Sick People in this world.

[JC]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

cavemen had clubs long before w.g grace had a cricket bat or babe ruth hit a homer
axes were probably used to cut up food before trees

i get where you are coming from, but guns were probably used for self defence and hunting long before they became a tool for just killing people. there were battering rams long before cars were invented so i guess everything we use now has probably been modified from a weapon of some sort


not trying to disagree as such, but we do have fairly stringent gun laws and it seems that many of the guns used in planned cold blooded murders are not legal ones anyway. america seems to have a problem with gun ownership, but i think ours is close to right

i do agree with most of what you have said, but i don't think banning guns is the answer

and i apologise for this potentially being in bad taste, but if a whacko was going to take me out of the world, i would rather he use a gun - over a club, knife, blood filled syringe, car or virtually anything else

I totally understand what you're saying - in fact, most of those things have crossed my mind too, including the last bit. It's just frustrating that these tragedies happen all too often, and people wonder why? In a perfect world, there would be no gun deaths because there'd be no guns. But then I suppose stabbing or syringe deaths would just rise instead......

[UberKnee]

Its ridiculous that despite the seemingly constant mass shootings in the States they just continue to hang onto this outdated right to bare arms.15 more people dead for no reason.

Its true that guns dont kill people, the person behind the trigger does, but guns make it so much easier to kill. You cant charge into a cinema with a baseball bat, bludgeon 15 people to death and wound 50 others. You'd be stopped before you got through the first person, a gun however makes it as simple as moving one finger to take a life.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by JC

I totally understand what you're saying - in fact, most of those things have crossed my mind too, including the last bit. It's just frustrating that these tragedies happen all too often, and people wonder why? In a perfect world, there would be no gun deaths because there'd be no guns. But then I suppose stabbing or syringe deaths would just rise instead......

In a perfect world, everyone would be a rational thinker, greed wouldn't be the order of the day, and pussies wouldn't use guns, knives, bats, etc., to show how 'tough' they are...sadly this isn't a perfect world...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by wrongwaynorris

8 million undiagnosed serious mental illnesses , over 200 million privately owned guns that the FBI know of , estimates put actual numbers as high as 400 million and the ridiculous scenario of being able to buy guns and ammo from places such as KMart and we wonder why these things happen . There is absolutely and utterly NO reason whatsoever for anyone other than the military , law enforcement , specialist security providers and farmers to own a gun

There is absolutely NO reason for anyone other than the military, law enforcement and specialist race drivers to own a performance car........

[flappist]

Originally Posted by JC

Just because something is a skill doesn't make it a sport.

Just wondering? Do you consider the Olympic Games a sporting event in that the majority of events are based on military skills, most with weapons.......

[AndrewR_AUII]

With rights comes responsibility. With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility for doing so safely, along with the right to be able to drive a performance car etc etc.

Underlying all of these mass killings has been some festering hatred or mental illness. These people, in their own distorted world justify their actions and plan them....carefully. Restrictions on the availability of weapons may make it difficult for them...but they will find a way.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by irish2

Out of 400 million people 300 isn't a lot. Gun crime didn't slow down in Australia when tighter laws were imposed, why would it in America?

Originally Posted by irish2

America does have some lax rules in reguards to guns, but it has been proven here over time that gun crime increased since the laws were changed. It is the poor old shop owners who might have had a gun under the counter that the criminals have no fear of. If he does have a gun it has to be locked in a safe with the ammo locked in a seperate one.

I'd like to see where you got your stats from. After this latest awful event I had a look at this myself and while it's a complex issue, it most certainly did not increase after the introduction of stricter controls. In fact, by all credible accounts there has been a consistent downward trend since the 1980's in gun crime rates and firearm-related deaths in Australia. There has been some misleading information floating around out there that perhaps you may have formed your view on after it was spammed to your inbox:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

In any case, how many poor old shop owners would have had an automatic/semi auto or pump action weapon hidden under the counter? These were, after all, the weapons more tightly controlled by the new laws.

I'll put an unsubstantiated comment out there myself to throw into the mix for consideration. I have heard that in the US the use of a firearm for defence against home invasion for example, often results in the firearm being tragically turned upon the home owner themselves. If so, maybe it's better that there was never a weapon in the equation in the first place to escalate the situation.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by chamb0

I'd like to see where you got your stats from. After this latest awful event I had a look at this myself and while it's a complex issue, it most certainly did not increase after the introduction of stricter controls. In fact, by all credible accounts there has been a consistent downward trend since the 1980's in gun crime rates and firearm-related deaths in Australia. There has been some misleading information floating around out there that perhaps you may have formed your view on after it was spammed to your inbox:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

In any case, how many poor old shop owners would have had an automatic/semi auto or pump action weapon hidden under the counter? These were, after all, the weapons more tightly controlled by the new laws.

I'll put an unsubstantiated comment out there myself to throw into the mix for consideration. I have heard that in the US the use of a firearm for defence against home invasion for example, often results in the firearm being tragically turned upon the home owner themselves.

It is ironic that you try to debunk a point using snopes and then immediately make a totally incorrect one straight out of the gun haters handbook.

Do a bit of REAL research rather than grabbing extremely spun propaganda off the internet.

Who carried an automatic weapon, well I did as did many I know personally.
Up until 2002 I used various S&W revolvers and for the last 10 years of so a Glock 19 and then a Glock 26.

Howards laws did not "ban semi autos" as the spin doctors would like you to believe they took away the right to defend human life with a firearm but it is STILL legal in every state of Australia to defend MONEY with a firearm.

Don't believe me? Rather that do the spin dance, download the weapons acts for each state and territory and look up the ACTUAL LAW.

You may be VERY surprised.....

[MITCHAY]

Just totally messed up going into a movie theatre and gunning people down WTF?

Out of the many things that worry me in this country I'm glad one of them isn't about the possibility of getting shot.

Yes there have been dozens of shootings in Sydney this year but lets face it most of these houses are not getting shot up for ***** and gigs before anyone points it out.

[AU Mont]

yay its turned into a gun debate, and the expected stupid comments come from the pro-gun brigade

Originally Posted by flappist

Up until 2002 I used various S&W revolvers and for the last 10 years of so a Glock 19 and then a Glock 26.

you do know that you just went up a couple notches on the "manly-meter" by telling us that.

[UberKnee]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is ironic that you try to debunk a point using snopes and then immediately make a totally incorrect one straight out of the gun haters handbook.

Do a bit of REAL research rather than grabbing extremely spun propaganda off the internet.

Who carried an automatic weapon, well I did as did many I know personally.
Up until 2002 I used various S&W revolvers and for the last 10 years of so a Glock 19 and then a Glock 26.

Howards laws did not "ban semi autos" as the spin doctors would like you to believe they took away the right to defend human life with a firearm but it is STILL legal in every state of Australia to defend MONEY with a firearm.

Don't believe me? Rather that do the spin dance, download the weapons acts for each state and territory and look up the ACTUAL LAW.

You may be VERY surprised.....

Both sides spin propaganda. The middle ground is understanding that many people who own guns, use them responsibly but the availibility of them needs to be heavily restricted. A guns not a car as many people have made the comparison, a car even a performance one is used as transport, a gun is purely to kill something or hurt someone.

Its not worth 15 innocent peoples lives in one afternoon so someone elsewhere can go shoot a deer.

[chamb0]

Thanks flappist, the snopes link was purely to cite some of the misleading info out there, not to reference my comment about the general trends in gun related crime rates in Aus. It was material from the ABS and a 2008 document by the Australian Institute of Criminology I had read earlier which shaped those thoughts.

For what it's worth, I'm no gun hater. I spent time in the army blowing up stuff and getting qualified on as much equipment as I could lay my hands on. I loved every minute of it. I moved on from there to cull feral pests as a park ranger so I understand there are many applications. However there is a time and a place and I do think that there is a smarter way to address violent crime in Australia than to arm every Joe Bloggs. Thanks for your misunderstanding.

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by AU Mont

yay its turned into a gun debate, and the expected stupid comments come from the pro-gun brigade

So does that mean you are part of the anti-gun brigade?

Which comments in this thread are "stupid"?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by flappist

Howards laws did not "ban semi autos" as the spin doctors would like you to believe they took away the right to defend human life with a firearm but it is STILL legal in every state of Australia to defend MONEY with a firearm.

I guess thats why you see Armaguard carrying firearms?

So could you use that as a legal excuse to take a human life then? Someone broke into your house, you kill them with a firearm and claim you were defending cash you had lying around?

[I reckon]

Originally Posted by irish2

Out of 400 million people 300 isn't a lot. Gun crime didn't slow down in Australia when tighter laws were imposed, why would it in America?

No they haven't slowed down,when was the last massacre in Australia ? It's the semi autos they need to get rid of . 300 isn't much ok then.

[Pis-ton broke]

Originally Posted by UberKnee

a gun is purely to kill something or hurt someone.

Its not worth 15 innocent peoples lives in one afternoon so someone elsewhere can go shoot a deer.

'

"many people who own guns, use them responsibly" thats a major understatement, i would think 99.999% are respsponsible.

Guns service a important purpose that i don,t think that you understand, some of them are vermin control and to shoot a sick/injured animal and killing to eat food. We need guns.

But maybe you can get your meat from the freezer. do you live a a city?

I just got my gun license and there are many checks and verified paper work to prove that i need a gun.

I,m sorry for the people in that shooting, but it was the madman that kill them, but maybe tightening gun laws might help in other countries.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I guess thats why you see Armaguard carrying firearms?

So could you use that as a legal excuse to take a human life then? Someone broke into your house, you kill them with a firearm and claim you were defending cash you had lying around?

One word. NO

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

So could you use that as a legal excuse to take a human life then? Someone broke into your house, you kill them with a firearm and claim you were defending cash you had lying around?

disregarding any other legal issues, assuming they took long enough to actually get in for you to get to the locked strongbox that your ammo is in, go into the next room and get the gun from the other locked strongbox, and then load it before they incapacitated you, then maybe

but then your money and possessions are not as important as the money in the armaguard van, so you will need to use self defence as your reason - so don't shoot them in the head and then continue to pump them full of lead. once incapacitated, each bullet afterwards become a murder bullet

[flappist]

Originally Posted by piggsy

No they haven't slowed down,when was the last massacre in Australia ? It's the semi autos they need to get rid of . 300 isn't much ok then.

Well there hasn't been anything on the news about shootings in Australia for the last few days so that is probably a good thing.

Norway has even tighter gun laws than Australia, how did that work out?

This is always an emotional debate and trying to use logic to convince a gun hater that guns a place in ordinary society is no different that trying to convince Harold Scruby that performance cars have a place on our roads.......

[xtremerus]

I have been a TARGET shooter for 40yrs. NEVER killed an animal, bird, whatever.
In the vehicles I have owned in that 40yrs, I could not count the number of Roos, birds etc that have been killed.
Which is the most dangerous "weapon'"

[H.G]

did you go out of your way to deliberately kill these said roos birds and other wildlife? and then try justify it by being mentally unstable? was the media all over each slaying broadcasting it to the world until the next media circus comes along? will politicians try play games with such tragedies to influence the publics opinion of them? Are these said slayings of ROOs birds and other wildlife the topic of discussion on forums all over the world?

[xtremerus]

Simplistic logic says:
Ban guns - no-one dies from guns.
Ban cars - no-one dies from cars.
Can't argue about that logic?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by H.G

did you go out of your way to deliberately kill these said roos birds and other wildlife? and then try justify it by being mentally unstable? was the media all over each slaying broadcasting it to the world until the next media circus comes along? will politicians try play games with such tragedies to influence the publics opinion of them? Are these said slayings of ROOs birds and other wildlife the topic of discussion on forums all over the world?

Google up a few PETA forums for your answer.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by flappist

This is always an emotional debate and trying to use logic to convince a gun hater that guns a place in ordinary society

It works both ways - not surprisingly there is a lot of middle ground between the polarised and simplistic extreme views on both sides. Somewhere in between lies the best compromise.

[Jim Goose]

The problem lays with the mind of those who get their hands on weapons.
You cant legislate against stupidity and people with mental issues.

Banning guns full stop wont solve anything.

The amount of social misfits out there just keeps increasing.
And yes a lot of the time can probably be traced to bad parenting.
One needs only look at how A LOT of people drive out there to see plenty of people with issues. (most seem to drive as if they were suicidal)

Sadly you cant test people for their mental state

[UberKnee]

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

'

"many people who own guns, use them responsibly" thats a major understatement, i would think 99.999% are respsponsible.

Guns service a important purpose that i don,t think that you understand, some of them are vermin control and to shoot a sick/injured animal and killing to eat food. We need guns.

But maybe you can get your meat from the freezer. do you live a a city?

I just got my gun license and there are many checks and verified paper work to prove that i need a gun.

I,m sorry for the people in that shooting, but it was the madman that kill them, but maybe tightening gun laws might help in other countries.

I understand the purpose they serve, but that isn't worth the lax gun control in the States that see's massacres like this become a normal thing. Whatever purpose they serve and whatever amendments/rights they fill under isn't worth how many innocent people are killed for no reason.

Originally Posted by flappist

Well there hasn't been anything on the news about shootings in Australia for the last few days so that is probably a good thing.

Norway has even tighter gun laws than Australia, how did that work out?

This is always an emotional debate and trying to use logic to convince a gun hater that guns a place in ordinary society is no different that trying to convince Harold Scruby that performance cars have a place on our roads.......

Just as trying to use logic to convince a gun lover the negatives often falls on deaf ears and cries of "I have the right". And the Car-Gun comparison is stupid, one is a device/vechile that can cause death accidently, its not its intended purpose a gun however is solely desinged to kill. Thats all a gun does is kill, cars kill by accident, we may as well bring cigarettes into this argument, they kill and hell bars of soap as well, you could slip on a bar of soap in the shower and die.

So lets ban cars, cigarettes, soap, fast food, alcohol, and anything else that can accidently kill so pro gun nuts will feel okay about gun laws being further tightened to keep them out of the hands of any nutters.

[AU Mont]

Originally Posted by flappist

This is always an emotional debate and trying to use logic to convince a gun hater that guns a place in ordinary society is no different that trying to convince Harold Scruby that performance cars have a place on our roads.......

you have to be delusional mate but most people are when they try to defend there way of life whether it be right or wrong......... logic as you call it, unless the car you making an example of has rocket launchers strapped to the bonnet, what has it got to do with ther ability to own and fire a weapon whch can kill many people in a short amount of time?

actually why am i bothering to comment on such rubbish?

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by AU Mont

you have to be delusional mate but most people are when they try to defend there way of life whether it be right or wrong......... logic as you call it, unless the car you making an example of has rocket launchers strapped to the bonnet, what has it got to do with ther ability to own and fire a weapon whch can kill many people in a short amount of time?

actually why am i bothering to comment on such rubbish?

how many people are killed by guns compared to cars in australia
how many people are maimed or just injured by guns compared to cars in australia
how many people are kept awake at night due to gun fire compared to hoons in australia
how many bullet holes are in signs or other things compared to status lines on the road in australia

the rules we have for guns are good in my opinion - not perfect for either side, but i find it weird that car enthusiasts who complain about the way us easy targets are treated, then jump in to put down another easy target just because they don't have an interest in the activity

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by AU Mont

you have to be delusional mate but most people are when they try to defend there way of life whether it be right or wrong......... logic as you call it, unless the car you making an example of has rocket launchers strapped to the bonnet, what has it got to do with ther ability to own and fire a weapon whch can kill many people in a short amount of time?

actually why am i bothering to comment on such rubbish?

So does that make you delusional also by defending your anti-gun views?

[mik]

Originally Posted by Reaper8

I dont want to start fights All i am saying in every sport and hobby there are *******, we have very tough gun laws in this country. I have spent over $800 alone on a gun safe and its bolted to the brickwork of my house so i know my firearms arnt going anywhere, i had to wait 6 months before getting cleared by sa police to do my firearms course and then 2 mths to get my licence, a 6mth wait to buy my first pistol. I get house calls by sapol to check my firearms are stored correctly and registered.The big problem is people are not scared to go the illegal way as it takes less time and if you get done you get away with a slap on the wrist.

no disrespect intended, but in your previous post you mentioned you are a licensed shooter and you have no intention of going on a rampage, well that`s good to know, this young bloke in the us was legally licensed also apparently, i used to have guns as a young bloke myself, but just making a point here any one can loose their marbles, you see it every day in the news , person x loses their marriage, goes bankrupt, loses a loved one, next door neighbors dog wee`s on your prize petunia`s, what ever, not every one loses it , but some do , if guns are not readily available , that`s one less avenue for someone who`s lost the plot to commit mass murder.