Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[kbh]

I'm really not against any guns, even assault rifles. If everyone were as intelligent and sane as myself, my friends, and, I assume, those posting in this thread, we wouldn't even need to discuss it.

 

What is scary to me is the "other people", the crazies, the criminals, and in particular so many of today's youths that seem to be growing up with no parental guidance, no compassion or regard for others, and those that would as soon shoot you as argue with you. Why is it that today every ghetto youth and gang banger feels the need to carry a weapon? It's just crazy. We had a case just a couple of weeks ago where 3 thugs decided to break into a Highway Patrolman's house because they thought they could steal his weapons. They ended up shooting his German shepard police dog 5 times. Seems like every week someone is getting killed in a nightclub brawi or robbery and they are getting closer and closser to my neighborhood. If it takes gun control and a little stepping on the 2nd amendment rights of these whack jobs to get rid of some of them, so be it. I'll still have my shotgun and hunting rifles and no, I don't feel the need to keep an assault rifle for protection.

 

When the local police complain about being outgunned on the street, they aren't talking about a bad guy with a Remington 30-06 with a scope. They're talking about the fools with AR15's and Tech9 type pistols.

[Strongbow]

 What are you preparing for, The Zombie Apocalypse?

Whatever may come.  I'm not a "prepper" or some sort of anti-government militia type.  I don't know what may happen.  But since I don't know, I want a versatile tool, capabl;e of dealing with whatever may be at hand.... be it home invaders, a pack of wild dogs (yes, there are some not far from me), zombies ( )

 

 

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.

 

No one ever went into a gun fight wishing they had less ammo.  If I ever have to face that situation, I don't want to do it what what YOU, or ANYONE ELSE considers adequate ammo capacity in my firearm.  I want to be limited by what I think is a practical burden/benfit ratio.  And while you may think 5 or 9 rounds is sufficient to deal "an" instruder, I'll point out that MOST home invasions involve 2 or more assailants.  I do not want to tell the other guy to wait a sec while I do a magazine change.

 

 

Personally, for home protection I'd much prefer a semi-automtic 12 gauge shotgun than an AR15.

 

Your choice, of course. But I'd prefer the AR15. I've practiced with it more, and I find it to be more handy in the house. I also think the light recoil means I can put more shots on targetr, more accurately. I also have a sound suppressor for it, so I'm less likely to blow out my eardrums, or those of my family.

 

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.

And yet, the second amednment doesn't limit rights based on the type of weapon. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not b e infringed." Seems pretty clear to me. Are you suggesting that right extends ONLY to those weapons in existence when the 2A was ratified? I doubt it, but I can't see how your argument would otherwise apply.

 

 

 

 

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 ask again: What do YOU think an "assualt rifle" IS? A gun which LOOKS like a military rifle, or ANY semiautomatic rifle with a removable magazine? What is "high capacity?"

FWIW, I am not a hunter. I do not CARE about hunting. I shoot recreationally (mainly with antique weapons that would be uinaffected by these proposed bans FOR NOW), and am armed in case of need with modern firearms. I can see no reason why my choice of defensive weapons whould be dicatated by others. I can assure you, those who mean harm are not at all concerned by what is legal and what isn't.

Not to mention, unless you plan on going door to door confiscating "assault weapons" and "hi-capacity clips" (they are MAGAZINES by the way... not "clips"), that boat has sailed. There are MILLIONS of the weapons and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of the magazines in circulation already.

[Strongbow]

I'll still have my shotgun and hunting rifles and no, I don't feel the need to keep an assault rifle for protection.

And you're perfectly willing to make the same decision for me? No thanks.

 

When the local police complain about being outgunned on the street, they aren't talking about a bad guy with a Remington 30-06 with a scope. They're talking about the fools with AR15's and Tech9 type pistols.

How often does that happen? I'll tell you, very, VERY rarely. The weapon used in the VAST majority of crimes is the semi-automatic hand gun. And the supreme court has already said those weapons are protected by the Constitution.

[Strongbow]

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.

Don't worry, as sson as a crazy kills a bunch of kids with one of those, they will be the new boogieman.

[maxman]

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

 

IMG_4035.jpg

 

IMG_3794.jpg

 

IMG_0447.jpg

 

IMG_4217.jpg

 

bear_garage.jpg

Oh come on Nanuq. A pocket knife should do the trick.

[JoeyB]

 and in particular so many of today's youths that seem to be growing up with no parental guidance, no compassion or regard for others, and those that would as soon shoot you as argue with you. Why is it that today every ghetto youth and gang banger feels the need to carry a weapon? 

I grew up in the city of Chicago in the 1960s. The "long, hot summer" every summer meant riots, burning city blocks, curfews for adults at 6 P.M. We knew the neighborhoods we could go to, and the ones we couldn't. 

I was a member of a 'gang', we hung out on a corner. The big gangs, the well known gangs were black and white and Latino. The Taylor Street Dukes, The Blackstone Rangers (went on to become the Black P-Stone Nation), The Latin Kings, Vice Lords, so many other smaller ones like mine. 

We all carried weapons. What has changed is that today I can walk through any neighborhood without being bothered by the gangs. The gangs still kill. But they stay to themselves now. Their priority is making money.  Their violence is directed at those who they do business with or compete with. It's much like the gangs of the early 1900s. The Capone gang, O'Brien Gang,  Italian gangs, Polish gangs, Irish gangs, German gangs. All from their respective ghettos.

When the local police complain about being outgunned on the street, they aren't talking about a bad guy with a Remington 30-06 with a scope. They're talking about the fools with AR15's and Tech9 type pistols.

The first time I read about the police complaining about being out-gunned was during Prohibition when the Canadian bootleggers had Thompson Submachine guns and sold them to the American bootleggers. The Thompson was an assault weapon too.  Invented in 1919. It gained notoriety being used in drive-by shootings. 

 

Same as in New York. Philadelphia. Detroit. Boston. Most every major city. 

Once one looks past the color, it really hasn't changed.

[cjjoyce1]

Gentlemen et al.

 

As we continue this lively and spirited debate, I implore all of you - our foreign friends included - to do a modicum of research on Early U.S. History.  In the U.S. we used to teach "Civics" in which we all learned about why our government was formed, how it was formed, etc.  amongst other things any citizen should know.   We stopped teaching this class years ago, for reasons unbeknownst to me.  (as an aside, I would venture any new citizen being admitted to the the United States in the last 10 years knows more about this than any born and bred citizen simply by fact that they are required to learn it before taking the oath of citizenship).

 

There have been many things asserted in this debate that are complete and utter falsehoods or misunderstandings of factual events and histories.

 

Additionally, do not make the mistake of applying today's ways and customs to the past.  That cannot work.  Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that because we are in the future, we are smarter or more wise today than those of the past - Philosophers, Statesmen, Educators, etc..  Case in point, if we were, we'd know exactly how they built the pyramids of Egypt.

 

Let us also be clear about another phenomenon.  MANY (not all) countries who today do not have "armed citizens" in the way we think of here in the U.S. at one time in their history did.  They were taken away at some point in history through violent change in government, war, military occupation etc.  This also nearly happened in the Colonies and as I pointed out earlier, it is crystal clear in The Declaration of Independence that the Colonist WERE living in a police/military state.  They knew the only way to protect themselves against a tyrannical or oppressive government were the checks and balances the designed.

 

And, finally, while several of our Founding Fathers became notable Statesmen and Presidents in history, it is more important to remember the other signers of The Declaration of Independence all of whom signed the document knowing full well the treason to Great Britain they were committing and the death warrant they signing. 

 

By

Gary Hildrith

"Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid:

 

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.

 

These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants.

Nine were farmers and large plantation owners.

 

All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

 

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

 

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

 

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

 

Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of "undaunted resolution" was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headqurt, but that the patriot's were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, "Out of respect to you, Sir." Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

 

Francis Lewis's Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis's son would later die in British captivity, also.

 

"Honest John" Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his children vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart.

 

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

 

New Jersey's Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man.

 

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only "undaunted resolution" in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned.

 

Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris' sons fought the British.

 

When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778.

 

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolin tight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward's plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate.

 

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III "could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head." If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, "Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!"

 

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves.

 

I ask you to afford them similar courtesies

Edited January 9, 2013 by cjjoyce1

[kbh]

And yet, the second amednment doesn't limit rights based on the type of weapon. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not b e infringed." Seems pretty clear to me. Are you suggesting that right extends ONLY to those weapons in existence when the 2A was ratified? I doubt it, but I can't see how your argument would otherwise apply.

 

Appareantly it does limit the rights based on type of weapon. Otherwise fully automatic assault rifles would be legal. If your logic really held water, we should be able to drive around with a 50 caliber mounted on the back of a pick up truck.

[Strongbow]

Appareantly it does limit the rights based on type of weapon. Otherwise fully automatic assault rifles would be legal. If your logic really held water, we should be able to drive around with a 50 caliber mounted on the back of a pick up truck.

I'd argue you should be able to, based on the plain language of the 2A. But following your argument, what do YOU think the 2A protects? It's clearly meant to protect defensive arms of some type. What type?

[cjjoyce1]

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.

 

Tactics of the time were firing a volley shoulder to shoulder, two men deep.  Ever heard of the Boston Massacre?  9 British troops fired a volley on a protesting and harassing crowd in Boston in 1770.  3 were instantly killed, 2 mortally wounded, three others were wounded.  1 volley -9 shots- 8 went down.  Sound familiar?

[JoeyB]

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

 

 

 

 

They'll get even. 

 

 

 

 

Nanuq

[Nanuq]

Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww  

 

 

 

 

PS:  Hey JoeyB ...  thank you for serving.  39 years! 

[JoeyB]

Thank you. It was actually 38 years, I made a typo, though it wasn't as if I did it for free...  All said and done, it was my pleasure. 

[dluddy]

No, but you did it and that matters

[Nanuq]

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than did they, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

John of Salisbury ca. 1159

[upland]

My 3 sentavos My daughter used to work for Department of Mental Health. There is about 250.000 seriously mentally ill motorists right now on the streets of Los Angeles, driving every day on " deadly weapon" . Hospitals just discharging them after breakdowns ,with a couple of pills in their pockets and they back on the road... Probably (I hope not) , the same amount of drunk, high and depressed drivers. So, 30-round clip or AK-47 in somebody's house doesn't bother me at all, knowing that all those shootings was committed by sick lunatics . I call it State Lottery with bad luck.

[Hogester79]

Being an outsider (Australian) I can tell you what our laws are like here. I know they have been explained but I will do it again. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

 

In 1996 we had our own version of what you guys seem to be occurring far too often. Yes the guy had a mental disability and yes it was a huge reason why this happened in the first place. What did we do? We banned the sale of semi automatic weapons to the general public. We saw no reason for anyone to have large capacity magazines and the ability to keep spraying bullets as fast as you can. We took away the ability to modify a weapon you could buy over the counter and turn it fully automatic.

 

So what happened in Australia? We accepted it. We as a nation saw logic and reason. We saw that if we limit the opportunity for this to happen again to this extent then we won't have to mourn the loss of one of our own the same way. In Australia its illegal to own a weapon for self protection and you know what? We have very very little reason for that same reason.

 

What I see as part of the problem about American gun mind set - is the idea that if someone comes onto my property I can shoot them and preferably dead. I am not saying that you don't have the right to defend you or your family at all, what I have a problem with is the mind set that to protect myself I have to have a gun as a deterrent. 

 

Do see a bad guy thinking oh they might have a gun so I won't break in and take what I want? Nope they do it anyway and the consequences will be what they will be.

 

Was the "right to bear arms" really meant to mean the right to own a gun no matter what? or was it meant to mean the right to take up arms and protect ourselves from a government or organisation that is attempting to take away the freedoms that you fought for in the Civil War?

 

In Australia we don't have a mind set that a gun will protect us, the UK is exactly the same. The police in England don't even carry a gun on the street, only special divisions within their police force are allowed to carry weapons. They have gun laws, they have private gun owners but they don't have this need or want to end up in the newspapers being displayed as some sort of twisted idol this is repeated again and again.

 

You might say that I have no idea what its like in the USA and therefore I can't comment. If I lived there I would need a gun to feel safe but that is 99% of the problem. The NRA and gun lobbies want to scare you into thinking your rights will be taken away if you have any restrictions on your gun laws. Why can't you guys have a sensible and rational discussion about the best way to prevent the severity of the problem?

 

The easiest thing to say is - mental health. Lets get rid of the loonies and this will never happen again but that's not the real answer is it. If you make it harder to get these weapons then it makes it harder to repeat. Proper background checks, guns that are designed not specifically to kill only people, perhaps smaller magazine capacities.

 

Just because the amendment exists doesn't mean its always right. Just because something was always done a particular way, doesn't mean its right.

 

The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Hogester79

[JoeyB]

 What did we do? We banned the sale of semi automatic weapons to the general public.

That may work for you. It will not work for us. 

So what happened in Australia? We accepted it. We as a nation saw logic and reason. 

We accept it for you. It was your choice. We do not accept it for us. That is our choice. 

 what I have a problem with is the mind set that to protect myself I have to have a gun as a deterrent.

You don't have to have a gun as a deterrent. There is no law in the U.S. that makes anyone own a gun. Many here do not own guns. 

Was the "right to bear arms" really meant to mean the right to own a gun no matter what?

Yes.

or was it meant to mean the right to take up arms and protect ourselves from a government or organisation that is attempting to take away the freedoms that you fought for in the Civil War?

The Revolutionary War, not the Civil War. Yes. 

In Australia we don't have a mind set that a gun will protect us, the UK is exactly the same. The police in England don't even carry a gun on the street, only special divisions within their police force are allowed to carry weapons. They have gun laws, they have private gun owners but they don't have this need or want to end up in the newspapers being displayed as some sort of twisted idol this is repeated again and again.

If I wanted to live in England or Australia I would. 

 If I lived there I would need a gun to feel safe but that is 99% of the problem.

No. If you lived here you would have the choice.

The NRA and gun lobbies want to scare you into thinking your rights will be taken away if you have any restrictions on your gun laws.

The NRA can say anything they like, they don't scare many at all. Most Americans don't listen. It's when the media talks about banning guns that we see record numbers of gun sales. 

Why can't you guys have a sensible and rational discussion about the best way to prevent the severity of the problem?

. We are having that discussion. 

The easiest thing to say is - mental health. Lets get rid of the loonies and this will never happen again but that's not the real answer is it.

Nope, but then no one here is saying that. 

If you make it harder to get these weapons then it makes it harder to repeat. Proper background checks, guns that are designed not specifically to kill only people, perhaps smaller magazine capacities.

All that is being discussed and considered.  Whatever a gun is designed for, it will kill people.  

Just because the amendment exists doesn't mean its always right. Just because something was always done a particular way, doesn't mean its right.

Yes, it does. The 2nd Amendment is right for us. 

The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The true definition of Liberty and Freedom is that of making our own decisions for ourselves. We do that quite well, thank you. 

[Nanuq]

The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

That is a common definition, yes. So when the government passes yet another gun control law, expecting it to produce a different result this time, are they then acting sanely?

There are arguably 20,000 laws nationwide regarding guns. Will number 20,001 be the magic law that fixes everything?

I doubt it.

[cjjoyce1]

What did we do? We banned the sale of semi automatic weapons to the general public.

...

We accepted it. We as a nation saw logic and reason. We saw that if we limit the opportunity for this to happen again to this extent then we won't have to mourn the loss of one of our own the same way.

 

And therein lies the rub.  In the event of a tragedy that stirs peoples emotions to the core, we cry "Something must be done!", and we turn to those in authority, and say "You have to do something!  You should make a law so this never happens again!"  And those responsible for doing so jump to react and propose measures that on the surface seem to do so and we all say "There!  That's what we need!"  And yet, over in the corner are a few who say "ummm. . .. excuse me, but not only do I think that really won't help, but that also takes away some of our rights and freedoms".  And they're assailed and told "You just don't get it!  You're part of the problem!"  So laws are passed and freedoms are relinquished.

 

Here in the United States, we had hijacked aircraft used to destroy building, kill non-combatant citizens and strike fear into our hearts.  It worked.  And as a result, people screamed at our government and said "Protect us!!"  And so, the Patriot Act was enacted and the TSA and Department of Homeland Security were created AND we gave carte blanche to the government who did many things in the name of "security" that took away or violated many individual rights.  And people shouted "Hurray!"  while others went. . 'umm. . ." 

 

As Queen Amidala said in Star Wars. . ."so this is how liberty dies. . .with thunderous applause"

 

More than 10 years later, many of even our elected officials who make the laws are admitting "oops, we seemed to have rushed into things"  because now that the dust has settled and calmer minds have prevailed, we are looking back and realizing we openly and freely gave up freedoms in the name of "security" that will be very difficult to ever get back.

 

It is very easy to give up our freedoms, but earning them come at great sacrifice and cost.  And as JoeyB already answered, Yes, the right to keep and bear arms definitely means no matter what.

[Strongbow]

Maybe in Oz, you see this a good thing... banning semiautos. I see it as relinquishing one of a human's essential rights. I don;t ever want to wonder if I could have saved my family, iof I had been properly armed. And I can't imagine ever hunkering down, wishing the police would arrive, and being greatful that the state decided I could not be trusted to defend myself.

[Hogester79]

JoeyB - Firstly a discussion is where both sides are considered not dismissed outright, by being negative at everything that I said, to me doesn't constitute a discussion all it says is " I am right, you are wrong". Ever been in trouble with the missus and tried to have a proper discussion when she was all heated up? Did you win that one?

 

Just for the record - I am a hunter, I have my licence and I grew up around guns. Do I need a hand gun or a semi auto/ fully automatic to go hunting no. Do I need to protect myself from gun crime? no. Why? Because of a sensible outlook on gun ownership. 

 

In Australia - you have a criminal record with any violent behavior noted - no license. Simple. Get brought on on domestic violence charges - even if you haven't been to court yet - guns removed until you they are dismissed.

 

I completely understand that in the USA gun ownership is viewed as a right and not a privilege and that's fine, but sensible and reasonable should also fit into that statement.

 

The role of any government should be to provide for and protect those that can't. Clearly your laws and your system doesn't do that so it needs help. Putting your head in the sand and dismissing any discussion because the 2nd amendment says I can have this or that isn't a discussion its just hiding from fact. 

 

Let me ask you this question - If there were more or less guns in the USA what would happen to gun crime?

[Hogester79]

Maybe in Oz, you see this a good thing... banning semiautos. I see it as relinquishing one of a human's essential rights. I don;t ever want to wonder if I could have saved my family, iof I had been properly armed. And I can't imagine ever hunkering down, wishing the police would arrive, and being greatful that the state decided I could not be trusted to defend myself.

 

This is the exact argument I am making. Crime leads to more crime. He attacked me so I can attack back. If you never draw a line in the sand and say hey how is there a better way we can have guns and make sure innocent people don't get caught out at schools or at the movies or colleges where people go to learn and improve themselves then you'll always have the same problem repeating itself.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Hogester79

[JoeyB]

JoeyB - Firstly a discussion is where both sides are considered not dismissed outright, by being negative at everything that I said, to me doesn't constitute a discussion all it says is " I am right, you are wrong". Ever been in trouble with the missus and tried to have a proper discussion when she was all heated up? Did you win that one?

I addressed each point you attempted. You did not attempt a discussion. You didn't bother the read the replies in the 8+ pages. And I did not appreciate your condescending manner, nor your assertion that you and your country are reasonable and me and mine are not. Who are you to talk down to me? 

Just for the record - I am a hunter, I have my licence and I grew up around guns. Do I need a hand gun or a semi auto/ fully automatic to go hunting no. Do I need to protect myself from gun crime? no. Why? Because of a sensible outlook on gun ownership. 

You continue your condescending manner, but make no attempt to discuss anything. 

In Australia - you have a criminal record with any violent behavior noted - no license. Simple. Get brought on on domestic violence charges - even if you haven't been to court yet - guns removed until you they are dismissed.

That's nice. We have the same laws in the U.S. Maybe you copied them from us. 

I completely understand that in the USA gun ownership is viewed as a right and not a privilege and that's fine, but sensible and reasonable should also fit into that statement.

What makes you think that "sensible and reasonable" are not in that statement? 

The role of any government should be to provide for and protect those that can't. Clearly your laws and your system doesn't do that so it needs help. Putting your head in the sand and dismissing any discussion because the 2nd amendment says I can have this or that isn't a discussion its just hiding from fact. 

The role of government in the United Sates of America is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

This is what we chose for ourselves, and continue to choose for ourselves. We didn't tell you or your people what the role of your government should be.

However, in light of your continued condescending manner I'd suggest what you can do with your sand.  

Let me ask you this question - If there were more or less guns in the USA what would happen to gun crime?

Studies made show that those states who have enacted conceal/carry laws have had gun crimes greatly reduced. 

[cjjoyce1]

Let me ask you this question - If there were more or less guns in the USA what would happen to gun crime?

 

Not a direct answer to your question, but presented for your review.  A quick internet search found these regarding the past

 

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

And some interesting graphs and statistics...

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp