I don't think posting a lot of "I'd be killed if it hadn't been for a gun", while no doubt true, is ever going to defeat PB's arguement. That's what he wants to hear, since that basically IS his argument. He wants to keep 'guns' and 'killing' in the same sentence.

What he DOESN'T want to hear, and ignores to a fault, are the many uses of guns that don't entail threats to human lives. He DOESN'T want to acknowledge that a large percentage, millions, of Australians own guns.

Giving him lots of 'Dirty Harry' situations just allows him to ignore the real retort; that guns are not just for killing people. Such uses are very rare comparitively. 'People' being the operative word here I think, as gun control is now a major front used by animal rights folks.

Baker, I dont see the Olympics as being practical, it is a sport, not something that people make use of, it is entertainment not practicality.

In the society that I live in there is no use for a gun, I agree with you, that in the outback or in farming situations that guns may be of use, other than that I really dont see any practical, and by practical i mean of true human benefit, other than to kill.

I dont see the olympics as benefitting humanity in any way other than for sport or entertainment. Hunting I dont see as of any benefit, unless your out there hunting for food, and in the society that I live in well we do not need to do that anymore, hunting is just pure sport, for the pleasure of humans, it is not a necessity in most modern cultures, therefore to me it is not practical.

So...

*Phonixboi says his society doesn't use guns, doesn't need guns, and guns are just for killing.

*People tell Pheonixboi that millions in his society, some no doubt very nearby, have guns, list many uses for them besides murder, and point out that the vast majority of guns are used often around the world and never do harm.

*Pheonix boy says that those people in his country aren't in his society, says that those uses aren't really 'benefits', and that guns are only for killing... again.

Do you not see the flaws in your blind argument? If someone shows you that people within miles of you problably own guns, you just shift your definition of your "society". If someone shows you many different uses for guns that don't entail killing people, you just say those aren't 'beneficial' uses.

You get to decide what is beneficial? You can't even say that your society agrees on what is beneficial unless you narrowly define your society. You are making up your own reality. That's fine, but don't expect to impose your made-up reality on the rest of us.

So...

"Guns are for killing" is a false premis and not worthy of argument. People use guns, even in Australia, all the time. The vast majority of guns never kill people. To pretend 'guns are for killing' is either ignorant or dishonest, and you can't feign ignorance now.

"Society" isn't just people who agree with you. A quick google on Australian gun ownership and use would show you that the idea that 'guns are for killing' isn't some kind of Australian ethic.

You can laud the benefits of gun laws all day, and I'll support your right to your opinions. When you lie and pretend that the only use for a gun is to do harm I have to take issue, ESPECIALLY when you go further and pretend that your "society" agrees with you.

Again, there's no reason to address anything but PB's misguided idea that his society has deemed that guns are only for killing. He comes to that conclusion by ignoring a large percentage of his society, and by dismissing any other use besides killing, no matter how many people show him.

It's like me saying that my society believes that all Arabs are terrorists, and defending it by disqualifying anyone who doesn't believe such from my 'society'. Gun laws don't make a blanket statement that guns are evil, they just restrict their use. If Australia really felt the way PB characterizes, there'd be no private gun ownership at all. Oddly enough, there must be SOME legitimate use since millions are allowed to own them.

No matter how many uses you show PB, or how many Australians own guns, he'll never see it differently because he isn't basing his original premise on reality.

"I mean why else would you own a gun unless you were going to kill something or someone?"

I own 2 guns. One has never, EVER been used to kill ANYTHING. The other is a WWII relic, so I can't say for sure it's never killed anyone/anything, but can say that *I* have never used it to kill anything. Though I have been deer hunting, neither firearm that I own was used. My dad owns 2 guns also, and has never used either one to kill anything. Three of my friends are all gun owners (owning anywhere from 1 to 6 firearms), and have never used their guns to kill anything (they don't even hunt). Why do we own them? Because we enjoy going out to a firing range and shooting paper targets. It is a test of skill, a fun group activity, and a way to relax.

Bakerstreet when were you last in Australia?

I was last there 6 weeks ago and PB lives there and yet for whatever reason you feel you can google a statistic that may or may not be true and tell him how and what his society does and does not think about gun ownership and the motivations behind it.

When were you last there?

Giving him lots of 'Dirty Harry' situations just allows him to ignore the real retort; that guns are not just for killing people.

No Baker, it is a different retort. I'll make my own arguments thank you. I chose to respond to these statements:

There are too many crazy people out there and i wouldnt want them having a gun. it would be too easy to use and our crime rate would be much higher.

Does it make them feel more secure owning a gun? I would be more worried that there was one in the house let alone someone coming to shoot me.

Baker, you make your points and I'll make my own.

I agree with you... I think it is a foolish argument to state that gun laws are a violation of my personal freedom... If we could just agree on a better gun control law, then maybe gun violence would be down and no one would want or need to own a gun... but I am dreaming and I know that can never happen in America.

You don't get it anymore than PB is getting it. Gun control does NOT, WILL NOT, EVER work! And why is that might you ask? Because criminals don't give a shit for the law! That's why they're "criminals". If they want a gun, believe me they can and will get it. Gun laws are not a violation of anyones personal freedom. Gun "control" on the other hand is a violation.

Phoenixboi, you keep repeating that you don't see any practical reasons for owning guns. That's fine, but what does your opinion of practicality have to do with your article. Your article talks about how great you live without a gun and "guns are for killing"... But then if anyone points out to you that this is not true, you step outside the point of your own article to fall back on "practicality" arguments. If you love life without guns, GREAT! However, what does that have to do with why I shouldn't have guns? Last I checked "practicality" was no basis for deciding whether something should be legally owned or not.

" Bakerstreet when were you last in Australia? I was last there 6 weeks ago and PB lives there and yet for whatever reason you feel you can google a statistic that may or may not be true and tell him how and what his society does and does not think about gun ownership and the motivations behind it. When were you last there?"

Given:

• I have personally met gun owners from Australia


• I have read about the efforts to restrict guns and the effort there to oppose it


• Australian shooting and hunting clubs, gun rights advocacy groups, etc, are available on the internet


• Australian gun ownership statistics are available

I think it is pretty obvious that PB's "society" doesn't believe that guns are only good for killing people. UNless of course he re-difines his society to be only those who agree with him.

Hunting I dont see as of any benefit, unless your out there hunting for food, and in the society that I live in well we do not need to do that anymore, hunting is just pure sport, for the pleasure of humans, it is not a necessity in most modern cultures, therefore to me it is not practical.

I beg to differ. Hunting is VERY practical to the impoverished country dweller who is hunting to feed his family. Sure, city dwellers can rely on food banks if they can't make ends meet, but they are relying on the labour of others when they do so. Hunting allows them to procure food by their own labour.

Hunting I dont see as of any benefit, unless your out there hunting for food, and in the society that I live in well we do not need to do that anymore, hunting is just pure sport, for the pleasure of humans, it is not a necessity in most modern cultures, therefore to me it is not practical.

Try explaining that drivel to someone from the outback.

Ok guys its gonna be long but here is some information.

February, 2000
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws

Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.

Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.

Homicide by Any Method

The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.

The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.

Gun-Related Death by Any Cause

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."

-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6

Assault and Robbery

Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.

"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999

Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania

"A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania."

-- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.

Curbing Gun Proliferation in Australia

In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.

By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal.

In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.

Other Countries

Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.

Sources: http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/

http://www.statistics.gov.au/ (see media release 68/99, 16 Jun 1999)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi116.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/outlook99/warner.pdf

Philip Alpers, gun policy researcher



In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.

Link

here is another link....

Link

And this i will post in its entirety maybe Baker you might understand Australians more from this..

The Australian/American Gun Law Debate
By Gabrielle Reilly


Being an Australian American, I regularly find myself in the middle of the great gun debate between the two countries’ philosophies on gun ownership. Australians want Americans to have fewer guns and stricter rules, and Americans claim the Australian government has removed Australians’ right to defend themselves by implementing such strict gun laws in Australia. It is not until you have lived in both countries and understand the historic build-up and culture that you can really understand the two vastly different attitudes to gun ownership. All sorts of statistics are manipulated to prove both points of view, but I believe the whole issue needs to be accessed from a much more fundamental point of view… geographic location and the risk of predators, the origins of the first settlers, and human nature. Surprisingly, part of my opinion was inspired from watching the creatures that inhabit the Galapagos Islands.

The Galapagos Islands were formed by underwater volcanoes 500 miles from land. The creatures that inhabit the new and remote islands arrived by ocean or air to an environment with no existing threats so they had no predators… a lot like Australia. The creatures on the Galapagos Islands enjoy a spoilt innocence unlike most creatures around the world. Scientists concluded after researching these creatures that fear is a behavioral adaptation and when it is unnecessary, fear disappears. Perhaps that is why Australians are famous for that line “no worries, mate.”








When Australia was settled, the authorities (the British soldiers) had the guns and the settlers/convicts, for the most part, obeyed the rules. The Aboriginals in Australia were nomadic and so a fight over land ownership was nominal compared to the gruesome fights America’s first settlers had with the Native American. The majority of settlers to Australia were from the United Kingdom and most people viewed the world in pretty much the same way. Guns never became part of day-to-day life in Australia, which operated under an organized structure from the beginning.

British authorities took care of security; there was no threat on the island, no threat on the border, and the settlers spoke the same language and held similar ideals. Australians really became very similar to the creatures that enjoy the serenity of the Galapagos Islands and have lived without fear. Australians have never felt the need to have to defend themselves, so they don’t feel like the government is taking any rights away, but in fact, are giving them the right to continue to live without fear. So if the creatures of the Galapagos Islands are happy and live in relative peace, why would you want to introduce a wolf to disrupt the status quo? Then why would you want to introduce guns now in Australia? So let’s review America’s origins and threats.

America shares borders and has not enjoyed the luxury of being an isolated island. The original settlers came from all over Europe with vastly different ideals. The original 13 states were inhabited with revolutionaries who fought the king, people fleeing from religious persecution, the Puritans, the Quakers… all speaking many different languages and having different ideals. They had to fight for America from the day they arrived between the Minutemen who fought the British to people moving west fighting Native Americans. Heck, then they fought each other.

Americans had to have guns to protect their families because there was no central control to protect them at that point as they established a new society. This gun-owning culture has been ingrained over the generations and if guns were removed from society there would be an uprising. They do not believe the government should protect them and in fact many feel the need, unlike Australians, that they should be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from their government as the revolutionaries did when they left England. The second amendment is the right to bear arms and many Americans associate that right with the right to protect their families still.

So Americans had just cause to evolve with guns. They had predators and people settling the country with different ideals. Americans sought freedom from the British Empire, and Australia became a colony under the British Empire’s protection. Justifiable fear has become ingrained in the American culture, which is why Americans feel as vigilantly that they have a right to own a gun as Australians fight to avoid the introduction of the gun. The most basic premise for the people of both countries is security and knowing their own culture. Both cultures know what the threats are and what offers their family the most security.

Considering the many issues to contend with, America really had as much diversity as Europe and has managed to create an impressive society over the past few hundred years (although not perfect) for the many different tribes to live alongside each other. Tolerance to different ideals and patriotism to a central ideal of one “America” has been key to that unity and success.

Without understanding the fundamentally different cultures and attitudes that come only from living in both America and Australia, it is virtually impossible to understand how both sides of this debate do have very valid points. What we need to recognize is that the issues are so different in each country that the same gun law model cannot be used for both countries. You cannot have cookie cutter gun laws in the same way you cannot have cookie cutter democracies. You cannot take someone’s history away, and it is their history that leads them to make the decisions they make. Everyone’s history is so different and there are so many things we just don’t know we don’t know.

END

" And this i will post in its entirety maybe Baker you might understand Australians more from this..'

I don't doubt for a moment that there are many Australians that agree with you PB, I never said there weren't. I do, however, think you go too far when you pretend that your attitude toward guns is demonstrative of your "society". You've ignored point after point that tells you millions of Australians own guns and evidently aren't killers. There is just too much evidence to the contrary to believe that Australians as a whole have rejected guns as useless for anything but killing.

This is all moot, anyway. You made an assertion, and that assertion has been soundly defeated. Guns are not just for killing people. Period. There are millions of people around the world who own, carry, and use guns every day and never, ever kill anyone.

I see no point in catering to your diversions. You want to make this about crime, about violence to distract from the fact that there is a world full of people who own guns, who don't share your views, who aren't criminals, and who don't kill people.

I'm not buying into it, because I know it to be false.

• I have been around guns all my life
• I have used guns, owned guns, and constantly had friends who did the same
• I have never killed anyone, nor do I know anyone outside military personel that has ever killed anyone with a gun.

So, 'guns are for killing people' is a dead argument. To pretend that there is no other use is either ignorant or dishonest.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.

Well, yeah, because guns aren't readily available in England! Knives are, though. So are broken bottles and box cutters. The number of people being attacked with knives and stabbed to death is a LOT higher in the UK than it is in the US.

Link
The above link has Interpol stats for European crime. According to that, the US has a lower crime rate than the UK.

I have been around guns all my life I have used guns, owned guns, and constantly had friends who did the same I have never killed anyone, nor do I know anyone outside military personel that has ever killed anyone with a gun.

I have owned a handgun and been a concealed carry permit holder for 6 years now. I have carried my weapon both on and off duty. I have unholstered my gun twice, and those times where when I was searching a building where we had recieved a report of a possible intruder. I have never unholstered my firearm and pointed it at someone, and I have never shot or killed anyone with it.

My husband carries a gun ever day in the course of his duties. He's been a cop for 13 years, and he's never had to unholster his weapon either, despite being in some pretty hairy situations. He also carries concealed off duty.

Our children have a rifle. We've taught them firearm safety; we've taken the 'mystery' out of it for them. They all know what NOT to do with a gun.

The only time any of us has shot our guns is when we've been either at the range to qualify the required accuracy course, or when we've been target shooting. That's it.

The number of responsible gun owners far outweighs the number of criminals with firearms. You just don't hear about the responsible gun owners. Oh, and just so you know....the majority of crimes committed with a gun are done so with illegally owned weapons.

Ok guys its gonna be long but here is some information. February, 2000 Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms. Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results. Firearm-Related Homicide "There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998." -- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999 This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average. Homicide by Any Method The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA. The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force. Gun-Related Death by Any Cause The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years. The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States. "We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia." -- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6 Assault and Robbery Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm. "Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low." -- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999 Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania "A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania." -- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999. Curbing Gun Proliferation in Australia In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed. By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal. In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws. Other Countries Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened

So I guess you never bothered to read the links I posted? Here let me help:

Guns Down Under By Jacob Sullum Last spring, Australian officials complained that a TV spot produced by the National Rifle Association was misleading the public about the impact of their country’s strict gun control policies. The ad, which can be viewed on the NRA’s Web site (www.nra.org), says that murders with guns, assaults with guns, armed robberies, and home invasions all increased after the Australian government confiscated about 660,000 privately owned firearms in 1996. "According to the Australian government–and official statistics–the NRA has its facts wrong," The Christian Science Monitor reported. Well, yes and no. The murder claim is somewhat misleading. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government-funded think tank, the number of gun homicide victims dropped from 104 in 1996 to 79 in 1997. But since 35 of the 1996 victims died in a single episode (the Port Arthur massacre, which was the catalyst for the government’s gun seizure), the number of gun homicide incidents actually rose. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the total number of homicides (with and without guns) also rose, from 350 in 1996 to 360 in 1997, before dropping to 333 in 1998. That year there were 54 gun homicides, about half as many as in 1996. The NRA’s other claims are on firmer ground. ABS figures indicate that, between 1996 and 1998, assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies jumped a startling 73 percent, and unlawful entries went up 8 percent. Defenders of gun control cite the 1998 decline in homicide as evidence that Australia’s policies are working, while opponents cite the two-year increases in other offenses as evidence that the government has encouraged criminals by disarming law-abiding citizens. It’s hard to say who is right. Homicides in Australia have been fluctuating since the late 1980s, and the upward trends in assaults, robberies, and unlawful entries began before 1996. Still, it may be significant that the robbery trend accelerated dramatically after potential victims were forced to turn in their guns.

Or this one:

Australia Authorizes Army to Shoot Civilians American Handgunner, Jan/Feb 2001 Having disarmed its citizens of lawfully owned firearms, the government of Australia has now passed the Defense Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 (Aid to Civilian Authorities) which gives the Australian army the authority to use "reasonable and necessary force" to suppress civilian unrest. The definition of "reasonable and necessary force," it goes without saying, is left up to the government. The bill grants the army authority to enter buildings without a warrant, cordon off areas, erect barricades and stop vehicles to search them without a warrant. The bill specifically authorized the army to use lethal force against civilians when there are "reasonable ground," a condition that the government decides. It has now been three years since Australia outlawed semi auto shotguns and rifles, Since that time over 650,000 firearms banned by the government has been rounded up and destroyed. But is Australia any safer? Homicides have increase 3.2%, assaults have jumped 8.6%, and burglaries have skyrocketed to 44%.

I guess PB just thinks we are all hanging around waiting for the opportunity to kill. What other reason would we have had to buy a gun, right?

At this point PB has to be purposely ignoring the truth. He's been offered many uses for guns that don't involve killing people, and all he does is just declare them invalid by royal decree and asks for more. This is like argueing with Col Gene. This isn't about discussion, it is about propaganda and declaration. Why bother accepting comments at all?

What's the point in reasoning with someone who isn't using any reason?

Why do you own a gun?

What is the reason? Is it for sport or is it for protection? and would you use it to kill someone if it came to it?

"What is the reason? Is it for sport or is it for protection? and would you use it to kill someone if it came to it?"

I have weapons that I use for sport, which could also be used for protection. A couple are family pieces of sufficient age to be antique.

I would add that many people own baseball bats for sport and would use them to kill someone if it came to it. I'm not sure what kind of point you are making, but I don't mind answering.

Baker..

from what you have been saying and from what I have been saying we live in totally different worlds. To me guns are for killing, to you they are used for a variety of things, heck maybe you even use it to bake a cake,

sorry but there is no other practical reason that I can see for using a gun other than to shoot at something and in the majority of cases if your going to shoot something your doing it to kill.

I hear ya about the sport and about the hunting (which is killing)

In Australia we do not have the same values on gun ownership as you guys do in the USA. This is obvious from the discussions here. We dont carry guns in our society. I have never seen anyone carry a gun other than the police.

The purpose of a gun is to shoot a metal slug at a target. In the majority of cases the target is shot at in order to maime or kill or wound. You talk about Baseball bats and knives . The main purpose of a baseball bat is to play baseball. The main purpose of a knife is to cut things. The main purpose of a gun is to shoot. What happens when you shoot?

I'm sorry, there's no need to go on. From my perspective you are completely irrational. You ask for explainations, get them, then act as if you didn't get them and ask the same questions again.

Your point that guns are primarily used for killing is a fallacy. Only the smallest fraction of a percent of guns will be used to kill anyone. This is fact, not opinion.

Your concept that there are no other uses for guns is a fallacy. Numerous mainstream examples have been offered to you and you just wave them off as "unbeneficial". This is fact, not opinion.

Your concept of an Australian gun-free utopia is a fallacy. I have posted the numbers of guns owned in Australia and statistics about gun ownership and links to organizations in AUstralia that run 180 degrees counter to your perspectice. This is fact, not opinion.

Here I sit, with facts, with a lifetime of gun ownership and experience. There you sit, with no experience with gun use or ownership, making statements that are patently false, and ignoring people who prove you wrong. I have to assume at this point that this is just a subject that provokes irrational fears in you and it isn't possible to have any sort of meeting of minds.