Ok, I have just had a bit of a trawl through some of the crimne stats. If you want to have a look too, I'll post some links here. Forget the "quotes" that are put up in the papers, have a look at the real source and then try and buiild a case for gun ownership based on crime statistics. Here's the first one, ready?:
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_trends_shootingmar06

OMFG, all firearms offences are DOWN, some up to 22% depending on the type of offence. There are some other reports on that same site, I suggest anyone who is interested to have a look. Clearly gun control is not working, we have to arm the gerneral populace NOW. NOT, LOL.

If you want to compare a similarly populous state in the US, I have picked Indiana, where gun ownership is high, and I have actually lived for 2 years. Surprise surprise, their murder rate is up to 4.5 times higher than ours per 100,000 persons.

Heres a couple of links:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_crime_stats

You can get anything you want here, but just for NSW, which is the most populous state in Australia, or at least a decent indicator.

And here is the Indiana stats:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/incrime.htm

or you could cruise other states in the US generally:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
if you want to pick another state go ahead.

Now I challenge anyone to use these ACTUAL crime statistics (as oppsoed to nutbag blogs and newspaper articles) to build a case for increasing gun ownership for self defence. Sporting arguments need not apply.

Labour 'losing control'

Jan 25 3:03 PM US/Eastern

Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.

Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.

There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.

The figures come a day after two men armed with a replica gun robbed a Home Office worker on his way home after sharing a curry with Home Secretary John Reid. The 29-year-old civil servant was making his way home in Beckenham, Kent, shortly before midnight when he was attacked.

A Met Police spokeswoman said the man's wallet and mobile phone were taken and confirmed that two teenage men remain in custody at a south London police station.

The Home Office report shows that handguns are the most commonly used firearm in robberies, reported in 2,888 cases.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said of the figures: "This shows Labour is losing control of gun crime across the board, whether it be on the street or in innocent people's homes.

"Gun crime is mainly fuelled by gang warfare and drug addiction, which is a consequence of Labour's failing drugs policy. It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country."

Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "Firearm offences have fallen significantly, by 14% in the year up to September 2006, which amounts to 1,642 fewer incidents.

"While there is a small rise in residential firearm robberies, these account for a tiny proportion of recorded offences overall, although we recognise any firearm incident is traumatic for victims." He added: "We have some of the toughest firearm legislation in Europe."

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007

Bugsy,

We don't need statistics to build a case for allowing firearms for self defence.
There exists a natural right to protect our lives and the lives of our families and others.
Because firearms are used in unlawful attacks upon persons then it follows that there exists a right for those so attacked to possess the means of defence.

The use of the appropriate means of defence is recognised by the Courts.
If we defend ourselves in our homes or place of work then the onus of proof is upon the Prosecution to prove that we did not fear for our lives.

Even the Catholic Church spells it out plainly that there exists a right to defend life even to the extent of taking the life of an unlawful attacker.

All of this presupposes the possession of adequate means of defence.

But to use a few statistcs from your sources;

USA, murders 1960 5.1/100,000. 1980, 10.2; 2000, 5.6; 2005, 5.6

High by Australian standards but then we don't have the drug problem that the US has nor do we have a land frontier across which drug and people smuggling is a huge problem, with the attendand drug crime etc.
Comparisons don't really work unless the playing field is level.

A 10% increase after a 20% decrease is not a reason to change gun laws. Statistics are quoted all the time, trends are used inappropriately comparing individual years instead of over longer periods of time.

But as you say, you don't need statistics, but thats because they don't back your argument when they are used correctly. If you don't think that US statistics are comparable to Australia, I agree. Then we can all agree that the pro-gun argument can stop using them now.

Citing the Catholic Church about use of approriate force in taking the life of an unlawful attacker does not help your case at all.

To reiterate, gun crime is NOT increasing. Crime trends are not increasing. There are NO lawless outbreaks of up to 400%. Nothing has changed for the worse. If anything many trends have gotten BETTER. But no, now you need your gun. Actually, I would feel a whole lot safer if you didn't have it. And thats what this is about isn't it, feeling safe?

Bugsy,

I havent used statistics I merely quoted what is being reported in our more responsble papers.
What it is all about is wheather the Gun Buy-Back was a success.

The Catholic Church's teaching is relevant because self-defence is also a moral issue.

It is something to which all animals are entitled, human or otherwise.

If a law were passed tomorrow stating that self-defence was not allowed it would be a morally wrong law and not binding morally.

What is morally indefensible is that anyone should seek t people from having the means with which to defend themselves.

Only recently in Melbourne two young women were brutally murdered, one managed to reach the phone but could not complete the call.
The murderer some days later, in Western Australia (many hundreds of miles away) savagely attacked a man and and inflicted serious head wounds on him.
The man shot him dead.

The fact that the person attacked was a policeman and in your scheme of things (I suppose)would be armed, shouldn't come into it.
Any person in the same position should have been able to be kill the attacker.

If the young woman who managed to reach the phone had had a pistol she would have had enough time to use it.
It takes longer to dial '000' than to squeeze a trigger.
Probably she and her companion would be alive today and a policeman wouldn't have been so savagely injured.

The next time an old woman is found brutally murdered or anyone else for that matter, ask yourself, if you had been present, would you have helped the victim or the murderer.

And has been stated before, there are other ways to defend oneself. The moral arguments for "self-defence" pale when the ownership of guns increases with the insecurity and fear of the populace and innocents die, either from ignorance, as is often the case with accidental child shootings and or from fear. If the imoportation of non-sporting weapons was easier (ie guns designed for "protection" i.e. to kill), the number of stolen weapons increases also, which begins a vicious cycle of increasing weapons ownership.

Your argument relying on isolated cases (as evidenced by the stats, not an epidemic) would have us even more fearful, because of the gun that may be lying in wait next door, and you don't know who has it. It could be someone like that man under stress that shot the real estate secretary in Qld recently. The less items around in the civilian popualtion that are designed to kill, the better. Moral arguments melt under the heat of real life innocent deaths. It is somnething akin to the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" routine.