# Colorado, gun control and the 2nd Amendment



## DB008 (23 July 2012)

As we all know, there was a terrible tragedy with Colorado a few days ago.

Seems that Americans are brainwashed with the 2nd Amendment


> The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.




Both the political parties won't go near the issue of gun control as it's an election year. Sad.

A father who lost a son in the Columbine school shootings was interviewed. He was all for tighter gun control, he was also in tears with what happen in Colorado.

Good article in the L.A. Times regarding gun control.
Few signs Colorado shooting will make gun control a campaign issue

I wonder when the next mass shooting will take place? (As sad as it is to say that).

There have been 50 'mass shootings' since US senator Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head while meeting constituents at a grocery store some 18 months ago. A shooting with 2 or more people shot is considered a mass shooting. 

Yes, we have issues here in Australia, mainly in Sydney at the moment. However, it is concentrated to the bike groups + Middle Eastern drug gangs in Western Sydney.

Opinions?

**Edit - another interesting article related to this subject.

The Dream Of Maximum Guns



> Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who has waged a national campaign for stricter gun laws, offered a political challenge. "Maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it," Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly radio program, "because this is obviously a problem across the country."
> 
> Luke O'Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view. "Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it's possible the death toll would have been less." Some survivors thought at first they were witnessing a promotional stunt.
> 
> The gunman, wearing what Aurora Police Department officials described as nearly head-to-toe "ballistic gear," including a throat protector and leggings, plus a gas mask and a long black coat, came in through a parking lot exit door near the screen of Theater 9.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 July 2012)

Yep, another sad story, but it certainly wont be the last until someone over there does somehting about gun control. They never will however as the NRA is too powerful a political lobby force, and all parties are happy to see innocent people massacred in order to receive more funding

Stange country is the old US of A


----------



## Glen48 (23 July 2012)

USA seem to have their own particular version of  mental like a mirror image if the Arabian countries.

I think Obama is trying to limit gun sale but more for any civil unrest coming over the next few years.

If you are for Abortion and gun control in USA forget about running for any position  including Tuck shop manager and up.


----------



## Glen48 (23 July 2012)

I also see the " Joker " had 6k rounds which should have send bells ringing and he planned the shoot up for many months before.


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/weve-seen-this-movie-before.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share

Op-Ed Contributor
*We’ve Seen This Movie Before*
By ROGER EBERT
Published: July 20, 2012 

excerpts



> That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.






> Immediately after a shooting last month in the food court of the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, a young woman named Jessica Ghawi posted a blog entry. Three minutes before a gunman opened fire, she had been seated at the exact place he fired from.
> 
> “I was shown how fragile life was,” she wrote. “I saw the terror on bystanders’ faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath.”



*



			This same woman was one of the fatalities at the midnight screening in Aurora.
		
Click to expand...


*
welcome to america 
"....after a shooting last month in the food court of the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, a young woman named *Jessica Ghawi* posted a blog entry. Three minutes before a gunman opened fire, she had been seated at the exact place he fired from.
*This same woman was one of the fatalities at the midnight screening in Aurora*."


----------



## Glen48 (23 July 2012)

*More shootings:

An off-duty US police officer accidentally shot dead his son in what appears to be a case of mistaken identity.*Michael Leach, 59, called 911 just after midnight on July 21 and told operators he had just shot someone he thought was an intruder at the Clark Beach Motel, in New York State.When police arrived at the motel they discovered the man Mr Leach had shot was his 37-year-old son, Matthew Leach, local online news service Syracuse.com reports.The police said Mr Leach had used his department-issued handgun in the shooting.He was taken to a local hospital after the incident for a "medical issue".The shooting is being investigated.​


----------



## CanOz (23 July 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/weve-seen-this-movie-before.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share
> 
> Op-Ed Contributor
> *We’ve Seen This Movie Before*
> ...




Is this for real? That's really poor luck to be in Canada for a shooting then in the US for one as well. Canada would have a shooting every few years maybe but the US would be one every 12-18 months i reckon...

CanOz


----------



## bullet21 (23 July 2012)

I don't think that firearms are to blame here. There are countries with an active gun culture like Serbia, Switzerland and eve New Zealand. You never see these types of things happening there. The laws aren't as relaxed as they are in America obviously, but I still thing there is something more rotten at the core of American culture that seems to create these scenarios over and over.

But no one will want to look into that, after these types of incidents the reactionaries and just world theorists will come out and point at a perceived devil, so we tell ourselves "we got to the bottom of that" and go back to sleep. Just like after Columbine it was Marilyn Mansons fault. No one wants real answers because they may be a bit to hard to find or even to confronting if we do find them.


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> I don't think that firearms are to blame here. There are countries with an active gun culture like Serbia, Switzerland and eve New Zealand. You never see these types of things happening there. The laws aren't as relaxed as they are in America obviously, but I still thing there is something more rotten at the core of American culture that seems to create these scenarios over and over.
> 
> But no one will want to look into that, after these types of incidents the reactionaries and just world theorists will come out and point at a perceived devil, so we tell ourselves "we got to the bottom of that" and go back to sleep. Just like after Columbine it was Marilyn Mansons fault. No one wants real answers because they may be a bit to hard to find or even to confronting if we do find them.




i lived in New Zealand for 17 years and never got that there was a an active cultural bent for guns......

you might want to read this article, too:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/special..._troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804

excerpt


> Here’s one record the Swiss may not be so enthusiastic about holding:
> more suicides are committed here using guns per capita than anywhere else in Europe.



blame is not the issue......the issue is the proliferation of guns ....how many death-by-spoon incidents have we had recently? ; "a man was arrested for terrorising a movie going crowd with a spoon"

get rid of the damned guns


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

the proliferation of guns is not even an issue......there is no issue, there is a huge group of idiots that think keeping guns is ok for the sake of keeping guns.....no, wait, foolish naive me......the non-issue is about those with money making money from guns.......i am in the defense of innocent people being alive not protecting an @rseholes right bare a grudge!


----------



## bullet21 (23 July 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/special..._troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804




The premise for the article was people would not commit suicide as often if it was a bit harder. A weak argument to begin with then he goes on to concede they'll do it by other means.



Joules MM1 said:


> the proliferation of guns is not even an issue......there is no issue, there is a huge group of idiots that think keeping guns is ok for the sake of keeping guns.....no, wait, foolish naive me......the non-issue is about those with money making money from guns.......i am in the defense of innocent people being alive not protecting an @rseholes right bare a grudge!




There's a whole group of "idiots" who use guns for sport, hunting, self defence (against criminals & the state should the need arise)


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> The premise for the article was people would not commit suicide as often if it was a bit harder. A weak argument to begin with then he goes on to concede they'll do it by other means.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a whole group of "idiots" who use guns for sport, hunting, self defence (against criminals & the state should the need arise)




are you serious, i mean, are you kidding yourself or what? 







> A weak argument to begin with



 this isnt some semantic debate....this is a conversation about people and death.......have you any idea how final a bullet through the head or heart is? have you ever been in an emergency ward? have you any idea how adamant surgeons are against the brutality from firearm discharge? 

Look, take away a gun and you got the option of time.....sure, if a person is at their wits-end, they'll find a way, sure, i get that, but, is that a stance upon which to defend something that hastens death?.....

all this so i can protect myself against the state bollox is just twaddle for sake of keeping guns.....want a steak? go to the super market, want to go target practise? buy the equipment designed for safe target practise.....real men dont hurt other people, real men dont need guns......it's 2012 not 1700's

dont hide behind "a farmer needs a gun to put down a injured animal" because that's what a farmer has a gun for not any other individual.......

pro gun owners throw up the most pathetic reasoning for onwership.....the most pathetic reason to feel in control.......


----------



## MrBurns (23 July 2012)

They should psychoanalyse the hell out of that kid to find out WHY he did it, the influences .....anything, that information would be valuable.


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

the simple truth is; this clown who shot all those people would have had little opportunity to do so without the ease of gun ownership......anyone who says "it's not the gun it's the owner" is a moron using cheap legalise talk to get out of responsibility.......

classroom:

teacher: so, children, give me an example of taking care of your friends

10 year old: i know, we should all carry guns so we can shoot back at bad people when we go to the movies

yep, i can see how that works out


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> are you serious, i mean, are you kidding yourself or what?  this isnt some semantic debate....this is a conversation about people and death.......have you any idea how final a bullet through the head or heart is? have you ever been in an emergency ward? have you any idea how adamant surgeons are against the brutality from firearm discharge?
> 
> Look, take away a gun and you got the option of time.....sure, if a person is at their wits-end, they'll find a way, sure, i get that, but, is that a stance upon which to defend something that hastens death?.....
> 
> ...




you live in fantasy land, gun technology exists... you cant 'undo' technology once it is in existence. 

the law of supply and demand mean that if a nutcase, psycho or criminal wants a gun they will get it, wether it be a commercially manufactured one or a homemade 'zip' gun as it is relatively easy to manufacture a homemade machine pistol and police in sydney have confiscated a large number of them recently..

.how will your gunlaws stop this occuring? answer? they wont! they never have and never will as bottom line is CRIMINALS DONT OBEY LAWS! DUH! gunlaws actually make a criminal/psycho's job easier as they dont have to worry about armed resistance from their victims being armed! i expect a naive emotive response from the do-gooders on this point but ive heard it all before and know it for the BS it is. 

it is a rediculous notion that any laws or new legislation could 'get all the guns off the streets', possibly you could disarm 99% of law abiding citizens but nutjobs, crims and psycho-wannabes will always be armed if they want to be... get used to the fact.

 the real danger is the person who has the disire to carry out such a sick and twisted act, not the method they use to accomplish their sadistic ambitions.


----------



## Robbo (23 July 2012)

If I go by last years US road toll stats, since this shooting on friday around 270 people have died from car accidents in the US. If I go by gun death and suicide stats around 255 people have died from shootings in the US with about 140 of them from suicide. Another 155 people commited suicide another way. ~821 people have died from factors related to poor dietry choices in the past 3 days in the US. 

Gun control in the US is never going to happen, whether you like it or not, gun use is protected in the US by the constitution, it has bipartisan support in congress, it has a very powerful lobby group backing it. So maybe if all this wasted outrage, time, money, political capital was directed at factors that do a hell of a lot more damage that an occasional deranged individual we'd be much better off.


----------



## MrBurns (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> you live in fantasy land, gun technology exists... you cant 'undo' technology once it is in existence.
> 
> the law of supply and demand mean that if a nutcase, psycho or criminal wants a gun they will get it, wether it be a commercially manufactured one or a homemade 'zip' gun as it is relatively easy to manufacture a homemade machine pistol and police in sydney have confiscated a large number of them recently..
> 
> ...




Thats crap, letting the general population have guns for no good reason is why those 9 people are dead, it's why John Lennon is dead it's the reason thousands are dead over there.

Crims can have guns they usuually just kill each other anyway, nut cases will kill you and your family in a shopping centre because the played that game on PS3 then walked in KMart and armed up, why dont you just wake up to yourself ?


----------



## Julia (23 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> I don't think that firearms are to blame here. There are countries with an active gun culture like Serbia, Switzerland and eve New Zealand.



New Zealand?????  I lived there all my life until my 40's.  Never saw a gun.  There was no discussion about guns.
For god's sake, even the police are not armed!




bandicoot76 said:


> bottom line is CRIMINALS DONT OBEY LAWS! DUH!



And that's the whole point.  
Anyone who has the psychopathology to carefully plan an event like this will have no problem in acquiring the means to carry it through, regardless of any laws.


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Thats crap, letting the general population have guns for no good reason is why those 9 people are dead, it's why John Lennon is dead it's the reason thousands are dead over there.
> 
> Crims can have guns they usuually just kill each other anyway, nut cases will kill you and your family in a shopping centre because the played that game on PS3 then walked in KMart and armed up, why dont you just wake up to yourself ?




kinda missed the point there didnt you 

 no matter what laws are in place the technology to make guns exists, the black-market to distribute guns exists, the demand for guns exist, so psychos/crims/nutjobs will ALWAYS have access to them.

 your little rant against law abiding firearm owners changes that fact not one little bit! i am awake... to your usual BS on the subject driven by emotive reaction rather than rational thought.

 i agree with you 100% that nutcases are a threat, however i totally disagree with you that new laws will somehow miraculously stop them accessing weapons to carry out their sick agendas.

 there are tens of millions of guns already in the global community, countries like belarus, china, iran etc are manufacturing mass produced cheap n nasty guns that continue to flood the world through blackmarkets worldwide, legally manufactured firearms are stolen from law abiding liscenced gun owners (by a corruption of the gun register system security apparently), military thefts and even guns stolen from police custody (the port arthur ar15 was handed into the victorian police in a gun amnesty some years before it ended in martin bryants hands) just add to the underground black market, to deny that anyone who wants a gun cant get one illegally just shows how naive you are... 

and for you to try to somehow link law abiding firearm owners to these sicko nutjobs is both dishonest and insulting.


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> you live in fantasy land, gun technology exists... you cant 'undo' technology once it is in existence.
> 
> the law of supply and demand mean that if a nutcase, psycho or criminal wants a gun they will get it, wether it be a commercially manufactured one or a homemade 'zip' gun as it is relatively easy to manufacture a homemade machine pistol and police in sydney have confiscated a large number of them recently..
> 
> ...




lulz, 

cant undo technology.......bahaha.......where did you get that from ? your local debating night school class? 

well, officer,  i shot him coz the gun was invented and i cant undo technology, can i ?

all gun proponents eventually reach for the last resort "you live in fantasy land" button because youre intelligence wont allow anything else to exist, it's your last bastion of control.......

there are always going to be bad people who do bad things and honest people dont live in a fantasy land about that truth......people who believe an abundance of guns and promotion of guns to protect themselves are simply promoting the right to kill, thats it, that's all, period! people who want guns want control over something they cant ever get; control over their own fears of never never land .......the rest of us dont want to carry guns which doesnt make us anything but decent human beings and we dont walk around all day thinking about criminal ideas or worrying about criminal actions as we're too busy being productive and solving other issues people like you can enjoy the fruits of our labour, we spend far more time educating ourselves, thinking, planning productive ideas .......

"you live in fantasy land".......that's funny coming from a gun promoter......just because a technology exists......haha.....how feeble an excuse is that........if no one had invented a personal credit card do you think there'd be less debt? there'd still be debt just a lot less of it......wakey wakey, hand off snakey.......

that's the real challenge for gun promoters isnt it......the inability and the fear that comes from a lack of brain power, the lack of thorough thought process and belligerence towards anyone who says guns are just a waste......never fails to amaze me that gun promoters think theyre smarter than people who dont own guns......

maybe doctors and surgeons should throw away there technology for saving the injured from gun shot wounds and just take up arms themselves cos dont they live in fantasy land too ?

Is it just you who's a realist? 

This isnt the second world war, we're not fighting off a foreign invader bent on wiping us out........i never said there werent people with mental disorders who become bent on hurting other people, in fact there is strong evidence that mental diseases are on the increase and proliferation of guns is hardly the cure.......but, then, you being a realist, you probably know better........good luck with that

ok, who's the next numpty who thinks guns are a good idea


----------



## prawn_86 (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> .how will your gunlaws stop this occuring? answer? they wont! they never have and never will as bottom line is CRIMINALS DONT OBEY LAWS! DUH! gunlaws actually make a criminal/psycho's job easier as they dont have to worry about armed resistance from their victims being armed! i expect a naive emotive response from the do-gooders on this point but ive heard it all before and know it for the BS it is.
> 
> the real danger is the person who has the disire to carry out such a sick and twisted act, not the method they use to accomplish their sadistic ambitions.






Julia said:


> And that's the whole point.
> Anyone who has the psychopathology to carefully plan an event like this will have no problem in acquiring the means to carry it through, regardless of any laws.




Yes someone who really wants to would be able to get their hands on guns, but it would be a hell of a lot more difficult, and many crazies would probably move onto something else. Hardened criminals still would of course, but they dont tend to slaughter civilians randomly.

I'm sure there are just as many crazy/insane/psychopathic murders per capita in most Western countries, yet how come there are very few massacres in Australia, NZ, UK, Europe etc?

It's a fact that there are way more gun related deaths per capita in America than other Western countries. Limiting access to guns would limit this, just as it has done in Australia.


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

Julia said:


> And that's the whole point.
> Anyone who has the psychopathology to carefully plan an event like this will have no problem in acquiring the means to carry it through, regardless of any laws.




thats the point i was trying to get across julia, making laws doesnt erase the existence of guns, nor the capacity for unstable nutjobs to use them for evil.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> thats the point i was trying to get across julia, making laws doesnt erase the existence of guns, nor the capacity for unstable nutjobs to use them for evil.




Yes but it does make it a lot harder for them to obtain them in order to use them for evil


----------



## prawn_86 (23 July 2012)

*puts mod hat on*

This is obviously a very emotive discussion, so can we please stick to facts and analysis and refrain from implications and slander of other members?

Thanks


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes but it does make it a lot harder for them to obtain them in order to use them for evil




+1

that's the key

less guns there are less people shooting, less people being shot, less deaths......is that so hard to get?

a reduction of the propensity by restriction of the facility.......


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes someone who really wants to would be able to get their hands on guns, but it would be a hell of a lot more difficult, and many crazies would probably move onto something else.  .




a few years ago a psycho (in central america somewhere if i recall right) locked the doors to a packed cinema and rolled a 44gallon drumm of fuel to the entrance and set fire to it... killing multiple people... so yes nutjobs do move on to something else... still evil murdering bastards killing people... it just doesnt get reported as a massacre because it doesnt involve a firearm. 

psychopathic behavior is psychopathic behavior no matter the tool used to instigate it. target the person responsible for the atrocity rather than the method they use and just maybe the world would be a safer place...


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> +1
> 
> that's the key
> 
> ...




its too late for that, the guns are already IN the community, the only ones that laws affect are legal ones.

 the horse has already bolted, shutting the stable doors isnt going to solve anything, shuttin down the nutjobs so they cant access guns (or any other weapon) is the only way to TRY to prevent these tragedies.


----------



## Joules MM1 (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> a few years ago a psycho (in central america somewhere if i recall right) locked the doors to a packed cinema and rolled a 44gallon drumm of fuel to the entrance and set fire to it... killing multiple people... so yes nutjobs do move on to something else... still evil murdering bastards killing people... it just doesnt get reported as a massacre because it doesnt involve a firearm.
> 
> psychopathic behavior is psychopathic behavior no matter the tool used to instigate it. target the person responsible for the atrocity rather than the method they use and just maybe the world would be a safer place...




there's a good thought process going in your post......think on this:

1). the speed that is required to spot someone who's suffering a mental disposition toward mutilation or death  of others (whatever the justification)

2). the speed of passing and enacting laws that completely ban guns (excepting farmers)

3. the speed of a bullet that kills

put into order which is the fastest and which is the most expedient at irradicating death by gun fire

think about it.......stop defending that which allows continuity of an insane idea (guns in private hands) and promote ideas that tackle something that does not benefit anyone.......guns dont take us forward, they are unproductive, they dont generate new ideas, they only promote more fear, more destruction......


----------



## Glen48 (23 July 2012)

Forget about discovering the Universe, does God exist, Big Bang or any thing else the human minds is greatest mystery we need to explore, why violence is pasted down the family tree and why emotions are heredity, why serial killer can kill with out feelings and remorse and why jailing or execution won't stop the life style of murders.


----------



## AlterEgo (23 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes but it does make it a lot harder for them to obtain them in order to use them for evil




Hmmm, so like how drug laws make it really difficult for anyone to obtain drugs?


----------



## AlterEgo (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> the port arthur ar15 was handed into the victorian police in a gun amnesty some years before it ended in martin bryants hands




and I seem to recall that Martin Bryant was already known to police *before *the Port Arthur incident - they already knew he had a mental disorder, and that he had *illegal* firearms, yet they did nothing about it. His firearms were already illegal under the current laws at the time. If you're not going to enforce the current laws, then how is creating more laws going to help? Creating new laws is just the easy way that polititions can make it appear as if they have actually done something. Finding and addressing the real cause is just too difficult for them.


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> there's a good thought process going in your post......think on this:
> 
> 1). the speed that is required to spot someone who's suffering a mental disposition toward mutilation or death  of others (whatever the justification)
> 
> ...




i use my .22 rifle to hunt rabbits, these rabbits are consumed either by me or by me dogs... is that any worse than buying meat from the butcher or a tin of dog-food?... if you say yes then your a hypocrite!

 if, in your opinion, my hunting makes me a fear propagating, mass destructive monster then nothing i am going to say will change your opinion, and to tell the truth i dont really care, it only illustrates that you have been brainwashed into cynically stereotyping a large portion of the community (1000000+ liscenced,law abiding firearm owners in australia) as terrible potential psychopathic criminals... 

yes i live in the bush ,yes i love the outdoors and detest the city lifestyle... each to their own, i dont judge you badly for NOT participating in my sporting choice ,  

yes i like to participate in the shooting sports... both target and hunting, and i also enjoy archery too so i suppose it will be next on your agenda once all the big bad guns are all banned

yes i am liscenced and my firearm is registered and safely locked in an aproved gunsafe,and has been routinely inspected by the police as per THE LAW!

yes i care for my fellow man & am a volunteer in both the RFS, rescue squad and local red cross charity, 

do massacres horrify me? yes definately! as i know first hand the potential results of injuries produced by a firearm... 

do i feel any responsibility for those massacres? NOT ONE BIT! NEITHER I, NOR MY FIREARM were in any way involved!. the only thing responsible was the sick psycho bastard who deliberately planned the atrocity and who pulled the trigger on a fellow human being... something NO sane person could do! end of story!

as i said before to try to label all gun owners in the same catagory as psycho killers is both dishonest and insulting :frown:


----------



## bandicoot76 (23 July 2012)

AlterEgo said:


> and I seem to recall that Martin Bryant was already known to police *before *the Port Arthur incident - they already knew he had a mental disorder, and that he had *illegal* firearms, yet they did nothing about it. His firearms were already illegal under the current laws at the time. If you're not going to enforce the current laws, then how is creating more laws going to help? Creating new laws is just the easy way that polititions can make it appear as if they have actually done something. Finding and addressing the real cause is just too difficult for them.




+1!


----------



## AlterEgo (23 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> i also enjoy archery too so i suppose it will be next on your agenda once all the big bad guns are all banned




Yes, and if it was a frenzied knife attack, would Joules be advocating new knife laws?


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 July 2012)

AlterEgo said:


> Yes, and if it was a frenzied knife attack, would Joules be advocating new knife laws?




nice academia.......it was a group of innocent people killed by gun fire.......

milk, one sugar or two?


----------



## Tink (24 July 2012)

Well I am glad Australia has gun controls.
There is no reason for every household to have a gun.

I wouldnt like being pulled over by a policeman with a gun pointed at me, no thanks.


----------



## MrBurns (24 July 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> kinda missed the point there didnt you




No I think you did.



> no matter what laws are in place the technology to make guns exists, the black-market to distribute guns exists, the demand for guns exist, so psychos/crims/nutjobs will ALWAYS have access to them.




Wrong, psychos won't access guns from the black market they wouldn't know how to.



> your little rant against law abiding firearm owners changes that fact not one little bit! i am awake... to your usual BS on the subject driven by emotive reaction rather than rational thought.




You're lacking rational thought old chum, you want the right to have firearms despite that right being responsible for multiple deaths here and overseas. Well done John Howard, he has saved many lives by taking then out of the community.



> i agree with you 100% that nutcases are a threat, however i totally disagree with you that new laws will somehow miraculously stop them accessing weapons to carry out their sick agendas.




Taking guns out of the community would stop thousand of deaths in the US but it is a very large somewhat fractured society and it will breed nut cases at time that will go to any lengths to do harm.



> there are tens of millions of guns already in the global community, countries like belarus, china, iran etc are manufacturing mass produced cheap n nasty guns that continue to flood the world through blackmarkets worldwide, legally manufactured firearms are stolen from law abiding liscenced gun owners (by a corruption of the gun register system security apparently), military thefts and even guns stolen from police custody (the port arthur ar15 was handed into the victorian police in a gun amnesty some years before it ended in martin bryants hands) just add to the underground black market, to deny that anyone who wants a gun cant get one illegally just shows how naive you are...




Ha now there's a statement , they have guns in China so why dont we have open slather too ?
Nut cases in general won't bother or cant get guns so they'll use a knife or whatever, less death is the result.



> and for you to try to somehow link law abiding firearm owners to these sicko nutjobs is both dishonest and insulting.




I was doing nothing of the sort, you can have a gun if you're in a club and have been checked out or live on a farm and have been checked out.
Your indignant defence of everyones right to arms in the face of countless deaths is both ignorant and offensive to the relatives of victims.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 July 2012)

Pretty hard to argue for guns imo.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html

*Over 9,000 Murders by Gun in US; 39 in UK*Posted on 01/14/2011 by Juan
Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146

Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)

Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)

*The Home office reported murder statistics in the UK for the 12 months to March 2009, but these are 12-month figures).

For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US.

Do hunters really need semi-automatic Glock hand guns? Is that how they roll in deer season?


----------



## Knobby22 (24 July 2012)

One of the best things Howard did (and he says this himself) was bring in stricter gun laws.


Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): 

                         Homicide           Suicide        Other (inc Accident) 

USA (2001)                3.98                5.92           0.36 
Italy (1997)                0.81                1.1            0.07 
Switzerland (1998)      0.50               5.8            0.10 
Canada (2002)            0.4                 2.0           0.04 
Finland (2003)            0.35               4.45          0.10 
Australia (2001)          0.24               1.34          0.10 
France (2001)             0.21               3.4           0.49 
England/Wales (2002) 0.15               0.2            0.03 
Scotland (2002)           0.06              0.2            0.02 
Japan (2002)              0.02              0.04           0 

By the way, Switzerland has a gun policy very like the USA.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

I had the opportunity to live and work in the USA and one of the main reasons I didn't take up the offer is that I or my family would be 16 times more likely to be shot dead.


----------



## Glen48 (24 July 2012)

The more of these loonies out there the more people want to arm them selves so on it goes , then more accidental death, more guns available to be stolen.


----------



## CanOz (24 July 2012)

+1 - Well done Knobby, the US is a gun-toting nation. Shoot first and ask questions later....

The sad thing is that now they would have to have a gun amnesty like no other in history to try and reverse the current trend. Even if you could overpower the gun lobby.:bad:

Its not going to happen...:frown:

In Canada I hunt (Grouse & Duck only), and you can still own and carry firearms in hunting season. You can own a handgun with a permit, but you can only use it at the range...what the heck is wrong with that?

CanOz


----------



## Glen48 (24 July 2012)

Canoz Any chance you could come to OZ and shoot a Swan??


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 July 2012)

Glen48 said:


> The more of these loonies out there the more people want to arm them selves so on it goes , then more accidental death, more guns available to be stolen.




what's important, imho, is the mass saying get rid of availability......take away access you at least introduce the time factor, the time required to acquire weapons allows many would-be shooters to cool off.....look, sure, if someone wants to harm others they'll eventually strap some stuff to their chest and go that way too.....take away the access you take away "an" incentive......afterall, most losers wont do the work required when there's no easy access to lethal weapons.....i mean, a little thought needs to go into this stuff rather than the usual throwing of hands in despair with laws dont work diatribe......that's the reason that gunmen get away with what the do : the rest of the community arent actively vigilant to the nature of people ....and that is naivety.......


----------



## CanOz (24 July 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Canoz Any chance you could come to OZ and shoot a Swan??




What...this?


----------



## DB008 (24 July 2012)

*A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths*

Interesting...

*A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths*




> What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.





http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

I think that the USA is beyond help.


----------



## prawn_86 (25 July 2012)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-25/map3a-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-1990/4153612 - map of major shootings in US over last 20 years.

I still fail to see how tighter gun laws would not have helped reduced this... 

One of my best mates parents died on a farm due to a gun accident and I grew up on a farm, so i am all for farmers having the right tools, but i don't why an office worker in the city needs to be able to own an automatic weapon


----------



## Tink (25 July 2012)

Agree Prawn, instead the community go out and buy more guns.

*Gun sales soar after Colorado shooting*

http://www.news.com.au/world/gun-sales-soar-after-colorado-shooting/story-fndir2ev-1226434334001


----------



## Glen48 (25 July 2012)

There is nothing any one could have do to prevent this other than total ban on guns, ask why or track where all the ammo was going, he had no record and was a Phd ( Post hole digger? ) student I think doing law.

Metal dect's.  at the Movie entrance would have caught him I assume but he would have found away to do some thing else like a shopping mall.
People are like computers each time you interface with the web or hit the keyboard open a site you are adding or changing some thing, same as humans each generation of off spring adds an bit from some parent and over the years one become corrupt and becomes a  wobblier, so move on nothing to see here await for the next one.


----------



## bullet21 (26 July 2012)

Glen48 said:


> There is nothing any one could have do to prevent this other than total ban on guns, ask why or track where all the ammo was going, he had no record and was a Phd ( Post hole digger? ) student I think doing law.
> 
> Metal dect's.  at the Movie entrance would have caught him I assume but he would have found away to do some thing else like a shopping mall.
> People are like computers each time you interface with the web or hit the keyboard open a site you are adding or changing some thing, same as humans each generation of off spring adds an bit from some parent and over the years one become corrupt and becomes a  wobblier, so move on nothing to see here await for the next one.




With 88 guns for every 100 people, the only way you are going to disarm the US population is by force. I honestly think this would lead to a second civil war. Also metal detectors would have done nothing as he came in through a fire exit.


----------



## CanOz (26 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> With 88 guns for every 100 people, the only way you are going to disarm the US population is by force. I honestly think this would lead to a second civil war. Also metal detectors would have done nothing as he came in through a fire exit.




Agree, won't happen ... ever..

You could however, make some changes to the laws so they're similar to Canada or Australia. Obama has already hinted at changes. He won't campaign on radical changes though, he would lose the redneck vote completely.

CanOz


----------



## Glen48 (26 July 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tdsbzubam0

 One of these?????


----------



## CanOz (26 July 2012)

OMG....

That cannot be real...but yes, rednecks like that...


----------



## Bushman (26 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> Agree, won't happen ... ever..
> 
> You could however, make some changes to the laws so they're similar to Canada or Australia. Obama has already hinted at changes. He won't campaign on radical changes though, he would lose the redneck vote completely.
> 
> CanOz




Maybe it should be mandatory for everyone over in the US to wear full body armour and be armed with assault rifles; bit like we have to wear bike helmets over here.  Then the MAD principles used so effectively by the USA and USSR during the Cold War arms race should limit the body count.

'Thou shalt not kill'


----------



## Glen48 (26 July 2012)

_Thou shalt not kill_ .. except in self defense and make sure you go to Church so God can forgive.


----------



## DB008 (6 August 2012)

*Gunman kills six at Sikh temple*

*Gunman kills six at Sikh temple*



> At least seven people, including a suspected gunman, have been killed at shooting a Sikh temple in the United States, local police said.
> 
> Greenfield police chief Brad Wentlandt said authorities do not believe a second shooter is hiding inside the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek outside Milwaukee, contrary to earlier reports.
> 
> ...




ABC Link


----------



## Glen48 (6 August 2012)

Think 1/2 of USA in Sikh in the head.

 Most are just as radical was the one's they accuse of hating USA.
 Wonder where and when the next one will be???


----------



## awg (7 August 2012)

Gun advocates always say they have the right to defend themselves, in the USA, you would feel like you need to carry a piece just to gun down any homicidal maniac that might start blasting at you.

The historical basis of gun ownership is national security.
It still is. It is impossible to mount a land invasion of the USA because the citizenry is so heavily armed.

Some other countries have similar policies.

From speaking to people experienced in these matters, removing guns from society also prevents many impetuous suicide attempts, the success rate of gun attempts is very high.

The figures quoted by a previous poster highlight this, all higher than the murder rate


----------



## gav (11 August 2012)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

~Thomas Jefferson


----------



## DB008 (11 August 2012)

gav said:


> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> 
> ~Thomas Jefferson




Thomas Jefferson


> Thomas Jefferson *(April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826)* was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence *(1776)* and the third President of the United States *(1801–1809)*




Anyways, l think that the USA is beyond help now days.


----------



## DB008 (21 August 2012)

*Only in the USA*

Old mate, open carrying a MP5 

No wonder shootings happen so much over there. And then he starts with the constitutional right and the 2nd amendment. Bugger me.

[video]http://www.liveleak.com//view?i=589_1345502474[/video]


----------



## Ageo (23 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> *Only in the USA*
> 
> Old mate, open carrying a MP5
> 
> ...





Since 96 the guns laws were tightened..... but drive by shootings were not that common

today with touger gun laws there is a drive by shooting almost every week in my area (NSW)

remember Switzerland have a high rate of gun ownership (assault rifles for just about all of them) yet very low rates of crime (per capita) so you need to look at the societies and what causes this act of craziness.... and i believe in the U.S alot of their media programs etc... has alot to do with this.

Remember prohibition didnt work in the 1920's and doesnt work today

A banning mentality will only affect those who abide the law not criminals


----------



## Glen48 (24 August 2012)

Government agency such as FEMA has ordered 1.7 Billion rounds which is enough to shoot every on in USA about 4 times.
 I am sure they know hard times are coming the feds want to be prepared , if a  military exercise taking place in the "burbs some thing is afoot and If i lived in USA i would be gearing up as well. 
 When you have a train load of tanks rolling in to Burbank you should be getting ready.


----------



## Glen48 (28 August 2012)

HOW TO SHOT NY THE GOOD GUYS:
A Question About The NY Shooting
August 25, 2012By eric
People who want to take guns away from citizens often argue that it’s dangerous for citizens to have guns. They will say, “innocent people will get shot in the crossfire” in the event an armed civilian uses a gun to stop an armed criminal.

I wonder what they’ll say about what just happened in NYC?

According to reports, a laid-off women’s clothing designer named Jeffrey Johnson, 58, decided to shoot his ex-boss. He pulled out a .45 pistol and did so – and was himself almost immediately gunned down by a gaggle of city cops. Problem is, the cops ending up shooting more people than the gunman. Eight people were shot – by the cops. (news story here.)

Will the people who demand citizens be disarmed because “innocent people might get caught in the crossfire” now demand that cops be disarmed, for the same reason?

If not – why?

Will the “reckless” cops – who clearly can’t shoot straight -  be held civilly and criminally responsible for shooting innocent bystanders – as a citizen surely would be?

If not, why?

Don’t forget that cops – as a matter of law – are under no obligation to protect any individual from harm. They are law enforcers – not protectors.

Protection – of our individual persons – is ultimately up to us.

Provided, of course, we are permitted to do so. And provided, of course, that we aren’t caught in a cop crossfire.


----------



## white_goodman (28 August 2012)

the USA are much better off for the 2nd amendment, many people should not be commenting in this thread, you are just showing your ignorance, maby you should be all watching Michael Moore films


----------



## McLovin (28 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> the USA are much better off for the 2nd amendment, many people should not be commenting in this thread, you are just showing your ignorance, maby you should be all watching Michael Moore films




Yeah some kid running around with a handgun in Killadelphia is what the framers of the US Constitution meant by "well maintained militia".


----------



## white_goodman (28 August 2012)

Ageo said:


> Since 96 the guns laws were tightened..... but drive by shootings were not that common
> 
> today with touger gun laws there is a drive by shooting almost every week in my area (NSW)
> 
> ...





thankyou, nothing quite like facts and empirical evidence to squash r-tarded lines of thinking..


----------



## white_goodman (28 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> Yeah some kid running around with a handgun in Killadelphia is what the framers of the US Constitution meant by "well maintained militia".




if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..

the logic is weak in this one..


----------



## McLovin (28 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..
> 
> the logic is weak in this one..




I didn't say guns needed to be banned. But clinging to some ancient document written by a group of slave-owning revolutionaries living in a highly agrarian society is probably not the best way to frame the gun policy of a highly urbanised, advanced country in the 21st century. And that's ignoring the whole bit about the well maintained militia.

Times change.


----------



## CanOz (28 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..
> 
> the logic is weak in this one..




Its the relative ease with which guns can be aquired and the type of guns that can be acquired. In Canada guns are not banned, they're controlled. If i want to buy a gun today and i have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, i can buy the gun. There is however a cooling off period that must transpire before i can actually take possession of the firearm. Even after that there are further controls. I cannot buy an assault weapon that has a magazine larger than standard. I cannot carry the weapon outside of hunting season unless i'm going to the range, or to the gunshop. If i have purchased a pistol, then i can only carry it back and forth to and from the range and i must be a member of a gun club.

Do we still have shootings in Canada, yes. are they perpetrated by individuals in a state of rage hell bent on revenge or by gun owners that are mentally unstable, not in the majority of cases. Most gun related crimes are associated with Robbery etc. These types of crimes can be perpetrated with unlicensed weapons bought on the black market.

CanOz


----------



## white_goodman (28 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> I didn't say guns needed to be banned. But clinging to some ancient document written by a group of slave-owning revolutionaries living in a highly agrarian society is probably not the best way to frame the gun policy of a highly urbanised, advanced country in the 21st century. And that's ignoring the whole bit about the well maintained militia.
> 
> Times change.




should our constitution also be ratified? whats the rule of thumb for age?, your essentially supporting a society that is dictated/legislated from the bench.

Id argue that cities in switzerland are highly urbanised with high levels of gun ownership.. maby its the system of govt, economics that is the cause of the problem not the gun ownership rights. Looking at the hole in the barn door and not the barn itself.

"this idea of just passing legislation, legislation, legislation every time someone blinks is a nonsense...purely and simply to do the things we used to do, and every time you pass a law you are taking someones privileges away from them." (K Packer, 1991)


----------



## McLovin (28 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> should our constitution also be ratified? whats the rule of thumb for age?, your essentially supporting a society that is dictated/legislated from the bench.






The Australian Constitution was ratified in 1901. 

The US Constitution is open to interpretation by the Judiciary, just like any other legal document is, isn't that the whole point of having a judiciary? Example: The US Supreme Court in the 1970's essentially ruled that the death penalty was unconsitutional (cruel and unusual punishment) and then four years later said it wasn't anymore.




white_goodman said:


> Id argue that cities in switzerland are highly urbanised with high levels of gun ownership.. maby its the system of govt, economics that is the cause of the problem not the gun ownership rights. Looking at the hole in the barn door and not the barn itself.




Switzerland doesn't have an outdated law that gives it's citizens the_ right_ to carry a firearm. In addition, it actually has a militia, most of the firearms are owned by current or former members of the militia. Finally, the sale of ammunition is tightly controlled. You can't just walk into Wal-Mart Geneva and buy a round of hollow-tips. The ammunition given to those in the militia is kept in a sealed box and can be inspected for tampering. Try getting around the 4th Amendment with that last one.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 August 2012)

Switzerland has a third highest gun death rate in the OECD, well above Australia's though only an 1/8th of the USAs.

More guns around, more gun deaths. Pretty basic really.


----------



## Tannin (28 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..
> 
> the logic is weak in this one..




Actually, not weak at all. This is a furphy put about by the redneck lobby. 

_In reality_ no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will stop all criminals owning guns .... but it does and will lower the number. Fewer guns in criuminal hands = fewer gunshot wounds. It's hardly rocket science.

_In reality_ no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will prevent all nutcase murders of the Julian Knight variety ..... but it does and will reduce the numbers. (Note that this means _real_ restrictions on ownership, not the sort of pretend restrictions that led to the Tasmanian government allowing a known nutcase to buy and own deadly weapons and commit the massacre at Port Arthur.

_In reality_ no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will prevent all domestic gunshot murdersy ..... but it does and will _vastly_ reduce the numbers. When tempers flare, violent people pick up the weapons they have. If they have a gun, they use it. The result is typically a murder or multiple murder.  If they don't have a gun, they use a knife, an axe, a hammer, or their fists. Yep, som,etimes that still means a murder. But the victim has a much, much better chance of escaping alive. And in the case of multiple victims, some have a chance of running away. With a gunl, they all die.

This last point is the key one: when you increase the number of guns in households, you dramatically increase the number of domestic murders. Therre are other good reasons, but this is the key reason why we have restrictions on gun ownership (and should have more stringent ones) - *it saves lives*. Every year, in every state, it saves lives.


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Switzerland has a third highest gun death rate in the OECD, well above Australia's though only an 1/8th of the USAs.
> 
> More guns around, more gun deaths. Pretty basic really.




as a % rate of homicides yes maby, but Australia kills more people via guns per 100,000 then Switzerland, its even lower then New Zealand (doesnt allow guns from memory), Spain, Germany and Canada...


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> This last point is the key one: when you increase the number of guns in households, you dramatically increase the number of domestic murders. Therre are other good reasons, but this is the key reason why we have restrictions on gun ownership (and should have more stringent ones) - *it saves lives*. Every year, in every state, it saves lives.




find me the statistic where it shows the amount of crimes prevented due to gun ownership, let alone all the other crimes it prevents.. this whole guns yes, America bad idea is stupid, rates of gun death have a lot more to do with the economic and political realm then a legal right to ownership.

Oh the unseen consequences, stage 1 thinking as usual


----------



## Tannin (29 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> find me the statistic where it shows the amount of crimes prevented due to gun ownership




In the decade *before* stricter gun laws were introduced in 1987, the gun-related *murder rate was 6* per million.

*After* that time, the gun-related *murder rate dropped to 1.6* per million people.

Not exactly rocket science, is it. *More guns = more murders*.


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> In the decade *before* stricter gun laws were introduced in 1987, the gun-related *murder rate was 6* per million.
> 
> *After* that time, the gun-related *murder rate dropped to 1.6* per million people.
> 
> Not exactly rocket science, is it. *More guns = more murders*.




Homer: Not a bear in sight.  The Bear Patrol must be working like a 
       charm.
 Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
 Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
 Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
 Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
 Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
        [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.


----------



## McLovin (29 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> In the decade *before* stricter gun laws were introduced in 1987, the gun-related *murder rate was 6* per million.
> 
> *After* that time, the gun-related *murder rate dropped to 1.6* per million people.
> 
> Not exactly rocket science, is it. *More guns = more murders*.




The crime rate was generally falling, the legislation just happened to catch the trend. That's been shown to be the case by the Institute of Criminology. Of course the pro-gun lobby clings to that statistic like a fly on **** as justification that the widespread availability of firearms (ala the US) would have no impact on crime. Just like the Swiss canard.


----------



## white_goodman (29 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> The crime rate was generally falling, the legislation just happened to catch the trend. That's been shown to be the case by the Institute of Criminology. Of course the pro-gun lobby clings to that statistic like a fly on **** as justification that the widespread availability of firearms (ala the US) would have no impact on crime. Just like the Swiss canard.





ding ding ding exactly, of course level of guns have impact on gun crime, to what degree however.. what other factors contribute to gun crime..

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"


----------



## gav (29 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> Of course the pro-gun lobby clings to that statistic like a fly on **** as justification that the widespread availability of firearms (ala the US) would have no impact on crime. Just like the Swiss canard.




It's quite ironic that people use the USA as an example of why stronger gun laws are required, and list the low gun-related crime stats of nations with very strict gun laws, such as Japan - as if gun laws are the main (or only) factor.  Do people really think that if Japan's gun laws were the same as the USA's, that Japan's gun-related crime stats would be even remotely similar to the USA's?  The massive disparities in culture and other factors make a huge difference.  As has already been pointed out, Switzerland has more guns per capita than the USA, yet only has 1/8th of the gun-related crimes per person, or as White Goodman just mentioned, the fact that Australia (with its tough stance on guns) has more deaths from guns per person than Switzerland. 

I believe the issue is blown out of proportion - even when you consider the vial acts of Martin Bryan and Anders Behring Breivik. Especially when you consider other issues, like the total cost of drug abuse in Australia amounting to approx $55B per year (mainly alcohol and tobacco related, illicits contribute to less than 15% of the total) and heart diseases cause 50,000 deaths per year and costs $6B.  How many times did you see on the news that approx 1000 Australians died this week from heart disease? Unfortunately, that's not as attention-grabbing as an overseas shooting. The knee-jerk reaction over guns is no different to the USA's extreme over-reaction to the threat of terrorists after the 9/11.


----------



## McLovin (29 August 2012)

gav said:


> It's quite ironic that people use the USA as an example of why stronger gun laws are required,and list the low gun-related crime stats of nations with very strict gun laws, such as Japan - as if gun laws are the main (or only) factor.




I haven't done either. But let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country. It doesn't take a genius to conclude there is probably a nexus between the two. 

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Ageo (30 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> I haven't done either. But let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country. It doesn't take a genius to conclude there is probably a nexus between the two.
> 
> Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.




So the answer is to punish those who abide by the law while the criminals still go on about their business?

Thats what this country is doing and look how well we are going


----------



## McLovin (30 August 2012)

Ageo said:


> So the answer is to punish those who abide by the law while the criminals still go on about their business?
> 
> Thats what this country is doing and look how well we are going




What is it with you gun fanciers and your strawman arguments?


----------



## gav (30 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> I haven't done either. But let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country. It doesn't take a genius to conclude there is probably a nexus between the two.
> 
> Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.




Do you really believe Japan would have a similar gun homicide rate to the US if they had the same gun laws as the US?


----------



## bandicoot76 (30 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country.
> Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.




actually this statement is innaccurate cherry picked propaganda material,

 gunlaws in the US are a STATE (sometimes even city) issue so "cause and effect" comparisons  have to be looked at state by state for both the strictness of their respective firearm legislation as against their individual homicide rates

if you do this the states/cities in the US with draconian prohibitive gunlaws such as new york, washington dc, los angeles, chicago etc etc have the highest homicide rates due to racial/gang/drug war related crime, usuallyt combined with an under-resourced overworked police force, a 'progressive' (corrupt?) legal system and a disarmed populace unable to protect themselves ....

compare that to states with libertarian gunlaws such as arizona, texas etc etc and you will see that the homicide rates are much lower... 

to match the high homicide rates of the former states to the gunlaws of the latter states in a nation wide summary is disingenious at best!


----------



## McLovin (31 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> actually this statement is innaccurate cherry picked propaganda material,




What is cherry picked about it? No state can get around the US Constitution; state laws have to work within the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment gives rise to the most liberal gun policy in the developed world (probably the entire world). The US Constitution overrides state law, it is afterall the document that unites the states.

There's nothing inaccurate about it.

You can split it down by city or state but in all the time I lived in the US, I was never stopped at a state border (the Fourth Amendment makes that unconstitutional. It also allows idiots to drive around blind drunk without fear of arrest but that's another story), or even coming from somewhere like Arlington, Virginia a suburb of DC into DC proper. State laws means sweet FA unless you enforce them at the border. But I guess you'd actually have to live there rather than spend your time critiquing at 10,000km's to understand that.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> actually this statement is innaccurate cherry picked propaganda material,
> 
> gunlaws in the US are a STATE (sometimes even city) issue so "cause and effect" comparisons  have to be looked at state by state for both the strictness of their respective firearm legislation as against their individual homicide rates
> 
> ...




Not strictly true! The gun states have very high homicide rates compared to states like Minnesota with stricter gun laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state


----------



## bandicoot76 (31 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> What is cherry picked about it? No state can get around the US Constitution; state laws have to work within the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment gives rise to the most liberal gun policy in the developed world (probably the entire world). The US Constitution overrides state law, it is afterall the document that unites the states.
> 
> There's nothing inaccurate about it.
> 
> You can split it down by city or state but in all the time I lived in the US, I was never stopped at a state border (the Fourth Amendment makes that unconstitutional. It also allows idiots to drive around blind drunk without fear of arrest but that's another story), or even coming from somewhere like Arlington, Virginia a suburb of DC into DC proper. State laws means sweet FA unless you enforce them at the border. But I guess you'd actually have to live there rather than spend your time critiquing at 10,000km's to understand that.




if you've lived there then you should know better than annyone where the homicide hot spots are and how they are generally UNRELATED to an armed majority of law abiding citizen firearm owners (as protected by the 2nd amendment) and how they are DIRECTLY related to urban gang warfare that has its roots tied to racial conflict (bloods vs crips etc) control of drug turf (think florida & mexican border regions) ...

also its ironic that simply because you have lived there for a period of time you feel free to assume noone else has and are simply armchair critics commenting from '10,000 km away'... probly best not to make assumptions on other posters from a position of ignorance to their circumstances methinks!


----------



## bandicoot76 (31 August 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Not strictly true! The gun states have very high homicide rates compared to states like Minnesota with stricter gun laws.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state




http://www.largo.org/Lott.html


----------



## Ageo (2 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> What is it with you gun fanciers and your strawman arguments?




Nothing, 

I only have a problem with those who impose their views on others and tell them what they should have shouldn't have...

If your anti gun then so be it... But don't take out your hatred on others and say they should be banned

I don't say latte and frappe's should be banned even thow I might not like them

Criminals and socioeconomics are the problem here not the tools at hand.


----------



## MrBurns (2 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> Nothing,
> 
> I only have a problem with those who impose their views on others and tell them what they should have shouldn't have...
> 
> ...




We like to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases, the only way is to keep them out of everyones hands, unless the nutcases can be identified.
There is absolutely no reason to have a gun in the city in any case.
No one ever died from a latte as far as I know.

You dont want others views imposed on you ? Ok I live next door to you and I want to keep pit bulls and let them loose on the street, that ok with you ?


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> We like to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases, the only way is to keep them out of everyones hands, unless the nutcases can be identified.
> There is absolutely no reason to have a gun in the city in any case.
> No one ever died from a latte as far as I know.
> 
> You dont want others views imposed on you ? Ok I live next door to you and I want to keep pit bulls and let them loose on the street, that ok with you ?




Mr burns there a plenty of drive by shootings each week done with illegal firearms by nutcases so banning it will not stop the problem (it will only affect legitimate users)

As for your pit bull views etc... What has that got do with this? If you have put bulls then no problem, letting them loose on the street would be invading other people's privacy which would hold you responsible so inturn the responsible party should be punished not other dog owners.

As for your "if u live in the city you shouldn't have a gun view" what about the hundreds of thousands of legitimate target shooters and hunters? They should all be punished because of a small group of bad apples? 

Unfortunately it's these views which makes us into what we call today "a nanny state"


----------



## Tink (3 September 2012)

I am not sure if this is off topic, but I see the police have confiscated more than 100 guns from motorcycle clubs.
Why would they need 40 guns in a clubhouse, not to mention, more alcohol than in a pub?

*Fit-and-proper test sees bikies lose guns *
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bikies-lose-guns/story-e6frgczx-1226456997908


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> Mr burns there a plenty of drive by shootings each week done with illegal firearms by nutcases so banning it will not stop the problem (it will only affect legitimate users)




Imagine how many more there would be if firearms were legal, these drive by shootings are almost always crims targeting crims anyway, not the general public.



> As for your pit bull views etc... What has that got do with this? If you have put bulls then no problem, letting them loose on the street would be invading other people's privacy which would hold you responsible so inturn the responsible party should be punished not other dog owners.




You have a dangertous weapon in your home why shouldn't I ?
It'll be OK the dogs havent attacked anyone yet, but accients do happen dont they, same with guns.



> As for your "if u live in the city you shouldn't have a gun view" what about the hundreds of thousands of legitimate target shooters and hunters? They should all be punished because of a small group of bad apples?




Legiimate shooters can have guns now.



> Unfortunately it's these views which makes us into what we call today "a nanny state"




Sorry but allowing everyone to own a gun is just plain stupid.


----------



## McLovin (3 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> Nothing,
> 
> I only have a problem with those who impose their views on others and tell them what they should have shouldn't have...
> 
> ...




For the umpteenth time, I haven't said I want guns banned. I made a comment in relation to the Second Amendment providing people with an inalienable _right_ to own firearms and that I thought, and still think, that it is out of date. 

It's ridiculous that in many parts of America it's easier to obtain a gun than it is to obtain a driver's license. And then where do you draw the line? A friend of mine from Texas has a semi-automatic machine gun, is that really necessary for anyone outside of the military?


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Imagine how many more there would be if firearms were legal, these drive by shootings are almost always crims targeting crims anyway, not the general public.
> 
> Now your contradicting yourself.... 1stly firearms are legal to obtain and 2nd your saying if there were more guns there would be more shootings but then you say the shootings are done by crims so if there are more legal guns in circulation how does this change the fact that crims get and use guns that are actually banned already so im yet to see your point of view? Remember you could ban all guns tomorrow and i can assure you there would be weekly drive by shootings
> 
> ...




While your at it ban fast cars as they kill, smoking cause that kills, alcohol because that kills, drugs (oops already banned) and fast food cause they causes alot of obesity which inturn kills.........

you see my point? or not really?


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> For the umpteenth time, I haven't said I want guns banned. I made a comment in relation to the Second Amendment providing people with an inalienable _right_ to own firearms and that I thought, and still think, that it is out of date.
> 
> It's ridiculous that in many parts of America it's easier to obtain a gun than it is to obtain a driver's license. And then where do you draw the line? A friend of mine from Texas has a semi-automatic machine gun, is that really necessary for anyone outside of the military?





I understand Mclovin but remember in the U.S most gun related crime happens in areas where the gun laws are much more strict.....  than those that are lax


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> While your at it ban fast cars as they kill, smoking cause that kills, alcohol because that kills, drugs (oops already banned) and fast food cause they causes alot of obesity which inturn kills.........
> 
> you see my point? or not really?





You really dont have a point just a weak excuse, you cant compare guns with cars, it's just the usual gun lovers excuse the arm everyone and stuff any safety there is left in society.


----------



## McLovin (3 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> I understand Mclovin but remember in the U.S most gun related crime happens in areas where the gun laws are much more strict.....  than those that are lax




The problem with that argument, as I explained up thread, is that it is impossible to enforce. Too hard to buy a handgun in Chicago? No problem, just drive across the border into Indiana, where there are vitually no restrictions. Ditto Virginia, if I live in DC. Without probable cause, the police can't stop me for a random search when I cross the border back into Illinois, or into the Chicago city limit.

It's a dangerous slippery slope once you start allowing people to arm themselves. If someone breaks into my home it's highly unlikely they will have a weapon on them because it's highly unlikely I will have one. Contrast that to the US, if someone breaks into your home it is highly likely that they have a gun because they will be expecting you to have one. Consequently people sleep with shotguns in their bedrooms. And I don't mean rednecks out in the sticks, I mean Democrat voting inner-city trendies.

I would be interested in knowing where you think the line should be drawn. Should people be allowed to purchase semi-automatics or missile launchers, bazookas, flame throwers etc?


----------



## Ageo (3 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> It's a dangerous slippery slope once you start allowing people to arm themselves. If someone breaks into my home it's highly unlikely they will have a weapon on them because it's highly unlikely I will have one. Contrast that to the US, if someone breaks into your home it is highly likely that they have a gun because they will be expecting you to have one. Consequently people sleep with shotguns in their bedrooms. And I don't mean rednecks out in the sticks, I mean Democrat voting inner-city trendies.
> 
> I would be interested in knowing where you think the line should be drawn. Should people be allowed to purchase semi-automatics or missile launchers, bazookas, flame throwers etc?





Well if I was a robber I would defiantely want to pick a house that has an unarmed person as opposed to an armed 1....  I have 2 young daughters and I can tell you if someone were to break into my house I would defend my house with whatever means possible as its my house and my rules if you don't like it don't come here.

As for the line drawn well civilians were never allowed to own bazookas and flame throwers (unless with a very special permit for FT) as previously mentioned  semi auto and full auto rifles are owned in swiss land and they have hardly any crime compared to many countries that have harsh gun laws like the U.K for example so I understand people don't like firearms but it doesn't mean if you have 1 it automatically makes you a murderer (although some sad people perceive that)


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> A friend of mine from Texas has a semi-automatic machine gun, is that really necessary for anyone outside of the military?




this one quote from you shows how ignorant you are on the issue of firearms, as is nearly always the case with people who form the 'anti' agenda...

there is NO SUCH THING AS A SEMI AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN!!! in fact even the term 'semi automatic' is not an accurate description of a style of firearm. your "friend from texas" either possess's a self loading firearm (one depression of the trigger causes the firing of one round of ammunition), or a machine gun (one depression causes the firearm to repeadedly discharge until the trigger is released)

 pretty simple really but i guess your "revelation" caused other people ignorant of firearms to go 'tsk tsk isnt that terrible, what nutcase would need or want a semi-atomatic machinegun'....even though its complete bollocks! if you really want to comment on the issue educate yourself on it first and stop spreading emotive claptrap please, i posted a study by a professor Lott of chicago uni a few posts back that would be a great place to start your education re american gunlaws! 

im not saying americans have got it totally right with their position, i am totally AGAINST military style self-loading or machineguns in the general population, they belong on the battlefield not the shooting range, that said their protection of the right of a law abiding citizen own a firearm is not a problem as it is the criminal element who are the problem.


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> And I don't mean rednecks out in the sticks?





again your ignorance and insulting stereo-typing bullsh*t taint the contributions you make on this thread, if your not careful you'll stoop to mr burns level of emotive vitriolic attacks devoid of any facts or intelligent contributions to the thread.


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> again your ignorance and insulting stereo-typing bullsh*t taint the contributions you make on this thread, if your not careful you'll stoop to mr burns level of emotive vitriolic attacks devoid of any facts or intelligent contributions to the thread.




People who call others ignorant are more than likely the ignorant one as you have just demonstrated, as for intelligence I'm surprised you can even spell it.


----------



## Joules MM1 (3 September 2012)

:jerry

is this any help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

opcorn:


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> People who call others ignorant are more than likely the ignorant one as you have just demonstrated, as for intelligence I'm surprised you can even spell it.




...exhibit A.... i rest my case


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> :jerry
> 
> is this any help?
> 
> ...




i dont deny that "semi automatic" is a widely used description of that type of firearm, however the correct technical term is "self loading firearm" ... go ask your local gunsmith if you dont believe me... semi auto is the generic name.


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry but allowing everyone to own a gun is just plain stupid.




allowing people to eat fast food seems stupid but guess what we dont live in some Orwellian nightmare, i have no interest in guns, but the right to own one should be available. Classic mindset of the left, i dont agree with something so NO-ONE should be able to do it.


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> allowing people to eat fast food seems stupid but guess what we dont live in some Orwellian nightmare, i have no interest in guns, but the right to own one should be available. Classic mindset of the left, i dont agree with something so NO-ONE should be able to do it.




The day I shoot someone with a hamburger because I've had a bad day I'll agree with you.


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> The day I shoot someone with a hamburger because I've had a bad day I'll agree with you.




......"and in conclusion your honour i present exhibit B!"


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> The day I shoot someone with a hamburger because I've had a bad day I'll agree with you.




Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> ......"and in conclusion your honour i present exhibit B!"




The reason guns aren't allowed into decent society is that they are acquired by fools, simpletons and immature weaklings who try to prove they have power, I present Exhibit A (above) I rest my case.

And it is because of this that you and your kind will have to be content owning dangerous dogs or whatever else you do in a vain attempt to compensate for your inadequacies.


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither




You cant use that for the gun argument, in a populated society you sacrfice some freedoms for the good of all, it's called "the law"


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> You cant use that for the gun argument, in a populated society you sacrfice some freedoms for the good of all, it's called "the law"




haha, you are really out of your depth on this one, you should just stop


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> haha, you are really out of your depth on this one, you should just stop




You cant understand that ? 

We have laws to stop people driving over a set speed, drinking over a certain amount and driving etc etc they'll all restriction of freedom arent they, so complain about those.


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> The reason guns aren't allowed into decent society is that they are acquired by fools, simpletons and immature weaklings who try to prove they have power, I present Exhibit A (above) I rest my case.
> 
> And it is because of this that you and your kind will have to be content owning dangerous dogs or whatever else you do in a vain attempt to compensate for your inadequacies.




this type of vicious, immature, rediculous, offensive, childish, etc etc post is why you are a (bad) joke burnsy, it is impossible to discuss let alone debate this topic (gun ownership) with you because YOU degenerate it into a sh*t flinging match when someone with an opposing view tries to raise a point. 

as soon as someone tries to challenge your (narrow-minded) viewpoint you ignore totally the point they were trying to make, go off on a tangent and launch into an ad hominem attack like some frenzied monkey with ADHD.

the so called "facts" you throw around (psychos dont buy guns from the black market???? REALLY!,criminals dont use guns on citizens only other criminals etc etc) are complete rubbish and try as i might i havnt found ONE post of yours that doesnt involve a vitriolic attack on the individual poster rather than a rational response to the point that was put forward by them...

 i have given up trying to take you seriously to engage in serious discussion of this topic and now regard you as an irritation not worthy of the effort to refute your mud-slinging monkey tactics...


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> this type of vicious, immature, rediculous, offensive, childish, etc etc post is why you are a (bad) joke burnsy, it is impossible to discuss let alone debate this topic (gun ownership) with you because YOU degenerate it into a sh*t flinging match when someone with an opposing view tries to raise a point.
> 
> as soon as someone tries to challenge your (narrow-minded) viewpoint you ignore totally the point they were trying to make, go off on a tangent and launch into an ad hominem attack like some frenzied monkey with ADHD.
> 
> ...




Sorry if I struck a raw nerve there , I only hit out when I'm insulted so you can cease and desist.

I must admit I have little respect for the gun lobby, the facts are in the evidence is there but they just keep rabbiting on like the ignorant red necks they are, easy targets really, excuse the pun.


----------



## bandicoot76 (3 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> must admit I have little respect for the gun lobby, the facts are in the evidence is there but they just keep rabbiting on like the ignorant red necks they are.




again with the insults! you wouldnt know the 'gun lobby' if you fell over it.... 

you have a pre concieved discriminatory stereotype that you label anyone who disagrees with you redneck, looney, gunnut, yahoo and all the other derogatory insults youve dreamed up to ridicule the BIG BAD GUN LOBBY, who in reality are just ordinary people (both men and women) who enjoy the shooting sports... watch the clay target shooters at the olympics, they are your scary gun lobby, the people at your local rifle/pistol/target range... they are your horrible horrible rednecks, the people who like to go bush for the weekend and shoot a few bunnies for the pot etc etc etc... 

these are the people YOU are insulting by your snide posts, not the outlaw bikers or neighborhood crims who deserve your wrath for using guns for criminal purposes! that is why i totally disrespect you for your generalised lumping together of all firearm owners under the redneck gunlobby loonies banner! 

i bet you would protest and chuck a hissy fit if i called you an urban soy-decaf latte drinking, half-bi, hippy greenie p**f wouldnt you, as it is insulting untruthful vitriol !!! so why do you think you can do the same and not be considered a total hypcrite!


----------



## CanOz (3 September 2012)

Stick to the topic of gun control, less on the rednecks....

We had a decent little debate going that was sprinkled with a few facts here and there. Let's try and get back on that path before it ends in deleted posts and infractions for insults.

Thanks in advance.


CanOz


----------



## Tannin (3 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither




Quite right. And I refuse to sacrifice my freedom not to be shot at. There is no legitimate reason to  own a gun in the city. None. If you want to belong to a gun club, fine. Keep your weapons in that club. At all times. The ONLY purpose of a weapon in the city is to commit harm to some one or some thing. Pretending that you have a "right" to own and use things which are dangerous to others and 100% useless for any worthwhile task is madness.


----------



## DB008 (3 September 2012)

Something must be not right if Mexican drug cartels are purchasing guns from the USA, to fight against their own police/military (in Mexico).

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-14/us/mexico.guns_1_mexican-drug-drug-cartels-drug-gangs?_s=PM:US
Debunking -- http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/myth-90-mexican-drug-cartel-guns-come-us

Still, it's a lot of guns out there. 


(50 .Cal / AK47 --- WTF...)


----------



## bandicoot76 (4 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Quite right. And I refuse to sacrifice my freedom not to be shot at. There is no legitimate reason to  own a gun in the city. None. If you want to belong to a gun club, fine. Keep your weapons in that club. At all times. The ONLY purpose of a weapon in the city is to commit harm to some one or some thing. Pretending that you have a "right" to own and use things which are dangerous to others and 100% useless for any worthwhile task is madness.




what makes you think someone from a sporting club would shoot at you???? that is illogical! do you think that as soon as they leave the club they suddenly become homicidal maniacs or something? so you would prefer guns all locked up in a communal gunsafe on the range rather than a personal gunsafe at the persons home?
 sounds like the perfect 'soft target' for criminals to raid to get a whole lot of weapons from one place to me! again the 'anti' people assume firearm owners are all homicidal redneck loonies who play shoot em ups without regard to other ppl...

 FIREARM SAFETY is first and foremost in the mind of sporting shooters... it is drummed into us from a young age, constantly in the forefront of your thoughts no matter whether on the range, in the field or even while cleaning your gun (prior to locking it away)!!! 

the ppl most likely to shoot at you are criminals and have illegal, unregistered weapons purchased from the black market that all the legislation and regulations under the sun will HAVE NO EFFECT ON AT ALL! the crims in our community are ALREADY armed to the teeth and can get whatever they want, yes even rocket launchers stolen from the army, unfortunately that is a fact... get used to it but dont blame the carnage on law abiding shooters OR their firearms... neither are to blame!

constantly blaming sporting shooters (and their firearms) for urban guncrime is a total croc! i refer you again to my previous post linking the research of professor lott of the university of chicago regarding the crime statistics of 'concealed carry' states of america to those who dont.

making emotive statements without actually doing any research on the topic seems foolhardy to me,

i stand by this statement regarding crimes involving guns  "I wasnt there, neither was my gun!" i feel sad for the victims of gun crimes and extreme anger at the perpetrators of them, but i feel no personal guilt and reject any call from the "anti" crowd that i am somehow responsible, i am not, neither are the other 99.9% of law abiding firearm owners out there... and there are a million+ of us.


----------



## McLovin (4 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> this one quote from you shows how ignorant you are on the issue of firearms, as is nearly always the case with people who form the 'anti' agenda...
> 
> there is NO SUCH THING AS A SEMI AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN!!! in fact even the term 'semi automatic' is not an accurate description of a style of firearm. your "friend from texas" either possess's a self loading firearm (one depression of the trigger causes the firing of one round of ammunition), or a machine gun (one depression causes the firearm to repeadedly discharge until the trigger is released).




Brilliant!

I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about. 

Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.




			
				bandicoot76;726714E said:
			
		

> pretty simple really but i guess your "revelation" caused other people ignorant of firearms to go 'tsk tsk isnt that terrible, what nutcase would need or want a semi-atomatic machinegun'....




Yeah, I did. I thought, do I want to live in a country where that sort of weapon is available to the general piblic? The answer was no.




			
				bandicoot76 said:
			
		

> again your ignorance and insulting stereo-typing bullsh*t taint the contributions you make on this thread,




Wow. Well done on taking things out of context. How about you quote my entire statement?

Parsing does you no favours. And is probably beneath you.


----------



## McLovin (4 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.
> 
> Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.




I checked with him. It's an Uzi. Just what every concerned citizen needs. An armed society is a polite society, afterall.


----------



## bandicoot76 (4 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.
> 
> ...




anytime i hear firearm owners lumped under the derogatory "redneck" or looney etc etc banner no matter the context i find it insulting and adds no intelligent input to the debate... no retraction nor apolagy for that one! 

all in all i find your input to the discussion pretty balanced mate... just hold back with the redneck type insults and i have no dramas at all!


----------



## McLovin (4 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> anytime i hear firearm owners lumped under the derogatory "redneck" or looney etc etc banner no matter the context i find it insulting and adds no intelligent input to the debate... no retraction nor apolagy for that one!
> 
> all in all i find your input to the discussion pretty balanced mate... just hold back with the redneck type insults and i have no dramas at all!




Fair enough, sorry if I came across as a bit rude. You seem to be pretty up to speed with it. I think the rest of the sentence was important because, to many people outside the US, the stereotypical gun owner is of a white Southern male, in a pickup truck, with a Confederate flag somewhere on it, carrying a gun. Or an inner city black kid in a gang. It runs the full gammit.

It wasn't meant to be an insult. You don't think I'd hang around with redneck Texans do you!:



> i totally agree with you on this point and i (along with a vast majority of sporting shooters) see no need for these type of military firearms to be available to the public...




This goes back to my original point then. The Second Amendment is out of date.

If you put it in historical context, it is actually quite a reactionary document. Much of the US Bill of Rights is based on the older English Bill of Rights (a lot of it is almost lifted straight from the English BoR). The right to bear arms is included in the English BoR but that right rests with the Parliament to legislate, whereas the US document gives that right to the people. If you think back to that period in history (those messy little tea parties in Boston etc), you can see why they sought to place those rights directly in the hands of the people rather than the Congress, given they had had such a poor experience with government, to that point.

The thing with guns is that it's a Pandora's Box. Once you let everyone have them you can't get rid of them. The only example of a modern, wealthy, politcially stable nation that allows liberal access to firearms has a significantly higher number of gun related murders. Maybe there are other reasons that partially explain it but I really can't see how it has no effect.


----------



## bandicoot76 (4 September 2012)

i find it rather frustrating trying to have a balanced discussion/debate while being bombarded with insulting derogatory insults and emotive rhetoric rather than facts on this thread so this will be my last effort at putting my ideas across.

ok... lets play make believe and say the 'anti' folks on this thread get their way and for "safety's sake" get a TOTAL ban on all privately owned firearms, all registered firearms are confiscated and destroyed...

 hell lets take it one step further and say that due to their knowedge of firearms posing a potentioal threat to the community that all previously liscened firearm owners be rounded up and sent to internment facilities to be detained and individually analized to determine their mental stability and potential risk to the community..

there are three things that i can guarentee will occur in this scenario:

1) the people that you fear may cause you harm in the community will still be there, their intent to cause you harm will remain intact, their potential to enact that harm may (or may not) be curbed by firearm access but they sure as hell will find a way to make it happen (think sarin gas in tokyo subway, or fuel arson attack on the theatre in sth america, bombs from fuel/fertilizer in oklahoma... mass csualties no guns..) 

2)the criminal element in society will not only remain armed but will now be ever more adventurous as they can  now prey on an unarmed community.... the crime rate will increase rapidly... count on it!

3) the precedent is set for government to sieze private property without recompense... it would bankrupt the govt to pay correct value for all the private guns in circulation. heres a quick calculation off the top of my head...

most firearm owners average 3 guns each, most firearms cost around $1000.00, the quoted figure of firearm owners in Aus is 764,518 (that is a VERY conservative number... i have seen figures showing 1million plus)

so...  that is 3 x $1000 x 764,518 = $2,293,554,000 to remove ONLY the legally held firearms, what benefit for that cost?

but thats not even the main point i was making, the PRECEDANT of seizing and confiscating private property with no recompense for "the common good" is the real worry here, whats next after guns? bows & arrows? big dogs? fast cars? high carb/fat/sugar/salt food? pointy sticks? once you pass that point its a VERY slippery slope! 

but in the meantime i'll be taking my rifle out to shoot a couple of bunnies for the pot whenever i damn well please and all you 'anti's' can p*ss well away off!


----------



## MrBurns (4 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> there are three things that i can guarentee will occur in this scenario:
> 
> 1) the people that you fear may cause you harm in the community will still be there, their intent to cause you harm will remain intact, their potential to enact that harm may (or may not) be curbed by firearm access but they sure as hell will find a way to make it happen (think sarin gas in tokyo subway, or fuel arson attack on the theatre in sth america, bombs from fuel/fertilizer in oklahoma... mass csualties no guns..)




Much easier to mass kill with a gun than anything else, guns would be easily to hand and impulse killings would soar.



> 2)the criminal element in society will not only remain armed but will now be ever more adventurous as they can  now prey on an unarmed community.... the crime rate will increase rapidly... count on it!




Thats ridiculous, you seriously think people will have gun fights ? Crims have guns and always will and you want the general community with no firearms experience to have firefights ? You're crazy.



> 3) the precedent is set for government to sieze private property without recompense... it would bankrupt the govt to pay correct value for all the private guns in circulation. heres a quick calculation off the top of my head...
> 
> most firearm owners average 3 guns each, most firearms cost around $1000.00, the quoted figure of firearm owners in Aus is 764,518 (that is a VERY conservative number... i have seen figures showing 1million plus)
> 
> so...  that is 3 x $1000 x 764,518 = $2,293,554,000 to remove ONLY the legally held firearms, what benefit for that cost?




You must be talking USA, to change things there would take years but they should start as it's only going to get worse.



> but thats not even the main point i was making, the PRECEDANT of seizing and confiscating private property with no recompense for "the common good" is the real worry here, whats next after guns? bows & arrows? big dogs? fast cars? high carb/fat/sugar/salt food? pointy sticks? once you pass that point its a VERY slippery slope!




Absolute drivel.



> but in the meantime i'll be taking my rifle out to shoot a couple of bunnies for the pot whenever i damn well please and all you 'anti's' can p*ss well away off!




How brave of you. You just like to kill, it's nothing to do with food.


----------



## Ageo (4 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> How brave of you. You just like to kill, it's nothing to do with food.





MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.

You should run for politics


----------



## white_goodman (4 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.
> 
> You should run for politics




finally someone else gets it, i have no interest in guns yet you dont see me getting all authoritarian


----------



## Julia (4 September 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> i find it rather frustrating trying to have a balanced discussion/debate while being bombarded with insulting derogatory insults and emotive rhetoric rather than facts on this thread so this will be my last effort at putting my ideas across.
> 
> ok... lets play make believe and say the 'anti' folks on this thread get their way and for "safety's sake" get a TOTAL ban on all privately owned firearms, all registered firearms are confiscated and destroyed...
> 
> hell lets take it one step further and say that due to their knowedge of firearms posing a potentioal threat to the community that all previously liscened firearm owners be rounded up and sent to internment facilities to be detained and individually analized to determine their mental stability and potential risk to the community..



That's just being silly and seems to me a disappointing response to McLovin's post which came across to me as peace-making and reasonable.
You criticise others for 'emotive rhetoric' and then you propose a scenario as above.  Hardly a way to win people to your point of view.


----------



## McLovin (4 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That's just being silly and seems to me a disappointing response to McLovin's post which came across to me as peace-making and reasonable.
> You criticise others for 'emotive rhetoric' and then you propose a scenario as above.  Hardly a way to win people to your point of view.




I don't think bandicoot's post was directed at me. I'd say he was already typing it out when I posted mine, judging by the time stamps.


----------



## Julia (4 September 2012)

Yes, thanks McLovin.  Unfortunate timing on my part and a drawing of a wrong conclusion.
Sorry, bandicoot.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 September 2012)

Playing child shot with air rifle in yard
Posted 1 hour 16 minutes ago

Map: Traralgon 3844
 A nine-year-old girl has been shot while playing with her brother in their backyard at Traralgon, in Victoria's south-east.

The girl was shot in the abdomen with what is believed to be an air rifle around 5:30pm yesterday.

She was treated for minor injuries.

The girl told police she and her younger sister had been threatened by a man while playing in the street earlier in the day.

Police have expressed outrage at what they say was the deliberate targeting of a child.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/child-shot-with-air-rifle-while-playing/4243514


----------



## MrBurns (5 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.
> 
> You should run for politics




Rubbish..... I love guns, I love anything metal and mechanical, cars, trains, guns, all that stuff, I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:


----------



## Julia (5 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:



I have to agree with you on this, and just hope most of the animals that people kill for fun exist in extraordinary numbers so the killing for fun can be at least partially justified.


----------



## Ageo (5 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:




again another reason why this thread has no substance, I agree there are sick people in this world that do stupid things (but that's with everything) but you directing that statement to a majority of people who treat animals with respect, hunt with high ethical standards, hunt for a purpose (feral animal control or meat consumption) and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.

I take my family out shooting rabbits/pigs other species For both the pot and vermin control and because we enjoy it, show the kids where meat actually comes from, get out in the fresh air and show them how a simple life can be your saying I'm twisted mentally?

MrBurns like I said you should run for politics


----------



## prawn_86 (5 September 2012)

I'm for both for gun control and hunting. If you have a legitimate reason (ie hunting) to own a rifle then imo that is fine, i just dont see why the average person in the city needs to own one.

I think everyone should either hunt or kill an animal they eat at least once in their life, if you cant kill an animal then you probably shouldn't eat meat. I grew up in a rural area and shooting kangaroos or slaughtering your own sheep, chickens etc. It makes you appreciate where food comes from and learn respect for nature and animals.

The vast majority of hunters try for a clean kill, which of course isn't always posisble, but killing something you eat is still something most people wont understand until they have done it themselves.


----------



## MrBurns (5 September 2012)

Ageo said:


> again another reason why this thread has no substance, I agree there are sick people in this world that do stupid things (but that's with everything) but you directing that statement to a majority of people who treat animals with respect, hunt with high ethical standards, hunt for a purpose (feral animal control or meat consumption) and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.
> 
> I take my family out shooting rabbits/pigs other species For both the pot and vermin control and because we enjoy it, show the kids where meat actually comes from, get out in the fresh air and show them how a simple life can be your saying I'm twisted mentally?
> 
> MrBurns like I said you should run for politics




You might see the good in a family day out killing small animals but I'm afraid I don't.

Killing for food if you need to is fine, but a family day out ? I bet you all have a good ole' belly laugh as bunny gets blown apart, reminds me of the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons in the Simpsons.

Not to mention the danger to others who might be enjoying the outdoors without needing to blow animals apart.



> and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.




You have to be joking right ?


Added - I think this wil just go round in circles, so may as well end this debate here. I just cant understand how people hunt for fun, my neighbour does but I just dont get it.


----------



## Julia (5 September 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I think everyone should either hunt or kill an animal they eat at least once in their life, if you cant kill an animal then you probably shouldn't eat meat.



What extraordinary logic.



> I grew up in a rural area and shooting kangaroos or slaughtering your own sheep, chickens etc. It makes you appreciate where food comes from and learn respect for nature and animals.



I think most of us understand that the leg of lamb comes from a young sheep being killed for food.  Hardly need to butcher it ourselves to get that!
And how you can suggest killing animals demonstrates respect for them is absolutely beyond me.

Probably a discussion that is best not pursued.  It's very emotive and will only cause tempers to flare more than they have already on this thread.


----------



## prawn_86 (5 September 2012)

Julia said:


> What extraordinary logic.




I dont see how it is any different to picking fruit or growing vegetables, both of which are good education. Admittedly it is not as easy to kill an animal (both emotionally and logistically), hence why i think everyone should do it at least once, not all the time.

Less than 200 years ago pretty much everyone had to do this at some stage in their life. Or if they didnt kill animals for food, they at least saw it being done (or gutted, cleaned it etc) and could appreciate where food comes from and what is involved.

You would be surprised how many people have never seen an animal being killed and dont actually think about where their food comes from. If more people did this then perhaps there would be more thought around sustainable farming, food wastage etc.

It actually warrants it's own thread so i have started another one now so we can keep this thread about gun control


----------



## DB008 (22 October 2012)

7 people injured this time...



> Seven hurt in spa shooting spree
> 
> At least seven people have been injured in a shooting at or near a day spa in the midwestern US state of Wisconsin.
> Police have told reporters they were looking for a black male who may be driving a black Mazda as a suspect in the shooting overnight in Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee.
> ...


----------



## DB008 (11 November 2012)

Relevant....

http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Award-Winners/show/Vanguard/Guns-in-America-4201205.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I just cant understand how people hunt for fun, my neighbour does but I just dont get it.



I'm not at all keen on hunting as a "sport" but I acknowledge that others disagree. The main issue I have with it, is that so far as I'm concerned a sport involves the possibility of win, lose or draw as the outcome. I fail to see how anyone "loses" hunting, unless they themselves are shot which seems to be rare. In other words, it seems awfully one sided - the animals aren't armed, and nobody fires even a single shot in the direction of the hunters.

It's like having a motor race with one V8 and another 20 small 4 cylinder cars. Or putting an established cricket team up against a group of recently arrived immigrants who have never actually seen a game of cricket played before, let alone played it themselves. Or a mathematics competition where one participant is a university maths lecturer and the rest are professional chefs. So far as I'm concerned, it's just not sport when the game is so far skewed in favour of one side as to make the outcome virtually certain.

All that said, no doubt there will be hunters who don't "get" why anyone would invest in shares, let alone discuss it on a forum but hunting isn't for me that's for sure.

So far as the "blow them up versus clean killing" bit is concerned, my experience with such people is to the effect that groups of males under 30 on "hunting trips" favour the "blow 'em up" approach, especially when plenty of alcohol is involved (as it usually is on such trips). Older people, farmers etc go for a clean kill but, in the case of amateurs, still manage to mess it up reasonably often.

I'm no radical Green that's for sure, but I can't see the point in killing for the sake of it. And don't even mention those who start shooting at things other than animals....


----------



## Julia (11 November 2012)

+1, Smurf.


----------



## DB008 (15 December 2012)

x-post from Dutchie



> *Connecticut shooting leaves at least 26 dead*
> 
> At least 26 people, including up to 20 children between the ages of five and 10, have been killed in a mass shooting at the Sandy Hook primary school in Newton, a small town in rural Connecticut.
> 
> ...


----------



## CanOz (15 December 2012)

What a world we live in....

Only days apart, 20 children are slashed at a school in China, horrifying 

20 children are shot dead at a school in America, a senseless tradegy

But....access to firearms will be challenged eventually. The majority will get tired of the gun lobby.

God bless those poor, innocent little kids.

CanOz


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> What a world we live in....
> 
> Only days apart, 20 children are slashed at a school in China, horrifying
> 
> ...




Consider this mind boggling statistic. Then the Prez's big smile as he touts how civilized the US is.....  

http://www.iansa.org/news/2012/03/us-over-3000-children-killed-by-guns-every-year





> *US: Over 3,000 children killed by guns every year*






> Posted on Thu, 2012-03-01 00:00
> 
> *Just over 3,000 children are killed and 17,500 are injured by guns every year in the US*, according to the blog site ‘Kid shootings’, run by members of Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, Protect Minnesota and States United to Prevent Gun Violence. The site highlights statistics, articles and stories about minors involved in or affected by gun crimes or dangerous situations involving guns in the US.




Hmmm. Those stats are close to the number killed and injured by 9/11. Upon which the US declared a War On Terror.

It would seem however, that the US is not-so-covertly conducting it's very own War On Children every day of every month of every year. 

What a bunch of _GUTLESS_ US lawmakers and pollies they have.

I know, I know - I might "disappear" in an act of "rendition" for such critique, but I don't give a damn.


----------



## Pager (15 December 2012)

Some states have decided to do something about mass shootings I see, Michigan for example has legislated for people to carry concealed weapons in Schools and churches, apparently the states politicians think it will act as a deterrent !!!! now how F@cked up is that ?.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mic...ns-schools-just-hours-before-newtown-massacre

There’s always been a gun culture in the USA , always will be but what I don’t get is as the weapons get more and more sophisticated no one will legislate or take on the powerful gun lobby to restrict them or have them banned, its one thing having a Colt 45 or similar but some of the weapons available are built to kill en masse which is what needs addressing.


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 December 2012)

Pager said:


> Some states have decided to do something about mass shootings I see, Michigan for example has legislated for people to carry concealed weapons in Schools and churches, apparently the states politicians think it will act as a deterrent !!!! now how F@cked up is that ?.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/mic...ns-schools-just-hours-before-newtown-massacre
> 
> There’s always been a gun culture in the USA , always will be but what I don’t get is as the weapons get more and more sophisticated no one will legislate or take on the powerful gun lobby to restrict them or have them banned, its one thing having a Colt 45 or similar but _*some of the weapons available are built to kill en masse*_ which is what needs addressing.




The term WMD's comes to mind.....


----------



## Joules MM1 (15 December 2012)

December 14, 2012
*Newtown and the Madness of Guns*
Adam Gopnik


excerpt



> So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.




Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...wn-and-the-madness-of-guns.html#ixzz2F5rpDSOR

-------------------------------------



*Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban*
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
by Jeffrey M. Jones

(the charts within these links are quite amazing and give a picture far deeper than words can express. ed)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

excerpt:


> For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views.


----------



## DB008 (15 December 2012)

Nuts.....

If I were shopping in Coles/Woolies/Target/K-Mart and saw someone like this, l'd freak out. But this seems 'normal' in the USA. No wonder they have issues.......





> *A well dressed WalMart Shopper*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




and
Wal-Mart Adds Guns Alongside Butter


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2012)

Even if they ban them now it will take a generation to change the culture and get rid of many of the weapons, but they have to do it as things get more feral over there and the sooner they start the sooner it finishes.


----------



## Tink (15 December 2012)

This is sad to read, and always seems to be around children and schools.

I really hope the majority do challenge the gun lobby, and start implementing some changes -- they cant keep crying, saying its a tragedy and in a week its all back to normal.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 December 2012)

There are numerous examples of things which are done / used simply because they are there and guns are unfortunately no exception.

If things are there then people will use them. That's just the way it is and it applies to everything from cigarettes to lawn mowers. Most adults would have tried smoking at least once at some point in their lives and most people have mowed a lawn. If things are there, they get used.

Now, can anyone give me one legitimate reason why a gun is needed in an urban area? I can see a potential need for farmers etc, but not in the suburbs of a city. It's not like motor vehicles, for example, which whilst being a common cause of death also serve a very useful purpose. Guns have no actual purpose in a town or city and need not be there.

You don't need to spend long in the US to notice that Americans are obsessed with "freedom", "liberty" and their own military. Get on a domestic flight, attend a baseball game or anything like that and you'll notice it pretty quickly. The sad part is, the sheer obsession with it all is itself an expression of fear. And inciting fear is precisely the objective of terrorists. When, as a tourist, you end up being security screened several times in the one day that reality really hits you.


----------



## white_goodman (15 December 2012)

Would Banning Firearms reduce murder and suicide?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . ."


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2012)

There's no doubt banning guns would save lives but it would take years to take effect.

No you'll never stop crims from getting them but it would stop a number of suiicides as the immediacy of pulling a trigger would be gone and nut cases would find it difficult to get guns and it would also take away the immediacy of their actions.

Big political issue but I have a feeling Obama might get the ball rolling.


----------



## bellenuit (15 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> Would Banning Firearms reduce murder and suicide?
> 
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
> 
> "[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . ."




Of course, because guns do not make non-violent people violent or violent people non-violent. But guns do make violent people more lethal and non-violent people more likely to cause accidental deaths. A good example of the difference between violent acts where guns are involved compared to when they are not involved is a comparison between the knife wielding deranged man in a Chinese school just yesterday and what happened in the USA. In the former 20 kids were injured but none fatally. The latter had 20 killed as well as 8 adults.

This is a more relevant correlation statistic than what you quoted:


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2012)

It's common sense really, any arguments to the contrary are simply rubbish.


----------



## DB008 (15 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> There's no doubt banning guns would save lives but it would take years to take effect.
> 
> No you'll never stop crims from getting them but it would stop a number of suiicides as the immediacy of pulling a trigger would be gone and nut cases would find it difficult to get guns and it would also take away the immediacy of their actions.
> 
> Big political issue but I have a feeling Obama might get the ball rolling.




Yep.

And in 6 months time, l'll be posting in this thread again.....sadly....


----------



## Sean K (15 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> There's no doubt banning guns would save lives but it would take years to take effect.






DB008 said:


> Yep.
> 
> And in 6 months time, l'll be posting in this thread again.....sadly....



Yes, maybe another 2 generations to go perhaps. It will eventually change. Just hope I'm still around to see it.


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2012)

kennas said:


> Yes, maybe another 2 generations to go perhaps. It will eventually change. Just hope I'm still around to see it.




I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.




Let's hope so , Burnsie.

John Winston Howard did it here, with great courage and determination.

The Rifle Mob are powerful in the US though.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (15 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> Would Banning Firearms reduce murder and suicide?
> 
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
> 
> "[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . ."




This appears to be a paper written by a student many years ago...one of thousands of papers i would think.


----------



## DB008 (15 December 2012)

Interesting....

The gun ownership and gun homicides murder map of the world


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 December 2012)

The Yanks need to get John Howard to run a Congressional Hearing on how to do it.

He did it in the face of huge opposition and we are a safer place as a result.

Even Craig Emerson for gawds sake is bleating about it on Twitter, with a million other luvvies.

The Yanks need a real mover to make a change.

gg


----------



## DB008 (16 December 2012)

Bloomberg - 2 good segments

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/why-are-school-shootings-more-common-in-the-u-s-25SYHFwqQVe1t4X35FFpOw.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/barrett-guns-are-woven-into-american-history-GxbBRkZGRfKgrt_QT0S8Gw.html


----------



## dutchie (16 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.




Unfortunately, Burnsie, there is not a chance in the world Obama (like his predecessors) will do anything.

Money talks (more than lives).


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> John Winston Howard did it here, with great courage and determination.



I'm not a huge fan of the so-called "Liberal" party here in Australia (a better name for it would be "Conservative") but the gun laws were certainly a step in the right direction. Credit where it's due for that one.


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> This appears to be a paper written by a student many years ago...one of thousands of papers i would think.





it has the authors on the front page and their bio, strong reading... nice to see you address the conclusion of the paper

gun controls up = less death and vice versa is not a sufficient argument, homogeneity of society, poverty etc etc are much more sufficient explanatory variables... but if we are in the business of making us feel better and on a higher moral ground by subscribing to the anti gun rights meme then feel free to go ahead


----------



## Miss Hale (16 December 2012)

There has to be more to it than just the availabilty of guns, when you consider how common these incidents are in the US compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> it has the authors on the front page and their bio, strong reading... nice to see you address the conclusion of the paper
> 
> gun controls up = less death and vice versa is not a sufficient argument, homogeneity of society, poverty etc etc are much more sufficient explanatory variables... but if we are in the business of making us feel better and on a higher moral ground by subscribing to the anti gun rights meme then feel free to go ahead




Ok so what's not beyond dispute is the fact that there are a lot of guns in the US, more guns per capita than anywhere else....so if more guns = more safety then why are there so many mass shootings in the US?

Why don't we see mass stabbings in the US? mass poisonings? 

Gun controls up = less death and vice versa is a sufficient argument, and what's the down side to gun control anyway? oh right criminals will still be able to get them...oh shock horror, its random nutters we need protection from not criminals.


----------



## Macquack (16 December 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> *There has to be more to it than just the availabilty of guns*, when you consider how common these incidents are in the US compared to the rest of the world.




I find myself disagreeing with you on just about everything.

Again, I disagree, I think it IS as simple as the availability of guns.


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> I find myself disagreeing with you on just about everything.
> 
> Again, I disagree, I think it IS as simple as the availability of guns.




unfortuneatly the experience of the world disagrees with you...

Switzerland/Israel = high availability, little gun homicide (more appropriate measure is total homicide)
Japan = low and low
latin America = tight gun laws, high gun homicide

there is much more explanatory variables than simply gun rights/ownership. Homogeneity of society, poverty/wealth, cultural effects... the same reason why I dont think giving the Japanese guns would see the Japs gunning each other down is the same reason I dont thinking removing guns from the US will stop them topping each other...

Of course you could go the soviet union/russian route and outlaw guns which lead to a much higher homicide rate via stabbing,beatings etc... if the objective is simply remove mass gun killings you could go down that route, but the unintended consequences may not provide the best cost/benefit..


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Ok so what's not beyond dispute is the fact that there are a lot of guns in the US, more guns per capita than anywhere else....so if more guns = more safety then why are there so many mass shootings in the US?
> 
> Why don't we see mass stabbings in the US? mass poisonings?
> 
> Gun controls up = less death and vice versa is a sufficient argument, and what's the down side to gun control anyway? oh right criminals will still be able to get them...oh shock horror, its random nutters we need protection from not criminals.





read the paper i posted, it wont take long, you may find it illuminating..

its only a sufficient argument if you dont like to read or know anything


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> I find myself disagreeing with you on just about everything.
> 
> Again, I disagree, I think it IS as simple as the availability of guns.




The US is a more violent society. Guns have been normalised as part of their culture. Indeed, the right to have a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution (it's in the English one too, but in much more watered down form).

That being said, comparing across countries, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that the widespread availability of firearms (especially handguns) causes an increase in the number of deaths by firearm.


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> read the paper i posted, it wont take long, you may find it illuminating..
> 
> its only a sufficient argument if you dont like to read or know anything




The two guys who wrote that paper both come from the less is more camp of gun control. I haven't read the paper but it's probably worth noting.

Type Gary Mauser into Google and this comes up...


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> The US is a more violent society. Guns have been normalised as part of their culture. Indeed, the right to have a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution (it's in the English one too, but in much more watered down form).
> 
> That being said, comparing across countries, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that the widespread availability of firearms (especially handguns) causes an increase in the number of deaths by firearm.




if availability means both legal and illegal it would explain all the Americas.. now would outlawing guns in the US or watering it down remove its availability as its enshrined in the culture.. does the availability of guns deter other forms of homicide/crimes? would removing all availability lead them down the Russian experience of more deaths in total via beatings/stabbings?

A practical step would be to remove automatic guns, which could in a sense be argued as consistent with the 2nd amendment under its original meaning imo, which im sure could be ripped to shreds by constitutional types


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> The two guys who wrote that paper both come from the less is more camp of gun control. I haven't read the paper but it's probably worth noting.
> 
> Type Gary Mauser into Google and this comes up...
> 
> View attachment 49996




well it doesnt it actually says less does not equal less and more doesn't equal more


----------



## MrBurns (16 December 2012)

I dont care what the paper says, more guns mean more attrocities like we've just seen.

The gun lobby is directly responsible for those kids deaths.


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> if availability means both legal and illegal it would explain all the Americas.. now would outlawing guns in the US or watering it down remove its availability as its enshrined in the culture.. does the availability of guns deter other forms of homicide/crimes? would removing all availability lead them down the Russian experience of more deaths in total via beatings/stabbings?




No, it wouldn't. Guns are a Pandora's Box, once they are widely available it will take decades to get rid of them. 

Does it deter other crimes? Well it's a lot harder to beat someone to death than it is to shoot them. 



white_goodman said:


> A practical step would be to remove automatic guns, which could in a sense be argued as consistent with the 2nd amendment under its original meaning.




The original meaning was part of well maintained militia because the US had no standing army. If you interpret it on its original meaning, the Second Amendment is all but redundant.


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> No, it wouldn't. Guns are a Pandora's Box, once they are widely available it will take decades to get rid of them.
> 
> Does it deter other crimes? Well it's a lot harder to beat someone to death than it is to shoot them.





its a lot easier to bomb a crowd of people than to shoot them.. doesnt mean much


----------



## So_Cynical (16 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> read the paper i posted, it wont take long, you may find it illuminating..
> 
> its only a sufficient argument if you don't like to read or know anything




I spent 10 minutes flipping thru it, i wasn't illuminated...i like reading and knowing stuff, how about you?



white_goodman said:


> there is much more explanatory variables than simply *gun rights*/ownership.




What are gun rights? i have heard of human rights, the right to peace and liberty etc...but what's a gun right?


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> its a lot easier to bomb a crowd of people than to shoot them.. doesnt mean much




Are you being deliberately obtuse? Building a bomb requires time. The overwhelming majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment where the victim is known. Spree killings get headlines but they're a tiny fraction of the actual number of murders.


----------



## bellenuit (16 December 2012)

white_goodman said:


> Switzerland/Israel = high availability, little gun homicide (more appropriate measure is total homicide)




I'd have to check on this to be certain, but I'm pretty sure the high ownership of guns in these two countries is related to the integration of civilians in the defence of the country. An armed civilian population is an extension of the military. However, the ownership of these civilian held guns is tightly controlled and they are not carried willy nilly by almost anyone as is the US experience.


----------



## white_goodman (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse? Building a bomb requires time. The overwhelming majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment where the victim is known. Spree killings get headlines but they're a tiny fraction of the actual number of murders.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Ok so what's not beyond dispute is the fact that there are a lot of guns in the US,



What are you actually trying to say?  "what's not beyond dispute" means it is up for dispute, doesn't it?


----------



## So_Cynical (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> What are you actually trying to say?  "what's not beyond dispute" means it is up for dispute, doesn't it?




Yes your right Julia...yet another brain snap.


----------



## DB008 (16 December 2012)

Watch this.




> In a heated discussion, CNN's Piers Morgan and guests debate the need for stricter gun control laws in America.
> CNN.com World
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/world/2012/12/15/pmt-panel-gun-control-debate.cnn


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 December 2012)

Meanwhile here in Australia.......



> A NINE-YEAR-OLD girl called police after the apparent shooting murders of her mother and her mother's partner northwest of Hobart this morning




http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/12/16/368471_tasmania-news.html


----------



## Knobby22 (17 December 2012)

The fact is that since Howard's gun law reforms, gun deaths have dropped by half.

The gun lobby can talk about freedom all it likes and quote slogans that people kill people not guns and all I have to do is remember the above figure and also look at China when they tried to stab children to death and none of them died compared to the very successful killing using military assualt rifles.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/12/2012121481220620325.html


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

Obama's use of weasel words such as "meaningful action" on gun control, sounds like "Gillard Speak." It means we will talk about it and do nothing.


----------



## Ageo (17 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> The fact is that since Howard's gun law reforms, gun deaths have dropped by half.




Fact eh? i would like to see them please


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

Ageo said:


> Fact eh? i would like to see them please




You're still alive arent you ?


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

Ageo said:


> Fact eh? i would like to see them please






> Port Arthur, but the reforms in 1996 caused that decline to accelerate dramatically. In the early 1990s, about 600 Australians were dying each year by gunfire; that figure is now fewer than 250.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-presages-another-tragedy-20110427-1dwmx.html


----------



## DB008 (17 December 2012)

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia


----------



## Ageo (17 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia




According to this graph from 1988 the rate was dropping already?

so how does 1996 have anything to do with this? 

and Mr Burns im alive and well thanks


----------



## Bushman (17 December 2012)

Australia, unlike Israel and Switzerland, has adopted many aspects of American society; hence we also have a plethora of lonely, disenfrancised young men growing up without male role models. These young men have very little prospect of being included in the celebrity obsessed land of youth, beauty and consumerism; instead they find their solace amongst violent video games and violent movies. Unlike American society, Australia does not allow these young men to have unfettered access to military grade Bushmaster semi-automatics designed to ensure that the energy of its 0.233 calibre bullet remains trapped in the victim. So when they do take their awful vengeance against the society that has abandoned them, then the schools and colleges of the US run thick with blood. If Australia did allow such mentally unstable young men access to a plethora of high calibre weaponry, then I would shudder every day when my kids walked off to school. 

I have always believed that you judge a society not on how it treats its strongest citizens, but on how it protects its most vulnerable citizens. There is no more vulnerable set of citizens than those poor, poor children who were only six years old. A paranoid citizenry who will tolerate babes being slayed at school so they can own a lethal weapon to appease their fear. 

To quote Conrad, 'the horror, the horror ...'


----------



## prawn_86 (17 December 2012)

On a less emotional, more rational note; I would be interested to hear from those who oppose the restrictions of guns in the US, as to how the propose to reduce these mass killings, and gun deaths in general?


----------



## Bushman (17 December 2012)

If they are going to insist on going down the path of enshrining the second amendment, then it is very difficult to see how they can reduce the gun toll?

In South Africa (another exceptionally violent society), a deterent has been the fortification of schools, shopping centers and homes. So potentially Americans will need to look at the soft spot in their public infrastructure and keep fortifying these. Surveillance, armed guards etc. 

The long-term solution for me would be better profiling of potential offenders (social media, counsellors, law enforcement), better communication between different homeland affairs departments and a genuine committment to mental health. The US has been very sucessful at combating external terrorism. Off course, this 'big brother' approach would probably re-inforce suspicion of the federal government over there. 

Potentially, the legal system could also play a part. A few class law suits against the manufacturers of the retail versions of these assualt rifles could well cause change at a company level, ensuring that citizens only have access to less lethal weapons. 

There is little that can be done about the societal issues that is driving all this alienation from society. If this was an industry, you would call it an structural change.


----------



## Ageo (17 December 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> On a less emotional, more rational note; I would be interested to hear from those who oppose the restrictions of guns in the US, as to how the propose to reduce these mass killings, and gun deaths in general?




Prawn im not saying i agree with the U.S gun laws as some measures have to be put in place such as strong background checks, storage requirements and possibly extra requirements for semi auto rifles etc..

but the problem in the U.S is much more than just simply gun control, guns or no guns to "plan a mass shooting" is beyond comprehension.... the argument from pro gun people will be why should we be punished because of a few small minorities actions? of course the reverse will be said from anti's who will say "ban them all"

Glorification of the killers is another problem from the mass media, for example 

Name the person responsible for the Port Arthur Mass Murder?

Name one person who died at Port Arthur on the 28 April 1996?

Who deserves our memories?

This just proves that people remember the killers more than any victim which will encourage (unfortunately) more killings, of course by restricting ownership you can prevent some but the problem still lies why are they wanting to commit this sort of crime in the 1st place?

Also not to mention countries that have high ownership such as Israel, Switzerland, Canada etc.. you dont see this kind of crime happening and its to do with the society and culture 

sad event and i feel for all the families involved

P.S im not going to get into a heated debate but i just wanted to point out some of my views


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

Bushman said:


> Australia, unlike Israel and Switzerland, has adopted many aspects of American society; hence we also have a plethora of lonely, disenfrancised young men growing up without male role models. These young men have very little prospect of being included in the celebrity obsessed land of youth, beauty and consumerism; instead they find their solace amongst violent video games and violent movies. Unlike American society, Australia does not allow these young men to have unfettered access to military grade Bushmaster semi-automatics designed to ensure that the energy of its 0.233 calibre bullet remains trapped in the victim. So when they do take their awful vengeance against the society that has abandoned them, then the schools and colleges of the US run thick with blood. If Australia did allow such mentally unstable young men access to a plethora of high calibre weaponry, then I would shudder every day when my kids walked off to school.
> 
> I have always believed that you judge a society not on how it treats its strongest citizens, but on how it protects its most vulnerable citizens. There is no more vulnerable set of citizens than those poor, poor children who were only six years old. A paranoid citizenry who will tolerate babes being slayed at school so they can own a lethal weapon to appease their fear.
> 
> To quote Conrad, 'the horror, the horror ...'




Really good post Bushman


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

Ageo said:


> According to this graph from 1988 the rate was dropping already?
> 
> so how does 1996 have anything to do with this?
> 
> and Mr Burns im alive and well thanks




There is a step change in the next three years after 96.

I don't know the numbers but would put money on the reduction of domestic shootings where the husband shoots the wife and or the kids.


----------



## moXJO (17 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> There is a step change in the next three years after 96.
> 
> I don't know the numbers but would put money on the reduction of domestic shootings where the husband shoots the wife and or the kids.




Pretty sure its suicide by gun. Be interesting to see what happened to the suicide rate.


----------



## Surly (17 December 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


Bushman said:


> Unlike American society, Australia does not allow these young men to have unfettered access to military grade Bushmaster semi-automatics designed to ensure that the energy of its 0.233 calibre bullet remains trapped in the victim. So when they do take their awful vengeance against the society that has abandoned them, then the schools and colleges of the US run thick with blood. If Australia did allow such mentally unstable young men access to a plethora of high calibre weaponry, then I would shudder every day when my kids walked off to school.




Bushman,

I am as abhored as anyone else by this and similar incidents. 

But for the sake of balance, the killer was not given unfettered access to any of the weapons by an authority, he took them from his mother. Just as Bryant did not have licences for the assualt rifles he owned, and I doubt the guns used at the Milperra massacre were licensed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


cheers
Surly


----------



## Bushman (17 December 2012)

Now this is innovative ... provide all school principals in the US with an assault rifle! 

'Texan Republican congressman Louie Gohmert, who also appeared on Fox News, had a different view.

"I wish to God she [slain school principal Dawn Hochsprung] had had an M-4 [assault rifle] in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out ... and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," he said.

He said it was important that citizens remained well armed so that they could resist government tyranny.

"Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? That's why it is important to not just look at this emotionally."'



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/firs...gun-control-20121217-2biem.html#ixzz2FHfzjxiG


----------



## Macquack (17 December 2012)

Surly said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
> 
> 
> But for the sake of balance, the killer was not given unfettered access to any of the weapons by an authority, *he took them from his mother*. Just as Bryant did not have licences for the assualt rifles he owned, and I doubt the guns used at the Milperra massacre were licensed.




The question is why did his mother need to have these weapons?


----------



## IFocus (17 December 2012)

Bushman said:


> Now this is innovative ... provide all school principals in the US with an assault rifle!
> 
> 'Texan Republican congressman Louie Gohmert, who also appeared on Fox News, had a different view.
> 
> ...




brilliant idea the man is a genius she could have stormed the class room full of 7 year old kids and blazed away with the M4.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 December 2012)

Bushman said:


> In South Africa (another exceptionally violent society), a deterent has been the fortification of schools, shopping centers and homes. So potentially Americans will need to look at the soft spot in their public infrastructure and keep fortifying these. Surveillance, armed guards etc.
> 
> ....
> 
> The US has been very sucessful at combating external terrorism. Off course, this 'big brother' approach would probably re-inforce suspicion of the federal government over there.



As an example, anyone (ie tourists) visiting the Statue of Liberty goes through airport-style security screening before getting on the ferry which takes you on the short trip there. 

Visit the 911 Memorial (World Trade Centre site) and it's the same airport-style security to get in.

Even getting into Disney World requires ID and finger printing (literally).  

Closer to home, it's even down to places such as nightclubs with walk through metal detectors and a "remove your belts and empty your pockets etc into the tray" routine (in addition to the normal bouncers).

Do we really want to live in a world where such procedures end up being extended to things like getting on buses or simply entering a shop? Sadly, that's the way we're headed - people would have thought the idea ridiculous some years ago but it doesn't take a big jump to get there today now that we're already doing it in so many places.


----------



## bellenuit (17 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> The question is why did his mother need to have these weapons?




I was reading a web sire today (sorry, but I don't have the source) that the mother was a prepper (one who is preparing for some major catastrophe).


----------



## Julia (17 December 2012)

Surly said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
> 
> Bushman,
> 
> ...



Pretty hard to imagine why his mother required such an arsenal.




IFocus said:


> brilliant idea the man is a genius she could have stormed the class room full of 7 year old kids and blazed away with the M4.



I was horrified at that remark by the Republican also, but on reflection maybe the principal could indeed have killed the gunman and saved the lives of many children and herself.


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> The question is why did his mother need to have these weapons?




She had them for protection I believe, like everyone else, didn't work out that way though, she was the first to go.


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I was horrified at that remark by the Republican also, but on reflection maybe the principal could indeed have killed the gunman and saved the lives of many children and herself.




You cant have guns in schools, teachers would need to be trained etc, you CAN however have armed guards, now how much would that cost..........


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2012)

I still reckon the Yanks should get John Winston Howard over there to advise them on a strategy to curb the crazy gun culture.

He certainly did it here against much opposition, a formidable brave move on his part.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (17 December 2012)

Surly said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
> 
> Bushman,
> 
> ...




Back in those days no licence was needed in TAS to buy Semi auto assault rifles...Bryant didn't have a licence because none was needed, same as in QLD at the time.


----------



## Surly (18 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Back in those days no licence was needed in TAS to buy Semi auto assault rifles...Bryant didn't have a licence because none was needed, same as in QLD at the time.




"The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence."

Irrespective, people crazy enough to murder dozens of people are crazy enough to acquire weapons illegally. 

The results of police raids show that serious assault weapons are still in the hands of (the wrong) people in our community.

Armed robbery is now committed with syringes and screw drivers. The problem is not tool used to deliver the threat.

cheers
Surly


----------



## So_Cynical (18 December 2012)

Surly said:


> "The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence."




Surly ..with respect , i don't make this stuff up...NO licence was required at the time in TAS.




> First, Tasmanian gun laws were notoriously weak. Until 1 January 1993, when the Guns Act 1991 came into force,* there was no system of licensing or registration of firearms* other than pistols.
> 
> The Guns Act 1991 had, for the first time, introduced a
> system of licensing of all firearms. *But only pistols and fully automatic guns had to be registered.* The
> ...




http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/outlook99/warner.pdf


----------



## Tink (18 December 2012)

I dont know how they live in a culture with so many guns, and for what purpose. 
I dont see that as freedom.

With Mental Health escalating, its just too easy for these people to get their hands on guns, btw great post Bushman.
If nothing changes after this event, just proves how strong this gun lobby is, and sadly, everytime we hear something on the news, we arent surprised.


----------



## prawn_86 (18 December 2012)

Surly said:


> Irrespective, people crazy enough to murder dozens of people are crazy enough to acquire weapons illegally.
> 
> The results of police raids show that serious assault weapons are still in the hands of (the wrong) people in our community.
> 
> Armed robbery is now committed with syringes and screw drivers. The problem is not tool used to deliver the threat.




I disagree with your first point. Anecdotally it seems that these 'crazy' people in Australia do not go to the eoffort o obtain an illegal gun and go on a rampage; whereas it is much easier in the US (or they might already have them).

Yes there are assault weapons here in the hands of criminal gangs, but far pewer on a per capita basis, and generally the gangs tend to keep it between themselves.

It is hard to kill someone with a screwdriver whereas one nervous moment with a gun and someone can be dead


----------



## Knobby22 (18 December 2012)

A stat in today's Age.

The slaughter of children by gunfire is 25 times the rate of the next 20 next largest industrial countries combined. (That means for the next 20 largest countries, if they had 100 children shot in a year then the USA would have had 2500!)

Since the assisnation of Martin Luther King, over 1 million American children and adults have been shot dead.


i can't see much change though. The american attitude is encapsulated below by their former Vice President from when he was still in power.

"The source of happiness springs from a Gun"  Dick Cheney


----------



## nomore4s (18 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> A stat in today's Age.
> 
> The slaughter of children by gunfire is 25 times the rate of the next 20 next largest industrial countries combined. (That means for the next 20 largest countries, if they had 100 children shot in a year then the USA would have had 2500!)
> 
> ...



That is an amazing stat. And an even more amazing comment from a powerful figure. Not much happiness for the families of the children killed in the latest school shooting.


----------



## nomore4s (18 December 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I disagree with your first point. Anecdotally it seems that these 'crazy' people in Australia do not go to the eoffort o obtain an illegal gun and go on a rampage; whereas it is much easier in the US (or they might already have them).
> 
> Yes there are assault weapons here in the hands of criminal gangs, but far pewer on a per capita basis, and generally the gangs tend to keep it between themselves.
> 
> It is hard to kill someone with a screwdriver whereas one nervous moment with a gun and someone can be dead




Also they might be able to get a weapon illegally but it would be harder to get as much ammo and as many automatic weapons, especially teenagers who have limited contacts and funds.

The shooter in this last incident would probably had trouble getting weapons and not have been able to cause as much damage even if he did get hold of a gun illegally. It would also make it easier (or at least more chance) for authorities to capture guys like this before they go on a shooting spree if they are buying weapons illegally as they might get word of it before any damage is done.

Tighter gun controls might not completely stop these shootings but it would make it a lot harder for depressed teenagers to go shooting up schools full of kids.


----------



## Macquack (18 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> "The source of happiness springs from a Gun"  *Dick Cheney*




That f***ing dope should keep his mouth shut after recklessly shoting a colleague while hunting.

*Hunting incident
*


> On February 11, 2006, *Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington*, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, while participating in a quail hunt at Armstrong ranch in Kenedy County, Texas.[176] Secret Service agents and medical aides, who were traveling with Cheney, came to Whittington's assistance and treated his birdshot wounds to his right cheek, neck, and chest. An ambulance standing by for the Vice President took Whittington to nearby Kingsville before he was flown by helicopter to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital in Corpus Christi. On February 14, 2006, *Whittington suffered a non-fatal heart attack and atrial fibrillation due to at least one lead-shot pellet lodged in or near his heart.[177] Because of the small size of the birdshot pellets, doctors decided to leave up to 200 pieces of the pellets lodged in his body rather than try to remove them.*



 - Wikipedia.


----------



## Tink (19 December 2012)

Agree, nomore4s.
Another factor to this is their health system is so different to ours, and so many that are untreated.

I heard 10kms out from where this happened, the school was teaching the children how to use guns. The mentality of these people and guns is just crazy, and I dont think even this tragedy will make a change, it actually has the opposite effect.
Little do they know these people come armed to the teeth, including body armour when in combat, so teaching teachers and students how to use guns in situations like this is useless.

I feel for the ones that really do want change, and Obama would be the perfect candidate being on his second term, he has nothing to lose.


----------



## Ageo (19 December 2012)

Tink said:


> Agree, nomore4s.
> 
> 
> I heard 10kms out from where this happened, the school was teaching the children how to use guns.




Country schools here in AUS used to have cadets which taught all students on how to use rifles etc... nothing wrong with solid discipline, this happens across the world but for some reason the U.S has these lunatics time and time again which is a much deeper problem in the society itself....

Another thing to consider is that decades ago in the U.S they had access to these types of firearms but you never heard of mass shootings like you do today

Sadistic is not even the word to describe the current events


----------



## DB008 (19 December 2012)

NRA goes silent after Conn. school shooting


http://news.msn.com/politics/nra-goes-silent-after-conn-school-shooting?ocid=ansnews11

From the article.....



> Seldom has the NRA gone so long after a fatal shooting without a public presence. It resumed tweeting just one day after a gunman killed two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last Tuesday, and one day after six people were fatally shot at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August.
> 
> The Connecticut shootings occurred three days after the incident in Oregon.


----------



## Ageo (19 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> NRA goes silent after Conn. school shooting
> 
> 
> http://news.msn.com/politics/nra-goes-silent-after-conn-school-shooting?ocid=ansnews11
> ...




In fairness DB no lobby (pro or anti) should be using tragic events to justify their position in a such a short time frame, the greens for example always do this...

This time should be spent mourning the losses of those loved ones, there will be plenty of time for debates/arguments later


----------



## DB008 (19 December 2012)

Ageo said:


> In fairness DB no lobby (pro or anti) should be using tragic events to justify their position in a such a short time frame, the greens for example always do this...
> 
> This time should be spent mourning the losses of those loved ones, there will be plenty of time for debates/arguments later




I spoke too soon...

NRA breaks silence to promise ‘meaningful’ action to prevent Newtown repeat

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/18/nra-breaks-silence-to-promise-meaningful-action-to-prevent-newtown-repeat/


----------



## Ageo (19 December 2012)

As press release from NRA



> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION
> December 18, 2012 NRA Public Affairs (703) 267-3820
> NRA STATEMENT
> The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.
> ...


----------



## CanOz (19 December 2012)

The equities markets are showing the emotion too, lots of gun stocks taking a beating. One big PE firm selling its stake in Freedom as well.....from the Bloomy...

CanOz


----------



## Bushman (19 December 2012)

Ageo said:


> In fairness DB no lobby (pro or anti) should be using tragic events to justify their position in a such a short time frame, the greens for example always do this...
> 
> This time should be spent mourning the losses of those loved ones, there will be plenty of time for debates/arguments later




I disagree strongly. When twenty very young children are slaughtered by a stranger at a school, then the debate should start then and there. These are adult politicians and lobby groups tasked with providing a policy response to an on-going danger to its society. The greatest 'respect' that can be shown to these families is for the fence sitting to stop today so that future massacres can be prevented. Otherwise the death of these children and teachers will be in vain. 

By providing an emotive argument that debate should be stalled, the NRA is attempting to take the 'heat' out of the situation to ensure the status quo remains. 

For me, there are two legitimate outcomes from here: 
1. America adopts meaningful gun control; or 
2. America decides that the second amendment is, indeed, that important to the function of its society that they immediately begin fortifying their social infrastructure to a much greater degree and profiling their citizens for potential 'lone wolves'. With the freedom of ownership of modern guns comes a loss of freedom in other aspects of life. 

The founding fathers did not envisage a teenager slaughtering children with an assualt rifle after all when penning the second amendment. I am not a Consitutional expert by any means, but it is my understandign that it was designed to enshrine the rights of musket-bearing state militia to protect themselves from the forces of colonialism/federalism.


----------



## Ageo (19 December 2012)

Bushman said:


> By providing an emotive argument that debate should be stalled, the NRA is attempting to take the 'heat' out of the situation to ensure the status quo remains.




Bushman, whenever 1 becomes emotional in a response its usually never the right form of action, as mentioned earlier the NRA is going to have press conference so it will be there where will see what the outcome will be...

I agree with closing the gun show loophole (i.e no background checks with private gun dealers) that will be something i think they will look to implement and it should have a good impact but the point still remains the mental health, tv programming and overall state of the U.S society is in shambles and needs attention IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2012)

Ageo said:


> the point still remains the mental health, tv programming and overall state of the U.S society is in shambles and needs attention IMO



I think a better way to put it would be "the mental health, tv programming and overall state of society is in shambles and needs attention"

Those underlying issues are just as real in Australia as they are in the US. You don't have to go far to find someone who is stressed to the max. Not far at all. Thankfully, we don't have so many guns lying around.....


----------



## DB008 (24 December 2012)

Don't talk about the 2nd amendment......




> *US gun advocates seek British CNN host deportation*
> 
> 
> US gun rights advocates have signed a White House petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported for allegedly attacking the Second Amendment.
> ...


----------



## McLovin (24 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> Don't talk about the 2nd amendment......




First rule of the 2nd Amendement, do not mention the 1st Amendment.

If you don't like it...suck on my machine gun!


----------



## burglar (26 December 2012)

DB008 said:


> Don't talk about the 2nd amendment......




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-25/thousands-petition-to-deport-anti-gun-tv-host/4443314


----------



## DB008 (19 January 2013)

At a mall, in America....

'open carry'


----------



## Ageo (21 January 2013)

At a bar in Israel 

"Open Carry"

you dont see the same related deaths there and they are at war

its the American psyche that needs addressing more than anything


----------



## dutchie (21 January 2013)

Ageo said:


> At a bar in Israel
> 
> "Open Carry"
> 
> ...




Must be a rough bar!


----------



## CanOz (21 January 2013)

Those carbines have had the magazines removed....


----------



## bellenuit (21 January 2013)

CanOz said:


> Those carbines have had the magazines removed....




And they are all carrying the same style weapon, all pointing down, which would suggest that they are off duty soldiers in a dangerous part of the country or perhaps reservists after a training session.


----------



## MrBurns (23 April 2013)

Very funny toward the end about 3.40

[video=vimeo;64432171]http://vimeo.com/64432171[/video]


----------



## DB008 (17 September 2013)

*Gunman and 12 Victims Killed in Shooting at D.C. Navy Yard*

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/shooting-reported-at-washington-navy-yard.html?ref=us



*How can we tolerate another mass shooting?*

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-can-we-tolerate-another-mass-shooting-20130917-2twr7.html


----------



## MrBurns (17 September 2013)

USA gun mentality is insane................that's all there is to it.


----------



## DB008 (21 September 2013)

*Up to 13 people shot at a Chicago basketball court including three-year-old boy*




> AMERICA has been rocked by another mass shooting incident, this time in Chicago.
> Thirteen people were shot at a basketball court, including a three-year-old boy and two 15-year-olds.





http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/up-to-13-people-shot-at-a-chicago-basketball-court-including-threeyearold-boy/story-e6frfkui-1226723648692#ixzz2fSdzfdpF


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 September 2013)

When disaster hits, it's best to adopt God's perspective and say "I'm not too fussed about death, destruction and mayhem".



Think about it before you shoot me down.


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2014)

*Mass shooting at Fort Hood: Four dead and fourteen injured by gunman who then turned gun on himself at military base where 13 were shot dead by radical Muslim officer in 2009
*



> Four people are dead and up to 14 people injured after a gunman opened fire on Fort Hood military base, Texas
> Alleged shooter identified as Ivan Lopez
> The Bell County Sheriff's Office confirmed around 4p.m. local time Wednesday that there was gunfire and that military police were responding
> A military official confirmed the shooter is dead at the post, of self-inflicted injuries
> ...






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595587/BREAKING-NEWS-Active-shooter-confirmed-Ford-Hood-military-base.html#ixzz2xmMGbCrP


----------



## DJG (4 April 2014)

So I've gone through the entire thread, wasted an hour and learnt that a very few here are actually mature enough to go into discussion with an open-mind, perhaps willing to learn something.

I shoot, I hunt, so be it. I also very shortly will be working in finance, _in the city_ believe it or not. My father never shot (besides an air rifle when he was a kid). Majority of my shooting was self-educated and with a friend. I seem to be doing ok at the age of 21, 3rd year uni, 2 businesses and a work experience opportunity looking promising. Because I have a firearms licence does it mean I'm a psychopath? - I went through all the hoops with the licensing, the safety course, the storage requirements, the fee's etc. Which I definitely aren't complaining about, as its restricted the amount of guns to idiots in society. By the way, hand guns have even further hoops to jump through such as mandatory competition/club shooting, amongst others.

It however hasn't restricted diddly-squat to criminals because they never jumped through those hoops. They instead went to their firearm dealing friend (which potentially could be next door to you) and bought a hand gun. No questions asked.

Whilst having my own views on firearms, I still don't believe the US needs full-automatic rifles. In some case's they don't need semi-automatic rifles either. However they have proved very effective on eradicating pest species such as; Coyotes, feral dogs, prairie dogs, rabbits etc. - Due to their quick capabilities of firing (with each pull of the trigger) as usually the first come running into a predator call. Whilst the later two will all be dispersed and quick shooting would be effective to eradicate them successfully.

The US does need a strict licensing system such as Australia's. Hell it would even mean some more money for their stupid government. Although there are so many guns in homes that registering them all, being licensed etc is near impossible. Such as the guns that were never handed back to John Howard that people still keep up in the back of their wardrobe. It would be naive to think every single gun got handed back and didn't end up in the wrong, criminal prone hands.

My responses to below points of interest are below. Hopefully any replies to my posts can be seen with an open-mind from the responder. Although my hopes for that diminish by each post.



Julia said:


> New Zealand?????  I lived there all my life until my 40's.  Never saw a gun.  There was no discussion about guns.
> For god's sake, even the police are not armed!




They also have semi-auto rifles and silencers, much like the US. However I can only assume stringent licensing goes into this.



MrBurns said:


> Thats crap, letting the general population have guns for no good reason is why those 9 people are dead, it's why John Lennon is dead it's the reason thousands are dead over there.




Is Mcdonalds to blame because fat people are too lazy to get off the couch and exercise? Therefore have diabetes and obesity.



MrBurns said:


> Crims can have guns they usuually just kill each other anyway, nut cases will kill you and your family in a shopping centre because the played that game on PS3 then walked in KMart and armed up, why dont you just wake up to yourself ?




Just ask Leanne Walters dad that; and see how that 'crims *just* kill *each other* anyway' goes down with him. Or did you forget about that one?



MrBurns said:


> Imagine how many more there would be if firearms were legal, these drive by shootings are *almost* always crims targeting crims anyway, not the general public.




There you go again!



MrBurns said:


> There is absolutely no reason to have a gun in the city in any case.




What if that city slicker wants to hunt on his weekends? Isn't he allowed too?



Tannin said:


> Quite right. And I refuse to sacrifice my freedom not to be shot at. There is no legitimate reason to  own a gun in the city. None. If you want to belong to a gun club, fine. Keep your weapons in that club. At all times. The ONLY purpose of a weapon in the city is to commit harm to some one or some thing. Pretending that you have a "right" to own and use things which are dangerous to others and 100% useless for any worthwhile task is madness.




 You can read above too.



Joules MM1 said:


> have you any idea how adamant surgeons are against the brutality from firearm discharge?




Considering there are approximately 660+,000 plus surgeons in the US. Additionally, estimates of between 44 - 150 plus million gun owners in the US; chances are those same surgeons also own a gun. Along with the lawyers, emergency services, etc. - You may as well throw priests and politicians in there too.



prawn_86 said:


> I think everyone should either hunt or kill an animal they eat at least once in their life, if you cant kill an animal then you probably shouldn't eat meat.




But it's just so much easier going to Woolies or Coles and picking meat up off the shelf isn't it? Whilst being naive to the fact. Then going on to complain about slaughter houses and abattoirs. Unfortunately these hypocrites will exist until the human race disappears...which will of course be due to guns that everyone dies.



Smurf1976 said:


> So far as the "blow them up versus clean killing" bit is concerned, my experience with such people is to the effect that groups of males under 30 on "hunting trips" favour the "blow 'em up" approach, especially when plenty of alcohol is involved (as it usually is on such trips). Older people, farmers etc go for a clean kill but, in the case of amateurs, still manage to mess it up reasonably often.




Have you been on a trip like this yourself? Perhaps you should find some new friends to go camping with. I know I sure as hell don't get 'loaded on booze' before I go for a shoot, and I'm only the immature age of 21. I also never bring my firearms out in front of friends whilst camping and frankly won't ever go shooting or hunting with anyone who doesn't own a firearm or is a licensed firearm owner themselves. Because it's these same people who get overly excited when seeing a gun and will later be stupid around them - always asking; 'can I touch it' (whilst swinging the barrel end around pointing it in your face). These same people have never been taught basic firearm safety either. Which by the way includes but not limited to; don't ever touch firearms if you're under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. 



Smurf1976 said:


> You don't need to spend long in the US to notice that Americans are obsessed with "freedom", "liberty" and their own military. Get on a domestic flight, attend a baseball game or anything like that and you'll notice it pretty quickly. The sad part is, the sheer obsession with it all is itself an expression of fear. And inciting fear is precisely the objective of terrorists. When, as a tourist, you end up being security screened several times in the one day that reality really hits you.




So does gun related incidents such as armed robberies, suicides and homicides come back to the country and it's people or the fact of guns themselves?



MrBurns said:


> Big political issue but I have a feeling Obama might get the ball rolling.





MrBurns said:


> I really think Obama will "go for it" no one else before him has had the guts but it's just so bad now I think he will, and good luck to him.




He is the best gun salesmen the USA has ever seen! Every time he opens his mouth the gun shops shelves clear out, and the manufacturers warehouses empty. Hopefully its as good as his Obamacare and presidency in general.



MrBurns said:


> It's common sense really, any arguments to the contrary are simply rubbish.




Probably because you go into it with such a close-minded attitude, as perfectly demonstrated by each and every single one of your responses on this thread. 



So_Cynical said:


> Why don't we see mass stabbings in the US? mass poisonings?
> .




More than likely there is, mass stabbings anyway. However mass stabbings don't make the news headlines like the big, bad black guns do. You could most certainly assume every 'gang-banger' in LA has a knife of some form (probably a gun too, obtained illegally probably by doing illegal activities like dealing drugs too) - The logic behind this is criminals do not, and will not ever care about the law. Period!



MrBurns said:


> The gun lobby is directly responsible for those kids deaths.




No, the nut behind the but is responsible. Is Ford responsible for letting a p-plater drive at 120km/h and smash into a tree killing all his friends (which is all too common in Australia - weekly occurrence)? This is the exact same logic you're applying. Nothing more, nothing less.



Smurf1976 said:


> Do we really want to live in a world where such procedures end up being extended to things like getting on buses or simply entering a shop? Sadly, that's the way we're headed - people would have thought the idea ridiculous some years ago but it doesn't take a big jump to get there today now that we're already doing it in so many places.




Unfortunately it's this same world that will soon see furniture produced with no sharp corners and steak knives outlawed. You will waste valuable time and money protecting the stupid from harm.



Ageo said:


> its the American psyche that needs addressing more than anything
> 
> View attachment 50524




This! +1



bellenuit said:


> And they are all carrying the same style weapon, all pointing down, which would suggest that they are off duty soldiers in a dangerous part of the country or perhaps reservists after a training session.




Mustn't be able to afford a barracks, nor some decent attire fit for a 'dangerous part of the country'. Basic firearm safety will always teach you to point your gun down and away from others. Nor do I think that a bunch of reservist soldiers in Isarael would be enjoying a cold one or two with a gun slinged over their back fresh off the training course.


----------



## DJG (4 April 2014)

Additionally feel free to read about the latest criminal importing semi-automatic pistols and rifles. Along with steroids, tasers and child exploitation material. - READ HERE.

Better give the second most anti-gun Senator Leland Yee his time in the spotlight too for being charged with firearms trafficking - read more

It's pretty hard to fight  (and take serious) an anti-gun agenda when even politicians themselves are living double-lives.


----------



## DJG (4 April 2014)

And a little bit of something else to educate yourself in:





You can read about it here and the full report here

$38 billion a year to the US economy isn't too bad for a bunch of crazy wielding beings.

Of course it is developed by a shooting organisation but it still holds merit.

Does anyone want to read about how lots of hunters provide food for food banks, churches and those in need and don't just kill deer to get a woody? - Or am I boring you too much already? - Although this isn't practised in Australia due to strict food processing regulations.


----------



## CanOz (4 April 2014)

Gun safety....hmmm



The US needs its guns to protect its citizens from the other citizens with guns. Give it up, gun control in the US is as good as it will ever get.

Other more civil countries like Australia and Canada have very reasonable gun laws that allow people to hunt. Cool, well done. I like to hunt birds when i get a chance, but likely won't hunt Roos, Deer, or Moose again simply because of my love for animals. 

Almost everyone that is from my home town that lives there now has a gun cabinet and by law has completed a gun safety course, had an array of checks done on them so they could get the certificate that allows them to own a gun. 

I'm happy with the way our countries are towards gun ownership and i'm also happy that i will never live in the United States of America.


----------



## DJG (4 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> The US needs its guns to protect its citizens from the other citizens with guns. Give it up, gun control in the US is as good as it will ever get.
> 
> Other more civil countries like Australia and Canada have very reasonable gun laws that allow people to hunt. Cool, well done. I like to hunt birds when i get a chance, but likely won't hunt Roos, Deer, or Moose again simply because of my love for animals.
> 
> ...




I agree to all of the above.

I've had a random safe inspection. Just another effort to make sure responsible firearm owners stay within the law. I like it, I don't find it a hassle. However trying to introduce such strict rules in the US, good luck! You've got more chance of the country actually paying down their debt in the 2000 years.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 April 2014)

DJG said:


> And a little bit of something else to educate yourself in:
> 
> View attachment 57463
> 
> ...




Of course there's lots of money in it. That's why the gun lobby is so well supported.

Tell me the % chance of a child being shot in the US compared to the rest of the world. 
I had a job offer there but I refused for that reason.


----------



## CanOz (17 April 2014)

Former New York Mayor Bloomberg to spend $50 million to push for gun control



> He told The New York Times he was proud of the work, which some critics said interfered with personal choice.
> 
> “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close,” he told the newspaper.




lol....Good on ya Michael


----------



## DB008 (25 May 2014)

*Seven dead in drive-by shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara*



> A GUNMAN has gone on a drive-by shooting rampage, firing for ten minutes at nine different locations in streets filled with university students in a southern California beach community.
> 
> Elliot Rodger, 22, picked off people one by one while driving his black BMW, in a deadly rampage that mirrored threats he made on a YouTube video posted the same night.
> 
> Seven people were killed, including Rodger, with 13 others wounded during the rampage on Friday night, at the college town of Isla Vista, near the University of California, Santa Barbara.




http://www.news.com.au/world/seven-dead-in-driveby-shooting-near-the-university-of-california-santa-barbara/story-fndir2ev-1226930461475


----------



## prawn_86 (26 May 2014)

DB008 said:


> *Seven dead in drive-by shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara*




I was actually in Santa Barbara over the weekend when this happened. Very sad, but it is amazing how it is so common place here (in the US) that life just goes on and it barely even gets a mention from people not immediately affected


----------



## CanOz (26 May 2014)

.....land of the free, home of the gun.

In guns we trust...

United States of Guns...


----------



## DB008 (9 June 2014)

*As many as five people are believed to have been killed in Las Vegas Walmart shooting*



> AT least five people have been killed in a shooting inside a Las Vegas Walmart store, with the attackers declaring it to be the start of a “revolution”.
> 
> Police have confirmed that two police officers and a civilian were shot inside the shopping complex early this morning Australian time, 11.30am Las Vegas time.
> 
> It is understood the attackers, a man and a woman, have since taken their own lives.





http://www.news.com.au/world/as-many-as-five-people-are-believed-to-have-been-killed-in-las-vegas-walmart-shooting/story-fndir2ev-1226947841537


----------



## DB008 (27 August 2014)

9-year-old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor with Uzi


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2014)

DB008 said:


> 9-year-old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor with Uzi





That says it all I'm afraid. Kids bought up with guns is a bad way to start a life. 

It's not quite as bad as holding a severed head, but it's heading in that direction.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 August 2014)

China and India have larger populations than Planet America but I cannot recall news related to multiple killings by a civilian on civilians. It may happen but isn't reported, I don't know. The occurrence of civilian multiple killing civilians is high in America. Our own mentally ill civilian mass shooting brought about the most effective political decision ever made in my opinion. To hand in your guns or have good reason to be in possession of one and strictly licensed to do so. Thank you John Howard for that wisdom.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That says it all I'm afraid. Kids bought up with guns is a bad way to start a life.
> 
> It's not quite as bad as holding a severed head, but it's heading in that direction.




I didn't realise the end where the Uzi is pointing at the bloke's head is where he gets his entry visa to gun heaven. Apparently the footage is from the child's parents.

I say book 'em Danno as unfit parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2014)

Tisme said:


> I didn't realise the end where the Uzi is pointing at the bloke's head is where he gets his entry visa to gun heaven.




Neither did the child unfortunately


----------



## Craton (29 August 2014)

Far out! An Uzi firing nine mm slugs in auto mode and at virtually point blank range, never gonna end well is it.

I don't understand why in the hell you'd be teaching your nine yr old how to use an Uzi. Without knowing the US of A gun laws this is a great example that there's some serious flaws in them there laws! A weapon like that in the hands of a child is simply mind boggling. What are the parents, jihadists or worse, mentally deficient? Sorry, I just can't get my head around it.

I'd reckon too, that vid will become mandatory viewing for all instructors. Shows the all too real threat of being too front on very graphically.

R.I.P. Mr Instructor.

@DJG. Great replies and great insight into current gun ownership. Your attitude is not only refreshing but very mature and responsible.

Myself, being born and bred in the outback, guns were and still are part and parcel of life so am not against gun ownership. Guns certainly have their place both as vermin control and as sporting recreation. In the right hands, guns are safe, are valuable work tools, are prized sporting possessions. In the wrong hands, lives are at stake.

The old adage: guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's the world we live in and no amount of legislation will change that.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (29 August 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> China and India have larger populations than Planet America but I cannot recall news related to multiple killings by a civilian on civilians. It may happen but isn't reported, I don't know. The occurrence of civilian multiple killing civilians is high in America. Our own mentally ill civilian mass shooting brought about the most effective political decision ever made in my opinion. To hand in your guns or have good reason to be in possession of one and strictly licensed to do so. Thank you John Howard for that wisdom.




they happen in china, just with knives. there's been an increase last few years sadly.

Google 
school stabbing china


----------



## prawn_86 (29 August 2014)

Craton said:


> The old adage: guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's the world we live in and no amount of legislation will change that.




It is that exact adage that the NRA and pro-gun lobby over here in 'Merica use. Why should you regulate guns when it's people that kill, not the guns...

It's amazing how many supposedly sensible people here think that more guns make them safer. In fact on the local news today i saw that regular police officers in certain suburbs are now allowed to carry AR-15's as that will make the suburb 'safer'. How the hell is an AR-15 going to make an area safer than a normal hand-gun??


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> It is that exact adage that the NRA and pro-gun lobby over here in 'Merica use. Why should you regulate guns when it's people that kill, not the guns...
> 
> It's amazing how many supposedly sensible people here think that more guns make them safer. In fact on the local news today i saw that regular police officers in certain suburbs are now allowed to carry AR-15's as that will make the suburb 'safer'. How the hell is an AR-15 going to make an area safer than a normal hand-gun??




Living in a regional area on a property I own a gun for vermin eradication reasons. I have to say that I feel safer with it considering the local police are usually based 30km away and would take a while to get here if there was any trouble. Not that there ever has been.

Gun crime in this area seems pretty rare, despite the fact (told to me by a policewoman) that there are over 14,000 weapons in the Bathurst/Orange area. Possibly the fact that it is known that most households in the area would posses a gun deters the crims. 

Of course, that could be an argument everywhere. In the cities it seems that only crims and gang members can get guns, however I don't think the answer is to let people in cities have guns for protection. The answer is to stop the import of illegal weapons and put very heavy penalties on illegal weapons possession. 

I'm not normally a fan of John Howard, but I think he made a gutsy and correct move by toughening up on gun ownership.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> but I think he made a gutsy and correct move by toughening up on gun ownership.




To be honest i think that was probably the last big show of political leadership and change for the good of the country that Australia has seen.

I grew up in the country too and have shot my share of guns, like you, i just fail to see a reason why the 'average' person should be able to own a gun.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2014)

The insanity goes on...

No criminal charges after 9yo girl fatally shoots Arizona gun instructor with Uzi



> Criminal charges will not be laid after a nine-year-old girl accidentally killed her instructor with an Uzi in Arizona, law enforcement officials said.
> 
> Charles Vacca, 39, was shot in the head when the girl lost control of the Uzi submachine gun she was learning to use at the Last Stop shooting range in White Hills, near the Nevada border, on Monday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Craton (29 August 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> It is that exact adage that the NRA and pro-gun lobby over here in 'Merica use. Why should you regulate guns when it's people that kill, not the guns...
> 
> It's amazing how many supposedly sensible people here think that more guns make them safer. In fact on the local news today i saw that regular police officers in certain suburbs are now allowed to carry AR-15's as that will make the suburb 'safer'. How the hell is an AR-15 going to make an area safer than a normal hand-gun??




By culling the vermin of course  as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Australia



> Australia
> 
> AR-15 rifles, like all semi-automatic rifles, are subject to strong restrictions of ownership in all states and territories in Australia. *The only means of legally owning an AR-15-type rifle in Australia today beyond law enforcement is to have a Category D Firearms License (e.g. a professional animal culler)*, to have a Firearms Collector's License and the firearm deactivated (with the barrel plugged up and the action welded shut), or converted to blank fire if one is a member of a military re-enactment organization.
> 
> ...







SirRumpole said:


> Living in a regional area on a property I own a gun for vermin eradication reasons. I have to say that I feel safer with it considering the local police are usually based 30km away and would take a while to get here if there was any trouble. Not that there ever has been.




Feeling safer can be a dual edged sword too. The owner of a local security firm here has always said, "...if ya carry a gun, ya gonna get shot at." I certainly wouldn't like to live by those words but he sure has a valid point.

Those cops prawn mentions, I can only imagine what weapons the crims will use in retaliation. 



> I'm not normally a fan of John Howard, but I think he made a gutsy and correct move by toughening up on gun ownership.






prawn_86 said:


> To be honest i think that was probably the last big show of political leadership and change for the good of the country that Australia has seen.




Certainly a gutsy move and one that Howard has often been applauded for.
I didn't mind handing back a .22 that had a broken ejector pin, ended up getting $30 more than I paid for that rifle too.



> I grew up in the country too and have shot my share of guns, like you, i just fail to see a reason why the 'average' person should be able to own a gun.




That right there is where the Americans have the issue isn't it? 

2nd Amendment reads in part:


> 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.




Sure, no problems there, doesn't mean one has to actually keep or own a gun does it?

Unfortunately, American culture being what it is, their gun law is so embedded in their folk lore.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2014)

> 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.




The militia is called the US Armed forces. Whether it is well regulated is another issue.


----------



## DB008 (29 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The insanity goes on...
> 
> No criminal charges after 9yo girl fatally shoots Arizona gun instructor with Uzi




Why should there be? It was an obvious accident. If anything, Darwin Award....


----------



## Julia (29 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The insanity goes on...
> 
> No criminal charges after 9yo girl fatally shoots Arizona gun instructor with Uzi



I take it that the 'insanity' you refer to goes to no one being charged here.   Who do you think should be charged and why?  Seems like a dreadful accident to me.
That said, I abhor the American gun culture which allows this situation to occur in the first place.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2014)

The epitome of stupidity in regard to Planet America gun culture. The result :- man dead, family & friends grieving, child with experience of death/killing/blood.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> How the hell is an AR-15 going to make an area safer than a normal hand-gun??



Oh that stems from the early years of evolution. If the nut doesn't crack, hit it harder.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2014)

Julia said:


> I take it that the 'insanity' you refer to goes to no one being charged here.   Who do you think should be charged and why?  Seems like a dreadful accident to me.
> That said, I abhor the American gun culture which allows this situation to occur in the first place.




Who should be charged ? The parents and operators of the gun centre for putting a deadly weapon in the hands of a minor. Who would be charged if the child was allowed to drive a car on a public road ?


----------



## DJG (30 August 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> I grew up in the country too and have shot my share of guns, like you, i just fail to see a reason why the 'average' person should be able to own a gun.




The average person shouldn't have a drivers licence either, but hey, they passed all the same tests to get their drivers licence, just like the 'average' person passed to get their gun licence. I'm speaking Australia here by the way.

Of course the US laws regarding guns is somewhat 'whack'. It would be political suicide for a president to do anything drastic regarding guns though. It just won't happen, its far too embedded in their daily lives and culture...as bad as that might be.

Although most people probably think the saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is just some 'hick' saying, it definitely has merit and you can't argue it doesn't. Such as in my last post, I think its just as much the people of the USA, then it is the fact they have guns. ie. it seems the majority are just f*cked in the head! plain and simple.

I don't believe in all of the US' gun laws and some are just insanely stupid. Although, who am I to comment on it...

Cheers for the praise Craton


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2014)

> The average person shouldn't have a drivers licence either, but hey, they passed all the same tests to get their drivers licence, just like the 'average' person passed to get their gun licence. I'm speaking Australia here by the way.




I was talking to someone the other day who had a run in (literally) with a driver who possessed a foreign driving licence. This person (the owner of the foreign licence) was incapable to drive on our roads and in all probability obtained their licence by bribery. 

So if we continue to recognise foreign driving licences, should we recognise foreign gun licences ? The best choice is to recognise neither, but I suspect that would upset foreign countries so we give in in the name of political correctness.


----------



## DJG (31 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I was talking to someone the other day who had a run in (literally) with a driver who possessed a foreign driving licence. This person (the owner of the foreign licence) was incapable to drive on our roads and in all probability obtained their licence by bribery.
> 
> So if we continue to recognise foreign driving licences, should we recognise foreign gun licences ? The best choice is to recognise neither, but I suspect that would upset foreign countries so we give in in the name of political correctness.





By memory you may need to do a minor test to in order to convert from a foreign licence to domestic (although not to the extent an 18-year old does). I'd be skeptical to say it's bribery.

I'm unsure on your view regarding foreign gun licences, as there is no such thing - not in Australia anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2014)

DJG said:


> By memory you may need to do a minor test to in order to convert from a foreign licence to domestic (although not to the extent an 18-year old does). I'd be skeptical to say it's bribery.






> In Australia, laws and driving regulations differ from state to state. Some states require you to carry an International Licence with your current foreign licence. Other states request you carry your current foreign driver's licence together with a formal translation of your licence into English.
> 
> In most Australian states and territories (the exception is the Northern Territory), you are able to drive on a overseas licence as long as it is current. You can only drive vehicles which your overseas licence authorises you to drive and you must drive according to any conditions on your overseas licence.
> 
> http://australia.gov.au/content/driving-with-an-overseas-licence




The point is, as long as someone has a piece of paper that says they passed a test in a foreign country we let them drive on our roads. I think we all know that some countries are driven more by money than competence.



> I'm unsure on your view regarding foreign gun licences, as there is no such thing - not in Australia anyway.




I don't think there is, but a comparison was made with driving licences. I don't think we should accept foreign driving licences because we don't accept foreign gun licences. The principle is the same.


----------



## DJG (31 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That says it all I'm afraid. Kids bought up with guns is a bad way to start a life.




Have you ever seen a 16 year old shoot his first gun after playing 10 years of shooting video games? And just how far from reality they're when it comes to responsibility?

I'd much prefer a grown child/young adult be introduced to a real rifle (and thus the safety, consequences etc) *before* playing said video games. 

You'll find ones who go the other way around will get overly excited seeing, let alone using a gun as if it's the first time they kissed a girl! 

Obviously the parents of that girl are just plain stupid to think she could handle a full auto, which bare in mind has no support and purely using forearm strength.


----------



## DJG (31 August 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think there is, but a comparison was made with driving licences. I don't think we should accept foreign driving licences because we don't accept foreign gun licences. The principle is the same.




Ah right I get it.


----------



## DB008 (19 September 2014)

*Florida shooting claims eight lives in Bell, Gilchrist County*



> A MAN murdered six of his grandchildren, his adult daughter and himself in another mass shooting in the US.
> 
> Gilchrist County Sheriff Robert Schultz identified the man as 51-year-old Don C Spirit. He said the children ranged in age from 3 months to 10 years old.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/florida-shooting-claims-eight-lives-in-bell-gilchrist-county/story-fnh81jut-1227063776445


----------



## DB008 (25 October 2014)

*Shooting at Marysville Pilchuck High School north of Seattle, Washington State leaves two dead*



> A STUDENT who killed a young girl and shot four others before turning the gun on himself was a popular kid who was recently crowned homecoming prince.
> 
> As America was reeling over the latest school shooting, details are beginning to emerge of the gunmen, now formally identified as Jaylen Fryberg.
> 
> Social media posts paint a picture of a well-liked teenage athlete, familiar with hunting and firearms.




http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/shooting-at-marysville-pilchuck-high-school-north-of-seattle-washington-state-leaves-two-dead/story-fnh81jut-1227101798432


----------



## sydboy007 (27 November 2014)

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/26/7292963/gun-control-police-shootings



> The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, reveals many things about America. One of them that has not yet received adequate attention is that there is a strong case for a form of gun control that is much stricter than anything that's remotely plausible in the context of American politics.
> 
> This is true if you think Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson should have been found guilty of a crime. But in many ways it's even more true if you think he's innocent of any wrongdoing. A system in which legal police shootings of unarmed civilians are a common occurrence is a system that has some serious flaws.
> 
> In this case, the drawback is a straightforward consequence of America's approach to firearms. A well-armed citizenry required an even-better-armed constabulary. Widespread gun ownership creates a systematic climate of fear on the part of the police. The result is a quantity of police shootings that, regardless of the facts of any particular case, is just staggeringly high. Young black men, in particular, are paying the price for America's gun culture.


----------



## CanOz (27 November 2014)

Many of us are lucky enough to have the obvious choice when it comes to our own solution to the guns laws.....don't live there. 

You reap what you sow. 

CanOz


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2015)

Police in Albuquerque, New Mexico, say a 3-year-old shot his father and a pregnant woman.



> Police in Albuquerque, New Mexico, say a 3-year-old shot his father and a pregnant woman. The child and adults were in a hotel room, when the boy took the gun from the woman's purse and fired a shot that hit both. Both suffered injuries that weren't life threatening.




https://www.inside.com/newmexico/u53dd/Police-in-Albuquerque-New-Mexico-say-a-3-year-ol


----------



## sydboy007 (16 April 2015)

very interesting article

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america



> Jennifer Longdon was one of at least 750,000 Americans injured by gunshots over the last decade, and she was lucky not to be one of the more than 320,000 killed. Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.






> Our investigation also begins to illuminate the economic toll for individual states. Louisiana has the highest gun homicide rate in the nation, with costs per capita of more than $1,300. Wyoming has a small population but the highest overall rate of gun deaths””including the nation's highest suicide rate””with costs working out to about $1,400 per resident. Among the four most populous states, the costs per capita in the gun rights strongholds of Florida and Texas outpace those in more strictly regulated California and New York. Hawaii and Massachusetts, with their relatively low gun ownership rates and tight gun laws, have the lowest gun death rates, and costs per capita roughly a fifth as much as those of the states that pay the most.


----------



## DB008 (19 April 2015)

Safety first....

​


----------



## DB008 (18 June 2015)

*South Carolina ‘mass shooting’ at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church​*


> THE city of Charleston is in a state of shock after a white gunman shot nine people dead at a church in a tragedy which has been dubbed “a hate crime”.
> 
> The Charleston police department made the announcement late today that a shooting had occurred at around 9pm at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, on 110 Calhoun St. Police Chief Gregory Mullen confirmed the deaths of nine victims and said one person remains in hospital.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/south-carolina-mass-shooting-at-emanuel-african-methodist-episcopal-church/story-fnh81jut-1227403911783​


----------



## SirRumpole (18 June 2015)

DB008 said:


> *South Carolina ‘mass shooting’ at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church​*
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/south-carolina-mass-shooting-at-emanuel-african-methodist-episcopal-church/story-fnh81jut-1227403911783​




Can't say much. The yanks have their 'freedoms' and obviously think they are worth the price otherwise they would do something about it.


----------



## bellenuit (19 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Can't say much. The yanks have their 'freedoms' and obviously think they are worth the price otherwise they would do something about it.




According to CNN, Dylann Roof's dad bought him a 45-caliber gun for his 21st birthday, which was on April 3.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2015)

The Yanks just don't understand that without gun control this will just keep happening. We need to tighten controls here, it's got a bit slack lately.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/victoria-police-officers-finding-guns-every-two-days/6557858


----------



## SirRumpole (19 June 2015)

Guns need ammunition, so if you can't take the guns, then reduce the supply of ammunition, or put on a tax that takes the price to $100 per bullet.


----------



## Atari rose (20 June 2015)

Bit of a shame they bring in Gun control again so quickly. Very divisive issue and one that politicians seem to roll out consistently. 

Kid was a good shot with a hand gun, statistics prove its very hard to kill 9 people running like hell. 

More disturbing was the fact it was in a church- hope the kid likes hell, if there is a God thats where he will go.


----------



## Atari rose (20 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Guns need ammunition, so if you can't take the guns, then reduce the supply of ammunition, or put on a tax that takes the price to $100 per bullet.




most ridiculous statement on this site.


----------



## Value Collector (20 June 2015)

Atari rose said:


> - hope the kid likes hell, if there is a God thats where he will go.




Not necessarily, if the god that exists is a different one to the one those people believed in eg the Muslim god, then the gun man will end up in heaven and the victims are currently burning in the fire.


----------



## Value Collector (20 June 2015)

Atari rose said:


> most ridiculous statement on this site.




It's not really that ridiculous, many of my friends own guns for recreational use, However I have never been interested in recreational shooting because I don't want to pay $20 - $30 for each magazine I empty, Being ex army Rounds are something I couldn't bring myself to pay for.

But I am a big fan of restrictions of firearms, especially for people living in cities, Rural landowners are a different story.


----------



## Value Collector (20 June 2015)

This comedian nails the gun debate.


----------



## tech/a (20 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> This comedian nails the gun debate.





Great clip love it!


----------



## CanOz (20 June 2015)

Ditto! Loved it...shared it with my gun toting buddies from the US.


----------



## tech/a (20 June 2015)

CanOz said:


> Ditto! Loved it...shared it with my gun toting buddies from the US.




The Gambino's?


----------



## Knobby22 (22 June 2015)

It was the Church's fault.
Every church should be fitted with a bullet proof pulpit with a machine gun hidden within. Then when the madmen attacks the Priest can spray them with a hail of bullets.  Every National Rifleman knows that.


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> It was the Church's fault.
> Every church should be fitted with a bullet proof pulpit with a machine gun hidden within. Then when the madmen attacks the Priest can spray them with a hail of bullets.  Every National Rifleman knows that.




Let's face it, anyone sporting a Peter Tork hair style in 2015 has to be someone with a few marbles short of game of doogs. He's more suited to the US military and a posting in Syria than on the streets of Charleston.

I spent a fortnight in Charleston and thought of it as an Haddon Sundblom enclave; beautiful summer houses and tree shaded streets. However there is a definite divide that persists from the good old days of rice plantations and the master/slave relationships of its history.


----------



## DB008 (27 August 2015)

*TV shooting reignites US gun debate​*


> Two journalists for a local CBS affiliate in Virginia have been shot dead in a chilling live television broadcast, and the suspected gunman, apparently a disgruntled former station employee shot himself and later died in hospital.
> 
> The suspect - Vester Lee Flanagan, 41, also known as Bryce Williams - was taken into police custody with 'life-threatening injuries' after shooting himself, Virginia state police said.
> 
> ...




http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/27/suspect-in-us-live-tv-killing-shoots-self.html


​


----------



## MrBurns (27 August 2015)

They'll be terrified of copycats now and I don't blame them.

Stupid USA gun laws, even the President cant get it fixed.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

*This is the 45th school shooting in the US this year*

The sad thing is that's it's almost  not worth commenting on any more because it's so common.

Oregon school shooting: 13 dead, 20 injured in shooting at Umpqua Community College, official confirms




> At least 13 people have been killed and another 20 injured at a shooting at a community college in Oregon, an official says.
> 
> Oregon's attorney-general said at least 13 people were killed and the gunman had died at the shooting at Umpqua Community College campus in Roseburg.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> *This is the 45th school shooting in the US this year*
> 
> The sad thing is that's it's almost  not worth commenting on any more because it's so common.
> 
> Oregon school shooting: 13 dead, 20 injured in shooting at Umpqua Community College, official confirms




More blood on the hands of the gun lobby. And they couldn't give a stuff.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2015)

MrBurns said:


> More blood on the hands of the gun lobby. And they couldn't give a stuff.




On the contrary MrBurns, guns in the hands of nutters requires counter acting force in the hands of the good guys ...obviously US citizens need to arm up to be prepared to stop random shooters.


----------



## MrBurns (2 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> On the contrary MrBurns, guns in the hands of nutters requires counter acting force in the hands of the good guys ...obviously US citizens need to arm up to be prepared to stop random shooters.




Yes that BS theory really works doesn't it ?
Funny I didn't see any of those armed heros running to help those kids. The 20 year old policeman tried on his own but was also killed.
Why do these nut jobs kill themselves after they execute unarmed children ? I'd much prefer they were strapped in a chair and electrocuted Green Mile style.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Y
> Why do these nut jobs kill themselves after they execute unarmed children ?.




Lot of pressure on people in US. Been there a lot and observed they are practically workers from cradle to grave with not  a lot of beans in the bank ....... at the same time they are fed a line of great wealth, fame and success .... I suspect it's all too much for some individuals in a nation unaccepting of failure. It's constant tensile competition there and for some reason we have govts that want to make us a sweat shop too.


----------



## dutchie (2 October 2015)

MrBurns said:


> More blood on the hands of the gun lobby. And they couldn't give a stuff.




Just as long as _they _ can carry a gun.

Apparently 95% of police training is taken up with the scenario of killing/ capturing a shooter in a school.


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2015)

"Infantile" and "Mental Health" talking heads:


clicky 




> An American Fox News anchor has claimed Australians "have no freedom" while lambasting Australia's gun laws during a live discussion on the recent Oregon shooting.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> "Infantile" and "Mental Health" talking heads:
> 
> 
> clicky




Freedom to live without being shot for the most part.


----------



## CanOz (9 October 2015)

I am extremely please Australia and Canada have reasonable gun laws. The US is simply beyond the point of no return, if i lived there i would have no choice but to own a gun. Otherwise I'd succumb to the old "why take a knife to a gunfight" at some point, no doubt.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2015)

The "right" to bear arms doesn't say at what price.

A lot of high threat weapons can be bought ridiculously cheap.

If you put enough tax on to make a AK-47 worth half a million, then that would dry up the supply I would think.

Same with ammo, they could tax it enough to make it prohibitively expensive.

Make everyone register their guns and ammo, anyone found with an unregistered gun means life in prison.

But there are so many guns out there now its probably too late.


----------



## Macquack (10 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The "right" to bear arms doesn't say at what price.
> 
> A lot of high threat weapons can be bought ridiculously cheap.
> 
> ...




That would mean the victims of future massacres would have the honour of being shot by some *rich nut job. *


----------



## Macquack (10 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> "Infantile" and "Mental Health" talking heads:
> 
> 
> clicky




That guy Tucker Carlson, what a half wit, mouthing off blatant lies and they allow him on US television (Fox). Murdoch has a lot to answer for.



> "They have no freedom, you can go to prison for expressing unpopular views in Australia and people do." -
> 
> Tucker Carlson


----------



## orr (10 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Lot of pressure on people in US. Been there a lot and observed they are practically workers from cradle to grave with not  a lot of beans in the bank ....... at the same time they are fed a line of great wealth, fame and success .... I suspect it's all too much for some individuals in a nation unaccepting of failure. It's constant tensile competition there and for some reason we have govts that want to make us a sweat shop too.




The American Dream... you have to be asleep to believe it. Arthur Millers 'Death of a salesman' talks to the themes outlined. Its like everything was understood in the 50's... except societal consequences just don't matter. Its one thing where 'the lot' of the majority is incrementally getting better; as opposed to things incrementally getting worst, as they have now for a lot for over a generation in the US.
With no constructive or inert outlet for anger/violence it's turned inward with depression or drug addition or outward as seen in domestic violence stats the burbling along of red neck racist ranting or where both collide in murder suicide.

I'd only differ in that the  yanks don't deal well with those that don't deal well with failure.


----------



## Bill M (10 October 2015)

I heard on the news that the USA is up to 47 school shootings for this year alone, my God. 

And they still won't do anything about gun control. I am glad I don't live there.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2015)

Bill M said:


> I heard on the news that the USA is up to 47 school shootings for this year alone, my God.
> 
> And they still won't do anything about gun control. I am glad I don't live there.



The terrible reality is there are going to be more and no one in government will do anything to prevent it.


----------



## Boggo (10 October 2015)

The reality...
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2015)

Boggo said:


> The reality...
> http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1



Who to believe?

From the Uni. study -



> Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, which have high rates of gun ownership, have low murder rates. *On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany.*




American Bureau of Diplomatic Security 2014 -



> Overall Crime and Safety Situation
> 
> Crime Threats
> 
> Luxembourg is a safe and modern European country with effective law enforcement and security services. *Although violent crime is less prevalent in Luxembourg cities than in similarly sized American cities, property crimes still occur.*




Maybe insanity is more prevalent in U.S.A.



> *Number of Privately Owned Firearms*
> The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000
> 
> *Compare Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population*
> The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.052  firearms per 100 people


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2015)

In further response to the Uni report (unreality). Pays to cross check facts especially when a report tries to play down the impact privately owned firearms have on the gun death rates not including maiming and injuries.

Uni. report -
*



			On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany.
		
Click to expand...


*
Luxembourg 



> *In Luxembourg, annual deaths resulting from firearms total*
> 
> 2011: 6
> 2010: 11
> ...




Germany



> *In Germany, annual deaths resulting from firearms total*
> 
> 2012: 819
> 2011: 878
> ...




Source - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/luxembourg


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2015)

Slight population difference between Luxembourg and Germany


What's the comparative rate per 100,000?


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2015)

In Luxembourg, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 

2011: 1.19
2010: 2.21
2009: 1.81
2008: 2.26
2007: 2.92
2006: 2.53
2005: 1.92
2004: 1.30
2003: 1.31
2002: 2.88
2001: 2.02
2000: 2.96
1999: 2.77
1998: 3.52
1997: 1.66


In Germany, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 

2012: 1.01
2011: 1.08
2010: 1.10
2009: 1.14
2008: 1.16
2007: 1.17
2006: 1.16
2005: 1.27
2004: 1.39
2003: 1.36
2002: 1.29
2001: 1.34
2000: 1.35
1999: 1.46
1998: 1.42


----------



## Boggo (11 October 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> Who to believe?




Who to believe is definitely the issue.

Unfortunately most of the George St keyboard warriors who have never been further west than Katoomba are the ones who seem to be the self proclaimed authority on firearms in Australia and would have to go to Google to work out the difference between ogive and anus.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 October 2015)

Significant reduction from early 1990 onwards.  

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 

2012: 1.03
2011: 0.86
2010: 1.08
2009: 1.06
2008: 1.10
2007: 1.11
2006: 1.18
2005: 1.09
2004: 1.20
2003: 1.46
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.69
2000: 1.70
1999: 1.84
1998: 1.68
1997: 2.32
1996: 2.84
1995: 2.61
1994: 2.90
1993: 2.91
1992: 3.49
1991: 3.59
1990: 3.51
1989: 3.29
1988: 4.11
1987: 4.30
1986: 4.26
1985: 4.35
1984: 4.35
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.54
1981: 4.14
1980: 4.70
1979: 3.29


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 October 2015)

I reckon gun possessors can be - 

Farmers (livestock and ferals), Professional shooters (culling, meat/skins, ferals etc.), Law enforcement (people) and Pro. Am. club shooters (targets).


----------



## McLovin (11 October 2015)

America's gun problem is not solely explained by access to firearms, although it doesn't help. Americans society is horrifically fragmented, individualistic, stratified and unequal. It manifests itself in many ways, not just being trigger happy when an unknown "black male" is on your property, but also in the zealous overuse of the death penalty and the steadfast objection to universal health care. Spend a bit of time on a US gun range (esp in the South) and you'll notice that the average shooter is not the "good guy" with a gun that the NRA likes to talk up.

America is broken in many ways, guns are just part of the problem.


----------



## Boggo (11 October 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> I reckon gun possessors can be -
> 
> Farmers (livestock and ferals), Professional shooters (culling, meat/skins, ferals etc.), Law enforcement (people) and Pro. Am. club shooters (targets).




Agree.





McLovin said:


> America's gun problem is not solely explained by access to firearms, although it doesn't help. Americans society is horrifically fragmented, individualistic, stratified and unequal. It manifests itself in many ways, not just being trigger happy when an unknown "black male" is on your property, but also in the zealous overuse of the death penalty and the steadfast objection to universal health care. Spend a bit of time on a US gun range (esp in the South) and you'll notice that the average shooter is not the "good guy" with a gun that the NRA likes to talk up.
> 
> America is broken in many ways, guns are just part of the problem.




Agree, the problem stems from the "God given right" to buy a firearm and the exploitation of that "right" by the wrong people.

The ownership and justification of the need to own is the issue that needs to be policed and that is where Australia has got it right.
As soon as you hear the loonies and melonheads complain about a particular type of gun (such as the Adler import) then you know that they are missing the point and don't understand the laws and rules to justify a purchase, acquire, retain and use a firearm legally.


----------



## Boggo (11 October 2015)

The loonies will probably claim that these are racist and will want them banned


----------



## Macquack (11 October 2015)

McLovin said:


> Spend a bit of time on a US gun range (esp in the South) and you'll notice that the average shooter is not the "good guy" with a gun that the NRA likes to talk up.




I am visualising a "Rambo" type character with a rocket launcher (down his pants), driving the biggest monster pick-up truck money can buy, with an American pitbull dog chained (with a piece of string) in the back to protect his prized wheels.


----------



## luutzu (11 October 2015)

McLovin said:


> America's gun problem is not solely explained by access to firearms, although it doesn't help. Americans society is horrifically fragmented, individualistic, stratified and unequal. It manifests itself in many ways, not just being trigger happy when an unknown "black male" is on your property, but also in the zealous overuse of the death penalty and the steadfast objection to universal health care. Spend a bit of time on a US gun range (esp in the South) and you'll notice that the average shooter is not the "good guy" with a gun that the NRA likes to talk up.
> 
> America is broken in many ways, guns are just part of the problem.




That's a good point. We seem to just blame the guns and the NRA - they are not blameless and have a lot to do with access etc. - but yea, there's the psychological instability, the socio-economic factors, the political game of pitting one group against another for each other's ill.

Take away the guns will help, but there are knives and baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 October 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> Significant reduction from early 1990 onwards.
> 
> In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
> 
> ...




Says it all.



luutzu said:


> Take away the guns will help, but there are knives and baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.




I don't seem to remember any baseball bat massacres.


----------



## luutzu (11 October 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> Says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't seem to remember any baseball bat massacres.




One death is still a tragedy.

A father of two a couple of streets away from where we are was murdered early this morning by some crazy idiot with a broken bottle. Read in the paper he was dropped off by his parents, his mother took the kids in and to use the bathroom so he chatted with the old man who's hard of hearing.

Some neighbour tell them to keep their voices down, they tried but apparently not enough and next we know he was stabbed in the neck with a broken bottle and died. wtf?


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2015)

Guns seem to surface as a conversation every other week down at my local. I don't know why that is.

They prattle on about this gun that and that gun this as if they possess some special innate talent. .... a bloke hasn't got his chops unless he's shot a gun. I don't understand a lot of what they talk about and I get bored of it.... and I was a crack shot back in the day, but still manage a stuffed toy at the Royal Show.

Gun worship sucks.


----------



## dutchie (3 December 2015)

Anther mass killing in USA.

San Bernardino shooting: multiple dead after gun rampage

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...e/news-story/befedad61bd43e3d68a326f689b5ce26



There is of course a simple solution to all these deaths. It will require an addition to the Constitution.

"All American citizens have the right to bare bullet proof vests."

If *all* Americans wore bullet proof vests *all* the time there would be less deaths.


----------



## Tisme (3 December 2015)

dutchie said:


> Anther mass killing in USA.
> 
> San Bernardino shooting: multiple dead after gun rampage
> 
> ...




International Disability Day too


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2015)

Perpetrators are dead so any reason should come to light. Coz they can, maybe.


----------



## McLovin (3 December 2015)

dutchie said:


> There is of course a simple solution to all these deaths. It will require an addition to the Constitution.
> 
> "All American citizens have the right to bare bullet proof vests."
> 
> If *all* Americans wore bullet proof vests *all* the time there would be less deaths.




They have that right. Imagine trying to get your hands on an AR-15 _and_ body armour. There is zero chance the police or ASIO wouldn't know about it. In America, you just roll down to Walmart.


----------



## qldfrog (3 December 2015)

The suspects have been identified by police as US born Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27.
obviously an issue of gun control like in Paris and Charlie hebdo.
Wake up Wake up Jeff (loosely based on the wiggles)


----------



## dutchie (4 December 2015)

" There is now a mass shooting every single day in America.

It’s become a sickening part of routine life in the world’s great superpower.

I’ve run out of vitriolic adjectives to describe them, and they would be superfluous anyway because the statistics alone tell the horrific story.

These two in particular are all you need to really know:

1) 100,000 people are hit by gunfire in the United States every year, of whom 32,000 die.

2) More people, over 400,000, have been killed by guns since 2001 alone than America lost in the whole of World War 2.

This is more than all the other 20 richest industrialised countries in the world, combined."



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...royed-lives-San-Bernardino.html#ixzz3tI9NBb6d


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2015)

qldfrog said:


> The suspects have been identified by police as US born Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27.
> obviously an issue of gun control like in Paris and Charlie hebdo.
> Wake up Wake up Jeff (loosely based on the wiggles)




This exercise just goes to show how powerful the allure of an Islamic religious state is, if it can neutralise the carefully crafted Nationalistic brain washing each and every citizen of the USA is suckled on from cradle to the grave.

I'm guessing a few decades of ineffectual wars have put doubt of the might and right of the US and west and emboldened  the meek.


----------



## qldfrog (4 December 2015)

dutchie said:


> " There is now a mass shooting every single day in America.
> xxx
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...royed-lives-San-Bernardino.html#ixzz3tI9NBb6d



fully agree but the St bernardino massacre is not our usual crazy looner , it is an act of terrorism, done in a team and as French attacks  and Europe has shown, stricter gun control would not have helped much in that specific case
I am only focusing on the latest massacre, overall, I believe citizen should have the right to have a gun when justified: you should see the amount of hassle and the cost to have a 22 rifle in Aus so that i can manage my small farm properly.
This should NOT in any way include any "right" to purchase automatic guns M16 etc as per US where there is a sickening fascination with guns..
but Australia has reached a point where you need a license to buy a bb gun, yet the crims have no issue to get weapons and any 17y old can drive a 2t metal bullet on the same road as I while drugged truckies slaughters people daily on the same roads.
Balance, balance and common sense are missing in these debates often from both sides


----------



## CanOz (4 December 2015)

qldfrog said:


> but Australia has reached a point where you need a license to buy a bb gun, yet the crims have no issue to get weapons and any 17y old can drive a 2t metal bullet on the same road as I while drugged truckies slaughters people daily on the same roads.
> Balance, balance and common sense are missing in these debates often from both sides




C'mon Froggy, isn't that a long bow to be drawing in comparing gun control with road safety


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2015)

CanOz said:


> C'mon Froggy, isn't that a long bow to be drawing in comparing gun control with road safety




He does have a point though. The use of licences to ply your trade, have a drink in the park, etc is no guarantee, and as it turns out, no hindrance to getting a gun and killing people, especially if the power of their lord compels them.


----------



## CanOz (4 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> He does have a point though. The use of licences to ply your trade, have a drink in the park, etc is no guarantee, and as it turns out, no hindrance to getting a gun and killing people, especially if the power of their lord compels them.




Getting a gun capable of killing mass quantities of people in Australia is not as easy as the US, period. Gun laws are working in Australia. Gun laws won't work in the US where there are already too many guns to keep track of.


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2015)

CanOz said:


> Getting a gun capable of killing mass quantities of people in Australia is not as easy as the US, period. Gun laws are working in Australia. Gun laws won't work in the US where there are already too many guns to keep track of.




I have a gut feeling we will find out sooner than later if your theory holds. I wouldn't know where to start, but somehow these followers of the "peaceful" religion have no problem getting a gun light enough for a child to use, but lethal enough to kill people. And it's not like these shooters run away here, they stay on the scene trying to pop off anyone that ventures by.


----------



## CanOz (4 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I have a gut feeling we will find out sooner than later if your theory holds. I wouldn't know where to start, but somehow these followers of the "peaceful" religion have no problem getting a gun light enough for a child to use, but lethal enough to kill people. And it's not like these shooters run away here, they stay on the scene trying to pop off anyone that ventures by.




Yeah sure, but my point is that arming the nation as the pro gun lobby spouts, is not the answer in Australia. Good solid intelligence, which means we need to give up some privacy....I'm fine with that, i have nothing to hide. If it means my family will be safer because of it, roll on spys. Keep the guns registered and for useful purposes like hunting or policing.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2015)

I think it's too late for the USA. 

There are too many guns in the community and not enough will to do anything about it.

Obama wants to do a John Howard, but the Second Amendment is the killer (pardon the expression).

 Unless Clinton or someone else campaigns on the policy of gun control and wins, then the US will just have to reap what it sows.


----------



## CanOz (4 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's too late for the USA.
> 
> There are too many guns in the community and not enough will to do anything about it.
> 
> ...




Totally agree.....


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 December 2015)

The American people seem accepting or at least expectant this activity will continue into the future. 

Idiot saying of the century, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". The good guys with a gun are not and will not stop the bad guys with a gun because the bad guys always shoot first. Make the weaponry available to the bad guys and USA will forever live out these horror scenes.


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2015)

dutchie said:


> " There is now a mass shooting every single day in America.
> 
> It’s become a sickening part of routine life in the world’s great superpower.
> 
> ...




Another example of politicians putting business and self interests ahead of people, their safety and their demands.

Heard from interviews way back that the majority of Americans do want stricter gun control; not many of them are devotee to this sacred 2nd Amendment of theirs. That's what all sane people would want.

But whether the majority or the minority want gun control or not, as a gov't who is supposedly all about security and safety (hence the militarised police forces) and protecting people... 32,000 preventable death a year is a sign something out to be done. That 32,000 death is higher than death on Vietnam's road each year - and their roads and traffic are insane.


----------



## qldfrog (4 December 2015)

CanOz said:


> Yeah sure, but my point is that arming the nation as the pro gun lobby spouts, is not the answer in Australia. Good solid intelligence, which means we need to give up some privacy....I'm fine with that, i have nothing to hide. If it means my family will be safer because of it, roll on spys. Keep the guns registered and for useful purposes like hunting or policing.



sure but an air rifle or bb gun?
Any steak knife is far more dangerous. In any case I am not for a US style crazy situation but after the killing by this 15y old, the media were talking about further gun laws, as if this or the Martin square fanatic have had any issue finding  illegal weapons for their acts
Yet I have to fill 5 pages of paperwork every licence renewal and justify that I indeed prefer to kill a steer with a bullet in the head than running after it trying to cut his throat with a kitchen knife.
At the same time, local councils spend thousands managing wild pigs  30km from brisbane GPO while wild dogs slaughters the local pet dogs in the outer suburbs of our capital cities.
So my request for common sense in term of size, capacity.
Do you know that the people using the ceremonial canons in historic reproductions have to actually get a special weapon licence category as do people wishing to have an air riffle 
this includes a mandatory day at the local shooting range for theorical and practical exams and guess what an always increasing license fee and a visit to the police station.Maybe just maybe our cops might want to be a bit more useful than being tax collectors
Nothing more here, no defence of the US system, just another example where from a good concept, red tape forgot common sense and is becoming a self generating /interested machine; relatively typical in Australia of Health and Safety issues
Rant over, have a nice evening


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 December 2015)

Society has deteriorated when part of workplace health and safety is the employees having to do active shooter training.


----------



## qldfrog (5 December 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> Society has deteriorated when part of workplace health and safety is the employees having to do active shooter training.




indeed!


----------



## qldfrog (5 December 2015)

as for the US, probably too late with the number of guns there, 
Sadly, if living in the US, I would then feel a duty toward my own family to get a gun too, if only for the number of crazies having one in their pocket when you do your shopping/drive your car.
Anyone having lived there and ready to share their experience as to this decision process: when living in a place where guns are everywhere, what do you do?


----------



## prawn_86 (5 December 2015)

prawn_86 said:


> I was actually in Santa Barbara over the weekend when this happened. Very sad, but it is amazing how it is so common place here (in the US) that life just goes on and it barely even gets a mention from people not immediately affected






prawn_86 said:


> It is that exact adage that the NRA and pro-gun lobby over here in 'Merica use. Why should you regulate guns when it's people that kill, not the guns...
> 
> It's amazing how many supposedly sensible people here think that more guns make them safer. In fact on the local news today i saw that regular police officers in certain suburbs are now allowed to carry AR-15's as that will make the suburb 'safer'. How the hell is an AR-15 going to make an area safer than a normal hand-gun??






qldfrog said:


> Anyone having lived there and ready to share their experience as to this decision process: when living in a place where guns are everywhere, what do you do?




There is no point also owning a gun. When is the last time you saw one of these stopped by a civilian? It just doesn't happen. 

If i had a gun and a shooting started i would 1. run for cover. 2. not trust myself to aim properly with the adrenaline even if i did have time 3. worry about shooting innocent people 4. worry about the police/responders thinking i was the shooter and taking me out also

The argument that more guns means that the shooters are taken out quicker just isnt the case. Especially if its a shooter with a high powered automatic vs someone with a revolver. Either way, civilians never get involved even if they are carrying 

Living here you just kind of ignore it and Americans pretends it isnt a problem


----------



## DB008 (5 December 2015)

*The math of mass shootings*​


> The death tolls change, the places change: Nine in a church, 23 in a restaurant, 26 in an elementary school, now 14 at a holiday party. The faces in the memorial photos change the most.
> 
> But the weapons are the common denominator.
> 
> ...




https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/​


----------



## SirRumpole (5 December 2015)

Truly disgusting...

http://www.smh.com.au/world/nevada-...tmas-card-featuring-guns-20151205-glgcni.html


----------



## Tisme (11 January 2016)

http://www.downvids.net/how-to-silence-the-opponents-of-gun-laws-in-30-seconds-727045.html


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> http://www.downvids.net/how-to-silence-the-opponents-of-gun-laws-in-30-seconds-727045.html




Nailed it.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Truly disgusting...
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/nevada-...tmas-card-featuring-guns-20151205-glgcni.html




We have a Facebook group for farriers which is mostly populated by Yanks. It is kept very professional but astonishingly the topic often comes up whether one should carry their weapon when under a horse or to leave it in the truck.

Just shaking my head.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2016)

wayneL said:


> We have a Facebook group for farriers which is mostly populated by Yanks. It is kept very professional but astonishingly the topic often comes up whether one should carry their weapon when under a horse or to leave it in the truck.
> 
> Just shaking my head.




They need those guns to keep them injuns away.


----------



## DB008 (21 February 2016)

*Seven Dead, Two Wounded After Apparently Random Shootings in Michigan​*


> Seven people were killed and two others wounded in apparently random shootings in Michigan Saturday evening, authorities said. A 14-year-old girl was among those shot and killed, state police said.
> 
> A 45-year-old suspect was in custody early Sunday and being questioned after the three separate shootings in Kalamazoo County, police said.
> 
> ...





http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/6-dead-3-hurt-apparently-random-shootings-michigan-n522946​


----------



## DB008 (27 February 2016)

*Kansas shooting: At least four dead, 14 wounded at lawnmower factory​*


> Four people are dead and up to 14 wounded after a gunman opened fire at a lawnmower factory in a small Kansas town, the sheriff said.
> 
> The gunman, an employee at Excel Industries in the town of Hesston, was killed by authorities, Harvey County Sheriff T Walton said.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/kansas-shooting-four-dead-14-wounded/7202796​


----------



## SirRumpole (6 April 2016)

The madness continues.

Details behind this story are still sketchy, but it makes you wonder just what sort of place the US is these days.


Two WA university students shot, injured in New Orleans

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/curtin-university-students-shot-in-new-orleans/7305338


----------



## DB008 (12 June 2016)

Story developing right now. Mass shooting @'Pulse' nightclub in Orlando.


----------



## DB008 (13 June 2016)

DB008 said:


> Story developing right now. Mass shooting @'Pulse' nightclub in Orlando.




ISIS just claimed responsibility for the shooting


----------



## cynic (13 June 2016)

DB008 said:


> ISIS just claimed responsibility for the shooting




Not according to "The Guardian".

They are saying "No terror group has claimed responsibility."


----------



## DB008 (13 June 2016)

cynic said:


> Not according to "The Guardian".
> 
> They are saying "No terror group has claimed responsibility."






https://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersIndia/status/742059648820367360

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/isis-announced-florida-attack-three-days-ago/


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2016)

ISIS can claim responsibility for anything it doesn't mean they did it.

Seems the guy was more a homophobe although he did have some radical Islam links.


----------



## cynic (13 June 2016)

DB008 said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersIndia/status/742059648820367360
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/isis-announced-florida-attack-three-days-ago/



Those reports aren't quite saying that ISIS claimed responsibility for Omar's actions, trying to imply it perhaps, but not quite saying it.


----------



## MrBurns (13 June 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> ISIS can claim responsibility for anything it doesn't mean they did it.
> 
> Seems the guy was more a homophobe although he did have some radical Islam links.




Thats right ISIS can claim the credit without doing the work, easy for them.


----------



## trainspotter (13 June 2016)

Wait for the excrement to hit the spinning blades - SWAT will get the blame for some of the shootings as they unleashed over 200 bullets in 30 seconds to gun down the gunman - CIA will get the blame as the killer was on their "Watch List" but still managed to buy the AR 15 machine gun only a few weeks before the shooting. 

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...0/news-story/e144927326d44b11d502f6f83ebfa3cc

And the Gun Lobby will bleat out this old corn on the cob reply - “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. And Donald Trump will somehow make the whole story about himself and Barack Obama will be quitely thinking to himself "Thank the Lord baby Jesus I am out of here !"


----------



## CanOz (13 June 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Wait for the excrement to hit the spinning blades - SWAT will get the blame for some of the shootings as they unleashed over 200 bullets in 30 seconds to gun down the gunman - CIA will get the blame as the killer was on their "Watch List" but still managed to buy the AR 15 machine gun only a few weeks before the shooting.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...0/news-story/e144927326d44b11d502f6f83ebfa3cc
> 
> And the Gun Lobby will bleat out this old corn on the cob reply - “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. And Donald Trump will somehow make the whole story about himself and Barack Obama will be quitely thinking to himself "Thank the Lord baby Jesus I am out of here !"




Post of the year!


----------



## trainspotter (14 June 2016)

CanOz said:


> Post of the year!




And that is how the fight started ...



> *Hillary Clinton* “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorists links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun,” she said here in a reference to two prior anti-terrorism investigations of Omar Mateen, the shooter who was killed Sunday by police. Those probes were eventually closed without action taken.
> 
> Her remarks Monday offered a sharp contrast to the reaction of her likely Republican rival, Donald Trump. He countered in Manchester, N.H., by blaming the weekend attack, in part, on lax immigration laws, and appeared to broaden his pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country by including immigrants from any country “with a proven history of terrorism against the U.S., Europe or our allies.”
> 
> “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here,” *Mr. Trump *said, referring to the American-born shooter whose parents emigrated to the U.S. from Afghanistan.




http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...er-gun-laws-after-orlando-shooting-1465862228



> Once again, people across the world are asking the crucial question — surely this senseless mass murder is enough to make the US tighten its firearms laws? But for many Americans, these brutal killings are only evidence for why more citizens should be carrying guns.
> While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made statements calling for some kind of action on gun control, others are loudly proclaiming the opposite.
> “Check out Chicago with the toughest gun laws in the country and the highest gun violence,” tweeted Boston radio host Glenn Ordway.
> Minneapolis security expert Chris Tobkin echoed many Americans when he posted: “Blaming the tool is a red herring away from the ideology that caused the act. Could have been done with a pressure cooker.”
> “Terrorists will always commit murder, regardless of our paper laws ...” added rap artists Jawga Boyz.




http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...g/news-story/89ceb332ada9c6c8e2b00ecd85fcf1da


----------



## skc (15 June 2016)

Came across this headline in the morning... 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/gun-company-stocks-rise-orlando-pulse-attack



> Gun company shares soared on Monday as traders predicted that Americans will react to the Orlando massacre by rushing out to arm themselves with more guns.
> 
> Shares in the two biggest listed US gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger & Co rose by 11% and 10% in early trading and ended the day up 6.8% and 8.5% respectively.
> 
> Gun companies shares have risen strongly after every recent mass shooting incident as investors speculate that the atrocities might lead to tougher gun control measures. Fear that stricter gun laws might be enacted cause more people to buy guns, especially semi-automatic assault rifles like the AR-15 used by Orlando killer.




What a bizarre attitude.


----------



## trainspotter (16 June 2016)

Let's buy an AR15 in under 38 minutes ! Uppercut yourself USA.


----------



## McLovin (16 June 2016)

In America, where it's easier to ban Muslims than to ban guns.


----------



## pixel (16 June 2016)

McLovin said:


> In America, where it's easier to ban Muslims than to ban guns.




... and harder to buy cough medicine than a gun:


> Having the common cold is enough to get one treated like a common criminal. To purchase seemingly innocuous cold medications such as Sudafed, consumers must now show ID and have the purchase logged in a database. It’s all because the active ingredient, pseudoephedrine, is the same substance used by chemists to cook up the illegal drug methamphetamine — or crystal meth. Zyrtec-D and Mucinex-D also contain pseudoephedrine.



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-...than-guns-2015-10-02?mod=MW_story_top_stories


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 June 2016)

It will eventually become a bit ho hum just another one. It is for me now. The law makers are stoopid.



> The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. Attempts to renew this ban have failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013).


----------



## pixel (16 June 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> It will eventually become a bit ho hum just another one. It is for me now. The law makers are stoopid.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

... Donald Trump can also bask in the glory that their gun-related homicide rate is still much lower than that in Honduras, South Africa, and Mexico. (He may struggle to locate those countries on a map, except Mexico, maybe. But when he is President, he'll have staff to do the work for him...)


----------



## trainspotter (16 June 2016)

Apologies to the American forefathers ...


----------



## Tisme (21 June 2016)

Worth a revisit, if only for the video :




http://fusion.net/story/313347/gun-control-orlando-john-oliver/


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2016)

I had not see that before, but it's brilliant.

John Oliver could be, maybe is, a satirist of David Frost proportions.


----------



## smallwolf (21 June 2016)

Tisme said:


> Worth a revisit, if only for the video :
> 
> 
> 
> ...





and part 2 is worth watching as well...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG_nBB6UbcA


----------



## CanOz (21 June 2016)

yeah, thats a ripper as well. Australia should be very proud of thier reasonable gun laws. If one is a law abiding citizen you can still own a gun, even a pistol. Even criminals can get guns...but if you are an ideological nutcase, or just a nutcase...it might be a little hard to get a gun...just hard enough maybe, to make you change your mind, or get caught...that's all the time lives need sometimes.....


----------



## trainspotter (21 June 2016)

And the NRA has their hands firmly up the butts of the Republicans ...



> Republicans and their allies in the NRA gun lobby said the Democratic bills were too restrictive and trampled on the constitutional right to bear arms. Democrats attacked the Republicans' two proposals as too weak and accused them of being in the thrall of the NRA.
> 
> "What am I going to tell the community of Orlando?" asked Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida after the votes. "Sadly, what I’m going to tell them is the NRA won again."




http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-guns-idUSKCN0Z61BS

As predicted ....


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2016)

Is the US the craziest country in the world ?

Sometimes I wonder.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...sacre-victims-told-they-never-existed/7546536


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 July 2016)

Watch the youtubes of police in America behaving in a psychopathic way. Sure the woman was uncooperative but the arrogant American has gotta have the last say. The backlash today with a mass police shooting was a matter of time. People are angry.


----------



## MrBurns (8 July 2016)

The footage of those cops killing those black guys was horrifying, cold blooded murder.
The backlash had to come, aren't those police trained at all ? 
You cant hold someone down pull your gun out and shoot them in the chest...


----------



## qldfrog (8 July 2016)

And in the name of balance, white and latino kids are also being shot down with no/slight reasons as well.
Police in the US seems to have a serious problem.Training and self control;
Seems ridiculous to shoot at someone already on the floor, and if the shot is gone by accident, get some bloody training and know to use a safety.
For us ozzies, a couple of weeks ago, a mental patient armed with a knife  was shot in a shopping center by police and 3 elderly bystanders wounded as colateral damages. Seems that we can not have much trust here either.Hopefully will not get as bad as in the states.


----------



## qldfrog (8 July 2016)

qldfrog said:


> And in the name of balance, white and latino kids are also being shot down with no/slight reasons as well.
> Police in the US seems to have a serious problem.Training and self control;
> Seems ridiculous to shoot at someone already on the floor, and if the shot is gone by accident, get some bloody training and know to use a safety.
> For us ozzies, a couple of weeks ago, a mental patient armed with a knife  was shot in a shopping center by police and 3 elderly bystanders wounded as colateral damages. Seems that we can not have much trust here either.Hopefully will not get as bad as in the states.



And for more stats (in French)
http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2016/07/08/en-2016-la-police-americaine-a-tue-510-personnes_4966266_4355770.html

In 2016, 510 persons killed by the US police so far, 123 black (27,3 % ) 235 whites (52,3 %).
510 out of 319 millions;
the guardian  had a previous interesting numeric analysis of the number of killed by police  in the US vs the world
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries
So not an issue of race in my opinion, but a serious issue of police behaviour


----------



## Macquack (9 July 2016)

Not an excuse, but no wonder the cops are trigger happy when everyone else is packing a pistol.

Who would want to be a cop in the US? 

The police force should be championing gun control.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2016)

Macquack said:


> Not an excuse, but no wonder the cops are trigger happy when everyone else is packing a pistol.
> 
> Who would want to be a cop in the US?
> 
> The police force should be championing gun control.




A lot of police are coming out for gun control, but if even the POTUS can't do anything about it, what can the police do ?

Anyway, shooting a guy when he's on the ground is inexcusable, but the cops have a right to be nervous and no relief is in sight for them.


----------



## luutzu (9 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> A lot of police are coming out for gun control, but if even the POTUS can't do anything about it, what can the police do ?
> 
> Anyway, shooting a guy when he's on the ground is inexcusable, but the cops have a right to be nervous and no relief is in sight for them.




Yea the cops would be more nervous than in other countries but the ones that's too nervous and shoot first... it's more racism and stereotypes than just simple "everyone's packing".

There's that kid playing with a toy gun and was running away - shot dead; Another black man ran away, shot dead; A guy who told the officer he has a gun he was licensed to carry (so don't shoot me when I get my wallet like you're asking me!), shot dead - his gf and her kid have to hold their hands up while the dude bleeds to death. 

Watch the video of that... if that lady weren't keeping calm, she'd be dead too.


----------



## luutzu (9 July 2016)

Macquack said:


> Not an excuse, but no wonder the cops are trigger happy when everyone else is packing a pistol.
> 
> Who would want to be a cop in the US?
> 
> The police force should be championing gun control.




The cops there tend to be fighting for more hardware for themselves than gun control. And the arms industry are happy to oblige.


----------



## So_Cynical (9 July 2016)

In a country awash with guns, a county where often gun ownership is encouraged, many states with open carry and concealed permits etc, the cops have to kind of expect everyone to have a gun, problem seems to be that the cops think that someone having a gun = someone wants to kill me.

The guns are most of the problem, the other thing is the absolute insistence of the cops escalating rather than managing situations, often they seem to be in a hurry to get to the guns out part of the exchange.


----------



## DB008 (21 May 2018)

Nut case USA....


*Texas school shooting follows tragically familiar script as students endure 22nd attack of its kind this year*
​The most chilling account wasn't the desperate fear of teenagers fleeing death, parents' heartbreaking search for loved ones or the detached listing of the body count from first responders.

US teenagers now prepare for shootings as routinely as exams.

It's a desperate situation.

What should be a formative experience through difficult teenage years now exists under a constant shadow of death and violence.


*http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-...ng-follows-tragically-familiar-script/9778628*​


----------



## bellenuit (21 May 2018)




----------



## DB008 (29 June 2018)

*Five dead, others 'gravely injured' in shooting at*
*Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis*​At least five people were killed and several others were “gravely injured” in a shooting Thursday afternoon at the Capital Gazette in Anne Arundel County, authorities said.

A shooter is in custody, police said. Police would not name the suspect or say what type of weapon was used.

Anne Arundel County Police initially confirmed about 3:15 p.m. that they were responding to an “active shooter” at 888 Bestgate Road, where the newspaper’s offices are located. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also responded to the scene.

The Capital Gazette is owned by The Baltimore Sun.

Police said a “long gun” was used in the incident. They said officers did not exchange gunfire with the suspect, who was now being interrogated. They said officers had recovered what appeared to be an “explosive device,” and had “tactically secured” the building. About 170 people were inside at the time of the shooting, police said.

Phil Davis, a Capital Gazette crime reporter who was in the building at the time of the shooting, said multiple people were shot, as others — himself included — hid under their desks. He said there was a lone male gunman.

“Gunman shot through the glass door to the office and opened fire on multiple employees. Can’t say much more and don’t want to declare anyone dead, but it’s bad,” Davis wrote on Twitter as he waited to be interviewed by police.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-gazette-shooting-20180628-story.html​


----------



## DB008 (9 November 2018)

*California bar gunman who killed 12 people identified*
*as former US Marine*​
The hooded man who shot up a California bar and killed 12 people has been identified as Ian David Long, a former US Marine who served in Afghanistan and may have suffered PTSD.

The 28-year-old veteran is suspected of carrying out the shooting at a bar in Thousand Oaks, and the dead included Sheriff's Sergeant Ron Helus, the first responder to the fatal attack.

Patrons at the bar screamed in fear, shouted "Get down!" and used barstools to smash second-floor windows and jump to safety as gunfire erupted at the Borderline Bar and Grill, a hangout popular with students from nearby California Lutheran University.

Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean said police believed Long then turned the gun on himself, bringing the death toll to 13.

There was no known motive, he said.​
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-09/california-mass-shooting-suspect-identified/10480280​


----------



## luutzu (9 November 2018)

DB008 said:


> *California bar gunman who killed 12 people identified*
> *as former US Marine*​
> The hooded man who shot up a California bar and killed 12 people has been identified as Ian David Long, a former US Marine who served in Afghanistan and may have suffered PTSD.
> 
> ...




Be interesting to see how the gun lobby will spin this one. "If there's a good guy with a gun it won't happen" won't do it this time seeing how a sheriff also got shot.


----------



## DB008 (1 June 2019)

*11 people killed in Virginia Beach shooting; suspect dead*​VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) — A longtime, disgruntled city employee opened fire at a municipal building in Virginia Beach on Friday, killing 11 people before police fatally shot him, authorities said.

Six other people were wounded in the shooting, including a police officer whose bulletproof vest saved his life, said Virginia Beach Police Chief James Cervera.

Five patients were being treated at Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital and a sixth was being transferred to the Trauma Center at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, Sentara Healthcare tweeted.

The shooter opened fire in Building 2 of the municipal center, which is adjacent to City Hall. The building houses the city’s public works, public utilities and planning departments, according to City Councilwoman Barbara Henley, who arrived at City Hall building about 4 p.m. Friday just after the shooting.

Megan Banton, an administrative assistant who works in the building where the shooting happened, said she heard gunshots, called 911 and barricaded a door.

“We tried to do everything we could to keep everybody safe,” she said. “We were all just terrified. It felt like it wasn’t real, like we were in a dream. You are just terrified because all you can hear is the gunshots.”

She said she texted her mom, telling her that there was an active shooter in the building and she and others were waiting for police. Banton works in an office of about 20 people that is part of the public works department.

“Thank God my baby is OK,” Banton’s mother, Dana Showers, said.

Cervera identified the shooter as a disgruntled employee of the Public Utilities Department. He did not release his name.

Christina Pullen, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Norfolk, said the bureau is assisting.​

https://apnews.com/b9114321cee44782aa92a4fde59c7083​


----------



## basilio (1 June 2019)

The extent of mass murder in public offices, schools, communities is beyond madness.

It has reached the stage where office workers have  educational programs on how to protect themselves in the event of a shooter invading their place of employment. (maybe...)

*The twist however is that the presenters are primary school children who have been drilled in such programs and have produced their own presentation to take around the community.*

Yeah.  xxxxing crazy. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/us/generation-lockdown-psa-trnd/index.html


----------



## DB008 (4 August 2019)

*Several dead in shooting at Walmart in El Paso*​
A shooting at a Walmart near a mall in El Paso has left multiple people dead.
At least 18 people were taken to local hospitals.
A 21-year-old male suspect was taken into custody. Earlier, there were reports that three people were in custody.
Police said they believe there was only one shooter.
Rep. Veronica Escobar and presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke expressed sorrow at the news.
Several people died in a shooting at a shopping complex in El Paso, Texas on Saturday, according to law enforcement. At least 18 people have been taken to local hospitals.

The shooting happened at a Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall. A 21-year-old male suspect was taken into custody. Earlier, there were reports that three people were in custody.

Police said they believe there was only one shooter. Law enforcement previously said they had reports of multiple shooters.

El Paso police first received calls about a shooting at 10 a.m. local time. Multiple other law enforcement agencies, including the ATF and FBI, assisted El Paso police.

Authorities asked people to say clear of the area surrounding the Cielo Vista Mall. A reunification center for families has been set up at McCarthur Middle School.

Multiple ambulances were at the scene.​

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/03/police-in-el-paso-are-responding-to-active-shooter.html
​


----------



## bellenuit (4 August 2019)

Reports of up to 10 dead in Dayton, Ohio, shooting, a day after the El Paso shooting

https://sputniknews.com/us/20190804...g-to-active-shooter-in-dayton-ohio---reports/


----------



## Knobby22 (4 August 2019)

The Texas one looks like a racist/right wing fanatic hate crime type.


----------



## bellenuit (4 August 2019)




----------



## SirRumpole (4 August 2019)

bellenuit said:


>




It would be tasteless to "like" the above, but it says it all really.


----------



## DB008 (4 August 2019)




----------



## DB008 (1 September 2019)

*5 dead in shooting spanning Midland, Odessa*
​Earlier reports of multiple shooters have not been confirmed and police believe the threat is over.

ODESSA, Texas — Five people are dead and 21 injured after a shooting that spanned multiple locations in Midland and Odessa. A single suspect is dead, and Odessa police believe the threat has been contained. It's unclear whether the five dead includes the shooter.

Initial reports included two suspects, however at a press conference Saturday evening, Odessa Police Chief Michael Gerke said they had not confirmed a second suspect.

Thirteen people in various conditions were being treated at Medical Center Hospital Saturday, where a staging area with grief counselors had been set up for families of the victims, according to Medical Center Health Systems CEO Russell Tippin.

Of the 13 patients, seven were in critical condition, two serious and one had died. It's not clear if that victim is among the five dead reported by Chief Gerke.

Tippin said the hospital is on lockdown for the safety of hospital officials and patients. The hospital is at capacity, and Tippin did not say the locations of the other injured.

UMC confirmed a 17 month old was airlifted to Lubbock after being shot in the face.​
https://tinyurl.com/y5m9cbwa​


----------



## Knobby22 (1 September 2019)

That 17 month child should have had a gun so he could shoot back!


----------



## bi-polar (2 September 2019)

UK has a PM with the hair but our guys are smooth and bald. However, we shape up in personal self defense hardware for sheriff back-up in Morrison county.


----------



## DB008 (6 July 2020)

*At least two killed in a shooting at a Greenville,*
*South Carolina club*​
At least two people were killed and eight others injured in a shooting early Sunday (local time) at a Greenville, South Carolina, nightclub.

A deputy with the Greenville County Sheriff's Office noticed a disturbance at the club, Lavish Lounge, shortly before 2am. When he pulled into the parking lot, he heard gunshots and called for emergency assistance, Lieutenant Jimmy Bolt said.

The Greenville Police Department and South Carolina Highway Patrol responded and found four gunshot victims inside, Lieutenant Bolt said. The officers did not fire their weapons, he said.

A dispatcher later learned that other victims were being transported to the hospital in personal vehicles, Lieutenant Bolt said.

The eight surviving victims are listed in "various conditions", he said. There are no suspects in custody. Investigators remain on the scene.

The nightclub was hosting a "very, very, very, large crowd" for a concert when the shooting erupted, Greenville County Sheriff Hobart Lewis said, according to CNN affiliate WYFF.

"There's a lot of shell casings inside," Sheriff Lewis said.​

https://www.9news.com.au/world/usa-...shooting/73440ca2-5cde-42c4-8f40-d7615681a0fd​


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (6 July 2020)

DB008 said:


> *At least two killed in a shooting at a Greenville,*
> *South Carolina club*​
> At least two people were killed and eight others injured in a shooting early Sunday (local time) at a Greenville, South Carolina, nightclub.
> 
> ...




Hard to support the 2nd Amendment when it was written in the days when a musket was put above the fire place; to ensure that a well armed militia could reasonably defend the land against an invading British colonial force. However, if I lived in the US I would be Federalist.


----------



## basilio (9 July 2020)

*America to stop measuring gun-related deaths in an effort to eradicate gun crime*
US President Donald Trump says the nation’s gun crime will plummet thanks to a new policy which will see gun-related deaths no longer recorded.  

The President said the US – which currently has one of the highest rates of gun crime in the world – could expect to see the number of deaths caused by guns to drop to zero if his policy passes Congress.

“I have ordered for authorities to slow down the measurement of gun crime because it is adding to the number deaths,” Trump said at a press conference today. “The more you measure gun deaths, the more people are going to die. It’s as simple as that.” 
The NRA has backed the move saying it is the best way to ensure that mass shootings at schools and shopping malls were eradicated while maintaining the right for Americans to bear arms.  In a statement the NRA said, “Guns don’t kill people. Gun statistics kill people”.
*https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/0...d-deaths-in-an-effort-to-eradicate-gun-crime/*


----------



## Knobby22 (29 May 2022)

Beautiful timing. Lady carrying gun stops mass murder. What a hero. Shows that everyone should carry a gun.

But if you think about it is extremely unlikely. I think the guy was killed deliberately to help the gun lobby.
Amazingly he supposedly  opened fire in a car at a party and missed everything . Reminds me of Pulp Fiction. Pretty good effort for the lady to whip out her pistol and hit him multiple times. The guy was a known criminal also who deserved to die.

I don't believe a word of it.









						Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia
					

A woman at a birthday party drew her pistol and left the gunman with multiple wounds, police say.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Belli (29 May 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Beautiful timing. Lady carrying gun stops mass murder. What a hero. Shows that everyone should carry a gun.
> 
> But if you think about it is extremely unlikely. I think the guy was killed deliberately to help the gun lobby.
> Amazingly he supposedly  opened fire in a car at a party and missed everything . Reminds me of Pulp Fiction. Pretty good effort for the lady to whip out her pistol and hit him multiple times. The guy was a known criminal also who deserved to die.
> ...




Similar story related by a friend who was in the ADF and was in the USA on exchange.  One of his American colleagues, as proof of it's OK with guns, showed him an article of a lady who shot some armed dude in a resturant who was attermpting to rob the patrons.  He replied "But if the fruit cake didn't have easy access to firearms in the first place...."  Apparently the conversation went all quiet after that.


----------



## The Triangle (29 May 2022)

Knobby22 said:


> Beautiful timing. Lady carrying gun stops mass murder. What a hero. Shows that everyone should carry a gun.
> 
> But if you think about it is extremely unlikely. I think the guy was killed deliberately to help the gun lobby.
> Amazingly he supposedly  opened fire in a car at a party and missed everything . Reminds me of Pulp Fiction. Pretty good effort for the lady to whip out her pistol and hit him multiple times. The guy was a known criminal also who deserved to die.
> ...



Have you spent much time in the US?  Quite common for someone to spray bullets from a car and not kill anyone.  Shooting guns is like throwing punches, a lot of people do it to prove they are tough.  It's not always about killing people.


Belli said:


> Similar story related by a friend who was in the ADF and was in the USA on exchange.  One of his American colleagues, as proof of it's OK with guns, showed him an article of a lady who shot some armed dude in a resturant who was attermpting to rob the patrons.  He replied "But if the fruit cake didn't have easy access to firearms in the first place...."  Apparently the conversation went all quiet after that.



What if the robber had a knife?


----------



## Macquack (30 May 2022)

When is one of these nut jobs going to do us all a favour and march into a NRA meeting and let them have it big time.


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2022)

Macquack said:


> When is one of these nut jobs going to do us all a favour and march into a NRA meeting and let them have it big time.




Heavy security and a ban on guns in the conference, low life's on steroids.

Fascinating how Republicans place the rights of the demented to be able to buy guns over the lives of school children.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 June 2022)

Interesting discussion on interpretation of 2nd Amendment.



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/31/second-amendment-individual-rights/


----------

