Primary Response

[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

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

[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

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

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

[robbygard]

And here's the BBC's correspondent's look at the NRA response:
BBC News - Newtown shootings: Obama v the NRA

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!

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?