Primary Response

[robbygard]

The topic of gun control always ends up being an emotive one, for some reason...
What, we're not allowed to get emotional when 20 children are murdered?

i don't and i suspect many australians don't understand the yank love affair with guns .. it seems to us (from an earlier quote) that once they love their kids more than their guns something may be done

People talk glibly about US gun laws, but nobody seems to consider that this is a myth - there is no one set of gun laws. They vary from state to state, with the most restrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes.
Why? Because only the criminals are armed. The innocent, law-abiding people are forbidden the means to defend themselves or their family.
I thought that the second amendment guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves

states can have different laws but state legislatures in teh us have NO authority to interpret or nullify us supreme courts' determinations on federal constitutional powers

i would be interested in facts to back up the assertion that the most resrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes

i have spent some time working through some confusing data which suggests a different view (not opposite view necessarily) where, based on gun homicide rates there is a correlation between more restrictive gun laws and LESS gun crime (based on admittedly a somewhat restricted view of gun crime) with some exceptions including one of the mroe restirctive at about 45 out of 50 and one of the least restritive at only 37 out of 50 ... mind you four of the most restrictive seem to be in the top 15 and 8 of the least restrictive in the last 15

(i found the data difficult to follow and subject to some subjective determinations as well but feel it is a fairly rigourous analysis)


What's been missing in many of the media reports has been the mental health issues of those that commit these crimes in schools.
In Connecticut, a mental health bill was squashed by the liberals at the beginning of the year, as they felt it would infringe personal freedoms.
Recently Defeated Connecticut Mental Health Bill May Have Stopped Friday's Shooter (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/16/Recently-Defeated-Connecticut-Mental-Health-Bill-May-Have-Stopped-Friday-s-Shooter)
That's right they're all nuts. As the line above states, MAY have stopped Friday's shooter.

i have to say here that this is a commonly used argument following this sort of tragic event ... a decoy argument (with perhaps some basis of fact but sometimes with no truth) which is used to distract debate from a particular solution (examples after this event are drunk driver fatalities, knife fatalities, abortion and one strange but totally untruthful claim about baseball bats) ... in this case the bill would have been highly unlikely to change the situation as the bill only would have allowed institutionalisation an individual where the state had evidence to believe him/her to be a risk .. in this case the offender had a personality disorder but no record

the bill also had some quite extensive changes to expand who could force medicate individuals without a court order which probably should have been struck out (a case of a law with some good parts and some unconscionable parts being voted down)

In this shooting, the offender was not a licenced firearms owner, his mother was. The rifle he used, a sporting semi-automatic not an assault rifle), was banned in the state of Ct anyway.
He killed his mother & stole the firearms. Then went to a gun-free zone & committed multiple murders.


So with all these crimes, does anyone think that making guns illegal would have stopped such a person? One more law would make no difference whatsoever.
True, but having them legal isn't working out very well is it?

and also owning the gun didn't do his mother much good either

While the NRA may not be wording their stance nicely, they are pretty much correct in their stance.
Statistics show that the vast majority of these shooters will turn their weapon on themselves if they encounter resistance. Just recently, there was a shooting at a shopping mall there - a retired security guard drew his weapon and took aim at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and turned his weapon on himself. The retired guard didn't get a shot off, as there were people behind his target.
If he was a retired security guard why was he carrying a gun? See point two.



Gun control is a kneejerk reaction. Understandable, but ill considered.
Mental health is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
Where's the mental health issue when a 3 year old child kills itself with a gun left lying around the house?

i don't see it as a kneejerk reaction ... it is one part of a solution to a multifaceted problem ... it is probably disingenuous to suggest that the problem is purely mental health care and indeed the ready availability of guns HAS to be a major part of teh problem ... remember that whilst it is a federal law in the us to restrict sales to mentally ill only 40% of sales actually come under conditions that require vetting of teh purchaser (only six states have laws closing this loophole) and 27 states do not require reporting of mental illness to the nics (national instant background check system)

Millions carry concealed weapons every day. This does not make them become homicidal maniacs, any more than putting a seatbelt on makes a driver try to ram every other vehicle on the roads.
Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws. Adding another law will make no difference to them. They'll still ignore it.
A ban would make their occupation a lot safer though. They would be much less likely to be injured or killed.
So what are you suggesting, give everyone guns? You're not Wayne LaPierre (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gretchen-whitmer/nra-wayne-lapierre-guns_b_2349771.html)are you?



QUALIFICATIONS:

i have done my best when trawling through statistics to evaluate them without prejudice, however, i don't believe people should own firearms without a valid reason to do so ... i also believe weapons of war should be restricted to civilians
whilst i am sure that i have not been dishonest in my presentation of information, i have not spent too much time on it (nor do i intend to ... i have some shed time coming up) and there may be other information that i did not come across


regards david

edit by restricted to i don't actually mean that they should have them (hope that is obvious enough)

[Master Splinter]

No, the US is cracking down on weapons in school!

Errr, drawn weapons, that is....

Not the drawn as in pulled out of your pocket or holster, but drawn as in pencil on paper drawing in a high school student's notebook.


"A teacher noticed drawings of what appeared to be weapons in his notebook. School officials made the decision to contact authorities."
Superintendent: Drawings Of Weapons Led To New Jersey Student (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/12/19/superintendent-drawings-of-weapons-led-to-new-jersey-students-arrest/)



They also searched his house and found "several types of chemicals that when mixed together, could cause an explosion"

I don't think it would take long to find "several chemicals" that "could cause an explosion" in the average household.

Yep, they're all nuts!!

[devnull]

John - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
While I don't think a free-for-all approach is the answer, neither are total bans (unless you can somehow convince all criminals to disarm, and I doubt that'll ever happen). Both extremes present their own problems I think

David - the handgun ban in Chicago is probably a good example.
Read this article some time ago, comparing NZ to the US. Having spent some years in an emergency service, I had illusions about the violent crime in NZ, but the FBI stats the reporter quoted was surprising, to say the least

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV: The Gun Debate (http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/the_gun_debate.html)

[Grumpy John]

Adam, you seem to be a responsible and intelligent gun owner, and, as such I'd like to ask you some questions re gun ownership in Australia. We can't seem to get any of the boys in the U.S. to enter this debate.

1. I'm assuming that a police check is mandatory, how thorough is this check?
2. What method of storage are you required for your guns/rifles, do the guns have to be broken down for storage, do you have to keep the ammunition separate? Are there inspections to ensure that the guns are being kept in accordance to regulations, if so, how often?
3. Are there any controls of how the guns are to be transported to workplace, shooting range or wherever?
4. Lastly, and please don't take this the wrong way, assuming all controls are in place, could someone get one of your guns kill you with it and go on a rampage?

I understand that you live in NSW and can only comment on regulations in your state.

[Grumpy John]

John - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
While I don't think a free-for-all approach is the answer, neither are total bans (unless you can somehow convince all criminals to disarm, and I doubt that'll ever happen). Both extremes present their own problems I think

David - the handgun ban in Chicago is probably a good example.
Read this article some time ago, comparing NZ to the US. Having spent some years in an emergency service, I had illusions about the violent crime in NZ, but the FBI stats the reporter quoted was surprising, to say the least

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV: The Gun Debate (http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/the_gun_debate.html)

No problems mate, healthy debate is always good :shakehands:.

[devnull]

I think you're missing the point Devnull, guns are designed to kill, if used correctly they will kill, or at least maim. Cars, planes tablesaws even knives are not designed to kill. Death or injury from these and other risky machinery is usually the result of an accident, it is rarely intentional.
Police are instructed not to pull their weapons unless they intend to use them and then they are expected to shoot to kill. I'm assuming that the security guard was an honest citizen carrying a legal weapon, this still didn't stop a killing. More guns IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!!

An insight to the gun mentality:
Several years ago I was driving through Houston TX. and pulled up behind a Ford F150 with a rifle rack in the rear window with several rifles in it. There was a sticker on the bumper which read "KEEP HONKING, I'M RELOADING". Maybe a joke, but it scared the carp out of me.

Hi John,

There's a really good article from a bloke that has spent many years as both a competitive shooter and store owner might be worth reading
An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)

It's quite a balanced perspective that touches on many of the different aspects of this hotly debated issue.
He does make some interesting points though

Cheers,
Gordon

[devnull]

devnull, are you suggesting maintain the status quo (with the amount of guns and laws), or an increase in guns (I'm pretty sure that you not advocating a gun reduction)?

The tool guards and seat belt analogy doesn't work because they are not weapons that can be used on somebody.

I wish I had an answer to the whole dilemma, but I don't.
I just don't see implementing bans as being an effective measure. Look at our current firearms laws here. Exceptionally strict, yet criminals still commit crimes with firearms.
Even if Obama issued an executive order repealing the 2nd Amendment, I doubt many of their citizens would follow it. The reasoning behind their constitution was to allow the people to have some means of protection from their own govt - when I spent time there most of the people I met felt strongly about the constitution - forcing it to be changed would cause a lot of unrest I think.

The person/s that can come up with an effective and viable solution should be in line for a Nobel Prize. Preventing bad people from doing bad things would certainly be the ideal... but how to achieve that?

[ozhunter]

Adam, you seem to be a responsible and intelligent gun owner, and, as such I'd like to ask you some questions re gun ownership in Australia. We can't seem to get any of the boys in the U.S. to enter this debate.

1. I'm assuming that a police check is mandatory, how thorough is this check?

Yes there is a Police check required. I cannot comment on how thorough the check is because I've never seen them do it. They go to lengths to ensure you are who you say you are. One must answer questions about criminal records, mental health, AVO's etc. (as a side note in NSW, if you have an AVO in any of it's forms, taken out against you, the police will come to your house and confiscate all firearms until the situation is resolved one way or the other, no ifs-buts or maybes).

2. What method of storage are you required for your guns/rifles, do the guns have to be broken down for storage, do you have to keep the ammunition separate? Are there inspections to ensure that the guns are being kept in accordance to regulations, if so, how often?

Storage requirements vary, depending on the class of firearms you are licensed to keep. Normal sporting firearms (single/double barrel shotguns/rifles, bolt action/lever action/single shot rimfire and centrefire rifles) must be secured in a safe approved by the NSW Commissioner of Police. It must have three locking points, if an external padlock is used, it must be hardened. It must provide a level of resistance to forced entry that the police approve of. If the safe weighs less than 150kg empty, it must be secured to the residence by way of both dyna bolts into concrete and coach screws into the stud

Semi automatic firearms must be in a safe that has minimum 6mm doors and 3mm walls, have hinge pin dogs, anti lever strips externally, 6 lever minimum locks or bio metric, electric type locks, RC60 anti drill plates behind the locks and secured to the premises regardless of the weight.

Any storage device must be within a building, the building itself cannot be used as a safe and must be secure.

Firearms do not have to broken down to be stored in the safe storage.

All ammunition must be kept in a separate, locked and secure receptacle.

Safe storage is inspected by the police. Due to financial constraints, it isn't done as often as it should be (my opinion). I have been inspected twice since I moved to this place (12 years) and they have started another round of inspections in the area, so I would expect to be visited again in the next 6 months or so. Any change of address will trigger a safe storage inspection. When an inspection is carried out, they also check what firearms you have, against their records and ensure the safe storage meets all requirements set out in the act.

The above is by no means a verbatim reproduction of the act.

3. Are there any controls of how the guns are to be transported to workplace, shooting range or wherever?

Firearms must be carried in a locked receptacle, separate to the ammunition, not in public view and the owner must take every precaution to ensure the firearm is secure by not leaving it in a vehicle parked in the street all day, or overnight etc. or leaving a vehicle unlocked with a firearm inside.

4. Lastly, and please don't take this the wrong way, assuming all controls are in place, could someone get one of your guns kill you with it and go on a rampage?

The short answer is of course...someone with criminal intent would have to break into my residence, break into the safe, break into the ammunition storage and then they would have to find the firing mechanism for the firearm (bolt etc.), which are kept separate (not a legal requirement, but I do it)

I understand that you live in NSW and can only comment on regulations in your state.
.

[artme]

On the subject of gun owners who are nuts I think many of the massacres were planned by the perpetrators for some time before they were carried out.

Clearly then, theses gun owners had substantial psychological problems. Escaping assessment for these problems is either easy or no assessment exists and therein lies a massive problem for lawmakers in any country, not just the USA.

Now, what needs also to be considered is the case of access to weapons by those who are considered stable and reasonable. What happens if they for some reason snap and use a gun to vent their anger?

I saw an example of this many years ago. A young fellow snapped and said, Ïf I had a gun I would shoot everyone here"! I have no doubt he would have! We were all thankful that he didn't have access to a weapon.This reaction came from an intelligent and stable young man.

The ability for ANYONE to own or have access to a gun is a real two edged sword. I err on the side of caution and I like to see heavey restrictions applied.

[nrb]

I agree with artime,with heavy restricitions for auto weapons,the less of them must mean less people lose their lives when someone snaps.
With all the stats that have been posted does not change a thing,less weapons,less killing.
Has that not been the effect in our country??

[ozhunter]

To expand on my reply to John's questions and a few other statements

In NSW and I would assume the rest of Australia, Joe Public cannot lawfully possess an Auto weapon (fully automatic or burst capable) of ANY kind. Or anything that looks like an assault type firearm. No Joe Public can purchase an M4 like the one used at Sandy Hook. Dealers can possess them, but cannot use them. Dealers have a much, much higher level of required security, storage and scrutiny. Joe Public cannot lawfully possess a semi automatic firearm without providing bona-fide reason for needing one (primary producer, professional pest eradicator) and once you are permitted to have one, you put yourself in the spotlight. The police know who you are. It is very difficult (not impossible, anything is possible) to obtain the appropriate paperwork to have one without being legitimate. As a primary producer, I am only permitted one semi automatic, small calibre rim-fire and one semi automatic (used to be max 5 shots, but i think it has been reduced to 3) shotgun, If I want to purchase another, I have to sell the one I have, wait for that process to go through before I can purchase another. Semi automatic, centrefire rifles require another level. AFAIK, a professional vertebrate pest controller is the only valid reason for a semi automatic, centrefire rifle.

To purchase any type of firearm in NSW, one must complete and pay for (non-refundable) an application, which is sent to the Firearms Registry. If the firearms registry approve the Permit to Acquire, you are then able to purchase the firearm. That process takes about two weeks. A newly licensed person must wait about eight weeks before they can purchase a firearm. Thats after waiting about six weeks or more for the licensing process to be completed. A Permit to Acquire is only valid for specific types of firearms, you cannot purchase a large calibre, centrefire firearm with a permit that has been issued to purchase a small calibre rim-fire.

If one buys a collectible firearm, and there are firearms out there worth many, many thousands, it cannot lawfully be used. It must be temporarily deactivated and stored the same way as normal firearms.

[jimbur]

Compared to the relatively muted and civilised opinions voiced in this thread, matters are being expressed much more strongly in the US.
'Deport Piers Morgan': bid to kick out TV host for gun stance (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/deport-piers-morgan-bid-to-kick-out-tv-host-for-gun-stance-20121224-2bu0s.html)

[Bushmiller]

Compared to the relatively muted and civilised opinions voiced in this thread, matters are being expressed much more strongly in the US.
'Deport Piers Morgan': bid to kick out TV host for gun stance (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/deport-piers-morgan-bid-to-kick-out-tv-host-for-gun-stance-20121224-2bu0s.html)

Arthur

Don't expect the NRA and the gun lobby to take this lying down. They are going to come out firing (in the name of peace, of course ). Perhaps we should let them just get on with it. 32,000 gun-related homicides a year is more casualties than they are taking in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. It would appear that it is safer to holiday in those war-torn countries than to visit the US. There's a sobering thought.

As long as we are maintaining a degree of balance here in OZ perhaps we shouldn't be too concerened about their problems. The fact we are concerned just plants us firmly in the ranks of the human race.

Regards
Paul

[robbygard]

David - the handgun ban in Chicago is probably a good example.
Read this article some time ago, comparing NZ to the US. Having spent some years in an emergency service, I had illusions about the violent crime in NZ, but the FBI stats the reporter quoted was surprising, to say the least

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV: The Gun Debate (http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/the_gun_debate.html)

sorry about the delay in replying, i have been doing things other than research ... an interesting article with some good anecdotal examples of how the ownership of guns has prevented major events along the lines of the current event
when they get to statistics though, they are guilty of either sloppy analysis or disingenous behaviour

the statistics to which they refer have no relation to gun crime nor to fatalities of any sort ... in new zealand gun related crime as a subset of violent crime represents less than 2% ... the homicide rate by gun is 0.16 in nz to 2.97 (per 100000 pop) ... massively different and presenting and opposite viewpoint to the magazine article

if they were making an argument that ease of access to guns reduced violent crime overall, that may be sustainable (although not definite) ... a counter argument is that if there is a place that has a lot of violent crime (eg rugby brawls) do you want them to also have easy access to guns? ...

thanks for the link though ... an interesting perspective and led me to more information on the subject

regards david

[jimbur]

And here's the BBC's correspondent's look at the NRA response:
BBC News - Newtown shootings: Obama v the NRA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20821252)

[robbygard]

And here's the BBC's correspondent's look at the NRA response:
BBC News - Newtown shootings: Obama v the NRA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20821252)

interesting ... particularly that 53% of americans agree with it ... mind you at a simplistic level, i think they are correct : the only (sensible) way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun

at a deeper level the question really should be : why do the bad people get guns

as that article shows the nra has a huge influence on the political will of the country ... i quoted this in another post but will repeat it here in the context of the question "why do bad people get guns"

it is probably disingenuous to suggest that the problem is purely mental health care and indeed the ready availability of guns HAS to be a major part of teh problem ... remember that whilst it is a federal law in the us to restrict sales to mentally ill only 40% of sales actually come under conditions that require vetting of teh purchaser (only six states have laws closing this loophole) and 27 states do not require reporting of mental illness to the nics (national instant background check system)

i can only guess that there is an influence on the states that don't make any effort to fix those problems

regards david

[artme]

To all the members of the NRA and the Gun Owners' Association : There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

[Wongo]

Now, what needs also to be considered is the case of access to weapons by those who are considered stable and reasonable. What happens if they for some reason snap and use a gun to vent their anger?


And the more people have guns the more likely it will happen.

[Scott]

Merry Christmas! (http://www.theage.com.au/world/two-us-firefighters-shot-dead-in-ambush-20121225-2buup.html)

Here's another favourite cohort of victims shooters love to target. The very people meant to protect them, emergency workers.

[Wongo]

The obvious answer to that is to give each firefighter a AK-47. That will blow the bastard's brain out before he could harm anyone. Now what about the fire?

[FenceFurniture]

This (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-27/los-angeles-mayor-backs-calls-for-gun-control/4444744) might be a drop in the ocean, but it's a start. Interesting to see that gun violence has been cut by a third.

[Bushmiller]

This (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-27/los-angeles-mayor-backs-calls-for-gun-control/4444744) might be a drop in the ocean, but it's a start. Interesting to see that gun violence has been cut by a third.

Brett

A move in the right direction. I notice that it has been in place since 2009. It would be interesting to hear how many other states have followed suit. It would also be interesting to see the profile (not a side-on photo) of those returning the weapons. Are they concerned citizens, those that are starving or another group alltogether? I expect they are not collecting this information as it would not be conducive to gun owners coming forward. Also is it an amnesty in that illegal weapons can be submitted without fear of recrimination?

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Hi Paul, these would undoubtedly be the least likely people to use them, BUT it means the guns aren't available to be stolen by the real perps. Anything to get the number of available guns down.

And for anyone thinking that these people no longer have a way of defending themselves - in most cases they'd have to have the gun in their hands, loaded, cocked and ready to fire, and that's pretty unlikely.

[artme]

Seems many in the USA are like kids who refuse to give things up. These people are acting like kids who are refused things for their own good.

In my first post on this subject I spoke of the mentality over there that we need a gun to protect ourselves from the people with guns.There is an obvious stubborness
about shifting from this point of view. This, coupled with all the "right to own " issues is a dangerous and tragic mix.

I think whatever Obama and others try to do will be thwarted by these two attitudes as well as the constant and strident referral to constitutional rights.

A more insidious influence, I feel, is the politicians who think only of themselves. What is good for them is not necessarily good for the nation.

[jimbur]

We've had a great Christmas here but, every time I talked to the grandkids this atrocity kept coming to mind. Families without their kids.

[FenceFurniture]

Yesterday, I came to the realisation that Wayne LaPierre is literally, and absolutely, bullet proof. He can say whatever he likes, and he'll never be assassinated (with a gun anyway), for two profound reasons:
1. The enormous majority of gun owners would be supporters of him, and
2. It would be such an enormous contradiction in terms, and would set the debate back a coupla centuries.

[jimbur]

Yesterday, I came to the realisation that Wayne LaPierre is literally, and absolutely, bullet proof. He can say whatever he likes, and he'll never be assassinated (with a gun anyway), for two profound reasons:
1. The enormous majority of gun owners would be supporters of him, and
2. It would be such an enormous contradiction in terms, and would set the debate back a coupla centuries.
Wonder how fast the response would be if his house caught fire?

[Bushmiller]

A more insidious influence, I feel, is the politicians who think only of themselves. What is good for them is not necessarily good for the nation.

Arthur

Ain't that the truth! The senseless, supercilious, self-serving, sychofantic specimens of a political cesspool. (Dammn..There goes the resolution to be nice. Next year perhaps.)

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Furthermore, Obama is in the same position of being bullet proof. If he were to be assassinated then the argument against guns would receive the boost it needs to be carried out......so it ain't gonna happen.:U

[FenceFurniture]

Arthur

Ain't that the truth! The senseless, supercilious, self-serving, sychofantic specimens of a political cesspool. (Dammn..There goes the resolution to be nice. Next year perhaps.)

Regards
Paul

It's still 2012 for a few days....

[FenceFurniture]

Seems many in the USA are like kids who refuse to give things up. These people are acting like kids who are refused things for their own good. Agreed

In my first post on this subject I spoke of the mentality over there that we need a gun to protect ourselves from the people with guns.There is an obvious stubborness about shifting from this point of view. This, coupled with all the "right to own " issues is a dangerous and tragic mix. Agreed

I think whatever Obama and others try to do will be thwarted by these two attitudes as well as the constant and strident referral to constitutional rights.
Hmmm, not so sure about that Art, I get the feeling that Sandy Hook may have just been one too many to maintain the status quo.

A more insidious influence, I feel, is the politicians who think only of themselves. What is good for them is not necessarily good for the nation.
And the ones who don't are who exactly?:D

I guess we have to wait and see what the reaction is ti whatever Obama and Liden put out. I get the impression that the country is pretty off by now. I hope so anyway.

[Bushmiller]

It's still 2012 for a few days....

Perhaps I should keep going...:D.

Regards
Paul

[jimbur]

Furthermore, Obama is in the same position of being bullet proof. If he were to be assassinated then the argument against guns would receive the boost it needs to be carried out......so it ain't gonna happen.:U
Hang on. Are you actually suggesting rationality in these blokes' thinking?

[FenceFurniture]

Hang on. Are you actually suggesting rationality in these blokes' thinking?

:U Nah mate, but it's so bleedin' obvious that even a nutter could see it.

[jimbur]

:U Nah mate, but it's so bleedin' obvious that even a nutter could see it.
I'm not too sure about that. For years these people have been arguing that citizens with guns are the only bulwark against tyrannical government. Suggest that they might lose some of their 'rights' and they could think that now's the time for all armed men to come to the aid of the republic.
I hope you're right though.

[artme]

Yes, this argument about tyrannical government is most perplexing.

Perhaps they think that thaey are still under the thumb of the Brits??

[devnull]

Well, this has certainly been a lively discussion

I guess I'm in a minority, having hunted most of my life, spent time in the US.... and even served in the military.
Personally, I found the people in the states to be very friendly, and quite patriotic towards their country. (LA isn't particularly nice, but the midwest was lovely)

Shooting sports are very big over there - something that doesn't seem to attract much media coverage. Despite the fact that many of the disciplines are in fact Olympic sports as well...

Seems like the politicians are milking the publicity now... e.g. the mayor of LA. Firearms laws are passed at the state level only, to ensure uniformity across the state (cities/counties cannot enact gun laws, but some do have ammo restrictions). CA has probably the most restrictive laws of any state, but gang crime with guns is among the worst in the country. Of course, if you pointed to demographics being the major factor, you'd be correct. But the whole media debate has been pretty myopic so far - they aren't really including any factors that won't support their own political agenda.

I know that there are many people who think all firearms should be banned, and I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that point. :wink:
But if you can figure out a way to ban crime, you'll get my vote for sure :2tsup:

A friend sent me this, which is a video blog of a teacher who is also a gun enthusiast in the US. He presents an interesting perspective, that I found quite interesting.
Hopefully others will too

Media vs "Gun Culture" - YouTube (http://youtu.be/0G6tcDRMjTo)

Edit... david, you might be interested in these stats as well Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html?utm_source=12-27-12&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+12-27-12&utm_medium=email#ixzz2GJmRiwgs)

[robbygard]

Edit... david, you might be interested in these stats as well Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html?utm_source=12-27-12&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+12-27-12&utm_medium=email#ixzz2GJmRiwgs)thanks for that for the record, i am not against guns but i am in favour of gun control and in responsible gun ownership .... although i don't own a gun, i know several people (including my sister) who own (legal) guns and fit into that categoryat the same time, nothing i have read nor information i have analysed convinces me that the US doesn't have a gun problem ... the fact that other countries also have one doesn't mitigate that for me ... i don't think it is the only problem they have, as a society, and i don't think that gun control alone will solve them, however it frustrates me to see that they will make no effort to solve that part of it ... i don't believe that President Obama will have any success at all .... his opponents (not only on guns) seem to believe that any compromise at all is a weaknessregards david

[jimbur]

It seems that in Utah some teachers are getting ready to carry concealed weapons:
US teachers take up arms after mass shootings - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-28/us-teachers-take-up-arms-after-mass-shootings/4446388)

[devnull]

thanks for that for the record, i am not against guns but i am in favour of gun control and in responsible gun ownership .... although i don't own a gun, i know several people (including my sister) who own (legal) guns and fit into that category at the same time, nothing i have read nor information i have analysed convinces me that the US doesn't have a gun problem ... the fact that other countries also have one doesn't mitigate that for me ... i don't think it is the only problem they have, as a society, and i don't think that gun control alone will solve them, however it frustrates me to see that they will make no effort to solve that part of it ... i don't believe that President Obama will have any success at all .... his opponents (not only on guns) seem to believe that any compromise at all is a weaknessregards david

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for responsible gun ownership, even the vetting of licence holders. But some of the regulations imposed here seem to be a bit bizarre, to say the least.
I think a big part of the issue is that many of those espousing opinions do so from a basis of ignorance. Understandable, since sport shooting is admittedly not for everyone, and many don't wish to take it up as a sport. The media doesn't help, since providing the general public with unbiased information doesn't sell nearly as well as emotive sensationalist articles, and since that's the primary source of information for many people, misconceptions are the end result.

I think life experience also plays a big part in shaping those perceptions. Having used firearms for much of my life, my perceptions will be different to someone who's primary information is obtained from a 3rd party (media).
Just as, given some of the things I saw when I was a paramedic, I'd be more inclined to support a cc rating limitation for vehicles, and/or the fitting of speed governors than people that haven't seen firsthand what speed and alcohol-fuelled stupidity can do. Some may argue that vehicles aren't designed to kill. Technically correct, but they do, and in great numbers.
Even in that case though, is it the vehicle at fault, or the operator? While imposing restrictions on the vehicle MAY reduce road fatalities (debatable), is that the most prudent method, or is concentrating on the operator the best way to achieve the desired result?

BTW, I was surprised to see that wikipedia had a page on gun politics in Australia, with many citations to research articles Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)
Some interesting reading there.

Cheers,
Gordon

[Bushmiller]

I think a big part of the issue is that many of those espousing opinions do so from a basis of ignorance. Understandable, since sport shooting is admittedly not for everyone, and many don't wish to take it up as a sport. The media doesn't help, since providing the general public with unbiased information doesn't sell nearly as well as emotive sensationalist articles, and since that's the primary source of information for many people, misconceptions are the end result.

I think life experience also plays a big part in shaping those perceptions. Having used firearms for much of my life, my perceptions will be different to someone who's primary information is obtained from a 3rd party (media).
Just as, given some of the things I saw when I was a paramedic, I'd be more inclined to support a cc rating limitation for vehicles, and/or the fitting of speed governors than people that haven't seen firsthand what speed and alcohol-fuelled stupidity can do. Some may argue that vehicles aren't designed to kill. Technically correct, but they do, and in great numbers.
Even in that case though, is it the vehicle at fault, or the operator? While imposing restrictions on the vehicle MAY reduce road fatalities (debatable), is that the most prudent method, or is concentrating on the operator the best way to achieve the desired result?

Cheers,
Gordon

Gordon

While I don't neccessarily agree with all your comments, may I compliment you on your calm and considered approach under sustained fire (withering fire at times) :rolleyes: .

As always when judging comment we have to assess whether there are hidden agendas. The media are in many ways the worst culprits and we all know how sensationalism sells newspapers and magazines. In a number of instances their investigation and research is downright sloppy at best and a dereliction of duty at worst.

One apsect that incenses me is the presumptions made by people who have no direct knowledge of what they are talking about. If, for example, you have never fired a gun whether in peacetime or war, you are poorly qualified to make judgements and, as you have pointed out, emotion takes over from reason and the dreaded knee-jerk reaction swings into place.

Policticians are the next group who have their own agendas. Don't get me going there! And lastly we all have our own agendas. If I competed regularly in pistol club competitions I would, I think, be dismayed at calls to ban guns in their entirity.

In the case of the schools massacres we are rightly appalled at the slaughter of innocent children and we naturaly ask ourselves if there are too many guns around. In the US they seem to be dished out without sufficient checks (I know it varys from state to state so there are fifty different versions to start with. Just head over the border if things are too difficult). I think there are too many guns in circulation in the US and many many too many of the totally unjustifiable type.

Here in Australia I think we have a balance that for the majority of the time, with the exception of the Port Arthur incident, has worked well. I hope I never have to eat my words on that statement. In fact Port Arthur did result in a tightening of the gun laws; Not perfect but better.

Whilst I see a very comparable situation with numbers of road deaths and gun related homicides in the US (that is not the same case in Oz), I am reluctant to draw direct comparisons. The fundamental reason for guns and cars are diametrically opposed. Fatalaties on the one hand are primarily accidental while on the other are primarily intentional.

Yes, it is the operator of the gun that is at fault, but that is no consolation to the victim or the families and friends.

One problem in the US (actually I think they have more than one problem but...) is that the horse has bolted and in this case I really don't know how you get it back. Most of those who let the horse out are still holding the gate open and refusing to close it.

Regards
Paul

[robbygard]

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for responsible gun ownership, even the vetting of licence holders.
a few respondents to this thread have shown that they are responsible, i think ... some of my reading of the situation in the US is quite bizarre though (no checks at all on 40% of sales, most states not requiring mandatory reporting of mental illness to the register that is used when checks are done)

But some of the regulations imposed here seem to be a bit bizarre, to say the least.


I think a big part of the issue is that many of those espousing opinions do so from a basis of ignorance. Understandable, since sport shooting is admittedly not for everyone, and many don't wish to take it up as a sport. The media doesn't help, since providing the general public with unbiased information doesn't sell nearly as well as emotive sensationalist articles, and since that's the primary source of information for many people, misconceptions are the end result.

there is also a lot of disinformation on both sides ... much of what i have read in my research falls into that category ... much "cherry picking" and either misinterpretation or sloppy thinking when it comes to interpretation ... i have seen for instance the same event (the port arthur event) been used to justify BOTH sides of the argument ... unrepresentative statistics (some cherry picking here as well) comparing US total to some insignificant village in kazakhstan etc etc ... and comparing tasmanian statistics post port arthur (hey have they heard the term statistically significant?) to argue in favour of gun control

I think life experience also plays a big part in shaping those perceptions. Having used firearms for much of my life, my perceptions will be different to someone who's primary information is obtained from a 3rd party (media).
Just as, given some of the things I saw when I was a paramedic, I'd be more inclined to support a cc rating limitation for vehicles, and/or the fitting of speed governors than people that haven't seen firsthand what speed and alcohol-fuelled stupidity can do. Some may argue that vehicles aren't designed to kill. Technically correct, but they do, and in great numbers.
Even in that case though, is it the vehicle at fault, or the operator? While imposing restrictions on the vehicle MAY reduce road fatalities (debatable), is that the most prudent method, or is concentrating on the operator the best way to achieve the desired result? hmm again we probably both agree and disagree here ... agree that many of these problems are multifaceted but i don't agree that we should necessarily limit our response to a single facet of the problem ... look at the seatbelt saga where a multifaceted approach was arguably most successful (i still come across some people, or one person actually, who regards the introduction of seatbelts and their compulsory use as an infringement of rigths and quotes some anecdotal event where a life was saved because the passenger was NOT wearing a seatbelt)

i think, it is also worth noting, that someone determined to do something illegal will find a way to do it, gun issues or other ... i doubt that gun control would stop an event like the port arthur or the school massacre if a person was really intent on doing ill ... i do think that it makes OUR country a safer place though ... (i add that because in the context of your comment on speed limiting devices and the use and abuse of such in heavy transport)


BTW, I was surprised to see that wikipedia had a page on gun politics in Australia, with many citations to research articles Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)
Some interesting reading there.

yes quite good reading

Cheers,
Gordon


regards david

[A Duke]

Well, this has certainly been a lively discussion

I guess I'm in a minority, having hunted most of my life, spent time in the US.... and even served in the military.
Personally, I found the people in the states to be very friendly, and quite patriotic towards their country. (LA isn't particularly nice, but the midwest was lovely)

Shooting sports are very big over there - something that doesn't seem to attract much media coverage. Despite the fact that many of the disciplines are in fact Olympic sports as well...

Seems like the politicians are milking the publicity now... e.g. the mayor of LA. Firearms laws are passed at the state level only, to ensure uniformity across the state (cities/counties cannot enact gun laws, but some do have ammo restrictions). CA has probably the most restrictive laws of any state, but gang crime with guns is among the worst in the country. Of course, if you pointed to demographics being the major factor, you'd be correct. But the whole media debate has been pretty myopic so far - they aren't really including any factors that won't support their own political agenda.

I know that there are many people who think all firearms should be banned, and I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that point. :wink:
But if you can figure out a way to ban crime, you'll get my vote for sure :2tsup:

A friend sent me this, which is a video blog of a teacher who is also a gun enthusiast in the US. He presents an interesting perspective, that I found quite interesting.
Hopefully others will too

Media vs "Gun Culture" - YouTube (http://youtu.be/0G6tcDRMjTo)

Edit... david, you might be interested in these stats as well Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html?utm_source=12-27-12&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+12-27-12&utm_medium=email#ixzz2GJmRiwgs)What shocks me in that video is his statement that you can not buy an automatic rifle in the US at the moment, not because they are banned but because THE ARE SOLD OUT. That bears out his statment about how many people wanted one and were tossing up whether to buy one or not.

With all the statistics flying about it pays to remember it's "lies, damn lies and statistics"

This might interest some of us
From Our Woodworking Colleagues | Woodworker's Journal - Blog (http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/woodworking_blog/index.php/from-our-woodworking-colleagues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WoodworkersJournal_Blog+%28Woodworker%27s+Journal+-+Blog%29)
Remembering the original post and that we are a woodworking forum.

Regards

[Bushmiller]

BTW, I was surprised to see that wikipedia had a page on gun politics in Australia, with many citations to research articles Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)
Some interesting reading there.

Cheers,
Gordon

I agree.

Some very interesting reading there including gun restrictions in Oz. Also an insight into how statistics may be manipulated to suit the purpose and how "spin" plays such a focal part in today's politics.

Regards
Paul

[Grumpy John]

Can someone tell me why these weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians

AK-47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuc5qxSYjUs

AR-15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWcu-sFRII


Gotta love this.
H&K 91

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0twowKuj0E

UZI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk9exIHn9_g

[FenceFurniture]

Unbelievable.

It's just for kicks, and that's not a valid reason for then having them available to people who want to kill for kicks.

The nine year old child couldn't properly control the gun either (mainly because he doesn't have enough body mass), and that's just bloody stupid on his father's part.

I just don't get it.

[Grumpy John]

I don't get it either FF.
This is not sport, this is not defending your home. This is macho bullshyte at its worst

[Bushmiller]

Well Grumpy. Those videos just about sum it up.

It knocks the theory on the head that the automatics are derated for civilian use, it brings up a petition to vote against a $200 tax presumeaably on guns, it spreads fear that Obama is going to to take away their guns, it shows a nine year old boy firing a gun he can hardly hold up and probably before he can read and write properly (that's my supposition so you should probably discount it) and it shows that there is a firearms chanel.

Like Brett said: Unbelievable!

Regards
Paul

[Grumpy John]

I didn't go looking for these videos in particular Paul, I just typed in assault weapons in the youtube search window and chose a few at random. I had no idea that I'd get an idiot letting a nine year old fire a weapon he couldn't control. This is the mentality we can't understand devnull.

[jimbur]

Well Grumpy. Those videos just about sum it up.

It knocks the theory on the head that the automatics are derated for civilian use, it brings up a petition to vote against a $200 tax presumeaably on guns, it spreads fear that Obama is going to to take away their guns, it shows a nine year old boy firing a gun he can hardly hold up and probably before he can read and write properly (that's my supposition so you should probably discount it) and it shows that there is a firearms chanel.

Like Brett said: Unbelievable!

Regards
Paul
From what I've read they are de-rated but the kits to change them back are legally sold.

[FenceFurniture]

I had no idea that I'd get an idiot letting a nine year old fire a weapon he couldn't control. This is the mentality we can't understand devnull.

And I'd be willing to bet good money that this sort of attitude is rife in the USA. I wonder what that father would think if he lost his child at Sandy Hook (or had had an accident with that STUPID BLOODY GUN!!!!

[devnull]

Can someone tell me why these weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians



Anything that can fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull i.e. full auto or automatic bursts, needs a special licence from the federal govt.
Something that many fail to mention unfortunately.

A couple of years ago, a gun malfunctioned on a range & fired multiple rounds. The owner was successfully prosecuted and sentenced to 30 months.
Things are not quite as loose as youtube would have us believe :wink:
David Olofson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olofson)

[devnull]

I didn't go looking for these videos in particular Paul, I just typed in assault weapons in the youtube search window and chose a few at random. I had no idea that I'd get an idiot letting a nine year old fire a weapon he couldn't control. This is the mentality we can't understand devnull.

I'd agree with you on that one.
I'd never hand a firearm like that to a 9yo either.

Don't know if any of you blokes have had a look at what's involved in owning a full auto weapon over there, so thought I'd add a link
I want a batf class 3? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081007212817AAE78xS)

Not quite as simple as you'd think.

[Bushmiller]

From what I've read they are de-rated but the kits to change them back are legally sold.

Thanks Jim

I suppose it comes to the same thing really. How many people buy a weapon such as these intending to keep it the condition as sold. I would think they buy them knowing they are going to convert them to rapid fire. It would be interesting to see some figures on kits sold relative to these guns.

It's a bit like Harleys. There are all sold with mufflers that make them whisper quiet, but the majority of owners knock out the baffles and they become a raucous motorcycle.

One other thing is that if I was a gun lobby, I would be doing my utmost to keep publicity videos such as Grumpy has shown right under wraps. I guess this is their level of intelligence and arrogance.

Regards
Paul

[Grumpy John]

I'd agree with you on that one.
I'd never hand a firearm like that to a 9yo either.

Don't know if any of you blokes have had a look at what's involved in owning a full auto weapon over there, so thought I'd add a link
I want a batf class 3? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081007212817AAE78xS)

Not quite as simple as you'd think.


I don't care how damn hard it is to own one - people still own them, legally or not. Why the hell would you want to own a weapon like this, please tell me that.

By the way, what sort of weapon would you hand a 9 year old CHILD.

[devnull]

I don't care how damn hard it is to own one - people still own them, legally or not. Why the hell would you want to own a weapon like this, please tell me that.

By the way, what sort of weapon would you hand a 9 year old CHILD.

Cap gun would be a good start :U

Why would you want to own such a weapon? Why do people collect anything? I've known collectors in NZ with much nicer weapons, that had a richer history.
And yes, these were capable of fully automatic fire.

[A Duke]

Cap gun would be a good start :U

Why would you want to own such a weapon? Why do people collect anything? I've known collectors in NZ with much nicer weapons, that had a richer history.
And yes, these were capable of fully automatic fire.The peace niks would still have kittens about a cap gun. When I was 9 we used to make our own catapults, here and now in the ACT you have to have a gun licence because it can fire a projectile. I think the American gun lot will have as much problem getting their head around that as we do with their gun laws.
Trying not to take sides but the loop holes in both sides of the discussion have me :rotfl: at times.
Regards

Translation: catapult = sling shot

[artme]

Unbelievable.

It's just for kicks, and that's not a valid reason for then having them available to people who want to kill for kicks.

The nine year old child couldn't properly control the gun either (mainly because he doesn't have enough body mass), and that's just bloody stupid on his father's part.

I just don't get it.


I don't get it either FF.
This is not sport, this is not defending your home. This is macho bullshyte at its worst

How true!! Trouble is that this mentality seems to have taken hold to some extent with parts of our population too.

[artme]

I don't care how damn hard it is to own one - people still own them, legally or not. Why the hell would you want to own a weapon like this, please tell me that..


Precisely GJ!!!

[Grumpy John]

Ya gotta love this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y88VNIeNSZo

[A Duke]

Hay GJ,
Are you having fun watching all these videos?
That last one raises the hope that the jump in sales is just due to money grabbers thinking they can make an investment and only want to make a financial killing.
Regards

[Grumpy John]

Hay GJ,
Are you having fun watching all these videos?
Not really :no:. They make me feel ill :puke:.

That last one raises the hope that the jump in sales is just due to money grabbers thinking they can make an investment and only want to make a financial killing.
As long as it's only a financial killing.

Regards.

[FenceFurniture]

Those guys are the very definition of "redneck". So many phrases could be quoted, but what stuck out was:

"guns you need to have"
"round out your collection"
"minimum 5 guns required"
"lethality"
"deadly"
"stock up"
"just buy one every two weeks" !!!!!


and one that kept being repeated over and over:

"you can make a profit"

and it's this comment that reveals the problem - who the hell will they be sold to at vastly inflated prices? Background checks would be non-existent, and so the assault weapons problem will remain as it is, with nutters having access to them, one way or another.

Those two fools are advocating that people buy as many weapons or parts as they can so that the black market will have plenty of depth if/when a ban comes in.

[Grumpy John]

:aro-u:
I was thinking the exact same thing myself.

[FenceFurniture]

I'd give you a "like" on those posts Grumpy, except that it would send a very incorrect message out there.:((

[Bushmiller]

"stock up"



The reference to "stock up" was made like it was groceries.

I'll have 2kg of bacon, a dozen eggs, a can of beans and an AK 47 please." :D:rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Grumpy

Ah couldn't help noticin' you becomin' extremely savvy with these here videos :wink:.

It certainly makes the point.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

The reference to "stock up" was made like it was groceries.

.....and an AK 47 please." :D:rolleyes:


"Just the one today sir?"
"Yes, I'm a bit short until next payday"

[AlexS]

As one who used to shoot quite a bit from childhood and in the army, but now no longer does, I have to say I don't know the answers for Australia, and certainly not for the USA. My gut feeling is that we have it about right here - not perfect, but not bad. However, I can understand that some will claim our laws are too weak, while to others they will seem too restrictive.

What I really wanted to comment on, though, is the civility and common sense shown by all sides in this thread, in marked contrast to pretty well any other thread on this topic that I've seen on other forums. These have generally degenerated into slanging matches, with both sides having entrenched positions.

[FenceFurniture]

Indeed Alex, and it's about respect for a reasonable and fair point of view (from any perspective). Look at Ozhunter's post for example - as a gun owner they don't come any more sensible.

I think the laws here are about right - if you need a gun then you can have one or two, and you have to follow what appears to be a very strict bunch of rules for storage, transport etc, as well as near-random inspections.

I guess that the benchmark for having the laws right is whether or not we feel safe walking down the street, without feeling the need to have a concealed weapon.

I have never felt unsafe in 50 odd years of living in Sydney, and a few up here.

[Sturdee]

I think the laws here are about right - if you need a gun then you can have one or two, and you have to follow what appears to be a very strict bunch of rules for storage, transport etc, as well as near-random inspections.



Personally I think our laws are too weak and gun use should be more restricted. I've stated this point of view as others have stated the contrary. Like all debates it's the reader that then can make up their own mind on an informed basis. No need to insult anyone.

Whilst we may influence the laws in our country we will never even make a dint in the one in the US. Also I don't think we will ever understand their cultural aspects on having guns.

We, as a country, had never had to fight a war to gain our independence, we have never had to fight a civil war between the states and we have never had to fight a war against the native populations as the US had to when expending the west.This has deeply influenced their feeling on gun ownership and they managed to enshrine into their constitution their right to own guns.

So the key to gun control in the US is that their constitution needs to be amended. After their last effort (prohibition) I doubt that it would ever succeed.

But how many constitutional changes in Australia have been successful. Neither them nor us trust politicians when they say that they need to take away some of our rights.

Thus I feel that nothing will change and this discussion has run its course.

Peter.

[FenceFurniture]

Personally I think our laws are too weak and gun use should be more restricted.
Certainly not going to bother me if they are tightened.

We, as a country, had never had to fight a war to gain our independence, we have never had to fight a civil war between the states and we have never had to fight a war against the native populations as the US had to when expending the west.This has deeply influenced their feeling on gun ownership and they managed to enshrine into their constitution their right to own guns.
A good observation Peter

But how many constitutional changes in Australia have been successful.
6 out of 44 carried. See here (http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/Referendum_Dates_and_Results.htm)


..

[Grumpy John]

..............................................

Thus I feel that nothing will change and this discussion has run its course.

Peter.

On the contrary Peter, as long as the debate remains civil I think that this topic can be explored further. Of course nothing stated here will make one iota of difference in the U.S. I think we are getting a general feel of attitudes toward gun ownership in Australia.

[artme]

Personally I think our laws are too weak and gun use should be more restricted. I've stated this point of view as others have stated the contrary. Like all debates it's the reader that then can make up their own mind on an informed basis. No need to insult anyone.

Whilst we may influence the laws in our country we will never even make a dint in the one in the US. Also I don't think we will ever understand their cultural aspects on having guns.

We, as a country, had never had to fight a war to gain our independence, we have never had to fight a civil war between the states and we have never had to fight a war against the native populations as the US had to when expending the west.This has deeply influenced their feeling on gun ownership and they managed to enshrine into their constitution their right to own guns.

So the key to gun control in the US is that their constitution needs to be amended. After their last effort (prohibition) I doubt that it would ever succeed.

But how many constitutional changes in Australia have been successful. Neither them nor us trust politicians when they say that they need to take away some of our rights.

Thus I feel that nothing will change and this discussion has run its course. Peter.

Your comments ( Emphasis by me ) Will provide fruitful discussion in another thread, methinks.

I gree though, that this subject has probably run its course.

BTW I think you mean expanding westward.

The only things that were expended in that period were Indians and bison. A shameful episode in American history.

[ozhunter]

I don't care how damn hard it is to own one - people still own them, legally or not. Why the hell would you want to own a weapon like this, please tell me that.

By the way, what sort of weapon would you hand a 9 year old CHILD.

I was using firearms from about 5yo under Dad's supervision and both my kids used firearms well before they where 9.


Those guys are the very definition of "redneck". So many phrases could be quoted, but what stuck out was:"round out your collection"

I wish I had the finances to round out my collection. Collecting firearms (by a normal everyday Joe) is no different to collecting anything as far as I'm concerned, except for the obvious. I have a couple of collectable firarms, and will get more as finances allow. They will make my kids happy one day when they sell them (which is part of why I have them)


Those two fools are advocating that people buy as many weapons or parts as they can so that the black market will have plenty of depth if/when a ban comes in.

There is already a healthy black market, both here and there. I don't deal in it, but I'm certain the new firearms laws that where envoked in oz had no effect on our black market.


As one who used to shoot quite a bit from childhood and in the army, but now no longer does, I have to say I don't know the answers for Australia, and certainly not for the USA. My gut feeling is that we have it about right here - not perfect, but not bad. However, I can understand that some will claim our laws are too weak, while to others they will seem too restrictive.

What I really wanted to comment on, though, is the civility and common sense shown by all sides in this thread, in marked contrast to pretty well any other thread on this topic that I've seen on other forums. These have generally degenerated into slanging matches, with both sides having entrenched positions.

As a firearms owner and user, I think our laws are about right. It is pretty difficult to almost impossible to get a legal firearm or licence if you have a shady past. It is impossible to buy a legal firearm, through legal chanels if you don't have the correct licences and paperwork.

I see no need to restrict civillian ownership further, especially for the "just in case" reason that has been floated in this thread. You may as well stop people having knives of any sort, cars, alcohol etc. All of these things can be used to kill if a previously sane individual "snaps". And before I get jumped on, a knife is far more deadly in the hands of an individual who has no training, than a firearm in the hands of an individual with no training. Look up law enforcement practice on dealing with offenders armed with an edged weapon.

I doubt it would have any significant effect on our crime rates either. If a crook wants to use a firearm, he'll get one, regardless of the laws. I have spoken at length and dealt with individuals who have done this,for many years, and the law means nothing to them (unless, as previously stated, there are much more severe penalties her for doing so). No law means anything to them, most of them where what I would class as sane people, but none of them have any regard for any laws except the "code of the crook"

I wonder how many crooks took advantage of the multiple buy backs we have had to disposed of their illegal weapons. I would suggest not many.

I agree Alex, it has been quite civil. I normally don't take part in such discussions, because it nearly always ends with "them" and "us" at 50 paces and gets no where and normal folk get very worked up, on both sides.

What happened at Sandy Hook is terrible. The only good thing about it is the offender is no longer stealing oxygen.

[corbs]

...The only good thing about it is the offender is no longer stealing oxygen.

It's just a pity he didn't start with himself rather than finish :((

[A Duke]

It's just a pity he didn't start with himself rather than finish :((

Although we would not have known what a favour he had done the world.
Regards

[corbs]

Although we would not have known what a favour he had done the world.
Regards

I'd be happy not knowing if it meant all those kids and teachers could live their lives oblivious to what could have transpired.

[Bushmiller]

We, as a country, had never had to fight a war to gain our independence, we have never had to fight a civil war between the states and we have never had to fight a war against the native populations as the US had to when expending the west.This has deeply influenced their feeling on gun ownership and they managed to enshrine into their constitution their right to own guns.



I certainly don't recall any civil war in Oz, but the native population was subdued by the guns of those pommie bastards (and others) in a most extreme fashion. It may not be obvious that this was a war as no declaration occured and it was called "Settlement." Possibly the biggest euphemism I can conjure up in my limited brain. It was an invasion and a conquest similar to the conquistadors in South America.

I think to talk about events of 150 years ago and citing it as the reason for American gun worship culture is granting them mitigating circumstances to which they have no right.

Simply, they need to grow up.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Those comments are bang on Paul. It was Terra nullius (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=terra+nullius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a) - no need for a declaration of war. All you need then is a bit of genocide.

Sure am glad they didn't have automatic weapons to use while it was still open season.

[artme]

Paul and FF - My thoughts exactly!

As I said in my last post, this is fertile ground for another thread.

[Bushmiller]

Paul and FF - My thoughts exactly!

As I said in my last post, this is fertile ground for another thread.

Apologies Arthur

When I read your post I thought you were alluding to that. "Settlement" being one of my hobby horses, I got carried away on a tide of emotion and forgot to acknowledge your comment.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Paul and FF - My thoughts exactly!

As I said in my last post, this is fertile ground for another thread.

Off you go then Art, set up a suitable theme.

[Bushmiller]

Sure am glad they didn't have automatic weapons to use while it was still open season.

Brett

The effective difference between modern conventional guns and automatic weapons is probably similar to the disparity between the guns of the early 19th century and the weapons of the aborigines.

Enough on that. Material for another thread and another time :rolleyes:.

Regards
Paul

[Grumpy John]

Adam (ozhunter) and Gordon (devnull), your points seem to be aimed Australian gun owners and Australian gun laws, where we seem to have things pretty much under control. The same cannot be said for America, where the Government appears to be powerless against the NRA to enact any type of gun reform.

I'm sorry guys I can't see why you're defending the rights of these idiots, surely you can see that they have a huge problem in America. Please don't tell me that you think that their gun laws don't need amending. Sure, you can't completely eradicate a black market in illegal weapons, but that doesn't mean you can't at least try and make it extremely difficult for people to obtain them.

[Sturdee]

We, as a country, had never had to fight a war to gain our independence, we have never had to fight a civil war between the states and we have never had to fight a war against the native populations as the US had to when expending the west.



My comments were not meant to start going of on a tangent about the settlement of our country but rather to point out the fundamental cultural differences between us that has guided their thinking.

The settling of the west was mainly by small groups of settlers setting out to obtain " Lebensraum" for themselves and armed with their rifles to protect themselves and becoming the series of Indian wars.

The other reason why we can't understand their gun culture is their different political structure of states and federal government compared to ours.

Whilst their states may make laws regulating sale and carrying of guns they cannot stop the citizens bearing arms as it's guaranteed by their federal constitution. Hence the only way is by way of constitutional reform.

After the constitutional reforms bringing about prohibition, when voters thought they were abolishing hard liquor, not wine and beer, but they were lied to by the government who instead banned all alcoholic drinks, this seems very unlikely.

The only thing we can be thankful for is that the gun lobby is not yet advocating that the right to bear arms could include having hand held bazookas and missiles to complete their arsenals.

Peter.

BTW Artme it's a bit rich becoming a spelling nazi when you keep on failing to use the letter "f" instead of the "ph" in your posts. A bit like the pot calling the kettle black or people that live in glass houses etc.

[jimbur]

Thinking about it, change can happen. I know it's not the same but I never imagined that I would see smoke-free pubs and restaurants.
Let's hope for a year without children taking the brunt of senseless violence.

[A Duke]

Thinking about it, change can happen. I know it's not the same but I never imagined that I would see smoke-free pubs and restaurants.
Let's hope for a year without children taking the brunt of senseless violence.Yes all those stropy types who used to get up me for being a non smoker in the 1960s, being told "#### off outside with those things", and them doing it. Unbelievable.
Regards and all of the best for the new year

[artme]

Sturdee,

I must apologise publicly for offending you.

It was not something I intended at all.

Kind regards, artme.

Am sending a PM.

[Sturdee]

Sturdee,

I must apologise publicly for offending you.

It was not something I intended at all.

Kind regards, artme.

Am sending a PM.

Thanks Artme, it did seem so much out of character. Everything is okay, I was more concerned about the thread going of in a tangent.

Been reading up on the history of the right to bear arms. It arose from the ancient right and duty of the knights and freeman in the 1100's in England as the king couldn't afford to pay for a standing army.

Charles II tried to take this away and then was restored by parliament and subsequently incorporated in the US Bill of Rights by the founding fathers who had recent memories of this act.

Because it's in their constitution there is this stumbling block for moving to a better society free of the terror of loonies shooting everyone.

In Australia this right came to us by common law and was subsequently removed/regulated by statute law.

Peter.

[artme]

At the risk of going tangential this idea of of a republic and its constitutionally derived laws vs a democracy such as ours where the laws are derived from the parliament, is a most interesting one.

To our friends in the USA the constitution appears sacrosanct and one dare not try to interfere with it.

[jimbur]

At the risk of going tangential this idea of of a republic and its constitutionally derived laws vs a democracy such as ours where the laws are derived from the parliament, is a most interesting one.

To our friends in the USA the constitution appears sacrosanct and one dare not try to interfere with it.
Not really true of course. Enough amendments to it have been made to show that it is a work in progress not set in stone. For most of us the most famous example was the eighteenth which was later repealed by the twenty-first. (prohibition).
ps. to be fair to Artme, the major proponents do act as if it is sacrosanct.:)