Society/Culture Gun's

[Malifice]

Is it really neccesary for guns to be kept in an armory?

Yes. Soldiers and Cops do it. If we cant trust them to take their weapons home, why shouldnt provate citizens do the same?

Not a chance it will have any impact upon the crime rate.

It will have an impact on the number of gun deaths.

I also believe cops store their guns at home.

They most certainly do not.

 

[Malifice]

I'd rather be attacked with a gun than a knife.

Id rather be nuked than stabbed to death.

Much quicker.

Incineration of course. Not radiation poisoning getting me.

Doesnt create an argument for the legalisation of Nukes.

Also FWIW, id back myself against a knife weilder over someone with a pistol.

 

[Malifice]

Really?

Nobody in the US has ever killed that many people in a single attack.

So what? The 32 kids slain at Virginia tech wasnt enough for you?

The list went back 25+ years and I counted <200 deaths.

200 avoidable deaths.

Plus hundreds of thousands of 'non mass killing' firearm deaths over the same period.

What 'good' have private ownership of guns achieved in the same period?

As I showed a man killed 7 (2 with a truck and 5 with a knife) in a spree killing in Japan. Thus people are forever vulnerable to a rampage killer.

Of course they are.

Id simply rather those rampage killers werent provided with easy access to state of the art firearms when they snap however.

I don't have any issue with how _Malifice_ wants to live his life; it's none of my business. That's entirely valid; but you want to have more power than that: what you want is for you to decide how others should live their lives even when they are away from you.

Yep.

I want to live in a society without private ownership of guns.

That is my right to assert.

Arming teenagers is so outrageous?

Yes! Its ridiculous. Allowing teens to keep semi automatic firearms at home, or on thier person.

Imagine Northbridge (or any other nightclub hotspot) if everyone was armed?

There are no teen soldiers in this country?

Do they take thier guns home with them?

Are the guns not tightly controlled, signed in and out out, kept in an armory when not in use?

If teens want to shoot, then fine. They can have the smae controlls placed on them that our soldiers and cops do.

 

[Hawkamania!]

I want to live in a society without private ownership of guns.

That is my right to assert.

This is just nothing more than trampling on others rights based on your own personal beliefs. To those who respect civil liberties, you are a danger to society.

Using your own reasoning, since you are a danger to my personal liberty and would put me in a situation unable to defend myself from someone that may kill me, I want to live in a society without people like you in it.

That is my right to assert.

 

[Malifice]

This is just nothing more than trampling on others rights based on your own personal beliefs.

Where do you get this 'right' to gun ownership?

What legal basis does it derive from in Australia?

To those who respect civil liberties, you are a danger to society.

Im a danger to society because I want to restrict ownership of weapons.

Yeah... riiight.

Using your own reasoning, since you are a danger to my personal liberty and would put me in a situation unable to defend myself from someone that may kill me, I want to live in a society without people like you in it.

Self defence is not a legal or legitiamte reason for gun ownership in Australia.

Try again.

 

[Tex_21]

Who cares. Lawful of not, guns are ****ed up and bad.

Private ownership of guns (legal or not) is almost universally wrong.


Hunters I can see the argument for, sporting shooters also perhaps. But they should keep their guns in central armories (just like our Soldiers and Cops do) when not in use.

First two lines here are opinion, which you have stated as fact. Guns are not "bad" and gun ownership is not "wrong" but it is a disputed issue.

Having read through this entire thread, I have to say I can see merit in both arguments.

As former gun owner, a substantial number, I have to say there are legitimate reasons to own a rifle or rifles if you are a sporting shooter.
I can see no legitimate reason for the legality of handguns in the wider community.

The big problem with gun ownership is the incredibly difficult process of licensing and ensuring safe use?. How can you be sure that even if the gun owner is of sound mind and the most safety conscious human at the time of licensing this situation will not change in time? How can you ensure that no-one else can access the weapon?

Thomas Jefferson and the US right to bear arms keeps getting a mention, as it is generally the only piece of literature which the pro gun lobby have to refer to while totally ignoring the fact it was written in the day of the single shot black powder form of the weapons and that for all it's old world prose is only an opinion and even then the opinion of frenchman Cesare Beccaria, "borrowed" by Jefferson.

The US Constitution has no relevance in 2010 Australia.

Guns don't kill people true but in reality we cannot control the people who have access to guns or their circumstance.

It's a real conundrum as I can also see Brad Roo's point as a sporting shooter and despite a bit of internet bravado Hawkmania is probably very safe with his weapons and not as likely "pop a cap in your arse" as he would have you believe in a home invasion situation.

Truth is in the event, the attacked rarely have a gun, loaded, cocked and ready to go within reach as the horde of machete wielding home invaders smash the door in. Firearms are notoriously useless protection unless you are forewarned and prepared. The argument that firearm ownership prevents crime is invalid as far as I'm concerned. It just does not make sense to have a loaded weapon anywhere in a residential dwelling and if you do then you are probably up to something very illegal, have a dangerously paranoid personality or you are a not fit to own a firearm.

The fact is that any injury which occurs as the result of a firearm in a residential scenario is either a premeditated crime or carried out by someone not a fit owner, legitimate Law Enforcement excluded.

That said a correctly stored rifle, with bolt and ammunition stored separately in the hands of a safe and conscientious owner poses minuscule danger to society. Certainly less than a cigarette lighter.

Gun ownership in Australia is a privileged not a right.

Best post in the thread by a mile.

They cant leave the range with the weapon.

They do all the shooting there.

Its not perfect, but its better than the system now.

It'll stop the 'hot blooded' shootings. You would have to be pretty pre-meditated to plan to sign out a gun from an armory, escape the range, hunt down the person you want to kill, then sign the gun back in to the armory.

Plus the gun would all be logged. Easy for the police to find you afterwards.

No chance of the kids playing with the gun while you are out of the house, no burgulars going to steal it, no arguments are going to spill over.

Fairly elegant solution I would've though.

This solution has many many holes in it.

Firstly, the concept of sporting (target) shooting. Most of these shooters (Olympic competitors included) shoot at several diffferent clubs on different weekends and during the week in some indoor ranges. Requiring all weapons to be kept in a central armoury would prevent this form occuring, eliminating the numbers of people who travel for their sport and having a significant impact on some small towns which possess a gun/rifle club. If the ability to practice their chosen sport at other ranges/clubs is taken away the sports will die, as they rely on travelling shooters for the numbers at each club.

Secondly, if a hunter decides on a whim to go shooting one night, he must then travel to the closest armoury where his weapon is stored, and presumably fill out necessary paperwork to gain access to this for the night? May as well ban hunting (almost). Also, where would these armouries be located? As a West ustralian, you should appreciate the tyranny of distance, and think of a hunter (or a farmer) near somewhere like Leinster. Hears a fox, or wild dog attacking his stock, or makes the choice to go hunting some vermin, then must go to the armoury. Now, this armoury may not be any closer than Kalgoorlie (3-4 hours), or if he's lucky, Leonora (over an hour). This is not a practical solution, and would lead to increased levels of vermin.

We have good gun control in this country, as hard as the change after 1996 has been. THere is no need to become Orwellian about it.

Any chance of providing a link to any statistics on crimes committed with registered v non-registered firearms?

 

[Malifice]

This solution has many many holes in it.

Firstly, the concept of sporting (target) shooting. Most of these shooters (Olympic competitors included) shoot at several diffferent clubs on different weekends and during the week in some indoor ranges.

Own multiple guns.

Or call the range during the week, and they will transit the guns for you midweek.

Both fairly simply solutions I would've thought.

Requiring all weapons to be kept in a central armoury would prevent this form occuring, eliminating the numbers of people who travel for their sport and having a significant impact on some small towns which possess a gun/rifle club.

How many towns rely on rifle ranges for prosperity.

And I would've thought the ranges would get increased business.

After all, its the only place you can store and shoot your gun.

If the ability to practice their chosen sport at other ranges/clubs is taken away the sports will die, as they rely on travelling shooters for the numbers at each club.

Arrange transit of the guns mid week.

Secondly, if a hunter decides on a whim to go shooting one night, he must then travel to the closest armoury where his weapon is stored, and presumably fill out necessary paperwork to gain access to this for the night? May as well ban hunting (almost).

Just organize the hunting trip a few days in advance.

Works for Soldiers and Police, why shouldn't it work for hunters?

Also, where would these armouries be located? As a West ustralian, you should appreciate the tyranny of distance, and think of a hunter (or a farmer) near somewhere like Leinster. Hears a fox, or wild dog attacking his stock, or makes the choice to go hunting some vermin, then must go to the armoury.

The rule (like most) would have exceptions. Isolated rural areas could very well be one of those.

We have good gun control in this country, as hard as the change after 1996 has been. THere is no need to become Orwellian about it.

You're probably right. Still, I favor tight controlls.

I posed the 'solution' as a hypothetical.

Any chance of providing a link to any statistics on crimes committed with registered v non-registered firearms?

Any chance those statistics would also include firearms that were once registered but have been stolen, or had that registration lapsed?

i.e. were originally bought legally (which I would assume is the majority)

 

[Tex_21]

Own multiple guns.

Or call the range during the week, and they will transit the guns for you midweek.

Both fairly simply solutions I would've thought.

Owning multiple trap-guns is a little impractical when the best shooters (with the best guns) have a feel for their particular gun (and these top of the line guns can be as costly as $20,000+). Transporting could work, but would be costly, and again takes out of the equation an impulse decision to go for a shot.

How many towns rely on rifle ranges for prosperity.

And I would've thought the ranges would get increased business.

After all, its the only place you can store and shoot your gun.

None rely on it, but it is a useful additional source of spending. Most small clubs only have a handful (less than 20) members, and rely on travelling shooters to sustain themselves.

Arrange transit of the guns mid week.



Just organize the hunting trip a few days in advance.

Works for Soldiers and Police, why shouldn't it work for hunters?

How often do soldiers and police (exception of Victoria Police) on a whim decide to go shooting?

The rule (like most) would have exceptions. Isolated rural areas could very well be one of those.



You're probably right. Still, I favor tight controlls.

I posed the 'solution' as a hypothetical.



Any chance those statistics would also include firearms that were once registered but have been stolen, or had that registration lapsed?

i.e. were originally bought legally (which I would assume is the majority)

Still don't see these statistics. Your ideas aren't moronic, but I think they are a little short sighted

 

[Hawkamania!]

Where do you get this 'right' to gun ownership?

What legal basis does it derive from in Australia?

Im a danger to society because I want to restrict ownership of weapons.

Yeah... riiight.

Self defence is not a legal or legitiamte reason for gun ownership in Australia.

Try again.

I want you removed from society due to you being a danger to my right to defend myself and compromise my civil liberties. That is my right to assert.

Your logic, not mine. If you disagree, then your logic is wrong.

 

[Malifice]

I want you removed from society due to you being a danger to my right to defend myself and compromise my civil liberties. That is my right to assert.

No its actually not.

Please explain to me where you get your right to assert removal of a citizen from society?

Citizens are entitled to liberty. Guns arent.

And FWIW Im not 'removing' your right to self defence.

Im simply advocating removing as many guns from society as possible.

Less Guns in society should in fact make it easier for you to defend yourself.

Unless you need a gun to defend yourself?

Which is a little absurd.

 

[Malifice]

Transporting could work, but would be costly, and again takes out of the equation an impulse decision to go for a shot.

'Impulse decisions' are the exact decisions i want taken out of the equation.

Guns are pretty serious things. You want one - fine. Just expect higher responsibilities than those who dont.

None rely on it, but it is a useful additional source of spending. Most small clubs only have a handful (less than 20) members, and rely on travelling shooters to sustain themselves.

Theyd get more members this way.

Shooting clubs and associations would arguably be strengthened in my proposal.

How often do soldiers and police (exception of Victoria Police) on a whim decide to go shooting?

Exactly.

Still don't see these statistics. Your ideas aren't moronic, but I think they are a little short sighted

Perhaps you could find some statistics?

There are some great ones from the USA I could track down for you.

Im just a little lazy.

 

[Hawkamania!]

No its actually not.

Please explain to me where you get your right to assert removal of a citizen from society?

Citizens are entitled to liberty. Guns arent.

And FWIW Im not 'removing' your right to self defence.

Im simply advocating removing as many guns from society as possible.

Less Guns in society should in fact make it easier for you to defend yourself.

Unless you need a gun to defend yourself?

Which is a little absurd.

And I, through the use of your logic, am advocating removing threats to civil liberties from society.

Do you see how absurd your logic sounds? This is using your logic. You can't have it both ways. If it is your right to assert your views over mine, then why can't I have the right to assert my view over yours?

Or do you deem yourself superior to me and other citizens that you can dictate what you want against us even though we have not broken any laws?

Do you also support the internet filter as well?

 

[Malifice]

And I, through the use of your logic, am advocating removing threats to civil liberties from society.

If you cant see the difference between tighter controlls on gun ownership and removing citizens from the country on the grounds they have an opinion on gun ownership, then i dont think I can help you.

Or do you deem yourself superior to me and other citizens that you can dictate what you want against us even though we have not broken any laws?

Im NOT suggesting you have broken any law at all.

I AM advocating new laws.

Do you also support the internet filter as well?

In principle if all it does is block Kiddie porn then, yes I do support it.

I also support censorship of kiddie porn in other forms of media as well.

Of course the internet filter wont just prohibit kiddie porn. It will be almost inevitably be used to censor things beyond what we all would universally support as vile and despicable.

But thats where the trouble lies. Where to draw the line.

 

[Pie eyed]

I want you removed from society due to you being a danger to my right to defend myself and compromise my civil liberties. That is my right to assert.

Your logic, not mine. If you disagree, then your logic is wrong.

Don't think I'm taking sides as I have clearly stated I can see both arguments, but Mal has a valid point here.

There is no right to bear arms in our society.
I'm not sure it is a right in any society barring the US?

A country with a history of gun violence second to none.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Don't think I'm taking sides as I have clearly stated I can see both arguments, but Mal has a valid point here.

There is no right to bear arms in our society.
I'm not sure it is a right in any society barring the US?

A country with a history of gun violence second to none.

Its more of a dig at his "right to assert" comment.

 

[Malifice]

Its more of a dig at his "right to assert" comment.

Its what you have the 'right to assert' that is the issue.

Arguing for a change to gun ownership laws is permissable and clearly contemplated under our Constitution (the Democratic freedom to do so both implied and express).

Arguing for a law that would remove from the Country a person who argues for law reform, is clearly against the implied freedoms inherent in the democratic process.

There is nothing inherent in the democratic process that requires gun ownership to function.

 

[Hawkamania!]

^ Do you not get the issue of you asserting your right over someone else's?

What am I saying? Obviously you don't.

 

[Malifice]

^ Do you not get the issue of you asserting your right over someone else's?

What am I saying? Obviously you don't.

I have no problem with you asserting your right to argue for laws pro gun ownership.

The whole point of this thread actually.

Your example was asserting some right to styime the democratic process (which is not allowed legally in this country per the Constitution)

See the difference?

Plus dont tell me you have a right in Australia for gun ownership.

You have no such legal right in this country.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

There is no right to bear arms in our society.
I'm not sure it is a right in any society barring the US?

A country with a history of gun violence second to none.

Sorry I don't want to seem like an arrogant shit but that statement is emphatically incorrect.

The worst year in US history saw that country have 7.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Other countries' worst years (homicides)

Estonia 8.07

Phillipines 9.46

Mexico 9.88

Brazil 10.58

Guatemala 18.05

Thailand 33.00

Colombia 51.77

South Africa 74.57

The US are certainly not "second to none" now are they? They don't even come remotely close to the top.

FWIW Switzerland (a nation with one of the least restrictive gun-control laws on the planet) had 0.58 as their worst year.

The theory that access to legal and easy access firearms leads to more homicides is just unfounded.

The hardest places to acquire firearms in the US have the worst rates of gun crime and vice versa.

I'm feeling like a broken record when it comes to this issue, but hey one more time can't hurt - compare Washington DC gun laws and its murder rate with Vermont's gun laws and murder rate.

I'm no sociologist but I think I have a few things worked out:

People don't kill people because they can easily acquire weapons.

Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire ...... and many other states have always (and continue to have) had very low rates of murder despite negligible gun laws.

AND

People don't stop killing people because their access becomes more limited

Chicago and Washington DC brought in super strict gun laws decades ago and saw no reduction in murder rates.

More than one third of US homicides do not involve firearms thus the issue is far more complex than access to guns. There are thrice as many stabbing homicides in California than there are in the similarly sized Canada.

What's the different societal characteristics of places both within the US (DC versus Maine) or between countries (Switzerland versus Colombia) and their very low and very high muder rates? In a word: gangsters. If you want to reduce the risk of being murdered on this planet then avoid places with gangs and stay in areas without gangs.

I have such wonderful insight.

 

[Malifice]

The theory that access to legal and easy access firearms leads to more homicides is just unfounded.

Rubbish. Those stats provide evidence to the exact opposite!

Every single country you named in your 'top ten' (USA, Estonia, Phillipines, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Thailand, Colombia, South Africa) have shitloads of guns.

I dO conceed gun oWnership needs to be considered with other (social) factors.

A harmonious developed society with good social justice, good public health and low rates of unemployment and a a good social security net lowers the rates of gun crime (and violent crime) considerably.

I'm feeling like a broken record when it comes to this issue, but hey one more time can't hurt - compare Washington DC gun laws and its murder rate with Vermont's gun laws and murder rate.

Compare Washintons slums and ghettoes to Vermonts 'slums' (do they have any?) and see a bigger difference.

People don't kill people because they can easily acquire weapons.

No but angry, lonely, dispossesed, or mentally unstable people with few options are more prone to desperate measures - including killing people.

And arming them with state of the art weapons is stupid.

People don't stop killing people because their access becomes more limited

They stop doing it with ****ing guns, thats for sure.

All things being equal, Less guns in a society = Less gun violence.

Live on an island with no guns, and no one gets shot.

More than one third of US homicides do not involve firearms thus the issue is far more complex than access to guns.

These 'stats' do not help your case (again).

See what you are doing with statistics here? 'More than a third of all US homicdes dont involve guns?'

That means two thirds (%66) of all homicides in the USA involve guns. Thats twice as many homicides involve guns in the USA than dont.

 

[Tex_21]

'Impulse decisions' are the exact decisions i want taken out of the equation.

Guns are pretty serious things. You want one - fine. Just expect higher responsibilities than those who dont.

The 'impulse decision' to go deal with vermin can save a farmer hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars in lost livestock. And where is the harm in an 'impulse decision' to go practice a legitimite sport? This is not an impulse decision to cause harm to a person.

I expect greater responsibilities as a gun owner, and in AUstralia we do have much greater responsibilities.

Theyd get more members this way.

Shooting clubs and associations would arguably be strengthened in my proposal.

How? To shoot in competition you must already be a member, how does the prohibition of movement change this?

Perhaps you could find some statistics?

There are some great ones from the USA I could track down for you.

Im just a little lazy.

THe US is not at all relevant to this discussion. Our gun laws are far and above more strict than there. Find some Australian statistics. You're the one relying on them - find something to support your argument.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

Rubbish. Those stats provide evidence to the exact opposite!

Every single country you named in your 'top ten' (USA, Estonia, Phillipines, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Thailand, Colombia, South Africa) have shitloads of guns.

So does Switzerland and it is >100 x safer than South Africa.

Irrelevant.

The number of guns in these countries is not the issue.

I suggest you go back to what _Pie_eyed_ wrote.

He said that the American right to own firearms (being unique in the world as he perceives it) is the reason that they are "second to none" re. gun violence. When in reality they are nothing of the sort.

I don't think _Pie_eyed_ should feel cheated. If you're reading this please post your thoughts on how I responded to what you wrote. I don't know how I can be considered even slightly unreasonable in my posting.

This point you have made is worthless. The issue is legal access to weapons.

Go easy on the "rubbish" please. My reasearch had no flaws whatsoever; a poster made a claim that was entirely incorrect and I provided the data that proved this.

How the hell can I get "rubbish" called on me for that?

Any chance of an apology?

I didn't even call "rubbish" on you when you were 100% wrong earlier in this thread. I didn't even call "rubbish" on _Pie_eyed_ when he posted something that was categorically incorrect.

I dO conceed gun oWnership needs to be considered with other (social) factors.

A harmonious developed society with good social justice, good public health and low rates of unemployment and a a good social security net lowers the rates of gun crime (and violent crime) considerably.



Compare Washintons slums and ghettoes to Vermonts 'slums' (do they have any?) and see a bigger difference.

That's precisely my point.

The correlation is with the cultural and economic conditions of a region and their people's willingness to commit murder; not with the gun laws.

Thus the reason why soft gun laws are not the issue: they don't cause high murder rates nor do strict laws cause the rate to fall when they are introduced.

No but angry, lonely, dispossesed, or mentally unstable people with few options are more prone to desperate measures - including killing people.

And arming them with state of the art weapons is stupid.

When did I advocate this?

Please respond to things that I actually write.

FWIW In Bowling for Columbine it shows the mentally ill of Michigan (IIRC) aren't allowed to keep guns and I'd assume that law would be everywhere.

So I don't know what point you are trying to make.

They stop doing it with ****ing guns, thats for sure.

All things being equal, Less guns in a society = Less gun violence.

Live on an island with no guns, and no one gets shot.

So what?

Why do those who lose their lives to bullets deserve more sympathy? Aren't all murdered people equally affected?

How can we know how many homicides that took place with guns would not have happened without them? Is it 100%, or 50% or 0.01%? We can't possibly have any real idea.

These 'stats' do not help your case (again).

See what you are doing with statistics here? 'More than a third of all US homicdes dont involve guns?'

That means two thirds (%66) of all homicides in the USA involve guns. Thats twice as many homicides involve guns in the USA than dont.

See above.

You are just guessing about the effect of gun availability on the murder rate. Who cares if somebody dies from a gun when they would just as easily been killed some other way?

If >33% of US murders don't involve guns it clearly shows that the people are clearly very often willing to use other means for homicide.

Even without guns there are twice as many murders in the US than in Denmark. Again the issue of murder is clearly not correlated to gun availability; there is something within American society that is not there in the same level as it is in other nations.

 

[Pie eyed]

No offence taken.

Maybe I should have qualified the claim with "stable democracy".

Americans murder each other with guns at a rate 19 times higher than any of the 25 richest nations surveyed by CDC.

You also don't state which years these " worst years" are.


Since 1960 over 1 million Americans have died from firearms deaths, suicides and accidental shootings. For every death there are over six times more non-fatal attempted homicides, suicides and accidental shootings.

That is over seven million firearms related incidents.


While I can accept your point I can't see any other countries on that list which are much more than 3rd world counties fighting to join the first world.

 

[Max zero]

For me I never understood the point of mass gun ownership.

I mean with the self defence argument you could ask for a Landmine or even a Tank. Yet no one does that because that would be 'silly'.

While the violence in the USA is not solely based on extensive gun ownership it certainly is a contributing factor.

I am all for freedom and personal liberty but to me it seems that mass gun ownership tends to limit freedom rather then extend it.

 

[Malifice]

So does Switzerland and it is >100 x safer than South Africa.

Irrelevant.

Its not irrelelvant.

There is clear corellation. Pointless arguing if you are just going to deny the weight of statisitics to focus on the few exceptions.

The number of guns in these countries is not the issue.

It IS the issue. Its just not the only issue.

Go easy on the "rubbish" please. My reasearch had no flaws whatsoever; a poster made a claim that was entirely incorrect and I provided the data that proved this.

You used the data in a very out of context way.

The correlation is with the cultural and economic conditions of a region and their people's willingness to commit murder; not with the gun laws.

Logically this does not hold.

In order to have a gun death you need two things:

1) Gun

2) Killer

FWIW In Bowling for Columbine it shows the mentally ill of Michigan (IIRC) aren't allowed to keep guns and I'd assume that law would be everywhere.

Ive seen this doco a million times.

Where does it make this claim?

If >33% of US murders don't involve guns it clearly shows that the people are clearly very often willing to use other means for homicide.

What? How do you draw this inference from these statisitics?

Again the issue of murder is clearly not correlated to gun availability;

The issue of Gun murder is.

there is something within American society that is not there in the same level as it is in other nations.

Yep, lack of a wide enough social net.