Another school shooting.

[johnny]

Murdering is illegal, yet the pshyco still did it. If guns were made illegal, would that law be adhered to?

Firearms are not the problem. More people die of homicide by knife than any other, and there is no "knife licensing". Also, you say the amount of firearm related offences decreased after the gun buy back, yet knife related offences increased ( http://aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/401-420/tandi417.html ) . It doesn't matter what is used, there will still be people dieing. As said by Xavo



If someone WANTS to do these terrible things, there is no way gun control is going to stop them.

In Henan China on the same day of the Connecticut massacre a man with a knife went in to a school and injured 22 children. The guy in Connecticut killed 20 children. This is only one data set and the circumstances on the ground are different. But do you really need me to explain to you that firearms can kill from a distance at a rapid rate where knives require the attacker to cover distance and allow the attacked greater chance of resistance?

IF some one wants to massacre, yes, they can find a way with poison, explosives, vehicles, etc. These people are not the main target of restricted access. Crimes of passion, psychologically unstable, etc. have less chance of causing mass death in small periods of time if their access to efficient killing tools are restricted. Organised crime, serial killers and people that are willing to take time to massacre (such as the Aurora shooter) are difficult to stop. People who act out of intense stress, anxiety or moments of rage don't take time to plan, they access what is readily available. I'd assume less availability of firearms may decrease these kinds of massacres.

There will be no way of removing illigal guns from society, as there is no way of knowing who has them. As they are illegal, they are un-registered. Therefore unkown to police.

And the more legal firearms you have in society the more chance they will be used for illegal purposes. The weapons used in Connecticut were legal weapons but they were used legally. I can't quote the stats but aren't the majority of illegal arms that are confiscated in the US arms that entered society by legal means?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the majority of illegal arms in the US are not smuggled across borders into the United States. Get my drift?

For context, I've been a shooter, I love shooting. I've spent years traveling and living in undeveloped and oppressed nations as well as developed and free. Out of all countries I felt the most unsafe in the US. I've felt the safest in Australia and China, both countries with strict gun control.

J@se, would you be comfortable to see civilians in Australia to have access to assault rifles?

 

[ozz]

workmx, yes the technology is different but thats not really relevant, when all a person could get was a single shot musket, that was all that could be used against them.

Have you been paying the slightest bit of attention to what's been happening in America over the last couple of decades? That's what's wrong with civilians owning guns!



Yeah, that's the problem. Walking into a kindergarten and murdering children isn't illegal OH WAIT YES IT IS YOU FUCKING MUPPET.

Yeah its illegal, so you really think someone willing to break murder laws wont be willing to break gun laws?

Australian gun laws is what the far left of US politics is aiming for but in reality they just DO NOT WORK. The people who you least want to own guns already have them.

Its a lot easier and quicker to get illegal guns in this country than legal ones. At least in the US law abiding people are allowed to be as well armed as the criminals.

 

[ozz]

The more cars there are out there the more people will use them illegally, we need to restrict cars to those who can demonstrate a genuine need. If there were no cars in australia at all then people wouldnt kill people with cars.

We need to ban any car that looks aggressive, assault cars (black), and any car with an automatic gearbox. If you want a car you can go on a 6 month wait and apply to the government for the privelidge of buying each car you buy, you should only be allowed to have a maximum of 4 cylinders and 2 seats per car, and have a fortified garage built to keep the car in, which should have periodic suprise inspections from the police. But most importantly we should assume anyone with a car is a criminal, and treat them as such.

 

[johnny]

Really? You're going to compare a device that is designed and mostly used for transport with a device that is designed and mostly used for killing.

You don't find that redundant?

 

[ozz]

Its a bit tongue in cheek but its a different perspective.. Cars kill a lot more people than guns do here

 

[johnny]

Its a lot easier and quicker to get illegal guns in this country than legal ones.

That's about as ridiculous as it gets.

The amount of illegal military style assault weapons in Australia are minimal. Seriously, if you live the life that the vast majority of people live in Australia and you think that you need to have a firearm to defend yourself I'd suggest you have a very unbalanced perspective of risk and the security environment in Australia.



In response to your above post, I may be taking yourself too seriously then, soz about that mate. Although I do think it's not a useful perspective because the issue isn't people dying, it's about people being murdered. We all die and risk is an element of life. But increasing the probability of needless violent death for very little return (cars bring great advantages and returns in the shape of movement, economics, etc. Firearms in society bring very little returns) is needlessly increasing risk, in my opinion.

 

[ozz]

I dont believe we need guns for defense, i just dont think its right that we cant.

Illegal guns are everywhere, no most of them arent 'military style' (arent all guns somewhat military style?). There were a lot not handed in in 96, a lot more have been imported since, and really anyone with some metal working skill and equipment can make them.

For you or i to decide and get a legal firearm it would take a lot of money time, waiting periods, checks and other hoops to jump.

And then they have banned automatic actions, and for some reason pump action shotguns?

The problem most people seem to have with firearms is that the only time they see them is in the movies. Out of the citys, you see people going about their daily lives with legal firearms and you stop seeing them as something to be scared of. Its crazy people and criminals that need to be feared, not the method they use to inflict damage

 

[Xavo.au]

It's not the guns that I'm worried of. It's the millions of unstable and stupid people out their that don't need high powered rifles or automatic weapons.

The only people that should have guns really, are Police/Military, Farmers & Hunters and sports shooters.
To me, the system that we have today works well. No-one, bar the law enforcement/military need automatic or dare I say it, even semi-automatic weapons. Maybe hunters might need semi-auto, but that's more convenience than a necessity - because they seem to get by without it pretty well at the moment.

Pro-Gun people seem to think that a tightening of gun laws is somehow going to eradicate all guns in legal existence, and deliver them personally to criminals.
If you are legally entitled to a weapon at the moment, and you keep it securely locked up when you're not at the range or on the property - then you're fine.
I'm really not too concerned about criminals with weapons at all tbh. You get armed robberies and stuff, yes - but that happens globally and is very nearly an unavoidable tragedy.
Generally, criminals with weapons use them on eachother. If you stay out of their way, they'll keep out of your way. At the same time, Police are constantly cracking down on them (with any largescale effect still to be seen unfortunately).

What stricter gun laws can do, is limit the damage done. Everyone realises that a person intent on doing damage - will deal that damage. Stricter gun laws can make it so the person that snaps and goes on a rampage, can only hurt themselves and a small amount of people (which in itself is still sad).
There's something wrong when that guy can find a gun easier than he can mental help....

 

[Mattydv]

For you or i to decide and get a legal firearm it would take a lot of money time, waiting periods, checks and other hoops to jump.

Do you even have your firearms license? Because I do, and I can tell you that it's a pretty simple to get your own firearm, certainly a hell of a lot easier than finding an illegal one.

 

[Spike-X]

Yeah its illegal, so you really think someone willing to break murder laws wont be willing to break gun laws?

I'm gonna post again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

This horrible thing happened only because there were guns already freely available in the killer's home. He wasn't a gangster or a career criminal who would have ready access to the black market, he was a bloke who snapped, grabbed a gun, and went and shot twenty kids. If you honestly believe that this this would have happened if he didn't already have legally-purchased guns laying around, I don't know what to tell you.

At least in the US law abiding people are allowed to be as well armed as the criminals.

Yeah, and that seems to be working out real well for them.

 

[J@se]

In Henan China on the same day of the Connecticut massacre a man with a knife went in to a school and injured 22 children. The guy in Connecticut killed 20 children. This is only one data set and the circumstances on the ground are different. But do you really need me to explain to you that firearms can kill from a distance at a rapid rate where knives require the attacker to cover distance and allow the attacked greater chance of resistance?

IF some one wants to massacre, yes, they can find a way with poison, explosives, vehicles, etc. These people are not the main target of restricted access. Crimes of passion, psychologically unstable, etc. have less chance of causing mass death in small periods of time if their access to efficient killing tools are restricted. Organised crime, serial killers and people that are willing to take time to massacre (such as the Aurora shooter) are difficult to stop. People who act out of intense stress, anxiety or moments of rage don't take time to plan, they access what is readily available. I'd assume less availability of firearms may decrease these kinds of massacres.



And the more legal firearms you have in society the more chance they will be used for illegal purposes. The weapons used in Connecticut were legal weapons but they were used legally. I can't quote the stats but aren't the majority of illegal arms that are confiscated in the US arms that entered society by legal means?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the majority of illegal arms in the US are not smuggled across borders into the United States. Get my drift?

For context, I've been a shooter, I love shooting. I've spent years traveling and living in undeveloped and oppressed nations as well as developed and free. Out of all countries I felt the most unsafe in the US. I've felt the safest in Australia and China, both countries with strict gun control.

J@se, would you be comfortable to see civilians in Australia to have access to assault rifles?

Johnny, I'm on mobile at work at the moment. I haven't had the chance to read the responses in the thread. I'll write more tonight on the home PC.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Saw this last week in the Kalashnikov exhibit in the Artillery museum in St Petersburg:

Right-Wing American gun fanatics celebrating a noted communist who designed the rifle that has arguably been responsible for more American deaths than any other...

 

[SuperSix]

I dont believe we need guns for defense, i just dont think its right that we cant.

The sheer sight of one is already a deterrent for a potential offense. If you think that way, Police forces won't have their psychological upper hand. Deny the police of the that advantage, say you have equal potential for defense/offence, what do you get? That is one of the main reason for Australia's tight firearm control.

Now if a potential criminal acquired firearm, what does that do to the community that is dependent on police for civil protection against these elements? You'll run into problems where there isn't enough police per unit population on a particular place due to budget constraints of local government.

The problem is a lot more complicated than what you think.

 

[floody]

Basically there are about 90 guns per 100 Americans. It is a culture where a bullet is a solution to a problem/threat, be it physical like a home invasion or, as I suggest has been the case ifor the multiple shootings in recent history, merely perceived. Its a culture where that idea of a bullet as a safety blanket is enshrined in the constitution.

You take that cultural influence, add a dash of mental illness, stir in absurdly easy availability of weapons and this is the result.

Well.
This, plus the other 10,000 fatal shootings. The 75,000 non-fatal shootings (53,000 deliberate, like the guy who shot his partner over a discussion about The Walking Dead recently). The 17,500 odd gun suicides.


Have a look at this graph of all deaths by assault (inclusive of all causes, not just firearms) in OECD nations at this link.
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/



So basically its an extremely violent country, with extreme ease of access to firearms, and a hopeless mental health system.
Clearly guns are not a great idea in this environment.

 

[static_X3]

Seems like the police are the underdogs in the US then. How is that better!
It really is not that complicated.

I like someone's analogy of being on a diet and not keeping chocolate in the house. If you get a craving you are unlikely to head down the shops at 11 at night to get some, but if you can go straight to the cupboard...

 

[rednightmare]

As I reside in the US and do not own a gun, the above statement concludes that I am, verbatim: "pretty foolish".

Actually, the original statement ("I know that I would, in an environment where the majority do it would be pretty foolish to be at such a disadvantage") only applies to you if you believe that the majority of people in your "environment" are gun owners. Since you say that they're not, the statement doesn't apply to you.

It was claimed that a majority of US residents had guns (see above). By definition a majority is more than 50%. 33% is less than 50%. No one is saying that 33% of US households is a small number, but it is less than "most".

Again, how do you (or the links you provided) account for illegal or unregistered weapons?

You've cited an opinion piece regarding the Aurora massacre.

Is there a problem with the source? I linked it to provide an example of people arming themselves because other people are armed. I don't agree with this (and have edited to my previous post to make my position clearer) but I think it goes some way to explain the gun culture in the US and how mass killings, which in most other countries lead to greater restrictions on firearms, can actually create a greater demand for weapons.

 

[vtwiz]

Charlotte Bacon, age 6.
Daniel Barden, Age 7.
Rachel Davino, Age 29.
Olivia Engel, Age 6.
Josephine Gay, Age 7.
Ana Marquez-Greene, Age 6.
Dylan Hockley, Age 6.
Dawn Hockstrung, Age 47.
Madeleine F. Hsu, Age 6.
Catherine V. Hubbard, Age 6.
Chase Kowalski, Age 7.
Jesse Lewis, Age 6.
James Mattioli, Age 6.
Grace McDonnell, Age 7.
Anne Marie Murphy, Age 52.
Emilie Parker, Age 6.
Jack Pinto, Age 6.
Noah Pozner, Age 6.
Caroline Previdi, Age 6.
Jessica Rekos, Age 6.
Avielle Richman, Age 6.
Lauren Russeau, Age 30.
Mary Sherlach, Age 56.
Victoria Soto, Age 27.
Benjamin Wheeler, Age 6.
Allison N. Wyatt, Age 6.

Apparently none of these people's lives were more important that the right of some inbred redneck to stockpile as many lethal weapons as he damn well pleases.

Well Said!

Anyone pro gun, read those names and ages and visualise ( REALLY visualise) what actually happened to these poor innocent and defenceless kids who had their whole lives ahead of them. Then tell me that your 'right' to have a gun is more important.

 

[vtwiz]

As has been said, you will not eradicate all gun crime and guns will still find their way into the hands criminals but how many of these massacres have been carried out by armed theives, drug lords or dealers, bikie gangs etc......? None! They were all carried out by unsuspecting and seemingly normal members of society who snapped, had easy access to guns and in a fit of rage committed these atrocities. I think things would have not come to this had they not been able to take a few guns out of the cabinet at home.

 

[SuperSix]

Well Said!

Anyone pro gun, read those names and ages and visualise ( REALLY visualise) what actually happened to these poor innocent and defenceless kids who had their whole lives ahead of them. Then tell me that your 'right' to have a gun is more important.

Not only will I tell you I HAVE THE RIGHT, I too EXERCISE RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP AND GOOD CONDUCT!

Whitewashing is a cancer to society.

 

[wombat]

Apparently none of these people's lives were more important that the right of some inbred redneck to stockpile as many lethal weapons as he damn well pleases.

I'll be honest, I haven't read too much about the incident in question so if there is actually some evidence that the guy was an 'inbred redneck' then ignore the following, otherwise:

This is what's wrong with the gun debates that start up everytime there's a shooting. I don't think we need our legislation to go the way of the US, nor do I own any firearms, but I have family who do, and none of them are 'inbred rednecks', nor do they go around shooting children.

Yes, guns are dangerous, very much so, and they can be devestating in the hands of the wrong people. Inevitably though, when something horrible like this happens people have very emotional reactions and start painting all gun-owners with the same, big-arse, crazy redneck brush, and that's not fair.