Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[lloyd]

Well said.  Unfortunately, the very day the shooting occurred in Sandy Hook, a man with a knife stabbed 22 children and an adult at their primary school in Nanchang China.

 

That was not an isolated inccidence. Why are they attacking little kids?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)

[maxman]

My bro, I fully respect a man's right to own arms, be it for hunting or defense of self or property. Along with that respect, however, comes the expectation that the gun owner is responsible enough socially and morally to not be a danger to both himself and society. Its akin to owning a driving license and a car, if you examine the issue to arms ownership.

Like you mentioned, a lot of everyday items can be "converted" to weapons. Kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, sulphuric acid,steam irons, the list goes on. A gun is more explicit and deliberate in its intention as a weapon, but in my opinion, a man armed with a chainsaw going around massacring a town is no less brutal than a man doing it with a gun. Ditto for a man doing it with a baseball bat spiked with 7inch rusty nails coated with arsenic at the end. In all 3 scenarios, the common problem is the intention of the man. If someone wants to murder someone else, not having a gun is not going to deter him much. It would just affect the method of killing and perhaps the extent of damage he could do.before he could be stopped. 

 

Banning guns does not solve the root of the problem of murderous intent, it would merely make would-be murderers think more creatively about how to go about their gruesome tasks, 

Money, guns, religion, none of these are bad in itself, but its the way they are used by certain trouble-makers that creates tragedies and deeply fissured social issues. 

 

A man with 10 guns in his house, with no intention to use them to cause injury, is far less dangerous than a man with a rock who wants nothing more than to brain his neighbor and everyone else he comes across.

 

Ultimately, the real problem is knowing which is which. 

Again....well said A.

[kbh]

A man with a knife, chain saw or baseball bat still has be be a faster runner than you. Or at the least, you have to be faster than the other guy next to you.

 

I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.

[maxman]

A man with a knife, chain saw or baseball bat still has be be a faster runner than you. Or at the least, you have to be faster than the other guy next to you.

 

I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.

If they could I seriously doubt we would be having this conversation. Just saying.

[maxman]

Bad things those guns

 

 

 

[Noel Fleischer]

Well said.  Unfortunately, the very day the shooting occurred in Sandy Hook, a man with a knife stabbed 22 children and an adult at their primary school in Nanchang China.

 

As far as I know very few if any were killed however.

 

That's the main point, almost anything can be a weapon, but not with the same lethal effects of these assault rifles.

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

This is a dead end i think

Guns will be guns

Americans will be americans (well most if them)

And the rest will be the rest

[Ephry73]

This will always be a polarizing topic with no winners and no losers. Take a slingshot and some buckshot or metal 8mm ball bearings and you can do a lot of damage. The repeat rate is not as drastic at all, but there's a lot of damage.

Sick [censored]s are always going to be there.

Bottom line, you'll have vegan and animal lovers on one side and meat eaters on the opposite. I like my steaks medium rare to just brazed.

[ldegeneve]

This will always be a polarizing topic with no winners and no losers. Take a slingshot and some buckshot or metal 8mm ball bearings and you can do a lot of damage. The repeat rate is not as drastic at all, but there's a lot of damage.

Sick [censored]s are always going to be there.

Bottom line, you'll have vegan and animal lovers on one side and meat eaters on the opposite. I like my steaks medium rare to just brazed.

 

Except on the American side a lot more people die from guns than on the other side, and we Americans continue to claim that it has nothing to do with guns.

 

So, at least here in America, your side wins.

 

Oh and btw, I grew up in Switzerland, where almost every male Swiss citizen over the age of 18 has an assault rifle. I can tell you now that that factoid is totally misleading. A lot choose not to keep it at home. Also, the rifles come with months' worth of military training, which I guarantee you is not fun. In fact most kids try to avoid it nowadays.

 

It is VERY HARD to buy a gun in Switzerland.

 

It is pretty easy to do it here. But that's the whole point right? Freedom! Thank God we're not Canada! They are TOTALLY oppressed by their tyrannical government. Hey guys, let's send them guns, so they can take down their oppressive gun laws and finally be free!

 

I digress. Forget I said anything. Yes, I am here to change your mind. Call it quixotic but it needs to be done. So let's address this from another angle.

 

Let's stop wasting time talking about Freedom and militias and your gun rights.

 

As I said earlier, at the root of it, it's really about the fact that no other tool makes one feel more powerful than a gun does. I can see why that's hard to let go. Let's talk about that.

[Mike on a bike]

AH! " I grew up in Switzerland" that explains it you have been indoctrinated by Euro socialist thinking at a young age.( we will try and cure you) Most who grew up in the NY metro area think a bit differently.( where is the whores, booze and drugs thread!)  Next topic global warming, Quick call Al Gore..................... Oh my god NO!!!!

 

PS Relax just kidding this is a joke when I debate, I debate. Give it up guys both sides are firmly entrenched.

[cjjoyce1]

I usually try to stay out of these discussions, but consider this:

...

If there was a law banning guns on school grounds, would that stop a psychopath from taking a gun to an elementary school?

 

There is.  It's called the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act and it was put into place in 1994, before that the only mass shooting that took place on any camps was Kent State.  Works real well

 

THERE IS NO WAY you can say, "fix the broken people" normal people get broken everyday , takes drugs, pills alcohole ect ect, AND if they have a gune? The math to me is very easy!!!

 

Well, there used to be.  Many of the perpetrators in these shootings have known histories of mental illness, yet in this country we no longer institutionalize these people before any harm is done.  We used to.

 

Source for this?

 

 

"The Federalist Papers." Yes sir re bob.

 

  We must seem strange to our friends in other countries keep in mind our country was founded by rebels who hated government, this is the reason we exist as a country. Now no one alive was there and most of us can only trace back a generation or two living here. (Indians are the only true Americans) But these were the risk takers the bold who came across the Atlantic with maybe a bag with some clothes to Ellis Island or jumped on and over crowed boat from Cuba. We are a cocky, arrogant and independent bunch for the most part but the ideals of those rebels are ingrained in us somehow. We are quick to give and quick to fight (I know the fighting you know check the numbers on giving we are # one) but when the chips are down you can count on us for blood or treasure. These ideals and traits make us who we are, gun happy Americans to some Neanderthals living in the past to others even some of our own. I agree with some of my fellow countrymen that we have lost our way in the quality of our society where the taking of human life is nothing. The failure of the change in mental health policy by well meaning people in the past has failed us. But I refuse to side with the premise that disarming good law abiding people will redress these problems because it will do neither.

 

 

A regulated militia has nothing what-so-ever to do with armed civilians and everything to do with police, army, National Guard etc etc

 

Yes it also states the right of the people to bear arms but they are 2 different entities.

 

Ken 

 

The reasoning and history for this was presented to the World for it's consideration in The Declaration of Independance.

 

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

...

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"

 

The Colonists WERE living in a military/police state, folks.

Edited January 8, 2013 by cjjoyce1

[cjjoyce1]

Also, a point of clarification for a few of you.

 

Regulated Militia is most certainly the National Guard which is NOT the Regular Army(/Navy/Air Force) and is under jurisdiction of the States.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

 

Again, this is a key distinction the founding fathers felt extremely necessary; that the sovereignty of the states was equally important to the independence of the nation.  It's the principle by which our entire government - legislative and well as judicial, is bound

[cjjoyce1]

This is a dead end i think

Guns will be guns

Americans will be americans (well most if them)

And the rest will be the rest

 

 

This will always be a polarizing topic with no winners and no losers.

 

Lol, I posted this on my FB during the height of the argument a month ago.

 

"You know, there's a big debate going on. One where you fall generally on one side of the issue or the other. Sure there's a few folks on the in-between, but for the most part, the sides are pretty polarized. And the difficult thing is that if you are on one side of the issue, you will never, ever convince the other side of your being right or convert them to your side of the issue (unless by chance you actually can get one on the other other side to handle or own one, then. . .just maybe).

But the one side is always going to say they're stupid. Why would anyone ever want to own one. They can be destructive and dangerous. And unfortunately, there are certain kinds that make these people say no one should ever own one of these - ever! There is absolutely no reason to what-so-ever. They are completely dangerous and lethal. Other countries do not allow you to own one, and if you do, the authorities are authorized to take it on the spot and destroy it and there is nothing you can do about it. And these countries don't have the kinds of problems that we do because you're not allowed to own one. And truthfully, on the other side of the argument are those who would silently (or maybe not) agree with them. Sadly, due to lack of education, there are types that may appear to be harmful, but really aren't but they get labeled as well. Then again, there are some that can be even more so, but because of their docile looks aren't even considered (thank goodness!).

They'll also complain you don't need any special training or license to own one. That you can go out just anywhere and get one. Well, depending, that may or may not be true, but generally our freedoms do allow for this.

However, you'll never win this type of argument and it's exhausting to engage in it. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, the other will see you as narrow minded, uneducated, liberal/conservative etc. We can only go on knowing that both sides must learn to coexist. Certain owners can be irresponsible, but hold that to the individual, not the whole because in general persons on both sides are intelligent responsible people.

And if you'd read this far and think I'm talking about guns, your WRONG. I'm talking about the debate between Cat lovers and Dog lovers and the dilemma of the Staffordshire Terrier (aka Pit Bull).

Made ya think tho' didn't I?"

[Watchmeister]

Which raises the interesting question - which is more dangerous a Stafforshire Terrier or a gun.

[Nanuq]

Even more interesting....  which is more dangerous, the brown bear trying to break in my garage door, or the 12 gauge shotgun in my hands?

[Strongbow]

OK, I'll start. I'm also a law abiding gun owner, in fact I own several hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm also a firm believer in getting rid of all military type, assault rifle type, and all clips or magazines that hold over 5 bullets. And I don't buy the theory that the gun lobby perpetuates, that a semi automatic hunting rifle is the same thing as a semi automatic assault rifle. One is designed and bought for hunting animals, the other is designed and bought for killing people.

 

Also, I'd love to live in Australia, with or without my guns.

 

OK, Next.

 

So, I should only be able to defend my home with a gun holding a maximum of 5 rounds?  WTF?

 

And tell, me: what exactly is a "military type, assault rifle type?"  You do know that your bolt action "hunting rifle" was state of the art military technology 100-120 years ago, right?

 

Do you really mean that all guns that look scary should be banned?

 

Or do you mean any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting an external magazine should be banned?

[rrari1]

So, I should only be able to defend my home with a gun holding a maximum of 5 rounds?  WTF?   And tell, me: what exactly is a "military type, assault rifle type?"  You do know that your bolt action "hunting rifle" was state of the art military technology 100-120 years ago, right?   Do you really mean that all guns that look scary should be banned?   Or do you mean any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting an external magazine should be banned?

What sort of event are you expecting to occur at your house that might require an assault rifle? I am glad I live in a safer area.

[Nanuq]

What sort of event are you expecting to occur at your house that might require an assault rifle? I am glad I live in a safer area.

 

This is why a 12 gauge shotgun lives at my house.

 

 

 

 

 

[Strongbow]

What sort of event are you expecting to occur at your house that might require an assault rifle? I am glad I live in a safer area.

 

I don't "expect" such an event, but they do occur, even in nice neighbrohoods (my neighborhood is nice, and extremely safe). But I would hate to be in a situation where there was an intruder in my house and I had to hope beyond hope that they aren't armed, or that the police somehow arrive in time.

 

Perhaps you don;t feel the need to protect against such a possibility.  That is your choice.  But I am a free man, and think I should be able to defend myself and my family with the tool best suited to doing so.

 

And I ask again.... what is an "assualt rifle?"  Just one that looks scarey or is it any semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine?

[lloyd]

What sort of event are you expecting to occur at your house that might require an assault rifle? I am glad I live in a safer area.

 

Something like the LA riots comes to mind when the Koreans had to use assault rifles to protect their business and lifes.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/opinion/la-oe-chang-riots-koreatown-los-angeles-20120429

 

Or hurricane Rita or Ike down here.

 

This lady shot the bad guy 5 times in the head and neck and he was not out. What would have happened if there had been 2 or 3 bad guys?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/georgia-mom-home-alone-with-kids-shoots-ex-con-intruder/%20?test=latestnews

Edited January 8, 2013 by lloyd

[hambone]

I also agree with Nanuq's view. We have in inbred sickness in american, and international societies.

It does all begin with parents nurturing their children to grasp the concept of right and wrong, human decency, and a positive set of guidelines. This is sorely lacking in millions of households. When our kids become numb with glorified violence that permeates every aspect of our lives, the weak minded grasp

this mindset that it is the way of the world.

I misunderstood the Austrailan weapons ban, and now realize it is all automatic weapons. a good revolver or shotgun will provide ample home security. I'm on the fence on automatic guns being banned.

I see both sides of the argument as having valid reasons. If the guy in Colorado had a revolver or two,

rather than rapid fire autos, the death toll would have been less

My Bro in Law has an amazing machine gun collection and owns every wartime automatic from the civil was gattling gun, to every  world war 1 & 2 machine guns from every country that manufactured them.

It is a mind blower to see. But, they are an investment and an outstanding museum collection. He would not be happy to give them up. When he was in medical school, an angry african american shot and killed

his girlfriend, his best friend, and when the murderer point the gun at my Bro, it jammed. This propelled him into a defensive mindset..

As a species, we have forever been on a long and bloody path of destruction. It is unlikely that

our nature will ever change.

 

[kbh]

So, I should only be able to defend my home with a gun holding a maximum of 5 rounds?  WTF?

 What are you preparing for, The Zombie Apocalypse? I you can't stop an intruder with five shots, or in a handgun it's usually around 9 shots, you've probably already lost the fight and are dead. Personally, for home protection I'd much prefer a semi-automtic 12 gauge shotgun than an AR15.

 

 

And tell, me: what exactly is a "military type, assault rifle type?"  You do know that your bolt action "hunting rifle" was state of the art military technology 100-120 years ago, right?

My point, exactly. And when the Founding Father's wrote the Bill of Rights, a military rifle was a musket that fired a single shot. A gun was a gun and a rifle was a rifle and neither had the firepower to take out a school classroom or an audience at a movie theater.

 

 

Do you really mean that all guns that look scary should be banned?

 

Or do you mean any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting an external magazine should be banned?

Nobody's trying to take away all our guns. The only talk has been regulating assualt rifles and hi capacity clips. Why can't any of the staunch gun lovers accept that simple fact instead of going on and on about the repeal of the second amendment and our God given right to bear arms of any kind. We regulate fully automatic weapons but you take the exact same rifle and change 2 or 3 parts and it becomes legal. Most any soldier with combat experience will tell you that fully automatic is next to useless for killing anything.

[JoeyB]

 What are you preparing for, The Zombie Apocalypse? I you can't stop an intruder with five shots, or in a handgun it's usually around 9 shots, you've probably already lost the fight and are dead. Personally, for home protection I'd much prefer a semi-automtic 12 gauge shotgun than an AR15.

 

Agreed. In a limited area a shotgun would be far more effective, particularly in the hand of an amateur. Even a trained combat experienced soldier who had not trained for any extended period would be more effective with a shotgun, and he should know it. 

 

My point, exactly. And when the Founding Father's wrote the Bill of Rights, a military rifle was a musket that fired a single shot. A gun was a gun and a rifle was a rifle and neither had the firepower to take out a school classroom or an audience at a movie theater.

 

 

In 1775 the 'assault weapon' was a musket with a fixed bayonet. Our militia literally ran from the battlefield, dropped and discarded their weapons and ran, when the Brits fixed bayonets.

Why?

The same reasons as today. Assault weapons are meant for one thing, and one thing only. To kill multiple people. And it doesn't matter if it's on a battlefield or in a school, or what the assault weapon is, it will do it's job. In fact, the bayonet in the hand of the 18th century Brit soldier was more deadly than assault weapons today because it was more accurately deployed and due to the proximity to target.

Nobody's trying to take away all our guns. The only talk has been regulating assualt rifles and hi capacity clips. Why can't any of the staunch gun lovers accept that simple fact instead of going on and on about the repeal of the second amendment and our God given right to bear arms of any kind. We regulate fully automatic weapons but you take the exact same rifle and change 2 or 3 parts and it becomes legal. Most any soldier with combat experience will tell you that fully automatic is next to useless for killing anything.

 

I am a "staunch gun lover" by your usage, and I have said in this thread just that. I have no issue with being registered, proving training, having background check, and I believe we should ban assault weapons and high volume magazines. I do not believe that the ordinary citizen needs these assault weapons any more than they did in 1775. As our Founders learned then, if an insurrection were to become necessary, the weapons at hand can attain the weapons needed for an insurgency. That's why insurgencies have a habit of winning. 

 

However, that will not stop the violence. The violence is not less in other advanced nations because of banning guns. The violence is less in those places that recognize and treat people that are ill. Anyone, including myself, can be totally sane today, pass all the checks, spend a lifetime of stability, and snap tomorrow. The warning signs are ignored here, or excused or simply not recognized. After 39 years in the military I can honestly say that I have served with, and commanded, many people who should never be allowed to be near a slingshot, let alone a firearm. If I can recognize that in someone, certainly our medical people can, and better than I. 

 

The answer to the issue in the U.S. is not easy. But something must be done. A knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy gets knee-jerk results. We need thoughtful answers, genius ideas in order to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights, and stop the gun violence here. And that will cost us money.

And that will be a very tough sell to about half of our Nation. 

[lloyd]

"Debate about guns and safety calls for logic not emotion

By Harry Wilson, Ph.D.

 

In the wake of tragedies we tend to react out of emotion. When dealing with policy-making, however, we all benefit if logic enters the discussion. It is difficult to imagine a more heart-wrenching event than the Newtown, Conn. shootings. The inevitable calls for more gun control legislation reflect an understandable desire to do something after 26 defenseless and innocent people are slaughtered.

The more important question, however, is what can we do that will make a difference? That, I suggest, is the best way to honor those who lost their lives. Making us feel better should not be the measure. We should try to make a difference.

That is exactly what those who advocate stricter gun control laws suggest will happen if we follow their advice. Whether it is re-enacting the assault weapons ban, limiting the capacity of magazines, closing the “gun-show loophole,” or requiring background checks for all private firearms sales, gun control advocates state with conviction that these measures will reduce future shootings. For the most part, they are wrong

Virtually all academic studies of the expired assault weapons ban, even those conducted by researchers who generally favor gun control, found the effect to be almost negligible. Given that the ban was based as much on appearance as functionality, and all existing guns were grandfathered, it would be illogical to think it would have been effective.

There are between 2 million and 3 million AR-15-type firearms in the United States today. Prohibiting the manufacture of more will make it only marginally impact the ability of a criminal or mentally ill individual to obtain one. This is to say nothing of the weapon-substitution effect — many other firearms will do the same thing as an “assault rifle,” but they appear less menacing, so they won’t be banned.

Likewise, limiting magazine capacity is largely an exercise in futility. A reasonably experienced shooter can change a clip in a couple of seconds. In other words, three 10-round clips are nearly as effective as a single 30-round clip. To be fair, there is some evidence that limiting capacity might reduce the death toll somewhat in mass shootings.

Individuals who are intent on committing mass murder won’t be deterred by any of the above measures. Seung Hui Cho used two legally purchased handguns, which he accumulated over months, to kill 32 and wound 17 people at Virginia Tech. Timothy McVeigh used only fertilizer and racing fuel to kill 168, including 19 children, and injure 450 others at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

So, is there nothing we can do? Clearly, we cannot eliminate all threats, and those who desire to kill will find a way to do so. That said, there are some areas on which everyone can agree: Everyone wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally ill.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, Congress amended the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to provide incentives to states to report to prevent mentally unstable people from purchasing firearms. According to a Homeland Security report, 30 states did not make any non-criminal records available to NICS, as of May 1, 2012. Concerns range from privacy issues to cost to technological and bureaucratic barriers. To borrow a phrase from President Obama, “Is this the best we can do?”

Fixing this problem would not draw the ire of gun owners or gun rights’ groups. It would not require any additional Congressional action, unless it was necessary to alleviate legal privacy issues. The cost would not be that great.

There is a strong consensus that guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable is the problem. Making access to guns more difficult for the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding, responsible citizens, parents, and grandparents does not make any of us any safer. Once we have strengthened the NICS checks, then it may make sense to discuss expanding those checks.

Finally, it may be worthwhile to consider the school safety recommendations originating with the National Rifle Association. Promising to assemble a group of security experts overseen by former U.S. Attorney, Congressman, Homeland Security and DEA official, Asa Hutchinson, and to go beyond a recommendation of armed personnel at schools, that group could offer concrete suggestions to improve school security.

Focusing on firearms alone does not address the underlying issue regarding why a person believes that killing many others is the solution to their “problem.” We must examine this societal problem and search for solutions that would do more than just make ourselves feel better in the wake of tragedy."

Harry Wilson, Ph.D. is the author of "Guns, Gun Control and Elections." He is the director of Roanoke College’s Institute for Policy and Opinion Research, where he also serves as professor of political science.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2HQMTMNyT
 

[Ephry73]

Speaking of semi-auto shotguns, a 12ga semi-auto shotgun with a drum is far more damaging than an AR-15 and for

Some reason, still ok to own. Just saying. First rifle I ever got as a present was a semi-auto 12 gauge beretta.