http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=pepper+spray&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

Firearm suicide: 16,900. What makes you think that people serious enough to take their own life will be deterred by lack of access to a gun? The US doesn’t have a disproportionate amount of suicides. They rank 20th out of 34 developed countries for suicide, similar to Australia. It is impossible to know the number of people who would not have committed suicide absent guns – I think it would be a low number. In any case, suicide is not a violation of rights.

Secondary markets: Criminals easily get guns now, perhaps slightly harder than under liberalisation, but I think disarmament of victims easily makes up for it.

Mistaken identity, over-reaction: I don’t know any numbers on these, but I doubt it would be that big.

Gun deaths in the US have continually fallen, despite gun ownership and total guns increasing at the same time. The negative aspects of firearms are much more prominent than the positive aspects. You must take into account the lessor seen good of guns.

Crime prevention: Many, many crimes are prevented, just by the risk posed to a criminal by there being a high proportion of gun owners. America has a low rate of burglaries; 7 per thousand, contrast this with Australia’s 21 per thousand (the highest in any developed country). Rapes; America 0.3 per thousand to Australia’s 0.8 per thousand.

In most cases a crime in progress can stopped by threatening a criminal with a gun – and this is considerably safer than any other option a victim has – including total compliance.

A victim need not even own a gun. A gun owning bystander, passer-by or neighbour can come to the aid of a victim – as well as provide a deterrent to criminals.

It’s the robberies, assaults, rapes and murders that are prevented by firearms that are little heard of.

Yes. The incarceration rate per capita has gone up over 600%. Half of the incarceration is due to drug related offences. Have you seen what happened to the murder rate under alcohol prohibition -

“The murder rate rose with the start of Prohibition, remained high during Prohibition, and then declined for 11 consecutive years when Prohibition ended.[2] The rate of assaults with a firearm rose with Prohibition and declined for 10 consecutive years after Prohibition. In the last year of Prohibition–1933–there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941 these figures had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively.[3] ”

from CATO, May 25, 1989
Policy Analysis no. 121

Thinking about Drug Legalization

by James Ostrowski

“I really don’t see a compelling argument for liberalising gun laws.”

Like I said, Canada has laxer gun laws and less violence.

Go through the data from the AIC. Gun suicide isn’t a special problem. It just substitutes. Same for gun crimes. Gun laws don’t stop massacres – 9/11 for example. The pilots were unarmed by a Federal US directive!

Guns do not cause crime or suicide. At worst, they have no effect.

Here is something to challenge your views:

http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/Baker-McPhedran.htm

http://www.ssaasa.org.au/pdf/Baker-McPhedran_critique_of_chapman_et_al.pdf

I don’t know how any rational person can be for gun control after reading that evidence.

Though our laws are less draconion, we are not moving towards real liberalisation here anytime soon.

There are plenty of other hazards too. Accidents, firearm suicide, ‘secondary’ markets, mistaken identity, over-reaction.

I really don’t see a compelling argument for liberalising gun laws.

Canada has more lax gun laws and lower homicide and gun related crime rates. They also have a less intense war on drugs than the US’ insane war against it’s own citizens.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/03/08/dont-mention-the-war/