Virginia Tech

[Rocker]

I was saddened to hear the news of the terrible massacre at Virginia Tech. in the US. But the news that was really infuriating was that the College had wanted to ban weapons from its campus, but had not been allowed to do so by the State government, no doubt as a result of lobbying by the NRA.

The American attitude towards the regulation of firearms is just breath-taking in its stupidity. So another 22 people have died, just in order to preserve citizens' Second Amendment rights.

Rocker

[dazzler]

And theyll run that old line;

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people." :rolleyes:

[Cliff Rogers]

Last I heard it was 30 or 31 dead & 15 wounded.

Terrorists, just the same but different. :(

[Big Shed]

Just read in one of the o/seas papers that the number of victims has risen to 33!

Agree with your sentiments.

[dazzler]

And I bet it will turn out to be some nice kid with no prior criminal history who was struggling with his grades and the pressure of performing and just snapped. :(

[Andy Mac]

I agree too, horrendous and evil act, and my heart goes out to the families affected.
But how does a ban by that particular college control people carrying concealed weapons onto campus, when that is quite legal in the state? Everyone frisked or x-rayed?? Certainly wouldn't work on an honour basis, esp. if the perpetrator has intent to kill.
The problem is nation-wide, and given their insistence on personal freedoms, nothing will change. They (and us outside observors) simply have to accept the inevitable costs, that is 32,000 US citzens a year killed by fire arms...so I just heard on a Radio National interview...with no idea of the numbers maimed.
There is speculation about the weapon/s involved in this incident, but even if a paramilitary firearm was used and in the unlikely event these become banned, similar damage could be inflicted with a pair of concealable automatic pistols. I doubt whether the US people will accept a total ban on weapons in the same meek way Australians have...outlaw motorcycle gangs excepted.

Regards,

[silentC]

Heard on the news this morning that the police had attended a shooting a couple of hours earlier but were uncertain now if the two were connected. They're being criticised for not shutting the school down after the first shooting.

According to the SMH, the shooter was "looking for his girlfriend".

[jmk89]

And theyll run that old line;

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people." :rolleyes:

I must say, the Second Amendment has created a somewhat strange view of what is 'normal' behaviour in relation to guns. This view also shows up in the much higher incidence of 'friendly fire' incidents involving US troops (to the extent that many nations' armed forces prefer to stay away from US troops because of the ir tendancy to shoot first and then think.

So amybe the line should be "Guns don't kill people, but Yanks with guns do every hour of every day".

[silentC]

They haven't topped Martin Bryant's effort yet...

[Honorary Bloke]

A sad event, to be sure. My SIL is a VT graduate and I have been on the campus several times. The early criticism is directed at the police, but there are 26,000 students at VT, so it is a small city. One cannot shut it down like an office building.

This will raise again, I am sure, the debate over gun control. But the pro-gun lobby is very strong and nothing will come of it, I suspect. :(

[Rocker]

I agree too, horrendous and evil act, and my heart goes out to the families affected.
But how does a ban by that particular college control people carrying concealed weapons onto campus, when that is quite legal in the state? Everyone frisked or x-rayed?? Certainly wouldn't work on an honour basis, esp. if the perpetrator has intent to kill.
The problem is nation-wide, and given their insistence on personal freedoms, nothing will change. They (and us outside observors) simply have to accept the inevitable costs, that is 32,000 US citzens a year killed by fire arms...so I just heard on a Radio National interview...with no idea of the numbers maimed.
There is speculation about the weapon/s involved in this incident, but even if a paramilitary firearm was used and in the unlikely event these become banned, similar damage could be inflicted with a pair of concealable automatic pistols. I doubt whether the US people will accept a total ban on weapons in the same meek way Australians have...outlaw motorcycle gangs excepted.

Regards,

Andy,

While I agree with your argument that a campus ban on weapons would probably not have prevented this particular incident, the refusal to allow the ban is symptomatic of the prevalent community attitude about where it is appropriate for firearms to be allowed. I wonder if the state would also prevent a church from banning its congregation from bringing weapons into the building. Even if this incident would not have been prevented, it is likely that a general ban on weapons on a campus might help to prevent some deaths by making it less likely that a mentally unbalanced student would have ready access to a firearm when overcome by suicidal depression.

It seems to be an intractible problem that will require the shedding of much more blood before the community comes to feel that enough is enough.

Rocker

[martrix]

todays fun facts:

Did you know that the NRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association)was formed in 1871 in New York, the same year that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871)was introduced which virtually destroyed the clan.........chew on that one!




More than 50 troops were killed in Iraq today........

[joe greiner]

First, in a news conference on CNN about an hour ago, the campus chief of
police stated that weapons are, in fact, forbidden on the campus.

Second, there seems to be some ambiguity about the timing of the warnings. In the news conference the president of the university stated that the full broadcast was deferred until the situation of the first shooting was better defined. But, a student, one Lesley Gerrard of Queensland, reports that she received an e-mail shortly after the first shooting:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21570779-1702,00.html

Some time is needed for this situation to be clarified before we declare the "facts."

Joe

[RETIRED]

Some time is needed for this situation to be clarified before we declare the "facts."

JoeI agree.

[joe greiner]

I've been following this development with heightened interest. I took my BSCE and MSCE at VPI, and taught structural engineering in Norris Hall during my graduate studies ("teaching assistant", but was given full charge of the course.) CNN also showed a cell phone video captured by Jamal Bargouti (sp?), a civil engineering student. It appears to show the SW corner of Norris Hall, and taken from slightly NW of Burruss Hall. NOT YET A FACT: It looks like one of the classrooms of the carnage is next to my old office.

Joe

[Wongo]

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people."

So why do they use a gun?

[Matt88s]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> "Guns dont kill people, people kill people." </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Wongo
So why do they use a gun?To carry out their wish to harm or kill someone else.

Perhaps the question we should be asking here is why we have such an abundance of people in the younger generation willing to use guns in such a fashion as this. Why are they so full of hate that they will take guns into schools and marketplaces and gun down people they don't even know?

I grew up in the country. We had guns the in the house and I still do, they were/they are tools, nothing more and nothing less. They were taken out when they were needed and put up when they were done. There was never any urge for any of us to take them to school and go on a rampage, things like that never crossed our minds.

Where is it that we have failed with this generation that they have such an affinity for gunning down their classmates? What is wrong with society that we're turning out such messed up and disturbed kids?

A lot would be the answer, and until we change it, this kind of problem is not going to change. You can ban guns but there will still be guns to be had. If they don't have guns they will use other things, bombs, knifes, clubs, rocks, where there is a will there is a way, people have been killing each other all throughout history long before guns were around.

Weapons were banned on the campus, not that that stopped anything. He used a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol, nothing out of the ordinary.

Very sad, very disturbing, my heartfelt condolences to all evolved.

[coastie]

Still got 35 to beat came close though!!:no:

[zenwood]

They (and us outside observors) simply have to accept the inevitable costs, that is 32,000 US citzens a year killed by fire arms.
That's a very disturbing total. I wonder what it is in other countries. It amounts to more than 10 times the fatalities of the 9/11 attacks, or one 9/11 attack about every 5 weeks. Perhaps the US citizenry would be more secure if the government declared a "War on Guns" instead of a "War on Terror".

[Big Shed]

That is an incredible number, if correct.

Not only puts 9/11(I hate that term!) in the shade, but also the number of people killed in Iraq.
Someone made the point on ABC Radio that if this number of people had been blown up by a bomb in Iraq it would hardly have rated a mention on the news.

Go figure.

[glock40sw]

just Stop and think for a moment.
If the College allowed CCW and one of the students HAD a Firearm legally.
Then the outcome could have been very very different with the criminal shooter being the one taken away in a body bag.
The same outcome could have also happened at Port Authur.
But. NO.

The powers that be have bred a Sheeple state where everyone expects the government, police, army, etc etc to care for them. And so take away the firearms from the very people that can stop this sort of thing from happening.

Please get off the " tighter gun laws" bandwagon.
It will do nothing to prevent this sort of situation from happening again.

[Andy Mac]

Trever,
I tend to agree that total firearm control (if such a thing is possible) wouldn't stop massacres from happening. As still happens in Australia and the UK, criminals can and will get hold of guns. I guess its the ease with which they can be obtained in the US, and the vast numbers in circulation that make acts like this more likely there. I don't want to get into discussion about the Bryant thing either.
As Matt says the real worry is why do people feel they have to, or can, act in such a barbaric and senseless fashion? A symptom of something unbalanced, but is it the person or society, for want of a better word?

I gotta go, regards,

[martrix]

That's a very disturbing total. I wonder what it is in other countries. It amounts to more than 10 times the fatalities of the 9/11 attacks, or one 9/11 attack about every 5 weeks. Perhaps the US citizenry would be more secure if the government declared a "War on Guns" instead of a "War on Terror".


That is an incredible number, if correct.

Not only puts 9/11(I hate that term!) in the shade, but also the number of people killed in Iraq.
Someone made the point on ABC Radio that if this number of people had been blown up by a bomb in Iraq it would hardly have rated a mention on the news.

Go figure.

yep, those figure are pretty much on the money.

Go and hire "Bowling for Columbine" and "OutFoxed" and you will see the firearm related death stats compared with other countries and why & how Americans are constantly stirred into a state of fear by the media.

Its a great business strategy.:wink:

[Shedhand]

Approximately 200 million guns in the hands of private citizens in the U.S. Add to that total, the unknown number of other assorted high power weaponry held in the armories of the various arms of the defence forces. If guns don't kill people why the hell do they need so many? :no:

[ernknot]

We the innocent shooter cop all the flak. Why dosen't the government or other departments root out the nutters. I have been a sporting shooter for a looooooooooooooooooooooog time and i get absolutley peeeeeed of with this news beat up of a awful bloody tragedy, my heart goes out to those who are suffering. I will say no more because all of the social arguements are a bunch of crap. Oops, forgot, ban cars, they kill more people than guns as does fast food, alchohol, and other stuff blah blah etc.

[Shedhand]

We the innocent shooter cop all the flak. Why dosen't the government or other departments root out the nutters. I have been a sporting shooter for a looooooooooooooooooooooog time and i get absolutley peeeeeed of with this news beat up of a awful bloody tragedy, my heart goes out to those who are suffering. I will say no more because all of the social arguments are a bunch of crap. Oops, forgot, ban cars, they kill more people than guns as does fast food, alchohol, and other stuff blah blah etc.Steady on there Ern. You'll pop a vital vessel. No-one seriously suggests sporting shooters should be deprived of the primary means of pursuing their chosen sport or farmers from an effective means of vermin control. What people are saying is that there are too many guns too easily available in the USA. All kinds of loonies can get hold of them without a license or a back-ground check. The NRA has been very influential in watering down any safety mechanisms designed to make it harder for the general public to own a weapon for reasons other than sport/competition. For example if you go to one of the many gun shows in most states of the USA, there are two main categories of sellers in the market. One is the professional retailer. To buy a legal weapon from a licensed retailer, you must endure a waiting period and undergo a background check and the weapon must be licensed in the hands of the buyer. The other type of seller is euphemistically referred to as a 'collector'. These so-called 'collectors' can sell weapons (of any kind) to any one without a waiting period or background check and usually for cash, which makes the weapon untraceable.
IMHO the gun laws in this country are about right.

[martrix]

short excerpt from Bowling from columbine (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wFMKp3pcz44)

[Harry72]

And I bet it will turn out to be some nice kid with no prior criminal history who was struggling with his grades and the pressure of performing and just snapped. :(
Whats the bet... blame video game's and music as a scape goat.

[dazzler]

just Stop and think for a moment.
If the College allowed CCW and one of the students HAD a Firearm legally.
Then the outcome could have been very very different with the criminal shooter being the one taken away in a body bag.


I agree. Guns for everyone. Free with each kids happy meal :2tsup:

[Schtoo]

Wonderful... :((

Another lunatic strikes again, I am sorry for all those affected by yet another tragedy that shouldn't have happened.

But, here's an interesting one for those who sincerely believe that complete gun control/elimination from the general population will stop people being shot dead.

The Mayor of Nagasaki city was shot today outside a train station. He didn't die, but I think he was lucky to survive.

In a country where guns are essentially verboten for everyone, how the heck could this happen? :?

[silentC]

From SMH:


Authorities found a receipt for a Glock 9 millimetre handgun, bought on March 13, in Cho's backpack, which also contained two knives and a cache of bullets, ABC reported.

He bought his second weapon, a .22 caliber pistol, within the last week, ABC reported.

[dazzler]

Thats strange schtoo. Was it an organised crime issue/payback or another lunatic. :?

There are always two camps in these debates. One side waaaay to the left, the other waaaaaaaaay to the right.

The right think its there god given right to carry assault weapons and blast any native animal into oblivion, the left think its there mission in life to control everyone.

Our gun laws are pretty fair I reckon.

If you are a farmer and need a gun you can have one, or two or three whatever. Just register them, get a licence and secure them appropriately.

If you are a sporting shooter you can have one (similar guidelines to farmers security)

If you want to have a pistol/revolver etc you can join a pistol shooting club. Again you can have one.

If you are a security guard with the requirement and a licence then you can have one.

If you are mentally ill, prone to violence or criminally recorded then we really dont want you to have one. Fair enough i reckon.

Yes people can kill with knives, bombs, cars, rope ---- let the imagination run wild. But the thing about guns is they decimate people real quickly with very little ability to stop the killing and it also takes away the personal side of the killing. Actually driving a knife into multiple people is difficult both physically and mentally. Pulling a trigger is more remote.

FIL tells a story of his travels in the US. He was in a dept store in the gun section and was looking at a big revolver and asked the employee what he had to do to buy it. "Just put it in your trolley" was the answer.:rolleyes:

Perhaps my view is somewhat distorted by the fact that I have been to a number of shootings and I can say they look nothing like on CSI Miami. Wee bit more bodily destruction.:(

[Rocker]

To show how lax the gun laws are there, the gunman was not even an American citizen; he was Chinese student, and had only been in the country about a year. What possible legitimate reason could he have had for owning two handguns?

Rocker

[silentC]

Not quite, according to Wikipedia:


Cho was born in South Korea and emigrated to the United States with his parents in September 1992 at the age of eight. He was a South Korean national and a permanent legal resident of the United States

But still...

[zenwood]

just Stop and think for a moment.
If the College allowed CCW and one of the students HAD a Firearm legally.
Then the outcome could have been very very different with the criminal shooter being the one taken away in a body bag...
Then Mr Cho's friend, after seeing Mr Cho shot down by our hero with the legal firearm, in turn shoots our hero dead with his own legal firearm. Shooter after shooter joins the fray . . . the police arrive and start shooting anyone they see using a weapon. The students react to defend themselves, and all take out their legal firearms . . .

Guns for all could indeed yield a different outcome.

[glock40sw]

Then Mr Cho's friend, after seeing Mr Cho shot down by our hero with the legal firearm, in turn shoots our hero dead with his own legal firearm. Shooter after shooter joins the fray . . . the police arrive and start shooting anyone they see using a weapon. The students react to defend themselves, and all take out their legal firearms . . .

Guns for all could indeed yield a different outcome.

G'day.

CCW permits are not easy to get. the applicant has to go through extensive training courses and the like prior to obtaining the CCW permit.
This training includes sections dealing with legalities of firearms use for protection.
It is NOT a case of everyone has one and just blasts away.

If a CCW permit holder has used the firearm, there are set procedures for actions after the fact ( being confronted by law enforcement officers). Firearm secured and the police made aware that the person has a CCW permit and has a firearm on their person.

So, do a bit of research of the subject, it is rather enlightening.

[Rocker]

Not quite, according to Wikipedia:



But still...

Hmm, it seems our media are giving us inaccurate facts.

Rocker

[Big Shed]

Hmm, it seems our media are giving us inaccurate facts.

Rocker

Now there's a surprise:rolleyes:

[Brown Dog]

Steady on there Ern. You'll pop a vital vessel. No-one seriously suggests sporting shooters should be deprived of the primary means of pursuing their chosen sport or farmers from an effective means of vermin control. What people are saying is that there are too many guns too easily available in the USA. All kinds of loonies can get hold of them without a license or a back-ground check. The NRA has been very influential in watering down any safety mechanisms designed to make it harder for the general public to own a weapon for reasons other than sport/competition. For example if you go to one of the many gun shows in most states of the USA, there are two main categories of sellers in the market. One is the professional retailer. To buy a legal weapon from a licensed retailer, you must endure a waiting period and undergo a background check and the weapon must be licensed in the hands of the buyer. The other type of seller is euphemistically referred to as a 'collector'. These so-called 'collectors' can sell weapons (of any kind) to any one without a waiting period or background check and usually for cash, which makes the weapon untraceable.
IMHO the gun laws in this country are about right.

Sorry shedhand... I can name at least one person who has had a very good whack a trying to deprive "sporting shooters" of their sport....Mr John Howard.
If the new laws are not designed to discourage new shooters from taking up the sport, why is it illegal for a cop friend of mine who is licenced to carry a side arm in public to come to the range and under supervision of qualified range safety officers try out my single shot target rifle ???

Also if our new gun laws are so perfect why did it cost $500million to buy 22 semi auto rifles back off farmers and law abiding shooters.

Just to point out how ineffective the buy back was...consider that there was something like 200,000 (approx) now prohibited guns handed in in NSW which was only 7% of the semi auto/pump action shotguns and rifles imported into this country. Not to mention the less official figures of container loads of AK-47's (modified for semi auto only) that used to be sold for a $100 with a crate of ammo. (this may not be true, but I have heard this story from more than one older shooter...including my old man). The story is there were more of these imported into Australia than there was total guns handed in during the buy back.

Statistics show the buyback has had little effect on gun crime in this country.

I find it interesting that "gun control" is touted as the solution to preventing these kind of massacres. Dont get me wrong I think Americans have got a serious problem with their "gun culture". Though, I think that has a lot to do with large companies making a lot of money. Im all for "background checks" and cooling off periods but our laws went too far.

For example...because of a bureacratic stuff up, |I was sent a letter informing me that the Firearms registry had become aware that I was in posession of an unregistered firearm, and if I didnt rectify this situation immediately I could be charged and possibly sentanced to 14 years and a $20,000 fine. They had "become aware" of this because I had sent in my correctly filled out permit to purchase...about 12 months earlier. But because the gun was purchased in ACT which at the time didnt have registration...they considered the gun to be illegal....I have heard much worse storries than this too...how does this do anything to prevent crims or nutters using a gun to hurt or kill ????

Just tightening gun laws has proven to have little effect.

I cant help but think that if our government poured that 500million plus what ever it costs to maintan the bureacratic nightmare the they have created, into the health care system and in particular the mental health system....it might better serve to head of some of these kind of tragedys
but that is IMHO.

cheers
BD:2tsup:

[zenwood]

do a bit of research of the subject, it is rather enlightening.
Thanks for those details Glock. I assumed you were advocating even more prevalent gun ownership. Is that right? Or are you advocating stricter controls -- ?

[zenwood]

Not only puts 9/11(I hate that term!) in the shade, but also the number of people killed in Iraq.Actually it doesn't put the number of people killed in Iraq in the shade. The latest rates of death according iraqbodycount.org is equivalent to one 9/11 attack in Iraq every 6 weeks (that was before the latest 'surge'). So the death rate in Iraq due to the invasion, sectarian violence, etc. --- described sometimes as 'civil war' --- is about the same as the death rate in the United States due to guns. Amazing.

[dazzler]

Yep

Very Stringent:2tsup:

http://www.ccwusa.com/site/index.php?&MMN_position=1:1


LEGALLY CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM IN OVER 30 STATES!


<table class="page" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Retired Seniors
Personal Protection
Multi-State Travelers
Law Abiding Residents
Private Investigators*
Bail Enforcement Agents*
Professional Bodyguards*
</td></tr></tbody></table>

:rolleyes:

[silentC]

What he's arguing for is that the college should allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry guns on the campus. At the moment they are required to leave them in their cars. So if there happened to be such a person in the classroom, they could have taken matters into their own hands.

If you ask me, the whole gun control situation in the states is complicated and confusing. Each state has it's own laws. In Virginia, anybody is permitted to carry a gun, so long as it is not concealed. If they wish to conceal it, they must have a concealed handgun permit. I think I have that right, as I say it's complex and confusing.

[dazzler]

Hi browndog,

What is it that sporting shooters have been deprived of and if i wanted to join what can i use now?

not having as windup, just wondering?

cheers

[zenwood]

What he's arguing for is that the college should allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry guns on the campus.
If that's the case then I stand by the logic that my scenario tries to illustrate.

[zenwood]

Statistics show the buyback has had little effect on gun crime in this country.
Today's Editorial in The Australian disagrees:


Under a gun buyback scheme, about 600,000 guns were surrendered at a cost of $500 million. Research by the Australian Institute of Criminology has shown this to be money well invested. Rates of homocide and armed robbery have fallen ...
see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21574756-7583,00.html

[Brown Dog]

Hi browndog,

What is it that sporting shooters have been deprived of and if i wanted to join what can i use now?

not having as windup, just wondering?

cheers
hi Dazzler

I can only speek from the exerience of being a longarms owner in NSW ...not pistol...thats a whole different kettle of fish.

A normal sporting shooter would have a Cat A or B license. Cat A is restricted to rimfire, Cat B is centrefire. I cant remember wich Cat. shotguns come under.

The the guns now banned are semi auto's (rifles and shot guns) and pump action shot guns(you can still buy pump action centerfire). I dont have any particular desire to own any of these types of guns...but I cant see how they are any more dangerous than a bolt action centerfire rifle.

Some say that semi auto shotguns were prefered by clay target shooters with a smaller build (ie female shooters) due too the action reducing some of the recoil. Some people were made to give up priceless family heirlooms for a few hunred dollars. I find it ridiculus that I cant invite a mate who may be interested in trying out shooting as sport to the range to have a shot with one of my rifles before he has to go through the hassel of obtaining a license. I only shoot target at the momment and dont have access to a property that I can shoot on...so I couldnt break the law and let my mate have a shot.

It could be argued that the new laws havent really deprived sporting shooters of much...we can still own as many rifles as we want (as long as you can demonstrate that you have a genuine need for that particular gun).And thanks to the efforts of oranisations like the SSAA and the Sporting shooter Party of NSW shooting sports have manged to secure grants for new ranges and such.


I can see from a non shooters point of view how it could appear that shooters are winging about nothing...however new laws have given all sorts of grief to shooters who have done nothing wrong except tried to follow the new laws....
One example . If you use membership of gun clubs as your genuine reason to own a gun and you shoot at a couple of different clubs...the clubs have to report any members who dont fulfill their attendace requirements... So a member who may only shoot at one club once a year but has fullfilled the required attendance at another club gets reported....and the Firearms register in some cases has actually confiscated guns of people who have done nothing wrong. This is now only just being rectified (I got a letter from the register last week) 10 years after the Act was brought in.

My point is these laws have done nothing to effect the use of illegal guns already in the community. But because of the bureaucratic nonsense that goes with participating in shooting sports these days they have done a good job of discouraging some people from trying out a sport that statisically is safer than a lot of others.

My other point would be, that every time something like this very sad event happens it seems some people automatically push gun control as the solution. IMHO some control is obviously needed, but in this country anyway, it is misdirected to a certain extent.

cheers
BD:2tsup:

[glock40sw]

Thanks for those details Glock. I assumed you were advocating even more prevalent gun ownership. Is that right? Or are you advocating stricter controls -- ?

G'day.
What I'm suggesting is that a holder of A CCW permit should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person.

As for Austrailan gun laws, CCW is not available. Not even to off duty police.

I am against stricter gun control measures as they do nothing to prevent illegal firearms use. Gunlaws are a political measure to give the Sheeple a "feel good" that their elected masters are doing something for the common good. If the government was serious about firearm crime, they would be carrying out dawn raids on known drug dealers etc, etc.

Instead, they target licenced firearms owners because we are easy marks, and they don't have to pay overtime to the police that would otherwise be out on the street who are carrying out the said dawn raids.

So, Is Australia a safer place since the 1996 buyback?
Look in the local rag. Even police will not go into some suburbs of Sydney due to ethnic violence against them.

The perpertrators of this violence may not be using firearms, but a thrown rock or beer bottle can kill just as good as a bullet. Afterall, no matter how someone is killed they are still dead.

For Gun Control Australia to use this tragedy to again push their illogical barrow is lower than a snakes guts. It goes to show that they have little or no compassion for the victims or the families of the victims.

GCA blurt forth false information at the drop of a hat and the mainstream media soak it up like a sponge. They couldn't give a rat's arze about verifying the info. Besides, sensationalist propaganda from GCA sells papers.

As the saying goes... "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". This seems to be the catch cry of the australian media whether it be print, radio, television or web based.

I have been listening to the falseties and rhetoric from the gun control advocates since the Strathfield and Hoddle Street incidents.

Elicit drugs are illegal and banned. But how many die each year?

Go figure.

[Brown Dog]

Today's Editorial in The Australian disagrees:


see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21574756-7583,00.html

this illustrates my point exactly. People (see media) automatically piont at gun control as the solution
here is a little more from that article. Its very easy to pick holes in....



Following the Port Arthur massacre, John Howard resisted pressure from the gun lobby and the National Party and enacted tight uniform national gun laws. Under a gun buyback scheme, about 600,000 guns were surrendered at a cost of $500 million. Research by the Australian Institute of Criminology has shown this to be money well invested. Rates of homocide and armed robbery have fallen, and Australia's example has been followed by other countries including Canada and Britain.


1. their is no such thing as the "gun lobby". John howard didnt resist pressure, he ignored council from the most knowledgable organisation on firearms matters in Australia the SSAA.

2. I dont consider something a sucess if $500million dollars is spent to only achieve not even half its goal.

3. Im not a statistician....but the below graphs dont seem indicate that there has been a significant decrease in homicide or armed robbery


cheers
BD:2tsup:

[silentC]

What I'm suggesting is that a holder of A CCW permit should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person.

As for Austrailan gun laws, CCW is not available.

I've yet to hear anyone from the 'gun lobby' suggesting that they should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense - what other possible reason could there be for it? So what you are now saying is that it's not about sport shooting, it's about the right to carry a gun for self-defense. Maybe both sides of this debate have an agenda?

[Andy Mac]

Hi BD,
I have never been a fan of Howard's knee jerk reaction regards gun control: coming from a farm I'm quite OK about legitimate gun ownwership. I just think the whole buy-back scheme amounted to a huge waste of resources (and heirlooms) in materiel...superbly engineered and expensive 'tools' scrapped.
More to the point, I was always dubious about the outcome, in that the criminal element will aquire the guns anyway. So I recently went searching through the latest Year books put out by ABS, and I think they must have been a bit later than those you quoted, because I found a substantial drop in firearm-related crime...against what I thought would have happened:- . It doesn't change my opinion of Howard and many of his policies, but the buy-back has had an effect.

Cheers,

[Brown Dog]

Hi BD,
I have never been a fan of Howard's knee jerk reaction regards gun control: coming from a farm I'm quite OK about legitimate gun ownwership. I just think the whole buy-back scheme amounted to a huge waste of resources (and heirlooms) in materiel...superbly engineered and expensive 'tools' scrapped.
More to the point, I was always dubious about the outcome, in that the criminal element will aquire the guns anyway. So I recently went searching through the latest Year books put out by ABS, and I think they must have been a bit later than those you quoted, because I found a substantial drop in firearm-related crime...against what I thought would have happened:- . It doesn't change my opinion of Howard and many of his policies, but the buy-back has had an effect.

Cheers,


thanks Andy...

I just had a quick look at the ABS web site and you are right about the figures of firearm related crime dropping.... though these more recent stats I have seen(from ABS) lead me to ask the question.... Is the drop in gun use in crime because of the buyback or because the rate has dropped overall ?

For example as seen below 18% of attemted murders involved a firearm. That hasnt changed much from previous years before or after 1996.

I would be interested to see which stats you are refering to

In 2005, a weapon was most likely to have been used in attempted murder (72%) and murder (59%) offences. A knife was the most common type of weapon used and was involved in nearly one-third of murders (30%) and attempted murders (29%). A firearm was involved in 18% of attempted murders, 10% of murders and 5% of robberies (table 11.19).

Murders involving a weapon increased by 7% from 2004, but were 15% lower than in 2001. The proportion of weapon use for this offence was similar in 2005 compared with 2001 (59% in 2005 compared with 60% in 2001).



cheers
BD:2tsup:

[Daddles]

Howard's buy back was only part of the package - another part was the amnesty against illegal weapons. I don't know how many that took out of the mix, but I do know of at least one. A friend was given a .22 calibre, fully automatic combat weapon (with the styling, it could be nothing else) with a 20 round magazine. This thing had no safety so once cocked it was live. With it's snub nosed barrel, it could have only two uses - spraying a confined space (such as a bunker) and posing - I can see no reason for it to be in the community (how it got there in the first place is another and more troubling question).

You can complain about the buy back and the amnesty all you like, but it did have positive effects as well.

Richard

[glock40sw]

I've yet to hear anyone from the 'gun lobby' suggesting that they should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense - what other possible reason could there be for it? So what you are now saying is that it's not about sport shooting, it's about the right to carry a gun for self-defense. Maybe both sides of this debate have an agenda?

G'day Silent.
I was talking about CCW in the USA.
NOT in Australia.
As I stated, It is not available here.
Here It is all about Sport Shooting, Targets shooting, Hunting and Collecting.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Daddles]

The majority of murders are crimes of passion - ie, unplanned, spur of the moment things. Having a firearm readily available just makes the attempt more deadly because a firearm is more efficient at killing people than anything else, though dying from a knife wound is just as dead as dying from a gunshot.

Not having a firearm available doesn't stop the attempt. However, it could be argued that the current storage requirements make getting the thing operational provide a safety valve for those emotions.

This whole gun ownership thing is argued from extremes and that is why it won't be resolved, not on here anyway. I'm not interested in arguing extremes. I'm rather glad that the number of un-necessary weapons in this country has been reduced. As I understand it, if you need a gun, you can own one. The bureaucratic hoops you have to jump through to do so probably need revisiting.

Richard

[zenwood]

I found a substantial drop in firearm-related crime...against what I thought would have happened... the buy-back has had an effect.Andy Mac's statistics seem to be conflicting with Brown Dog's. It would be nice to reconcile these. What seems to be needed are, say, yearly armed robbery, gun-related murder, and gun accident figures per capita of population for the 10 years prior to the buy-back, and for the years since. State-by-state and national figures would be good. This ought to be an empirical question: either there is a statistically significant difference before and after the buy-back, or there isn't.

Comments like this would seem to be uncalled for:

Gun Control Australia ... have little or no compassion for the victims or the families of the victims.

[silentC]

What seems to be needed are, say, yearly armed robbery, gun-related murder, and gun accident figures per capita of population for the 10 years prior to the buy-back, and for the years since.
The problem with that is that they mustn't be viewed in isolation. You also need to look at crime rates in general for example. Maybe as a society, we could become generally more or less law-abiding. That would also be reflected in reduced or increased gun-related crime but in a way that is not associated with gun control.

There's an article in the SMH today indicating that crime rates, including murders and armed robbery, have dropped over the last 2 years in NSW BUT the individual rates of these crimes have risen substantially in a number of Sydney suburbs: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/crimes-down-except-for-young-drunks/2007/04/18/1176696889228.html

[zenwood]

I agree, silentC: it's a complex question, with many contributing factors. (As the SMH article points out, alcohol also seems to be a factor.) But there are statistical techniques for multi-variate analysis. These should at least yield some evidence to help make a judgement of the benefits of various gun policies. Gun-related crime and accident rates both per capita and as a ratio of the rates of crime in general would yield two different metrics.

Country-to-country comparisons might also shed some light, I suspect.

[silentC]

The other thing to note is that the events which usually lead to these debates are often caused by people who would probably not have any difficulty in getting hold of a firearm legally if they wanted to under current legislation. From what I know of them, they usually don't have any criminal record or history of mental health problems that would exclude them. Apart from being 'a bit weird', there's nothing that would exclude them.

So whilst in Virginia, it was perfectly legal for Cho to buy a gun and carry it without a permit as long as he didn't conceal it, although the same thing is illegal in Australia he would potentially still have been able to get a gun by going through the proper channels and would not necessarily have needed to resort to the blackmarket.

[johnc]

Gun control does seem to have a positive impact on deaths through shooting, including suicide. In the UK with tougher gun laws than ours there was 46 deaths in a population of 58 million. New York with a population of 8 million acheives a death rate of 590. Australia before the gun buyback acheived an average of 492 deaths a year and over the last seven years has averaged 247 deaths a year, not wonderful but better.

The criminal argument is a difficult one, the buy back must make it harder to get illegal weapons but plenty of crims will still get the guns they need. However on the suicide and domestic violence front there are many people alive who would not be if we had lax laws.

The commentry and research indicates that some of the gain was happening anyway, but much of the gain is a result of restricting access to firearms.

In the buyback I lost two guns and handed in a heavy calibre firearm we didn't want. The semi auto's are great for getting off a lot of rounds and bolt action are not. I am no fan of John Howard but I support his stand on guns and believe we should be a lot tougher on hand guns which don't have a place in Australian Society in my opinion. My apologies to Glock and others who may feel offended but this does not reflect on the individuals, but on the idiotic few we need to be wary of.

John

[glock40sw]

G'day John.
No apology needed. The idiotic few are the ones that need to weeded out.
The rest of us just want to enjoy our chosen sport without the red tape and hurdles that are continualy placed in our way.

[dazzler]

:2tsup:

Thumbs up all.

A good robust debate and no one threw thier toys out of the cot!

Greenies all round !

:D

[ernknot]

Steady on there Ern. You'll pop a vital vessel. No-one seriously suggests sporting shooters should be deprived of the primary means of pursuing their chosen sport or farmers from an effective means of vermin control. What people are saying is that there are too many guns too easily available in the USA. All kinds of loonies can get hold of them without a license or a back-ground check. The NRA has been very influential in watering down any safety mechanisms designed to make it harder for the general public to own a weapon for reasons other than sport/competition. For example if you go to one of the many gun shows in most states of the USA, there are two main categories of sellers in the market. One is the professional retailer. To buy a legal weapon from a licensed retailer, you must endure a waiting period and undergo a background check and the weapon must be licensed in the hands of the buyer. The other type of seller is euphemistically referred to as a 'collector'. These so-called 'collectors' can sell weapons (of any kind) to any one without a waiting period or background check and usually for cash, which makes the weapon untraceable.
IMHO the gun laws in this country are about right.
Isn't that the concern of the US? Today on ninemsn and yesterday the polls asked questions about AUSTRALIAN GUN LAWS. Who is palying politics? TV and other media of course. I am just totally fed up with being tagged as a potential "killer". I did my time in the service, learned to respect fire arms, still own a few, still use them for target practice and hunting. I just wish the media would get of this gun hystiria. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL. If i left a .5" caliber maqchine gun (loaded) sitting in the lounge of my home no one would get killed. The machine gun has no logic for crying out loud!!!! I have refused to watch the news all about the US shooting as tragic as it is. If we were real about controlling nutters we should be more vigilant about mind bending drugs and such. This is what sets off most nutters. The media is having a real tugging session with this, if only they realy cared!

[Brown Dog]

Howard's buy back was only part of the package - another part was the amnesty against illegal weapons. I don't know how many that took out of the mix, but I do know of at least one. A friend was given a .22 calibre, fully automatic combat weapon (with the styling, it could be nothing else) with a 20 round magazine. This thing had no safety so once cocked it was live. With it's snub nosed barrel, it could have only two uses - spraying a confined space (such as a bunker) and posing - I can see no reason for it to be in the community (how it got there in the first place is another and more troubling question).

You can complain about the buy back and the amnesty all you like, but it did have positive effects as well.

Richard

Richard, putting aside wether we like or dont like guns for a second.... if you or anyone can prove that the buy back did have positive effects and that money has directly saved lives and significantly reduced the amount of illegal (it has probably increased the number of legally owned)firearms in the community...I would be happy to hear it.


I still think that the gun buy back was nothing more than a misappropriation of public funds. A good indication of that is how the government came to the conclusion that $500million would be enough to significantly reduce the amount of guns in the community. A phone poll of less than 2000 males:? . I now if some stranger rang me up and asked if owned any guns I would politely say no....

As I said before only 7% of the total number of now prohibited guns were handed in, in NSW. Im not sure about other states, but I assume the figure wouldnt be much higher. And that is only the ones they know about (based on dealer records).

Your are right the buyback was only one part the other part was the introduction of the so called "National gun laws"....which turned out to another crock, because the states couldnt agree...so some states have more relaxed laws than others. NSW currently has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world.

I havent complained or heard anyone complain about the amnesty...but as far as im aware there is always an amnesty on illegal "weapons" (I dont like that term to me... my guns are sporting equipment just like golf clubs) including knives.

As far as your friend being given a "fully automatic combat weapon" these were never legal to own in Australia and nor should they be....so who ever gave it to him got it illegally.

My beef isnt with reducing the amount of unesessary guns ...its with the effectiveness of some the current governments policy and anti gun people directing their rhetoric at the inocent law abiding shooter.

I do agree that there was some good to come out of the new laws. I think the storage provisions is a good thing . But from a shooters point a large majority of the new laws are unfair and does little to prevent gun crime....If Howard had listened to the people who make it their job to know about all things firearm related we would most likely have more effective laws.

I just think that, that little add on to the medicare levy that we all paid would have saved more lives if it had been spent on something like more police or boosting the health care system, not buying bunny busters off good hard working Aussie farmers.....but thats another issue :U



cheers
BD:2tsup:

[Toolin Around]

short excerpt from Bowling from columbine (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wFMKp3pcz44)

FYI Moore had to admit that his films had little if anything to do with truth but more about attacking someone he hated - Bush. Every nutter on his films can be found anywhere in the world. It surprises me of how many people in Aus take his films as if they're gospel.

[Toolin Around]

Hmm, it seems our media are giving us inaccurate facts.

Rocker

LOL tell me you didn't already know this. :doh:

[Master Splinter]

When you are looking at the Australian statistics, you have to remember that the gun related offences are a small component of the total - and when you are dealing with small numbers, any trend in the data is going to be very hard to pick out from the 'noise' in the series.

In the armed robbery stats, the percentage where guns were involved does seem to be decreasing - its gone from 15.5% in 1993 to 6.3% in 2001, or a decrease of more than 50% over that time.

However, year to year variation (those figures hop around like a mad rabbit) is quite high, which would make me cautious of claiming any sort of trend without looking at how the statistics were compiled.

Those graphs are the number of victims, which is not necessarily correlated to the number of offences or incidents - we could just be seeing a trend of offenders going for softer targets (such as the corner store, with one person in it and no security compared to the bank with 25 people, cameras and alarms). I could be wrong, I'm just doing this off the top of my head and I haven't looked at the methodology behind the statistics.

And as for the murder stats - out of some 300 murders, guns are involved in about 20% of them (or some 60 odd murders); this jumps up in 1996 (Port Arthur) but then settles back down to about the same level as before.

If you are trying to say 'gun control works', (as in the Firearms buyback), OR "Nyahh nyahh, its made no difference" you can't really do it from those stats yet.

The firearms buyback was meant to cut down on large scale events like Port Arthur; check the stats in maybe 20-40 years to see if there has been a reduction in gun related mass murders...we don't really get a lot of them, so it takes time to collect enough data to make any conclusions.

[martrix]

FYI Moore had to admit that his films had little if anything to do with truth but more about attacking someone he hated - Bush. Every nutter on his films can be found anywhere in the world. It surprises me of how many people in Aus take his films as if they're gospel.

Facts in Mike's Films (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/)Bowling for Columbine.

Farenheit 911 Facts (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=21)six pages of them.

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline)this project has been stalled by the resistance of some peeps trained and armed by the U.S. wielding Kalashnikov's and hiding in caves after it was re-started when the U.S. invaded and tossed out the Taliaban. Billions of dollars worth of high tech warplanes and bunker buster bombs still cant get them.:doh:
Thats why more troops are on there way over.....gotta get the pipeline and the dollars flowing.......

You're right though TA, who gives a &^$! anymore! Lets just ride this pony and beat it till it stays dead. "Giddy up"

[Sturdee]

This seems to have developed into a discussion on the merit or otherwise of gun control here.

I strongly support gun control and I believe the restrictions are not restrictive enough. This is because of a very personal issue.

My eldest brother has had to live since 1945 with only one eye as he lost the other one through a youth prank with a pistol found when the germans were overthrown in Holland at the end of the war.

Some teenager found the pistol and shot a wad of hot candle wax which got into my brother's eye. Despite numerous operations he lost the eye and has a glass eye instead. I suppose we ought to be grateful that he didn't use the submachine guns or machine pistols that also abounded straight after the war.

Too often statistics are quoted to support one side or the other but what about the victims and their relatives of guns being abused.

I know guns don't kill but people do. But if the guns are not readily available than people wouldn't be able to use them to kill others.

I feel very saddened by what happened, I feel for the victims and the relatives in that massacre. In a very small way I can relate to how they feel.

I also feel that this thread ought to be closed as I feel gun control debate in Australia debases what has happened over there.


Peter.

[joe greiner]

I also feel that this thread ought to be closed as I feel gun control debate in Australia debases what has happened over there.
Peter.

I agree. Although this has been a healthy debate about gun control, the present situation won't be resolved without a lot of detective and research work. Current news suggests that Mr. Cho had some very serious emotional adjustment issues; that can't be ignored. Alas, any "profiles" that are developed will be painted with a broad brush. Government, after all, is not a precision instrument.

As I've said before, I have a heightened interest in the massacre, having secured my degrees at Va Tech. Recent news also has reported the room numbers in Norris Hall. It appears that I taught in one of the classrooms, or maybe on the floor above; it's been about 30 years ago, and I don't remember whether I was on the second floor or the third.

The forum may not be the best venue for further debate; I leave that decision to the owner and the mods.

Joe

[Schtoo]

Dazzler, it was a mafia hit from what I understand, and he died early this morning.

From what I heard today, it was something to with pork-barrelling and he was not playing ball with the Yakuza, so they decided to get rid of him. Other prefectures have been hauled over coals for engaging in such politiking, and this guy didn't. Another good guy (as far as I know) gone. :(

His son in law is now running for mayor because of this.

I wouldn't want to be mayor of Nagasaki, it's just not safe since...

The previous mayor was also assasinated over comments about the Showa (WWII) Emperor and how he should have been treid over war crimes. That was sure to rile someone up, enough so that someone murdered him for it.


As for the whole gun debate, no real comment from me since I live somewhere that has no guns. :rolleyes:

Err, maybe there are... :-

Tell ya what though, it's not that there are no guns here, its a cultural thing. Crazy stuff like that doesn't happen very often, possibly made less likely because of no guns, I don't know for sure. What I do know is that when it does happen, the government and police are not very well equipped to deal with such 'out of character behaviour', and do tend to knee jerk pretty hard.

The other problem is that the societal restraint is starting to get softer as the generations progress. That worries me, since I have little boy who will be growing up in a society that relies heavily on self restraint, but said control is having less and less effect as time goes on.


There is one place that has lotsa guns, and is relatively free of gun-related crime. Little place with lotsa mountains and they make little pocket knives with all kinds of doo-dads in them. That's the other side of the coin compared to here, and it also seems to work. Again, more cultrual than related to anything else.

[Rocker]

Joe,

I felt it was better to raise this topic here rather than attempting to participate in the thread on Sawmill Creek because we are at some distance from the tragedy, and yet we have had a similar experience with the Port Arthur massacre.

I think Schtoo is right that it is cultural differences rather than gun regulations that determine the extent of gun-related homicides in a country. However, what is puzzling to non-Americans is that, despite the high rate of homicide there, and the prevalence of these massacre incidents, there seems little willingness to make any effort to change that culture, where a large percentage of people feel that the only way that they can be safe is to arm themselves, and to be willing to use a firearm in self-defence, and where many people regard lax gun regulation as part of the freedom that should be the birthright of people in a mature democracy.

Having lived some years in America, I was surprised at how this glorification of individual freedom, at the expense of the communal good, is so prevalent. For instance, it is very common over there to see road-users flouting the helmet and seat-belt laws, and to see people driving unregistered vehicles. Quite a few people see it as a noble expression of individual freedom to flout such laws, and yet they are respected as 'libertarians' rather than condemned for being anti-social.

Rocker

[Sturdee]

The forum may not be the best venue for further debate; I leave that decision to the owner and the mods.

Joe

Joe,

I'm not against a proper debate on gun control as such, but let it be in it's own thread and headed accordingly. I won't enter into such debate but others can, if they wish.

It just seems so improper to convert the discussion on the massacre to this kind of debate, it seems so disrespectful to the memory of the innocent victims and their relatives.

Peter.

[JeffG.]

Hello... it seems I have been caught up in a bad time to have joined a great forum.

I just wanted to post something, a bit of my perspective as I am an American, and I had an interesting conversation this morning with my wife regarding this issue. We were both dog tired, its what? Wednesday and we've both pulled 36 hours and this week is a long way from over. I only have seen her for about 1 hour since Sunday, but this subject dominated the conversation. The problem is complex, and the consequences are terrible. And there is no answer that I can see, and my country will suffer from the sheer number of cheap, accessible weapons for a long time. That brings me a lot of sadness.

I come from a family that has always owned guns. We hunt. Every year we go together. My father and my uncles hunted when they were kids, when they were dirt poor, in a time when that was how you put food on the table.

They served in the military. My father was in the 101st Airborne. He taught me how to shoot. I can't remember when, because I was young. But I understand a gun, and I understand what it can do, and I respect that. There is no foolishness.And I hunted with my father and uncles. I learned to respect the land. I understand the resource, and why it should not be wasted. When you walk it year after year you see the changes and I think about what I am leaving for those that come after me.

My wife calls it "the circle". She came to this country almost 9 years ago, from a place where there was no gun ownership - ever. My father taught her the same as me, as my brother, the same as my nieces and nephews. How to understand and respect both the weapon and the land. Every year she takes one deer - if she gets the opportunity. She both kills and dresses the animal. I am very proud of her, as is my family.

I give you this bit of my background only so that you will hopefully more fully appreciate my next thoughts. As much as I love this time of the year, the heritage it represents to me... I would willingly give it up if it meant preserving the lives of those thirty+ people at Virginia Tech. Absolutely, without question. You are talking about thirty people who represent hard working, achieving individuals working to educate themselves. Thirty people of the type that my country needs.

The problem is deep. There is a cultural problem, or a problem with the society... however you wish to look at it. A shallowness, a glorification of violence, a lack of respect... whatever. Probably all those things and more. I'm not sure where that came from, or if its even possible to correct it. It seems as if the idiots just breed faster then the rest of us. While giving up access to guns may solve part of the problem, I feel that long term we must address the bigger issue or suffer grave consequences.

The problem with the gun debate is that the most vocal are not the most rational. Its interesting the mention of the NRA... because none of my family are members. We gave it up long ago when they went off the deep end fighting against background checks, registration and all of those other things that one would think would simply be common sense. In the end I think the way some people fought against any type of regulation may prove to be the undoing of all the rest of us.

I appreciate the fact that you allowed me to join your forum. I only posted this to give you my perspective, certainly not to offend anyone.

These are difficult and tricky times indeed - for all of us. And its not going to get any easier, not in our lifetimes. I believe that those of us who have decent values have to pass those on to the people we love, and be prepared to make some difficult decisions.

Good luck to all.

[Metal Head]

Irrespective of what laws are passed basically anywhere in the World. It will never stop irrational behaviour of some people who have psychological problems who are generally the type of people who are involved in massacres like this. What about the 200+ people who died in Iraq overnight because of suicide bombers. Given the nimbers of people willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause in this living hell will be going on for years.

I don't think it will be long before one of our own dies over there and the Australian attitude will change.

[silentC]

I only posted this to give you my perspective, certainly not to offend anyone.
I don't think anyone will be offended, seems like a well balanced and reasoned expression of your point of view to me.

I think that situations like the current event are aberrations and have more to do with mental health than anything else. I've seen footage of a guy who stole a tank running amok. If someone loses their grip on reality, I don't think the lack of a gun will stop them from turning their aggression on innocent people, they'll find some way.

[Brown Dog]

Joe,

I'm not against a proper debate on gun control as such, but let it be in it's own thread and headed accordingly. I won't enter into such debate but others can, if they wish.

It just seems so improper to convert the discussion on the massacre to this kind of debate, it seems so disrespectful to the memory of the innocent victims and their relatives.

Peter.


Peter
I hope I havent been disrespectful. I certainly dont mean too. I respect the postion you are coming from and Im sorry that you feel a disscussion/debate on gun control issues debase's the memory of the victims in this tragic event. But unfortunately this debate comes up everytime something like this happens. As a sporting shooter I wish it didnt.

Shooters like me get drawn in because inevitably certain portions of the media give voice to the people who believe that placing tighter restrictions on liscenced shooters is going to solve the problem. I dont have a problem with that. All I wish to do is put my point foward to contradict that, or at least point out that there is no real evidence to support their case. Because we are the ones who are effected the most. I dont mean to say that we are effected more than the victims of gun crime...its just that from my point of view placing even tighter restrictions wont help them.

As others here have concluded there is no hard and fast statistics that either side of the debate can put forward. You could throw stats at me all day and Im sure I cant find numbers to couteract them. It is a much to complicated subjuct to just fix by tossing numbers about.

My main aim in a debate like this is to hopefully demonstrate that not all shooters are knuckle dragging morons who cant be trusted, and that most of us are quite receptive to gun laws that actually work. I also feel this forum is the perfect place to discuss things like this because we are the one who can change things...boths side can have their say...as the media is mostly one sided. If I can influence one person to consider that maybe what the Governmet has done is misdirected in someways...then Im happy:) .

Im sorry to harp on, but this is a topic I am quite passionate about. I got my licence in 1996 just before Port Aurthur...so my whole shooting life has been entangled with politics...I would rather go shooting then be writing letters to my local MP.


cheers
BD:2tsup:

[joe greiner]

JeffG has summed up many of my sentiments, although I'm not a hunter and haven't handled a gun since I was in the army. I especially agree that the problem is complex and has dimensions that probably haven't been discovered yet. The latest wrinkle is that between the killings at the dorm and the massacre at Norris Hall, Mr. Cho went to the post office and mailed a large manifesto to NBC. Clearly a nut case by any definition. And even though he'd had treatment, his privacy was protected by disability statutes. It's almost a no-win situation for law enforcement.

Even if all weapons are outlawed, the bad guys will still find a way. A "zip gun" can be made with a piece of pipe, a rubber band, and a nail. That said, I've known two suicides and a homicide victim. Those were all tragedies of opportunity. We now have laws requiring trigger locks, which help a little. Even a slight delay can help to defuse rage. Maybe we all need to have Prozac added to the drinking water.

Anyone who's ever managed an engineering or construction project can appreciate the comparison with herding cats. A bit more difficult to establish social policy for a country as large as Oz or USA.

Last I checked, the SMC was limited to regrets and commiseration, which is probably more appropriate because (I think) they're based in Virginia. I have no quarrel with this discussion continuing, and the international perspective is sadly lacking from many topics of discussion in USA.

Joe

[Schtoo]

A couple of points.

The guy who killed the Nagasaki governer was a nutter. No too nutty, but thought he was more important than he really was. A long story I am not going to repeat. He was Yakuza related, and I hope they get jumped on hard by association. They need jumping on. ;)

The previous governer of Nagasaki who was attacked actually survived. I was wrong there, but I was getting info 3rd or 4th handed. Oops.


The cultural thing is not as simple as it seems, lots of little things here and there add up to more than the sums of the parts. Confused yet? I know I am!

Here in Japan, the governing power of public behaviour is what everyone thinks of you. You go running around like a lunatic, then most folks will think very lowly of you and that's how you generally feel about yourself. The external influence can be completely manufactured by malicious persons, and the effect will be the same. Case in point, young teenagers throwing themselves off buildings, bridges, etc because someone said they are worthless or stupid, and kept on saying it like a broken record. The vent for this is introverted and usually results in breakdown or suicide.

On the other side of things is the 'western' way of thinking, where the governing of behaviour is internal, ie: I don't care what you think of me. Many people will be happy with themselves, even though the rest of us think they are completely out of their tree. The influences of peers is reduced somewhat, but can still have an effect. The problem is that someone may appear to be fine, but the inside is rotting and that rot cannot be seen or altered until it's too late.

Interestingly, the vent for internally governed behaviour is extroverted, occasioanlly a public outburst, like what we saw earlier this week.


It's not a perfect theory, but it is one from someone who has seen both sides of the coin, and seen one side from waaay inside.


The problem here is when the western thinking invades the local way of thought. That external governer is removed, and there is no tradition of internal governing which is like driving a car with no brakes but lots of airbags. It's going to crash, but the one inside is likely to be fine.

Sounds crazy, but it seems to explain an awful lot of things.

By that reckoning, a westerner here should be able to run amok, but generally they don't simply because that internal control is intact and working well enough to keep them on the straight and narrow. When that governer is broken, they do come unstuck with alarming regularity. Amazing to see, and no one here is surprised.


Ok, that wasn't exactly easy to comprehend, and I am no wordsmith, but I hope it's understandable.

I guess the short version is that a mass murder is less likely here becuase the attack is usually aimed inside rather than out. :(

[silentC]

I find myself agreeing with this guy (http://blogs.smh.com.au/radar/archives/2007/04/the_rights_and.html).

[nutcracker]

Australia apparently still has the record for the most killing in a high school shooting apparently, with 35

[silentC]

That was at Port Arthur, not a school. But yes, apart from that, we still have the record, as more than one person has mentioned in the posts above.

[Toolin Around]

You're right though TA, who gives a &^$! anymore! Lets just ride this pony and beat it till it stays dead. "Giddy up"


I have no idea what the hell this means LOL...

I was just stating what I know is fact. I've seen numerous interviews where he has had to admit that his sole motivation was hated. The statistics he has stated in his films are just that statistics... Next time you're near a higher learning institute go in and ask anyone who teaches statistics what they really mean. Basically stats are data that can be manipulated in anyway you choose, mostly seams to depend on your political slant...

Guns aren't the problem - people are the problem. But guns definitely don't help the situation - anyone can see that. But I'm one who would rather know the REAL truth not what someone bent on hatred spews.

[RETIRED]

I think that this one has run its course. Thank you for your civility.