Primary Response

[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."

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Grumpy

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

It certainly makes the point.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

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

.....and an AK 47 please."

"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

..

[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 - 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.