Seen the rants by the Gun lobby in the US??:C:C
We here will never understand!!:no::no:
Printable View
Seen the rants by the Gun lobby in the US??:C:C
We here will never understand!!:no::no:
"Gun Appreciation Day". Says it all.:C
Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Seconds out.....round two :D.
Actually, no I haven't seen them, but I can well imagine and I'll have a look tonight. I did hear that the NRA were a little unhappy with the otcome of their meeting with the Obama's representative. Came out saying it was more about restricting guns than making school children safe.
I think their idea of safety is upscaling rather than limiting. I get the impression that given a carte blanche they would have one of these at the front gate of every school for all the good it would do :( .
Attachment 249446
Regards
Paul
I heard one shout something like " if you try an take way our guns, it will all start up again , just like 1776"
I guess he wasn't big on history...
No we will never understand it. it is just all too weird.
That was the looney that is trying to get piers morgan deported with 100,000 votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avery
And he was on Piers morgan again.
Complete mental case the lot of them.
Got no objection to hunters having them, and farmers having for pests and needing to put an animal down.
People who like to go to a range and target shoot.
All fine, but why someone needs to keep 12 in the house or carry one on them has got problems.
And they usually seem to be southern rednecks as well.
All fine, but why someone needs to keep 12 in the house or carry one on them has got problems.
And they usually seem to be southern rednecks as well.[/QUOTE]
I am regularly in contact with a lady I know in Wisconsin. She is almost 70, her husband over 80. They both sleep with a loaded Smith&Wesson revolver in their bedside tables.
Why?
If anyone breaks in , I'll let them have it.
Do you get breakins very often where you live?
No, it is a very peaceful area.
Do you know any of your neighbours that has suffered a break in?
No. We have lived here for 30 years, i can't recall any problems.
Have you ever fired the weapons?
No,but the guy in the shop showed us how.
etc. etc. etc.
Otherwise she is a very smart and lovely lady. Oh, and all her neighbours are similarly equipped.
I know a farmer that lives near Hastings, Nebraska.He has a very large property, mostly corn and other vegetable crops but also some livestock. One would of course expect him to have a number of rifles, shotguns and perhaps handguns available to him, and he does. But he ALWAYS carries a concealed pistol, a Glock I think. Why concealed? because "he doesn't want the bad guys to know he has it."
We will never understand.
It's all a mistake in interpretation. Just had this sent to me by email.
Attachment 249466
I have got a mate up the road who is a "Gun Nut", but that is too harsh a description for him. He has a collection of pistols and rifles. He is passionate about his hobby. He is an active weekly attendee of the pistol club and loads his own ammunition. He regularly goes further out west to shoot goats, pigs and kangaroos on private property where the farmer invites him on to the place.
When you visit his place there is no sign of any weapons on show and he will only let you see them at his invitation.
He dispatched a black snake for us here 3 years ago because it was too close to the house for safety sake.
There are, I know, a lot of blokes who should not have any access to a firearm because they are just not "adult" enough for them
My wife read me an Email some one had sent her. It was about an old woman who was pulled up by the police for some thing and when they looked in her bag they found a large loaded pistol. The police asked her what she was afraid of she answered "With that gun with me.....nothing!!!"
Its a very touchy issue that has been coming to a head for a long time and it won't be finalised soon.
Thats why they need the guns, to shoot the bears to get the arms..Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbur
Bear arms don't kill people, people with bear arms kill people :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avery
He wants to fight the British????
:rolleyes:
(1776 in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
It's all well and good to have a go at professional lobbyists and fringe nutters who are very good at making fools of themselves, but the essence of the argument is rational.
To achieve any solution to ANY problem you first have to define the problem and what you hope to achieve, then formulate a rational course of action, measure the results rinse and repeat.
That's not what happens.
"concerned citizens" hop on a soap box, politicians attempt a popular expedient action hopefully not costing too much, the people set to suffer launch a counter campaign. Media fan the flames because a punch up raises ratings and helps advertising revenue.
In this case what do you hope to achieve ? Protect students ? Easy, train and arm the teachers. Pass alaw that garantees them immunity from prosecution if they shoot an armed intruder.
It is well demonstrated that the best way to stop gun crime is to forcibly arm everyone.
But that leads to more accidental shootings and potentially crimes of passion.
A lot of people don't realise that gun laws vary across the USA. In fact there is a clear correlation worldwide between stricter gun laws and higher rates of gun crime. Obviously gun laws don't CAUSE gun crime, what happens is in jurisdictions where gun crime is more common stricter gun laws are the usual response.
All these issues go the same way, from anti speeding campains to global waming. It always gets hijacked by "do gooders" wanting to feel good about themselves by persecuting someone else, and interest groups with an agenda to prosecute. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
RegardsQuote:
Originally Posted by damian
Paul
Interesting news item last night said there are now as many guns in Australia as there were at the time of Port Arthur,
but the number of gun deaths had halved in that period.
Wonder if it was raw figures or on a per capita basis?
Either way I think it says a lot for tight gun control.
I think that may be somewhat of a simplistic and probably incorrect assumption. Firearm deaths were on the decrease before gun control and any effect gun control had on deaths is dubious at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Lots of things have an impact on gun deaths, not the least being a stronger focus on mental health support - because in reality rational people don't generally go around killing themselves or others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
i had a quick (not very detailed) look at that when i heard the same thing ... i believe it is raw figures ... the other thing in the study (not widely reported) was that the guns were not replacment guns, that none were the semi-automatic or automatic weapons that were part of the gun amnesty
regards david
The chap making those claims is a well known gun control advocate. You can make the numbers dance if you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
I have seen reasonable estimates that there were about 30 million guns in australia at the time of the buyback. I know for a fact that many of the 1 million guns destroyed were unsafe rubbish and people took the opportunity to get paid to dump it. A lot of beautiful and signifigant historic pieces went into the furnace, or the staffs "unofficial" collections also.
Does anyone here actually believe we have less deliberate criminal gun use now than 15 years ago ? If so I invite you to visit western sydney and the gold coast.
Bushmiller (Paul)
I think these two statements are contradictory and in any event necessarily lead to increased shooting events.
I distinguish between deliberate gun crime and accidental or spontaneous incorrect use of firearms. The circumstances are different and trying to address both with the same action is like trying to stop bushfires and floods with one course of action.
The chap in the school massacre was not a gun owner. When he tried to buy guns he was denied. So far as that the system worked. He obtained his guns by stealing them from his mother. That part didn't work. Bryant supposedly did the same thing. Obtained guns from others.
We and the USA have laws addressing illegal possession use import of firearms. There is no point passing new laws because current laws are not enforced. This happens a lot because politicians love to look like they are doing something and legislation is cheaper than policing.
It's been said often enough, but I suppose it has to be repeated. When I was young everyone had guns. No one misused them, except criminals. We almost certainly have fewer guns in society now and they are much harder to get, yet we seem to have more gun crime and spontaneous misuse.
Howards gun laws were effective in mycase. They made owning my 13 lb .22 single shot target rifle so onerous I sold it and quit my sport. That BSA was literally far more dangerous as a club than it ever could be as a rifle, but I was clearly a danger to society and had to be disarmed. The recurve bow I now own, which requires no license, is obviously much less hazardous.
It may astound some people but gun owners have families friends and a sense of self preservation. Some are a tad off the wall just like any group in society, but the very great majority want a safe society as much as anyone. They (we) bristle when we hear nonsense being proposed that we know won't work but will make our lives harder.
But as I say conciliation and rational action don't win ratings nor elections.
I see the IPCC are busy finalizing their next work of fiction in Tasmania this week. Must be a full moon...
I've stayed out of this, because very little that gets posted on this topic changes anyones mind. However, I heard Andrew Neil being interviewed and his analysis makes a lot of sense - something that can't often be said about a former politician.
We all have our positions, so here's mine. I used to do a lot of shooting from the time I was a kid - hunting - and in the army, but have done hardly any since I got out, because I have other things to do. I have nothing against sporting shooting, and have happily made a stock for a target shooter's rifle. However, I also have a fear of guns in the community that can be a reservoir for criminal use, ie guns that may be easily stolen. I've previously done an internet search for figures that would justify either a stronger or laxer gun control position, and have found neither - or both. There almost seems to be a deliberate hiding of meaningful figures. However, it seems this study has had access to better & more recent data than previously available.
The salient points of the interview as I recall them are as follows:
The buy-back has saved about 200 lives a year. However, the greatest reduction has not been homicides but suicides, followed by spouse homicides.
Although the number of firearms in the community is now about the same as before the buy-back, the number per head of population is about the same as immediately after the population.
The firearms that are in the community are in fewer hands, with many owners licensed to have several guns. Unlike the situation before the buy-back, these owners are subject to testing, police checks and are required to keep the guns in secure storage.
Most of the owners now have a reason (farming, sporting etc.) for owning the guns, unlike in the past when they were one that was perhaps inherited, never used and available to be stolen in a household robbery.
I've posted a link to his paper below. I haven't read it yet, and it may not stand up to scrutiny, but as I said, he seemed to make sense.
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf
A most thoughtful post Alex and a very interesting paper.
What arise from this, to my mind at least, is that accessibility to firearms provides an easy way to commit either a homicide
or a suicide.
To commit homicide or suicide by other means than using a firearm requires planning and a degree of courage. This gives time
for thought and may well lead to people reversing the initial impulse or decision.
There is no second chance once the trigger is pulled.
While I'm sure this is factually correct when taken in isolation, it's a "half truth" as a whole. Yes maybe 200 less people committed suicide or killed a spouse with a gun, but the actual numbers of suicides and homicides did not really change significantly (from it's already decreasing trend) ... they just used a different "tool".Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Regardless of the method used, exactly how "easy" do you think it would be to kill yourself or someone else. It's not something a normal rational human beings would just "do". If it's an impulsive act then it's usually done with something close at hand, not something locked away in a safe (normally with the bolt and ammo stored in a separately locked safe/compartment).Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
It would be quicker for a person to pick up a knife, wine bottle, a car, etc and commit a murder than it would to get a firearm and do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Vernov, I think the attraction of a gun for homicide is that you don't need to get up "close and personal"to commit the act.
Also the victim has little, if any time to react.
As for suicide, a gun is quick and painless.
Just my thoughts.
True assuming you are calm and lucid and a decent shot. I would argue that if impulsive, you are not thinking rationally and will grab whatever is at hand, or possibly just use your bare hands. If premeditated then regardless of the "weapon" used the chances are the victim will be taken by surprise (because the killer has planned the attack) and the chances of survival are low.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
I'm not sure that is top of mind for someone planning to end their own life. Like I mentioned, suicide rates did not drastically change after the buy back, they simply found other ways to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Vernon, this is incorrect, according to Leigh. He specifically stated that gun deaths were not replaced by other methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
Fair enough Alex, but according to what I have read/researched on the subject, that (substitution of method) is exactly what happened. I guess the "truth" in regard to gun control is very clouded.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Alex, below is an interesting quote from here (highlighting by me):
Quote:
Responding to Neill and Leigh, The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia replied [53] that suicide by firearm has been decreasing steadily since the mid-1980s, but suicide by other methods such as hanging has not followed the same trend; that important assumptions of the work were not mentioned in media reports; that 93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss; and recommended the work of Lee and Suardi, who reviewed almost 90 years of ABS data when making their conclusions, while Leigh and Neill chose to analyse only two five-year periods on either side of the 1996 buy-back.
The page also references quite a few other studies that indicate the gun laws had little or no effect on the established murder and suicide trends.
This is a little off topic but I will post it anyway as this gun debate seems to resonate here. A short history of the famous Second Amendment and the need for guns. It was never intended that everyone should be able to carry a gun for whatever reason they liked but so that organised militias would keep the slaves in check. The whole debate makes a lot more sense to me now. The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
More importantly there has been another school shooting, this time in St Louis, right near where my sister and her family are. Ihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/st-louis-business-school-shooting_n_2481733.html
I find this whole topic very interesting. When I was young guns were common in most households. I grew up in suburban Qld, and my mother and father were both sporting shooters. My father had a couple of rifles handed down from his family. My grandmother used to keep a shottie in her wardrobe. I occasionally got to shoot a rifle at a range or when we were out in the bush. Since then I've shot a firearm on one occasion, when I went clay target shooting as a team building exercise in the UK - which was great fun and I can see the attraction of it as a sport.
The events in the US are tragic, and I think their gun laws are just plain nuts. I think the NRA is now dominated by loonies unfortunately.
I've recently decided to take up pistol shooting as a hobby, so I've joined a club and gone through the quite difficult (compared to the US) process of getting a provisional licence. This allows me to shoot on one night a week at the club that I've joined, and only with the clubs guns for the first 6 months. I cannot legally buy a handgun during those first 6 months. I must also attend 12 sessions of safety training during that 6 month period, and every shooting session that I have during the first 6 months must be supervised. During the second 6 months, I am permitted to buy 2 pistols only, and must abide by the strict requirements to store them safely (and those requirements are very strict).
I don't have a problem with any of that - I think the safety requirements are an extremely good idea, and I support them completely. I do not ever want to be in the situation where a firearm that I own is responsible for causing anyone harm, least of all a member of my family.
After the first 12 months, provided I fulfil the requirements of my provisional licence, I can obtain an unrestricted licence, and then I am legally permitted to buy any number of pistols, provided I regularly use them in competitions (which means I need to have them for a reason rather than just to keep them in my nightstand!). I doubt that I will ever own lots of guns, but I am interested in learning about them and learning how to handle them safely and shoot accurately. I think I will find it an absorbing and fascinating pasttime.
I do not understand how any private citizen can justify owning an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon. That the US gun laws allow people to own such weapons is ludicrous IMHO...
Thoughtful post Bob.
Possibly one aspect none of us consider when we are talking irrational and/or ill-considered gun behaviour is that we are for the most part approaching the subject from a rational and reasoned position.
The perpetrators of atrocities and suicide victims to take couple of the at risk categories we have identified in previous posts do not behave in the same way as us. There is a component in their psychological make up that is badly damaged or even missing compared to the accepted norm.
Regards
Paul
I thought the Australian gun restrictions were in response to a number of mass shootings culminating in Port Arthur. A discussion about suicide rates only clouds the waters because we're talking about automatic and semi automatic weapons.
The only relevant question is - Did the rate of mass shootings drop after the introduction of tighter gun controls? If the answer is yes then they worked.
In the 20 years up to Port Arthur, there were 13 mass shootings (defined as 5 or more deaths.) Since then (1996) there have been none.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
Trouble is the laws and restrictions reach much further than just auto and semi auto weapons. They affect every type of firearm and every firearm user.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
So why shouldn't we look at the overall impacts of the laws? When you do you see there is a case to remove some of the more overly restrictive sections of the laws as they don't benefit society, cause frustration to users and wastes a huge amount of public money.
Not if you miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
My wife (who is a disability support worker) had a client who tried to suicide with a hand gun and didn't quite pull it off. He is now blind and has a sever acquired brain injury. He will need the services of a support worker for the rest of his life, he's only 35 years old.
Which laws would you relax if given the opportunity? I personally don't understand how a BB gun can be in the same category as a rim fire rifle but outside that I don't really see many issues with what we currently have. I don't see any justification for automatic, semi automatic or pistols outside of law enforcement/military/security but I'm willing to be swayed by a sound argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
I think Australia is now at the polar opposite to the US with regard to gun laws. Anyone suggesting relaxing gun laws here would probably be treated with similar contempt to those proposing stricter laws in the States.
I see benefits to the licensing of shooters and the safe storage requirements, however the whole "permit to acquire" and long arm registration provide no tangible benefits.
Canada last year removed their longarm registration requirements from law as they found that the system did nothing ... it was never use to solve a crime and yet cost millions of wasted dollars a year to maintain.
Oh and one other thing I think they need to do is increase the penalties for firearms offenses.
We need to stop penalising law abiding users and start cracking down on criminals.
There was an interesting interview on 7.30 with Leigh Sales tonight. She interviewed Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America.
Rather than me comment, what do you think? I would however say two things. Firstly that I am indebted to him for making me realise that an assault rifle is a defence weapon. Secondly, people with the surname Pratt should be most careful what they say...........
For those of you that missed the interview, the transcript is below. Not a long one:
7.30 - ABC
Regards
Paul
I was very unimpressed with Pratt, he danced with the truth and applied all the spin he could, I also was indebted it would seem you can't use an assault weapon for anything but defence. trouble is to many probably believe just that.
America is like here, before the gun buyback suicide made up roughly half the gun deaths, they have about 15 deaths per hundred thousand we have about 2.5 I think (correct me if I'm wrong on the last one). The statistics really do need careful analysis and i doubt anyone here has either the depth of information or the resources to do that properly. However there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives. the real problem is vested interests are to willing to distort figures.
I was a keen shooter before the buyback and although peeved at the loss of a couple of firearms I came to the view it was for the best. the blokes with the bolt action guns were more careful shots than the mug with a 10 shot magazine and tended to have cleaner kills and a bit safer to be around. I think getting rid of the semi auto was a good thing.
The salient point is that if there is a gun in a USA household you are more likely to shoot yourself or your spouse than ever defend your property. in other words gun ownership doesn't protect it costs. Countries with high levels of gun ownership have higher levels of gun crime. Don't make the mistake of using the Swiss as an example, those of military age may have a military weapon at home but they can't have the ammunition.
I would love to know what you base that on John, as the majority of the research I have read contradicts that.Quote:
However there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives.
His apologia for assault rifles as being defence weapons depicts some bloody awful actualities in a so-called civilised society. Is their democracy only held together by the private possession of such weapons?