this would make me very nervous, record gun sales in US

[bob10]

As if it wasn't bad enough already, US citizens are buying guns at a record pace, Bob
U.S. gun sales hotter than a pistol

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/987.jpg Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA file
As gun sales in the U.S. boom, shoppers examine handguns on display at a recent gun show.


By Allen Wastler , cnbc.com
The gun business (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/10/13782381-us-gun-sales-hotter-than-a-pistol?lite#) is booming. The question is, why?
Smith & Wesson stock was zooming Friday, thanks to a stellar earnings report (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48932384). The firearms maker also boosted its outlook for the rest of the year. Because of the strong business, its backlog of orders more than doubled from the same quarter last year, the company (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/10/13782381-us-gun-sales-hotter-than-a-pistol?lite#) is concentrating on boosting production and building inventory.
“We are underserving the market at this moment, we all know that, and that's a great opportunity going forward for us,” CEO James Debney said in a conference call with analysts.
CNBC.com: Pricey collectible weapons (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45670476?__source=nbcnews|gunssalesurge|&par=nbcnews)
And another gun maker, Sturm, Ruger & Co., also hit a milestone of sorts in terms of meeting consumer demand. It produced its 1-millionth gun of the year, well ahead of last year’s pace.
"It took us nearly all of 2011 to build 1 million firearms, but in 2012 we accomplished it on August 15th,” said Ruger President and CEO Mike Fifer in a statement.
CNBC.com: Gun sales, stocks boomin (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000114651&?__source=nbcnews|gunssalesurge|&par=nbcnews)g
What’s driving the demand that has gun makers cranking up production?
Speculation has focused on fears of a coming regulatory crackdown on gun ownership. Liberal administrations tend to be anti-gun and so, the thinking goes, an Obama re-election would set the stage for stricter gun purchasing requirements. Hence, people are buying (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/10/13782381-us-gun-sales-hotter-than-a-pistol?lite#) now in anticipation of difficulty later.
CNBC.com: Romney’s ‘unfavorables’ still high, John McCain says (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48959452?__source=nbcnews|gunssalesurge|&par=nbcnews)
Indeed, looking at background checks for gun sales (a metric commonly used to gauge general industry (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/10/13782381-us-gun-sales-hotter-than-a-pistol?lite#) performance) in 2009 showed a measureable increase that many attributed to Obama’s election.
Is it the same this year? Some anecdotal evidence tends to bear that out.
“I should put Obama’s picture on the wall up there,” said one New Jersey gun salesman, asking not to be identified. “I’d name him salesman of the month!”
But that sentiment is not universally shared. Some gun dealers suggest it may be less about regulatory worries and more about the immediate economy.
CNBC.com: Will jobs report be Obama’s undoing? (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48945514?__source=nbcnews|gunssalesurge|&par=nbcnews)
“Sure, about a third of it is politics,” said a Maryland salesman, who also didn't want to be named. “But the majority are people concerned about safety. They are worried about crime and looking at the economy and no one having jobs. They want to be protected now. So they’re buying.”
"The biggest new group of buyers now are senior citizens," Larry Hyatt, owner of a North Carolina gun shop, said on CNBC's "Closing Bell." "Ten thousand baby boomers a day are turning 65; they can't run, they can't fight, they got to shoot."
The motivation behind the rush could be key to how long the gun makers enjoy the surge in business. Fears of overregulation could dissipate rapidly after the current election season is over because there was no major change to gun regulations after Obama was elected the first time. Indeed, one analyst downgraded Smith & Wesson and Ruger stock last month, citing fears that their torrid sales pace this year is unsustainable.
Not all analysts agree, however.
"We think there is broader drivers, broader acceptance of the use of guns and more target shooting," said Cai Von Rumohr, an analyst with Cowen & Co., also appearing on CNBC. "So we think it's more than just safety and more than just fear of not being able to buy guns."

[Lotz-A-Landies]

All I want is a 106mm recoiless rifle, an SLR and an Owen gun, but perhaps also an M60/GPMG and I'd be happy! :o

Don't know that I'd even want any live amunition for it, just the dummy brass.

[THE BOOGER]

All I want is a 106mm recoiless rifle, an SLR and an Owen gun, but perhaps also an M60/GPMG and I'd be happy! :o

Don't know that I'd even want any live amunition for it, just the dummy brass.

1 fully optioned gun buggy coming up:p

[Sheppie]

a pauser P50 will do

[Treads]

Nervous?? I'd be terrified! *insert hand wringing here* Some are those guns are evil black ones too!


Won't someone please think of the children!!







Straight to the soapbox for this thread.....

[jakeslouw]

I can't imagine why Bob is nervous.

Now if I heard of Robert Mugabe buying several million $ in arms just before an election, with no national defense force worth mentioning to defend me just south of the old bastard......THEN I would be nervous! :o

[Lotz-A-Landies]

why slr? to much maintenance and to expensive, personally i would go m14No but as The Booger says, it would make the CES of my gun-buggy complete! :) :)

[bee utey]

Meh, I'm not planning on living in Yankeestan any time soon, so long as they mainly shoot themselves I'm not too worried.

[87County]

good investment for your super fund

Sturm, Ruger & Company: NYSE:RGR quotes & news - Google Finance (http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ARGR&ei=mRpPUOC7NYa_kgXssQE)



57% rise in 1 yr - 188% in 5 ! compare that with CBA

[Chucaro]

why would that make you nervous?
law abiding citizens obtaining firearms legally,

i would be nervous about the amount of hollow point the government just purchased

The Department of Homeland Security has already purchased over 750 million rounds of ammunition.
Not to be left out of the ammunition stocking spree, the US Forest Service recently purchased 320,000 rounds of ammo and, for their part, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking an additional 13,500 rounds.:eek:
Must be a lot of rabbits for purchasing this amount of amo for the rangers :angel:

[Druid 66]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
James Madison

Who do you trust Bob??

[Chucaro]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
James Madison

Who do you trust Bob??

Mate, the CIA and other agencies are there to protecting the people that is why they purchase near a billion of ammunition :p

[Hymie]

An SLR for the Long Range stand off and a P90 for a Personal Gat would do me.

[Land-Rover]

Nervous?? I'd be terrified! *insert hand wringing here* Some are those guns are evil black ones too!


Won't someone please think of the children!!







Straight to the soapbox for this thread.....

Firearms aren't evil, it's the thugs who use them for crime are, I won't go calling a black Land-Rover evil simply because it was involved in a murder of human life.

The American's have got one thing sorted, it's called the Second Amendment, this protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-1"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-0) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Firearms are a form of self defense, making firearm laws stricter doesn't stop criminals, it stops the law abiding citizens from owning and purchasing firearms for their own self defense.
I wish the Australian firearm laws would be relaxed, giving more people the right to purchase and own a firearm for their own security and protection.

You can say think of the children, I'm certain I would rather have a locked door on my house which protects the life of the thug who kicks it in, not the family's or mine.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[PAT303]

No one should have firearms for self protection,all it does is put firearms in the hands of gung ho fools. Pat

[Land-Rover]

No one should have firearms for self protection,all it does is put firearms in the hands of gung ho fools. Pat

I'll take it you're against what's been happening with Australia's involvement in the Middle East for the last decade and the previous war zones the ADF has entered?

[PAT303]

Mate,I've been a shooter my whole life,I have a shoe box of medals I've won over the years and have been instrimental in getting the Newman branch of the SSAA running so I'm not anti gun,what I am is totally against people having firearms for no purpose,self protection is not a reason to have a firearm and would do nothing but increase firearm deaths and make our very hard laws harder.Yes I am against our soldiers dieing in the middle east for nothing. Pat

[bob10]

“But the majority are people concerned about safety. They are worried about crime and looking at the economy and no one having jobs. They want to be protected now. So they’re buying.”
"The biggest new group of buyers now are senior citizens," Larry Hyatt, owner of a North Carolina gun shop, said on CNBC's "Closing Bell." "Ten thousand baby boomers a day are turning 65; they can't run, they can't fight, they got to shoot."
"

I was raised in the bush on cattle & sheep properties, had a rifle at about age 6, that is a big difference to visiting the US., and knowing potentially 95 % of the people are carrying a concealed firearm, and are nervous enough to use it. Gotta love the mindset, " can't run, can't fight, they got to shoot". Bob

[rick130]

I was raised in the bush on cattle & sheep properties, had a rifle at about age 6, that is a big difference to visiting the US., and knowing potentially 95 % of the people are carrying a concealed firearm, and are nervous enough to use it. Gotta love the mindset, " can't run, can't fight, they got to shoot". Bob

I think that nails it Bob.

It blows me away (pun intended :D) how scared the average 'Merican is in day to day life.

Many I've spoken to are terrified if someone knocks on their front door, or if someone speaks or looks at them while walking down the street, or if they see a stranger walking down the street.

I don't know if I could cope with that level of fear (paranoia ?) all the time ?

There was an instance recently in Calgary, Canada, where a US Policeman on holiday was bemoaning Canada's strict handgun laws and the fear he and his wife experienced when "two men asked twice in a "very aggressive tone" whether the couple had been to the Calgary Stampede yet"

Turns out they were locals handing out leaflets for the Stampede :D

U.S. cop blasted for wishing to carry gun in Calgary park - Winnipeg Free Press (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/us-cop-blasted-for-wishing-to-carry-gun-in-calgary-park-165699436.html)
Lakritz: Kalamazoo police officer's letter to editor about handguns points to cultural divide (http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/Lakritz+Kalamazoo+police+officer+letter+editor+abo ut+handguns+points+cultural+divide/7054368/story.html)

The leaflet handerouterers should be thanking their deity he wasn't carrying.




[edit] A disclaimer too. I was given my first rifle at 16 and hunted in Australia and New Zealand, although I choose not to these days.

[dobbo]

Firearms aren't evil, it's the thugs who use them for crime are, I won't go calling a black Land-Rover evil simply because it was involved in a murder of human life.

The American's have got one thing sorted, it's called the Second Amendment, this protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-1"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-0) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Firearms are a form of self defense, making firearm laws stricter doesn't stop criminals, it stops the law abiding citizens from owning and purchasing firearms for their own self defense.
I wish the Australian firearm laws would be relaxed, giving more people the right to purchase and own a firearm for their own security and protection.

You can say think of the children, I'm certain I would rather have a locked door on my house which protects the life of the thug who kicks it in, not the family's or mine.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/




Garbage, if the old USA is so good then go live there, it's crap. Guns are fun, do I own one, no. If I could legally own and carry one around would I, no.

How would I protect my family then?

Simple a you try getting through the gate, Though I would love a Katana. The Nanny state laws we have ATM won't allow me to buy my kids a decent chemistry set.

[bob10]

I think that nails it Bob.

It blows me away (pun intended :D) how scared the average 'Merican is in day to day life.

Many I've spoken to are terrified if someone knocks on their front door, or if someone speaks or looks at them while walking down the street, or if they see a stranger walking down the street.

I don't know if I could cope with that level of fear (paranoia ?) all the time



U.S. cop blasted for wishing to carry gun in Calgary park - Winnipeg Free Press (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/us-cop-blasted-for-wishing-to-carry-gun-in-calgary-park-165699436.html)
Lakritz: Kalamazoo police officer's letter to editor about handguns points to cultural divide (http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/Lakritz+Kalamazoo+police+officer+letter+editor+abo ut+handguns+points+cultural+divide/7054368/story.html)



The links say it all, have to say there is nothing about the USA that compels me to visit. Bob

[trog]

come on now bob wouldnt you feel so much safer in the mall with countless armed body guards with all the training they patake in before entering the public domain. oh vitual reality computer games dont equate to fear and life do they.
even thirty years back i remember urban tales of our american cousins either beingturned back trying to bring guns into the frozen north of canada or complaining we didnt carry guns !
if the i have a gun mentality leads to a safer society what is next, personal nukes when you get really ****ed with neighbours ?

[Mick-Kelly]

All it does is level the playing field. Crims have guns for one reason. Most of them are cowards. If they are faced with armed 'victims' they change their minds real quick about how easy a target you are.

[trog]

Mutual Assured Destruction

the guns used by the crims are usually illegally gotten so what have they got to lose ?

[Treads]

Firearms aren't evil, it's the thugs who use them for crime are, I won't go calling a black Land-Rover evil simply because it was involved in a murder of human life.

The American's have got one thing sorted, it's called the Second Amendment, this protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Firearms are a form of self defense, making firearm laws stricter doesn't stop criminals, it stops the law abiding citizens from owning and purchasing firearms for their own self defense.
I wish the Australian firearm laws would be relaxed, giving more people the right to purchase and own a firearm for their own security and protection.

You can say think of the children, I'm certain I would rather have a locked door on my house which protects the life of the thug who kicks it in, not the family's or mine.

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405318_495020947192126_1756348461_n.jpg

OMG, sarcasm really isn't your thing is it mate? :angel:

Maybe read my post again....

[PAT303]

All it does is level the playing field. Crims have guns for one reason. Most of them are cowards. If they are faced with armed 'victims' they change their minds real quick about how easy a target you are.

How many times have you been held up by criminals?,like posted earlier giving guns out for self protection means arming paranoid gung ho fools and I would feel unsafe because of it. Pat

[sashadidi]

No one should have firearms for self protection,all it does is put firearms in the hands of gung ho fools. Pat

Including criminals?????

[Mick-Kelly]

How many times have you been held up by criminals?,like posted earlier giving guns out for self protection means arming paranoid gung ho fools and I would feel unsafe because of it. Pat

Pat it might interest you to know that the US county with the least amount of crime is the one with compulsory gun ownership. Why would a crim risk being shot when they can go down the road and do what they want with impunity. More to the point how do we consider that we are free if we do not have control over our own actions and lives. When you hear that crash in the night and walk into your kitchen to see the knife wielding pill popper and his two mates going through your stuff. Do you want to have a broomstick in your hand or a shot gun? What do you think will be more effective at scaring them away? Or maybe you should wait an hour or two cowering in your room hoping the police will come before they decide to do more 'personal' harm.
The same argument works for the fools you mention. Picture yourself walking through downtown. Somebody has decided to go postal and start shooting random victims Martin Bryant style. If somebody was armed then they could have a chance of dealing with the threat and saving lives instead of adding to the tally.
Unfortunately the world you dream of does not exist anymore. Guns are readily available and the grubs have them. That clock cannot be turned back. That milk cannot be un spilt. There are only two effective outcomes. Universal disarmament or universal gun carriage. Anything else is unbalanced and will involve a mounting victim list.
The police cannot prevent gun violence, the military cannot secure our country. Management of your safety is a personal responsibility. And yes that DOES mean not putting yourself in situations that require such resolution wherever possible.
As to the amount of times i have been in violent situations where gun carriage is applicable - well those who know me personally from the forum will attest that i am somewhat unusual in that regard. Ask me in PM if you really want to know. :)

[PAT303]

I lived in three major Australian cities for many years and never had any issue's ever,the Australia you live in is different to the one I live in. Pat

[billy bob]

Australia holds the record for the most people killed in one massacre.
35 at Port Arthur.
He was able to walk around uncontested and shoot people at will.
In the US someone would have had a gun.
Someone would have shot back.

[THE BOOGER]

Australia holds the record for the most people killed in one massacre.
35 at Port Arthur.
He was able to walk around uncontested and shoot people at will.
In the US someone would have had a gun.
Someone would have shot back.

I think we lost the title recently

[billy bob]

True, forgot about that one.
Still not the US

[isuzurover]

And again all the scared paranoid people crawl out of the woodwork. The strawmen you are sprouting have been thoroughly disputed by rigorous science (in previous threads).

Everyone I have ever met (personally) who has a gun for "personal protection" is also paranoid that the [insert non caucasian group here] are going to invade any day now...

The facts are that those who have a gun for personal protection are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member than an intruder. Allowing concealed or open carry of guns does not reduce crime.

[Land-Rover]

Allowing concealed or open carry of guns does not reduce crime.

I'm not sure where you're pulling that from, because it's a known fact that concealed carry certainly does reduce crime in the States.
It has been stated that the States which have laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have seen a decrease in crimes such as murder, assault, robbery, and rape.
Fact Check: Do concealed weapons lower crime rates? :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11204311/)


What Marc Heim states in the video (posted in the previous comment by homa1) sums it up perfectly.

"The key to freedom is to be able to have the ability to defend yourself and, if you don't have the tools to do that, then you're going to be at the mercy of whomever wants to put you away, and the tool for that are guns."

[bee utey]

Australia holds the record for the most people killed in one massacre.
35 at Port Arthur.
He was able to walk around uncontested and shoot people at will.
In the US someone would have had a gun.
Someone would have shot back.

The US has a massacre every few months. Imagining a John Wayne present at every one, ready to take out the baddie with a single well placed shot is, well, wishful thinking. The total number of people killed by hand guns in the US far outstrips that in Australia. Thank goodness for that. I'll put up with our local scenario thanks.

[bee utey]

I'm not sure where you're pulling that from, because it's a known fact that concealed carry certainly does reduce crime in the States.
It has been stated that the States which have laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have seen a decrease in crimes such as murder, assault, robbery, and rape.
Fact Check: Do concealed weapons lower crime rates? :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11204311/)


What Marc Heim states in the video (posted in the previous comment by homa1) sums it up perfectly.

"The key to freedom is to be able to have the ability to defend yourself and, if you don't have the tools to do that, then you're going to be at the mercy of whomever wants to put you away, and the tool for that are guns."


From your link also:


Cause and effect?

But can concealed-carry laws really account for the drop in crime North Carolina has seen since 1995?
"I don't know if you can contribute it all to conceal carry," Hilton said, but he insisted some part of that drop in crime is due to more responsible, armed citizens. More than 275,000 North Carolina residents hold active concealed weapons permits, a little less than three percent of the population.
"The tools that we have show a long-term, steady decline in violent crime and property crime both nationally," said James Brunet, an associate professor and crime expert at N.C. State's Department of Public Administration. "We really don't exactly know why. We've had so many different crime policies over the past 20 years which may have contributed to the drop, but we can't disentangle them."
Brunet said it's unlikely that any one policy is the "magic bullet" that has lowered crime.
"There's no firm, solid evidence that the growth in concealed weapons permits has contributed to a drop in crime rates," said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.
Among the reasons most criminologists think crime is dropping, he said, are better policing strategies, an end to the crack cocaine epidemic and high rates of incarceration. Even the fact that more Americans have cameras in their phones, and are able to capture crime as it happens, may have contributed.
Fox notes that crime rates have dropped even in states like Massachusetts, which have very restrictive gun laws.


So no your link does not support the contention that concealed hand guns do much to lower the crime rate.

[isuzurover]

I'm not sure where you're pulling that from, because it's a known fact that concealed carry certainly does reduce crime in the States...

...

"known" by gun advocates who are unwilling to accept the truth...

This is a comprehensive, independant study conducted in 2011 using data from the entire US.

The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy
Author(s): Aneja, A (Aneja, Abhay); Donohue, JJ (Donohue, John J., III)1; Zhang, A (Zhang, Alexandria)2
Source: AMERICAN LAW AND ECONOMICS REVIEW Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Pages: 565-632 DOI: 10.1093/aler/ahr009 Published: FAL 2011
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 29 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. hi 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. Seventeen of the eighteen NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. The final member of the panel, though, concluded that the NRC's panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder. We evaluate the NRC evidence and show that, unfortunately, the regression estimates presented in the report appear to be incorrect. We improve and expand on the report's county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2006. While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC's majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report's judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments, the Type 1 error soars to 40-70%. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. Finally, our article highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. Although we agree with the NRC's cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws, we buttress this conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and the county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977-2006 period with and without state trends and using three different models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel data analysis. (JEL K49, K00, C52)

[Land-Rover]

From your link also:



So no your link does not support the contention that concealed hand guns do much to lower the crime rate.

I realise that, I was showing that the concealed carry does actually lower the crime rate, even if it is a small percentage.

[Davo]

I wish some people would do a bit of reading:


The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers.

Gun violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's good to see that we're near the bottom of the list.

[rick130]

What I find telling in this thread is that those opposing freer hand gun usage are all firearm owners/users, as opposed to the usual shrill denunciations of the Australian Gun Control lobby.

Thankfully most us aren't that fearful in our daily lives and so haven't imported the fear and paranoia that appears to be prevalent in the US.

We just don't need to be hauling around a lethal security blanket in our daily lives just so we may feel better about ourselves. ;)

[bob10]

I suppose it is easy to make a judgement on a situation from a news report , sitting comfortably on the other side of the World , but what is the real situation? Is the level of paranoia , and anxiety in the USA , what it seems from afar? And why ? One million unemployed [ as reported in the media], fear of terrorism, fear of a race war, middle class sliding into the working poor,losing the drug war, all or none of the above? Is the fear rational? Someone looking on from afar , with limited knowledge of the US , could be forgiven for thinking their society is starting to unravel . I personally don't think that, but why do people need to arm themselves? Does it matter? Of course it does. What happens in the US eventually has an effect on all of us. Bob

[PAT303]

Australia holds the record for the most people killed in one massacre.
35 at Port Arthur.
He was able to walk around uncontested and shoot people at will.
In the US someone would have had a gun.
Someone would have shot back.

That easy is it?,you watch too many B grade movies. Pat

[PAT303]

People forget that a firearm needs to be readily available and loaded to be of any value,that also leaves it available for people,children for one to be able to get thier hands on it,it's a fact that more people are shot with thier own firearm than any other means.I for one would not want a loaded gun in my house and wouldn't let my kids go to a house that did,and for you mucho shoot-them-up types,you blokes ever shot a firearm through plasterboard?,you would shoot your robber and your children in the next room. Pat

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Australia holds the record for the most people killed in one massacre.
35 at Port Arthur...Port Arthur does not even come close to a World record.

In 2011 we have Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 Norwegians and in 1809 a Whangaroa Maori killed and ate 66 people from the ship the Boyd.

Although Port Arthur remains Australia's largest mass shooting, however there are doubts that Martin Bryant acted alone in the early part of the day the perpetrator killed and wounded more people than he fired rounds, yet later in the day Bryant fired hundreds of rounds at police without hitting anyone.

[rick130]

[snip]

Although Port Arthur remains Australia's largest mass shooting, however there are doubts that Martin Bryant acted alone in the early part of the day the perpetrator killed and wounded more people than he fired rounds, yet later in the day Bryant fired hundreds of rounds at police without hitting anyone.

I was hoping no one would mention anything like that as it could take things off in pretty wild tangent :(

An ex-barrister and Vietnam vet I know has compiled a lot of info on that day and his conclusions are pretty outrageous.
I tended to think he was a more than a little paranoid with his findings and pretty much dismissed them out of hand, but he's a smart boy and a good, solid, logical thinker so who knows ?

There, I've fuelled it even more :angel:

[THE BOOGER]

I heard from a friend that knows a guy that he heard it was masked australian soldiers the same ones who were involved with the coup in fiji;)

[isuzurover]

I suppose it is easy to make a judgement on a situation from a news report , sitting comfortably on the other side of the World , but what is the real situation? Is the level of paranoia , and anxiety in the USA , what it seems from afar? And why ? One million unemployed [ as reported in the media], fear of terrorism, fear of a race war, middle class sliding into the working poor,losing the drug war, all or none of the above? Is the fear rational? Someone looking on from afar , with limited knowledge of the US , could be forgiven for thinking their society is starting to unravel . I personally don't think that, but why do people need to arm themselves? Does it matter? Of course it does. What happens in the US eventually has an effect on all of us. Bob

America is a great place. I have spent a lot of time there. Just best not to bring up guns or religion.

I have driven through most of the US alone. I have also walked alone around many towns and cities in the US - even in the evening.

Not once have I felt scared and/or threatened.

I have probably walked around areas where many americans would not go and/or would not get out of their cars...

[Davo]

People forget that a firearm needs to be readily available and loaded to be of any value,that also leaves it available for people,children for one to be able to get thier hands on it,it's a fact that more people are shot with thier own firearm than any other means.I for one would not want a loaded gun in my house and wouldn't let my kids go to a house that did,and for you mucho shoot-them-up types,you blokes ever shot a firearm through plasterboard?,you would shoot your robber and your children in the next room. Pat

We have a hard enough time keeping our 3-year-old from grabbing a pen and writing on the table . . .

[460cixy]

I can't be leave there's so many antis here and some very opinionated ppl here still won't stop me from enjoying my sport no matter how narrow minded some ppl may be

[VladTepes]

good investment for your super fund
Sturm, Ruger & Company: NYSE:RGR quotes & news - Google Finance (http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ARGR&ei=mRpPUOC7NYa_kgXssQE)
57% rise in 1 yr - 188% in 5 ! compare that with CBA

Yeah and that's just from the money I've given them !!!!



America is a great place. I have spent a lot of time there. Just best not to bring up guns or religion.

I have driven through most of the US alone. I have also walked alone around many towns and cities in the US - even in the evening.

Not once have I felt scared and/or threatened.

I have probably walked around areas where many americans would not go and/or would not get out of their cars...

I suspect south central L.A. was not one of those places :lol:

I do get the ****s with people who are so ready and eager to rip on Americans. Have such people ever been there?
Ever spoken to Americans for any length of time?
Ever lived with them?

They are just people, and in the large just like you and me.



The US has a massacre every few months.

The total number of people killed by hand guns in the US far outstrips that in Australia.

Thank goodness for that. I'll put up with our local scenario thanks.

Um yes. But their population is also a HUGE amount bigger than ours.
Australia approx 22,600,000 (2011)
USA approx 311,600,000 (2011)

If you were to look at deaths as a percentage of population or deaths as a percentage of gun ownership then, though tragic, they are statistically insignificant.

If 20 people die in a "massacre" or "rampage" it's world news and the bleeding hearts are all jumping up and down demanding guns be banned.

If 40 people are killed in a bus crash nobody cares and there are no calls to ban buses.
When many thousands of people are killed a year in cars, there's no calls to ban cars.

[Mick-Kelly]

Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
A Little Gun History -

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult and issues each a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target....

Gun Control laws adversly affect only the law-abiding citizens.

[rick130]

I can't be leave there's so many antis here and some very opinionated ppl here still won't stop me from enjoying my sport no matter how narrow minded some ppl may be

No ones saying or telling you to stop enjoying shooting, the anti's are saying we don't need the concealed or open carry handgun laws of the US.

Almost to a person, every 'anti' as you call them here are shooters !

[VladTepes]

Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.


Very true



Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Obviously the reasons are far more complex and many of those people would not have had guns anyway. And even if they did, a company of the Waffen SS will be more effective than a shhopkeeper with a K98.

But yes the parralel is not conincidental !




Gun Control laws adversly affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Absolutely correct.

Aparently there are laws against murder too, but the criminals don't seem to follow them either ! How curious ! Obviously we need to make murder "double illegal"

[MEANZ06]

Hmmmm? whats going on in this thread? :angel:

[rick130]

Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
A Little Gun History -

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult and issues each a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target....

Gun Control laws adversly affect only the law-abiding citizens.


In the 1920's Australia initiated handgun regulation.

How many Aussies have been rounded up since and systematically murdered by their Government as a consequence ?

How many in the UK ? Canada ? or any other stable democracy that has handgun regulation ?

Those numbers you've quoted mean nothing, sorry.

At the end of the day, this is Australia, not Soviet Russia, not Amin's Uganda and certainly not the US.

Who the hell is going to invade/take up arms against the population here ?

Who are you scared of ?


Do I think some of our compliance laws are stupid ?

Yep.

Do I want hand gun laws relaxed ?

No.

You only have to see how people drive with their 2.5 tonne lethal wheeled weapons to realise you don't want Bruce and Kath average handling a bloody handgun.



Americans lost more personal freedom under the Bush administration than under any other admin in recent history, including wartime, all under the pretext of 'National Security'.

They are being spied on, monitored and have less redress under the law, particularly against their own government than at any other point in their history, but they can still shoot each other 'legally' in record numbers by God !

Who's being hoodwinked ?

[VladTepes]

Who the hell is going to invade/take up arms against the population here ?


Well that's open to debate, and while unlikely at the moment is certainly possible in future. Why deny people the opportunity of resistance to such an possibility.



Do I want hand gun laws relaxed ?

No.


What handgun lawas are you referring to? I have to do 6 competitions a year to maintain my right to own a firearm. Am I less trustworthy if I only was to do 5? It's a pointless law that needs to be changed and will be of no harm to society AT ALL.




You only have to see how people drive with their 2.5 tonne lethal wheeled weapons to realise you don't want Bruce and Kath average handling a bloody handgun.



Umm, most shooters ARE Bruce and Kath average mate. We are not special in any respect other than being law abiding citizens and having undergone background and criminal checks (which the bulk of the population do not).

What a person's driving ability has to do with anyone's firearm safety is beyond me.




Americans lost more personal freedom under the Bush administration than under any other admin in recent history, including wartime, all under the pretext of 'National Security'.

They are being spied on, monitored and have less redress under the law, particularly against their own government than at any other point in their history, but they can still shoot each other 'legally' in record numbers by God !

Who's being hoodwinked ?

Well....



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


The reasoning behind the amendment are not in the amendment itself, however it is discussed in detail in many contemporary sources.

One of the considerations was the reasoning that an armed populace would deter an authoritarian regime imposing itself upon an unwilling people.

By your reasoning the American public needs guns now more than ever !

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I heard from a friend that knows a guy that he heard it was masked australian soldiers the same ones who were involved with the coup in fiji;)You know him too? (except he's my second cousin's mate, that knows the guy who heard.) :o

Nothing better than true known facts to dispel urban myths! ;)

[Mick-Kelly]

a good quote for you

[rick130]

Well that's open to debate, and while unlikely at the moment is certainly possible in future. Why deny people the opportunity of resistance to such an possibility.



Who ? and resistance against an armed, professional army ? Really ?



What handgun lawas are you referring to? I have to do 6 competitions a year to maintain my right to own a firearm. Am I less trustworthy if I only was to do 5? It's a pointless law that needs to be changed and will be of no harm to society AT ALL.
I actually agree with you there, and part of the reason why I've never obtained a handgun licence, it's too bloody onerous to make a 200km round trip for a shoot IMO, but allowing a handgun for self defence at home, just incase, because someone feels a little threatened as has been suggested on this thread is just silly.



Umm, most shooters ARE Bruce and Kath average mate. We are not special in any respect other than being law abiding citizens and having undergone background and criminal checks (which the bulk of the population do not).

What a person's driving ability has to do with anyone's firearm safety is beyond me.How people act and react in daily life has everything to do with it.
So many people don't act responsibly already and do plain dumb things when driving cars, people walking out in front of cars, etc, why would it be any different if it was open slather with handguns ?

At the moment if someone really wants to go shooting, with the legislative hoops they have to jump through they are more than likely going to be a little more responsible in their attitude and handling of same too.
Having said that there were blokes I knew who were licensed shooters I would never go away with on a shooting weekend, and some blokes I did go away with did some stupid, stupid things too....




Well....



The reasoning behind the amendment are not in the amendment itself, however it is discussed in detail in many contemporary sources.

One of the considerations was the reasoning that an armed populace would deter an authoritarian regime imposing itself upon an unwilling people.

By your reasoning the American public needs guns now more than ever !Hahahaha, nice try.

How losing so many rights yet being able to keep a firearm is freedom I'm really not sure.




Here in Oz we still have so many longarms and can still go hunting/target shooting whenever we want.

The stats I've seen suggest more legal firearms in circulation now than before Mr Howard's infamous 'buyback'. (and yes, I was affected by that too, a stupid waste of time and money)

There is so much disinformation from both sides of the debate it gets silly
People from the US I talk to are genuinely surprised we go shooting.
"Didn't you have all your guns taken away...." is a common response.
When they hear how often we actually go out hunting and shooting they are genuinely gobsmacked.
All because the pro-gun lobby in the US (read NRA) keeps spreading disinformation about the rest of the world.

I've learnt to take arguments from both pro and anti-gun control groups with a bucket load of salt.

[PAT303]

No one is going to invade us,no one is going to exterminate us and no one is going to put us in camps. Pat

[VladTepes]

Who ? and resistance against an armed, professional army ? Really ?



Yep, worked in France in the 1940's.



How people act and react in daily life has everything to do with it.
So many people don't act responsibly already and do plain dumb things when driving cars, people walking out in front of cars, etc, why would it be any different if it was open slather with handguns ?


I don't recall advocating "open slather"



At the moment if someone really wants to go shooting, with the legislative hoops they have to jump through they are more than likely going to be a little more responsible in their attitude and handling of same too.


Except of course that the irresponsible people are the ones who get guns illegally and don't hold a firearms licence.

It's only the law abiding who suffer from tougher gun laws, that criminals aren't going to obey anyway!



Having said that there were blokes I knew who were licensed shooters I would never go away with on a shooting weekend,


Bloody oath. If someone tells me they like to get on the **** after a day's hunt and THEN go spotlighting... (for example) I won't be anywhere near there !




How losing so many rights yet being able to keep a firearm is freedom I'm really not sure.


I didn't mean owning firearms means freedom.
I meant that an increasingly authoritatrian government is a worry and that it can get worse and worse and worse until people have just had enough. Then what?
(and I don't just mean the USA, it can apply anywhere)



Here in Oz we still have so many longarms and can still go hunting/target shooting whenever we want.


Well, numerically perhaps but apparently I couldn't be trusted with my pump action shotgun or semi-auto .22 rifle.
Nor can we hunt "whenver we want". There are increasing restrictions on where and when we can hunt. There are a lot of reasons for that and not all are directly related to legislation though.



The stats I've seen suggest more legal firearms in circulation now than before Mr Howard's infamous 'buyback'. (and yes, I was affected by that too, a stupid waste of time and money)

Yes that's true, and yes, it was. Even the term "buyback" is insulting. First of all they never owned them in teh first place to "buy them bacK' Secondly it was a compulsory acquisition.



There is so much disinformation from both sides of the debate it gets silly
People from the US I talk to are genuinely surprised we go shooting.
"Didn't you have all your guns taken away...." is a common response.
When they hear how often we actually go out hunting and shooting they are genuinely gobsmacked.


Yes, some are.


All because the pro-gun lobby in the US (read NRA) keeps spreading disinformation about the rest of the world.

No, not really. Haven't you noticed that at every public speaking opportunity Howard gets he cites his gun laws as the achievement of which he is most proud?

I'd suggest that there are a LOT of people spreading disinformation - the so called "green" groups for a start. And "Gun Control Australia" which issues press releases which are baseless. GCA is much like the "council for civil liberties" or Harold Scrubys "pedestrian council". A few people in an office looking for anything to their own personal advantage or to feed their ego, or drum up business.



I've learnt to take arguments from both pro and anti-gun control groups with a bucket load of salt.

Rightly so.

[VladTepes]

You know him too? (except he's my second cousin's mate, that knows the guy who heard.) :o


I was at the supermarket and overheard a guy tell this other guy in line in front of me that he knew a bloke who'd served in the special forces (he didnt say which country). Anyway this special forces guy knew another guy in the Seals, who had heard from a mate in the SAS that the chips at Red Rooster are better than the ones at Maccas and he's right !

[bob10]

Australia holds the record for the most people killed in one massacre.

A lot of people seem to be missing the point. Can anyone else see the irony in claiming a record for the most people killed? Where are we headed if this is how we view this subject. A point I would to make is, the USA has the strongest military in the World, and their " home guard" , the National Guard , are equipped better than most Armies in the World. So, their citizens can not be concerned about invasion, that begs the question, why are normally law abiding US citizens arming themselves. No one has satisfactorily answered that question. Bob

[123rover50]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point. Can anyone else see the irony in claiming a record for the most people killed? Where are we headed if this is how we view this subject. A point I would to make is, the USA has the strongest military in the World, and their " home guard" , the National Guard , are equipped better than most Armies in the World. So, their citizens can not be concerned about invasion, that begs the question, why are normally law abiding US citizens arming themselves. No one has satisfactorily answered that question. Bob

They think Obama is going to toughen up the gun control laws so want to get in and stock up before that happens.

[waz]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point. Can anyone else see the irony in claiming a record for the most people killed? Where are we headed if this is how we view this subject. A point I would to make is, the USA has the strongest military in the World, and their " home guard" , the National Guard , are equipped better than most Armies in the World. So, their citizens can not be concerned about invasion, that begs the question, why are normally law abiding US citizens arming themselves. No one has satisfactorily answered that question. Bob

The intent of the 2A is to arm the people for defence against a tyrannical govt. It is not for defence against an external force. It is the amendment intendeded to safeguard the rest of the constitution. As someone once said, "Washington didn’t use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them."

I'm particularly intriged by this statement -

that begs the question, why are normally law abiding US citizens arming themselves. No one has satisfactorily answered that question. Bob

One does not change from being law-abiding to criminal when you arm yourself. In fact it's exactly the opposite. They are just choosing to exercise their God-given right to arm themselves and be personally responsible for their own safety. Australians don't have that right.

They have realised that the police have no obligation to protect them. They are only obliged to do the paperwork.

[Land-Rover]

No one is going to invade us,no one is going to exterminate us and no one is going to put us in camps. Pat

What about the government taking away your rights?
They could make themselves have enough power to do what they want and your rights will be washed down the drain.

I'm 100% certain that once you see or witness your own rights being trampled on you'll realise that the simplest solution would be allowing citizens to have an easy access to firearms and training for their own safety and protection. Our freedom is being able to defend ourselves, without firearms we wouldn't have freedom.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I was at the supermarket and overheard a guy tell this other guy in line in front of me that he knew a bloke who'd served in the special forces (he didnt say which country). Anyway this special forces guy knew another guy in the Seals, who had heard from a mate in the SAS that the chips at Red Rooster are better than the ones at Maccas and he's right !But the Burgers are better at Hungry Jacks! ;)

Back to the issue at hand, yes there are problems where the wrong people get a hold of guns, there are also problems of people who get hold of knives, machetes, bows and arrows, rocks and even automobiles.

Then there are problems where the wrong people can get hold of bombs.

It doesn't matter what laws are put in place the wrong people (mentally ill) and criminals will always be able to get access to or manufacture tools of destruction and death.

[Mick-Kelly]

and another

[bob10]

One does not change from being law-abiding to criminal when you arm yourself. In fact it's exactly the opposite. They are just choosing to exercise their God-given right to arm themselves and be personally responsible for their own safety. Australians don't have that right.

They have realised that the police have no obligation to protect them. They are only obliged to do the paperwork.
What a disturbing statement. Anarchy is just around the corner , is it. No one has the "right" to take anothers life. Since when was this" God "given, only an American or a radical taliban member would think like that. [ meant in the nicest possible way] Bob

[bob10]

What about the government taking away your rights?
They could make themselves have enough power to do what they want and your rights will be washed down the drain.

I'm 100% certain that once you see or witness your own rights being trampled on you'll realise that the simplest solution would be allowing citizens to have an easy access to firearms and training for their own safety and protection. Our freedom is being able to defend ourselves, without firearms we wouldn't have freedom.
Mate, I don't know about the government, but you frighten me. Cheers, Bob

[bee utey]

What about the government taking away your rights?
They could make themselves have enough power to do what they want and your rights will be washed down the drain.

I'm 100% certain that once you see or witness your own rights being trampled on you'll realise that the simplest solution would be allowing citizens to have an easy access to firearms and training for their own safety and protection. Our freedom is being able to defend ourselves, without firearms we wouldn't have freedom.

Tell me, so when someone in government tramples on your rights, don't call a lawyer, just pull out your pop gun and shoot someone? That'll go over well.

[bob10]

The intent of the 2A is to arm the people for defence against a tyrannical govt. It is not for defence against an external force. It is the amendment intendeded to safeguard the rest of the constitution. As someone once said, "Washington didn’t use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them."


Interesting comment, lets take this one step further. OK, mythical country , shall we call it fantasy land, has such a constitution. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, with a different religion, and mind set to the founding fathers, over a long period of time,build up their numbers, thru childbirth, decide the Government of fantasyland does not represent their ideas or values. They declare the fantasyland Gov. to be tyrannical, and are well armed, and have the numbers to overthrow the "tyrannical government". That is almost as ridiculous as your comment about Washington. Bob

[123rover50]

What a disturbing statement. Anarchy is just around the corner , is it. No one has the "right" to take anothers life. Since when was this" God "given, only an American or a radical taliban member would think like that. [ meant in the nicest possible way] Bob

I dont think its the" right" as such to take anothers life. Its more the "right" to defend oneself. One can say bugger off I have a gun.
I am too old to fight and if someone kicks in the door of the camper I will say bugger off. If the bad guy does not pay attention then its his problem.
This thread is not just about hand guns but all guns.

[bee utey]

I dont think its the" right" as such to take anothers life. Its more the "right" to defend oneself. One can say bugger off I have a gun.
I am too old to fight and if someone kicks in the door of the camper I will say bugger off. If the bad guy does not pay attention then its his problem.
This thread is not just about hand guns but all guns.

I really want to know how you want this to work. Where do you keep the gun? Is it always loaded? Is it unloaded and you just wave it at the crim? How many nights a week do you stay in a state of high alert until you finally fall asleep? How many night time noises will make you reach for your gun to blow some lowlife's head off? If the local crims all know you have a gun will they try to steal it when you are out? What if the crim bought a legal gun and aims for your head through the camper wall?

I really hope you can get a good night's sleep with all these potential baddies at your door.

[stealth]

There is nothing like a debate on gun ownership, attacked and defended, analyzed and probed from every angle and direction to bring out some of the most stupid weird and ridiculous statements you will ever hear. And I have certainly been entertained again in the last eight pages. I'm sure some people on this forum are hiding right now behind their barricaded front doors, weapons cocked and ready, just waitin for the guvment to come a knockin!!

Take a breath people. The footy finals are on for Christ sake and the Cats have been knocked out!

[PAT303]

What about the government taking away your rights?
They could make themselves have enough power to do what they want and your rights will be washed down the drain.

I'm 100% certain that once you see or witness your own rights being trampled on you'll realise that the simplest solution would be allowing citizens to have an easy access to firearms and training for their own safety and protection. Our freedom is being able to defend ourselves, without firearms we wouldn't have freedom.

I would do what any other educated person would do,I would use my right to vote to put a Government in power that I feel would do the best for Australia,if it didn't work out I would again use my right to vote to remove them from power.Just as a side note this afternoon I attended a resus that was unsucessfull and the patient was called deceased,for all you people on here who want to have the right to take a life,do any of you really know what it's like?. Pat

[jakeslouw]

I would do what any other educated person would do,I would use my right to vote to put a Government in power that I feel would do the best for Australia,if it didn't work out I would again use my right to vote to remove them from power.Just as a side note this afternoon I attended a resus that was unsucessfull and the patient was called deceased,for all you people on here who want to have the right to take a life,do any of you really know what it's like?. Pat

Well, living in Africa I have a uniquely alternative view on this.

Suffice to say that one should NOT always assume that democracy cannot lead to oppression in a very short period.....Zimbabwe trip, anybody????

As for seeing somebody breath their last after a gunshot wound: yes, why? Doesn't make the WEAPON evil?

Should we ban tyres and petrol and matches because Winnie Mandela (the militant mental bitch) burnt people for being counter-revlutionary?

Should we ban electricity and water because the CIA likes to persuade people in other ways?

Should we ban CARS because they cause more deaths per capita than anything else?

[Mick-Kelly]

Pat, no one wants the right to take a life. They want the right to defend one, theirs. Who gave governments the right to tell people how they can preserve their own own life when threatened.
And to the over exaggerators out there. No one is suggesting that the general population could fight off an invading army if that ever were to happen. But think about the flip side. It is one thing to take a country but its another thing to keep it. Armed citizens traditionally accept the invaders and then form guerilla forces against their occupation (except if you are French). We live in a beautiful, peaceful and resource rich country with a very small population. Things are great - at the moment. That could all change in a heartbeat. There is a word for people who go through life with blinkers on thinking that the benevolent government will always care for them - sheeple.
A governments role is to administer, not control.

[UncleHo]

If I remember correctly,way back in the 70's Australia was a signatuary to the UN convention/charter to disarm the civilian population of ALL countries that were UN members, but it was never enforced by several Govts,until the Howard govt decided to act,but they needed a catalyst !
hence the Port Arthur shooting spree,which Martyn Bryant was blamed, charged and convicted.

Does make one think seeing he was such a poor shot, and a lot of those killed were head shots!

[waz]

What a disturbing statement. Anarchy is just around the corner , is it. No one has the "right" to take anothers life. Since when was this" God "given, only an American or a radical taliban member would think like that. [ meant in the nicest possible way] Bob

Where exactly did I say that someone has a right to take another's life?

In US Constitutional law, there is a document called the Bill of Rights. It is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. It defines some the "certain unalienable Rights" "endowed upon man by their Creator" (These terms come from the Declaration of Independence - not me).

I think where you might be getting confused is that the US Constitution is a document that places restrictions on the government - and protects the rights of the people.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), The Supreme Court of the US defined that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes - of which defence of life is one.

Anarchy does not reign when law abiding people are armed. Kennesaw GA have a city ordinance that all law abiding heads of household must own and maintain a working firearm. Guess what.... no anarchy.

:BigThumb:

[Davo]

This is a hilarious thread, guys, and thanks for the laugh. I love the idea that, with enough of us armed with our single-shot rifles, we would be able to form well-trained crack guerilla teams that would somehow be able to cover the vast distances needed to harrass our new overlords. Communications would be through, um, something, while we would get our food from, um, somewhere, all the while hiding, er, somewhere else, as meanwhile, 3000km away, another little group is doing the same thing, until finally the invaders decide it's too annoying being shot at once a week and go back home.

I have a .22 and a 12 gauge and I'm ready for 'em!!!!! Bring on the enemy with their attack helicopters, fighter jets, missiles, tanks, warships and thousands of troops with all their needless training!!!!!

[Land-Rover]

I would do what any other educated person would do,I would use my right to vote to put a Government in power that I feel would do the best for Australia,if it didn't work out I would again use my right to vote to remove them from power.

If there were more firearms the government would think twice about doing any thing like it, the risk of taking away our rights would be too high.

[PAT303]

I don't know how to respond to that,more firearms are the key to a happy and safe population,and Governments would do the right thing because if they didn't we would shoot them,mate no offence but your the type of person I don't want to see armed in public. Pat

[isuzurover]

Pat, no one wants the right to take a life. They want the right to defend one, theirs. Who gave governments the right to tell people how they can preserve their own own life when threatened.
And to the over exaggerators out there. No one is suggesting that the general population could fight off an invading army if that ever were to happen. But think about the flip side. It is one thing to take a country but its another thing to keep it. Armed citizens traditionally accept the invaders and then form guerilla forces against their occupation (except if you are French). We live in a beautiful, peaceful and resource rich country with a very small population. Things are great - at the moment. That could all change in a heartbeat. There is a word for people who go through life with blinkers on thinking that the benevolent government will always care for them - sheeple.
A governments role is to administer, not control.

Never heard of the French Resistance??? [btw they did very well without guns]

...Another deluded, paranoid... :wasntme:

No wait, you are right, the whole world is just waiting to lead an armed invasion of Caboolture...

[Land-Rover]

I don't know how to respond to that,more firearms are the key to a happy and safe population,and Governments would do the right thing because if they didn't we would shoot them,mate no offence but your the type of person I don't want to see armed in public. Pat

I'm not saying they do what we want or else. I'm saying they can't come and take you or your family away without the possibility that you'll be armed and ready to protect your own life and freedom.

[isuzurover]

I'm not saying they do what we want or else. I'm saying they can't come and take you or your family away without the possibility that you'll be armed and ready to protect your own life and freedom.

Because, odds are that as a CC/OC permit holder you will already have shot your family before any hypothetical criminal or government can get to you :wasntme:

King of England - YouTube

The Simpsons - Gun Shop - YouTube

[Reads90]

Well I am in Hawaii at the moment and on a work trip for 10 days here.

I have just booked into a gun range to fire some guns. They are almost of every street corners and asking everyone to come in and buy some guns. It's mad

Always been into shotting but with rifles and shotguns

But as a bucket list thing I am going to shot a M16 , Ak47 , Uzi, sub machine gun , magnum and glock.

I know but while here and their stupid position on guns I might as well take advantage and have a go.

[bob10]

Well, living in Africa I have a uniquely alternative view on this.

Suffice to say that one should NOT always assume that democracy cannot lead to oppression in a very short period.....Zimbabwe trip, anybody????


That is a good point, but it leads to a disturbing assumption, in the case of the USA. I can understand your nervousness in South Africa, regarding Zimbabwe, and one or two other dodgy places, especially after fighting the war against S. W. Africa & their Cuban mates. However, in the case of the USA, looking from afar I can only make the assumption their law abiding citizens are concerned about a breakdown in Civil order, leading to internal chaos. I'm fairly sure that's not about to happen, but I can't get away from the fact something is making a lot of their citizens nervous. Bob

[bee utey]

I'm not saying they do what we want or else. I'm saying they can't come and take you or your family away without the possibility that you'll be armed and ready to protect your own life and freedom.
You have a pop-gun at home, the eeeeevil guvmint haz drone strikes. Take that guvmint!!!!

If a government officer wants to take your rights away, he's not going to politely knock on your door wearing a bobby's hat. No, it's going to be a crack team of soldiers, a black maria and an armoured vehicle or two. And you're going to do damage with some legal weapons? Don't make me laugh so hard, it's painful.

[waz]

I guess that's why they used the term "A well regulated militia". It was never meant to be an individual's fight. It just uses the individual's defined right to keep and bear arms.

[akelly]

I'm late to the thread, fearing it would be a rehash of the nonsense in the other 'gun' threads...

I was wrong! This thread is a work of comedy genius!

Thanks everyone - those posing as right wing lunatics in fear of black helicopters and the gummint are doing a excellent job, sometimes a little over the top, but generally the impressions are spot on. I'm not sure who thought up the idea of individuals with pop-guns providing an effective resistance to a military force of any kind - but that aspect alone makes this thread worth the price of admission!

Keep up the good work...

Cheers,

Adam

[bee utey]

I guess that's why they used the term "A well regulated militia". It was never meant to be an individual's fight. It just uses the individual's defined right to keep and bear arms.

I'll accept that back in history your rights could well be defended by a personal stash of guns, when your enemies had spears and arrows and coshes and knives. But this is the 21st century and the best weapon is information. When the guvmint has surveillance fully covered, your best bet is the collection and distribution of information right back at them. Think RC helicopters with cameras etc. Think underground resistance. Guns are sooo yesterday.

[akelly]

I'll accept that back in history your rights could well be defended by a personal stash of guns, when your enemies had spears and arrows and coshes and knives. But this is the 21st century and the best weapon is information. When the guvmint has surveillance fully covered, your best bet is the collection and distribution of information right back at them. Think RC helicopters with cameras etc. Think underground resistance. Guns are sooo yesterday.

I can't understand people who think guns are an effective tool in an insurgency. Don't they watch the news? How are guns working out for the insurgents in Syria? How did they work out for the insurgents in Libya?

Have a look at the effective insurgencies in recent times (Iraq & Afghanistan for a start) - the gun hardly features in terms of effectiveness. In fact, owning a gun is a sure way to get yourself killed in those countries. If you really believe the gummint is coming for you, your best bet is to sell your guns and use the money to get an electrical engineering or chemistry degree.

[Mick-Kelly]

I can't understand people who think guns are an effective tool in an insurgency. Don't they watch the news? How are guns working out for the insurgents in Syria? How did they work out for the insurgents in Libya?

Have a look at the effective insurgencies in recent times (Iraq & Afghanistan for a start) - the gun hardly features in terms of effectiveness. In fact, owning a gun is a sure way to get yourself killed in those countries. If you really believe the gummint is coming for you, your best bet is to sell your guns and use the money to get an electrical engineering or chemistry degree.

I would say that its working very well in Afghanistan or else why are our troops over there. A bunch of desert dwellers with granddads old Lee Enfields have been embarrassing every army sent against them.

[d@rk51d3]

Guns are sooo yesterday.

Yep. When do we get the sharks with frikken lasers?

[isuzutoo-eh]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/913.jpg

This was posted on facebook a few minutes ago
...i'm not claiming the statistics are correct

[d@rk51d3]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/913.jpg

This was posted on facebook a few minutes ago
...i'm not claiming the statistics are correct

And probably different years and circumstances for each country listed.

[Mick-Kelly]

I'm late to the thread, fearing it would be a rehash of the nonsense in the other 'gun' threads...

I was wrong! This thread is a work of comedy genius!

Thanks everyone - those posing as right wing lunatics in fear of black helicopters and the gummint are doing a excellent job, sometimes a little over the top, but generally the impressions are spot on. I'm not sure who thought up the idea of individuals with pop-guns providing an effective resistance to a military force of any kind - but that aspect alone makes this thread worth the price of admission!

Keep up the good work...

Cheers,

Adam

Adam perhaps you should toddle off back to the sandpit until you can develop some form of worthwhile addition to the topic rather than stooping to personal abuse. Please present us with some form of cogent debatable info ie. provide content or STFU.
It might interest you to know that the people posting in this topic who you are generalising as 'right wing lunatics' and 'in fear of ..... gummint' are actually from a diverse background including well educated professionals with politically moderate viewpoints.
It is genuinely sad that when the gun control brigade run out of an ability to argue with common sense that this sort of childish response of name calling and stereotyping becomes their go-to tool. Come on present us with arguments on why gun control is a good thing. Look up some stats for yourselves. I will even start you off. Go and look at the incident rates for gun crime vs. knife crime in Australia before and after Howards legislation. Report back here with the results and we will welcome the discussion.

[waz]

I would say that its working very well in Afghanistan or else why are our troops over there. A bunch of desert dwellers with granddads old Lee Enfields have been embarrassing every army sent against them.

Worked out pretty well for the resistance in Libya too. Didn't the people defeat Gaddafi?

The people in Syria are also proving to be a thorn in the side of the Ba'ath Party regime. Someone should tell them "guns are so yesterday".

[akelly]

OK, since I have been invited to bring along some facts I will:

Insurgencies are not won with rifles. They are fought primarily with asymmetric weapons. If you aren't sure what I mean, think about NATO aircraft bombing the Libyan pro-Gaddafi forces. Not too many rifles can destroy a tank. If that doesn't make sense, look up the casualty stats for Afghanistan - see how many people have been shot compared to the number killed or injured in IED/Mine incidents. If that still doesn't make sense I can't help you.

I'm happy for someone to give me an example of an insurgency won by people with rifles. I can't think of one myself, so I'll be interested to learn something.

None of this will matter in this thread, it never does. People don't change their minds from a few hastily constructed sentences or a few well chosen links. No one will read my post and zoom off to a library to read 'The Bear Went Over The Mountain', or buy a copy of David Killcullen's excellent 'Counterinsurgency Handbook'. People who think guns are cool will head off to their favourite gun site and post up rants about 'peaceniks', anti-gun people will search out information that confirms guns are bad.

We've all been around this track so many times, surely we know that the internet is not a place for cogent debate, it's a place where birds of a feather can flock together. I'll happily sit down and talk about guns, insurgencies and asymmetric warfare with any of you, but it is quite pointless to do it here.

Having said all that, why did I post what I posted? Certainly not because I thought 'if I use sarcasm people will rethink their beliefs'! I posted it because I find it sad that some people think their gun is going to protect them, and I know there are others on here who have a similar opinion.

Cheers,

Adam

[waz]

You mean apart from the American Revolution? or the Russian Revolution? Or the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

If you think NATO airstikes won the Libyan insurgency you're deluded. It was militia personel (primarily civilians) armed with guns, who walked into his compound. The UN resolution was only to stop Gaddafi forces' attacks on unarmed civilians.

[akelly]

You mean apart from the American Revolution? or the Russian Revolution? Or the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

If you think NATO airstikes won the Libyan insurgency you're deluded. It was militia personel (primarily civilians) armed with guns, who walked into his compound. The UN resolution was only to stop Gaddafi forces' attacks on unarmed civilians.

OK - thanks. I guess I should take your word for it.

[waz]

OK - thanks. I guess I should take your word for it.

No problem.

[akelly]

Unless, and this is just hypothetical, the American Revolution was fought between two standing armies and had nothing to do with insurgency. Or, hypothetically again, the russian revolution was actually a series of events where miltary forces 'mutinied' and joined with the Bolsheviks. Or, and I stress this is just hypothetical, the Afghan/Soviet war outcome was largely due to externally provided asymmetric weapons such as the Stinger missile and insurgent tactics including use of IEDs and mines. And of course, Libya would potentially have been a different outcome if (hypothetically) the NATO aircraft had not exceeded the UN resolution and if, theoretically, the US and UK did not provide SF teams and weaponry...

These are all just hypothetical nonsense though, I'll stick with your rigorous and extensively researched opinion.

Thanks again,

Adam

[Mick-Kelly]

No problem.

Glad we cleared that up then :p:p:p:p And Adam i wasn't talking about your sarcasm, i was talking about you having a go at the people posting here. And i agree, we cannot change your minds by quoting facts etc. The point is we dont care about changing your minds or what you think. We just dont like to be told how to live our lives. I am sure you wouldn't like it either if it was something you happened to care strongly about.

[akelly]

Glad we cleared that up then :p:p:p:p And Adam i wasn't talking about your sarcasm, i was talking about you having a go at the people posting here. And i agree, we cannot change your minds by quoting facts etc. The point is we dont care about changing your minds or what you think. We just dont like to be told how to live our lives. I am sure you wouldn't like it either if it was something you happened to care strongly about.

I get told I can't do lots of things I want to do, that I care strongly about. That's life I think.

When personal 'freedom' and the rights of others collide there has to be a sensible outcome where 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is the key factor. That's basically where gun control sits. It's great for people who shoot for sport (like me) to own guns, or for people who need them for their jobs (like farmers) to own them. Where it falls apart is when people who want a gun because it makes them feel safer are given permission to carry one around in the street. That's when it rubs up against the rights of others.

I have a right to not be caught in the crossfire of a trigger happy dickhead who pulls his glock out in a road rage incident. So does everyone else. The feelpinions of the gun lobby shouldn't impinge on my rights. Not too many people get caught in the crossfire of a stabbing or bashing - it can happen though!

How's that for cogent debate? Make any difference?

Nah.

Cheers,

Adam

[cartm58]

it is their culture and history to own carry and use firearms

they are used to thousands being killed and maimed every year by guns and if they wanted to do something about it they would do so

I don't believe we need guns for protection or self defence and don't believe they promote a safe society, if they did then America would be a safe place, contrast that to living in Japan where you really are safe and there are very few guns in Japanese society

Liberal Gun laws and concealed gun carrying citizens has not yet prevented one mass murderer killing Americans in movie theatres, university campus, shopping malls or USA Presidents.

More Americans die by their own countrymen each year than Taliban or Iraqi terrorists have managed to kill in 10 years of war

So as long as they are happy to die by the gun, l see no reason why we should dictate to them or criticise them for having a gun culture.

To me it just proves that a gun culture is a fools paradise and below is link to latest statistics on Gun deaths USA released in 2011 by FBI

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

[waz]

I get told I can't do lots of things I want to do, that I care strongly about. That's life I think.

When personal 'freedom' and the rights of others collide there has to be a sensible outcome where 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is the key factor. That's basically where gun control sits. It's great for people who shoot for sport (like me) to own guns, or for people who need them for their jobs (like farmers) to own them. Where it falls apart is when people who want a gun because it makes them feel safer are given permission to carry one around in the street. That's when it rubs up against the rights of others.

I have a right to not be caught in the crossfire of a trigger happy dickhead who pulls his glock out in a road rage incident. So does everyone else. The feelpinions of the gun lobby shouldn't impinge on my rights. Not too many people get caught in the crossfire of a stabbing or bashing - it can happen though!

How's that for cogent debate? Make any difference?

Nah.

Cheers,

Adam

Exactly how does a law-abiding person carrying a concealed handgun affect the rights of others?

News flash for you akelly, criminals already "pull their glocks out in road rage incidents". 100 years of Australian handgun regulation have not made a lick of difference to criminal behaviour.

Maybe give us a hint on which gun law a criminal is going to obey. I'm sure that would save the authorities a lot of time.

[akelly]

So WTF does criminal behaviour have to do with you carrying a concealed weapon?

Is this Strawman Friday? No one told me...

[THE BOOGER]

The op was not just about hand guns but all guns so ccp are just a small part of the discussion:)

been reading and smilling at some of the posts speeds up time sitting watching the computers:)

[cartm58]

the biggest arguments used to justify citizens carrying a concealed gun legally is that they can stop a criminal in his tracks if he attacks you, prevent a criminal committing a crime against another citizen if you see it, deter criminals from doing crime as they don't know who is armed and who isn't.

the statistics and facts don't however bear the arguments out in any way.

so the laws allowing citizens to carry a concealed gun merely makes the presence of guns in public areas legal and has no deterrent or preventative effect whatsoever

[akelly]

The best part about CCW is that criminals don't have to break into your house to steal your guns, they just take them off you in the street! Saves on broken windows at home I guess.

[isuzurover]

I'll accept that back in history your rights could well be defended by a personal stash of guns, when your enemies had spears and arrows and coshes and knives. But this is the 21st century and the best weapon is information. When the guvmint has surveillance fully covered, your best bet is the collection and distribution of information right back at them. Think RC helicopters with cameras etc. Think underground resistance. Guns are sooo yesterday.

Spamming the twitterverse and facepalm seem to be the most effective means these days...

Worked with the supertrawler...

[akelly]

Spamming the twitterverse and facepalm seem to be the most effective means these days...

Worked with the supertrawler...

What I love is dudes all steamed up about the gummint taking their guns, while the actual Govt is passing laws to control the Internet and spy on its citizens... The gun dudes don't care about that, they're going to blast their way to FREEDOM!!!!!

Cheers,

Adam

[PAT303]

Exactly how does a law-abiding person carrying a concealed handgun affect the rights of others?

How do they affect the rights of others?,easy,your got a gun mate,you've just affected my rights to live and work in peace. Pat

[bob10]

Well, this has been an interesting conversation, the subject seems to polarise opinion, I will leave my final word to professionals, who say it far better than me. Bob


► 2:44► 2:44 (http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DbuqtdpuZxvk&rct=j&sa=X&ei=h-FSULiRLouXiAer94EI&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQuAIwAQ&q=monty+python+universe+song&usg=AFQjCNFgbzHrzepx9NeX2cUvYAYffi8NVA)
Galaxy Song - YouTube

[cartm58]

Interesting show on Foxtel Doomsday Preppers, middle age Americans who believe for a variety of reasons the world is coming to end and that society will collapse and the world will become dog eat dog, no law order except the one imposed by oneself at the point of a gun and they are preparing themselves for it by hoarding foodstuffs, water, medicine, guns, bows and arrows, explosives, seed stock.

No one seems to believe 1 gun is enough and some have 2 guns or more per room in the house and their cars and are teaching their kids 7 years and up to shoot pistols and assault rifles, even while wearing chemical warfare suits and gas masks.

Some have gone the traditional underground shelters ranging from old buried sea containers to the full nuclear fallout shelters, one guy has converted an old missile silo into a 14 storey apartment complex for those wanting luxury secure doomsday accommodation with self contained supermarket with 5 year supply of freeze dried food stuffs.

Interesting insight into the mental state of American society and the fear factor of its members.

[akelly]

Yep! Fear is the driver behind most wingnut nonsense. Just watch Faux News or our own version - commercial TV.

[Bigbjorn]

I'll take it you're against what's been happening with Australia's involvement in the Middle East for the last decade and the previous war zones the ADF has entered?

The only war in which Australian forces were involved in the defence of Australia was part of the Pacific theatre in WW2. All other engagements were someone else's wars.

[Bigbjorn]

I suspect south central L.A. was not one of those places :lol:

.

Last year I caught a bus from downtown to South Central and walked around looking for the old Offenhauser/Meyer & Drake plant in Gage Avenue. The area is very ethnic, very dilapidated. I got directions from a small group of coloured youths who were polite, helpful, and quite interested in the history which they had not heard of before. I didn't feel afraid or threatened. Might be different after dark.

Locals told me the areas dominated by the Mexican street gangs are now the most dangerous areas. Watts was the black ghetto notorious for race riots. It is now almost entirely Mexican and the Mex gangs drove the black gangs out (Bloods, Crips, etc) violently.

Comment on the US economy- the run down ethnic suburbs with small dilapidated houses on pocket handerkerchief blocks will have 3-4 or more late model cars jammed in the driveway and yard.

[rick130]

What I love is dudes all steamed up about the gummint taking their guns, while the actual Govt is passing laws to control the Internet and spy on its citizens... The gun dudes don't care about that, they're going to blast their way to FREEDOM!!!!!

Cheers,

Adam

I've already made a few comments along that line, but most don't want to hear it......

[rick130]

Yep! Fear is the driver behind most wingnut nonsense. Just watch Faux News or our own version - commercial TV.

Irrational fear drives most human behaviour, from individuals, to couples through to nations, unfortunately. :(

[Vanguard]

The "look at this study I found that supports what I already think" arguments in forums don't really convince anyone except the poster. There are studies and statistics that support both sides of this debate if you go looking. I have seen studies that support concealed carry and open carry; there's even a debate raging between whether you should conceal or not conceal in the US.

I do own firearms and enjoying shooting, and I do believe we have it wrong in Australia and that we should bring back the right to own a firearm for self defense on the home. Again, there are studies that support and refute the usefulness of guns in the home.

However, I am not that big on the carrying of firearms in public. I do think the lowest common denominator applies here, and emotionally driven accidents could easily occur. I think if you want the protection of a firearm, it should be in the home only. Firearms are currently legally owned in Australia and their use as a weapon in domestic disputes is low, so I think the danger of misuse just by owning one for protection remains low.

Every person should have the right to acquire the means to defend themselves and their family with a modern weapon, I.e. something more than a bat or wooden spoon! For people who don't believe so, that's fine, keep your wooden spoon :) For those who want something more, within their own home, they should be granted that right.

Oh yeah, and can we please bring back civvy AR15s? They're a whole lot of fun to shoot!

[Mick-Kelly]

To the gun control wowsers posting here a simple exercise. Substitute the word 4wd for gun for this whole thread. Then re-examine your arguments.
Maybe i do not want to live in a society where right wing lunatics think they have the right to drive 4wd's. There is no need for any person in modern society to drive a 4wd in the suburbs. Farmers and the military yes, but regular people just dont need them and the 'gubmint' should protect us from people who want to have them in society. I mean who cares about their rights. Everything that needs a 4wd is handled by the government. My family and i have the right to drive around in a tiny rice burner without living in fear of some lunatic in a 4wd crashing into us. More harm then good is done by civilians driving 4wd vehicles anyway. They are much more likely to be involved in accidents and their own family members will be the victims. People just cannot be trusted to drive them. Without the government banning people from owning 4wd's it would be carnage. I mean just look at the stats from the USA. Nearly everyone over there drives a big 4wd and thousands die on their roads every year. Unrestricted 4wd ownership is causing untold grief and pain to victims of 4wd's and their families. Perhaps if some small minded redneck fool desperately needs a 4wd to substitute for some small body part then they can go through a 12 month licensing program. Then they can submit a permit to acquire a 4wd showing acceptable reasons and approved club membership. They will only be able to take the 4wd to approved areas for use and they will have to tow it there in a special container. Random police inspections of their 4wd storage should also occur. With criminal charges if it is found lacking. We should also restrict what specific types of 4wd's they can buy. Dont want them owning anything capable of any sort of fun. I am thinking LADA nivas only unless a special licence is granted.
Is the above any different to the way that gun owners are treated? Do you now get an inkling of what we are feeling by our right to enjoy a sport/pastime being taken away from us through every increasing restrictions? Do you like being cast as a redneck lunatic because of something you enjoy? Rest assured that there re people in society who think exactly this way. They will be coming after your pastime next.

[cartm58]

Didn't read any gun control wowser comments in this thread

You can make a nanny state argument to ban anything and l remember in the 1990's in Victoria a lot of public activities for schools and clubs were banned and cancelled due to insurance costs going through the roof for fear of legal liability claims arising from accidents involving members of the public and State Govt had to step and pass legislation to make sense of the whole situation.

[akelly]

To the gun control wowsers posting here a simple exercise. Substitute the word 4wd for gun for this whole thread. Then re-examine your arguments.
Maybe i do not want to live in a society where right wing lunatics think they have the right to drive 4wd's. There is no need for any person in modern society to drive a 4wd in the suburbs. Farmers and the military yes, but regular people just dont need them and the 'gubmint' should protect us from people who want to have them in society. I mean who cares about their rights. Everything that needs a 4wd is handled by the government. My family and i have the right to drive around in a tiny rice burner without living in fear of some lunatic in a 4wd crashing into us. More harm then good is done by civilians driving 4wd vehicles anyway. They are much more likely to be involved in accidents and their own family members will be the victims. People just cannot be trusted to drive them. Without the government banning people from owning 4wd's it would be carnage. I mean just look at the stats from the USA. Nearly everyone over there drives a big 4wd and thousands die on their roads every year. Unrestricted 4wd ownership is causing untold grief and pain to victims of 4wd's and their families. Perhaps if some small minded redneck fool desperately needs a 4wd to substitute for some small body part then they can go through a 12 month licensing program. Then they can submit a permit to acquire a 4wd showing acceptable reasons and approved club membership. They will only be able to take the 4wd to approved areas for use and they will have to tow it there in a special container. Random police inspections of their 4wd storage should also occur. With criminal charges if it is found lacking. We should also restrict what specific types of 4wd's they can buy. Dont want them owning anything capable of any sort of fun. I am thinking LADA nivas only unless a special licence is granted.
Is the above any different to the way that gun owners are treated? Do you now get an inkling of what we are feeling by our right to enjoy a sport/pastime being taken away from us through every increasing restrictions? Do you like being cast as a redneck lunatic because of something you enjoy? Rest assured that there re people in society who think exactly this way. They will be coming after your pastime next.

Ridiculous.

What were you drinking when you thought this gem up?

[bee utey]

I keep a loaded 4WD under my pillow at night to keep baddies away. Sometimes I fondle it and imagine it is bigger. Sometimes it goes off by itself but hasn't damaged me or the missus or the kids yet, so it's all cool.

.......

This man had a gun in his house and look at the good it did:

Father of Hectorville triple killer charged with manslaughter - for failing to secure his shotgun | adelaidenow (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/father-of-hectorville-triple-killer-charged-with-manslaughter-for-failing-to-secure-his-shotgun/story-e6frea83-1226474321362)

[Mick-Kelly]

Ridiculous.

What were you drinking when you thought this gem up?

Really well read on then :

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/wds-in-suburbs-drive-us-mad/story-e6frf7kx-1111115732807

http://www.marque.com.au/opinion/090112_Ban_4WDs.htm

http://www.mister-cars.com/Article/The-Anti-4WD-Brigade-Seems-To-Be-Growing/928

Nth Sydney Council - and 4WD's ... and Scruby @ ExplorOz Forum (http://www.exploroz.com/Forum/Topic/20448/Nth_Sydney_Council_-_and_4WDs__and_Scruby.aspx)

4WD'S ON THE SUBURBAN ROAD - RADIO & TV - 26/8/2009 (http://walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/page.asp?pageid=3803)

Council urges families to avoid 4WDs - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/council-urges-families-to-avoid-4wds/2005/10/23/1130005993989.html)

Warning on 4WDs (http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/Page.asp?PageID=257)

Warning on 4WDs

THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

Sunday 25 November 2001
STATE governments may need to enhance road safety by reducing the number of 4WD vehicles driven in urban areas, a new study has found.

Researchers said it was a myth that 4WDs were safer for occupants than large family sedans. The evidence showed that 4WDs posed dangers to other cars on the road. The Monash University Accident Research Centre has rated vehicles to determine the risk of injury to drivers and people in other cars, known as aggressivity.

The data came from more than 600,000 crashes in Australia for cars built between 1982 and 1998. Several 4WD vehicles showed high aggressivity rates.

[Mick-Kelly]

I keep a loaded 4WD under my pillow at night to keep baddies away. Sometimes I fondle it and imagine it is bigger. Sometimes it goes off by itself but hasn't damaged me or the missus or the kids yet, so it's all cool.

.......

This man had a gun in his house and look at the good it did:

Father of Hectorville triple killer charged with manslaughter - for failing to secure his shotgun | adelaidenow (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/father-of-hectorville-triple-killer-charged-with-manslaughter-for-failing-to-secure-his-shotgun/story-e6frea83-1226474321362)

Careful, you may not be able to keep that dangerous 4wd at your house for much longer. Especially if people keep killing their own children with them.
Father Runs over Baby in 4wd [Archive] - Vogue Forums (http://forums.vogue.com.au/archive/index.php/t-145381.html)

[bee utey]

Careful, you may not be able to keep that dangerous 4wd at your house for much longer. Especially if people keep killing their own children with them.
Father Runs over Baby in 4wd [Archive] - Vogue Forums (http://forums.vogue.com.au/archive/index.php/t-145381.html)

It's the fault of the baby!

Seriously though, peace, bro. If keeping a gun makes you feel safer it's all good.

Who knows if we'll even be allowed to operate cars/4wds/guns in the future, the nanny state may require all "dangerous" activities to be centrally controlled before too long. Everyone will be wirelessly connected to the think police and our smiles painted on.:eek::eek::eek::p:p:p

[akelly]

So Mick, you have a 4wd for protection?
How does that work exactly?

[frantic]

Akelly both ovlov and VW have been working towards driverless cars for some time and every time there is a smash with a 4x4 at fault you get a few or the radio morons calling for bans or restrictions like its 1970 and the only 4bies are seriesII or toyotas landcruisers with drum brakes and leaf springs. They forget that 25% of the new sales are classified as four wheel drives to reduce their import tax but includes everything from soft roarers like scuby doo / rav4 to x5 q7 to real low range off roaders.

[Vanguard]

So Mick, you have a 4wd for protection?
How does that work exactly?

I think the point is, just as there are gun control nutters who want them all banned, so are there nutters who want 4wd ownership restricted/banned. Both are argued in a similar fashion; they are argued to be dangerous and the community does not "need" them.

You own firearms apparently for sport. How or why is your sport more valid than home protection as a use for firearms? Or do you only mean you are against concealed carry? I am also against the latter, but just wondering what exactly you see as an invalid reason for firearm ownership.

It could easily be argued that a firearm owned for sport is not all that valid... That you should go play darts instead. Not that I agree with that, but I am sure there are antis out there eh do think that.

It is true, we don't need a lot of things that are fun or useful, and we could ban a whole swag of these fun items that have an element of danger, if we wanted to live in a boring regulated vanilla state. But hey we might all live a smidge longer, so it's worth it right?

[rick130]

[snip]

You own firearms apparently for sport. How or why is your sport more valid than home protection as a use for firearms? Or do you only mean you are against concealed carry? I am also against the latter, but just wondering what exactly you see as an invalid reason for firearm ownership.


[snip]

For any firearm to be practical/useful as a self defence weapon it would need to be loaded and ready to go at all times in an easily accessible spot, ie. somewhere handy around the house so you can grab it quickly when danger arises.

Is that safe these days ?

IMO no.

If it's stored in safe, ammo separate as we all have to do these days and the bad guys come crashing into your house, do you really think you'll have time to find your keys, unlock the safe, grab the pistol or rifle, put a pull through through the barrel to clear the oil, find the other key, open the other door, grab the ammo, load a clip, load the gun/rifle and use it to save yourself/loved ones ?

I'm not even going to go back to the "what are you are afraid of ?" argument.

It's just plain nuts to have something hanging around that someone can pick up and use.


An old mate of a mate, a copper at the time had a family member visit, pick up a pistol, put it to his head thinking it was unloaded and pull the trigger.
No one wants to go through that :(

[akelly]

I think the point is, just as there are gun control nutters who want them all banned, so are there nutters who want 4wd ownership restricted/banned. Both are argued in a similar fashion; they are argued to be dangerous and the community does not "need" them.

You own firearms apparently for sport. How or why is your sport more valid than home protection as a use for firearms? Or do you only mean you are against concealed carry? I am also against the latter, but just wondering what exactly you see as an invalid reason for firearm ownership.

It could easily be argued that a firearm owned for sport is not all that valid... That you should go play darts instead. Not that I agree with that, but I am sure there are antis out there eh do think that.

It is true, we don't need a lot of things that are fun or useful, and we could ban a whole swag of these fun items that have an element of danger, if we wanted to live in a boring regulated vanilla state. But hey we might all live a smidge longer, so it's worth it right?

BLUF: It's legal to own guns for the purposes of sport - it is not legal to own them for 'protection'.

I've raved on in other threads about the reality of using a firearm for protection, and others have made all the same arguments that I have. The Walter Mitty's of the gun world will not be swayed from their irrational belief that they can blast their way to safety, so I'm not going to waste any more bytes on that argument.

Suffice to say, if your gun is kept in a safe (as the law requires) you are not going to be protecting anyone with it anyway. Unless you think you'll wake up in the night to the sounds of rubbish bins being knocked over, get up, open the safe, fit the bolt, load the rounds, rush outside... then what? Shoot someone armed with a knife? Fire blindly into the dark? Shoot a kid armed with a replica pistol? You'll be sharing a bunk with Bubba in no time...

Cheers,

Adam

[sashadidi]

I know what you are saying but if they stick you with the knife and kill you who is the loser??

[richard4u2]

after what has just happen sydney , is that a taste of things to come ? so do we just stand by while they attack us :(

[bee utey]

I know what you are saying but if they stick you with the knife and kill you who is the loser??

The point being made is that unless you carry the gun fully loaded and cocked 24/7 you won't be able to use it in self defence if someone is coming rapidly at you. And if you do carry a loaded weapon around statistics suggest that the most likely victim of your gun is either you or a close family member. In a dark alley a knife is probably a better weapon than a gun, being silent and all that.

[bee utey]

after what has just happen sydney , is that a taste of things to come ? so do we just stand by while they attack us :(

And how is your having a gun going to help? Shoot a couple and hope they don't come back with reinforcements? Having a gun and using it will label you as a prime target for revenge, big time.

No way am I going to try and take on the job the police/defence forces are there to do. Even during the London riots a few carefully placed bullets would have sealed your fate. Baying mobs are hard to kill with pop guns.

[Vanguard]

For any firearm to be practical/useful as a self defence weapon it would need to be loaded and ready to go at all times in an easily accessible spot, ie. somewhere handy around the house so you can grab it quickly when danger arises.

Is that safe these days ?

IMO no.

It never was safe for anyone with a family. Perhaps someone who lives by themselves with no visitors, but even then, not a great idea (or legal). And i take your point; the legislation we have makes firearms pretty useless in most scenarios because of their inaccessibility. However, not all scenarios.



If it's stored in safe, ammo separate as we all have to do these days and the bad guys come crashing into your house, do you really think you'll have time to find your keys, unlock the safe, grab the pistol or rifle, put a pull through through the barrel to clear the oil, find the other key, open the other door, grab the ammo, load a clip, load the gun/rifle and use it to save yourself/loved ones ?

You're right. House/apartment in the city, bad guy crashes in, even in a big house, you're not going to have enough time. I always kept a bat under the bed in the city; the gun was a fantastical option in that environment 9in fact I went to great lengths to hide the safe). Though I suggest you've over complicated the process; I can have my bolt rifle on hand and loaded in a little over minute, and a little under a minute for the lever. Still, in the city, you'd get very little warning and a minute is a long time. I imagine you have thought about it from the perspective of your own home, and that's the conclusion you have come to.

However, not everyone lives in the city. I've got a 300m driveway and two big territorial dogs. A car coming up the driveway in the middle of the night is going to cause a ruckus. I've also got a crow's nest view of the entire front section of my property and the road it sits on. By the time someone gets to the house in their car, gets out and gets passed the dogs, it's a lot longer than a minute, and their reaction to the dogs will tell you a lot about their intentions. They also have to climb from where they can leave their car, to the house in plain view. Plenty of time to wait and watch to see what is going on. You don't need to load a magazine, you only need a couple of rounds. In fact I think the sight of a firearm would be a deterrent, or even a warning shot.

The aim is to ward off danger, not go around shooting people. That would have to be a very last resort.

The point is, I don't know where you live and how easy or impractical a firearms would be for home defense, so I cannot really comment on it. Nor do you know where I live and how useful a firearm would be for me for home defense. People tend to model their idea on this topic on their own situation, which is fine, but it's a poor way to dictate blanket advice to everyone.

Personally I think my place gives me a few advantages that would make it a practical choice, and that should be the end of the matter.

[Vanguard]

BLUF: It's legal to own guns for the purposes of sport - it is not legal to own them for 'protection'.

...snip...

Suffice to say, if your gun is kept in a safe (as the law requires) you are not going to be protecting anyone with it anyway. Unless you think you'll wake up in the night to the sounds of rubbish bins being knocked over, get up, open the safe, fit the bolt, load the rounds, rush outside... then what? Shoot someone armed with a knife? Fire blindly into the dark? Shoot a kid armed with a replica pistol? You'll be sharing a bunk with Bubba in no time...

Cheers,

Adam

I get what you are saying and it probably all holds true for your place, or the average city house. But how do you know how effective my firearm will be or how much time I have to ready it in my individual situation? I am pretty sure you do not have the plans to my house or property. :o

As per my other post, this may very well be true for your place - your fence is left open, you have no dogs, your house is 6m from the curb of your street, your gun safe is in the opposite end of the house. Fine, point taken. Use a bat or a knife. I would too! A firearm's a dud option if your environment is against you.

But not everyone lives on top of each other in a city or town. Some of us live on property with dogs with plenty of notice if someone shows up in the middle of the night, and in the right scenario, a firearm is an effective deterrent. There is no guarantee I will always wake up if my dogs go nuts, so I am not going to argue a firearm is always the right answer either. There is no blanket judgement call on that.

By the way, I am pretty sure if a perp broke into your home with a replica pistol, and you shot, stabbed or wacked him in the face with a bat, you would have a solid claim to reasonable force - given replica pistols require a collector's licence, and in low light it would be reasonable for you to feel your life was directly threatened by a firearm. ;) Shoot someone with a knife or someone "outside" of your house and you are definitely going to see Bubba.

[Vanguard]

The point being made is that unless you carry the gun fully loaded and cocked 24/7 you won't be able to use it in self defence if someone is coming rapidly at you. And if you do carry a loaded weapon around statistics suggest that the most likely victim of your gun is either you or a close family member. In a dark alley a knife is probably a better weapon than a gun, being silent and all that.

Not to enter the "my stats are better than your stats" argument, but my understanding of the concealed carry issue is that it is effective in some States and less effective in others. The pro-carry guys quote stats from States where it is effective and the anti-carry guys quote from States where it has had little to no effect. I don't think there are any real stats around carrying increasing the danger to yourself? I believe that argument is more against home defense in the U.S. where there are lax storage laws (and people keep loaded firearms around the house) and people end up having their weapons used against them by perps or injure/kill themselves through an accidental discharge.

[akelly]

Thanks for your input Vanguard - good sensible stuff and the next comment is not directed at you, just a general comment.

This thread is heading the same way every 'gun' thread does: pro-gun chaps building and destroying straw men. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti people who think guns are for protection.

As for stats about concealed carry making you less safe? Check here: VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers (http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm) You'll find plenty of family members, friends and 'bystanders' shot by trigger happy ****wads who want to live a 'dirty harry' fantasy by carrying a loaded weapon around in their pants

Cheers,

[Vanguard]

Okay cheers, Adam.

I'm not convinced carrying firearms in public is either needed or effective either, and I think the risk are too high. Not needed here in Australia. Maybe on the Gold Coast :p

My final comment is that a firearm probably is not the best choice for a lot of people, for home defense. However, as everyone's home/situation is different, there are scenarios where a firearm could be a good choice in the right circumstances. I certainly support giving people the option anyway.

[bee utey]

Okay cheers, Adam.

I'm not convinced carrying firearms in public is either needed or effective either, and I think the risk are too high. Not needed here in Australia. Maybe on the Gold Coast :p

My final comment is that a firearm probably is not the best choice for a lot of people, for home defense. However, as everyone's home/situation is different, there are scenarios where a firearm could be a good choice in the right circumstances. I certainly support giving people the option anyway.

Most balanced reasoning yet, thank you.:thumbsup:

[waz]

Not really a credible source akelly. 200 shootings over 5 years. There are estimated to be 9000000 CCW permit holders in the US. That 200 includes cases that may have been legal but are "pending", and it also lists Jared Loughlin as a legal concealed carry holder when he actually committed felony fraud to obtain his handgun. It also contains domestic shootings at home which are irrelevant to the CCW argument if you're being honest.

But that was just a 5 minute look I had.

[Mick-Kelly]

Thanks for your input Vanguard - good sensible stuff and the next comment is not directed at you, just a general comment.

This thread is heading the same way every 'gun' thread does: pro-gun chaps building and destroying straw men. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti people who think guns are for protection.

As for stats about concealed carry making you less safe? Check here: VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers (http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm) You'll find plenty of family members, friends and 'bystanders' shot by trigger happy ****wads who want to live a 'dirty harry' fantasy by carrying a loaded weapon around in their pants

Cheers,
Well, no one is forcing you to carry one. They are however forcing those that do want the option, not to carry one. Anyone would have thought that we were grown ups able to make mature decisions about our own lives. But thats right we are all good sheep who get told what to do and how to do it.

[cartm58]

The trouble is a belief held by someone whether you consider it rational or not is what is true to them, so the protesters in Sydney today were acting in their belief rationally and with great justification in their view and nothing l or you or the police or the Prime Minister is going to say will sway them from that fact.

Same goes for gun control, gun ownership, 4wd ownership and use, large dogs, SUV's, world climate or large Super Trawler's cleaning out the oceans.

That is the issue we all have to face and deal with and that is why there is always more than one side in an argument and why very rarely anyone beliefs that they are in the wrong.

In a democratic society we believe that everyone has a right to an opinion and we believe that most opinions but not all opinions have a right to be expressed or acted on.

However in any society members have to comply with the majority view whether rational or not or face the consequences and that explains the NAZI party, communism, extreme Islamist and Prohibition era in USA.

History decides whether you are a terrorist or a Liberation fighter and it also helps if your side view won the war.

So Gun control is an issue where different societies have different views with the USA being the extreme of gun rights in the Western world and Australia in the left of middle saying guns needs to be controlled and restricted.

They say the reason for the difference between USA and Canada in the issue of gun control and gun use by public boils down to the history of their cultural and political development. The USA with the popular cultural view of the lawless West, rampaging Indians, Wild creatures requiring a man to own a gun to defend themselves in conjunction with the wording of their constitution to have an armed civilian population to act as militia as the USA colonies didn't have a standing army and Canada where the Mounties were the rule of law everywhere and lawlessness didn't have a popular cultural view among the population and England provided a standing army for defence.

[richard4u2]

the reality is that having a side arm does not guarantee safety, although you may feel safer alot of training is needed, a hell of lot of training is needed

[Land-Rover]

The best part about CCW is that criminals don't have to break into your house to steal your guns, they just take them off you in the street! Saves on broken windows at home I guess.

This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read.
First of all firearms have to be strictly locked up in a very secure safe which is bolted to the ground within your house, it isn't a break the window and you've got yourself a firearm.
Also there would be no way a criminal could simply steal a firearm off somebody, who has it concealed, on the streets.
I don't think you understand a concealed carry is there to protect that person's life.
If anyone was to even attempt some sort of robbery on them I'm certain that individual with the concealed firearm wouldn't take any chances.
Stealing a firearm out of someones own holster or hands would be one of the easiest ways of ending your own life, definitely not worth the effort and risk.

[akelly]

This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read.
First of all firearms have to be strictly locked up in a very secure safe which is bolted to the ground within your house, it isn't a break the window and you've got yourself a firearm.
Also there would be no way a criminal could simply steal a firearm off somebody, who has it concealed, on the streets.
I don't think you understand a concealed carry is there to protect that person's life.
If anyone was to even attempt some sort of robbery on them I'm certain that individual with the concealed firearm wouldn't take any chances.
Stealing a firearm out of someones own holster or hands would be one of the easiest ways of ending your own life, definitely not worth the effort and risk.

Haven't done much firearms training, have you?

Thanks for the insult BTW, it makes it easier for me to disregard your opinions.

[waz]

Haven't done much firearms training, have you?

Thanks for the insult BTW, it makes it easier for me to disregard your opinions.

Except he's correct.

It has happened with open carry - albeit rarely; but very, very rarely with concealed carry. In fact almost never.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read.
<snip>
Also there would be no way a criminal could simply steal a firearm off somebody, who has it concealed, on the streets.
I don't think you understand a concealed carry is there to protect that person's life.
If anyone was to even attempt some sort of robbery on them I'm certain that individual with the concealed firearm wouldn't take any chances.
Stealing a firearm out of someones own holster or hands would be one of the easiest ways of ending your own life, definitely not worth the effort and risk.I just thought I would remind you of the statistics from the US. "Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html)

Also when we consider trained professionals, "Firearms claimed the lives of 92% of the officers killed in the line of duty from 1976 to 1998. The officer's own gun was used in 12% of all murders of police officers." http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/ph98.txt

Do you want to revise your statement now?

[isuzurover]

The "look at this study I found that supports what I already think" arguments in forums don't really convince anyone except the poster. There are studies and statistics that support both sides of this debate if you go looking. I have seen studies that support concealed carry and open carry; there's even a debate raging between whether you should conceal or not conceal in the US.

...

Not all "studies" are created equal.

If you look you can find "studies" which purport to show that the earth is flat, that homeopathy, "free energy" is real, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not increasing, etc...

The study I posted was the most recent, most comprensive, study performed to date using whole-of-US data from 1977 - 2006.

As a scientist, I try not to pre-judge things, and am open to new evidence that would disprove previous studies. However, nobody has posted a more recent or more comprehansive study than the one above.

Most/all of the Pro-CC/OC studies posted on here have been discredited by independant studies.

Of course closed minded people can and will ignoore the evidence...

[NB, as stated previously, I am by no means anti-gun. I do believe though that there is sufficient evidence to ban CC/OC of handguns].

[waz]

I just thought I would remind you of the statistics from the US. "Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html)

Also when we consider trained professionals, "Firearms claimed the lives of 92% of the officers killed in the line of duty from 1976 to 1998. The officer's own gun was used in 12% of all murders of police officers." http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/ph98.txt

Do you want to revise your statement now?


No need. It doesn't differenciate between criminals and CCW permit holders.

It's criminals shooting criminals.

[THE BOOGER]

One of the reasons for the high number of people killed with their own weapons is because in the moment that they have to make a decision they hestitate or shoot to wound. This shown by statistics for the military that show many trained soldiers will shoot to keep the "enemy" undercover rather than shoot to kill, but that is what makes civilised people we dont usally want to kill:) Criminals arnt usally that worried about it:(

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society: Dave Grossman: 9780316330114: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dPS0%2By%2ByL.@@AMEPARAM@@41dPS0%2By%2ByL

This makes a good read if your into why people do or dont kill

[Lotz-A-Landies]

No need. It doesn't differenciate between criminals and CCW permit holders.

It's criminals shooting criminals.Nice to hear that you believe that serving Police officers are criminals!

BTW it does differentiate between gun carrying and unarmed persons. Looking at the report I want to be in the unarmed group and have almost 5 times better chance of not being shot.

[akelly]

Let's just be thankful CCW/OCW not a problem we have to deal with. It ain't happening here, never gonna happen here and if the govt keeps stacking it's 'advisory panels' with pro-gun lobbyists we are in good shape. Their recommendations are so absurd and their bias so obvious they don't even pass the laugh test.

[waz]

Nice to hear that you believe that serving Police officers are criminals!

BTW it does differentiate between gun carrying and unarmed persons. Looking at the report I want to be in the unarmed group and have almost 5 times better chance of not being shot.

Wow. You actually believe what you write?

I want you to have the choice to be in whatever group you want. However, you don't want the same for others. You want to dictate their choice to them.

[waz]

Let's just be thankful CCW/OCW not a problem we have to deal with. It ain't happening here, never gonna happen here and if the govt keeps stacking it's 'advisory panels' with pro-gun lobbyists we are in good shape. Their recommendations are so absurd and their bias so obvious they don't even pass the laugh test.

The thread was about the US.

With the Queensland Advisory Panel, it's only Ian Leavers who has been caught in a lie and the panel has only been around for a fortnight. (He's the token anti - talk about bias)

[richard4u2]

i have been on this earth here in australia for 65 years and have never been in a situation where i have needed a firearm where i felt my life was in danger

[THE BOOGER]

I can help with that:D want come to work with me Im not police but often carry somtimes concealed somtimes not depends on what the job is. I dont advocate everybody carry a gun infact I have stopped serveral employees from carrying becuase they scared me more than the people we deal with:(

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Wow. You actually believe what you write?

I want you to have the choice to be in whatever group you want. However, you don't want the same for others. You want to dictate their choice to them.A little projection there Waz

I never said anything of the sort, I was merely pointing out that people who carry are more likely to be shot or killed than those people who don't carry.

Would also like to point out that the country that has a constitutional right to bear arms, also has the the Worlds worst rate of gun crime and gun related death.

I have seen the effects of gun crime and have been hands-on attempting to save the lives of shooting victims, sometimes but not always successfully. Yet in spite of that I am recently converted to the side of relaxation of gun prohibition laws.

Still I feel the need to remind people that statistics prove a greater proportion of people who carry handguns, will be victim of gun related crime than people who don't carry handguns. This is particularly true where the only handgun was the one carried by the victim.

[waz]

A little projection there Waz You started it;)

I never said anything of the sort, I was merely pointing out that people who carry are more likely to be shot or killed than those people who don't carry.

Would also like to point out that the country that has a constitutional right to bear arms, also has the the Worlds worst rate of gun crime and gun related death.

I have seen the effects of gun crime and have been hands-on attempting to save the lives of shooting victims, sometimes but not always successfully. Yet in spite of that I am recently converted to the side of relaxation of gun prohibition laws.

Still want to remind people that statistics prove a greater proportion of people who carry handguns, will be victim of gun related crime than people who don't carry handguns.

I've said it before, you can't use US national stats as a basis for an argument because every State/County/City has its own laws.

Compare the laws of Vermont and Washington DC and compare their stats. Or on a smaller scale - Kennesaw GA (it's a city in the metro-Atlanta area - about 40km from the centre of Atlanta)

My wife is the victim of a violent armed hold-up and it took her years to recover. I have seen the mental side of a stong, independent person being rendered defenseless. She knew who the offender was but he was never charged.

[isuzurover]

I've said it before, you can't use US national stats as a basis for an argument because every State/County/City has its own laws.

Compare the laws of Vermont and Washington DC and compare their stats. Or on a smaller scale - Kennesaw GA (it's a city in the metro-Atlanta area - about 40km from the centre of Atlanta)

...

Have you read the independent studies??? They account for a whole lot of factors you have probably never considered.

How much statistical training do you have?

p.s. - sorry to hear about your wife, but would having a gun have helped her? How is a failure of the criminal justice system relevant to tghis debate - are you saying vigilante justice should have been used???

I find the arguments of the concealed carry advocates in this thread emotive, blinkered and largely irrelevant

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...

My wife is the victim of a violent armed hold-up and it took her years to recover. I have seen the mental side of a stong, independent person being rendered defenseless. She knew who the offender was but he was never charged.And Waz I've been the victim of violent assaults, had a handgun pointed in my face when working in Kings Cross (health worker) and been the victim of rape.

If I had been carrying I may have been dead on at least two of those occasions.

[waz]

Have you read the independent studies??? They account for a whole lot of factors you have probably never considered.

How much statistical training do you have?

p.s. - sorry to hear about your wife, but would having a gun have helped her? How is a failure of the criminal justice system relevant to tghis debate - are you saying vigilante justice should have been used???

I find the arguments of the concealed carry advocates in this thread emotive, blinkered and largely irrelevant

Thanks for the sentiment.:-)

Although some years ago, I successfully studied Data Analysis at a tertiary level. What about you?

No, I'm not saying that the situation would have been any different. But the criminal would have known that everyone there was unarmed. That is something of which a criminal in Vermont is never going to be sure, and the stats reflect this.

[waz]

And Waz I've been the victim of violent assaults, had a handgun pointed in my face when working in Kings Cross (health worker) and been the victim of rape.

If I had been carrying I may have been dead on at least two of those occasions.

There is no denying that this is tragic and wrong, but in Australia you were always going to be a victim. All choice has been taken away by those for whom the taxpayer pays for armed security.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Waz

You have a right to your opinion, however while I agree that the firearms regulations in this country are opressive, I don't believe or will ever believe that the carrying of handguns in public will make us any safer. In fact I believe that the mass availability of handguns will make us significantly less safe, because it will be significantly easier for the wrong people to get handguns by whatever means.

Violent crime happens everywhere. Carrying and using handguns only makes violent crime more violet and deadly.

Diana

[bob10]

Slightly reluctant to post this, perhaps should be soapbox, but its happened again. Bob

7
hours
ago
Police: 'Several' dead in Minneapolis workplace shooting

Police continue to investigate a shooting in Minneapolis that left "several" dead and four injured. KARE's Jay Olstad reports.

By NBC News staff
Updated at 11:19 p.m. ET: Police say "several" people were killed and at least four others injured Thursday afternoon in a workplace shooting at a sign company in Minneapolis, KARE 11 reported (http://www.kare11.com/news/article/992833/391/Several-dead-after-shooting-at-Bryn-Mawr-neighborhood-business).
Minneapolis Police Deputy Chief Kris Arneson told reporters that the alleged gunman died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Arneson could not confirm how many people were killed in the shooting, the station reported.
The alleged gunman was an employee at Accent Signage Systems Inc. who had been fired earlier in the day, Fox9 reported (http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19659885/minneapolis-office-shooting-chestnut-ave).
Advertise (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066137/media-kit/) | AdChoices (http://g.msn.com/AIPRIV/en-us)

KARE 11 reported that police were called to the scene with reports of a shooting at around 4 p.m. A neighbor told the station that an employee of the company came to his home seeking refuge. The employee said he watched as his boss and fellow employees were shot, the station said.
Christine Hill, spokeswoman for Hennepin County Medical Center told KARE 11 the hospital is treating four people, three of which are in critical condition. Those in critical condition are all men.
Fox9 quoted an unidentified high-ranking law enforcement source as saying that the gunman returned to the office after being terminated earlier in the day. The source also told Fox9 that the gunman, whose body was found in the basement, may have been targeting specific employees.
After the shooting, dozens of squad cars and police vehicles surrounded the business. Traffic was stopped on a nearby bridge along Penn Avenue, where law enforcement officers had rifles drawn and pointed at a park below. People from the neighborhood milled around but deputies kept them back.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/134.jpg Amy Forliti / AP
Police investigate a shooting at Accent Signage Systems on the north side of Minneapolis Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012, that left at least two people dead and four others wounded.


Marques Jones, 18 of Minneapolis, said he was outside a building down the street having his picture taken when he and his photographer heard gunfire that sounded close.
"We heard about four to five gunshots," Jones said. "We were shocked at what happened and we just looked at each other. We all just took off running to our vehicles."
Accent Signage Systems' website says it "is a leader in the interior signage industry specializing in custom (Americans With Disabilties Act)-compliant interior signage, and serving major sign manufacturers worldwide

[p38arover]

Though I would love a Katana.


Me, too! :p

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/132.jpg

[p38arover]

and, for their part, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking an additional 13,500 rounds.:eek:

I was watching a programme on TV called Doomsday Preppers. Many of them have guns. Sorry, they all have guns - one of them had 31 guns of various types from handguns through to an AK47. He had 15,000 rounds of ammunition.

Trying to be a prepper in Australia would be somewhat harder. One can’t even own a shanghai in this country.

[bob10]

I was watching a programme on TV called Doomsday Preppers. Many of them have guns. Sorry, they all have guns - one of them had 31 guns of various types from handguns through to an AK47. He had 15,000 rounds of ammunition.

Trying to be a prepper in Australia would be somewhat harder. One can’t even own a shanghai in this country.

The question is, what would a sane [ leaves out a few] person in this country be prepping for? Bob

[p38arover]

The question is, what would a sane [ leaves out a few] person in this country be prepping for? Bob

EMP, financial collapse and hyper-inflation.

[bob10]

EMP, financial collapse and hyper-inflation.

The catch word is sane, Bob

[bee utey]

Another "friendly fire" incident:

Man kills masked teen, learns it's his son | adelaidenow (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/man-kills-masked-teen-learns-its-his-son/story-e6frea7u-1226483861651)

Why do people think having guns solves problems? :mad:

[Mick-Kelly]

Another "friendly fire" incident:

Man kills masked teen, learns it's his son | adelaidenow (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/man-kills-masked-teen-learns-its-his-son/story-e6frea7u-1226483861651)

Why do people think having guns solves problems? :mad:

Quite frankly if his son want to wear a ski mask and run at him with a knife in the dark then he deserves no less.

[Mick-Kelly]

The catch word is sane, Bob

So insane that the heads of the US military consider a potential EMP attack to be their greatest threat. Instantly turn life back to the 1800's with no way out except large amounts of foreign assistance to rebuild/replace all of their electrical network systems.

[bob10]

Trying to be a prepper in Australia would be somewhat harder. One can’t even own a shanghai in this country.

Sort of like 1778, I guess. If this EMP thing happens, don't take any trinkets off foreign sailors. We've been living under the threat of mass destruction since the first Atomic bomb, nothing much has changed. There is still no need for Aussies to arm themselves like the " preppers " . Imagine those nut cases running loose after a disaster, just doesn't bear thinking about, Bob

[Mick-Kelly]

Sort of like 1778, I guess. If this EMP thing happens, don't take any trinkets off foreign sailors. We've been living under the threat of mass destruction since the first Atomic bomb, nothing much has changed. There is still no need for Aussies to arm themselves like the " preppers " . Imagine those nut cases running loose after a disaster, just doesn't bear thinking about, Bob

:p:p You and the other unprepared people wouldnt have to worry about them.........you would be dead. :eek::eek::eek:

[malleefowl]

From A woman's point of view-
It's hard to miss even if you are shaking if your favourite is a 12g

[unseenone]

Some Interesting perspectives for what it is worth.

A police officer explains why concealed carry is good.

Bystander fired deadly shot, not officer (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/473342.page).

CHL holder in Louisiana saves police officers life (http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=57811).

Ohio CHL holders acting in self defense. A number of anecdotes (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Ohio-CHL-holders-acting-in-self-defense).

Texas CHL Holder saves stabbing victims life (http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/news-good-bad-ugly/147485-good-texas-chl-holder-saves-stabbing-victims-life.html).

Murders so brutal it shocked even South Africans (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html).

South African South African farm attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following reports represent the number of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders with convictions vs. the entire TX (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm) population with convictions.

Guns are Illegal in Mexico (http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html)

Australian gun statistics. A mixture of true and false (http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp) information.

You can all draw your own conclusions, but in the interest of providing more insight to both sides of the issue, I provided the links, well worth a look.

It was not pointed out, that the show featuring "preppers" referred to here really point out the most extreme, controversial loons are are not particularly a good example of the average American citizen, or prepper for that matter. Generally, a lot of folks who "prep" or "prepare" factor in many things while preparing. This for example takes into consideration natural disasters which happen, as well as any "eventuality" that they believe may occur.

This may sometimes make good sense, when you consider disasters such as Katrina, in which unprepared morons who failed to heed the warnings and leave, were left stranded with no home, food, fuel and the criminals (both the local government / police and the regular thugs) proceeded to go on a crime spree.

While the Average Aussie may not arm themselves to the teeth, I have to imagine they are "prepped" to the degree they have the stocks, and equipment to live off the "grid" should something happen, and do so frequently. There are few real direct comparisons from an Australian to an American, in as much as the societies are quite different, including huge differences in populations, etc. Most folks have a difficult time understanding the "gun" thing in the US, so do not feel put upon.

The main intent behind the right to keep and bear arms was not necessarily intended as a right to "hunt and protect yourself" although they remain important aspects of responsible gun ownership. These "rights" as many Americans see it are so ingrained into the psyche of most Americans there will be no way the population will be disarmed. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking handguns, as Australians can own long guns, albeit a big hassle to get the proper paperwork to do so, as I've read on this very forum.

The original poster was perplexed and perhaps concerned with the increase of gun / ammunition sales in the US. The fact is, that guns sales have been skyrocketing since the economy tanked. A lot of folks, some I consider smarter than I think we are a few steps away chaos. After they economy tanked, the bush era of spying on Americans, stealing of additional rights, and more talk and attempts by the UN to impose it's will for gun control and other rights against Americans, things continue to heat up. It almost, but hopefully not becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as, the more you hear about it, you consider your own stash of guns and ammo, and decide to stock up, you shop and realize the prices have doubled since 2007, and many items are short in the marketplace, so you decide to stock up on more, creating additional demands, and so on.

A bit of insight into the line of thinking in America is our personal freedom. To that end, reading the constitution and the bill of rights will at least be a starting point into the mindset of dedicated "constitutionalists" folks who believe in minimum government and maximum freedom. To that end, the countries founding fathers had a lot to say about distrusting the government, and keeping their power checked. It would also be beneficial to read some of their famous quotes if you are interested.

A few interesting ones are;
Thomas Jefferson:
The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Benjamin Franklin;
Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, and half-shut afterwards.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn.
Three can keep a secret if two are dead.

John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.


General Washington
Firearms stand next in importance of the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”


James Madison
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of othe counties whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

No Free Man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.




As far as raw statistics, everyone should consider the vast differences in demographics.


Kind Regards

[Hugh42732]

No one should have firearms for self protection,all it does is put firearms in the hands of gung ho fools. Pat

I agree Pat, I'm sure there would be far less break and enters, harassing of our elderly and crime in general if if all the bad people in the world knew that there was no chance of them getting seriously hurt while they went about their criminal activities because law abiding people were banned from owning firearms.

Sorry, I hate it when my sarcastic side gets the better of my normally polite inner self.

[bob10]

Some Interesting perspectives for what it is worth.

As far as raw statistics, everyone should consider the vast differences in demographics.


Kind Regards

I am the original poster, and nothing in your post
, including your " famous Quotes", convinces me you in the USA have it right. Your sentence about Katrina, and the fact you state "Police & the local thugs" harrased survivers, is just, well, I must be nice. [ notice mods I'm being nice]. Your nation was born for all the right reasons, and should be held up as a beacon for all the oppressed in the World, but somehow, between then & now , you have lost your way. Paranoia seems to rule supreme, and the fact you say you arm yourself in case the Government gets out of control [ perhaps not in those words] Good God man are'nt you a Democracy? Do yourself a favour, come over here and see how a real Democracy works, one of the oldest in the World. We complain about our lot, but you won't find a better place in the World to live. AND our Police protect citizens, especially during disasters. Just don't bring your guns, you dont need them , cheers Bob

[VladTepes]

My $0.02


you have lost your way. Paranoia seems to rule supreme,


Ever been there? Americans generally are no more paranoid than anyone else. You must remember that you get a VERY slanted view from the media here who beat up everything !

If something happens 1 time in a hundred thousand, you only hear about the one time. People therefore wrongly assume that is a "norm"


Good God man are'nt you a Democracy?

Yes, they are - as much as any country is.


Do yourself a favour, come over here and see how a real Democracy works, one of the oldest in the World.

One of the oldest in the world? We were only federated 110 odd years ago so I have no idea where you get that from?

I would hardly espouse Australia's political system as a shining example of democracy. We have a parliament where a minute number of people (The Greens) are setting or disproportionately influencing policy thanks to a Labor party so desperate to hold onto government they will sell their souls to the devil.

At the moment our Democracy is not "working".



our Police protect citizens, especially during disasters. Just don't bring your guns, you dont need them , cheers Bob

To their credit they try. The fact is though there are simply not enough. So often they pursue criminals and investigate crimes afterwards, rather than be in any position to prevent them. That's a fact of life.

Frankly people should be allowed to protect them selves from harm. Whether that be with karate, pepper spray or a gun is immaterial.

Frankly, I'd prefer a gun.

It' would be easy to have rigorous requirements such as marksmanship requirements, zero blood alcohol while carrying, deep background criminal checks etc. It's not a lack of ability to implement a safe effective concealed carry regime that is the problem.

The problem is the lack of political courage to implement it in the face of screams of woe from the far left of politics who would rather you were dead but retained the "high morale ground".

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/1514.jpg

[bob10]

Yep, been there, this says it better than I could, Bob

Australia has one of the world's best models for democracy. Some of the strengths of Australian democracy include:

the system of responsible government, where ministers who are in charge of certain areas of government have to be elected members of parliament;
the federal system which shares governing between the national government and smaller State governments;
the system of two houses of parliament, which means proposed laws are checked and refined;
compulsory adult voting which makes sure that all Australian voters take part in electing politicians;
the requirement that any changes to the Constitution be approved by the population through a referendum;
universal adult suffrage: adult Australian citizens can vote regardless of their race, class, sex or religion, and
the separation of powers - laws can be tested through a court system which is separate from the government and government departments employ citizens to put the government's laws into action.
All these checks spread power across different groups, preventing one person or group from dominating the nation. Democracy is about power being accessible to as many of a society's people as possible.
Australia has not always been a democratic society. The law has not always given all people in society the same rights and opportunities. Examples of people who have not enjoyed equal opportunities and rights have been the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and women. Today however, all people in Australia are protected by the Australian Constitution, regardless of their gender, race or background.
Development of democracy

Australia's system of government grew over time from single governors representing the British Parliament to the fully elected representative democracy that functions today. Australia has been a leader in many important democratic steps such as granting women the right to vote and introducing the secret ballot.
European settlement

During the first few decades of European settlement in Australia, power lay in the hands of the governors who ruled on behalf of Britain. The early colony of New South Wales did not have its own government and could not make its own laws.
In the early 1820s a council was created which could advise the governor. Its members were appointed by the British Parliament, which had ultimate power over any decisions the council or the governor made. A proper court system was also set up in New South Wales. Similar changes were made a couple of years later in Tasmania (which at the time was called Van Diemen's Land) and Western Australia.
South Australia had a small government from the mid 1830s but its members were chosen by the British Government. The governor could suggest laws for the colony but they had to be approved by Britain.
The development of representative government

Around 1830, people in New South Wales began to push for a representative government, one with members who were elected to represent the people. Finally, in 1843, the people got their chance to vote but only for some members of the new parliament. The other members were chosen by the British. The governor still had most of the power and the only people who could vote were wealthy landowners.
By the mid 1850s New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania had elected governments but it was still only men who owned a lot of property that could vote. Poorer men felt it was unfair that they had no vote - and therefore no say in government - but they still had to pay taxes. This was one of the complaints that led to the Eureka Stockade in Victoria in 1854, where miners rebelled against government authorities. The authorities responded harshly but most people sympathised with the miners. Not long after this event both Victoria and South Australia extended the vote to all men over 21 regardless of how much property they owned.
See image 1
Democratic initiatives

Victoria and South Australia introduced the secret ballot, where people placed their votes in an enclosed box so that no one else knew who they had voted for. This meant that people could not be bullied by others into voting for a particular person. Secret ballots, which were later called Australian ballots in the United States, are now considered to be one of the most important features of true democracy.
See image 12
In the mid 1850s South Australia also brought in the one man, one vote principle, which meant that men could only vote in the area in which they lived. Until then a man who owned property in more than one place could vote for local representatives in each of those places. This meant that wealthier people got to cast more votes than others so they had more of a say in who was elected to parliament. The one man, one vote principle meant that all voters had an equal influence on elections.
Another initiative that came from Australia was payment for members of parliament. Victoria introduced this system in 1870. Because of the time demands involved with being a member of parliament, only rich men had the luxury to stand for election. Payment for members meant that poorer men could afford to give up their jobs to become involved with government. This in turn meant that poor sections of the community could have representatives in parliament who understood their needs.
Federation

When Federation took place on 1 January 1901, the young nation of Australia had a new constitution and a new federal government. These institutions had been created through discussions, conferences, conventions and referenda with the input and consent of people in all the Australian colonies.
See image 3
The Constitution

When drafting the Constitution, Australians used the United States Constitution as one of their models. Unlike the United States' version, Australians did not include a Bill of Rights which would have guaranteed certain rights for Australians. The only right which is clearly stated in the Australian Constitution is freedom regarding religion. The Australian government is not allowed to force people to take up or abandon a religion.
A democratic feature of the Constitution is that it cannot be changed unless Australian voters agree by voting for the change in a referendum.
The federal government

Because the number of members of parliament each State could elect depended on the size of its population, the smaller colonies were concerned there would be more representatives from the more populated States. The smaller colonies worried that decisions could be made favouring the bigger States over the smaller ones. This was one reason why the Senate was created, which has the same number of representatives from each State. The Senate (the upper house) and the House of Representatives (the lower house) have almost the same amount of power. Through this system, a law has to be approved by the majority of representatives (in the lower house) and a majority of States (in the upper house) in order to be passed.
Another democratic feature of the new system was a responsible government, where ministers who are in charge of certain areas (for example defence or transport) have to be members of parliament. This means ministers can be voted out if the population is unhappy with how they do their job. In America, ministers (who are called secretaries in the United States) are chosen by the President, not the people.
Conclusion

The Australian system of government was not entirely democratic in the early years of Federation. Not all sections of the Australian population had a say in how the system was set up. Some people were locked out of government, particularly through not being able to vote. Britain also still had some authoritarian control over aspects of Australian governance. In many ways however, Australia led the modern world in the development of democracy. The structures and processes put in place by Australian colonies made government fairer and more accessible and slowly spread power across society.
http://www.skwirk.com.au/images/main_template/icons/nav_prev_y.gif







https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/1513.jpg

[unseenone]

Yep, been there, this says it better than I could, Bob

The Constitution

When drafting the Constitution, Australians used the United States Constitution as one of their models. Unlike the United States' version, Australians did not include a Bill of Rights which would have guaranteed certain rights for Australians. The only right which is clearly stated in the Australian Constitution is freedom regarding religion. The Australian government is not allowed to force people to take up or abandon a religion.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/1470.jpg

I did not realize we were having a yours is bigger than mine contest. I thought you were trying to understand the guns issue. Obviously this is not the case. Considering your Constitution was modeled or copied as it were from the US one, it seems totally relevant, what the intention of the original authors was. So, that being said, without an understanding of the reasons and impetus for creation of the document, it would lead to some misunderstanding of their true meaning and intent.

That being said, clearly this is not a thread about understanding the reasons for your being nervous, because it is quite apparent, the reason is a total unwillingness to learn the reasons, and closed minded to any idea, which you do not agree with. So, are you a citizen, or a subject? Enough said, we don't agree and you win!


From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read an interesting article on the subject here (http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/citizen-or-subject_14.html).

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I did not realize we were having a yours is bigger than mine contest. I thought you were trying to understand the guns issue. Obviously this is not the case. Considering your Constitution was modeled or copied as it were from the US one, it seems totally relevant, what the intention of the original authors was. ...Unseenone

Thanks for your view on the US Constitution and the Australian Constitution however the Australian Constitution was no more copied as it were from the US one, than the US Constitution was copied from the Magna Carta. The Australian Constitution did however use as a basis themes from the US Constitution, and the laws of the United Kingdom including the Magna Carta. The main reason that the US Constitution is mentioned at all is the UK does not have a single document which could be called a Constitution. One of the main aspects of the Australian Constitution borrowed from the US was the Senate of elected senators representing the individual states. We also understand that the US Senate was an idea borrowed from ancient Rome so in fact no one is having an upmanship competition.

Onto the issue of gun ownership being included as a right in a Bill of Rights in Australia, the US Civil War was actually in progress concurrent with Australia's colonies moves towards federation and the concern that a right to gun ownership was seen in a negative light.

[bob10]

I did not realize we were having a yours is bigger than mine contest.
Mate , straight to the point, in the Aussie way, you are a gibberer. Lotsa landies explained it very well. I won't waste my breath on you. Bob

[isuzurover]

...
...
...




As far as raw statistics, everyone should consider the vast differences in demographics.



The statisticians have. Methods for accounting for differences in demographics/sociological factors, spatial and temporal variations are well known and well validated statistically.

When all such variations are accounted for, it can be proven that increased (legal) gun ownership does not decrease crime rates. Crime rates stay the same or increase.

Sure you can pick and choose a few select cases where CC/OC permit holders have assisted police or countered/hindered criminal activities. However these can easily be countered by cases where they have shot themselves or family members, shot police officers, or shot innocent bystanders, etc... etc...

[schuy1]

Unseenone

Thanks for your view on the US Constitution and the Australian Constitution however the Australian Constitution was no more copied as it were from the US one, than the US Constitution was copied from the Magna Carta. The Australian Constitution did however use as a basis themes from the US Constitution, and the laws of the United Kingdom including the Magna Carta. The main reason that the US Constitution is mentioned at all is the UK does not have a single document which could be called a Constitution. One of the main aspects of the Australian Constitution borrowed from the US was the Senate of elected senators representing the individual states. We also understand that the US Senate was an idea borrowed from ancient Rome so in fact no one is having an upmanship competition.

Pretty much spot on! :) After much reading I suspect the reason gun ownership was not specificaly mentioned was that under UK Common Law was an understanding that the right to bear arms " As deemed appropriate for self defence" was already understood. Taken as 'deemed appropriate' 1 assumes a knife is not equal to a pistol!
However given the many writings and varies Rights and Documents of such that make up the Eglish Laws it will always be a matter of interpretation in any given circumstance

Onto the issue of gun ownership being included as a right in a Bill of Rights in Australia, the US Civil War was actually in progress concurrent with Australia's colonies moves towards federation and the concern that a right to gun ownership was seen in a negative light.

Pretty much spot on! :) After much reading I suspect the reason gun ownership was not specifically mentioned was that under UK Common Law was an understanding that the right to bear arms " As deemed appropriate for self defence" was already understood. Taken as 'deemed appropriate' 1 assumes a knife is not equal to a pistol!
However given the many writings and Rights and Documents of such that make up the English Laws it will always be a matter of interpretation in any given circumstance

[1976_michelle]

I don't have strong views one way or the other on this; However I believe majority of people are not responsible enough or guaranteed to react correctly in situations in which the 'need' for the gun might arise resulting in death of the wrong person or the victim trying to protect themselves. On the other hand, rules such as these only keep responsible law abiding people from weapons, the crims still go ahead and get what they want anyway

[MEANZ06]

rules such as these only keep responsible law abiding people from weapons, the crims still go ahead and get what they want anyway

Correct

[p38arover]

Re the Australian democracy, we, as a people, really have no way of changing the law if we don't like it. The Americans can, they can put up an Initiative or Proposition, which, if voted through by the people, allows them to have laws rescinded. We can't do anything.

See Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initiatives and referendums in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disregard the title, read the text. Admittedly, some weird things get proposed and, in the Bible Belt even more so.
US elections 2008: the strange world of local ballot propositions | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/30/us-elections-animal-rights-welfare)

[zedcars]

Guys
This is a lively discussion and I would just like to add a few comments.

As an Englishman in America I would say that the US constitution bears some relevance to the Treaty of Arbroth 1320.
Not surprising however since many of the the founding fathers have some Scottish heritage.

Declaration of Arbroath (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/gazette/decarb.html)

The right to bear arm comes from the Minute Man settler and his musket hung over the fire place. One of the most famous incidences comes from Gen Borgoyne's march south from Ft Ticonderoga and he, being short of rations and horses, decided to steal them from the local settlers.
He made the mistaken judgemen of not understanding his enemy who were armed unlike their fellow Brits on the other side of the pond!

Basically a bad move, since the locals were armed with a weapon more superior than the British army's Brown Bess or limited supplies of the Ferguson . Based upon a German fowling piece, the Kentucky Long Rifle shot the crap out of the British Army being much more accurate in what is probably the first type of guerrilla warfare the world had seen.

As a fire arms enthusiast I find that the average American is ignorant of firearms in general and in cities many are not armed and have never owned any sort of firearm.
This changes in various areas of the country, & out west in rural areas you are more likely to see citizens sporting a side arm.

It is the general acceptance that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
On the whole I would say that is so, and contrary to the UK where mugging and assaults on the elderly are commonplace, the contrary exists!
Basically who wants to mug granny if she pulls a snub nosed .38 out of her purse and blows the the would-be assailants head off!
see;
Senior Citizen Opens Fire on Robbers of Internet Cafe - YouTube

Notably the only other western country which has the right to bear arms is Switzerland and its citizenry militia army. The folks there haven't fought a war for more than 500 years. Granted they don't poke their noses into other peoples business but this country can mobilize at least half a million fighting men within 48 hours. Even Adolf when we went on his grand Euro walk about gave these blokes a wide berth.
See:-
Why Switzerland has a low crime rate: everyone has guns. - YouTube
Take a note of what is said by the US Senator at the end.

Dennis
zedcars

[Andrew Morris]

The right to bear arms is the Americans safeguard against domination by the ruling class. When the constitution was written, many Americans were refugees from a Europe where only the nobility could bear arms. As a result persecution, be it religious, economic or just plain bullying, was rife.

The yanks decided that if all men could bear arms, persecution would only go so far, as sooner or later men would defend themselves.

In my opinion, it is one of the great safeguards of liberty. I would rather the silent majority who make up most of our nation be armed and able to defend common dense and decency in the event of trouble.

[bee utey]

Basically who wants to mug granny if she pulls a snub nosed .38 out of her purse and blows the the would-be assailants head off!
see;

This is the bit that is pure John Wayne fantasy. A mugger doesn't walk up to Granny and say "excuse me, I am going to mug you". A mugger with more than two brain cells comes up from behind, knocks granny to the ground and scuttles off with a gun and a handbag.

[zedcars]

The right to bear arms is the Americans safeguard against domination by the ruling class. When the constitution was written, many Americans were refugees from a Europe where only the nobility could bear arms. As a result persecution, be it religious, economic or just plain bullying, was rife.

The yanks decided that if all men could bear arms, persecution would only go so far, as sooner or later men would defend themselves.

In my opinion, it is one of the great safeguards of liberty. I would rather the silent majority who make up most of our nation be armed and able to defend common dense and decency in the event of trouble.

Andrew
You are absolutely right!
You have to look at English latter day history to get a handle on it.

In short Britain (the ruling classes) were scared of a popular uprising made worse by the loss of the American Colonies and then the French revolution which followed shortly thereafter.
The masses in Britain never got any enfranchisement to mention until the 3rd reform acts which were hard fought for, nor general education until 1880
My paternal grand father Sam Williams was the first member of my family who could read and write, being born in 1887.
The second reform act only was enacted after mass riots on Bristol & elsewhere like Derby.

To understand these circumstances you have to look at the source of money and wealth. This was centered around the Lord and Lady of the manor and the Ag sector; tithe farmer /peasant farming and the Enclosures Acts. Some gentry having created new wealth in the Carib Colonies and by the emerging Industrial Revolution.

In the latter parts of the 19th century there were about 1.5 million people working in almost slave like conditions as domestic staff in these manor houses and farming communities.

The "knock on the head" was that the United States beat the UK/Germany at the industrial revolution game and Canada/Australia/New Zealand were able to produce food much cheaper than they could in the UK with was increasingly being imported & eroding prices.

The result was a loss of income and eroding power base of the landed gentry.
To inject money into these systems the ruling classes actively engaged in marrying American debutantes of wealthy ordinary industrialists; in short new money!
Winston Churchill's mother was an American who married into the English Aristocracy as a wealth injection.

As we can read in history the 20th century was the century of the working man. The system was swept away mostly by a World War (1914/1918.) The UK power base was severely eroded and the manor house withered on the vine through the post war years of the 20's & 30's. The bankers and Industrialist replaced them.
As my maternal grandfather said "we as sqaudies marched to war in France, the gentry officer class rode on horseback, but bullets and shells didn't discriminate so many of the young gentry were lost as rightful heirs to a defunct system".

Reference to a popular UK uprising was prevalent during the Bolshevik Revolution when the King of England almost got the Romanov's repatriated to the UK. Prime Minster David Lloyd George,the wily old fox had sense not to allow it for obvious reasons!
The Russian Revolution Ninety Years After | Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/1175)
This gives the reader the general fears of the ruling classes in the first part of the 20th century which had existed for centuries.
I submit that the UK has always been rightly aware of popular discontent by the masses and that explains why the Constitutions of the USA was written to rub out many of the inequalities which existed at that time when England was the master of its American Colonies.
Dennis
zedcars

[zedcars]

This is the bit that is pure John Wayne fantasy. A mugger doesn't walk up to Granny and say "excuse me, I am going to mug you". A mugger with more than two brain cells comes up from behind, knocks granny to the ground and scuttles off with a gun and a handbag.

No but the very risk of getting shot levels the playing field!
Recently two villains in the UK broke into a lonely farmhouse with intent to rob. They were shot by the occupier.
I suppose the sad part was that the occupier was interrogated for more than 40 hours and treated harshly..
The good bit was that the two burglars were told at trail by the judge that if you burgle expect to be shot!

In the USA that would have fallen on a "Make My Day" law.
Interestingly the couple who were burgled have now left the UK for Australia. Emigrated.
Dennis
zedcars

[bee utey]

No but the very risk of getting shot levels the playing field!
Recently two villains in the UK broke into a lonely farmhouse with intent to rob. They were shot by the occupier.
I suppose the sad part was that the occupier was interrogated for more than 40 hours and treated harshly..
The good bit was that the two burglars were told at trail by the judge that if you burgle expect to be shot!

In the USA that would have fallen on a "Make My Day" law.
Interestingly the couple who were burgled have now left the UK for Australia. Emigrated.
Dennis
zedcars

Yes well your story is of a home invasion/burglary not of a mugging. In a home invasion the home owner must

1. wake up
2. find gun, gun safe key etc
3. arm gun
4. see burglars in the dark
5. not shoot a guest or family member in the process.

Still a fantasy even though you can dredge up numerous anecdotes from the popular press to support your narrative.

[zedcars]

I refer to something that happened quite recently.
The police should heed this judge&rsquo;s wise words - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9570882/The-police-should-heed-this-judges-wise-words.html)
Dennis
zedcars

[bee utey]

I refer to something that happened quite recently.
The police should heed this judge&rsquo;s wise words - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9570882/The-police-should-heed-this-judges-wise-words.html)
Dennis
zedcars

Interesting story.


Each night since the burglary, the Ferries, fearing reprisals, stayed in different locations and have now emigrated to Australia. This is another depressing example of the way law-abiding people end up punished for doing nothing other than defending their homes from predatory crooks.

Reprisals from whom? Presumably relatives or associates of the criminals they injured. If they had fired off a warning shot or even just shouted "I have a loaded gun" they would have probably survived the burglary unscathed.

The first comment on the story says it better than I can:


actfordiablo
10/03/2012 01:21 PM (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9570882/The-police-should-heed-this-judges-wise-words.html#comment-669515719)

I hope that the police continue to view such matters with deep suspicion. The default position must be that it is probably criminal to shoot, stab or otherwise injure people. Regardless of how long the householders were kept in custody, they have been released and no further action is being taken. It is unfortunate that they had to go through the experience but it needs to be ascertained that things were as claimed.
There have been recent cases reported from the US where householders have shot people, suspecting that they are burglars, when in fact they are not. In the most recent case a man shot his own son. Is the Telegraph advocating that we move more towards the US system?
As soon as we do give householders carte blanche to shoot intruders then we will have 'business rivals' and other criminals setting up ambushes to remove the competition and husbands and wives saving the cost of a divorce.
By all means support assertive action against criminals but retain the risk factor of being tried for it if mistakes are made or created.

[schuy1]

I don't have strong views one way or the other on this; However I believe majority of people are not responsible enough or guaranteed to react correctly in situations in which the 'need' for the gun might arise resulting in death of the wrong person or the victim trying to protect themselves. On the other hand, rules such as these only keep responsible law abiding people from weapons, the crims still go ahead and get what they want anyway

I do agree with this that a lot of people are not fit but then again same can be said for lots of car drivers! :eek::Rolling: And yes the crims dont really take a lot of notice of which law is which, if anything they will think it makes their B & E's a little less stressful! :D If they did observe the law they wouldnt be crims!!
I seem to have made a bit of a pigs brekky with my other reply. Apologies to Lotz of Landies for that :( (Note to self, do not post late at night!)

[Hugh42732]

Hi everyone, I have been following this discussion with interest as I have had a bit to say to authorities over the last six months as I have tried to add a category to my weapons licence to try and better control the feral animals that are eating there way through a substantial investment in the way of recently planted improved pastures.

I believe that it is to hard for law abiding citizens to hold a firearms licence as there is no strengthening of laws regarding right to have/own a firearm that is going to stop criminals from operating outside the law.

If people are against firearms being used as a means of self defense for people defending their homes against criminal/unlawful activity do these same people believe that we should stand aside and let a foreign nation take over our country unopposed should a foreign nation ever threaten our shores?

[unseenone]

Well, this was just a matter of time, enjoy.

Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc&feature=youtu.be)

Take a nice long walk on Black Mountain Bob...


Mate , straight to the point, in the Aussie way

[seano87]

Well, this was just a matter of time, enjoy.

Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc&feature=youtu.be)

Take a nice long walk on Black Mountain Bob...


Mate , straight to the point, in the Aussie way

Agh. This hadn't been posted in for 2 months. Why did it have to be dragged up now?

I can't see this thread staying very amicable...

As for that video, who produced it? Is it biased, what sources do they use for fact or is it national rifle association propaganda? Serious question as I believe at the start it had that it was made by someone known as nraia1 which I had a guess as national rifle association in Australia or similar.

If this thread is going to continue, I really hope people can debate it openly, with facts and evidence, playing the ball not the man and just keep it under control. Please?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[bob10]

I was the original poster of this thread, and considering recent events, I would not complain if the Mods deleted it from the forum. Bob

[Rusnut]

fuzzy wuzzy was a bear

[bob10]

fuzzy wuzzy was a bear

A poem with an interesting history, Bob

Not really. Fuzzy wuzzy was a Hadendoa warrior in Sudan.


Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear
Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?

Few today are aware of the nineteenth-century Sudanese origins of this familiar nursery rhyme. The first line, "...was a bear" translates roughly as "The Hadendoa warriors gave us (British) a great deal of trouble." The second line is a pun based on the word 'bear'; if the Fuzzies are bears, where is all their fur? The third line doesn't have any historical background but the end "fuzzy, was he?" makes the same sound as "Fuzzy Wuzzy."

[bob10]

fuzzy wuzzy was a bear
We may have had a rocky start in another thread, old mate, but I want you to know , no harm meant, & no hard feelings. Merry Xmas, & all the best for the New Year, [ bugger, a mans getting soft in his old age, :angel:] Bob

[Rusnut]

We may have had a rocky start in another thread, old mate, but I want you to know , no harm meant, & no hard feelings. Merry Xmas, & all the best for the New Year, [ bugger, a mans getting soft in his old age, :angel:] Bob




Heartless bravado is as much a coping mechanism as some more tactile form's and for that I'm sorry.
You have a good chrissy too

[Disco44]

[FONT="Arial"]
I can't imagine why Bob is nervous.

Now if I heard of Robert Mugabe buying several million $ in arms just before an election, with no national defense force worth mentioning to defend me just south of the old bastard......THEN I would be nervous! :o

and the old bastard just doesn't want to go away,like die or something.]