Firstly, I wont address all the points you've made,however to selectively suggest that our govt, at a 'whim' took away these privileges is misleading and incorrect. Sure we don't have a bill of rights that in some measure gives it's citizens the right to own them but the climate leading up to a policy change were considered by most people to be one where access to guns was way to easy . The background leading up to the Port Arthur massacre was a series of other incidents such as the hoddle street massacre where many lives were lost. Public sentiment was all for change, to make access to such weapons more stringent and tighter. The problem was that the state's, which there are 7 had different laws pertaining to gun ownership. The Federal Govt, to it's credit eventually got bipartisan support from all the states for national uniform gun laws that applied across the board to all state and territories . Public opinion on this issue has always been rock solid and apart from the national gun association and a few other splinter groups, no govt whether that be Liberal or labor would consider changing them. They realize that electrolly this would cost them significant votes at any election. Culturally we very different when it comes to gun ownership and I for one believe that the fewer the guns that are in the hands of the public then the better....most I know believe the same.
SM RxBandits hates me. But yeah, a lot of it is trust in the students to report something and most of them won't.
Which is my point: your government will take and grant those privileges at its own whims, and in this case, due to a knee-jerk reaction to some high-profile shootings. And public opinion is different from ours in Australia (and much of the world) regarding civilian gun ownership. However, your nation and mine are two entirely different places; mine is used to (and will not stand for the removal of) a certain set of fundamental rights, rights that shall not be infringed upon. Our cultures are different; the majority of public sentiment does not believe that a firearm, or access to one, is at fault -- I personally do not believe that you can blame an inanimate object for a psychopath's actions. Think: when you've got thousands of people a year dying from drug/alcohol related crashes, do you believe it's right to take away either the alcohol or the automobile?
<span style="color:grey">Well, that's this generation for you. Very sad if you think about how much people already sacraficed to live the "American" dream. Now they are worrying about their children/themselves.</span>
Again you imply its a whim...its not. It was the public who drove this debate and the subsequent changes to our gun laws . The govt only reflected in legislation what the public was demanding.Thats democracy at work . If you assume 'Im advocating the removal of all guns from the civilian population then your wrong. What Im in favor of his tighter restrictions on what types of weapons are avaiviabe and a strong set of federal laws that ensure that people who want access should do so for only certain purposes and not because they feel they have a right to. No but you ensure there are proper laws, both for prosecution and for protecting the innocent.
No but you ensure there are proper laws, both for prosecution and for protecting the innocent. [/b][/quote] Yes, your government removed the privilege based on a knee-jerk reaction by what they viewed as the majority of the populace. That is called 'at a whim' in my book. I don't assume that you're advocating the removal of firearms, etc. etc. etc. want to take my rifles away. I like to assume that you're intelligent enough to realize that we're two different nations, with different values and laws, neither necessarily superior to the other in that respect. However, since you've put your views out in the open: - What do you classify as a 'dangerous firearm?' All of them? Only ones that are -----automatic? Those that are fed from a detachable magazine? Fully-automatic? Only handguns? None of these is necessarily any more lethal than the other; somebody with proper training firing on -----automatic will probably do about the same as somebody spraying a crowd with an automatic weapon. Somebody who shoots from a clock tower with a bolt-action hunting rifle is no more lethal than a seventeen year old robbing a 7-11, shooting at point-blank with a handgun. - Who would you consider to have a need for a firearm? A hunter? A sport shooter? Somebody concerned with their well-being? The average citizen? None of these is any more likely than the other to go on a shooting spree. - Why do you continue to use the phrase 'view they have a right to...'? It is a right in my country. And, believe it or not, the vast majority of gun owners in my country don't own those firearms because they think they're a cool thing to have or just want them for the sake of exercising a right. There are plenty of laws regarding crime with a firearm. They're called things like 'murder' and 'assault with a deadly weapon.' They also carry very harsh penalties. Robbing somebody with a gun will get you more time than if you had done so with your hands or something like a baseball bat. Improper use of a firearm in many places is punishable by (relatively) severe sentences. Once a firearm enters the crime, the penalties almost always go up drastically. There are actually some rather decent laws on the books, laws that require background checks, laws prohibiting criminals from purchasing guns, and laws that prevent the sale of several types of weapons. They're often not enforced or carried out well, however, and the problem lies more in the fact that they're not enforced rather than in that they're not strict enough; we've got plenty of laws, we don't need a new round every time somebody gets murdered. That's often disregarded in places like Utopia and Europe, where everybody has to have the same laws and the same values and the same morals, and anybody that's different is seen as a cowboy and/or psychopath, simply because they think differently. However, I'm sure you'd also advocate laws that prevent the sale and/or distribution of alcohol and automobiles to people who are seen as likely to drink and drive, or people who have no real need for either and could walk or not drink at all. (it's the same concept as banning firearms: the blaming of an inanimate object to absolve the responsibility of a person) By the way, take a look at a city called Washington. It's our nation's capitol. It has one of the highest firearm murder rates in the nation, and one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. It also all but bans firearms within its city limits, with the principles you describe above (only those that need the guns for a purpose, etc. etc. etc. tight restrictions, etc. etc. etc.). It's been that way since the seventies, if I'm not mistaken; in fact, the crime rate has risen drastically since then, and rises and rose independent of the national trends. P.S.: the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy, contrary to the statements of politicians when it comes time to fight the (insert communists, fascists, Islamic extremists, or imperialists).
No but you ensure there are proper laws, both for prosecution and for protecting the innocent. [/b][/quote] Yes, your government removed the privilege based on a knee-jerk reaction by what they viewed as the majority of the populace. That is called 'at a whim' in my book. And the populace was right. Lacks gun laws giving people relatively easy access to weapons such as assault rifle's pump action etc,etc, focused the public and govt's to look and act on what were poorly considered gun laws. I don't assume that you're advocating the removal of firearms, etc. etc. etc. want to take my rifles away. I like to assume that you're intelligent enough to realize that we're two different nations, with different values and laws, neither necessarily superior to the other in that respect. I suggested and eluded to this in my first post . In many respects we share similar cultural traits, but what we dont share is a gun culture ethos that your country and its citizens seem to have . However, since you've put your views out in the open: - What do you classify as a 'dangerous firearm?' All of them? Only ones that are -----automatic? Those that are fed from a detachable magazine? Fully-automatic? Only handguns? None of these is necessarily any more lethal than the other; somebody with proper training firing on -----automatic will probably do about the same as somebody spraying a crowd with an automatic weapon. Somebody who shoots from a clock tower with a bolt-action hunting rifle is no more lethal than a seventeen year old robbing a 7-11, shooting at point-blank with a handgun. I'm no authority on, or claim to know much about many of the weapons you refer to, but any weapon is dangerous/lethal in the hands of anyone. All can serve the purpose to kill, if that's the intention of the person using it. - Who would you consider to have a need for a firearm? A hunter? A sport shooter? Somebody concerned with their well-being? The average citizen? None of these is any more likely than the other to go on a shooting spree. I'd like to see some statistics on this before I'd form a view, one way or the other. Statistics here in Australia have shown that a large propotions of gun related crimes/deaths in the past were as a result of volatile domestic relationships. So who is to know the mind of anyone, particulary in a moment of rage and with easy access to a gun. Why do you continue to use the phrase 'view they have a right to...'? It is a right in my country. And, believe it or not, the vast majority of gun owners in my country don't own those firearms because they think they're a cool thing to have or just want them for the sake of exercising a right. The term is use in reference to your 2nd amendment. I'm just I'm just questioning the notion that just because something is enacted inthe constitution doesn't necessarily make it right. There are plenty of laws regarding crime with a firearm. They're called things like 'murder' and 'assault with a deadly weapon.' They also carry very harsh penalties. Robbing somebody with a gun will get you more time than if you had done so with your hands or something like a baseball bat. Improper use of a firearm in many places is punishable by (relatively) severe sentences. Once a firearm enters the crime, the penalties almost always go up drastically. There are actually some rather decent laws on the books, laws that require background checks, laws prohibiting criminals from purchasing guns, and laws that prevent the sale of several types of weapons. They're often not enforced or carried out well, however, and the problem lies more in the fact that they're not enforced rather than in that they're not strict enough; we've got plenty of laws, we don't need a new round every time somebody gets murdered. That's often disregarded in places like Utopia and Europe, where everybody has to have the same laws and the same values and the same morals, and anybody that's different is seen as a cowboy and/or psychopath, simply because they think differently. Well those points relating to penalties are given...whats your point?. My point is and you partly alluded too is stricter laws. But thats where we part company, as Im advocating what you would consider to be draconian type laws but ones in this county we have no problem with However, I'm sure you'd also advocate laws that prevent the sale and/or distribution of alcohol and automobiles to people who are seen as likely to drink and drive, or people who have no real need for either and could walk or not drink at all. (it's the same concept as banning firearms: the blaming of an inanimate object to absolve the responsibility of a person) No.... but reality dictates that its not as cut and dry as that. By the way, take a look at a city called Washington. It's our nation's capitol. It has one of the highest firearm murder rates in the nation, and one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. It also all but bans firearms within its city limits, with the principles you describe above (only those that need the guns for a purpose, etc. etc. etc. tight restrictions, etc. etc. etc.). It's been that way since the seventies, if I'm not mistaken; in fact, the crime rate has risen drastically since then, and rises and rose independent of the national trends. I presume guns in isolation dosnt explain why Washington has such high rates of violent crimes and gun deaths. I assume high rates of poverty, poor education unemployement and other social factors might give these statistics some flesh but surely the fact that people can get these weapons so easily elsewhere...(neighboring states) contributes to such an alarming and unwanted set of statistics P.S.: the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy, contrary to the statements of politicians when it comes time to fight the (insert communists, fascists, Islamic extremists, or imperialists). Did I imply it wasnt.... [/b][/quote]
(1) That is a matter of opinion. (2) OK. We're two different places, with two different situations. What works and is accepted in Australia will not necessarily work or be accepted in America, and vis versa. (3) Yes, all can kill. There are quite a few things in this world that can kill, from an assault rifle to a rock. If somebody has the will to commit a crime, the lack of a detachable magazine or a flash hider on his gun won't stop him. (4) What I was alluding to is this: people are people, and you cannot predict who will take a problem well and who will not. People do stupid things, and simply because a person is a hunter and has a use for his firearm does not guarantee that he is immune to committing a crime. (5) In America, something listed under the Bill of Rights is a right granted to all US citizens. Those rights include free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom/the right to bear arms and keep a militia, the right to a fair trial by jury without excessive bail, and quite a few other things. Do you consider free speech to be a right in Australia? In America, free speech and the freedom to own a gun are on the same level: rights. (6) In America, most of us don't believe that throwing more laws at the problem of crime is going to solve much of anything; criminals don't obey the law. (7) How so? Somebody made a bad choice, and used (either alcohol or a motor vehicle) improperly. That is, when you get down to it, the same thing as somebody walking into a post office with a shotgun. The only difference I see is that one person got his head blown off by a twelve-gauge, and the other got decapitated by the divider on the freeway. Both people (the drunk driver and the psychopath) are guilty of murder in my opinion. Washington has had a relatively high crime rate both with and without guns. My point is that thirty years of rather draconian laws hasn't done much good; firearm crime is worse now than in 1976(?), when the bans went into effect. (9) "That's democracy in action" or something similar.
The way i see it is NO member of ANY public populace should own a gun. this is a problem for Americans as they hold the right to bear arms closer to their heart than any other country, I dont see why you need to own a gun...it doesn't prevent or lessen the effects of crime, infact im pretty sure there are more shootings per person in America than there is in Australia...Prove me wrong if u can. basically my argument comes down to this :: If a person doesn't have a gun they cant shoot someone. if u can poke a hole in that logic id like for you to enlighten me
Yes, because there is definitely a way to take the millions upon millions of guns (known legal) off of the streets (disregarding millions more that are illegally owned/unregistered). Yes, because a ban on guns will cause criminals to suddenly have a non-criminal streak and dump their guns at the local police station. Yes, because people will stop killing each other. Yes, because people will decide to stop committing crime. Yes, because somebody intent on murdering another human being will not do so because there are no guns present. (P.S.: a law abiding citizen having a gun is not the problem here, if you haven't figured it out. Look up crime statistics among CCW permit holders, people who have obtained a license to carry a concealed firearm in public) (P.P.S.: we hold that right close, just as we hold our rights to freedom of press, speech, religion, peaceful assembly, and all the others. You can choose not to exercise a right if you do not wish to do so. If people want guns, however, I believe that they should be able to obtain them) (P.P.P.S.: how many stabbings, beatings, bludgeonings, etc. do you have in those gun-free nations?) (P.P.P.P.S.: you can shoot somebody with a crossbow, bow, blow gun, BB gun, and several other items)
mmm ferret take this for example: The police in AMERICA warn shop clerks to not fight back when confronted with an armed assailant. BECAUSE it will just degenerate into a shootout if you also have a gun. And some one is going to be killed. The point is to let the police do their job. IF you want a gun go join the police force.
