Gun Control V3.0

When I said it was cultural, he didn't really I suspect believe me. I guess those NRA ads about how "we live in fear" in Oz carry more weight than the repeated, echoed sentiment of we antipodean gods.

E_S

 

Um. I got no response to this. I find it a totally bizarre and nonsensical argument. Maybe it's just me though.

Ender, it's definitely a cultural thing. It's one cultural difference(among many) that I'm thankful for.

 

Loopster, you said, "It is our business if you are stockpiling deadly weapons." So, what do you consider a deadly weapon? An edged or blunt instrument could be a deadly weapon. A person can be a deadly weapon. Almost anything, in the wrong hands, could be a deadly weapon. What I want to know is, why do you believe that any government should ban some "deadly weapons" and not others?

 

Since you didn't mention where you live in this post or your profile, I can only assume that you live on TheForce.net. That is very, very sad.

 

Loopster, why are law-abiding gun owners so scary to you?

 

People fear what they don't understand, and they don't understand that we are proud to exercise our Constitutional rights.

 

Actually, that's not really a fair question. Let's make it more specific (and of course purely hypothetical):

Aside from the occaisional speeding ticket and exaggerations on my tax returns, assume I am an otherwise law-abiding American citizen. You met me on the street (in America), and after we talk for a while, our conversation turns to gun ownership, and I happen to mention that I have a gun concealed on my person. By the way, I have legally purchased the weapon, and I am carrying it as prescribed by law, with the proper permit, also on my person.

Are you afraid of me, and why?

(And please answer the question directly. Please do not quibble, or ask "Why do you have a gun?" It's my right, therefore I can. No one asks "Why are you speaking freely? Why are you voting? Why are you worshiping freely?")

 

Why would any of you care if I have a arsenal of fully automatic weapons in my house under lock and key? Is it even any of your business?


No, actually not, Rod, because your a war vetern and what I would say are one of the few in our society - along with active and retired police, Fed, Spc. Ser, and other such armed enforcement employess that have truly EARNED the right to fully expedite the second amendment. And yes its my buisness because if the &^%$ really hits the fan I wanna get in touch with these kinds of people. Dont give away the extended freedoms that you have earned to the rest of us that havent.

 

I'm Australian, though sometimes it seems like I live on TF.N.

Fred, I'm not getting into the argument about what's a deadly weapon etc because I know your responses already which are 1. Are you saying we should ban all knives, they are a deadly weapon. 2. Guns are an inanimate object, why are you scared of an inanimate object? 3. Guns don't kill people, blah blah. 4. The purpose of guns is protection.

Pro-gun lobbyists won't concede that guns are made with no other intent but to harm so it's a pointless discussion and it's been gone over countless times in this thread.

Jorge, if I just met you and you showed me a gun you had concealed in your coat or whatever, yes. I would be afraid of you.

Why? Call it an insecurity but I find people who carry around guns for no reason a tad frightening.

 

I know your questions are directed at Loopster but I'll comment anyway.

You need to be able to separate the issues. First of all, your Constitution gives you the right to bear arms. Fair enough. You can legally own and carry a gun (although I understand the right to carry a gun is qualified). Therefore, all of you gun owners and carriers are law abiding citizens exercising your constitutional rights. Yes, I think everyone accepts that. Nobody fears this law.

The element of fear creeps in when you consider the consequences of that right to own and carry guns - ie, the consequences of a person being able to legally own an automatic weapon which I assume was only designed for military application.

Now, if I became mentally unhinged or otherwise suffered a mental trauma or road rage or something which caused me to want to do violence to other people, then all I could do would be to physically assault someone or brandish a butcher knife or something - sure I might be able to inflict some damage before I was brought down, but even a person who is a 'deadly weapon' can be subdued.

Now, if you, the owner of an arsenal of automatic weapons, became similarly mentally unhinged and intent on violence, then the results would be somewhat more disastrous and it would be harder for you to be subdued. In fact, the damage and death you could cause would only be limited by the amount of ammo you have.

So, I guess we have to take your word for it that you are well balanced law abiding citizens and we will have to pray and hope that your mental wellbeing remains inclined towards non violence.

 

Heheh. LostOnHoth, you must be new to this thread.

I can see the responses to you now.

If everyone carried guns, there's more protection against madmen on the loose with a gun, dont you know. A deranged person is going to get a gun anyway, don't you know.

 

ah..yes..of course. Any person intent on murder will get a weapon of some description - there is no avoiding that. The issue is what kind of weapon and its general availability.

But I'm really only addressing the question of whether it is my business if someone has an arsenal of fully automatic weapons in their house.

The answer is yes.

 

[Gun Nut Mode]Ah, but you can't punish a person for something they haven't done, or something they may do......[/Gun Nut Mode]

Gun lobbyists don't get it, so that's why I simply say I'm glad I'm here and not there.

Stockpiling guns in the US is legal (I think) so there's a point to the argument. It's illegal here in Australia and I'm glad it is. If someone here were stockpiling guns, they have no right to do so, they are breaking the law and it is definitely my business if they are.

 

Yeah..me too. I used to work for Texas based company here in Sydney so all of its manuals were from the Houston office - my employee manual had a firearms policy that required me to check my weapons in at reception and collect them on way home!

 

I guess Special_Fred would have to check himself in then, deadly weapon he is and all.....

I jest, Fred, I jest.

 

...your a war vetern and what I would say are one of the few in our society...that have truly EARNED the right to fully expedite the second amendment.

One does not earn rights. One earns privileges. I don't have to "earn" the right to speak my mind. I don't have to "earn" the right to a trial by jury. And no, I don't have to "earn" the right to own a gun. These are inalienable rights that we, as humans, are endowed with from the moment our lives begin until the moment they end.

Pro-gun lobbyists won't concede that guns are made with no other intent but to harm...

Because that isn't true. Guns that are made specifically for sporting purposes, or kept as collection pieces, are not intended to do harm to anyone.

Call it an insecurity but I find people who carry around guns for no reason a tad frightening.

No one carries around a gun "for no reason." People who carry a sidearm do so because they believe in being prepared for emergencies. And, no offense, but it is an insecurity when you are afraid of a holstered weapon. Would the pictures in "Guns & Ammo" magazine frighten you, too?

First of all, your Constitution gives you the right to bear arms.

Wrong. The Constitution is incapable of "giving" rights. The Constitution recognizes our pre-existing rights.

In fact, the damage and death you could cause would only be limited by the amount of ammo you have.

Or by the marksmanship of the hypothetical intended victims.

If everyone carried guns, there's more protection against madmen on the loose with a gun, dont you know. A deranged person is going to get a gun anyway, don't you know.

You have yet to provide factual evidence to the contrary.

If someone here were stockpiling guns, they have no right to do so, they are breaking the law and it is definitely my business if they are.

What someone does with their own private property is nobody's business but their own. Unless the person poses "a clear and present danger" to the property of others, they are not breaking any legitimate law.

 

Define collection piece, Fred. Was it's original intent to be used as a weapon?

I find pictures of guns no more frightening than a picture of a tiger. I would be frightened if I came across a tiger on one of my strolls however.

No. The US constitution defines rights for Americans. Australia has no such defined right and I'm sure most countries don't.

You didn't let me down.

The deranged madman that killed 35 people in Tasmania did so with weapons that were registered and legal (at the time). They were easily available to him - they were his Uncles IIRC. These weapons have now been taken out of circulation - well, most of them - it stands to reason that he would not have been able to kill so many people without them.

No. The law in Australia prohibits weapons of the nature you describe and stockpiling them is illegal as well. They are breaking a law, it is my business.

 

I'm glad you brought up Martin Bryant Loopster, he is a perfect example of why it everyone's business that automatic weapons are being stockpiled even when it is legal to do so.

 

Guys, if I may;

The gun restrictions imposed after Martin Bryant only served to punish law-abiding gun users who by definition weren't criminals. Now, many people cite the increase in crime in Australia following the laws as proof that guns were protecting people, and they're wrong on two accounts; namely, Aussies don't keep guns for protection, and YoY analysis shows that violent crime was increasing in the preceding years.

Now as we acknowleged, the issue of firearm ownership is cultural. What is only going to happen here is that we're going to talk past or at each other, rather than to each other. The American perspective will have trouble understanding our view on guns and vice versa. I've been a shooter, I understand both sides but unlike Fred, I don't think that total liberalisation, which is essentially an issue of trust, is warranted.

But by calling people gun nuts all you do is widen that cultural gap of misunderstanding. Trust me, this is from experience here.

E_S

 

Gun nut lover.




Since 1991, gun related deaths have fallen by 47% in Australia according to Australian Institute of Criminology. There you go.

And you're right, people don't carry guns here for protection, so no gun law is going to influence the general crime rate.

Crime is actually on the decline:

Results of 2003 stats compared to the previous 2 years.

[image=http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1046540194375_2003/03/04/nws_crime.jpg]

 

Hey, I love blasting away at stuff as well. My father in law has a massive gun collection. I've actually blasted away on a Thompson sub machine gun.

However, whilst I think the government's response was completely knee jerk and overkill, I'm still glad automatic weapons are not allowed to be stored at home.

 

Sure, and I agree but you have to take into account that Americans have a *right* to bear arms, something they're aware of literally since they're old enough to comprehend.

ES

 

It's not a universal right though, and it comes back to cultural differences as we were saying.

God, how did I allow myself to be dragged back into this argument..

 

I'm calling Bull***, sorry Loopster.

Site

[image=http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.gif]

A drop in some specific statistics in 2003 does not indicate any sort of "sucess" from a 1997 law when violent crime rates have been rising in every intervening year.

 

Your chart only goes to 2001, farraday.

The drop - a fairly large one too - shows that gun control laws don't have any negative effect, ie increases crime. Also your chart is from before 1997 which shows an increasing crime rate anyway, so the laws can't be seen to have had an effect from that perspective either.