Man accidentally shoots self (in the butt) in NV theatre

[Jub]

The reason why I consider Sweden irrelevant to this is that you can't carry your firearms loaded and ready to go there.

That wasn't part of your original claim. It had no conditions on whether firearms were loaded and ready to go.

Actually it does relate to my original claim you:

I'm going to echo Darth Wong here and ask why you need to carry a loaded weapon. Either you're calm enough to keep your head in a fight and respond appropriately or you can't and shouldn't be discharging a weapon anyway. It seems pretty cut and dry that civilians have no need to carry loaded weapons.

My position later redefined as:

I'd say outside of a designated shooting range or hunting, civilians don't need guns at all. The fact is, that when you remove guns from the equation deaths from violent crime drop.[/quute]

Sweden becomes irrelevant once I make it clear I'm not against owing a weapon for use at the range. Though even owning a range only weapon accidents do happen.


You're the one who's fighting on shifting ground here Zod. Your first post related to gun control was asking about my thoughts on CCW's. I responded to that very clearly and you responded to my questions by dodging and posting a news article for some nice anecdotal evidence. When called out about that you responded with:

Why bother? You've already said that you don't believe civilians should carry weapons at all. Frankly it's a bit like arguing with a pro-lifer who thinks that abortions should be illegal period with no exceptions.

You also had some shit about crime rates which my stats show has a high chance of being bullshit too. You then keep harping on crime rates some more as if you can't commit a crime with a knife or something. You start to bitch about how you're misunderstood a bit after this, though you should stop claiming to be misunderstood when you refuse to state your position when asked repeatedly to do so.

Now I'm going to ask again, clearly state your position. If you don't I'm going to hope a passing mod is in a bad mode when he sees this.

Most of the weapons are hunting rifles or target pistols and they have very strict gun control laws. Still even with these laws gun related accidents and crimes will happen. Thus, unless there are incredible circumstances, you're not likely to be any safer due to owning a gun.

Define "incredible circumstances".

I'm not defining anything until you clearly state your position.

I showed the before and after for the UK gun laws changing and it showed just that.

You don't understand the difference between causation and correlation do you?

Find some better numbers then Zod, show how guns make people safer with actual facts.

I also love how he ignores the fact that violent crime in the US, the only relevant country in this thread, has fallen despite the assualt weapons ban being lifted during the Bush years. So by his own logic, the more guns the safer you are.

If the US is the only relevant country in this thread, hint it isn't, then why not bitch at Zod for bringing Sweden into things. Oh yeah, because your a dog pilling asshole. I'm already dealing with 3 people here Flagg, kindly find a dance partner who isn't so busy.

EDIT: I'm out, nobody has even attempted to refute my claims with posted evidence and Zod won't clearly state his position on this issue.

[Flagg]

I'm out, nobody has even attempted to refute my claims with posted evidence and Zod won't clearly state his position on this issue.

Your claims have been refuted numerous times you lying asshole. Concession accepted.

[Jub]

Deleted.

[General Zod]

Sweden becomes irrelevant once I make it clear I'm not against owing a weapon for use at the range. Though even owning a range only weapon accidents do happen.

Then your earlier point becomes invalid.

You're the one who's fighting on shifting ground here Zod. Your first post related to gun control was asking about my thoughts on CCW's. I responded to that very clearly and you responded to my questions by dodging and posting a news article for some nice anecdotal evidence. When called out about that you responded with:

You also had some shit about crime rates which my stats show has a high chance of being bullshit too. You then keep harping on crime rates some more as if you can't commit a crime with a knife or something. You start to bitch about how you're misunderstood a bit after this, though you should stop claiming to be misunderstood when you refuse to state your position when asked repeatedly to do so.

I don't see how you can get much more clear than "Removing guns isn't a magic bullet to eliminating violent crime."

I'm not defining anything until you clearly state your position.

I stated it way back in the beginning, but you were either too stupid to recognize it as a valid position or you chose to ignore it. I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.

Basically I think that even if you do away with guns you're still going to have a lot of crime, it's just slapping bandages on a sucking chest wound and not addressing the underlying cause.

Find some better numbers then Zod, show how guns make people safer with actual facts.

I've already done all the work for you but you're such a dumb shit you can't piece two and two together. If guns contribute to higher crime then states with the most guns should have the highest violent crime rates, right? So how come the states on the list I provided with the highest gun ownership do not rank in the top five for violent crime rates?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why does it matter?

You, and others, seem to be under the impression that carrying a loaded and cocked firearm poses a significant risk. Justify this.

The opening post of this thread?

This person was likely violating nearly every rule of firearm safety. Show me examples of people obeying these rules and being injured or injuring others. The reality is you'll have a very difficult time doing so. I've handled firearms for over a decade and not once have I had an accidental or negligent discharge. The reason being. I follow those four rules I posted.

I wonder what else we could consider outlawing if we accepted examples of people violating the safety rules.

Nice strawman you have there. You know as well as I do that most people who own guns aren't especially well trained and an untrained person who is willing to use a gun is a danger that I'm not willing to accept.

You sure do enjoy asking others for evidence while failing to provide it for your own claims. How about providing statistics on firearm accidents.

It has been proven that removing easy access to handguns reduces deaths due to violent crime. Now please show me some actual evidence that a person carrying a weapon is safer than a person who isn't. I'm not going to accept that it is self evident that a person who owns a weapon is safer than one without, and we're not playing in hypothetical land where everybody is perfectly trained.

I did. The conservative number of 100,000 violent crimes prevented per year in the US.

When you're that frightened, how do you know if you're pointing your weapon at something that needs shooting? What if you get all panicky and draw because a minority is reach for a cellphone and you've been raised to be wary of muggers? We all know that this isn't an especially rare thing to have happen, and that's my entire point.

You're just pulling this crap from your ass. Justify that this is a realistic concern. I like how you throw in "minority" as well. Fuck off.

In other words...provide evidence that there is a substantial risk of being shot by a CCW without justification.

Your average person with a handgun has a large enough chance of being a danger to others that my feeling is that they have a greater chance of hurting somebody than they do of successfully defending themselves against a threat. Now if anybody has evidence to disprove my claim go ahead and post it.

You're the one making the claim. You present the evidence. Your feelings on the matter are not evidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The fact is, that when you remove guns from the equation deaths from violent crime drop.

Don't tell me you've forgotten this claim already? Please do back up your claims with evidence.

I will base the follow on the summary of recorded crime from 1898 to 2001/02 as found on this site.

Now as we can see deaths per violent crime drops drastically after the passing on this amendment even as murders and violent crime as a whole increased.

You realize this hurts your position right? After this act violent crime goes up and the actual number of homicides rises.

This just means that not all violent criminals were willing to kill but with the threat of self protection minimized they went out and committed much more violence and still killed more people.

Yes, but I was asked to show that banning guns causes less deaths due to violent crime. I showed the before and after for the UK gun laws changing and it showed just that.

It show that there were more deaths and more violent crime after the banning.

[Spoonist]

@General Zod
Regarding sweden etc.
In the case of countries like sweden, switzerland, finland, norway etc.
We do have a lot of guns, however they are mostly rifles used either for hunting or home guard/military. In all of those countries the training is much stricter than the US and UK average for gun ownership. So those firearms are not as likely to be used in the heat of emotions etc as that of handguns. So comparing a country which has little to no handguns but lots of rifles with a country which has lots of handguns and rifles is flawed.
Instead what you have in the statistics is knives and axes etc.
Also note that the most common murder in countries like sweden, switzerland,finland, norway etc is either domestic violence (killing the spouse) or organized crime. While in both the US and UK you have lots more "strangers" killing each other off.

However to go one step further you will find that those countries also have laws against carrying knives and similar weapons on your person. Just like some cities and sometimes states in the US. Or as in the case of the UK.

@Kamikaze Sith
re the UK etc
Nope, violent crime was on the rise long before the change so that does not follow at all. Instead check out any studies on the UK law and you will find that they are almost all completely positive to the change. (ie not just politically but also statistically).


However I don't think that the US would have the same type of statistical trends if they passed similar laws since crime and gangs simply are not the same in the US as it is in europe.

[General Zod]

So comparing a country which has little to no handguns but lots of rifles with a country which has lots of handguns and rifles is flawed.

Not when you actually take it in context and consider it with the argument I was using it as a counter-point for.

Re: "Fewer guns means fewer deaths, period."

[His Divine Shadow]

The amount of handguns in these nordic countries are like 15-30% of the total amount of guns depending on which country, so not really little to no handguns there. I wouldn't know about what percentage there are handguns in switzerland but they are very easy to acquire by euro standards, I guess it also depends on cantons, one guy I know there says its pretty much just a formality, send in the application and thats it.

I also don't think handguns are any more liable to be used in the 'heat of the moment' than a rifle, this argument makes no sense to me, I suspect it's just bias or preconcieved notions about what kind of people handgun owners are, or something like that, or it's some type of mental spillover from the fact that criminals prefer handguns (for their size)? Anyway pointless speculation aside, I think the reason they aren't used in the heat of the moment is because the law here says you gotta keep guns locked up. And people don't acquire handguns for self-defense but sport and hobby purposes, so that mindset isn't really there either.

[His Divine Shadow]

I just went to check those 15-35% figures since I pulled from a very dusty corner of my mind, and it's more like 10% (sweden), 16% (finland) and (50%) norway Damn norweigans got a lot of handguns. This according to a site called gunpolicy.org, not sure it can be trusted or not...

[Spoonist]

So comparing a country which has little to no handguns but lots of rifles with a country which has lots of handguns and rifles is flawed.

Not when you actually take it in context and consider it with the argument I was using it as a counter-point for.

Re: "Fewer guns means fewer deaths, period."

Depends on if we should read that statement as an absolute or as something relative.

By treating it as an absolute like it seems you are doing makes it into apples and oranges discussion. Which I'd say would be non-productive.
If we on the other hand treat it like a relative statement that reducing the relative number of guns available in a given pop then the relative number of deaths should decrease as well. Then the example of sweden would not be valid since sweden does not correlate as such to either disprove or prove such a thesis. Guns per capita does not have a significant trend outside of an increase in illegal weapons, same with the homocide rate, as in the trend is that violence with illegal weapons (usually handguns) is increasing while violence with licensed weapons (usually rifles) is decreasing.
Instead if you really want to decrease the numbers of murders in sweden and finland (both in the top 10 guns per capita) then reducing the amount of available alcohol would be the way to go. So guns are not necessarily killing people over here, drunken white males do...
http://www.bra.se/download/18.656e38431 ... sweden.pdf

So your example of sweden is either irrelevant or inconclusive, take your pick.

[General Zod]

So comparing a country which has little to no handguns but lots of rifles with a country which has lots of handguns and rifles is flawed.

Not when you actually take it in context and consider it with the argument I was using it as a counter-point for.

Re: "Fewer guns means fewer deaths, period."

Depends on if we should read that statement as an absolute or as something relative.

By treating it as an absolute like it seems you are doing makes it into apples and oranges discussion. Which I'd say would be non-productive.
If we on the other hand treat it like a relative statement that reducing the relative number of guns available in a given pop then the relative number of deaths should decrease as well. Then the example of sweden would not be valid since sweden does not correlate as such to either disprove or prove such a thesis. Guns per capita does not have a significant trend outside of an increase in illegal weapons, same with the homocide rate, as in the trend is that violence with illegal weapons (usually handguns) is increasing while violence with licensed weapons (usually rifles) is decreasing.
Instead if you really want to decrease the numbers of murders in sweden and finland (both in the top 10 guns per capita) then reducing the amount of available alcohol would be the way to go. So guns are not necessarily killing people over here, drunken white males do...
http://www.bra.se/download/18.656e38431 ... sweden.pdf

So your example of sweden is either irrelevant or inconclusive, take your pick.

The whole point was to highlight that the number of guns alone isn't enough to explain violent crime rates.

I can do the same thing by pointing out the states which have absurd numbers of guns in them but where the crime rates are all over the board. Oregon has a higher number of gun owners than Arizona, but guess which one has more violent crime?

[Spoonist]

@HDS

http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf

Table 18
rifle vs handgun (5th survey ie 2004-2005)
Sweden, 19.3 vs 1.6
Finland, 37.9 vs 6.3
Norway, 26.1 vs 3.7

compare this to
USA, 42.8 vs 17.6

I would say that in a discussion with americans "little to no handguns" is accurate enough. It just doesn't compare.

From my earlier cite:

In
the EHM, data on the legality of the firearms used in homicides
were available for Finland and Sweden. In both countries, the majority
of weapons used in homicides were illegal; in Sweden 74 per
cent and in Finland 64 per cent. The Finnish data also provided
information about the types of firearm used in homicides; 44 per
cent were handguns, 47 per cent shotguns or hunting rifles and 8
per cent sawn-off shotguns.

In finland where its 37.9 vs 6.3 in ownership, its still 44% vs 47% in the homocide rate. (don't know where to put the sawed off). So I'd say that you need to recheck how you are criticising my thinking there.

I would say that handguns are definately over represented in crime rates all over the world except for war zones or where org crime has taken over to the level of it being a warlike state like mexico. I know that if I owned both a hunting rifle and a revolver and was drunk wanting to commit murder, I'd definately go with the revolver. Same if I were robbing someone, or bringing heat to a drugdeal. You don't bring a hunting rifle to such occasions.

Re swiss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ing_Permit

The whole point was to highlight that the number of guns alone isn't enough to explain violent crime rates.

Your US example is much more relevant, using Sweden in that context was as I said irrelevant or inconclusive.

[General Zod]

Your US example is much more relevant, using Sweden in that context was as I said irrelevant or inconclusive.

I made the example a few pages ago, but you can do the same for just about anywhere if the only thing you look at is the number of guns and the violent crime rate.

By Jub's retarded logic, stabbings in the US should be sky high considering how many people own at least one sharp knife.

[Kamakazie Sith]

@Kamikaze Sith
re the UK etc
Nope, violent crime was on the rise long before the change so that does not follow at all. Instead check out any studies on the UK law and you will find that they are almost all completely positive to the change. (ie not just politically but also statistically).


However I don't think that the US would have the same type of statistical trends if they passed similar laws since crime and gangs simply are not the same in the US as it is in europe.

My point is that those figures do not support Jub's argument.

[Spoonist]

Your US example is much more relevant, using Sweden in that context was as I said irrelevant or inconclusive.

I made the example a few pages ago, but you can do the same for just about anywhere if the only thing you look at is the number of guns and the violent crime rate.

By Jub's retarded logic, stabbings in the US should be sky high considering how many people own at least one sharp knife.

In these types of discussions there seems to be a lot of emotions involved which makes participants of all sides make hasty arguments. Like you repeating sweden for 3 pages like it was significant to your argument when it isn't and wasn't.

Me, I think that you are misreading Jub's logic. While I think that Jub is oversimplifying things.

One of those things I react to is his talking about guns per capita like it means something. Just because you own 10 guns doesn't make you 10 times more likely to use them nor that they will be 10 times more likely to be used in violent acts. Rather the opposite. Its better with the eurostat way which is gun ownership rates. As in % of pop that owns rifles or handguns.


If you read the papers I cited one funny-strange thing is that literacy and social mobility correlates with the violence rates of a nation. Why this is, or if its consistent is up for debate, but statistically that would explain US vs europe and US vs Canada.

@Kamikaze Sith
re the UK etc
Nope, violent crime was on the rise long before the change so that does not follow at all. Instead check out any studies on the UK law and you will find that they are almost all completely positive to the change. (ie not just politically but also statistically).

My point is that those figures do not support Jub's argument.

Which doesn't let you of the hook for making an even more flawed counter argument...
"This just means that not all violent criminals were willing to kill but with the threat of self protection minimized they went out and committed much more violence and still killed more people." Has nothing to do with the cited report for the UK. Instead its a convoluted argument from US gun control debates which has no bearing on the situation in the UK.
You could easily argue against Jub's position without resorting to such trivialities...

[General Zod]

In these types of discussions there seems to be a lot of emotions involved which makes participants of all sides make hasty arguments. Like you repeating sweden for 3 pages like it was significant to your argument when it isn't and wasn't.

Which I already explained could be substituted by anywhere.

Me, I think that you are misreading Jub's logic. While I think that Jub is oversimplifying things.

I'm pretty sure I understand his logic just fine, and I've repeatedly said he was oversimplifying things. All you're doing is treading over stuff I've already explained so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which doesn't let you of the hook for making an even more flawed counter argument...
"This just means that not all violent criminals were willing to kill but with the threat of self protection minimized they went out and committed much more violence and still killed more people." Has nothing to do with the cited report for the UK. Instead its a convoluted argument from US gun control debates which has no bearing on the situation in the UK.
You could easily argue against Jub's position without resorting to such trivialities...

Ah quite right. That was a hasty remark.

[His Divine Shadow]

@HDS

http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf

Table 18
rifle vs handgun (5th survey ie 2004-2005)
Sweden, 19.3 vs 1.6
Finland, 37.9 vs 6.3
Norway, 26.1 vs 3.7

compare this to
USA, 42.8 vs 17.6

I would say that in a discussion with americans "little to no handguns" is accurate enough. It just doesn't compare.

There is no way those numbers are true for either Finland or Sweden. Take Finland. I got my percentages by looking up the amount of registered handguns and total amount of registred guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns), for Finland we have 1.4 million total registered guns and 290,000 of these are handguns. That won't come to 6% no matter how you slice it, it is infact 17% of total guns. These numbers are taken from our own ministery of interior by the way.

The swedish case, then, using swedish data from the police:
2 032 000 total amount of legal guns.
88 000 pistols and 55 000 revolvers or 143,000 guns, that comes to slightly more than 7%.

So we have 7% & 17%. I have no idea on how the norweigan stats pan out as I have not been able to find anything but the total amount of guns there.

Re swiss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ing_Permit

I don't see anything there that refutes what I've said? In addition I know actual swiss gun owners who have explained to me the process of getting permits.

I would say that handguns are definately over represented in crime rates all over the world except for war zones or where org crime has taken over to the level of it being a warlike state like mexico. I know that if I owned both a hunting rifle and a revolver and was drunk wanting to commit murder, I'd definately go with the revolver. Same if I were robbing someone, or bringing heat to a drugdeal. You don't bring a hunting rifle to such occasions.

We're not talking crime where the inherent value of a handgun is obvious, I specifically mentioned that when I answered you. I was talking only about these "heat of the moment" situations between ordinary people who legally own guns. And I don't see you bringing compelling reason to think that you would go with the revolver over the rifle. Just because you say "I know that if I owned a" doesn't prove anything now does it?

I own both types of guns and I can't even imagine in my mind into a situation like that so I don't see how you can go through some hypothetical situation in your mind wherein you loose your mind in a fit of rage or drunkeness and know how you will react. I might as well just refute by saying that a revolver has no advantage whatsoever in such a situation since things will be happening then and there, so while I am in a state of mind where I am actually considering murder and maybe fucked up on alcohol, I am going to unlock my gun safe I might as well choose a rifle because it's easier to handle/aim/use, especially if the adrenalline and alcohol is affecting me. So I will rationally decide upon the best course of action for my irrational behavior. Yeah, this isn't really convincing either way is it?

Also those crime stats for Finland and handguns, you want to consider that the majority of guns used in crime in finland (just like in sweden) are illegal guns, so these are mostly criminals doing well, crime. I can no longer find the stats but from my memory they broke down as follows, 14% murders are done with guns, 60% of those are done with illegal guns and are mostly illegal handguns, the legal portion was mainly comitted with hunting rifles in family murder/suicides and the like, legal handguns where a fraction of the total. And for our discussion the legal parts are the relevant ones as I already conceeded from the start that criminals have reasons for going with handguns.

[Lancer]

You, and others, seem to be under the impression that carrying a loaded and cocked firearm poses a significant risk. Justify this.

The opening post of this thread?

As the OP, I have to say you've read way too much from what was a "haha, dumbass shoots himself in the butt" post.

If he had stabbed himself with a kitchen knife in the ass, I would have posted it as well; that doesn't mean that I believe knives to be magical murder-sticks just waiting to cut out your heart.

[D.Turtle]

This person was likely violating nearly every rule of firearm safety. Show me examples of people obeying these rules and being injured or injuring others. The reality is you'll have a very difficult time doing so. I've handled firearms for over a decade and not once have I had an accidental or negligent discharge. The reason being. I follow those four rules I posted.

I wonder what else we could consider outlawing if we accepted examples of people violating the safety rules.

People will violate safety rules. Thats why you build in redundancies, so that nothing bad happens even if a safety rule is broken. Having the additional safety rule (or amending existing ones) to say that you don't carry around a cocked weapon would make handling guns safer and decease the chance of accidental/negligent discharges while not significantly reducing the amount of protection a gun provides.

As the OP, I have to say you've read way too much from what was a "haha, dumbass shoots himself in the butt" post.

If he had stabbed himself with a kitchen knife in the ass, I would have posted it as well; that doesn't mean that I believe knives to be magical murder-sticks just waiting to cut out your heart.

Kamikazie Sith asked for proof that carrying a loaded and cocked weapon poses a significant risk. Having a gun go off from falling out of your pocket - which can only happen if a gun is loaded and cocked - and shoot yourself in the ass is exactly such proof.

I don't think guns be evil gun-sticks, I just think that they are dangerous weapons, and that relatively simple additional safety measures (such as not carrying a gun loaded and cocked) can decrease the amount of accidental/negligent harm done by them without significantly decreasing the amount of safety they provide.

[General Zod]

Kamikazie Sith asked for proof that carrying a loaded and cocked weapon poses a significant risk. Having a gun go off from falling out of your pocket - which can only happen if a gun is loaded and cocked - and shoot yourself in the ass is exactly such proof.

I don't think guns be evil gun-sticks, I just think that they are dangerous weapons, and that relatively simple additional safety measures (such as not carrying a gun loaded and cocked) can decrease the amount of accidental/negligent harm done by them without significantly decreasing the amount of safety they provide.

There's only so much you can do to protect people from themselves. At the end of the day you're still going to have an idiot who thinks that looking down a gun's barrel is a great way of making sure it's not clogged.

[General Zod]

In other words I think mandating safety classes before being allowed to purchase any type of firearm is a better idea than a whole bunch of mechanical enhancements that might or might not help.

[Kamakazie Sith]

People will violate safety rules. Thats why you build in redundancies, so that nothing bad happens even if a safety rule is broken. Having the additional safety rule (or amending existing ones) to say that you don't carry around a cocked weapon would make handling guns safer and decease the chance of accidental/negligent discharges while not significantly reducing the amount of protection a gun provides.

I'll give you that on weapons with an exposed hammer.

[Spoonist]

@HDS
I think that I wasn't clear enough in my response to you, since you seem to be getting the wrong impression, sorry about that - posted late as usual.

Re the swiss, my link was a confirmation on what you were saying, not a refutation. Its easier, much easier to get legal handguns in switzerland than in sweden/finland.

Re norway, don't know enough norwegian gun laws and culture to make any valid claims there. So I will just fold on that. Checked the stats for % of robberies was with guns and while finland , sweden and switzerland have 0,1,3 % respectively, but norway has 9%. That is as much as the UK and close to the US at 14%, so I don't know what's up with them. Maybe it has something to do with soft air weapons being punished as if they were real guns in norway???

Re handguns vs rifles, the numbers cited by me is not guns per capita, but rather if you follow the link to the table it is "Ownership of firearms and handguns". Its percentages of owners, not actual gun numbers. A number which is very much more relevant in crime statistics as in how distributed and thus available they are. In the USA the distrubition of both rifles and handguns is much larger, while in scandinavia its more concentrated. Our bell curves of guns per person would be very different.
Why the our statistics differ the way they do is because legal handgun owners in sweden/finland are much more likely to own several pieces. Due to collectors, enthusiasts and sport. That is the same in both sweden and finland. For instance, in 2005 Bengt Ericsson's collection/warehouse was sold off by his estate, he had owned/collected some 2k+ guns, including some 1k+ handguns/SMGs. All legal and registered in Stockholm. (Yes, I took an extreme example but you get the picture).

We're not talking crime where the inherent value of a handgun is obvious, I specifically mentioned that when I answered you.

You also said it was pointless speculation. Which was what I disagreed with and why I showed you the relevance of a handguns vs rifles through those statistics.

I was talking only about these "heat of the moment" situations between ordinary people who legally own guns. And I don't see you bringing compelling reason to think that you would go with the revolver over the rifle. Just because you say "I know that if I owned a" doesn't prove anything now does it?

The two are not the same.
The compelling stuff would be the statistics. Handguns are overrepresented in violent crimes vs rifles etc.
My opinion, should be read as just that, opinion.
My opinion was just to counter your opinion that it didn't make sense to you. To me it makes perfect sense.
The statistics were there to back up my opinion.

Lets back up to where we started and see if we can make some sense out of this mess before we bog ourselves further down in minutiae.
My argument which you responded to was "So those firearms are not as likely to be used in the heat of emotions etc as that of handguns. So comparing a country which has little to no handguns but lots of rifles with a country which has lots of handguns and rifles is flawed."
Let's see if I can clarify out any ambiguity from that so that we both agree instead?
Using the number of legally registered firearms in countries like sweden (et al) as some sort of basis for an argument regarding pro/con gun control in the USA is flawed, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that most guns in countries like sweden are of a type less statistically (both in US and Europe) involved in violent crime, ie rifles owned by hunters, home guard and collectors. While weapons of types that are more statistically involved in violent crime, are not as available in sweden (et al) as they are in the US, like handguns. (Which when they show up in swedish (et al) violent crimes statistics are usually illegally procured and thus not in the legally registered statistics at all.)
Better?

I can no longer find the stats but from my memory they broke down as follows, 14% murders are done with guns, 60% of those are done with illegal guns and are mostly illegal handguns, the legal portion was mainly comitted with hunting rifles in family murder/suicides and the like, legal handguns where a fraction of the total. And for our discussion the legal parts are the relevant ones as I already conceeded from the start that criminals have reasons for going with handguns.

But that is part of the point of why finish/swedish gun ownership numbers can't be used conclusively in US gun control debates, our existing gun control laws is so different that any too simplified comparison becomes instantly invalid.
Swedes do not have less violent crime because we own a lot of guns per capita, it just doesn't correlate. Just like finns does not have more murder per capita because you have more guns than swedes, it doesn't correlate either.

The who, why, where and when of killing each other off is soooo much more important correlation-wise than silly comparisons to US debating points.

Hope that was a bit clearer.

All you're doing is treading over stuff I've already explained so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point? Don't think I really had one. My response was more that you were asking 'how about sweden' repeatedly so I thought I'd clarify why it was irrelevant for the sake of the thread?
The rest is just that I think it to be polite to respond when people adress me directly.