Well I thought some of the points raised by Factseeker make sense.
Indeed man on man violence doesn't attract the attention male on female violence does. This we know. However I'm not so sure it doesn't get reported as much because penalties are lenient. Humiliation of defeat would have more to do with it. That and the very male thing of not wanting to be seen to 'cry like a girl'. Such is the tragic effect of bullying.
And I agree the potential agressor would be considerably deterred if the prey may posess the means to retailiate. That's just natural. Predators always seek the weakest prey.
Deterrence is the issue. We all know official methods of deterrence mostly only frighten law abiding types and real predators operating at a more basic level will only be deterred by direct physical threat.

IMO the political forces determined to see us all disempowered and vulnerable are quite happy the way things are. I believe the public safety claim of disarmament is only a partial truth. The want to impose upon others is closer to the core of it. We're constantly lectured about 'equality' but when it comes to possessing the means to achieve physical equality the opposition become very determined. A glimpse into that mindset was provided by Adrian in response to Yuyutsu above "your evil indifference." and "It's time to demolish your ivory tower"

Dear Aidan,

<<my logic would acknowledge that war has much too high a cost for it to even be considered>>

So fighting with Denmark is too expensive because they too have guns, but fighting with helpless individuals is cheap enough!

<<and would also acknowledge that such changes can be brought about peacefully>>

So you would rather have peace with Denmark, but not with individuals who hold different beliefs than yours!

<<if we know better than them, why don't they know what we know?>>

"We"? Who are you including? Not me of course and not many of other forum members. Who authorised you to use that word and who told you that you know better? Was it the archangel Gabriel perchance who dictated it to you in a cave?

<<As for why it should be the Australian government that power is given to, it's because there are procedures to keep the Australian government accountable to the Australian people.>>

Again, who authorised you to use the word 'the'? In theory, though unrealistic, the Australian government is accountable to SOME of its citizens, those who form a majority - certainly not to all, hence you cannot use the word 'the'. Even then, in practice, should a majority of Australians say "we want no government any longer", do you believe that they would just willingly go home?

<<or you really do prefer anarchy.>>

It depends what you mean by "anarchy": the literal meaning is that nobody rules over another, which is certainly better than the current situation were some rule over others without their consent.

However, my real preference is to have societies that are constructed by choice, whose constitutions are pre-agreed by all their members without violence, fraud or coercion. There is even no reason why such constitutions could not include some form of rule, but then it would be by consent.

Though theoretically such voluntary societies can be of any size, they are most likely to be much smaller than today's artificial and unjust construct of "nations", which chains together different unrelated people who have little in common.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<if you really want to destroy the conditions where civilisation can thrive>>

So it is your desire to have a civilisation and you have no second thought about achieving your desire by violence, injuring those who do not agree with you or your version of "civilisation".

If having a civilisation is so great that others also want to have it, then they don't need to be coerced into it!

<<and replace it with a darwinian situation of survival of the best armed>>

You blindly fail to see that what you describe is the existing situation: the best armed today is the government - and they would kill anyone in order to survive.

What I suggest on the other hand, is non-violence. This does not mean that a society cannot defend itself against those who want to harm its members, but it does mean that no society may impose its laws over others who never consented to belong to it.

<<I really don't think there's anything useful that you can contribute here.>>

Finally you wrote something true! I wonder whether you are able to think at all.

Aidan, "When someone, even momentarily, wants to use a weapon, more guns means there's a greater chance that that's what they'll use"

Those who commit crimes and use weapons vastly prefer the silence and easy concealment offered by blunt trauma, eg the cut-off baseball bat. Knives are popular too for threats, inflicting harm as a penalty and for murder as the final resort.

The main point though is that while almost anything can be used as a weapon, it is the offender who makes that choice as a secondary consideration having already decided to offend. It is nonsense to suggest that the weapon is responsible for the crime. The availability of a motor vehicle would be number 1 on the offender's list of necessary kit. It is obvious why. So what about 'tighter' tests to obtain and hold a vehicle licence?

Criminals commit as many crimes and for as long as they escape detection. It is the certainty of detection and arrest that might deter them, not the lack of the 'gangsta' guns they prefer and get in by the container load.

Aiden, "however the big drop in gun crime (and the even bigger drop in gun suicides) in Australia since the Howard government's gun laws were enacted suggests that it is correct"

Horses' apples, the numbers were trending down before Howard and continued the same without any appreciable effect from Howard's wasteful buy-back and 'gun control' populism that didn't affect criminals one iota.

Suicide
The most popular method by far is hanging, the rope. Ban ropes?

In Australia, firearms were never popular for suicide. You say that in Australia the very small numbers who suicided by firearm dropped. What you don't admit because it is inconvenient, is that overall suicide rate was unaffected. The very few who might have used a firearm were undeterred and used another method.

You need to focus on the whys of suicide and not the method.