Gun Laws in USA.

Anything!

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby RustyCage » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:16 pm

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/america-guns-fiscal-cliff-founding-fathers-british-pd20121218-33V79?opendocument&src=idp&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=150405&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary&WELCOME=AUTHENTICATED%20REMEMBER

America's sad certainty: violent deaths and lower taxes

According to the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” a staggering one million Americans have been killed by firearms in the US since the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968. Let’s put that in perspective. That is more than three times the 300,000 American combat deaths in WWII, it’s five times their 200,000 civil war combat deaths and it’s one-third more than the entire 600,000 civil war deaths. In fact since just 1968, the American gun infatuation has taken more American lives than all combat deaths America suffered since 1776.

The socially divisive Vietnam and Korean wars combined took less than 100,000 American lives – less than 10 per cent of the toll Americans weapons have taken on fellow Americans since 1968. Americans have suffered far more at their own hands than anything Hitler, the Kaiser and Osama combined could throw at them. If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be hilarious. Indeed, perhaps mocking Americans is the only way to wake them up. For a bunch of pretty smart operators they do seem to have taken a “stupid” pill when it comes to gun control.

Effective lobbying by the National Rifle Association and other like minded groups has been remarkably effective in stopping any attempt at meaningful gun reform. Intellectually vacuous, their answer to the constant firearm massacres is to have more firearms – in schools, in bars and in churches. In fact wherever two people meet, bring a gun. Otherwise sensible civic leaders demand weapons even in kindergartens. To understand such stupidity, you have to go back to their very beginning – 1775 to be precise.

“The British are coming”

The American justification for being armed to the teeth is their Amendment – the “right to bear arms”. This amendment arose out of the months leading up to their War of Independence. Prior to hostilities the Brits tried to disarm their rebellious American cousins before it all went pear shaped. Remember Paul Revere’s famous midnight ride to warn the Patriot’s that “the British were coming”. What he was warning about was the British attempt to confiscate weapons in an attempt to lower the “powder keg” temperature. The Patriots would have none of it. So this early attempt to disarm the American populace in 1775 lit the fuse for the war that followed.

Of course when the Second Amendment was passed in 1791, a very well trained musketeer could only fire off a maximum five rounds a minute. By contrast the Bushmaster rifle used in the latest American massacre has an advertised rate of fire of 800 rounds a minute – 160-times more powerful than muskets.

No more tax

Another beef the Patriots had in 1776 was encapsulated in the maxim “no taxation without representation”. Today many within the right wing of the Republican Party have just dropped “without representation” and settled for the similar “no more tax”. They even named themselves “The Tea Party” after the Boston Tea Party of 1773 when Patriots threw taxed British tea over the side of the ship carrying it.

Any analysis of the US fiscal situation today shows that a $US1 trillion per annum US government deficit can only be solved through a combination of higher taxes and lower expenditure. The exact mix of taxes and spending cuts needed to solve this problem is the core of the fiscal cliff debate. Yet the Tea Party, drawing on their dubious historic roots, opposes all attempts at raising taxes. And their activism seems to have captured the Republican Party.

The patriots

One of the reasons why both the NRA and Tea Party have proved so politically adept is because they view themselves as the intellectual heirs to the early Patriots. Criticise the NRA or Tea Party and you might as well as criticise the early Patriots. Well, perhaps it’s time someone did.

Turns out the Patriots were no saints. Take John Hancock, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence. He was a wealthy smuggler. Men like Hancock viewed British taxes as an economic impost to be evaded at every turn. As the British made life more difficult for Hancock and his fellow travellers, these smugglers morphed into the fellas’ we refer to today as the “founding fathers”. The Tea Party are indeed the intellectual heirs to such scallywags. Demanding lower tax rates for the rich has its intellectual foundations amongst 18th century smugglers.

Slavery

When George Washington and co-signed the Declaration of Independence they stated “all men are created equal”. Inspiring words. Turns out that was all it mostly was. Most of these founding fathers owned slaves. It was the ultimate Orwellian society – some were more equal than others.

It took another 80 years and a civil war costing the lives of 600,000 Americans before slavery was finally abolished in the US. It was a further 100 years before civil rights were fully recognised for all African Americans. Even today the average “African American” household income is only $32,000. And that’s an average. By contrast the average white household earns $56,000. Few realise that subprime lending, which became infamous in the lead-up to the GFC, was a euphemism for lending to African Americans. So even though an African American sits in the White House, it's fairly clear “all men are created equal” still has a bit of work to do.

By contrast the Brits outlawed slavery within Great Britain before the US War of Independence had even started (1772). They followed up by banning the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery throughout their Empire altogether in 1833. And they didn’t need a civil war to do it. The Brits of course had profited handsomely from the slave trade over the prior century. So my purpose is not to white wash them, simply to point out that relative to the Patriots, the Brits were ahead of the curve.

American Indians

A major reason why frontiersmen joined the American revolution was because Great Britain had a policy of protecting the rights of native Americans. Following the defeat of the French in 1763 at the conclusion of the Seven Years War, the British tried to reserve lands west of the Appalachians for native Americans. Frontiersman would have none of that. Many wanted land. Like John Hancock, for them it was a monetary issue. After Britain lost in 1783, America spent the better part of the next century stealing almost all remaining native American lands; certainly all the best bits.

The United States was born out of monetary frustration. Americans could see an enormous bounty before them and whether it was taxation without representation or protection of native American lands, the Brits were standing between them and that bounty. In the 230 years since, not much has changed. The holy dollar rules and special interest groups like the NRA and Tea Party hide behind so called patriotism to promote their particular brand of stupidity.

In many ways America remains a victim of its birth and the arguments used to justify that birth several centuries ago. It can be easily argued that American children today are being punished for the sins of their (founding) fathers. Though heretical, it is also tempting to believe the wrong side won the American War of Independence in 1783.

America is today as dysfunctional as at any time since 1865. It’s beset by periodic and random gun violence and seemingly unable to come close to balancing its federal budget. Yet despite its many sins, America through its history has been a force for good. They may have been the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in anger, but they were instrumental in the overthrow of totalitarian governments of all persuasions over the last century. This tendency to have multiple personalities, baffles the rest of the world. Perhaps Winston Churchill observed it best.

“Americans, can always be counted on to do the right thing … after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

The rest of the world despairs at America’s predicament today. Being unable to control their finances is bad enough. Being unable to protect their citizens from themselves is tragic. Watching the massacre of innocents is heartbreaking. In the end I think America will be able to control both its finances and its gun culture. It’s just such a painful process to watch. And I suspect many more innocents will suffer before they get there. God help them.
I'm gonna break my rusty cage and run
User avatar
RustyCage
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has liked: 1269 times
Been liked: 937 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby FlyingHigh » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:53 pm

Booney wrote:#-o

Talking about the Connecticut school shooting on Fox News Sunday this morning, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas told host Chris Wallace that he wishes slain school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who died lunging at gunman Adam Lanza, had an M4 assault rifle during the attack.

Said, Gohmert, "And, hearing the heroic story of the principal lunging, trying to protect. Chris, I wish to God she would have had an M4 in her office locked up. so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, But she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids."

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/texas-congressman-i-wish-to-god-ct-principal-had-m4-to-take-out-shooter-video.html


That is just staggering.
How many kids could be killed before the principal realised what was going on?
What if she was in another part of the school or down the street?
Would the principal become the first target if the gunman knew they had a gun?
What sort of effect would it have on the kids if they see someone they regard as a "safe"/trustworthy person shoot someone else?
What would happen if the principal missed? What if they hit a kid? If the gunman realised he was being fired at, would this send him even crazier?
What if a disgruntled student was able to get to it?
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4911
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 87 times
Been liked: 182 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby The Dark Knight » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:04 pm

Gozu wrote:In an article in today's paper it said he had Asperger's and that his mother was a survivalist nutter preparing for the apocalypse.

The singer from The Vines, Craig Nicholls also has Asperger's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

Yeah, I remember seeing a Channel V special on the Vines and I remember them talking about his condition, it was stated in the special that Nicholls has an amazing memory and incredible retention of lyrics, lines from comedy shows etc. Also, after each gig the Vines play he has to go and isolate himself from everyone for a period of time.

He was recently charged for assulting his mother in his home in Sydney while in 2004 he was charged with assault and malicious damage after an outburst at a promotional show for Triple M, kicking and smashing a photographers camera. Later in court the judge dropped all charges against Nicholls, on the condition that he seek treatment.
User avatar
The Dark Knight
Coach
 
Posts: 35660
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:32 pm
Location: Gotham City
Has liked: 11818 times
Been liked: 1670 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby CENTURION » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:49 pm

My partner's son has Aspergers and to generalise and say they are bad is crap, he is the most placid kid going around!
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby Footy Chick » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:25 pm

From what I know about it, which admittedly isn't much, they generally are either placid as or really hypo, so it often gets misdiagnosed as being ADHD or Autism.

Probably made more predominant as they reach adult age due to lack of social skills but then you don't need to have a medical condition to have that either..

Our resident doc will no doubt fill us in :D

Anyone here who remembers our friend PhilG?
Don't play games with a girl who can play 'em better...

Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
User avatar
Footy Chick
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 26903
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:44 pm
Location: anywhere I want to be...
Has liked: 1766 times
Been liked: 2190 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby dedja » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:51 pm

CENTURION wrote: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.
Dunno, I’m just an idiot.

I’m only the administrator of the estate of dedja
User avatar
dedja
Coach
 
 
Posts: 24305
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:10 pm
Has liked: 770 times
Been liked: 1696 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby CENTURION » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:33 am

dedja wrote:
CENTURION wrote: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.

on the other hand, Hitler had Asperger's too :oops:
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby whufc » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:47 am

dedja wrote:
CENTURION wrote: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?
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28745
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5957 times
Been liked: 2846 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby tipper » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:01 am

FlyingHigh wrote:
Booney wrote:#-o

Talking about the Connecticut school shooting on Fox News Sunday this morning, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas told host Chris Wallace that he wishes slain school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who died lunging at gunman Adam Lanza, had an M4 assault rifle during the attack.

Said, Gohmert, "And, hearing the heroic story of the principal lunging, trying to protect. Chris, I wish to God she would have had an M4 in her office locked up. so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, But she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids."

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/texas-congressman-i-wish-to-god-ct-principal-had-m4-to-take-out-shooter-video.html


That is just staggering.
How many kids could be killed before the principal realised what was going on?
What if she was in another part of the school or down the street?
Would the principal become the first target if the gunman knew they had a gun?
What sort of effect would it have on the kids if they see someone they regard as a "safe"/trustworthy person shoot someone else?
What would happen if the principal missed? What if they hit a kid? If the gunman realised he was being fired at, would this send him even crazier?
What if a disgruntled student was able to get to it?


their argument is that would the gunman even have gone to that school if they knew the teachers could shoot back? there is a reason that these massacres only happen in "gun free zones". they know they will be the only one there that has guns until someone can call the cops, and the cops can get there. the "batman" killer also picked a cinema that was promoted as being a "gun free zone", meaning that members of the public, even if licenced to carry guns, couldnt in that venue.

there are plenty of examples in the states (much less widely publiscised) where the presence of a member of the public that was carrying a gun prevented an incident like this escalating. either the gunman was scared off or they were shot before they could do the same to a large number of people. i can find links if necessary.

i dont think it is needed here, i think our mental health is better (happy to be corrected though) and access is much harder for non licenced people (but it is still possible), and even most licenced people cant access the type of guns used over there (and certainly not the exact model, but something with the same style action is possible for some licencees). however i can sort of see the reasoning for the US. they will never have access to these guns removed over there, so why not allow "victims" access to something that will give them a fighting chance?
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 360 times
Been liked: 539 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby HH3 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:04 am

What if a teacher had a meltdown and started shooting their students...lots of teachers are frustrated and stressed out, and you never know whats going on in someones head.

A gun in the classroom is the worst idea ever. Maybe hire 2 or 3 armed security guards per school.
I TOLD YOU SO

2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11643
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3301 times
Been liked: 2433 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby tipper » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:17 am

HH3 wrote:What if a teacher had a meltdown and started shooting their students...lots of teachers are frustrated and stressed out, and you never know whats going on in someones head.

A gun in the classroom is the worst idea ever. Maybe hire 2 or 3 armed security guards per school.


I agree that would be a better all around solution, however there is nothing stopping the security guard going "postal" either, and the expense of employing them would further bankrupt the US government.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 360 times
Been liked: 539 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby The Sleeping Giant » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:22 am

So the answer is make guns less accessible?
Cannabis is safer than alcohol
User avatar
The Sleeping Giant
Coach
 
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Not dying alone
Has liked: 69 times
Been liked: 193 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby tipper » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:36 am

as i stated above, they will never get that changed in the us. there are just too many gun owners, and they are too organised as a political force to ignore. they would have to at least modify their second amendment, or remove it completely, and i just dont see that happening. even people that dont have any interest in guns over there stand up for the second amendment. regardless of all the talk at the moment, i just cant see any way that it will be changed.

even the step of introducing safe storage, such as we have here, is highly doubtful. how would it be enforced? they dont know who has the guns there (no registry) so how can they check? i also suspect that they would claim it is an infringement on their rights also as they "couldnt access them easily if needed", they could introduce a registry (once again, i dont see them having the money for it) but how do they make people register guns they already have? they cant enforce a buy back (money again, and the need to change the second amendment first) so there is just no way of removing them from their society.

myself i think the answer is better recognition and treatment of mental health, combined with less accessability to guns, but it certainly wont be an easy path for them to take. if they cant remove the guns, remove the crazy people, but i dont see them taking much action on that either.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 360 times
Been liked: 539 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby HH3 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:39 am

tipper wrote:
HH3 wrote:What if a teacher had a meltdown and started shooting their students...lots of teachers are frustrated and stressed out, and you never know whats going on in someones head.

A gun in the classroom is the worst idea ever. Maybe hire 2 or 3 armed security guards per school.


I agree that would be a better all around solution, however there is nothing stopping the security guard going "postal" either, and the expense of employing them would further bankrupt the US government.


Yeah, but I would think security guards would be under less constant stress than teachers.

I do think they should have strict gun control like we have here, and that having to have armed guards in schools is a terrible thing to need to do. But with how many guns are in circulation in the US as well as the mindset that its their right to own and carry guns, no matter what laws are written up, it would be almost impossible to abolish guns and gun related crimes.
I TOLD YOU SO

2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11643
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3301 times
Been liked: 2433 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby Bat Pad » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:44 am

In regards to the politicians comment, was it flipant and sort of a throw away line or were they saying that they think all schools should have guns in the principals office?

Given what happened (I think the principal got killed trying to shield children, happy to be corrected), I wish she had a gun. At least there would have been a chance.

However, that does not mean it would not have been a completely stupid thing to have in the first place.

It's like seeing a $100 to 1 shot come in. You wish you put $1000 on the nose on it after the fact, doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a stupid bet to begin with.
Bat Pad
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:03 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby FlyingHigh » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:53 am

tipper wrote:
FlyingHigh wrote:
Booney wrote:#-o

Talking about the Connecticut school shooting on Fox News Sunday this morning, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas told host Chris Wallace that he wishes slain school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who died lunging at gunman Adam Lanza, had an M4 assault rifle during the attack.

Said, Gohmert, "And, hearing the heroic story of the principal lunging, trying to protect. Chris, I wish to God she would have had an M4 in her office locked up. so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, But she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids."

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/texas-congressman-i-wish-to-god-ct-principal-had-m4-to-take-out-shooter-video.html


That is just staggering.
How many kids could be killed before the principal realised what was going on?
What if she was in another part of the school or down the street?
Would the principal become the first target if the gunman knew they had a gun?
What sort of effect would it have on the kids if they see someone they regard as a "safe"/trustworthy person shoot someone else?
What would happen if the principal missed? What if they hit a kid? If the gunman realised he was being fired at, would this send him even crazier?
What if a disgruntled student was able to get to it?


their argument is that would the gunman even have gone to that school if they knew the teachers could shoot back? there is a reason that these massacres only happen in "gun free zones". they know they will be the only one there that has guns until someone can call the cops, and the cops can get there. the "batman" killer also picked a cinema that was promoted as being a "gun free zone", meaning that members of the public, even if licenced to carry guns, couldnt in that venue.

there are plenty of examples in the states (much less widely publiscised) where the presence of a member of the public that was carrying a gun prevented an incident like this escalating. either the gunman was scared off or they were shot before they could do the same to a large number of people. i can find links if necessary.

i dont think it is needed here, i think our mental health is better (happy to be corrected though) and access is much harder for non licenced people (but it is still possible), and even most licenced people cant access the type of guns used over there (and certainly not the exact model, but something with the same style action is possible for some licencees). however i can sort of see the reasoning for the US. they will never have access to these guns removed over there, so why not allow "victims" access to something that will give them a fighting chance?


Yeah, now you've raised that arguments which I overlooked, I can sort of see their argument too, but it still seems cockeyed. In a "free" country surely that comes with the freedom of being safe in benign environments. Similarly, the incidents of armed people averting a situation from escalating still means the orginal potential/problems for an incident to happen is there, and it's only luck that there was someone there able to avert it.
I think in Australia we are fairly lucky with a reasonably good customs system.
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4911
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 87 times
Been liked: 182 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby tipper » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:12 am

FlyingHigh wrote:
tipper wrote:
FlyingHigh wrote:
Booney wrote:#-o

Talking about the Connecticut school shooting on Fox News Sunday this morning, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas told host Chris Wallace that he wishes slain school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who died lunging at gunman Adam Lanza, had an M4 assault rifle during the attack.

Said, Gohmert, "And, hearing the heroic story of the principal lunging, trying to protect. Chris, I wish to God she would have had an M4 in her office locked up. so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, But she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids."

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/texas-congressman-i-wish-to-god-ct-principal-had-m4-to-take-out-shooter-video.html


That is just staggering.
How many kids could be killed before the principal realised what was going on?
What if she was in another part of the school or down the street?
Would the principal become the first target if the gunman knew they had a gun?
What sort of effect would it have on the kids if they see someone they regard as a "safe"/trustworthy person shoot someone else?
What would happen if the principal missed? What if they hit a kid? If the gunman realised he was being fired at, would this send him even crazier?
What if a disgruntled student was able to get to it?


their argument is that would the gunman even have gone to that school if they knew the teachers could shoot back? there is a reason that these massacres only happen in "gun free zones". they know they will be the only one there that has guns until someone can call the cops, and the cops can get there. the "batman" killer also picked a cinema that was promoted as being a "gun free zone", meaning that members of the public, even if licenced to carry guns, couldnt in that venue.

there are plenty of examples in the states (much less widely publiscised) where the presence of a member of the public that was carrying a gun prevented an incident like this escalating. either the gunman was scared off or they were shot before they could do the same to a large number of people. i can find links if necessary.

i dont think it is needed here, i think our mental health is better (happy to be corrected though) and access is much harder for non licenced people (but it is still possible), and even most licenced people cant access the type of guns used over there (and certainly not the exact model, but something with the same style action is possible for some licencees). however i can sort of see the reasoning for the US. they will never have access to these guns removed over there, so why not allow "victims" access to something that will give them a fighting chance?


Yeah, now you've raised that arguments which I overlooked, I can sort of see their argument too, but it still seems cockeyed. In a "free" country surely that comes with the freedom of being safe in benign environments. Similarly, the incidents of armed people averting a situation from escalating still means the orginal potential/problems for an incident to happen is there, and it's only luck that there was someone there able to avert it.
I think in Australia we are fairly lucky with a reasonably good customs system.


the way that the "gun people" in the us look at it is they are "free" to defend themselves if needed. and in their eyes the best "tool" to defend themselves is the gun. "a ninety year old woman can be on an even footing with an attacker if she has a gun" etc

i agree that the original cause of the problem is still there when situations have been averted, but it is less of a good luck thing. the number of people over there that have been granted what they call a CCW permit (concealed carry weapons) is quite large, and supposedly there is training required before you can get one. anyone can buy a gun over there (pretty much) but not every one can wander around with it, but there are still many thousands of people permitted and trained to do so.

personally i am not so sure that we have a good customs system, they seem good at spruiking themselves when they stop something getting in, but i am more worried about what they dont stop. there was a case in victoria i think where it was found a group of people were importing glock handguns through a certain post office (120 were stopped i believe), i am not naieve enough to think that this was the only operation, or that there was only such a specific number brought in.

then on the other hand only the other week here in adelaide a bloke was arrested for manufacturing guns. one was already found in conjunction with a drug bust, and i believe the guns were semi or auto capable. as others above have said, despite the "bans" here in australia, criminals will still find a way to access what they want. either making it themselves, or finding loopholes in our customs system.

i know there is a difference between "bikies" and the type of people that commit mass killings, but there will still be ways of them commiting these sorts of things. i read on another forum that the "biggest" mass school killing in the states was done using explosives. personally i am not sure of the story, the link in the post directed to a weird website (really not sure of the validity of it) so i am not going to pretend that it is 100% correct, but the point is that if someone wanted badly enough to do something like that, there are other ways of going about it. it just means it needs more effort (which certainly may stop the number of these massacres increasing, just not stop them completely) i can find the link if people would like to read, but like i said, i am not standing by it as being fact.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 360 times
Been liked: 539 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby kickinit » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:18 am

tipper your completely right I would hate to see how many illegal firearms are in Australia. I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that because it hasn't happen n Australia because of the new laws it isn't going to happen again. But whats stopping someone that legally owns a gun in Australia ( and it's not hard to get your license) to do the same thing. Theonly way to stop is to ban all guns and to remove or illegal weapons, which we all know is never going to happen.
We're on this journey together, One Heart, One Club and they will Never Ever Tear Us Apart.
kickinit
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:19 pm
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 95 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby Hondo » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:27 am

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.
In between signatures .....
User avatar
Hondo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Glandore, Adelaide
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 32 times

Re: Gun Laws in USA.

Postby The Sleeping Giant » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:28 am

No high powered semi auto guns legally owned in Australia.
Cannabis is safer than alcohol
User avatar
The Sleeping Giant
Coach
 
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Not dying alone
Has liked: 69 times
Been liked: 193 times

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |