Locked & Loaded?

[zeroturbulence]

OK OK, I was a bit harsh. I just get very frustrated when I'm misunderstood, especially when its about a very controversial topic. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

 

[Stuey]

I will reply in detail later.

In the meantime I will leave you with this. A warning there is a little bit of swearing in one of them I believe.

Part one talking about Australian gun laws.

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 1 - YouTube


Part two talking about Australian gun laws.

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 2 - YouTube

 

[T_Laurich]

18/23 post's are from Americans.... Next time maybe put "soccer rules" on the thread title if you want other countries to read and not 'Merica.

 

[JimJimmers]

I will reply in detail later.

In the meantime I will leave you with this. A warning there is a little bit of swearing in one of them I believe.

Part one talking about Australian gun laws.

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 1 - YouTube


Part two talking about Australian gun laws.

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 2 - YouTube

I'm not sure why anyone would think the lack of "Mass gun killings" is anything but a gold medal nomination in a weasel word competition. Australia has had mass killings since their gun control law went in place in 1996. Unless you believe it is inherently better to be burned alive than shot, I see no distinction. Also, there is no appreciable difference between 10 murders over 10 days than 10 murders every tenth day.



Moreover, the homicide rate actually spiked sharply after the law was passed.

And now we come to violent crime.



(per 100,000 citizens)

These statistics are from the Australian Government, by the way, not the NRA.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The cartels sense our growing weakness. They see law abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves against them being taken away by liberal politicians. They are establishing agents all over the country.

They are looking to expand their criminal activities into the U.S. beyond simply drug smuggling. These new areas include prostitution, kidnapping-and-extortion rackets, money laundering, murder-for-hire, and eventually mafia type activities such as white collar crime.

With the "liberals" on a full court press for gun control, in the years ahead when law abiding citizens need their firearms the most they will have the least legal access to them.

Mexican drug cartels reportedly dispatching agents deep inside US | Fox News

 

[Stuey]

Please inform me of these Australian mass killings - the burning alives??

I am not aware of any - admittedly I was young around 2000.

 

[Jullianna]

I've been needing a little extra closet space. This looks like a good place.

 

[NukePooch]

The problem with 'leveling out the playing field' by making everyone follow the same restrictions, rules, and laws is that only the law-abiding citizens will do so.

Criminals are criminals because they don't follow restrictions, rules, and laws.

Gangs and mafias and cartels don't follow restrictions, rules, and laws.

Governments often consider themselves above the law, so they often don't follow restrictions, rules, and laws. Governments have a 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, but that everyone should realize that laws ONLY work for those who agree to abide by them...it's why we have to be extremely careful passing any law that restricts our ability to defend ourselves against those who inevitably will break the law.

 

[NukePooch]

I've been needing a little extra closet space. This looks like a good place.

View attachment 50079

Where do you put your shoes?

...and will you marry me? I've got next Saturday open if you register quick before I make other plans...

 

[NukePooch]

For anyone who thinks that an AR-15 is a bad choice for home self-defense...



...please realize that while it LOOKS evil, it shoots a very, very tiny bullet (5.56/.223 caliber), that while deadly (of course), has a tendency to not penetrate house walls to the same extent as other guns.
Depending on the type of ammunition, shotguns, other rifles, and indeed many pistols, all have the possibility of passing through numerous walls...the AR-15 actually has a much better chance of not hitting unintended targets.

In addition, the AR-15 rifle has extremely low recoil and is very easy to handle, making it a good choice for those of smaller stature, those with disabilities, elderly, children, etc.

Contrary to public opinion, the AR-15 is not somehow 'more deadly' than any other firearm. In fact, if trained properly in its use, an AR-15 can actually be one of the best home defense options.

 

[surprisingrose]

Well, I don't want the govenment to be the only people with guns. That's called a dictatorship. Too controlling.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You are correct. And, that gun could save the life of you or your family in the event of a home invasion. Because home invasions are typically filed as a robbery, burglary, battery, assault, rape, or murder, keeping the public informed of the frequency of home invasions within their communities is difficult.

However, thanks to data gathered by the FBI and Statistics USA, we’re able to get a better idea of the prevalence of this sinister crime:

1. Home burglaries occur approximately every 15 seconds in the U.S.
2. Most home intruders force their way into homes through the front door.
3. In the U.S. alone, 1 out of every 5 homes will be victimized by a violent home invasion or burglary.

That's 1 out of 5 homes over a person's lifetime!

You currently have a 20% chance of being the victim of a home invasion in your lifetime in the U.S. and that rate is increasing over time!

Wake up.

For anyone who thinks that an AR-15 is a bad choice for home self-defense...

View attachment 50096

...please realize that while it LOOKS evil, it shoots a very, very tiny bullet (5.56/.223 caliber), that while deadly (of course), has a tendency to not penetrate house walls to the same extent as other guns.
Depending on the type of ammunition, shotguns, other rifles, and indeed many pistols, all have the possibility of passing through numerous walls...the AR-15 actually has a much better chance of not hitting unintended targets.

In addition, the AR-15 rifle has extremely low recoil and is very easy to handle, making it a good choice for those of smaller stature, those with disabilities, elderly, children, etc.

Contrary to public opinion, the AR-15 is not somehow 'more deadly' than any other firearm. In fact, if trained properly in its use, an AR-15 can actually be one of the best home defense options.

 

[JimJimmers]

Please inform me of these Australian mass killings - the burning alives??

I am not aware of any - admittedly I was young around 2000.

Australia bushfires: Arsonists guilty of 'mass murder' says PM | World news | guardian.co.uk just to name one.


Also, Stewart's henchman cleverly avoided mention of a famous post-1996 mass shooting by saying "mass gun death". Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seven people were shot, two fatally.

I am irritated at Stewart for using obfuscation to stretch a point. I must say though, I had to laugh when Harry Reid's crony said that the job of a legislator was "to get re-elected." XD

 

[Stuey]

Australia bushfires: Arsonists guilty of 'mass murder' says PM | World news | guardian.co.uk just to name one.

How can you use this to argue for unfettered gun control???? This makes absolutely no sense. Arsonists generally aren't trying to kill people - the label 'mass murder' was added later to express anger at what happened. Guns target specific people. Completely different to a faceless thing like arson even if you are being malicious. This makes no sense whatsoever for your argument.

Also, Stewart's henchman cleverly avoided mention of a famous post-1996 mass shooting by saying "mass gun death". Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seven people were shot, two fatally.

Ok, so two people died in this. Here is a quote from that wikipedia page.

"The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment, and is currently under psychiatric care. Several of the people present in the room of the shootings have been commended for their bravery in tackling Xiang and ending the shooting."

"The then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, initiated another review of Australian gun laws after it was discovered that Xiang had acquired his firearms legally.[SUP][25][/SUP] The Victorian State Government prepared new laws doubling the punishment for misuse of handguns and introducing new laws against trafficking in handguns after the shooting,[SUP][6][/SUP] and all other states followed.

This is an excellent example of how gun laws have been effective. So the offence was done with a handgun (legally acquired) - not an automatic weapon. How much worse would it have been if it was with an automatic weapon - one that was easily accessed? Mass killings were defined as more than 4 deaths I think? - Thus, although not a good situation, these killings were far better given that they were only with a handgun.

I am irritated at Stewart for using obfuscation to stretch a point. I must say though, I had to laugh when Harry Reid's crony said that the job of a legislator was "to get re-elected." XD

Agreed - he does. I think he has a point to make though - which is made quite well by his opponent. I mean really - will a one hour waiting period on the purchase of a firearm really harm anyone? (Whether it will be effective or not is another matter)

I think your use of Australian statistics is fairly sketchy... - These are from the same website.

"According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).""

Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[SUP][27][/SUP] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[SUP][28][/SUP] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.
The number of guns stolen has fallen from an average 4,195 per year from 1994 to 2000 to 1,526 in 2006–2007. Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses; only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year. Only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered. Approximately 3% of these stolen weapons are later connected to an actual crime or found in the possession of a person charged with a serious offence.[SUP][29]

Now the article does go on to say that there is an uncertain link between some of these statistics and the reduction in overall gun homicides. I would argue, however, that the mass shootings (and effectiveness of any of these) have been significantly reduced by these restrictions. There is a comparison made to New Zealand later in the article, however NZ is significantly smaller than Australia and thus the statistical variation much higher as a percentage of the population. (Especially when you are talking about mass shootings where in Australia there may have been what, one every one or two years?)

The issue of the second amendment - firstly, the Constitution is not holy scripture. (and I would argue that a lot of reform would be very, very helpful in making the American Government more efficient, particularly with reference to the system of electing a president >_< -, and preferential voting is Amazing. (compulsory voting too)) As far as I am aware the second amendment was initially put in to ensure the population could resist an invasion, potentially from the British? And potentially overthrow a corrupt Government? I think you also need to look at whether unfettered gun ownership gives you freedom, or takes it away. Does owning a weapon give freedom to society when others live in fear of the 10%?? of the population who owns guns. At that point it doesn't, the people who are killed have had their freedom significantly restricted I would say.
[/SUP]
I am not against gun ownership necessarily. My Dad owns a weapon, (with appropriate safeguards to ensure it is used correctly) shoots for sport & I have shot with him on occasion. What I am against is easy access to guns, especially very dangerous ones capable of killing a lot of people Very quickly. If there is easy access to these weapons then it is easier for someone to conceptualise committing these crimes and follow through. (of course it may not stop a determined person) I mean how is a machine gun going to help you protect your home more than a bolt loading rifle, it only takes one shot to take someone down. Are you expecting an army to attack you? The problem of Drug cartels is something the Government should be doing more about and significantly different to Mexico where I think I would nearly argue for looser gun restrictions...

The problem in America at the moment is a spate of mass shootings that will continue to occur until something is done. Particularly in schools and fairly innocent places by disaffected citizens. - Why they are disaffected is another matter completely.

These are the current restrictions on firearm ownership in Australia. - Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially it means you need a legitimate reason to have a firearm. I do not see how having to have a legitimate reason for a firearm is a bad thing. Will shootings still occur? Probably, there appears to be a lot more sport shooting in America than Australia I'm guessing.

Regardless of a legitimate reason, however, other restrictions of firearm control just make sense. A mandatory background check for example - I do not want someone with a criminal history having any sort of firearm and I don't see many good reasons for permitting them to own one. (Jullianna I think even you might agree with me on that one ) If there is a black market that gives easy access then the appropriate authorities should be stopping this. (More funding for them if need be, and more to fight the Drug cartels)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But people kill people a hell of a lot more effectively with automatic weapons rather than knives. And unfortunately the culture in America at the moment is not like that of Switzerland and there are a lot more gun related crimes. (as far as I am aware)



State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.
Firearms categories [edit]

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:

• Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

• Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

• Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

• Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

• Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

• Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

 

[JimJimmers]

How can you use this to argue for unfettered gun control???? This makes absolutely no sense. Arsonists generally aren't trying to kill people - the label 'mass murder' was added later to express anger at what happened. Guns target specific people. Completely different to a faceless thing like arson even if you are being malicious. This makes no sense whatsoever for your argument.

I am not arguing for unfettered gun control, I am offering some realism in light of Stewart's hack journalism. I've never heard that arsonists generally aren't trying to kill people, is that a real statistic? I don't see how I would care if I was being targeted anyway, if I am dead from being targeted or by indiscriminate murder.

This is an excellent example of how gun laws have been effective. So the offence was done with a handgun (legally acquired) - not an automatic weapon. How much worse would it have been if it was with an automatic weapon - one that was easily accessed? Mass killings were defined as more than 4 deaths I think? - Thus, although not a good situation, these killings were far better given that they were only with a handgun.

You'd be surprised, automatic weapons are actually rather difficult to operate without practice. Nonetheless, They are illegal to possess in the states without a hard-to-acquire license, which is fine with me. So it looks like we agree on that point, that automatic weapons can be heavily restricted.

Agreed - he does. I think he has a point to make though - which is made quite well by his opponent. I mean really - will a one hour waiting period on the purchase of a firearm really harm anyone? (Whether it will be effective or not is another matter)

I don't think a one hour waiting period violates the Second amendment, I think it's merely stupid and pointless.

I think your use of Australian statistics is fairly sketchy... - These are from the same website.

"According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).""

The homicide rate in america has gone down since 1996 also, with no sharp spike in 1997. And how is The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 going down anything to write home about? Being killed isn't particularly pleasant even if the perp doesn't use a gun. How one is killed is virtually immaterial.

Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[SUP][27][/SUP] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[SUP][28][/SUP] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.

[SUP] More people took their own life, but they didn't use a gun to do it. I can't tell you how great that makes me feel. They focused on suicide prevention, and the rate went down. It sounds like it has nothing to do with weapons whatsoever. I actually have heard statistical evidence that the presence of a gun increases the risk of a suicide, but judging from that stat, the figures I saw were wrong.



[/SUP]

[SUP]
The issue of the second amendment - firstly, the Constitution is not holy scripture. (and I would argue that a lot of reform would be very, very helpful in making the American Government more efficient, particularly with reference to the system of electing a president >_< -, and preferential voting is Amazing. (compulsory voting too)) As far as I am aware the second amendment was initially put in to ensure the population could resist an invasion, potentially from the British? And potentially overthrow a corrupt Government? I think you also need to look at whether unfettered gun ownership gives you freedom, or takes it away. Does owning a weapon give freedom to society when others live in fear of the 10%?? of the population who owns guns. At that point it doesn't, the people who are killed have had their freedom significantly restricted I would say. [/SUP]

[SUP]
The USA does not have unfettered gun ownership! Moreover, roughly half of the population of The States owns firearms, so that's not a big concern. I think we see the root of the problem though, some people are irrationally [/SUP][SUP]afraid of gun owners. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Hoplophobia is a real thing, and can be treated.
[/SUP]

I am not against gun ownership necessarily. My Dad owns a weapon, (with appropriate safeguards to ensure it is used correctly) shoots for sport & I have shot with him on occasion. What I am against is easy access to guns, especially very dangerous ones capable of killing a lot of people Very quickly. If there is easy access to these weapons then it is easier for someone to conceptualise committing these crimes and follow through. (of course it may not stop a determined person) I mean how is a machine gun going to help you protect your home more than a bolt loading rifle, it only takes one shot to take someone down. Are you expecting an army to attack you? The problem of Drug cartels is something the Government should be doing more about and significantly different to Mexico where I think I would nearly argue for looser gun restrictions...

What is it with you and machine guns? Machine guns are virtually outlawed in America, and they are prohibitively expensive for most people anyway. All of ONE PERSON has been murdered by a machine gun since 1934! America does not have a problem with machine guns.

The problem in America at the moment is a spate of mass shootings that will continue to occur until something is done. Particularly in schools and fairly innocent places by disaffected citizens. - Why they are disaffected is another matter completely.

That is the problem in America? How many people were killed by mass shooters from 2006 to 2012? Answer: 934. How many people have been killed by drunk drivers IN 2006 ALONE? Answer:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 15,121! Mass shootings are horrible tragic incidents, but they are by no stretch of the imagination "The problem in America".

[/FONT]

Regardless of a legitimate reason, however, other restrictions of firearm control just make sense. A mandatory background check for example - I do not want someone with a criminal history having any sort of firearm and I don't see many good reasons for permitting them to own one. (Jullianna I think even you might agree with me on that one ) If there is a black market that gives easy access then the appropriate authorities should be stopping this. (More funding for them if need be, and more to fight the Drug cartels)

I agree with you on that also, I have no problem with background checks per se. I never said I was against gun control, I just want people to be sane about it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But people kill people a hell of a lot more effectively with automatic weapons rather than knives.

Automatic weapons have killed a statistically insignificant number of people in the U.S. since 1934. Knives kill, let's see here... about 10,000 a year. We oughta ban the things, eh?

 

[JimJimmers]

My central point is not to advocate for gun ownership, I am in favor of certain gun control measures. I hope to give some of our fellow Christians around the world something to chew on, as I don't want them thinking of Americans as less than Christian because we own rifles or handguns. I own a rifle that I use on my farm every day. (I use it in the sense that it is there if I need it, I don't kill rabid opossums every single day.) I don't want this very useful tool taken away by those who think all guns are bad. (I'm not talking to Stuey here, he made it plain that he was not against gun ownership.) -JIM

 

[kayem77]

I think this went a little bit on the wrong direction, I don't like feeling misinterpreted, my intention was not to criticize the US or the 2nd Amendment. Coming from a different country automatically makes you look critical. I don't think owning guns is bad,I was actually saying that I would want Mexico's Constitution to allow gun ownership but I also think restrictions are needed. The truth is that people will always want to break the rules, and as Stuey was saying, I don't feel comfortable knowing that just about anyone can buy any kind of guns. I'm not a gun expert, but my point in mentioning the AR15 was that I just don't feel comfortable with an automatic or semiautomatic gun being too available to the public . Maybe if they were harder to get, yeah. And then there are guns that I just don't think should be available to the public at all because they are meant for war ,unless some special circumstance or need.

I think we all come from different backgrounds and that's why we have different opinions. In all my life that I've lived in Mexico I've never had someone break into my house, with or without a gun, but in case something like that happened I would prefer to be armed. Personally, I wouldn't have an AK47 at home even if I could, because I've heard of too many accidents happening especially with children or people suffering from depression (as someone in my family is), but hey that's my opinion. I would own a handgun though, it's more discreet.

As far as the drug cartels owning guns that's a whole other problem which I can't solve even if my house was stocked with grenades or all kinds of rifles you could imagine. That's a problem rooted in the Government and international organizations, and that's actually the cause of most of the violence we have today, you never hear of a random criminal shooting on the streets or public places just because.

Jim, I don't think of anyone as less than Christian, we just have a different background. I hope my opinion is not read as being anti-american, I've heard people reacting very bad when someone gives a different opinion and I was actually hesitating before giving out mine.

 

[JimJimmers]

Not at all, Miss Kayem. I solicited opinions, and received them. I was actually referring to some posts in a different thread altogether, where some folks seemed to think that Christians should be unarmed. They didn't post in this thread, But I welcome any and all opinions. And I heard you clearly that you thought there was a problem in Mexico with the restriction of firearms resulting in such weapons being restricted to criminals and such. I agree with you, that is always a concern. I didn't find what you said to be the least bit anti-American.

I had really hoped to hear what a few people from Europe who made some earlier comments thought of Christians owning guns. Maybe they'll post later on. And just to be clear, I don't have a problem with Stuey giving his opinion either. I felt Jon Stewart's report was quite biased, but I hadn't seen it before, and I'm glad it was posted.

 

[error]

I don't like guns. Guns are for cops, army... Not for me.

 

[Jullianna]

Nuke and I are getting married and you are all invited. We are registered at Cabelas and Auto Zone. The reception will be held in the gun museum at Cabelas in Austin, TX. Concealed carries are permitted, just don't drown out the band. Instead of rice, please be prepared to throw ammo our way. That is all.