Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[StormTooper4]

And here we go again

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/01/06/07/32/us-massacre-near-scene-of-cinema-shooting

[kbh]

Only problem with that theory, Joey, is that no one including our Continental Army did it without the help of another foreign power. We would still be a British Colony if the French didn't supply heavy arms and training. Same in every other insurgency from Viet Nam to the current Syrian revolution. None of those people did squat with the  small arms owned by civilians.

 

A more equivalent scenerio would be Al Quaeda or the Taliban, both of which have been crushed and defeated. They may return as we leave but as a war it wasn't much of a fight.

 

Even Iraq's mighty war machine only lasted what, somehthing like 7 days, and we were fighting a war thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. And weren't they like the 4th largest standing army in the world.

 

Edit: In almost all civil conflicts, for instance sub Saharan Africa, Most small arms in the hands of militias are used to murder and terrorize the civilian population, whether it be for religous or other sectarian conflicts.

Edited January 6, 2013 by kbh

[panerai153]

Unfortunately, this is and endless cyclic argument. it's like arguing religion, no matter what you say, no matter what statistics you quote, you are NOT going to convince the other side that they are wrong and you are correct. I respect the opinion of everyone here, but you folks from Australia and other parts of the world, as well as all of you from here in the states are not going to convince this old man that living in a gun free society is going to suddenly create some super safe utopian society. It would be great if it did, but It isn't going to happen. I have read too much history, and have seen first hand over my almost 7 decades on this spinning orb what happens when citizens give up their arms. It isn't pretty.

 

While I am an advocate of gun owners rights, I do not see any reason for anyone except the military to posess fully automatic weapons. Sort of like having hand grenades, rocket launchers and shoulder fired missles, they don't have a place in anyones personal weapons collection.

[Watchmeister]

People can always utilize selective data to make their point. In NY the strongest gun laws over an extended period have correlated with a dramatic decrease in violent crime. Cause and effect? Who knows. Over the same time period the number of policeman have also almost doubled - first under Guiliani and then Bloomberg. And yes, Israel does far and away have the highest legal (or known) ownership per capita of semi and automatic weapons with a very low violent crime rate. But there everyone undergoes military service and serves in the reserves for many years after. They aren't hunters - merely well trained survivalists. Personally, I do hope they restrict the larger assault weapons in a constructive manner. There is no circumstance I can come up with in our country where a machine gun is required.

[slask111]

Just noticed the date you joined and your postcount. You should be ashamed. Troll... Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Edited January 6, 2013 by slask111

[JoeyB]

Only problem with that theory, Joey, is that no one including our Continental Army did it without the help of another foreign power. We would still be a British Colony if the French didn't supply heavy arms and training. Same in every other insurgency from Viet Nam to the current Syrian revolution. None of those people did squat with the  small arms owned by civilians.

 

A more equivalent scenerio would be Al Quaeda or the Taliban, both of which have been crushed and defeated. They may return as we leave but as a war it wasn't much of a fight.

 

Even Iraq's mighty war machine only lasted what, somehthing like 7 days, and we were fighting a war thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. And weren't they like the 4th largest standing army in the world.

 

Edit: In almost all civil conflicts, for instance sub Saharan Africa, Most small arms in the hands of militias are used to murder and terrorize the civilian population, whether it be for religous or other sectarian conflicts.

I will disagree. It's not a theory, but history. Many had had outside help, but most, including us, did not get that outside help until the insurgent showed that they could win. The French were not being magnanimous. They were being opportunistic as were the Russians and Chinese in Vietnam. The Syrians are on their own, so far, and have done quite well starting with small arms. 

 

al Qaeda is not an insurgent group. They have no country they are fighting for, no government oppression they oppose. They are religious extremists who attempt to control people, not liberate them. The Taliban is the overthrown government of Afghanistan. The opposite of insurgent. 

 

Yes, Iraq was easily defeated by us, as I said before. A uniformed Army taking the field is much preferable to face than an insurgency. 

 

Small arms are used for bad and good, and everything in between. The Flag of Mozambique has an AK-47 on it for reason. 

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

@slask

Now i dont understand anything!!!

[Nanuq]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this conversation.

[icoopernicus]

You want sensible gun laws? here they are

Illegal/Banned/No longer produced for civillian use:

 - Any firearm that may hold more than two rounds without requiring reloading

 - Any Firearm that can be reasonably considered concealable

 - Possession of an unauthorized weapon (see above) by an officer of the law who is not currently on duty. These guns would be secured and stored at the police station and not taken home by police officers

 - The sale of ammunition that would not be used for hunting or sport shooting (which would no longer include the use of handguns - get over it)

 

Legal:

 - Every round of ammunition sold, civilian or otherwise would be registered and serialized, this added cost would be passed on to the consumers of ammunition

 - Laws prohibiting the stockpiling of ammunition, this would be easier to trace than it sounds, much easier than catching someone stockpiling kiddie porn

 - Mandatory inspection of all weapons to prevent modifications resulting in multiple round or semi-automatic weapons being created from simple hunting rifles

 - Mandatory recertification for what would be immensely more strict gun ownership standards, along with automatic revocation of gun ownership rights following conviction of a violent crime or otherwise failure to complete the recertification.

 - Strict limitations on discharging a firearm, restricted to registered and licensed shooting ranges and during hunting season. The discharge of a firearm on public or private property would be prohibited and result in possible revocation/suspension of ownership rights.  

 - Federal buyback program, no questions asked to turn in any prohibited firearms

 

Just think about how dangerous guns are, what their only intended purpose is, and how much sense this kind of regulation for something that is so dangerous really does make. 

 

Please no talking points about "now only the criminals have guns" and "how will we defend agains the government that out to get us" It's not! (well maybe the republicans...if you're poor or black) 

[lloyd]

Sorry Freddy the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

Every citizen in Israel has their backs to the sea and a common enemy who surrounds them on all sides, hardly a good example for gun safety.

 

 

Ken

You forgot the all important comma. Because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (comma) It means because a militia is necessary, the right of the people to be armed and act a as a check and balance to the government shall not be infringed.

[lloyd]

Citizen's owning guns to keep our Government in check is the funniest part of this thread. I can just see a bunch of fools with AR-15's fighting against a well trained army with tanks, armored personell carriers, aircraft, drones, submmarines and nuclear missiles. Good luck with that one.

 

Red Dawn was just a movie, not real life.

Worked in the middle east. A US solder swears to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Edited January 6, 2013 by lloyd

[lloyd]

More guns = more deaths, have you heard me disagree overall on that point.

However.

I am not giving up my rights for safety , I guess that was the picture I was trying to paint posts back on our mind set.

 

We know it, but we fell individually safer with our own protection from others and are willing to take our chances to that end.

 

With freedom comes risk less risk less freedom more freedom more risk.

 

There is one thing we are very afraid of that one day everyone will be so safe the government controls everything.

 

Decide how much freedom you want, I have.

More guns do mean less murder. Look at this study from Harvard of all places. You have to keep the other parameters equal.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[lloyd]

You want sensible gun laws? here they are

Illegal/Banned/No longer produced for civillian use:

 - Any firearm that may hold more than two rounds without requiring reloading

 - Any Firearm that can be reasonably considered concealable

 - Possession of an unauthorized weapon (see above) by an officer of the law who is not currently on duty. These guns would be secured and stored at the police station and not taken home by police officers

 - The sale of ammunition that would not be used for hunting or sport shooting (which would no longer include the use of handguns - get over it)

 

Legal:

 - Every round of ammunition sold, civilian or otherwise would be registered and serialized, this added cost would be passed on to the consumers of ammunition

 - Laws prohibiting the stockpiling of ammunition, this would be easier to trace than it sounds, much easier than catching someone stockpiling kiddie porn

 - Mandatory inspection of all weapons to prevent modifications resulting in multiple round or semi-automatic weapons being created from simple hunting rifles

 - Mandatory recertification for what would be immensely more strict gun ownership standards, along with automatic revocation of gun ownership rights following conviction of a violent crime or otherwise failure to complete the recertification.

 - Strict limitations on discharging a firearm, restricted to registered and licensed shooting ranges and during hunting season. The discharge of a firearm on public or private property would be prohibited and result in possible revocation/suspension of ownership rights.  

 - Federal buyback program, no questions asked to turn in any prohibited firearms

 

Just think about how dangerous guns are, what their only intended purpose is, and how much sense this kind of regulation for something that is so dangerous really does make. 

 

Please no talking points about "now only the criminals have guns" and "how will we defend agains the government that out to get us" It's not! (well maybe the republicans...if you're poor or black) 

How did gun bans work in England?

 

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

 

 

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz2HAL0dQit

 

[Mike on a bike]

Bingo! "It means because a militia is necessary, the right of the people to be armed and act a as a check and balance to the government shall not be infringed."

[lloyd]

Bingo! "It means because a militia is necessary, the right of the people to be armed and act a as a check and balance to the government shall not be infringed."

Right on. Those old guys believed in checks and balances.

[icoopernicus]

How did gun bans work in the United Kingdom

 

WHO in 2012 put the number of gun related deaths at 0.25 per 100,000 people that includes 1.7 suicides per 100,000 and 0.04 homicides per 100,000. regardless of what they were before that's a lot less than....

 

The statistic for the United States is 10.2 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. thats 4000% higher than the UK!

[lloyd]

I bet there where some people in the Philipines who hated that gun control took away the good guys guns.

 

One guy went from house to house killing people. He killed 8

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/335623/wife-of-slain-cavite-gunman-apologizes-to-victims-families

 

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2102151/pg1

[Mike on a bike]

My friend from Canada please choose to disarm yourself. You post a police state that I choose not to live in and as an American I do not and will not. 

 

"iCoopernicus, on 05 Jan 2013 - 22:53, said:

You want sensible gun laws? here they are

Illegal/Banned/No longer produced for civillian use:

 - Any firearm that may hold more than two rounds without requiring reloading Two rounds surely you jest.

 - Any Firearm that can be reasonably considered concealable By whom.

 - Possession of an unauthorized weapon (see above) by an officer of the law who is not currently on duty. These guns would be secured and stored at the police station and not taken home by police officers I was one they ain't buying that for sure.

 - The sale of ammunition that would not be used for hunting or sport shooting (which would no longer include the use of handguns - get over it) NOPE.

 

Legal:

 - Every round of ammunition sold, civilian or otherwise would be registered and serialized, this added cost would be passed on to the consumers of ammunition Right out of the the play book can't get the guns go for the ammo.

 - Laws prohibiting the stockpiling of ammunition, this would be easier to trace than it sounds, much easier than catching someone stockpiling kiddie porn How did that get in here are we trying to draw a parallel, not working.

 - Mandatory inspection of all weapons to prevent modifications resulting in multiple round or semi-automatic weapons being created from simple hunting rifles By the ever benevolent state right, you give up your rights or already have, I will not.

 - Mandatory recertification for what would be immensely more strict gun ownership standards, along with automatic revocation of gun ownership rights following conviction of a violent crime or otherwise failure to complete the recertification.

 - Strict limitations on discharging a firearm, restricted to registered and licensed shooting ranges and during hunting season. The discharge of a firearm on public or private property would be prohibited and result in possible revocation/suspension of ownership rights.  It just gets positively insane on these points. No they can not and we ain't letting them. My word do you guys have any sense of retaining any shred of self determination in the face of danger from anything.

 - Federal buyback program, no questions asked to turn in any prohibited firearms

 

Just think about how dangerous guns are, what their only intended purpose is, and how much sense this kind of regulation for something that is so dangerous really does make. 

 

Please no talking points about "now only the criminals have guns" and "how will we defend agains the government that out to get us" It's not! (well maybe the republicans...if you're poor or black) What's with the politics and racial stuff we have not brought that in here at all guys on both sides. This is how things get ugly.

Talking points, Oh I get it only you are allowed them.

[Mike on a bike]

Ken close it my friend no one disagrees on this more than us, but you can see where it is going.

[icoopernicus]

I bet there where some people in the Philipines who hated that gun control took away the good guys guns. One guy went from house to house killing people. He killed 8 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/335623/wife-of-slain-cavite-gunman-apologizes-to-victims-families http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2102151/pg1

Do you think people just sit around with a gun in a holster, ready to outdraw a criminal entering their home. That guy going door to door killing people would more than likely have killed just as many people regardless of how many people had a gun in their house. Why? Because they don't live their lives prepared to shoot an intruder who is walking down the street killing people. This shooter was stopped by police, who by the way would have a hell of a time determining who the shooter was if everyone was running around guns drawn. Hey, maybe when civilian X pulls out his gun to stop the shooter then civilian Y mistakes civilian X as shooter number 2, well, you see where I'm going with this.

[icoopernicus]

Hey mike, that's not a police state, it's just a country in which civilians aren't allowed to own weapons that are only meant to kill people. Do you consider the United States a police state because you're not legally permitted to own a bazooka that shoots biological weapons? Yeah I didn't think so..... That'd be cool though, right?

[Mike on a bike]

 It is not a police state from your view it is in mine. Yes they do kill people very innocent and very bad ones. I choose the level of risk and ability to protect myself I am comfortable with you choose yours. Obviously you are risk averse and are willing to let the state handle your risk, I prefer to micro manage my risk.

[Mike on a bike]

So I gather there are weapons that are meant to be nice to people "it's just a country in which civilians aren't allowed to own weapons that are only meant to kill people"  that is what weapons are supposed to do silly.

[icoopernicus]

The guns that I am suggesting not be available to civilians are meant for killing people, there are guns that are designed to hunt and kill animals, I see a distinction between the two.

I can't even say that it's a uniquely American Phenomenon, I live in rural Canada where gun violence doesn't exist, in a world where I have never handled, let alone fired a gun. Even here there are lots of people who swear by their right to own whatever high powered gun to protect themselves from a crime that simply isn't going to happen to them. I find this fear of armed criminals completely irrational, it's just not something I worry about, but then, people living in the same small town seeing the same number of violent home invasions and armed robberies (pretty much zero, I can't remember that ever happening here) and they still can't imagine not having a gun to protect their family. Why? I'm actually asking why? I don't understand where this fear and paranoia comes from. You say I am risk averse, I agree, I am unwilling to take an UNNECESSARY risk to comfort myself from a danger that doesn't exist. 

[KB]

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