I do find it amusing that this one example, Washington DC is held up as a shining example for the gun enthusiasts.

It's one city. It's also surrounded by states with lax gun laws. It really isn't that great an example.

Perhaps if it wasn't in such a stark contrast to all the other cities, and basic logic.

I note you still haven't been able to tell me that more guns will equal less people being shot. There's your basic logic.

Bugsy said: "It's nonsense mate, the best way to prevent crime is removing criminals by better policing. Not by arming everyone who wants a weapon."

You are right about removing criminals! So why haven't the police and pollies saved everyone by removing criminals?

Is it true that Is Mise wants to 'arm everyone who wants a weapon'? Only in the fevered dreams of your rhetoric.

He seems to be arguing that self-defense is both a valid reason to own a firearm, and that there is no evidence that it does harm for legitimate people to legally own firearms for self-defense. The balance of research indicates that he is right, in those limited terms. As far as I can see the rest is your projected rhetoric.

The cause of massacres was not gun laws being loose or tight, but irresponsible sensationalism by the media triggering deviants to imitate other killers. That included Australian news programs teaching people how to get guns illegally and use them to get peverse glory. See http://www.class.org.au/ideas_kill.htm .

TRTL says:"Washington DC is held up as a shining example for the gun enthusiasts."

What an exaggeration.

For the record, more Americans kill each other in 'murders without guns' than ALL murders in the UK, Canada and Australia, so the claim that guns are the cause is disproven.

TRTL said: "I note you still haven't been able to tell me that more guns will equal less people being shot. There's your basic logic. "

The claim was made by John Lott in an extended study called 'More Guns, Less Crime' that more LEGAL, TRAINED citizens armed for self defense carry result in a measurable drop in violence. According to critics, the selection of data was over-tight to prove that effect. What Lott's focus obscured is that there was no measurable increase in violence, under extremely wide conditions. The opponents of legitmate gun ownership were shown to be hyperventilating, and wrong.

The other point is that guns, like other consumer durable goods, have hugely multiplied in the US since the peak in crack murders in 1991. Yet there has been a consistent fall in violence over that period as guns have increased in responsible hands by about 30-50 million. DO NOT MISREPRESENT THIS ; the rise in guns is not the CAUSE of the fall in violence but a strong correlation. Your misrepresentation of Is Mises's claim is looking weak, though.

Similarly under the Buyback there was no change in decline of violence. They said it would make Australia safer, AND the claim that it would prevent massacres was disavowed by both Dr Adam Graycar (AIC) and by John Howard. Yet now people are claiming success on grounds they disavowed previously. Why were they wrong before if they are right now?

I suggest that the laws are operating under different mechanisms than are implicitly assumed. The effect of media treatment in propagating these crimes was more important than the gun laws which mostly affect ordinary people.

TRTL,
Like any reasonably good teacher I gave you the information and left you to discover, for yourself, the answers.
Seems that I'll have to tell you(and others).

If more guns meant more crime then the States of Virginia and Maryland which border on Washington DC would have more crime than it does simply because they HAVE MORE GUNS.

Now do you understand?

For anyone who doesn't understand 'causation' and its place in the scheme of things.

'causation
One entry found.

causation

Main Entry: cau·sa·tion
Pronunciation: \kȯ-ˈzā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1615
1 a: the act or process of causing b: the act or agency which produces an effect'

Quote:
Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide. unquote.

If you cant find causation...it means that all that study is subjective opinions....

Maybe the 'disproportionately large number' were criminals shot by the law abiding in justifiable self defence.

How remiss of me. I forgot all about Switzerland where the males who are subject to military service have Fully Automatic Assault Rifles at home, beside their hunting and target rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Here's a link to a BBC article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

Tut tut, all those millions of guns and so little crime!

Will wonders never cease?