sentence.

Penalties arent a deterrent... most crims believe they will never get caught!

I'm pretty sure it is enough to stop them coming armed. Most crims are there to steal something, not get into a fight.

Look at places in the US with concealed carry provisions. A gun is no good at home if you are threatened in the street.

Quote:

Look at places in the US with concealed carry provisions. A gun is no good at home if you are threatened in the street.

What are you basing this off?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 9:56pm:

Quote: Look at places in the US with concealed carry provisions. A gun is no good at home if you are threatened in the street. What are you basing this off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Just a wiki quikie....

Fair enough. I know too little about this topic to make a good judgement.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-is-worlds-most-armed-country/2007/08/29/1188067153046.html

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily-armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

US citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

I think long guns should be widely available and unrestricted. I believe pistols should be widely available and slightly restricted, with permits issued on the spot providing you have no history of mental illness, dishonesty or violent crime. Extra permit required to concealed carry the pistol, but must be issued providing the applicant meets the basic requirements and also does a defensive pistol shooting course.

No gun registration what so ever. It does nothing except tell you where the guns are that are never going to be used in a crime, and cost a hell of a lot of money.

If everybody had guns, home invasions would go down, just like they were pre-96. No criminal is so fearless that they will arm themselves to take on an armed resident over a TV and VCR. It's not worth it to them. Criminals are opportunistic, they will not pick the hard target.

Not only do guns in the hands of private citizens give them a means of self defence, it also does the greatest thing for the population imaginable. It gives them a way to resist tyranny if it becomes necessary. This is why governments truly hate guns. They know it doesn't do anything for crime rates to ban guns. If I wanted to kill my defacto (for instance, I am not in a defacto relationship) because she cheated on me with my with my best mate, and I didn't have a gun, I could just go to the kitchen and grab a carving knife.

Banning guns does not change personalities or instantly make everyone sane.

At the moment guns are extremely readily available, just look at all the shootings and rocket launchers and explosives and FULL AUTOMATIC machine guns (which were never legal, so it's not like they weren't handed in) turning up in the hands of criminal gangs. Look at the current affairs programs who send investigative journalists in to pubs to come out with an illegal handgun that was illegally imported and NOT stolen off a licensed owner in less than half an hour.

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now. How often did you hear about a drive by back in the day?

There is more gun crime out there than goes reported. Go ask a ER nurse at a hospital in a crime hotspot how many people come in with gun shot wounds and how many of them cooperate with the police.

Personally, I don't have a vested interests in firearms, I am not in the industry nor do I have a gun license or regularly go shooting.

I have done a fair bit of shooting in the past though.

However, I do have a vested interest in freedom, and because of this I encourage everyone I meet to get involved in shooting sports.

In strange times such as those we are living, I cannot understand why anyone would be anti gun, unless they are a muppet who refuses to look at the facts and gets taken for a ride by spin doctors, or a politician who wants to make sure the will of the people will never overcome.

What makes these times so special? Now is a time when guns are least necessary, compared to in the past when our society was far more violent. Guns increase the homicide rate. The penalty you pay for protecting your VCR from a thief is neighbourhood kids shooting each other.

What makes these times so special?

How about the restrictions of freedom and expression being imposed on us by current regimes around the world? Or politicians deliberately misleading the public in order to go to war? Or the ever increasing use of violence in the community and people taking psychotic drugs? Or giving God powers to corporations? Or terrorism? Or the ever increasing violent crime rate?

Kids are not going to be shooting each other. It very, very rarely happens even in 'gun crazy' America. The onus is on the parent and the education system to teach the children right from wrong and not to touch the guns unless an adult is present. Teach people to respect human life, like our society used to be, when guns WERE freely available, and we will have no issues. People will still kill each other, sure, but not over petty poo as frequently as they do now.

I grew up in a household full of guns, and I was what you would call a problem child, and I never shot anyone or threatened to do so.

Please show me where in Australia firearms have increased the homicide rate, or banning guns has reduced it. Don't tell me that after guns were banned the rate went down and use that as your justification. I will not disagree that the rate went down, but it was going down consistently for years before that.

Use your own mind, do your own research, do some source checking and then see for yourself just how much deception is out there in regards to the firearm issue.

Gun deaths might go down after gun ownership is restricted, but have a look at how many of them are suicides, and then look at the suicide rate which doesn't change.

Also, if one year in Victoria there are 6 people shot and killed, compared to 4 the next year when all guns knives and scissors are banned, would we see in the headlines 'GUN MURDERS DOWN 33%! NEW LAWS TO THANK'? Probably. Statistics like that are very easy to manipulate when you are working with such a small occurance of event.

double trouble

How about the restrictions of freedom and expression being imposed on us by current regimes around the world? Or politicians deliberately misleading the public in order to go to war?

You think this is something new?

Or the ever increasing use of violence in the community and people taking psychotic drugs? Or the ever increasing violent crime rate?

Our society is more peaceful now than it has ever been.

Kids are not going to be shooting each other.

That's what happens in America, which is armed to the teeth.

It very, very rarely happens even in 'gun crazy' America.

You're right, more often it's the druggies that shoot people. That doesn't make the victims feel any better.

The onus is on the parent and the education system to teach the children right from wrong and not to touch the guns unless an adult is present.

Passing the buck. The onus is also on the government to make sure handguns are not easily available. On the one hand you complain about the government encroaching on our freedoms and lieing to us, but on the other you expect the government to tell our children what to think.

I will not disagree that the rate went down, but it was going down consistently for years before that.

What about the rate at which it went down. And doesn't that contradict your earlier claims about 'these violent times'?

I agree with AN..by the time police get to your house after you call them- too late-damage done.

A handgun would be useful for personal protection.

I wouldnt hesitate to pop him in the testicles.

Quote:

What about the rate at which it went down. And doesn't that contradict your earlier claims about 'these violent times'?

Have a closer look mate. www.abs.gov.au

Our society has a higher rate of violent crime than the US, per capita. Things such as rape, assault etc.

I also don't think the bad things happening are something new, but when they are happening in formerly liberty loving countries, it does give some cause for concern, especially when governments are streamlining their efforts at population control.

The onus isn't on the government to restrict weapons. I don't know about you, but I don't really like it when people decide what is good for me without me having a say in my own personal welfare. That's why I don't like communism or fascism. I generally give people more credit than that, feel we are intelligent beings who do not require such babysitting. Sure you need a government to run the country, but the people should run the people AND the government.

OCEANS:
The decision to shoot someone is not one you take lightly. You should only shoot someone if your life is in immediate danger. If a robber arrives at your house you point the weapon at them and tell them to stop. If they run away, you go back to bed, if they don't, you tell them to get on their face and ring the police.

Never shoot to wound, as I said only shoot if your welfare is in immediate danger. In that instance, shoot to kill. You shoot someone in the balls they can still kill you. Aim for the torso and just let rip till they fall over.

I also don't think the bad things happening are something new, but when they are happening in formerly liberty loving countries

Former? We have far more freedom now than ever before.

Was that link meant to be for anything useful, or did you expect me to go on a fishing expedition?

I expected you to come to your own informed conclusions without trusting the word of a stranger or relying on spin.

We have far less freedom than ever before. In regards to everything. Laws are constantly made, not revoked. I don't even need to provide you with examples because this is just common sense, but I guess it isn't all that common is it?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you really need to do some of your own thinking and look at statistics objectively rather than just relying on using emotion or someone else's ideas which are not logical arguments to come to conclusions.

Super if i shot a bloke in the balls I think he'll stop.

I wont kill someone- not worth going to jail over a crim.

I would only ever shoot if my safety was an issue- of course.

Laws are constantly made, not revoked.

Those laws protect our freedom. Unless of course you think the freedom to beat someone up is more important than the right to live in peace.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you really need to do some of your own thinking and look at statistics objectively rather than just relying on using emotion or someone else's ideas which are not logical arguments to come to conclusions.

I don't see you rpesenting any stats, just spin.

Oceans;

I'll try not to get too technical with you, but the balls are not a huge target, it would take time to figure out where they are and line them up in the gun sights, especially when the target is moving and you are charged with adrenaline. It takes time to aquire a specific target such as that. Instinctive shooting is just pointing and shooting without using the sights, which is a much faster way to take your target down in close quarters especially if they are armed. There are no vital organs in that region which are guaranteed to kill or incapacitate when taken out of action.

Aim for the torso and just give it to them if you are ever in that situation, your life is not something you should gamble with.

There is such a thing as justifiable homicide if you did happen to kill the crim, but as things stand now in this country, you would more than likely go to jail unless the firearm was legally owned and registered, stored appropriately away from the ammunition and had reason to shoot.

You could just leave the gun on the bedside table, and when the police come say you couldn't sleep so you just happened to be oiling the firearm and heard someone breaking in and THEN unlocked the ammunition to go investigate.

A few years ago there was a home invasion in NSW where the son of the licensed firearms owner shot the intruder in the leg, even though his life and that of his family were not currently being specifically threatened.

No charges were laid.

freediver, if you think I am writing poo, prove me wrong. Please try. I'd love to rip every one of your arguments (which undoubtably will be old rehashed unfounded ones) in half and throw them back at you.  ;D

Not all laws protect our freedom. Such as laws restricting the media. Such as being able to hold someone against their will for long periods of time on suspicion of conspiracy.

I am representing a viewpoint more than statistics. You were the one who was using statistics. So far everything I have posted that can be verified statistically is true.

So far what you have posted can be manipulated to show a view point using selective quoting and use of statistics.

Please use your own mind and don't be a drone, then get back to me. I really don't think you are that dumb to swallow every piece of (dis)information designed specifically to subvert the mind in order to achieve a goal or agenda.

superdupercooper wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 1:04pm:

Oceans; I'll try not to get too technical with you, but the balls are not a huge target, it would take time to figure out where they are and line them up in the gun sights, especially when the target is moving and you are charged with adrenaline. It takes time to aquire a specific target such as that. Instinctive shooting is just pointing and shooting without using the sights, which is a much faster way to take your target down in close quarters especially if they are armed. There are no vital organs in that region which are guaranteed to kill or incapacitate when taken out of action. Aim for the torso and just give it to them if you are ever in that situation, your life is not something you should gamble with. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide if you did happen to kill the crim, but as things stand now in this country, you would more than likely go to jail unless the firearm was legally owned and registered, stored appropriately away from the ammunition and had reason to shoot. You could just leave the gun on the bedside table, and when the police come say you couldn't sleep so you just happened to be oiling the firearm and heard someone breaking in and THEN unlocked the ammunition to go investigate. A few years ago there was a home invasion in NSW where the son of the licensed firearms owner shot the intruder in the leg, even though his life and that of his family were not currently being specifically threatened. No charges were laid.

thanks for that super..Im only experienced in head shots.

freediver, if you think I am writing nuts, prove me wrong. Please try. I'd love to rip every one of your arguments

For starters, you claimed I am the one responding to spin rather than stats, yet you have not rpesented any to back up your case.

I am representing a viewpoint more than statistics. You were the one who was using statistics.

Doesn't this contradict your earlier statement?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you really need to do some of your own thinking and look at statistics objectively rather than just relying on using emotion

Yet here you are admitting that you are pushing a 'viewpoint', not an objective response to statistics.

So far everything I have posted that can be verified statistically is true.

Then do it. Verify it. Although I am not sure which statements you think can be verified as you keep contradicting yourself.

You are getting upset. You are letting emotion guide your responses. I am not contradicting myself.


Quote:

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now. How often did you hear about a drive by back in the day? There is more gun crime out there than goes reported. Go ask a ER nurse at a hospital in a crime hotspot how many people come in with gun shot wounds and how many of them cooperate with the police.

Quote:

Please show me where in Australia firearms have increased the homicide rate, or banning guns has reduced it. Don't tell me that after guns were banned the rate went down and use that as your justification. I will not disagree that the rate went down, but it was going down consistently for years before that.

Quote:

Gun deaths might go down after gun ownership is restricted, but have a look at how many of them are suicides, and then look at the suicide rate which doesn't change.

Quote:

Our society has a higher rate of violent crime than the US, per capita. Things such as rape, assault etc.

All can be statistically verified. I'm not going to prove it to you, because I know I am right. I want you to prove me wrong, however I think you will have a hard time doing so.

Oceans;
I've never shot anybody but headshots are reserved for professionals like anti-terror groups and swat teams who train day in day out at seeking out and engaging rather than sitting back and defending. But I just think you were taking the piss out of me! ;)

OK, lets start with the first one:

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now.

Quote:

Australia The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide. The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. “And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604
click the pdf link at the bottom.


Quote:

Gun ownership is rising and there is no definitive evidence that a decade of restrictive firearms laws has done anything to reduce weapon-related crime, according to NSW's top criminal statistician

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

Please stop using emotion and start using fact. Arguments based on emotion are idiotic. I don't care if you don't like guns, only a misinformed easily led individual would come to your conclusions when the actual facts are staring them right in the face.

Quote:

Sydney Gun Crimes double There are still some problems. In inner Sydney, robberies with a firearm increased by 111 per cent over the last two years

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-gun-crimes-double/2006/08/30/1156816939675.html

The best you can hope for when banning guns is that crimes committed with guns will go down, not that the actual crime regardless of a firearm being used or not will go down.

This is what history and FACT has shown us, not irrationality and emotion.

However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.

Have a look at the top graph on page 14. From 1997 on, the homicide rate was lower. He is obviously misrepresenting that data. He must hold his readers in very low regard, as he even puts the graph in the report. He bases his negative assessment on a single year to year trend in a graph that goes up and down every year, but which clearly shows a lower homicide rate from 1997 on.

The homicide rate is between 1.5 and 2.0 per 100K. Australia has never been a country with a high murder rate. The graph clearly shows me that the homicide rate now is higher than when we had the buyback.

Then you have difficulty reading graphs.

Have a closer look. The rate is higher now than 1997.  ;D

You can't read graphs mate. At all. Seriously.

It is 2007, not 2002. You cannot make a trend based on a single data point. I have attached the graph to make it clearer. There is no clear upward or downward trend before or after 97. There is however a clear difference in the average homicide rate between the two periods.

And the fact that our homicide rate is so much lower (in a difference ballpark to the US) should also tell you something about gun ownership.

---

Also, check out the lastest data:

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html

Also, how do these stats back up your original claim?

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now.

---

Sorry I didn't look at the dates.


Quote:

Since 2001-02, there has been a declining trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia, but this downward trend has not continued for the 2005-06 year.

From your link. So it's going up again. Once again though, the graph lines don't give the full picture. The rate is really quite constant.

These stats you provided do not back up my original claim nor yours. Homicide can be committed without a firearm.

My original claim is based off anecdotal evidence. How often did we hear about drivebys and execution-style killings with guns back in the day compared to now? Hardly ever wasn't it?


Quote:

Gun ownership is rising and there is no definitive evidence that a decade of restrictive firearms laws has done anything to reduce weapon-related crime, according to NSW's top criminal statistician

Our murder rate has pretty much remained constant. There are no great differences at all. Guns are not a factor in crime, the individual is. Reducing guns does not reduce the amount of bad people in the community.

Our population density is lower than the US as well as our cultural differences. Maybe that has something to do with the murder rate and NOT guns? Why is it that the US is experiencing a declining homicide rate when they are making it easier to own and carry guns over there?

Guns have nothing to do with it. Temperament and culture have everything to do with it.

I wonder what the graph you drew red lines on would look like if we took the people killed in Port Arthur off the statistics list and actually just concentrated on homicides and not the unfortunate mass killing we had.

Quote:

Oceans; I've never shot anybody but headshots are reserved for professionals like anti-terror groups and swat teams who train day in day out at seeking out and engaging rather than sitting back and defending. But I just think you were taking the piss out of me! ;)

nah!
Im not a nob.

From your link. So it's going up again.

The annual homicide rate will go up and down. That doesn't mean we should change our minds every year. It just means you shouldn't make a trend from a single data point.

The rate is really quite constant.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't back up your claim:

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now.

It also contradicts your earlier claim:

Don't tell me that after guns were banned the rate went down and use that as your justification. I will not disagree that the rate went down, but it was going down consistently for years before that.  

My original claim is based off anecdotal evidence.

Yet you criticise me for not using the stats.

How often did we hear about drivebys and execution-style killings with guns back in the day compared to now? Hardly ever wasn't it?

To be honest I can't remember ever hearing about a drive by. Except maybe a recent one in Melbourne. Not sure of the details. But of course you are going to remember more recent ones than old ones. That's why 'anecdotal evidence' is so useless.

Our population density is lower than the US as well as our cultural differences.

There are plenty of wealthy western countries with high population density like the US. All or most have less gun ownership and fewer homicides.

Guns have nothing to do with it. Temperament and culture have everything to do with it.

I know plenty of people who would have a hard time killing me without a gun no matter how angry they were. With a gun it would be easy. That's the difference that guns make.

I wonder what the graph you drew red lines on would look like if we took the people killed in Port Arthur off the statistics list and actually just concentrated on homicides and not the unfortunate mass killing we had.

It would make a slight difference for one year. So what?

The rate is really quite consistent...

Do you follow the news? How can you honestly have never heard of a driveby? There was a period in Sydney a year or so ago where we were having one a week for a little while.

Fewer homicides does not mean lower crime rate. Look at England, where all pistols are banned. Didn't we have an 11 year old get shot and killed a week ago over there?

Please show me any evidence of any place anywhere where restrictions on private firearm ownership has led to lower violent crime rates. It just hasn't happened.

There is no evidence to say that weapon related crime has been effected by the gun laws, coming from a government employed person.

So anyway, you acknowledge the homicide rate will change. Do you also acknowledge that certain violent crime has risen in Australia since the bans?

Do you acknowledge banning guns for law abiding citizens has had no effect on the criminal availability of guns?

If that is true, then how can you be in favour of disarming the civilian populace?

If I wanted to kill you and didn't have a gun I'd just run you over or burn your house down when you were asleep. Easy. Removing the tool does not remove the intent, nor does it prevent the act occuring.

If somebody wants to kill you, really wants to, they will and you won't really be able to stop them.

Considering the fact that all available data shows no correlation between the removal of firearms in the community and a marked decrease in crime rates, and in some cases such as the UK experience it shows a marked increase, how can you be in favour of a defenceless population?

Do you follow the news? How can you honestly have never heard of a driveby?

I'm not saying I haven't heard of one. I'm saying I can't remember. That is, it is not significant. Even if I could remember, it still wouldn't be significant. Chances are you only paid attention after 97. The statistics speak far louder than your impressions gained from news coverage.

Fewer homicides does not mean lower crime rate.

It means fewer dead people.

Do you also acknowledge that certain violent crime has risen in Australia since the bans?

I would want to have a decent look at the stats. If they say so, then you don't need my acknowledgement.

Do you acknowledge banning guns for law abiding citizens has had no effect on the criminal availability of guns?

This is a point I strongly disagree with and one which is often put forward by the pro gun lobby. It doesn't make sense. Banning or restricting guns pushes up the black market price. That means fewer crims can afford them. Especially petty crims like druggies looking to score their next fix. The first thing they would do if they had a gun is sell it, like they did with their TV. This is a furphy that the gun lobby repeats over and over again with their hands covering their ears, hoping that people will believe it without actually thinking about it if they hear it often enough.

If I wanted to kill you and didn't have a gun I'd just run you over or burn your house down when you were asleep.

In most situations where a person wants to kill someone else, it is in a fit of rage, in the heat of the moment. Only a small minority of homicides are well planned and done in cold blood like you describe. So gun availability does make a difference. Also, in a situation where there is a threat of violence and an escalation of arms, using knives etc does not lead to the same 'shoot first' mentality. Once guns are produced, it all goes downhill quickly. You shouldn't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. You can pull a knife and still be able to walk away. Guns are the only common weapon for which the human brain's instinctive response to personal space no longer applies. The allow someone to kill without having their personal space violated. This is a huge psychological factor icnreasing the liklihood that the weapon will be used once produced.

The gun lobby focusses to the extent of blindness on the issue of whether the 'good guys' should have guns. They ignore the issue of whether any lunatic should be able to get a gun just because they have a clean record or because the black market is flooded with guns.

Guns do make make society in general more dangerous simply because they are easily concealable on the body( handguns)-and convenient.

In a fit of rage you won't whip a packet of matches and you may not have a can of gas concealed on your body to toast someone because your REALLY upset with them in that moment,but a gun is easily produced...as is a knife.

No guns by themselves  are not dangerous but human nature being what it is, the tempatation is sometimes just too much and thats the problem!!!

Glad i could help.

If this was America, it would have been guns, and the teachers would not have been able to simply take them off him. Chances are someone would have died.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/boy-to-be-charged-after-weapons-threats/2007/09/12/1189276807649.html

A 10-year-old boy will be charged after he walked into a Canberra school yard and threatened students and staff with a pruning saw and steak knives, police say.

The boy, who is not a student at the school, walked into the grounds of St Francis of Assisi Primary School in Calwell, in Canberra's south, about 1pm (AEST) on Wednesday, police allege.

He then threatened students and teachers with the pruning saw.

"The school implemented a lockdown procedure to ensure the safety of students," police said in a statement.

Teachers spoke with the boy and took the saw from him. He then produced two steak knives and demanded money from a teacher.

Police arrived a short time later and took the boy into custody. He was later released into the care of his mother.

Police say they are yet to determine the exact charges the boy will face when he is summonsed to appear in court at a later date.

---

How low can the gun lobby stoop? Next they'll be demanding that students have the right to arm themselves against classmates.

US teacher fights to take gun to class

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-teacher-fights-to-take-gun-to-class/2007/09/19/1189881560226.html

An Oregon high school teacher has sued for her right to bring a gun into the classroom for personal protection, clashing with anti-gun advocates fighting for years to rid US schools of weapons.