whats your take on gun control?

[jay81]

I don't think so. Being legal doesn't mean readily available. Oh, and if guns were illegal, I would think the demand for them would be higher than the demand for drugs!

It does mean readily available compared with when they're illegal. Guns are illegal here in Oz and the demand for them ... well, doesn't come within light years of the demand for drugs to put it mildly.

[Snoopis]

"necessary to the security of a free state"

It never fails to surprise me how many people think that has something, in any way, to do with hunting.

Owning a gun should be just as hard, if not harder then getting a driver license.

I think making owning a gun more like driving would be great.

Anyone can own any car they can afford, make any modifications, make it as fast, nimble, loud, or gas-guzzling as they want. Automatic or manual, front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, all-wheel drive, etc. A 6 y/o kid can own and drive an 18-wheeler, assuming he's on private property.

When you turn 16, you can get a license to drive on public roadways. All you have to do is drive for a couple hours with a parent, and pass a ridiculously easy test, along with a multiple choice test in the language of your choice. In most states you don't even have to prove you're a citizen, and some states don't even make you prove you're there legally.

At that point, you can still drive a sports car with a few hundred horsepower, or a hatchback that's easy to park, or an F350 with a turbodiesel pulling a 5th wheel camper. You can drive your car to a restaraunt, even if they do sell liquor. You can drive to school or work. You can take it to the race-track and have some fun.

If you get out of line while on the road, you're going to get a ticket, or possibly arrested. Get caught driving with alcohol in your blood and you're getting a DUI, which will lead to loss of your license and possibly your vehicle.

Regulating gun ownership and use in a similar manner doesn't sound too bad to me.

[Jimineye2.0]

Yeah, but a heck of a lot less crims will have them.

Nope, crime has gone up in Australia and England since they banned guns.

[Jimineye2.0]

It's much easier for a criminal to get a gun when they're legal and readily available, though. When they're illegal, they're harder to come by for everyone. Drugs are different, there's an enormous demand for them.

No it's not. Most criminals get them from illegal dealers.

[Thudd]

Nope, crime has gone up in Australia ... since they banned guns.

No, it hasn't. The rate of reporting crime has gone up in recent years, but the actual rate of violent assault has remained constant for some time (Source: Australian Institute of Criminology). What has dropped dramatically in the last 10 years is the rate of firearm suicide, attributed not unreasonably to less guns available to the average householder. Whether the numbers were made up of people using non-firearm means to top themselves is unclear. Firearm related accidents have also dropped considerably.

The "rate of crime" however - which is an extremely glib and emotive statement that covers a whole range of issues - has not gone up since tighter gun controls were introduced in 1997. Note also that guns have not been "banned" here - again, a glib, emotive and uninformed statement. They've simply been made harder to obtain. Everyone is still freely available to apply for a gun license if they wish.

[Jimineye2.0]

No, it hasn't. The rate of reporting crime has gone up in recent years, but the actual rate of violent assault has remained constant for some time (Source: Australian Institute of Criminology). What has dropped dramatically in the last 10 years is the rate of firearm suicide, attributed not unreasonably to less guns available to the average householder. Whether the numbers were made up of people using non-firearm means to top themselves is unclear. Firearm related accidents have also dropped considerably.

The "rate of crime" however - which is an extremely glib and emotive statement that covers a whole range of issues - has not gone up since tighter gun controls were introduced in 1997. Note also that guns have not been "banned" here - again, a glib, emotive and uninformed statement. They've simply been made harder to obtain. Everyone is still freely available to apply for a gun license if they wish.

Nope, good try though.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=15304
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different

story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

[okdude]

Nope, good try though.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=15304
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different

story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

for the record, i think people should have the right to own guns but with stricter controls.

but come on, he made reference from the Australian Institute of Criminology without a link and you quote from a ultra conservative website.

i think nice tries from both of you

[Thudd]

*sigh*

extract of much-quoted and endlessly but obviously uselessly debunked article snipped

I'll let Snopes give you the summary.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
People who use your original quoted article, or the numerous versions of it, such of yourself, only look like fools when they quote it. So, sorry to break it to you, but, you're a fool.

If you want to battle statistics with me, let me tell you now that you will lose and lose badly. Right now I'm working with a PhD thesis investigating violent crime in Australia, and I can quote you real, verbatim and verified statistics until the cows come home. Not those jumped-up, sensationalised, distorted and most of all incorrect figures that you've tried to palm off as justification for your original proposition that "crime has gone up in Australia ... since they banned guns." Which I've already shown to wrong on both counts; (1) crime has not "gone up", and (2) guns have not been banned in Australia.

Now, I admit it was kind of fun making you look bad, but it's boring me now, so I'll leave you to wallow in your shame. If you do feel inclined to ever research the real figures (which I'm sure you won't), you can take yourself over to http://www.aic.gov.au/ and have a feel of the real world.

Thank you for listening. Have a nice day.

[Thudd]

but come on, he made reference from the Australian Institute of Criminology without a link

You can start your reading here then:
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/
They have more comprehensive stats available but unless you'd like to obtain access to their database you'll have to take my word on them.

The thesis is not yet finished so I can't link to it.

[okdude]

You can start your reading here then:
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/
They have more comprehensive stats available but unless you'd like to obtain access to their database you'll have to take my word on them.

The thesis is not yet finished so I can't link to it.

ok, i did search for Australian Institute of Criminology site, thanks

[Diesel66]

The second amendment was designed to make it easier for citizens to hunt, it was to ensure that the public was well armed. Not only because of the threat of a foreign invasion but also the threat of a government becoming corrupt.

This might shock you but government is not always a benevolent entity, the founders overthrew a government that they felt was tyrannical for taxing them and not giving them fair representation in the government.

ohmygod, 2nd admendment has nothing to do with hunting. It came about from the first battles of the revolutionary war where the British tried to take the guns from the citizen/miltias.

[JT.]

...Thought it was the liberals pushing for euthenasia. They love suicide when it is the doctors doing it, why not in the privacy of one's own home.

lol. lets not get into that issue, thats a whole other thread waiting to happen!

[Diesel66]

lol. lets not get into that issue, thats a whole other thread waiting to happen!

Just pushing it out there as a lowblow

[Mismeasure]

I have to agree with the conservatives on this one, gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens.

[JT.]

Nope, crime has gone up in Australia and England since they banned guns.

Lets stick to the point here, which is guns.

Research conducted by the Australian government proving that the firearm controls introduced in 1997 works:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/t...tandi269t.html

"An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers....."

[CitadelArmyJAG]

I have to agree with the conservatives on this one, gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Exactly... as if the criminals followed the laws anyway! All this does is create a disarmed victims class for them to prey on....

Can you say home invasion?!?!?

[sticklegs]

we don't need gun control, we need to inforce the laws we have for improper use, and maybe harsher penalties for crimes involving firearms.

If all the good guys have guns you are going to have a lot fewer bad guys using them.

I wish every anti-gun person would put a big sign in their yard that said

NO GUN IN HOME

[NuggzTheNinja]

Dark alleyway? at 4:00 am?--is that the only way home? Do you have to put yourself in that situation. And muggers are not usually out to do you harm--they just want your valuables. Statistics prove that, people get hurt when they resist.

I'm not saying take away your right to own weapons, just that you need to rethink the need to carry them everywhere you go

You trust your life to someone who just stole your money?

Man...ignorance is bliss...

[Newbomb Turk]

While we are comparing the US to Autralia and other countries with tougher gun regulations, what are these other countries like in general? I know there isnt a blanket statement but are their poorer areas like ours here in the states? I'm sure it's the same everywhere, just wondering. I live in a quiet (except for my neighbors) upper-middle class neighborhood but you go three blocks and youre in an area that is pretty rough. I/we will always own firearms. It's weird to me that people would surrender their weapons like they did. I would think that if they live in close proximity to a rough area like I spoke of, they would be stupid to give up their only real protection. What gives?????????

[bigshadow]

Regulating gun ownership and use in a similar manner doesn't sound too bad to me.

They already do that! It is way too regulated now. What you described already exists for guns. Especially for those big scary guns that guzzle lots of gas/ammo or those sleek fast/high velocity guns that those high tech military people use. But most people own go-cart type guns that has limited speed/range and doesn't hold much gas/ammo and is not allowed on the street/public without a special permit/driver's license.

[NuggzTheNinja]

They already do that! It is way too regulated now. What you described already exists for guns. Especially for those big scary guns that guzzle lots of gas/ammo or those sleek fast/high velocity guns that those high tech military people use. But most people own <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=31&k=go%20cart" onmouseover="window.status='go-cart'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">go-cart</a> type guns that has limited speed/range and doesn't hold much gas/ammo and is not allowed on the street/public without a special permit/driver's license.

The day I can carry my AR down the street in a tactical sling is the last day that I EVER have to worry about walking home late at night.

[bigshadow]

The day I can carry my AR down the street in a tactical sling is the last day that I EVER have to worry about walking home late at night.

I don't have a problem with that!

[KRANE]

Real men don't need to walk around carrying guns, I gave mine up a long time ago.

If I give my 10 year old nephew a 357 magnum, you'll do what ever he says--does that make him a man?

[bigshadow]

Real men don't need to walk around carrying guns, I gave mine up a long time ago.

If I give my 10 year old nephew a 357 magnum, you'll do what ever he says--does that make him a man?

And not carrying a gun defines a "REAL" man? I can think of many things that define a MAN and none of them have anything to do with GUNS, even though I am in support of guns! IMHO, that sounds very childish.

[NuggzTheNinja]

Real men don't need to walk around carrying guns, I gave mine up a long time ago.

If I give my 10 year old nephew a <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=31&k=357%20magnum" onmouseover="window.status='357 magnum'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">357 magnum</a>, you'll do what ever he says--does that make him a man?

I'd say that a "real" man fights on equal terms with his opponent if he needs to, but a real man doesn't want to fight at all.

Assuming the latter is impossible, it's all about using what is necessary.

Go ahead and be a "real man" when someone pulls a knife on you, unarmed, and we'll see how quick you go from being a "real man" to a "dead man".

This isn't about killing someone, it's about surviving a confrontation that THEY started.

If it was simply about killing, then being a "real man" would be keeping your f-cking mouth shut about it after it happens.

[Diesel66]

Lets stick to the point here, which is guns.

Research conducted by the Australian government proving that the firearm controls introduced in 1997 works:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/t...tandi269t.html

"An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers....."

How much did total murders, assualt, home robbery, rape,etc... change. Just because total firearm deaths dropped is worthless, especially when suicide by firearm was the biggest part of that decline.
So how much did other methods of suicide change ? Just because they are not using firearms but doing pills doesnt make it better.

[KRANE]

And not carrying a gun defines a "REAL" man? I can think of many things that define a MAN and none of them have anything to do with GUNS, even though I am in support of guns! IMHO, that sounds very childish.

Childish? Quite the contrary. Are we talking about gang warfare? For anyone that has to carry a weapon around with them, is only providing a false sense of security; it prevents them from moving forward and finding a better solution. I believe a person should face his fears, and work to overcome them. Ask yourself, what am I afraid of? Is it a legitmate fear, or something I imagine will happend? I've gone through, and lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods, and wondered about danger, but I can't imagine having a shoot out with someone--and what would that solve? If you pull your gun, I'll pull my gun, and we all pull our guns, and....Maybe I just can't understand? Maybe I need to walk in your shoes? but like I said, I used to carry a gun, but I've matured, and learned to live without one.

[NuggzTheNinja]

Childish? Quite the contrary. Are we talking about gang warfare? For anyone that has to carry a weapon around with them, is only providing a false sense of security; it prevents them from moving forward and finding a better solution. I believe a person should face his fears, and work to overcome them. Ask yourself, what am I afraid of? Is it a legitmate fear, or something I imagine will happend? I've gone through, and lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods, and wondered about danger, but I can't imagine having a shoot out with someone--and what would that solve? If you pull your gun, I'll pull my gun, and we all pull our guns, and....Maybe I just can't understand? Maybe I need to walk in your shoes? but like I said, I used to carry a gun, but I've matured, and learned to live without one.

This isn't about ideals.

I never want to use a weapon against another person. Even more so, I never want a weapon to be used against me. But you know what? Sometimes that's not really a luxury you're going to have.

If someone wants to harm you, with a weapon, would you rather be unarmed, or at least have something with which to defend yourself?

[bigshadow]

For anyone that has to carry a weapon around with them, is only providing a false sense of security; it prevents them from moving forward and finding a better solution.

I would correct that by saying "could be" providing a false sense of security. It really depends on the person, their training, and the situation. Whether or not it prevents them from moving forward and finding a better solution is another debatable assertion. For instance, in the martial arts I train in, we train with and without weapons of many different kinds. We do not depend on a weapon, but it is a *bonus* if it is there to ensure our survival. Sure, we would rather deal with the attacker(s) without resorting to breaking bones, snapping necks, and worst of all using weapons on them. I would rather get them to a point where they would happily like to renegotiate the situation before things get nasty. But to have and not need is far better than to not have and need. So my point is your assertions really appear to be "fuzzy feel good logic". It would be nice if the world was that simple.

I believe a person should face his fears, and work to overcome them. Ask yourself, what am I afraid of? Is it a legitmate fear, or something I imagine will happend?

I totally agree!

I've gone through, and lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods, and wondered about danger, but I can't imagine having a shoot out with someone--and what would that solve?

Well, how about save your life? It could do that! Sure, it isn't something that someone should wish on themselves or their worst enemy. To take a life is not a trivial matter. However, sometimes it might be necessary to preserve your own. You see, some people cannot be talked to. Last time I check "fetal position technique A" doesn't work.

If you pull your gun, I'll pull my gun, and we all pull our guns, and....Maybe I just can't understand? Maybe I need to walk in your shoes? but like I said, I used to carry a gun, but I've matured, and learned to live without one.

It isn't a matter of walking in someone else's shoes. It is a matter of understanding reality. If it were not guns being used to kill people, it would be axes, machetes, knives, and baseball bats. Do you think that we should "ban" those too? There will always be humans who are predisposed for violence and mayhem. Guns are just another tool, that's all.

It isn't about fighting fair, it is about tactical advantage. Most battles throughout history have been won by surprise and not by fighting a fair fight.

[Cerulean]

OK, lemme break it down for you like this...

I own two assault rifles and four handguns. Not ONE of my guns is chambered in a round effective for hunting.

You want to know why?

I don't hunt.

Everything I own is intended to be used on people.

In the second amendment, it doesn't say "the right to bear HUNTING firearms shall not be infringed", it says the "right to bear arms"...not little arms, not hunting arms, not your daddy's shotgun arms. Arms.

I don't have my guns in case I need to shoot a deer.

I have my guns in case I need to shoot a person. Note: NEED to shoot a person. Not "want to shoot"...NEED to shoot.

Jesus man. How many freakin guns do you need to take out a person? One will suffice.