Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[God of Mr. Hanky]

That should be "...primarily because there aren't any environmental pressures (like in the US) that could increase propensity to own guns according to the region..."

I'm happy with that rewording  

Wow, I didn't even know there were a lot of high and maximally-occupied mountains (relative to mountains elsewhere) covering much of Australia! Where are those Aussie Outback mountains on the map, anyway? How come they aren't featured in the Road Warrior flicks?

What, you mean mountainous, but relatively highly-occupied land isn't a major Australian geographic factor, which has already been cited without debate as a reason why Americans need guns?

The reasons for current levels of US gun ownership aren't what I'm arguing. What I've said is that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of gun-related death. Consequently, if you want to reduce those deaths, you can achieve that by reducing the number of guns. That doesn't mean a blanket ban and it would be naive of me to suggest such an approach. I'm well aware that people have rural applications for guns as tools. I would always advocate the most effective methods of gun control which would enable people to own and use guns for certain needs whilst protecting them from as many of the hazards as possible.

Also, large as the Australian land mass is, it is by necessity sparsely populated throughout most of it. The small amount of truly habitable land would therefore be densely populated, a situation where at least some gun regulations may be beneficial,

Gun regulations are beneficial everywhere. They just have to be appropriate to the circumstances.

but still no manner of practice by the Nanny-Statists of confiscation of forbidden property could ever compete with what the fuckstick liberals will not do, which is support mandated and comprehensive firearms training for all.

Really? Because that's what happens in the UK. You can't be a licensed owner without it. I understand why some people would advocate for mandatory, total disarmament however those arguments are mostly appeals to emotion and don't allow for people to enjoy guns (e.g. collectors, target shooters).

Please, these circular arguments are getting to be unhealthy!

What circular arguments?

We were at some point arguing the effectiveness of gun bans, and I believe this was at least in part your response to Captain Awesome's data which negates the canard that banning guns prevent murders. Maybe you are concerned strictly with gun violence, but violence is all the same to me, especially when it's deadly.

On circular arguments, I did not necessarily mean yours. In general, this discussion is unfortunately leading in circles as we go from "Urban dwellers don't understand the geography-driven necessity for Americans in the mountains and the countryside to own guns" to "NO, I hate gun owners, I don't understand guns but I know what guns one doesn't need" to "gun prohibition is ineffective at scaling back murder rates, and HERE's THE PROOF" (valid proof from qualified sources) to comparing the US geographic apple with the UK lime and Aussie jakfruit, which ignores what has already been pointed out regarding relative geography. Sorry, but I get irritable when I get this dizzy!