Here is another, Virgin-Utah, still not compulsory to carry it though.:no:
Spring City-Utah is considering a mandatory gun ownership law.
Printable View
Here is another, Virgin-Utah, still not compulsory to carry it though.:no:
Spring City-Utah is considering a mandatory gun ownership law.
From memory one was in Texas. I'm sorry but my access is so bad just now I'm not prepared to go look. I know that's a cop out and I apologize. You have no idea how many corrections I have to make even to this little post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Mandatory gun ownership, totally different to mandatory carrying of guns, which is what Damian asserted.
This thread has drifted so far from the OP it's a joke. Originally it was about the US gun lobby's reaction to proposed new gun laws and that's where it should stay. Australians attitudes toward guns are so different than those in the US that it's almost as if we're on a different planet. We can have a civilised debate on gun control, obviously the Americans can't. I've even invited American forum members to join the debate https://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/ge...cticut-163605/, but they can't even discuss it here.
As far as John Howard's gun buyback scheme is concerned it wasn't initiated as a result of gun suicides, gun crime or gun violence in general. It was initiated in response to the Port Arthur massacre, and there hasn't been another gun massacre in Australia since. End of story.
Totally agree GJ, that assertion by Damian, not backed up by fact, came totally out of left field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
I agree with you that this thread has run its' course and it may be time to close it.
I'm not saying that it should be closed, I don't agree with closing threads unless things are turning nasty. I'd just like it to get back on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
The report on the 'accidents' at the gun shows seems to indicate an ambivalent attitude on the part of the gun lobby. Seemingly it was against the rules to carry a loaded gun!
But it did nothing to affect suicide rates or gun crime, and that it what a lot of people also attribute to these laws. If it was only about massacres then why do we have all these laws that restrict non auto and non assault firearms ... end of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
I find it fascinating that there is so much conflation between the Australian and US situations in this thread. That fact that we have so many opinions about a country we dont live in and so little agreement about our own situation. A heady muesli of opinion informed by international media. More fascinating than the subject sometimes. :rolleyes:
Because any gun is dangerous, and surely the less proliferation the better. The vast majority of people in Oz neither need nor want a gun. Those that do require a gun can get one (or two as ozhunter explained in the other thread), but justifiably, they have to jump through a few hoops and then wait for 28 days before acquistion. It then has to be stored and transported under strict conditions, and subject to "random" inspections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
I've said it before, but our current laws seem to be about right. I feel safe enough. If, as somebody suggested, a law was passed so that everybody in the USA had to be armed and carrying then I would not feel at all safe in the USA and I think it highly unlikely that i would ever go there.
Vernon, I'm a bit confused about your platform: are you saying that our laws are too restrictive or that there should be no changes in the USA? Or both, or something else?
Well it's obvious to me that the US system doesn't seem to work, but other than that I don't really have any strong opinions on it or how to fix it. That is something they need to sort out.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I do however have strong opinions on the Australian system and am more than willing to have a rational discussion about them, as I feel a lot of non-shooters (and probably shooters as well) don't really have a full understanding of the Australian situation ... most of what people "understand" seems to be driven by the media.
As I have said before there are tangible benefits to the current laws - licensing of shooters (the police checks and safety training required) and the safe storage requirements (a no brainer really, but it's good that it's "law"). On the flip side there is also a huge waste of police resources and public money in the "permit to acquire" and longarm registration part of the laws. These provide no tangible benefit to society and in my opinion should be scrapped.
Fair enough.
I have a sick feeling that the USA won't be able to improve the situation all that much because the horse has already bolted.
I wouldn't be overly concerned about wasted Police resources (in particular) - any govt department you care to name has waste. The one the gets me the most is spending the rest of their various budget allocations (on anything) at the end of the year simply so that they can get the same allocation for the next year.
Re our gun laws - is there something that you are missing out on as a result?
EDIT: there's already been a remarkablt civilised debate on our laws in previous thread.
In that case increase the fees for the permits, licences and inspections to such an extent that it becomes a source of revenue to the country. All other permits and licences are revenue raising related, eg driving licences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
Then it provides a tangible benefit to society of increased revenue and it is no longer a drain on resources. IMO gun owners are getting it too cheaply.:((
Peter.
In regard to the wasted resources and public funds, I personally don't think it should be ignored where ever or whenever it occurs. Once it starts getting ignored, it just start to become standard practice and a lot harder stamp out.
It's not so much that as it is the pure frustration of the process. Now if the process was there for the ultimate benefit of society, then that's fine, but it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
I would concur, there is no point taxing for the sake of it. Many firearms are owned by farmers and often used for little more than putting down the odd animal including possibly also the odd neighbours dog that has trangressed. The storage and licencing rules are a good thing, fees should be affordable if you wish to have proper compliance. I sign a lot of firearm renewals most are your standard legitimate owner but every now and again you come across someone who surprises you and you would think has no need for a firearm. At least we have a system that minimises those who should not be in possession of a gun and tries to ensure it is mainly those with a legitimate purpose that own a gun.