Gun Control At Work in Australia..

[Gator]

Gator I disagree with ya on a few points there. Gun education should only be a requirement if you're - get this - actually going to buy a firearm. And the draft is a desperate measure, everyone knows draftees are far lower quality soldiers than volunteers. Maybe if they are put to work in the States or in a support role mandatory service would be useful, but not for fighting.

Draftees did just fine in World War II, the last big win for the United States Military, and, also won in World War I.

The Right to Keep and Bear is sitting right there in United States Law, why not take care of the Safety matter while the would-be recipients of such a Right are still in School?

Otherwise, Court challenges would no doubt be brought by those viewing any such Mandatory Safety Training after Public School as an infringement on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

[WNxRogue]

Ok, say we do make sure the ones we control are given to responsible people...What about the ones we CAN'T? The ones that are given to the Cho Seung-Hui's and the Thomas Hamilton's and the Evan Ramsey's and the Eric Harris's and the Dylan Klebold's...What about them?


Bottom line...There is no possible way to get rid of guns given to crazy people. At all. Impossible feat. Therefore, gun control only hurts those who follow it.

Well just off the top of my head I can see that one of your people on that list actually purchased his gun legally (Cho). You are correct that crazy people will always be able to get guns, in some number at least. The only thing we can do is attempt to stop the amount of guns that they can get. Who knows, maybe if the background checks on Cho had been a bit more careful, the VT massacre may not have happened.

Bottom line - Trying to take the stance that having more guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun crime is absolutly absurd. That is not reality, that isnt even common sense. Look at the countries with gun control, they tend to have a crime rate.

 

[Infern0]

the answer imo is staged licensing


stage one: sporting shotguns and rifles
stage two: hand guns
stage three: MSSA/A (military style semi automatics/automatics)
Stage four: Collecters/dealers


each one of those steps should have increasing levels of background & psychological tests, and limits on the amount of weapons you can possess (up to the collector/dealer stage)


just a rough outline, but im interested in your thoughts (this is pretty close to what we have in NZ and i think it works pretty well)

 

[MontyB]

the answer imo is staged licensing


stage one: sporting shotguns and rifles
stage two: hand guns
stage three: MSSA/A (military style semi automatics/automatics)
Stage four: Collecters/dealers


each one of those steps should have increasing levels of background & psychological tests, and limits on the amount of weapons you can possess (up to the collector/dealer stage)


just a rough outline, but im interested in your thoughts (this is pretty close to what we have in NZ and i think it works pretty well)

I have the full selection of licenses myself but I still don't understand or see the need to separate MSSA/A's from any other rifle they both perform exactly the same function in private ownership. I have always seen this separation as a kneejerk reaction from politicians who seem to think that crazys only want to go rambo with MSSA's.

On the whole I like our licensing system but I do believe that the separation of rifle classes was more for fund raising purposes than safety or practical reasons.

I also don't think this plan would get a lot of support as its very difficult to create a plan for the 21st century with people still clutching bits of paper from the 17th.

 

[Gator]

the answer imo is staged licensing


stage one: sporting shotguns and rifles
stage two: hand guns
stage three: MSSA/A (military style semi automatics/automatics)
Stage four: Collecters/dealers


each one of those steps should have increasing levels of background & psychological tests, and limits on the amount of weapons you can possess (up to the collector/dealer stage)


just a rough outline, but im interested in your thoughts (this is pretty close to what we have in NZ and i think it works pretty well)

Might work in Australia, I do not know, because I do not know Federal Law in Australia.

The U.S. Constitution seems to me pretty cut and dry on this issue......

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That would leave licensing requirements in the United States up to the States individually, and that's a lot of different rules and standards in my own opinion.... then any such requirement viewed by Citizens as too restrictive would no doubt be challenged in Federal Court.
Here also there would be an outcry dealing with the Peoples fear of the Government knowing who has what weapons in house for home defense, so lists can be made if and when the Government wants to come collect all Guns, lists which can also be hacked into by Criminals.

Also, noting that at least here in the United States it is seemingly possible that one can shoot only 2 Guns at a time, I still do not see a limit on the Amount of Firearms one can legally possess outlined in the United States Constitution... or why one would have to be more sane to own 5 instead of merely 1 Firearm.
As for Australia, I do not know how many Firearms they can shoot at one time..... perhaps more than 2, but, in any event as I understand it Guns are well liked by many in Australia, different kinds of Guns, for different kinds of shooting.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Well just off the top of my head I can see that one of your people on that list actually purchased his gun legally (Cho). You are correct that crazy people will always be able to get guns, in some number at least. The only thing we can do is attempt to stop the amount of guns that they can get. Who knows, maybe if the background checks on Cho had been a bit more careful, the VT massacre may not have happened.

Bottom line - Trying to take the stance that having more guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun crime is absolutly absurd. That is not reality, that isnt even common sense. Look at the countries with gun control, they tend to have a crime rate.

Ok, one...I can go back to the website and get plenty others to take Cho's place... "Trying to take the stance that having more guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun crime is absolutly absurd. That is not reality, that isnt even common sense. Look at the countries with gun control, they tend to have a crime rate."

So, what do you propose we do? We can't stop them from happening, but, what you're saying is if we have only the criminals and people crafty enough to pass background checks have weapons, we will decrease the crime rate?

I don't think so. Look, if we have stricter gun control and access, as you said, then we control access to legal fire arms. Now, access to illegal fire arms will remain the same...Easy. Or it might even become a little harder. Still, they will be READILY available for criminals. The point we(5.56 and I) have attempted to make over and over that no one seems to have a real, straight argument for is that if we restrict access to law-abiding citizens, we take away the protection for them. We take away their ability to defend themselves against the criminal who has absolutely no regard for laws.

 

[WNxRogue]

Think about it this way. Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed? From countries where there is stricter gun control, the crime rate is less. In STATES where gun control is stricter there is generally lower crime rates. Putting more weapons on the street is not going to help the matter. You make guns that are more deadly readily available to criminals, and you give every would-be petty criminal access to a firearm. Leave weapons in the hands of those that are responsible with them, and dont allow those who are irresponsible to have them. Do you know how Cho was able to purchase his weapons. A - Due to his "type" of mental illness, he was still permitted to own a firearm. He also lied on his application. Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control.

Here is a fact. Even today your average citizen doesnt own a gun. Most average citizens arent even interested in owning one. Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse.

 

[major liability]

Isn't full-auto ususally used for suppressing fire anyways? I would've thought semi-auto would be more useful for, you know, actually killing stuff.

 

[Chyllaxen]

The guns are the first to go....after that the Right to Knowledge....:brave::brave::brave::brave:

 

[Rob Henderson]

Think about it this way. Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed? From countries where there is stricter gun control, the crime rate is less. In STATES where gun control is stricter there is generally lower crime rates. Putting more weapons on the street is not going to help the matter. You make guns that are more deadly readily available to criminals, and you give every would-be petty criminal access to a firearm. Leave weapons in the hands of those that are responsible with them, and dont allow those who are irresponsible to have them. Do you know how Cho was able to purchase his weapons. A - Due to his "type" of mental illness, he was still permitted to own a firearm. He also lied on his application. Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control.

Here is a fact. Even today your average citizen doesnt own a gun. Most average citizens arent even interested in owning one. Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse.

"Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed?" Well, considering that if someone was armed, the crime could be deterred, I'd say quite a lot, actually.

By the way, as to Cho, was there a B? Anyway...Beside the point.

"Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control."Ok, you pay more money, see how much it actually does...

"Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse."
And guess what? My exucuse is the exact reasoning that criminals prey on those without guns...How many times do you hear about an armed person being successfully raped versus an unarmed?

Quite honestly, I'd like to see some sources for you reasoning of the likelI(that's an i. btw)hood that someone wouldn't fire at a criminal, and how the likelihood that a gun would fall into the wrong hands would fluxuate either way wether we gave them guns, or the aquired guns themselves.

 

[bulldogg]

but then again we're not worried about the king of englands tax increases (sorry! cheap shot!)

Ah the myth of the origins of the Boston Tea Party, it was in fact caused by a tax repeal and the tea smugglers were pissed that the legit product was now cheaper than their illegal hauls of the poms favourite hot beverage.

Sorry off topic but its me fave subject to debunk.

 

[Infern0]

was actually refering to one of the causes for the american revolution (could be wrong, not my best subject)

and hence the clause for the right to arms

 

[WNxRogue]

"Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed?" Well, considering that if someone was armed, the crime could be deterred, I'd say quite a lot, actually.

By the way, as to Cho, was there a B? Anyway...Beside the point.

Ya, my bad the part about him lying was the B. Refer to my argument about people firing their weapons, and refer to the fact that criminals will always be one step ahead of their victims. They will always have the ability to get more powerful weapons then those they prey on.

"Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control."Ok, you pay more money, see how much it actually does...

That doesnt even refute what I said.

"Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse."
And guess what? My exucuse is the exact reasoning that criminals prey on those without guns...How many times do you hear about an armed person being successfully raped versus an unarmed?

Quite honestly, I'd like to see some sources for you reasoning of the likelI(that's an i. btw)hood that someone wouldn't fire at a criminal, and how the likelihood that a gun would fall into the wrong hands would fluxuate either way wether we gave them guns, or the aquired guns themselves.

Please, dont lecture me on spelling. You misspelled "fluxuate", "wether", "exucuse" and "aquired" just in that last paragraph. That doesnt even count the multiple misspellings of "they".

Id submit that if all crime was reported you would see a lot of crime that isnt stopped. Having weapons about doesnt really mean that crime will stop, it will just become either more brutal or more furtive. What does a lot of crime end up with if the assailant is armed. Say you get robbed. Or you get attacked. But it wont end in you dying. Most crimes of this nature dont end in death for the victim. Imagine now that guns are readily available, everyone can have one. As a criminal that makes shooting the victim the only possible course of action. If you dont, he can just turn around and shoot you in the back as you are running. It makes EVERY crime end in a fatality, instead of just a couple. You are going to have to rephrase and supply your own sources for what exactly you want me to post, because at this point I think your misspellings have confused me as to what you want.

Edit: Maybe this will help you out. This is a fact site full of facts both pro and con on gun control. http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

Acorrding to it, about 764,000 crimes a year are defended by firearms. This number out of the total of 7,927,000 crimes per year is an extremely low percentage of gun defense. These are a bit old, a few of the numbers arent correct since the last I have seen, Ill try to find something newer when im off work.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Yes, but that's the total number of violent crimes. Try "Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)"And that's the lowest figure in the total of 9 surveys completed. That makes it seem a bit more wise that people would use firearms. And sort of refutes your argument that gun on gun ends in fatalities.



"Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them."


Interesting...Licensees...AKA legally licensed people...Wonder what the illegal licensed numbers are...


I love the table as well...
Motor Vehicles

43,900

Falls

12,600

Poisonings

10,600

Drownings

4,500

Fires

4,100

Choking

2,800

Firearm

1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)

 

[WNxRogue]

These arent really conclusive for one simple reason. As I said these are old numbers, im going to pull up some of the more recent ones once im off work.

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

The other table shows somewhat higher number for children. I urge you to look up a study by a psycologist by the name of Kellermann, done on victims of domestic violence. It is quite revealing on the subject of guns in the household.

Here is the way it is. The numbers are all over the place. Some show that gun control has an effect. Some dont. I choose to believe that gun control will reduce amount of violent crime, and I have fact behind that. On the same token, you have "some" fact that shows the other way around. If youd like, ill pull up the more recent sources, id only ask that you do the same. But at this point, it seems that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.

 

[Rob Henderson]

These arent really conclusive for one simple reason. As I said these are old numbers, im going to pull up some of the more recent ones once im off work.

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

The other table shows somewhat higher number for children. I urge you to look up a study by a psycologist by the name of Kellermann, done on victims of domestic violence. It is quite revealing on the subject of guns in the household.

Here is the way it is. The numbers are all over the place. Some show that gun control has an effect. Some dont. I choose to believe that gun control will reduce amount of violent crime, and I have fact behind that. On the same token, you have "some" fact that shows the other way around. If youd like, ill pull up the more recent sources, id only ask that you do the same. But at this point, it seems that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.

Actually, I read it again, and both tables are actually accidents...Still...I never EVER would have guessed that children with no gun saftey knowledge would have a higher accidental discharge rate...Shocking stuff...

Here's what my basic sentiment is. With the proper educational saftey courses, and as long as they are properly licensed, I think the current gun control laws are fine if not too strict. If people pass mediocre background checks, and pass judgment of the clerk selling the weapon, I believe that is enough. Guns aren't the bad thing here, getting rid of them won't help the situation. People who are demented and clever enough to pass said background checks are. Now, I for one know that we don't have the money, at least right now, to fund more in-depth background checks and psych. evaluations. Knowing wether or not a man punched a kid back in 6th grade because of lunch money issues isn't very high on the governments priority list, and shouldn't be on ours. We simply cannot afford stricter gun control laws. It's too much man power and resources that need to be directed elsewhere. Would you rather have better background checks on Bob the gun collector, or Bill the future Secretary of Homeland Security?