Printable View
Actually it doesn't put the number of people killed in Iraq in the shade. The latest rates of death according iraqbodycount.org is equivalent to one 9/11 attack in Iraq every 6 weeks (that was before the latest 'surge'). So the death rate in Iraq due to the invasion, sectarian violence, etc. --- described sometimes as 'civil war' --- is about the same as the death rate in the United States due to guns. Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Yep
Very Stringent:2tsup:
http://www.ccwusa.com/site/index.php?&MMN_position=1:1
LEGALLY CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM IN OVER 30 STATES!
<table class="page" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Retired Seniors
Personal Protection
Multi-State Travelers
Law Abiding Residents
Private Investigators*
Bail Enforcement Agents*
Professional Bodyguards*
</td></tr></tbody></table>
:rolleyes:
What he's arguing for is that the college should allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry guns on the campus. At the moment they are required to leave them in their cars. So if there happened to be such a person in the classroom, they could have taken matters into their own hands.
If you ask me, the whole gun control situation in the states is complicated and confusing. Each state has it's own laws. In Virginia, anybody is permitted to carry a gun, so long as it is not concealed. If they wish to conceal it, they must have a concealed handgun permit. I think I have that right, as I say it's complex and confusing.
Hi browndog,
What is it that sporting shooters have been deprived of and if i wanted to join what can i use now?
not having as windup, just wondering?
cheers
If that's the case then I stand by the logic that my scenario tries to illustrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Today's Editorial in The Australian disagrees:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Dog
see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.htmlQuote:
Under a gun buyback scheme, about 600,000 guns were surrendered at a cost of $500 million. Research by the Australian Institute of Criminology has shown this to be money well invested. Rates of homocide and armed robbery have fallen ...
hi DazzlerQuote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
I can only speek from the exerience of being a longarms owner in NSW ...not pistol...thats a whole different kettle of fish.
A normal sporting shooter would have a Cat A or B license. Cat A is restricted to rimfire, Cat B is centrefire. I cant remember wich Cat. shotguns come under.
The the guns now banned are semi auto's (rifles and shot guns) and pump action shot guns(you can still buy pump action centerfire). I dont have any particular desire to own any of these types of guns...but I cant see how they are any more dangerous than a bolt action centerfire rifle.
Some say that semi auto shotguns were prefered by clay target shooters with a smaller build (ie female shooters) due too the action reducing some of the recoil. Some people were made to give up priceless family heirlooms for a few hunred dollars. I find it ridiculus that I cant invite a mate who may be interested in trying out shooting as sport to the range to have a shot with one of my rifles before he has to go through the hassel of obtaining a license. I only shoot target at the momment and dont have access to a property that I can shoot on...so I couldnt break the law and let my mate have a shot.
It could be argued that the new laws havent really deprived sporting shooters of much...we can still own as many rifles as we want (as long as you can demonstrate that you have a genuine need for that particular gun).And thanks to the efforts of oranisations like the SSAA and the Sporting shooter Party of NSW shooting sports have manged to secure grants for new ranges and such.
I can see from a non shooters point of view how it could appear that shooters are winging about nothing...however new laws have given all sorts of grief to shooters who have done nothing wrong except tried to follow the new laws....
One example . If you use membership of gun clubs as your genuine reason to own a gun and you shoot at a couple of different clubs...the clubs have to report any members who dont fulfill their attendace requirements... So a member who may only shoot at one club once a year but has fullfilled the required attendance at another club gets reported....and the Firearms register in some cases has actually confiscated guns of people who have done nothing wrong. This is now only just being rectified (I got a letter from the register last week) 10 years after the Act was brought in.
My point is these laws have done nothing to effect the use of illegal guns already in the community. But because of the bureaucratic nonsense that goes with participating in shooting sports these days they have done a good job of discouraging some people from trying out a sport that statisically is safer than a lot of others.
My other point would be, that every time something like this very sad event happens it seems some people automatically push gun control as the solution. IMHO some control is obviously needed, but in this country anyway, it is misdirected to a certain extent.
cheers
BD:2tsup:
G'day.Quote:
Originally Posted by zenwood
What I'm suggesting is that a holder of A CCW permit should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person.
As for Austrailan gun laws, CCW is not available. Not even to off duty police.
I am against stricter gun control measures as they do nothing to prevent illegal firearms use. Gunlaws are a political measure to give the Sheeple a "feel good" that their elected masters are doing something for the common good. If the government was serious about firearm crime, they would be carrying out dawn raids on known drug dealers etc, etc.
Instead, they target licenced firearms owners because we are easy marks, and they don't have to pay overtime to the police that would otherwise be out on the street who are carrying out the said dawn raids.
So, Is Australia a safer place since the 1996 buyback?
Look in the local rag. Even police will not go into some suburbs of Sydney due to ethnic violence against them.
The perpertrators of this violence may not be using firearms, but a thrown rock or beer bottle can kill just as good as a bullet. Afterall, no matter how someone is killed they are still dead.
For Gun Control Australia to use this tragedy to again push their illogical barrow is lower than a snakes guts. It goes to show that they have little or no compassion for the victims or the families of the victims.
GCA blurt forth false information at the drop of a hat and the mainstream media soak it up like a sponge. They couldn't give a rat's arze about verifying the info. Besides, sensationalist propaganda from GCA sells papers.
As the saying goes... "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". This seems to be the catch cry of the australian media whether it be print, radio, television or web based.
I have been listening to the falseties and rhetoric from the gun control advocates since the Strathfield and Hoddle Street incidents.
Elicit drugs are illegal and banned. But how many die each year?
Go figure.
this illustrates my point exactly. People (see media) automatically piont at gun control as the solutionQuote:
Originally Posted by zenwood
here is a little more from that article. Its very easy to pick holes in....
Quote:
Following the Port Arthur massacre, John Howard resisted pressure from the gun lobby and the National Party and enacted tight uniform national gun laws. Under a gun buyback scheme, about 600,000 guns were surrendered at a cost of $500 million. Research by the Australian Institute of Criminology has shown this to be money well invested. Rates of homocide and armed robbery have fallen, and Australia's example has been followed by other countries including Canada and Britain.
1. their is no such thing as the "gun lobby". John howard didnt resist pressure, he ignored council from the most knowledgable organisation on firearms matters in Australia the SSAA.
2. I dont consider something a sucess if $500million dollars is spent to only achieve not even half its goal.
3. Im not a statistician....but the below graphs dont seem indicate that there has been a significant decrease in homicide or armed robbery
cheers
BD:2tsup:
I've yet to hear anyone from the 'gun lobby' suggesting that they should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense - what other possible reason could there be for it? So what you are now saying is that it's not about sport shooting, it's about the right to carry a gun for self-defense. Maybe both sides of this debate have an agenda?Quote:
What I'm suggesting is that a holder of A CCW permit should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person.
As for Austrailan gun laws, CCW is not available.
Hi BD,
I have never been a fan of Howard's knee jerk reaction regards gun control: coming from a farm I'm quite OK about legitimate gun ownwership. I just think the whole buy-back scheme amounted to a huge waste of resources (and heirlooms) in materiel...superbly engineered and expensive 'tools' scrapped.
More to the point, I was always dubious about the outcome, in that the criminal element will aquire the guns anyway. So I recently went searching through the latest Year books put out by ABS, and I think they must have been a bit later than those you quoted, because I found a substantial drop in firearm-related crime...against what I thought would have happened:- . It doesn't change my opinion of Howard and many of his policies, but the buy-back has had an effect.
Cheers,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mac
thanks Andy...
I just had a quick look at the ABS web site and you are right about the figures of firearm related crime dropping.... though these more recent stats I have seen(from ABS) lead me to ask the question.... Is the drop in gun use in crime because of the buyback or because the rate has dropped overall ?
For example as seen below 18% of attemted murders involved a firearm. That hasnt changed much from previous years before or after 1996.
I would be interested to see which stats you are refering to
Quote:
In 2005, a weapon was most likely to have been used in attempted murder (72%) and murder (59%) offences. A knife was the most common type of weapon used and was involved in nearly one-third of murders (30%) and attempted murders (29%). A firearm was involved in 18% of attempted murders, 10% of murders and 5% of robberies (table 11.19).
Murders involving a weapon increased by 7% from 2004, but were 15% lower than in 2001. The proportion of weapon use for this offence was similar in 2005 compared with 2001 (59% in 2005 compared with 60% in 2001).
cheers
BD:2tsup:
Howard's buy back was only part of the package - another part was the amnesty against illegal weapons. I don't know how many that took out of the mix, but I do know of at least one. A friend was given a .22 calibre, fully automatic combat weapon (with the styling, it could be nothing else) with a 20 round magazine. This thing had no safety so once cocked it was live. With it's snub nosed barrel, it could have only two uses - spraying a confined space (such as a bunker) and posing - I can see no reason for it to be in the community (how it got there in the first place is another and more troubling question).
You can complain about the buy back and the amnesty all you like, but it did have positive effects as well.
Richard
G'day Silent.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I was talking about CCW in the USA.
NOT in Australia.
As I stated, It is not available here.
Here It is all about Sport Shooting, Targets shooting, Hunting and Collecting.
Sorry for the confusion.
The majority of murders are crimes of passion - ie, unplanned, spur of the moment things. Having a firearm readily available just makes the attempt more deadly because a firearm is more efficient at killing people than anything else, though dying from a knife wound is just as dead as dying from a gunshot.
Not having a firearm available doesn't stop the attempt. However, it could be argued that the current storage requirements make getting the thing operational provide a safety valve for those emotions.
This whole gun ownership thing is argued from extremes and that is why it won't be resolved, not on here anyway. I'm not interested in arguing extremes. I'm rather glad that the number of un-necessary weapons in this country has been reduced. As I understand it, if you need a gun, you can own one. The bureaucratic hoops you have to jump through to do so probably need revisiting.
Richard
Andy Mac's statistics seem to be conflicting with Brown Dog's. It would be nice to reconcile these. What seems to be needed are, say, yearly armed robbery, gun-related murder, and gun accident figures per capita of population for the 10 years prior to the buy-back, and for the years since. State-by-state and national figures would be good. This ought to be an empirical question: either there is a statistically significant difference before and after the buy-back, or there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mac
Comments like this would seem to be uncalled for:
Quote:
Gun Control Australia ... have little or no compassion for the victims or the families of the victims.
The problem with that is that they mustn't be viewed in isolation. You also need to look at crime rates in general for example. Maybe as a society, we could become generally more or less law-abiding. That would also be reflected in reduced or increased gun-related crime but in a way that is not associated with gun control.Quote:
What seems to be needed are, say, yearly armed robbery, gun-related murder, and gun accident figures per capita of population for the 10 years prior to the buy-back, and for the years since.
There's an article in the SMH today indicating that crime rates, including murders and armed robbery, have dropped over the last 2 years in NSW BUT the individual rates of these crimes have risen substantially in a number of Sydney suburbs: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...696889228.html
I agree, silentC: it's a complex question, with many contributing factors. (As the SMH article points out, alcohol also seems to be a factor.) But there are statistical techniques for multi-variate analysis. These should at least yield some evidence to help make a judgement of the benefits of various gun policies. Gun-related crime and accident rates both per capita and as a ratio of the rates of crime in general would yield two different metrics.
Country-to-country comparisons might also shed some light, I suspect.
The other thing to note is that the events which usually lead to these debates are often caused by people who would probably not have any difficulty in getting hold of a firearm legally if they wanted to under current legislation. From what I know of them, they usually don't have any criminal record or history of mental health problems that would exclude them. Apart from being 'a bit weird', there's nothing that would exclude them.
So whilst in Virginia, it was perfectly legal for Cho to buy a gun and carry it without a permit as long as he didn't conceal it, although the same thing is illegal in Australia he would potentially still have been able to get a gun by going through the proper channels and would not necessarily have needed to resort to the blackmarket.
Gun control does seem to have a positive impact on deaths through shooting, including suicide. In the UK with tougher gun laws than ours there was 46 deaths in a population of 58 million. New York with a population of 8 million acheives a death rate of 590. Australia before the gun buyback acheived an average of 492 deaths a year and over the last seven years has averaged 247 deaths a year, not wonderful but better.
The criminal argument is a difficult one, the buy back must make it harder to get illegal weapons but plenty of crims will still get the guns they need. However on the suicide and domestic violence front there are many people alive who would not be if we had lax laws.
The commentry and research indicates that some of the gain was happening anyway, but much of the gain is a result of restricting access to firearms.
In the buyback I lost two guns and handed in a heavy calibre firearm we didn't want. The semi auto's are great for getting off a lot of rounds and bolt action are not. I am no fan of John Howard but I support his stand on guns and believe we should be a lot tougher on hand guns which don't have a place in Australian Society in my opinion. My apologies to Glock and others who may feel offended but this does not reflect on the individuals, but on the idiotic few we need to be wary of.
John
G'day John.
No apology needed. The idiotic few are the ones that need to weeded out.
The rest of us just want to enjoy our chosen sport without the red tape and hurdles that are continualy placed in our way.
:2tsup:
Thumbs up all.
A good robust debate and no one threw thier toys out of the cot!
Greenies all round !
:D
Isn't that the concern of the US? Today on ninemsn and yesterday the polls asked questions about AUSTRALIAN GUN LAWS. Who is palying politics? TV and other media of course. I am just totally fed up with being tagged as a potential "killer". I did my time in the service, learned to respect fire arms, still own a few, still use them for target practice and hunting. I just wish the media would get of this gun hystiria. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL. If i left a .5" caliber maqchine gun (loaded) sitting in the lounge of my home no one would get killed. The machine gun has no logic for crying out loud!!!! I have refused to watch the news all about the US shooting as tragic as it is. If we were real about controlling nutters we should be more vigilant about mind bending drugs and such. This is what sets off most nutters. The media is having a real tugging session with this, if only they realy cared!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedhand
Richard, putting aside wether we like or dont like guns for a second.... if you or anyone can prove that the buy back did have positive effects and that money has directly saved lives and significantly reduced the amount of illegal (it has probably increased the number of legally owned)firearms in the community...I would be happy to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
I still think that the gun buy back was nothing more than a misappropriation of public funds. A good indication of that is how the government came to the conclusion that $500million would be enough to significantly reduce the amount of guns in the community. A phone poll of less than 2000 males:? . I now if some stranger rang me up and asked if owned any guns I would politely say no....
As I said before only 7% of the total number of now prohibited guns were handed in, in NSW. Im not sure about other states, but I assume the figure wouldnt be much higher. And that is only the ones they know about (based on dealer records).
Your are right the buyback was only one part the other part was the introduction of the so called "National gun laws"....which turned out to another crock, because the states couldnt agree...so some states have more relaxed laws than others. NSW currently has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world.
I havent complained or heard anyone complain about the amnesty...but as far as im aware there is always an amnesty on illegal "weapons" (I dont like that term to me... my guns are sporting equipment just like golf clubs) including knives.
As far as your friend being given a "fully automatic combat weapon" these were never legal to own in Australia and nor should they be....so who ever gave it to him got it illegally.
My beef isnt with reducing the amount of unesessary guns ...its with the effectiveness of some the current governments policy and anti gun people directing their rhetoric at the inocent law abiding shooter.
I do agree that there was some good to come out of the new laws. I think the storage provisions is a good thing . But from a shooters point a large majority of the new laws are unfair and does little to prevent gun crime....If Howard had listened to the people who make it their job to know about all things firearm related we would most likely have more effective laws.
I just think that, that little add on to the medicare levy that we all paid would have saved more lives if it had been spent on something like more police or boosting the health care system, not buying bunny busters off good hard working Aussie farmers.....but thats another issue :U
cheers
BD:2tsup:
FYI Moore had to admit that his films had little if anything to do with truth but more about attacking someone he hated - Bush. Every nutter on his films can be found anywhere in the world. It surprises me of how many people in Aus take his films as if they're gospel.Quote:
Originally Posted by martrix
LOL tell me you didn't already know this. :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocker
When you are looking at the Australian statistics, you have to remember that the gun related offences are a small component of the total - and when you are dealing with small numbers, any trend in the data is going to be very hard to pick out from the 'noise' in the series.
In the armed robbery stats, the percentage where guns were involved does seem to be decreasing - its gone from 15.5% in 1993 to 6.3% in 2001, or a decrease of more than 50% over that time.
However, year to year variation (those figures hop around like a mad rabbit) is quite high, which would make me cautious of claiming any sort of trend without looking at how the statistics were compiled.
Those graphs are the number of victims, which is not necessarily correlated to the number of offences or incidents - we could just be seeing a trend of offenders going for softer targets (such as the corner store, with one person in it and no security compared to the bank with 25 people, cameras and alarms). I could be wrong, I'm just doing this off the top of my head and I haven't looked at the methodology behind the statistics.
And as for the murder stats - out of some 300 murders, guns are involved in about 20% of them (or some 60 odd murders); this jumps up in 1996 (Port Arthur) but then settles back down to about the same level as before.
If you are trying to say 'gun control works', (as in the Firearms buyback), OR "Nyahh nyahh, its made no difference" you can't really do it from those stats yet.
The firearms buyback was meant to cut down on large scale events like Port Arthur; check the stats in maybe 20-40 years to see if there has been a reduction in gun related mass murders...we don't really get a lot of them, so it takes time to collect enough data to make any conclusions.
Facts in Mike's FilmsBowling for Columbine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolin Around
Farenheit 911 Facts six pages of them.
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline this project has been stalled by the resistance of some peeps trained and armed by the U.S. wielding Kalashnikov's and hiding in caves after it was re-started when the U.S. invaded and tossed out the Taliaban. Billions of dollars worth of high tech warplanes and bunker buster bombs still cant get them.:doh:
Thats why more troops are on there way over.....gotta get the pipeline and the dollars flowing.......
You're right though TA, who gives a &^$! anymore! Lets just ride this pony and beat it till it stays dead. "Giddy up"
This seems to have developed into a discussion on the merit or otherwise of gun control here.
I strongly support gun control and I believe the restrictions are not restrictive enough. This is because of a very personal issue.
My eldest brother has had to live since 1945 with only one eye as he lost the other one through a youth prank with a pistol found when the germans were overthrown in Holland at the end of the war.
Some teenager found the pistol and shot a wad of hot candle wax which got into my brother's eye. Despite numerous operations he lost the eye and has a glass eye instead. I suppose we ought to be grateful that he didn't use the submachine guns or machine pistols that also abounded straight after the war.
Too often statistics are quoted to support one side or the other but what about the victims and their relatives of guns being abused.
I know guns don't kill but people do. But if the guns are not readily available than people wouldn't be able to use them to kill others.
I feel very saddened by what happened, I feel for the victims and the relatives in that massacre. In a very small way I can relate to how they feel.
I also feel that this thread ought to be closed as I feel gun control debate in Australia debases what has happened over there.
Peter.
I agree. Although this has been a healthy debate about gun control, the present situation won't be resolved without a lot of detective and research work. Current news suggests that Mr. Cho had some very serious emotional adjustment issues; that can't be ignored. Alas, any "profiles" that are developed will be painted with a broad brush. Government, after all, is not a precision instrument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
As I've said before, I have a heightened interest in the massacre, having secured my degrees at Va Tech. Recent news also has reported the room numbers in Norris Hall. It appears that I taught in one of the classrooms, or maybe on the floor above; it's been about 30 years ago, and I don't remember whether I was on the second floor or the third.
The forum may not be the best venue for further debate; I leave that decision to the owner and the mods.
Joe
Dazzler, it was a mafia hit from what I understand, and he died early this morning.
From what I heard today, it was something to with pork-barrelling and he was not playing ball with the Yakuza, so they decided to get rid of him. Other prefectures have been hauled over coals for engaging in such politiking, and this guy didn't. Another good guy (as far as I know) gone. :(
His son in law is now running for mayor because of this.
I wouldn't want to be mayor of Nagasaki, it's just not safe since...
The previous mayor was also assasinated over comments about the Showa (WWII) Emperor and how he should have been treid over war crimes. That was sure to rile someone up, enough so that someone murdered him for it.
As for the whole gun debate, no real comment from me since I live somewhere that has no guns. :rolleyes:
Err, maybe there are... :-
Tell ya what though, it's not that there are no guns here, its a cultural thing. Crazy stuff like that doesn't happen very often, possibly made less likely because of no guns, I don't know for sure. What I do know is that when it does happen, the government and police are not very well equipped to deal with such 'out of character behaviour', and do tend to knee jerk pretty hard.
The other problem is that the societal restraint is starting to get softer as the generations progress. That worries me, since I have little boy who will be growing up in a society that relies heavily on self restraint, but said control is having less and less effect as time goes on.
There is one place that has lotsa guns, and is relatively free of gun-related crime. Little place with lotsa mountains and they make little pocket knives with all kinds of doo-dads in them. That's the other side of the coin compared to here, and it also seems to work. Again, more cultrual than related to anything else.
Joe,
I felt it was better to raise this topic here rather than attempting to participate in the thread on Sawmill Creek because we are at some distance from the tragedy, and yet we have had a similar experience with the Port Arthur massacre.
I think Schtoo is right that it is cultural differences rather than gun regulations that determine the extent of gun-related homicides in a country. However, what is puzzling to non-Americans is that, despite the high rate of homicide there, and the prevalence of these massacre incidents, there seems little willingness to make any effort to change that culture, where a large percentage of people feel that the only way that they can be safe is to arm themselves, and to be willing to use a firearm in self-defence, and where many people regard lax gun regulation as part of the freedom that should be the birthright of people in a mature democracy.
Having lived some years in America, I was surprised at how this glorification of individual freedom, at the expense of the communal good, is so prevalent. For instance, it is very common over there to see road-users flouting the helmet and seat-belt laws, and to see people driving unregistered vehicles. Quite a few people see it as a noble expression of individual freedom to flout such laws, and yet they are respected as 'libertarians' rather than condemned for being anti-social.
Rocker
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by joe greiner
I'm not against a proper debate on gun control as such, but let it be in it's own thread and headed accordingly. I won't enter into such debate but others can, if they wish.
It just seems so improper to convert the discussion on the massacre to this kind of debate, it seems so disrespectful to the memory of the innocent victims and their relatives.
Peter.
Hello... it seems I have been caught up in a bad time to have joined a great forum.
I just wanted to post something, a bit of my perspective as I am an American, and I had an interesting conversation this morning with my wife regarding this issue. We were both dog tired, its what? Wednesday and we've both pulled 36 hours and this week is a long way from over. I only have seen her for about 1 hour since Sunday, but this subject dominated the conversation. The problem is complex, and the consequences are terrible. And there is no answer that I can see, and my country will suffer from the sheer number of cheap, accessible weapons for a long time. That brings me a lot of sadness.
I come from a family that has always owned guns. We hunt. Every year we go together. My father and my uncles hunted when they were kids, when they were dirt poor, in a time when that was how you put food on the table.
They served in the military. My father was in the 101st Airborne. He taught me how to shoot. I can't remember when, because I was young. But I understand a gun, and I understand what it can do, and I respect that. There is no foolishness.And I hunted with my father and uncles. I learned to respect the land. I understand the resource, and why it should not be wasted. When you walk it year after year you see the changes and I think about what I am leaving for those that come after me.
My wife calls it "the circle". She came to this country almost 9 years ago, from a place where there was no gun ownership - ever. My father taught her the same as me, as my brother, the same as my nieces and nephews. How to understand and respect both the weapon and the land. Every year she takes one deer - if she gets the opportunity. She both kills and dresses the animal. I am very proud of her, as is my family.
I give you this bit of my background only so that you will hopefully more fully appreciate my next thoughts. As much as I love this time of the year, the heritage it represents to me... I would willingly give it up if it meant preserving the lives of those thirty+ people at Virginia Tech. Absolutely, without question. You are talking about thirty people who represent hard working, achieving individuals working to educate themselves. Thirty people of the type that my country needs.
The problem is deep. There is a cultural problem, or a problem with the society... however you wish to look at it. A shallowness, a glorification of violence, a lack of respect... whatever. Probably all those things and more. I'm not sure where that came from, or if its even possible to correct it. It seems as if the idiots just breed faster then the rest of us. While giving up access to guns may solve part of the problem, I feel that long term we must address the bigger issue or suffer grave consequences.
The problem with the gun debate is that the most vocal are not the most rational. Its interesting the mention of the NRA... because none of my family are members. We gave it up long ago when they went off the deep end fighting against background checks, registration and all of those other things that one would think would simply be common sense. In the end I think the way some people fought against any type of regulation may prove to be the undoing of all the rest of us.
I appreciate the fact that you allowed me to join your forum. I only posted this to give you my perspective, certainly not to offend anyone.
These are difficult and tricky times indeed - for all of us. And its not going to get any easier, not in our lifetimes. I believe that those of us who have decent values have to pass those on to the people we love, and be prepared to make some difficult decisions.
Good luck to all.
Irrespective of what laws are passed basically anywhere in the World. It will never stop irrational behaviour of some people who have psychological problems who are generally the type of people who are involved in massacres like this. What about the 200+ people who died in Iraq overnight because of suicide bombers. Given the nimbers of people willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause in this living hell will be going on for years.
I don't think it will be long before one of our own dies over there and the Australian attitude will change.
I don't think anyone will be offended, seems like a well balanced and reasoned expression of your point of view to me.Quote:
I only posted this to give you my perspective, certainly not to offend anyone.
I think that situations like the current event are aberrations and have more to do with mental health than anything else. I've seen footage of a guy who stole a tank running amok. If someone loses their grip on reality, I don't think the lack of a gun will stop them from turning their aggression on innocent people, they'll find some way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Peter
I hope I havent been disrespectful. I certainly dont mean too. I respect the postion you are coming from and Im sorry that you feel a disscussion/debate on gun control issues debase's the memory of the victims in this tragic event. But unfortunately this debate comes up everytime something like this happens. As a sporting shooter I wish it didnt.
Shooters like me get drawn in because inevitably certain portions of the media give voice to the people who believe that placing tighter restrictions on liscenced shooters is going to solve the problem. I dont have a problem with that. All I wish to do is put my point foward to contradict that, or at least point out that there is no real evidence to support their case. Because we are the ones who are effected the most. I dont mean to say that we are effected more than the victims of gun crime...its just that from my point of view placing even tighter restrictions wont help them.
As others here have concluded there is no hard and fast statistics that either side of the debate can put forward. You could throw stats at me all day and Im sure I cant find numbers to couteract them. It is a much to complicated subjuct to just fix by tossing numbers about.
My main aim in a debate like this is to hopefully demonstrate that not all shooters are knuckle dragging morons who cant be trusted, and that most of us are quite receptive to gun laws that actually work. I also feel this forum is the perfect place to discuss things like this because we are the one who can change things...boths side can have their say...as the media is mostly one sided. If I can influence one person to consider that maybe what the Governmet has done is misdirected in someways...then Im happy:) .
Im sorry to harp on, but this is a topic I am quite passionate about. I got my licence in 1996 just before Port Aurthur...so my whole shooting life has been entangled with politics...I would rather go shooting then be writing letters to my local MP.
cheers
BD:2tsup:
JeffG has summed up many of my sentiments, although I'm not a hunter and haven't handled a gun since I was in the army. I especially agree that the problem is complex and has dimensions that probably haven't been discovered yet. The latest wrinkle is that between the killings at the dorm and the massacre at Norris Hall, Mr. Cho went to the post office and mailed a large manifesto to NBC. Clearly a nut case by any definition. And even though he'd had treatment, his privacy was protected by disability statutes. It's almost a no-win situation for law enforcement.
Even if all weapons are outlawed, the bad guys will still find a way. A "zip gun" can be made with a piece of pipe, a rubber band, and a nail. That said, I've known two suicides and a homicide victim. Those were all tragedies of opportunity. We now have laws requiring trigger locks, which help a little. Even a slight delay can help to defuse rage. Maybe we all need to have Prozac added to the drinking water.
Anyone who's ever managed an engineering or construction project can appreciate the comparison with herding cats. A bit more difficult to establish social policy for a country as large as Oz or USA.
Last I checked, the SMC was limited to regrets and commiseration, which is probably more appropriate because (I think) they're based in Virginia. I have no quarrel with this discussion continuing, and the international perspective is sadly lacking from many topics of discussion in USA.
Joe
A couple of points.
The guy who killed the Nagasaki governer was a nutter. No too nutty, but thought he was more important than he really was. A long story I am not going to repeat. He was Yakuza related, and I hope they get jumped on hard by association. They need jumping on. ;)
The previous governer of Nagasaki who was attacked actually survived. I was wrong there, but I was getting info 3rd or 4th handed. Oops.
The cultural thing is not as simple as it seems, lots of little things here and there add up to more than the sums of the parts. Confused yet? I know I am!
Here in Japan, the governing power of public behaviour is what everyone thinks of you. You go running around like a lunatic, then most folks will think very lowly of you and that's how you generally feel about yourself. The external influence can be completely manufactured by malicious persons, and the effect will be the same. Case in point, young teenagers throwing themselves off buildings, bridges, etc because someone said they are worthless or stupid, and kept on saying it like a broken record. The vent for this is introverted and usually results in breakdown or suicide.
On the other side of things is the 'western' way of thinking, where the governing of behaviour is internal, ie: I don't care what you think of me. Many people will be happy with themselves, even though the rest of us think they are completely out of their tree. The influences of peers is reduced somewhat, but can still have an effect. The problem is that someone may appear to be fine, but the inside is rotting and that rot cannot be seen or altered until it's too late.
Interestingly, the vent for internally governed behaviour is extroverted, occasioanlly a public outburst, like what we saw earlier this week.
It's not a perfect theory, but it is one from someone who has seen both sides of the coin, and seen one side from waaay inside.
The problem here is when the western thinking invades the local way of thought. That external governer is removed, and there is no tradition of internal governing which is like driving a car with no brakes but lots of airbags. It's going to crash, but the one inside is likely to be fine.
Sounds crazy, but it seems to explain an awful lot of things.
By that reckoning, a westerner here should be able to run amok, but generally they don't simply because that internal control is intact and working well enough to keep them on the straight and narrow. When that governer is broken, they do come unstuck with alarming regularity. Amazing to see, and no one here is surprised.
Ok, that wasn't exactly easy to comprehend, and I am no wordsmith, but I hope it's understandable.
I guess the short version is that a mass murder is less likely here becuase the attack is usually aimed inside rather than out. :(
I find myself agreeing with this guy.