The non telling tales of a un descript trader of goods.

[Meliva]

Well for starters, I believe many gun crimes are committed with illegally owned guns from what I recall. 2nd, America has things that Australia does not. Australia has no land neighbors, and doesn't have to deal with illegal immigrants like the US does. Some of whom add to our crime rates.

Then we also have cities and states with strict anti-gun laws, where only criminals can get their hands on guns-as they don't obey the law anyway and can just get guns illegally, and when only bad folks have guns, they have free range to do what they want with little fear. If I have a gun, and you don't, why would I be afraid to rob you? Likewise, if you had a gun and I didn't, I'd think twice about robbing you.

So I would say that yes, guns do deter crime, but they also help commit crimes. Just depends on who has them. Put them in the hands of good brave folks who only want to defend their home and family, and you have no problems. Only let them in the hands of folks who grab them illegally and with bad intentions and crime goes up.

So that's why I think we have more murders.

[Argo]

The answer is simple but dman avoids it because it conflicts with his stated view : that guns deter crime.

The causes of crime are many and complex. The deterences available to a society are not fixed and immutable. The death penalty should deter, yet it does not. Whole life sentences should deter, yet they do not. Law enforcement should deter, yet it does not.

Poverty causes crime, we are told, yet wealth does not eradicate it either. Riches bring their own temptations to act illegally.

It is all a lot more complicated than an easy fix offered can manage. A gun, in an individual circumstance, may deter a single crime. It can equally be used to commit a crime. In the overall view, the gun is surprisingly nuetral, neither good nor bad, neither positive nor negative.

If I desire to murder you then one tool would be a gun. Another would be a knife, and every home is full of those. Yet not many argue that owning a kitchen full of knives will.protect you from being stabbed. I may mow you down with my car, or simply beat you to death with a baseball bat.

That a US citizen is four times more likely to be murdered than an Australian says more about the propensity to murder than the availability of the various means to do so.

As for the right to bear arms, statistically, when it comes to reviewing the overall murder rate, its no more relevant than the level of car ownership.

Lol propensity for murder is higher? seriously that is your conclusion? Good grief lol. There really is nothing further I can say here because that is your opinion, a belief lol.

I must have missed your post - what did you say ? for you to say you will no be able to say anything further?

[Lil Lola]

That means there is nothing anyone can say to change his mind otherwise. He is rooted in his opinion that we have a higher propensity of murder. Sigh. And yet here I am not having killed anyone...hmmm. I guess I am the odd American out?

[Most Lee Harmless]

If all the deterences work as desired, then why does a nation which has gun ownership, death penalty, have a murder rate four times that if a nation which does not?

If they function as claimed then they are only acting to mitigate a murder rate to a level four times higher than the nation which does not have that mitigation effect.

Thus my question, why is that so? What leads tge USA to have such a propensity to murder each other when it has the benefit of those additional deterences?

If the argument that gun ownership deters rapes is justified, then why does it not also deter murders? If that logic holds true then the Australian murder rate should exceed that if the USA. Yet it runs at less than a quarter of the US rate.

You can not claim it works for one but not for the other. It either works in all cases or it does not work at all.

[Meliva]

You need to remember that not all murder is unjustified Danik. Say you're walking down the street, and you see some guy about to rape some young woman. Now you could, if you wanted to, shoot that man dead with your gun. Or let's say the young woman pulls out her gun and shoots him dead.

You then have a murder case , sure, but only because it was to prevent a rape.

The deterrents also don't stack, least not much, and some deterrents work better then others. A pickpocket won't need to worry about the death penatly, so that's not much of a deterrent, but the police arresting him is.

[Lil Lola]

Justified murder. Now that is a fun topic Mel.

[Dmanwuzhere]

not gonna bother looking up every settlement and state in australia

but heres the stats from gun removal to more recent in queensland
definitive proof of more rape victims in queensland when guns were removed

to think someone seeing a gun would continue on course with a rape despite possibly being killed or injured is a bit asinine
and only applicable to those with danik dumbness or lower lol if there is a lower

[Most Lee Harmless]

Yet US murderers are deterred by the possibility of their intended victim being armed with a gun : such that they only kill four times as many victims as the undeterred Australian murderers.

Who is being deluded?

[Dmanwuzhere]

riiiiiht the statistics are delusional they dont represent the rapes in queensland specifically after the ban of guns cause donkey breath said so
boy could i sleep better at night in queensland knowing the women in my life were running a 1 in 5 risk of being raped if we lived there but hey shootings are down so im much safer now

[Most Lee Harmless]

Red herring alert.

But back to the question. Why are 'your women' four times more likely to be murdered in the USA than in Queensland?

You may wag your stick to illustrate your argument.