Gun Laws in USA.

[tipper]

While I can kind of understand the thinking of arming yourself as a defence and a deterrent my question is why are they allowed to do so with these semi-automatic weapons capable of mowing down many people in a short space of time.

It only takes one handgun and 6 bullets surely to be the deterrent to deal with a lone gunman.

What I am getting it is why can't they restrict certain types of weapons without interfering with what they see as their right to bear arms. Would that at least restrict the types of weapons that the nut-jobs can get their hands on? Massacres like the tragedy in the school need high-powered military style weapons. Weapons that I don't see the need to be freely available to the public.

Note: I am not an expert on US gun laws. Anyone feel free to correct me.

define high powered? i dont consider the .223 cartridge (which far and away the vast majority of "AR" type rifles are chambered in, including the ones used by US military) high powered. that is a statement used by the media to sensationalise stories. it is a .22 calibre round, the same as many rimfire rifles that many older australians probably used with no parental supervision in the past, but it is a bit heavier projectile and with more gunpowder in the round so it fires faster. in "military" circles it certainly isnt considered high power. if hunting that round wouldnt be used for animals much bigger than foxes. yes it will kill bigger animals, but there are better options for bigger targets.

if you mean that it fires fast, semi auto longarms are available in australia, they are just heavily restricted. basically you need to be a professional culler (prove that most or all of your income is derived from shooting for population control or for harvesting meat, there is still a kangaroo meat industry in australia) so not too many people have them, but they are there.

why is military style a problem? there are many people that own an old .303 or two. they served our servicemen through two world wars and korea, they are surely "military style", however as they are bolt action they arent a problem? is it because the ar style rifles are black? or because they can fit torches to the many rails that are often fitted to them?(some photos i have seen are highly amusing, the amount of crap hanging off them must make them terrible to use) in australia customs will not let someone import any guns that have a "military appearance" regardless of type of firearm. i dont understand it myself, somehow the look of the gun makes it more deadly? yet "non military" semi autos will be allowed through, even though they have the same type of action, and even fire the same rounds, provided the person importing meets all of the criteria (and there are supposedly many to meet).

part of the interpretation of the "right to bear arms" (not held by everyone, but by the vocal gun lobby) is that it is there in case the people need to rise up against the government of the day. as they did in their war of independance. as well as for self defence. it would make it nearly impossible to fight and defeat the government if they were fighting with "inferior" equipment. by denying them their semi autos they would argue that it is directly infringing on their second amendment because of that.

meanwhile i only know any of this as i have recently thought of obtaining my gun licence so have researched about it. i am not claiming to be an expert on the subject by any means. i just dont see why guns are such scary objects. if an individual is tought safe practices, and follows them shooting and hunting can be a safe sport, its just currently not viewed as such by the majority.

[Hondo]

part of the interpretation of the "right to bear arms" (not held by everyone, but by the vocal gun lobby) is that it is there in case the people need to rise up against the government of the day. as they did in their war of independance. as well as for self defence. it would make it nearly impossible to fight and defeat the government if they were fighting with "inferior" equipment. by denying them their semi autos they would argue that it is directly infringing on their second amendment because of that.

To me this is the fundamental issue.

What type of gun is it their right to be armed with and what exactly are they arming themselves for?

I think you are right in that some will claim that the right to bear arms is about defending themselves or taking action in a situation like a war (invasion/uprising), not just to deter a nut job wanting to massacre people.

Do you or they really believe that in these modern times with modern weapons at the Government's disposal that the people of the US are going to successfully overthrow the Government? It feels like they are using principles set down in the 18th century to justify carrying certain types of weapons in the 21st century. Times have changed.

[therisingblues]

You've raised some good points there Tipper. But finally, even a lessening of massacres must be much more preferable if the cost is a ban on guns. So far there have been 0 massacres in Oz since restrictions were brought in,

[therisingblues]

australia customs will not let someone import any guns that have a "military appearance" regardless of type of firearm. i dont understand it myself, somehow the look of the gun makes it more deadly? yet "non military" semi autos will be allowed through, even though they have the same type of action, and even fire the same rounds, provided the person importing meets all of the criteria (and there are supposedly many to meet).


i just dont see why guns are such scary objects. if an individual is tought safe practices, and follows them shooting and hunting can be a safe sport, its just currently not viewed as such by the majority.

A: my guess is that it is just more effective to put a blanket over an entire category of firearm rather than specify which are okay. Military type weapons possibly also have the potential to attract certain nut jobs, in that respect appearance might be important. As a sort of parallel example, in Japan, near the city of Hita in Kyushu, authorities were able to stop suicides completely on a certain red bridge by painting it green.

B: guns are scary in the wrong hands. In yours they might be safe (i don't know you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but the more available they are the more likely they'll fall into the wrong hands.

[tipper]

I don't think that the people could overthrow the government (although yanks are crazy, some would probably like to try), and I'm not trying to advocate for them, just pointing out some differences in mindset.

Times certainly have changed, but the words in the second amendment haven't. The interpretation hang either. Only a few years ago their "right" to semi auto guns was upheld in their highest court when one state legislated to ban them. They have repeatedly proven their love for guns of all types and I don't see that changing.

According to their interpretation of their second amendment, they have the Righto own any firearm they choose (with only limited exceptions)

You've raised some good points there Tipper. But finally, even a lessening of massacres must be much more preferable if the cost is a ban on guns. So far there have been 0 massacres in Oz since restrictions were brought in,

Yes there have been 0 in aus since the 1996 gun law changes. But have the laws been responsible, or have other factors. Gun deaths and gun crime was declining before 1996 in Australia. It actually increased for a short while after and is once again declining.

There was also very nearly another massacre in 2002. The gunman though only killed 2 people and wounded 5. Supposedly the number for calling it a massacre is three or more dead. Did the laws stop that? It's also like saying that the garden gnome I bought prevents elephants from living in my yard, there haven't been any elephants so it must be working...

Here is where I'll get very unpopular. I don't see the problem with Australians owning guns. We have licensing and safe storage. If someone proves by attending training/ testing that they are fit and proper they should be able to own guns, even up to semi auto guns. Obviously there would be different levels, and it should be a longer process to get semi autos, but if I, for example, don't have a criminal record, and have been tested for mental health issues, and I wanted an ar type rifle, why shouldn't I be able to own and use one? What is the danger in a mentally stable, responsible adult, with appropriate storage facilities, owning and using a "military style firearm"? Note, I am not talking of carrying it every day, or using it in any way that is not already allowed with other gun types. Firing range and hunting use. I honestly don't see the problem with that.

[tipper]

australia customs will not let someone import any guns that have a "military appearance" regardless of type of firearm. i dont understand it myself, somehow the look of the gun makes it more deadly? yet "non military" semi autos will be allowed through, even though they have the same type of action, and even fire the same rounds, provided the person importing meets all of the criteria (and there are supposedly many to meet).


i just dont see why guns are such scary objects. if an individual is tought safe practices, and follows them shooting and hunting can be a safe sport, its just currently not viewed as such by the majority.

A: my guess is that it is just more effective to put a blanket over an entire category of firearm rather than specify which are okay. Military type weapons possibly also have the potential to attract certain nut jobs, in that respect appearance might be important. As a sort of parallel example, in Japan, near the city of Hita in Kyushu, authorities were able to stop suicides completely on a certain red bridge by painting it green.

B: guns are scary in the wrong hands. In yours they might be safe (i don't know you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but the more available they are the more likely they'll fall into the wrong hands.

they havent stopped an entire category of firearm. the "military appearance" thing by customs covers all types of firearms. it is not action specific. some bolt actions are prohibited, some semi autos are prohibited etc. others that arent "military appearance" are fine. it is an entirely subjective restriction. i can show some photos of guns that are allowed here, and some that arent, and to be honest, there isnt much difference in looks, and they all go bang. it is still actually possible to own semi auto firearms in australia. they are heavily regulated, but it is possible. not sure how many people realise that it is still possible.

thats interesting on the bridge. not that i doubt you but is there an article on it? id love to read about it, and how they decided that painting it may change the behaviour, its not the first thing i would have thought of doing.

i agree that the wrong people shouldnt access guns. nor should they access cars or pointy objects, but they still do. thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, most who know me err on the other side Edited to add: they are also already falling into the wrong hands. the seeming popularity for "bikie" shootings here in adelaide, and the semi regular shootings in sydney lately show that. and you cant tell me that they are using legally obtained firearms to do it. they are either getting hold of illegally imported ones, or are having them manufactured illegally here.

and as i said, i am not necessarily talking about here in australia with everything i have typed. i think some greater access here wouldnt hurt, as we already have licencing and safe storage, but in the states it is a whole different issue. their problems will take a long time to find a solution as there are so many reasons their "gun culture" is vastly different to ours.

also, cheers all for the civil discussion. i have seen on other forums this type of discussion degenerate rapidly into name calling and vitriol (rednecks etc).

[dedja]

My partner's son has Aspergers and to generalise and say they are bad is crap, he is the most placid kid going around!

+1,000,000

I have 2 nephews with Aspergers and they are the most placid, lovable kids you could ever meet.

Just a question,

while they are very placid to they tend to play alone most of the time?

Yes, one is severe so he is in his own world.

The other one can interact with others but prefers to be on his own.

[whufc]

Yeah most azburgers people tend to struggle to enter and exit social situations, this leads alot of adults especially to live in almost solidatory confidment. That can at times lead to further mental health issues.

Obviously that's not a set in stone rule but more of a complication which some azburgers people without strong support networks suffer from.

Parents of azburgers children are incredible!!

[Pseudo]

I think it is video games, I quite often sit at the top of construction works throwing barrells at Italian plumbers.

I know plenty of folks who were divas at pacman, who then spent their early adult years munching pills and moving about to repetitive music...

[Pseudo]

Anyone here who remembers our friend PhilG?

Out on the patio, we'd sit
and the humidity, we'd breathe
We'd watch the lightning, crack over canefields,
and laugh and think, This Is Australia

[Jim05]

You've raised some good points there Tipper. But finally, even a lessening of massacres must be much more preferable if the cost is a ban on guns. So far there have been 0 massacres in Oz since restrictions were brought in,

How many deaths constitute a massacre?
Gun laws didnt stop the guy at Hectorville

[am Bays]

Anyone here who remembers our friend PhilG?

Out on the patio, we'd sit
and the humidity, we'd breathe
We'd watch the lightning, crack over canefields,
and laugh and think, This Is Australia

I think I hear the sounds of then

[tipper]

You've raised some good points there Tipper. But finally, even a lessening of massacres must be much more preferable if the cost is a ban on guns. So far there have been 0 massacres in Oz since restrictions were brought in,

How many deaths constitute a massacre?
Gun laws didnt stop the guy at Hectorville

Childers arson killed how many? That was in 2000 from memory. Crazy people will find a way to do these things, whether they can get guns or not.

I know that is still only a couple of examples, but Australia never had the (seemingly) regular occurrences like other countries do anyway.

edited to add: childers was 15 dead.

[therisingblues]

Yes there have been 0 in aus since the 1996 gun law changes. But have the laws been responsible, or have other factors. Gun deaths and gun crime was declining before 1996 in Australia. It actually increased for a short while after and is once again declining.

There was also very nearly another massacre in 2002. The gunman though only killed 2 people and wounded 5. Supposedly the number for calling it a massacre is three or more dead. Did the laws stop that? It's also like saying that the garden gnome I bought prevents elephants from living in my yard, there haven't been any elephants so it must be working...

.

Only if elephants used to live in your yard.
One question, and I don't know the answer as I've lived in japan a very long time, what type of weapon did the 2002 not job have?

[tipper]

Yes there have been 0 in aus since the 1996 gun law changes. But have the laws been responsible, or have other factors. Gun deaths and gun crime was declining before 1996 in Australia. It actually increased for a short while after and is once again declining.

There was also very nearly another massacre in 2002. The gunman though only killed 2 people and wounded 5. Supposedly the number for calling it a massacre is three or more dead. Did the laws stop that? It's also like saying that the garden gnome I bought prevents elephants from living in my yard, there haven't been any elephants so it must be working...

.

Only if elephants used to live in your yard.
One question, and I don't know the answer as I've lived in japan a very long time, what type of weapon did the 2002 not job have?

it is still sort of the same, australia doesnt have anywhere near the history of mass killings that other countries do (namely the US) i do think that the gun laws have helped, but they are by no means the sole reason that we havent had any repeats. we also dont have much (if any) of a history of elephant infestation

the 2002 incident was handguns, several of them (link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting yes i know it is wiki, but it gives a good idea) looks like there were further tightening of gun laws afterwards, i didnt know that before reading that link.

looking into it, australia has "only" had 18 "mass murders" in our entire history. most of them in the 136 years before Port Arthur. not exactly the same scale of problem the US had to begin with. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders) and that includes some where other means were used (a truck, fire and bombs). it certainly shows that guns were the tool used in most of them, but they are by no means the only method. from the list on that link it seems the 1980's were popular for people doing bad things.

[The Sleeping Giant]

So you are saying there is evidence that stricter gun laws work?

Interesting that since these laws were introduced in Australia, you say other factors have helped decrease gun related deaths. Video games in that time have become one of the biggest forms of entertainment, so maybe they have helped also.

[Booney]

So you are saying there is evidence that stricter gun laws work?

Interesting that since these laws were introduced in Australia, you say other factors have helped decrease gun related deaths. Video games in that time have become one of the biggest forms of entertainment, so maybe they have helped also.

I dont think anyone has said ( I know I didnt ) that video games have a direct link to these type of actions by individuals suffering from some form of mental illness or another. I think there is some link, in some way, as it seems many of the recent mass killings have been by people who played violent video games and suffered from some form of illness.

For those of us (?) with stable thought processes violent games offer no threat in the main.

[Johno6]

whats the comparison on people who play violent video games who kill people, compared to people who play violent cideo games who dont kill people?

[tipper]

So you are saying there is evidence that stricter gun laws work?

Interesting that since these laws were introduced in Australia, you say other factors have helped decrease gun related deaths. Video games in that time have become one of the biggest forms of entertainment, so maybe they have helped also.

i think they helped here in australia, yes. i dont think they are the sole reason though. i think properly regulated guns arent a problem. i think they are properly regulated here, but that maybe it could be made easier for mentally stable, law abiding people to have greater access to the heavily restricted classes of guns. but i also think that regulating them in the united states wont happen, for the various reasons i have already stated.

stricter gun laws have not however stopped the bikie related gun violence here in adelaide, or the "gang" shootings in Sydney lately. just saying "we havent had any massacres since the 1996 gun laws" doesnt tell the whole story. illegal weapons are still obviously available to the sort of people that want to use them for bad things. what is the purpose of tighter gun laws, to prevent only mass murders, or to prevent all gun crime whatsoever?

in some countries, tighter gun laws have lead to an increase in gun crime. The UK have totally banned all types of hand guns. their gun crime is at record levels at the moment. just banning guns is not the solution.

where have i said anything about video games? i really dont think they have had an impact either way on "massacres". i play them regularly. i havent felt the urge to shoot anyone, ever. crazy people do crazy things because they are crazy. not because of any inanimate object, or because they played video games, listened to "bad" music or watched violent movies.

[The Sleeping Giant]

No one on safooty booney, but in the us it is the blame for nearly all these types of incidents. Access to guns, mental health and religion seems to be the forgotten element.