Mate, I am disputing the figures, what you do with yourself is not the issue here, so if you want to keep putting your private life out there, I'll keep aiming at it.

I take it that since the number of handguns has massively increased since the first gun clubs were established then we should also see a corresponding drop in crime, however that has never been the case. I have also previously noted that the sector of society that is most likely to be involved in violent crimes are mostly enlisted in the armed forces in major conflicts. This holds true for most the the major wars, violent crime rates fall in every country involved. This of course is totally unrelated to the number of firearms about and so, I don't see how you could possibly make the causal link that you have.

As I keep saying, your argument is totally subjective, because as soon as you analyse the situation objectively, you immediately notice that every indicator has improved for everybody concerned. The gun clubs have increased membership, most of the money went into the pockets of responsible gun owners, which has allowed old weapons to be upgraded, we have more reliable figures on how many guns there are and rates of gun ownership and more scrutiny to ensure better training of responsible gun owners and to top it all off the crime rates have fallen! It's a win for everyone, and yet some people just felt pissed off and never got over it. I won't name names.

Thats right Bugsy we didn't get over it. I hadn't been a shooter for seven years when 1996 happened, had no guns of my own to lose. I do now. The vicious moralising at the time was so offensive I came back to the sport in anger at the moralising contempt of 'public opinion'.

There is as you say some contradiction in standard shooter positions. The reason is probably that actual causes and assuptions are really independent of each other, and outcomes are therefore independent of assumptions.

For instance, owning guns for self defense was dealing with extremely rare events before so outcomes would not be statistically much different. Doesn't mean it isn't rational for instance when a widow living miles from police in a community with some violent substance abusers decides to keep a gun. Your principle of no self-defence guns could cost this example - my mother - her life, if the worst happened, as indications recently have pointed to serious personal danger.

Is Mise's generalities are mostly correct, but we are not building cases coherently in this thread.

The idea that we benefited from buybacks in terms of loads of extra money to upgrade firearms with is laughable. If I came into your home backed by uniformed police, burned your wedding photos in front of your wife and showed your children photos of you in ambiguous positions with other people's spouses, then gave you money slightly above the original cost of the wedding photes and left... would you be better off? If my actions were loudly cheered by the media, the Government and your children's teachers, would you be better off?

I benefited by learning a lot about human nature. For instance, 'reactance'. You take my freedom, I hate that restriction and undermine it way past the point of rational benefit. I cheer those who subvert the laws non-violently, and view my natural political party as betrayers.

Ho Hum.
The Great Mantra has been more guns equals more crime whereas we say more guns equals less crime.
All those thousands of guns in trained hands and the crime rate has been falling.
I think that that is the point.

If the Firearms Acts were fair and just then service station attendants would be allowed to wear 'bullet proof vests' but possession of such a vest is a criminal offence, but the Prime Minister wore one when addressing a meeting of shooters. Double standard?
Where is Work Cover when one needs them?

Actually, no the mantra isn't more guns = more crime. The mantra is, more guns = current crime. With guns. The mantra really is, more people will get shot.

Is Mise, if you can honestly tell me (and back it up) that relaxing gun laws will result in fewer people being shot then perhaps I'll agree with you.

Though I think it's comparable to arguing that more rain will make things more dry.

Is Mise

while I agree with most of your views, I can't find a way to enable a double action revolver to perform at 700 rpm. That's over 11 shots per second. Yesterday, at the range, I tried out my Smith and Wesson 686 and 627 and was nowhere near that. Even semi-auto fire from my Para P38 fell short.
The best that I have seen was the fast shooter video that someone sent to me, where an American shooter fired eight shots in one second. If this site allowed it, I could have attached the video. This was obviously due to a trigger job as a standard DA revolver would never have allowed it.
Come on the belt-fed revolver!

JSP1488,

The claimed figure by/for Ed McGivern in 1935,or so, was 5 shots in 2/5ths of a second, this comes to 750 rpm.
The actual cyclic rate is much higher as it is taken when the trigger is mechanically actuated, say with a hand-winder or an electric motor.
The cyclic rate then goes up until the mainspring cannot keep up and the revolver missfires.

Most semi-auto pistols can't get any where near McGivern's speed. There is some doubt about the electric timers accuraccy at the time, but if it increased his figure by 100%(not likely to have been that far out!) he still did 375 rpm.
Cyclic rates, which are what the media love to quote, are misleading as a double barreled shot gun has a cyclic rate governed only by the slight dwell,say a 1/000th of a second, between shots when both triggers are pulled together.
Ed used a standard S&W as I remember.