So, in a country where guns are almost banned, the crime rate goes up?

In a country where firearms are freely available, the murder and violent crime rate goes down??

Inconceivable! (I know. It doesn't mean what I think it means).

But, we still have to ban guns, you know, for the kids. Our kids deserve an increase in crime just like the kids in Australia!

Even if the estimate is one in 500 does something wrong, that is not a justification to restrict the rights of all of the honest people.

The reason that I bring the incarceration rates on a minority into it is simply that restricting the rights of a broad class of people BEFORE they have done something wrong based on the CHANCE that they MIGHT do something wrong makes no sense. If it did, numbers say that you should restrict the rights of black males born in 1991, as, statistically speaking, that would be a THOUSAND TIMES more effective than going after gun owners. It is the same logic in either case. Yes, black males are born black. Similarly, gun owners were born with the right to purchase firearms in this country.

It is not just that we "disagree." That is like saying that the Ukraine and Russia "disagree." The purpose of our disagreement is that one party want to tell the other what he can and cannot do. The other party simply wants to be left alone to live his own life.

If you DARE to tell me how I can live my life, you had better have a reason substantially better than even a 1% chance that I MIGHT do something wrong with my freedom SOMEDAY.

And I think this need "to protect ourselves" is a bit overblown... if no-one has guns, then what exactly is the great danger you need to protect against?

So, if a 20-year-old man comes after an 80-year-old granny with a knife, no gun = no danger?

An 80-year-old can pull a trigger with the best of them, as long as their eyesight is still good.

Sad that I have to post this, since it is really just common sense. I guess it isn't quite so common as I would hope.

I cranked the numbers for Australia about a year ago. My start point was 1995, before one of their big gun banning sprees. The latest figures that I could find were for 2007. All crime data came from an Australian government web site. I adjusted for population, but the population numbers came from Google. My "crime" figures includes: murder, robbery, assault, and sexual assault. I excluded tiny categories like kidnapping since the numbers were so small. Here is what I found..

In 1995 the murder rate was 17.7. The overall violent crime rate was 7223.5 (once again, per million).

In 2007, the murder rate was 13.3. The overall violent crime rate was 10126.1.

Let me put that in perspective. Per million people per year, about four less people were murdered, but 2,902 more people were the victims of violent crime. Yes, your chance of being murdered was slightly less. However, for each and every life saved, an additional 657 people were the victims of violent crime.

I do admit that other things in Australia might have changed in the 12 years. But if the intention of severely restricting guns was to reduce violent crime, it failed completely, as violent crime was up by 49.5%.

I would like to point out that YOU are the one who used the word "irresponsible" first. I consider a bad gun owner to be one who hurts others. Anybody who hurts themselves, due to either negligence or suicide, to simply be Darwin in action. My comment about suicide still stands. A person who simply desires to do themselves in without hurting others, by whatever means, is no danger to you or me. Were guns to be banned, would you be on a campaign to ban cars simple because a few choose to leave them running in a closed garage?

You are perhaps right about legitimate police and self-defense shootings in that there must be somebody else out there who is doing the wrong thing. Might I point out that people have been legitimately shot who have been armed with knives?

You said, irresponsible ownership of a gun is very seldom

Way to put words in my mouth... Here is what I said:

After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.

Even if it is actually more like 99.99%, my point still stands. But let's get actual figures...

Gun homicides in US (2010, according to CDC): 11,078
Gun ownership in US (2010, according to Gallup): 39%
Population in US( 2010 US census, according to Wikipedia): 308,745,538

Lets assume that the average size of households with and without guns are the same average size. That yields 120,410,760 people with access to firearms. We could get into a discussion about how many people in the household have access to the guns and the average sizes of gun vs. non-gun households, but to start with, we will make some simplifying assumptions.

So, the actual percentage of good gun owners who manage to not commit murder is 99.99079%. Lets put this in perspective. For each and every gun murder out there, there exists 10,869 people out there who have access to a gun and yet manages to kill nobody. To round, one out of every TEN THOUSAND gun owners does bad things. Clearly, this is a problem. Damn the rights of the TEN THOUSAND if we can stop one. This really bothers me. I am an honest person. I work hard, pay my taxes, and raise my kids. It really annoys me when somebody tells myself and over ten thousand others like me that I cannot do something because ONE person does something wrong.

Now let's put this in perspective. From Wikipedia:

A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.

This means that approximately 2 out of every seven black males will be in legal trouble. This is a LOT more than one in ten thousand. Do you think that it would be wise to simply outlaw black males based on this logic? (full disclosure: I have three adopted children who are black) So why is it a bad idea to restrict the rights of some people based on a two-in-seven chance of doing something wrong, but a good idea to restrict the rights of other people based on a one-in-ten-thousand chance of doing something wrong?

Really, I want to know how you justify this.

So, if you take a Corolla, add roll-bars, 5-point-harness, a spoiler, and a cool flame paint job, it is ready for NASCAR? Therefore, no longer street-legal?

Ohhhh, Right. NASCAR requires lots of stickers for tobacco products. Then it is ready.

Ahhh. Another person who either failed logic 101 or who likes to skew facts. You assume that all gun deaths = irresponsible gun owners. How about these categories?

Police shootings. Yes, there are some cops who should not have a badge or a gun. But the vast majority of them are responsible public servants. I would say that when a police officer shoots a dangerous criminal it is not irresponsible.

Similarly, a gun used by a responsible and honest citizen to protect their own life and the lives of their loved ones is hardly an irresponsible use of a gun. To argue otherwise indicates that you value the lives of criminals over that of decent citizens.

Many gun deaths are suicides. The belief that getting rid of guns would prevent these deaths is naive. I would say that a bottle of whisky and a bottle of sleeping pills are easier to get than a box of bullets. Guns are an effective suicide tool, but are far from the only tool available.

Also my statistic of 99.999% was a very rough approximation. I have not done the math recently. It may be 99.995%. Even if it is only 99.99%, the point still stands that it makes little sense to restrict the rights of all because a tiny minority abuses it. Plus, criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and are happy to purchase guns illegally. Taking away rights only harms the honest people. Need I point out that almost all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones?

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

That definition did not work out so well when applied to people. Nothing makes me think that it will work much better here.

After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.

First, how do you even define an "assault weapon." An "assault rifle," as defined by Wikipedia is capable of select-fire (AKA machine gun). Those are 100% not OK to just sell, as you need a $200 federal permit, and the approval of a local law-enforcement agency.

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.

What I absolutely love is how the definition (to borrow from Wikipedia again) includes:

In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.

Seriously, all of this talk about assault weapons gets tiresome. If somebody was shooting at me, the color of the rifle and the presence or absence of a pistol grip would be the last thing on my mind.

I recently needed a new 123 lithium battery for my EDC flashlight. Radio Shack wanted $13 for the store brand, while I found an Engergizer at Target for $7. With that kind of pricing it is no wonder that they are doing poorly.

I also remember a few years ago noticing that you could buy a USB cable for close to $30. Or, you could buy a complete USB hub, with a similar cable included, for the same price. Gee, which one is a better deal?

I have actually been pleasantly surprised to see them sell Arduino and Basic Stamp stuff recently. While the prices are a little high, it is nice to be able to grab that kind of thing locally if you need one quick.

I had kind of hoped that they would get back into amateur radio (ham) stuff too. With cheaper Chinese hand-held radios available for as little as $30 (Baofeng is one of the biggest manufacturers), they could have the stuff re-branded and possibly get back into the business with low cost and low risk. The quality is not fantastic, but is generally good enough, and might establish themselves as a destination for amateur radio operators again.

I remember back when I was a kid, Radio Shack was one of my favorite places to go, and I even enjoyed going over the catalogs to see what cool things they used to have. Now, other than a smattering of hobby stuff (but not much), all they have is the same cell phones , DVD players, and digital cameras that everybody else has, but with more cost and less selection. Other than the occasional adapter or Arduino, there is absolutely no reason to go there.

That depends upon the cost! Businesses are in business to STAY in business. If going in a high-density area means that expenses increase, so ROIC goes down, and the stock suffers, so the employees suffer.

Having a business do the right thing is a noble ideal, and one that should be expected if the incremental cost is rather small. However, if the price difference is drastic, who can blame them for taking the cheaper option.