Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[lloyd]

I would really want to protect them, I don't know what it would be like to live through something like that. Of course, I'm also not sure how I would feel if my son or daughter were killed by a gun that I was keeping in my house for protection. Accidental shootings happen a lot, see the list of links I posted yesterday and for me that is a far more real danger. This is not a problem with no answer, it's a problem that we refuse to address. We make constant justifications for owning guns that will only be used for target practice or to accidentally shoot our neighbours kid. Justification for guns that have the potential to be used in mass murders, guns that are only slightly modified versions of military weapons. This isn't a movie and the bad guys aren't running rampant with guns, but you better believe that when someone decides they want to do something bad with a gun, they have all the access they could dream of, all because someone, clouded in their own cognitive dissonance, justified it.  

 

When some one decides to do something bad, they do not need a gun. They can use an airliner, or car bomb or even a sword

 

The worst mass school killining in America happened in 1927 with the nut using bombs.

 

A gallon of gas can work too. This nut killed 87 people.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

 

Proper storage and gun safety education can prevent accidents.

[ldegeneve]

I don't think this is really about militias or freedom, rights or self-defense, and what have you.

 

At the root of it, it's that no other tool will make one feel as powerful as a gun does.

[KB]

When people die in cars the people demand regulations to curb the deaths and driving is not only one of the most regulated past times we have and it continues to be regulated.

 

When they die in air disasters we demand strict safety laws, despite flying be much safer than driving.

 

But the list is endless, Tobacco and Alcohol (at least here in Australia) are targeted by a great deal of advertising and excise taxes, obesity is the new tobacco being tackled by our government.

 

Whatever you do travelling, swimming, hiking, hang gliding...if people can die the government or the people (usually both) have rules, advise and watchdog groups to try and save lives and it's the same all over the world.

 

Except guns in the US, the answer there is not any form of regulation, the answer is more guns. That's not freedom, that's Anarchy  

 

Glad I'm an Aussie.

 

I also know now that it is an overwhelming job to get American gun advocates to even consider, to even peek over the fence, of the opposing argument. Remember many on my side of the fence know the alternative, in the case of Aussies we have been there and know we made the right decision.

 

With that I'm bailing out, what drives me to try and get the message across is the utter gut wrenching sadness I feel when I think of those little kids gunned down in Sandy Hook. The fact that this atrocity didn't rip the heart out of the gun ownership stance, the fact that this thread is here a mere few weeks after the shooting tells me that Americans have become far to desensitised to truly grieve and to many their first reaction is defense.

 

Ken

[lloyd]

When people die in cars the people demand regulations to curb the deaths and driving is not only one of the most regulated past times we have and it continues to be regulated.

 

When they die in air disasters we demand strict safety laws, despite flying be much safer than driving.

 

But the list is endless, Tobacco and Alcohol (at least here in Australia) are targeted by a great deal of advertising and excise taxes, obesity is the new tobacco being tackled by our government.

 

Whatever you do travelling, swimming, hiking, hang gliding...if people can die the government or the people (usually both) have rules, advise and watchdog groups to try and save lives and it's the same all over the world.

 

Except guns in the US, the answer there is not any form of regulation, the answer is more guns. That's not freedom, that's Anarchy  

 

Glad I'm an Aussie.

 

I also know now that it is an overwhelming job to get American gun advocates to even consider, to even peek over the fence, of the opposing argument. Remember many on my side of the fence know the alternative, in the case of Aussies we have been there and know we made the right decision.

 

With that I'm bailing out, what drives me to try and get the message across is the utter gut wrenching sadness I feel when I think of those little kids gunned down in Sandy Hook. The fact that this atrocity didn't rip the heart out of the gun ownership stance, the fact that this thread is here a mere few weeks after the shooting tells me that Americans have become far to desensitised to truly grieve and to many their first reaction is defense.

 

Ken

Who says it did not rip at our hearts? You have to realize that a nut will find a way to kill.

 

"The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults, and injured at least 58 other people.^{[Note 1]} Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.^["

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster}

 

^{38 kids with a bomb.}

 

^{Americas crime rate is dropping. It is the lowest since 1964. An isolated incidence does not call for disarming the millions of law abiding citizens. How many millions of times a year do guns save lives?}

 

^{From a government study.}

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of

2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994

telephone survey conducted by Florida State

University professors Gary Kleck and Mark

Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked

up by the press and now appears regularly in

newspaper articles, letters to the editor,

editorials, and even Congressional Research Service

briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and

Gertz instrument and provides a basis for

replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents

in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the

past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even

if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone

else, or for the protection of property at home,

work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative

were followed with "How many different times did

you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect

yourself or property in the past 12 months?"

Negative answers to the first DGU question were

followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend

yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).

Each respondent who answered yes to either of these

DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional

questions concerning the most recent defensive gun

use in which the respondent was involved, including

the respondent's actions with the gun, the location

and other circumstances of the incident, and the

respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use

in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the

sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6

percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million

adults. Almost half of these respondents reported

multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis

for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23

million. This surprising figure is caused in part

by a few respondents reporting large numbers of

defensive gun uses during the year; for example,

one woman reported 52!

You do not have to shot someone to be saved by your gun.

[lloyd]

Except guns in the US, the answer there is not any form of regulation, the answer is more guns. That's not freedom, that's Anarchy  

 

 

Ken

You do realize that Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US? They have registration, permits, and bans on assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

 

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony

 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202c.htm

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

OMG!!!

Ok, we all get it NOW, a Usa dude would rather make love to a gun insted of a woman!

Thank you god, for me being Europen!

[lloyd]

OMG!!!

Ok, we all get it NOW, a Usa dude would rather make love to a gun insted of a woman!

Thank you god, for me being Europen!

 

If you can not win with facts, resort to insults.

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

If you can not win with facts, resort to insults.

It dosent mater if the facts or the real life stares you in the face, you wouldent see it anyway! Now thats a fact!!!

Im out of hear

[dluddy]

You can't legislate common sense Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoeyB]

 The fact that this atrocity didn't rip the heart out of the gun ownership stance, the fact that this thread is here a mere few weeks after the shooting tells me that Americans have become far to desensitised to truly grieve and to many their first reaction is defense.

 

Ken

The fact that you make such assumptions is absurd. The discussions are taking place in the U.S. because the killings did rip our hearts out. But we choose to not make the wrong decision in knee-jerk fashion. And most Americans believe that the decision made for you may well be the right one for you, but is not the right decision for us. We will make the right decision for us. 

Thank GOD I'm an American. 

[Mike on a bike]

Guys relax I know you think we are crazy (my position is known) but we are what we are. I have tried to explain our mind set hoping to at least bridge the differences in opinion with understanding. It is not my purpose to change your minds never was, I have tried to give some insight into our deeply held believe on this matter. For better or worse we aren't changing ours either. Debating the merits is fine and I look at it as just that a debate the catalyst being a heinous act of barbarity I can confidently say beyond any of my friends here worst imaginings of behavior. I count many on the other side of this issue as friends and am hopeful that you have interacted with me enough to know I am a man of fair mind, strong principals and gentle temperament. So I beseech you let us get back to watches as we will just spin our wheels indefinitely as passions about this issue run very very high.

PS For those of you in simpatico with me ,let it go nothing will be changed by the discourse here. It can only lead to animosity among friends.

[icoopernicus]

You do realize that Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US? They have registration, permits, and bans on assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

 

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony

 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202c.htm

 It doesn't matter how strict the gun laws in Connecticut are, or Chicago, or New York, or DC.... Do these places have gates around them controlling the transport of locally banned weapons from entering, of course they don't. Even the national border between Canada and the United States isn't enough to keep guns from passing from one country to the next. You want to prevent a mass shooting in Kansas? don't create strict gun laws only in Kansas (the laws in CT are not strict, just by comparison to the rest of the nutty country). The entire country has to adopt appropriate gun laws!

 Someone who wants to commit a mass murder has to have NO access to an assault rifle because his mommy wasn't allowed to keep one in the friggin' house! Why don't people use bombs more often? because it is so easy to get a gun and making a bomb just isn't that easy. Restricting firearms won't make building a bomb easier, it will make committing a mass murder more difficult - PERIOD. A mass murder is pretty hard to commit if you only have access to a hunting rifle - PERIOD.  Arming everyone won't prevent mass murders, it will make the entire country a more dangerous place. Is your child safer at a school where firearms are prohibited in a country where a firearm is almost impossible to come by or would you rather drop them off in a war zone with a bunch or armed soldiers tasked with protecting them while equally armed bad guys try to kill them? How can anyone think that more guns = less gun violence? Please, how can anyone honestly believe that? 

[Legend]

A man who is determined to cause harm to another would be able to do so, firearms or not.

A gun simply makes it much easier for the man (or woman) to carry out the killing. 

Some form of firearms control is good, but what is even more important is identifying and controlling those who are apt to kill just for the hell of it.

 

A gun on its own cannot cause any harm. Its always the man behind the trigger.

[JoeyB]

Why don't people use bombs more often? because it is so easy to get a gun and making a bomb just isn't that easy.

Making a bomb is easier than getting a gun in the U.S. or anywhere else. 

 

We believe what the factual statistics tell us. Those states that have enacted conceal-carry laws have experienced a drop in violent crime. That must be thoroughly studied.

 

But to go over the top with silly scenarios doesn't accomplish a thing. 

I'm not in support of every person armed, nor do I support assault weapons and high capacity clips. I do not oppose training, registration and background checks. 

 

We had a ban on assault weapons that lasted 10 years enacted by President Clinton and allowed to expire by President Bush.  I think most Americans would have no issue with banning assault weapons again, this time permanently.  I also think that the high capacity clips can be banned with little opposition.  As I understand it, such a ban is about  to be brought to congress for the Speaker to bring to the floor. This is where the first hurdle will be, if the Speaker allows it to the floor. 

 

Will all that stop the violence? I don't think so. But it might reduce the violence. 

[rrari1]

There are some interesting stats on this page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

For the Americans who believe that more guns are the solution to school shootings, you do have considerably more guns per head of population than even the most war torn countries.  How many more do you think are needed to finally bring your gun crime rates down?

 

For those who feel high gun ownership is needed in order to defend against government, note how low gun ownership is in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring started.  It seems that a kalashnikov under every pillow was not needed.

[maxman]

A man who is determined to cause harm to another would be able to do so, firearms or not.

A gun simply makes it much easier for the man (or woman) to carry out the killing. 

Some form of firearms control is good, but what is even more important is identifying and controlling those who are apt to kill just for the hell of it.

 

A gun on its own cannot cause any harm. Its always the man behind the trigger.

Well said A. People In this country kill by arson all the time. Ever see what a couple of well placed pipe bombs can do to a house or any other structure. How about a maniac welding a machete. Chop chop mf. How about people who drive through crowds of people with the Intention of killing or Injuring as many as they can. Many examples of these types of things happening everyday.

 

I do agree that the average person does not need a assault weapon. AK 47 for example But a revolver or a semi automatic hand gun should be afforded to any law abiding American citizen. If you choose not to have one to protect you and your family....fine. But there are these new Inventions called safes that will secure your guns from children or anyone else who might like to gain access to them. This Is called being a responsible.

 

I also might add that the video I posted Is misleading. I did not do my due diligence before posting that video. I believe that there was this mass shooting In Australia  back In 1993. Since the ban on assault weapons there have been no other mass killings there. As far as I know. But will they now come after your hand guns? Are you 100% sure about that Issue.?

 

I guess we can ban knives gas/petrol cars planes etc. How about fire In general. That's It...lets ban fire. No fire no arson that kills many all the time.

 

To put It nicely  "Don't tread on me"

 

Mike

[Noel Fleischer]

No one is trying to take away all your beloved guns. Keep one in your house if you like.Go deer hunting if you like.

 

Unless you consider it sport killing a deer with an Uzi or a 50 cal.military type snipers rifle.

 

NO ONE NEEDS A FREAKIN ASSAULT RIFLE!

 

The overall trend is clear, countries with limited access to guns have much less gun related violence.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Noel Fleischer

[Watchmeister]

There are some interesting stats on this page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country d.

Now go back and look at the Harvard Study. What you will find is that there is no correlation between no. of guns and violent crime rate. In fact there is more likely inverse correlation. And this is coming from a person with no axe to grind. I don't own a gun.

[rrari1]

No one is trying to take away all your beloved guns. Keep one in your house if you like.Go deer hunting if you like.

 

Unless you consider it sport killing a deer with an Uzi or a 50 cal.military type snipers rifle.

 

NO ONE NEEDS A FREAKIN ASSAULT RIFLE!

 

The overall trend is clear, countries with limited access to guns have much less gun related violence.

Yep, when people talk about needing guns for home defence and hunting, the AR 15 is a terrible gun for either of those purposes.  It does not have enough stopping power for hunting anything other than small game, and is not manouverable enough for home defence.  These guns are mostly for people who want to pretend they are tough by owning them.  The NRA is not there to defend gun owners, they are there to lobby for the gun industry, and assault weapons are more profitable to sell than hunting rifles.

[rrari1]

Now go back and look at the Harvard Study. What you will find is that there is no correlation between no. of guns and violent crime rate. In fact there is more likely inverse correlation. And this is coming from a person with no axe to grind. I don't own a gun.

In the USA there are 10.2 gun deaths per 100k of population per year.

In the UK there are 0.04 gun deaths per 100k of population per year.

 

What do you suggest is causing the difference?  I do not believe any of our teachers are armed, so that is not it...

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

I think the rest of the world is smarter then the Usa

[dluddy]

I think the rest of the world is smarter then the Usa

Exactly what we want you to think

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

Exactly what we want you to think

Hahahahahaha

[Legend]

Well said A. People In this country kill by arson all the time. Ever see what a couple of well placed pipe bombs can do to a house or any other structure. How about a maniac welding a machete. Chop chop mf. How about people who drive through crowds of people with the Intention of killing or Injuring as many as they can. Many examples of these types of things happening everyday.

 

I do agree that the average person does not need a assault weapon. AK 47 for example But a revolver or a semi automatic hand gun should be afforded to any law abiding American citizen. If you choose not to have one to protect you and your family....fine. But there are these new Inventions called safes that will secure your guns from children or anyone else who might like to gain access to them. This Is called being a responsible.

 

I also might add that the video I posted Is misleading. I did not do my due diligence before posting that video. I believe that there was this mass shooting In Australia  back In 1993. Since the ban on assault weapons there have been no other mass killings there. As far as I know. But will they now come after your hand guns? Are you 100% sure about that Issue.?

 

I guess we can ban knives gas/petrol cars planes etc. How about fire In general. That's It...lets ban fire. No fire no arson that kills many all the time.

 

To put It nicely  "Don't tread on me"

 

Mike

 

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. 

[Nanuq]

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, 

 

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.