Macroscien said...

Nobody is allow to take somebody life just like that , doesn't matter offender of defender.
If society think otherwise there could be capital punishment , but there isn't.

Yes you are right! That is, if you ignore the law in every civilised society that states if in fear of your life you may use force likely to kill the attacker.

Capital punishment is waaaay different to defending yourself against attack

doggie said...
Btw the last time I looked I was living in Perth WA and I cant recall a moment when Ive thought "gee I wish I had a gun on me".

This wasnt in Perth- but in a small town not far away.

Our family owned a little supermarket in a country town, nearest police usually took a minimum of 45 minutes to arrive (if you were really lucky)

I was outside servicing our truck, when a grotty old ford towing a trailer full of motorbikes pulled up, out spilled 5 even grottier blokes, most built like the proverbial brick dunnies.
Kinda normal everyday type of stuff around that time for us.

They head inside the shop, a few minutes later mum comes through the side door- white as a ghost, limping and shaking real bad- one of the blokes is off his trolley-trashing the shop and chucking cans around hitting one of the old chooks that was in the shop, mum got turfed across the shop when she tried to help the old girl.
They had also ripped our phone cables out of the counter very soon after arriving.
As mum is telling me this, the big mongrel has noticed mum was missing and came out the front of the shop looking for trouble. We were cornered- nowhere to go that wasnt blocked by him or his mates.
Mongrel bloke was close to twice my weight, stroppy as hell, gibbering away and presumably up on drugs of some type- and heading directly for us- with his 4 mates laughing and enjoying the show.
UNTIL I PULLED THE SHOTGUN FROM MY UTE. it was only a .410- and only a single shot, it was all I had and believe me I was wishing like hell I had something a damn sight bigger.

As soon as the shotgun was seen the 4 spectators jumped on thier mate- who was still screaming and trying to get loose as they turfed him into the car and drove away.(very rapidly)
Went inside, cleaned up the old chook (only winded) fixed the phone, called Mr Plod, cleaned up the mess in the shop, then disapeared out the back and shook for bloody ages.

I had been only a few feet away from killing someones son/ brother/ hubby, but if I was back in the same situation, I would do exactly the same again.
--------------
Dunno where I heard the quote- "I would rather be judged by a jury of 12, than carried by 6 pallbearers" but I came close living that quote.

Here in Western Australia, protection of yourself, your property or others is not a legal reason to own firearms. Sometimes I wish we had that right- then maybe the big mongrel bullies out there might think twice before stomping the little bloke into the ground, or "home invading" or carjacking.

I have had the same firearms training that our police get (actually- to a lot higher standard), my instructor was able to devote a lot more time and ammo to train me than the police let him give their recruits at the time.
I have little faith in the standard of training most of our police get (most- not all)

In my opinion- It would be handy to have a permit to carry a concealable firearm- they are a damn sight lighter than carrying a copper around with you.

Stephen

tmurray said...

Beaglebuddy said...

Let's consider gun control in Australia.
I'm taking it that it's been a great success in getting guns out of the hands of criminals?

I couldn't find any recent statistics, but the rate of gun deaths halved in the 10 years after tightening gun control. So yes it's been a success.

If you are talking about the gun suicide rate, it was steadily falling before 1996, and continued on the exact same rate of decline.
If you are talking about all gun related deaths in australia halving I'd love to know the source - suicide went down as I said, but accidental went up. Homicide with firearms went down but but had been declining before 1996.
The head of the Australian Institute of Criminology (a notoriously pro - gun control organisation) didn't agree with you when a review of the 1996 buyback was conducted and he had the stats.

Here is some facts for you (EDIT: has the graphs Lachlan refers to)
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

oooh some more, and even better "recent stats" which you reckon you could not find:

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

?In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
?Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
?Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States (where no gun-ban exists) both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

?Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; but without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
?During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
?Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
?Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
?At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
?Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.



I am not saying we in Oz should have assault rifles or be allowed guns for personal protection as the only reaosn for having them. Just that you can't use the "success" of 1996 bans as an argument for control when there was no "success".
Especially when those who are all for gun bans state our murder rate dropped due to 1996 - but in fact America's rate dropped too. That just makes y'all look dumb.

Yep due to suicide campaigns. Statistics can be read or skewed to reflect most half truths. and they are by interest groups all the time, events will always occur outside the normal. These events are often used to try and prove a point by both sides

I read the article... I learnt that at school along with comprehension. Thanks...

sn said...

Mark,
It doesnt matter how much we point out the real facts, figures and proof- the antifirearm mobs will refuse to be swayed and will keep distorting the truth until they have thier misguided way.
All we can do is hope that oneday they see the light- like the Institute of Criminology boss. not holding my breathe though.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military

People on drugs shouldn't have guns. Exhibit 1. ^^^^^

Why are the gun owners the first to fire up and get all us vs them and get there knickers in a twist... Itchy trigger finger maybe, looking for a target, we already saw them jump from pest control to home protection...

And At what point have I said I'm anti gun....

Mark _australia said...

I wish the anti-private-gun-ownership people would put as much effort into lobbying against crooks with tyre irons, knives, bats etc getting real penalties as they do lobbying against guns.

Fact of life - guns are used for lawful purposes including culling ferals. That will never go away, particularly as we try to sustain agriculture for 7bil people.

I have a (bloody dangerous) chainsaw that only gets used rarely. Maybe we should ban them cos on the rare occassion I need it I could get a licensed professional in....
Do we ban nail guns? I mean, roof chippies could convert them to shoot other stuff and go psycho Strewth, nobody needs more than one or two knives in their house. Maybe we should seriously consider restricting them, and really folding pocket knives are designed for concealment and nobody really needs to carry a knife as they walk the street.

We give needles to junkies for free so they can use an illicit product, organised crime identities get a $500 fine for having an illegal pistol on them ..... yet you fellas reckon a law abiding average citizen can't have a rifle. Stop the world, I wanna get off...

Mark, I know that you use guns for this purpose and I dont have a problem with that at all, infact Ive have gone fox and rabbit hunting in the past and enjoyed it.
And I dont have a problem with gun ownership as long as its legal and above board.
Im so glad I dont live in the USA as the joint scares me to death!
I really wanted to hear what you think of the US gun laws and how you think they could be changed for the better as I dont know anyone with as much experience as you with guns other than my uncle who I struggle to get two words out of at the best of times.

Tread carefully Doggie,
Your advanced planning shows intent to cause injury as far as our legal system goes- and a good lawyer on the other side will be able to paint you as the one with evil intent who picked on the poor deprived druggy who was only trying to support his habit.

I have never purchased or planned to use a firearm for our defence- it was a last rather desperate option when we had nowhere to run and in the face of really bad odds of getting away alive.
At the time all I had within reach was a 1/4 inch drive ratchet or the .410 shotgun.
I doubt very much that the ratchet would have been any use.

There are a few too many armchair heroes (both pro and anti firearm) that have never been in our situation. Looking down the barrel at a bloke was one of the worst moments of my life- knowing the next few seconds would affect my whole life.
Unfortunately- possession of a weapon for defensive purposes is frowned upon here as we are supposed to trust our incredibly efficient police to defend us- again- unfortunately, they are too busy doing paperwork and often turn up only so they can take a statement from the victim and issue a report number for your insurance company.
By all means- plan your escape etc- but be discrete about it.

Stephen.

sn said...

Tread carefully Doggie,
Your advanced planning shows intent to cause injury as far as our legal system goes- and a good lawyer on the other side will be able to paint you as the one with evil intent who picked on the poor deprived druggy who was only trying to support his habit.

I have never purchased or planned to use a firearm for our defence- it was a last rather desperate option when we had nowhere to run and in the face of really bad odds of getting away alive.
At the time all I had within reach was a 1/4 inch drive ratchet or the .410 shotgun.
I doubt very much that the ratchet would have been any use.

There are a few too many armchair heroes (both pro and anti firearm) that have never been in our situation. Looking down the barrel at a bloke was one of the worst moments of my life- knowing the next few seconds would affect my whole life.
Unfortunately- possession of a weapon for defensive purposes is frowned upon here as we are supposed to trust our incredibly efficient police to defend us- again- unfortunately, they are too busy doing paperwork and often turn up only so they can take a statement from the victim and issue a report number for your insurance company.
By all means- plan your escape etc- but be discrete about it.

Stephen.

If Im protecting myself or family that wont come into it. If I get done and Im still alive so be it.

The idea of banning semi-auto high capacity weapons does have some merit.
Certainly spree killers would not be able to kill as many, unless they resort to poison gas or explosives which has already happened.
The problem is this, it won't end there. Just look at what the anti gun groups say and look what has already been done in other countries. It's all part of their plan to eventually ban private ownership of all weapons. They will chip away at your gun rights little by little until eventually you won't even be able to own a starters pistol.
Then they will feel free to start chipping away at all your other rights.
It's a very slippery slope.

I'd agree that the anti-gun groups will not stop until every law abiding citizen is unarmed (see their campaigns so far). If they would just lay off us once they got the (potentially)most dangerous of the weapons then Im sure the NRA could/would deal more. See the Aus example: criminal shooting (predominantly) occured with a high cap military style firearm (AR-15), which gave the then anti-gun prime minister and anti gun lobby, the 'reason' to ban ALL semi-autos,... WTF!). Now they're talking about how to restict any gun that has over 10 rounds capacity, or reloading ammunition yourself. It never ends due to the emotional crap the anti's continually spray, which the general population believes as they don't have or deal with real firearms.

This said, the 2nd ammendment gives the right to the American people to stand up the the government if ever needed, therefore they need their 'assault weapons' if this ever occured. A right we were never acknowleged as having in Aus. USA vs. Aus totally different situations. (if you argue that to put up a decent fight against a modern army, you don't need high cap semi autos then unfortunately you've lost me).

Having to gain a firearms licence with reasonable conditions (such as the setup in Aus) sounds like a good first step for the USA, seconded by having to have firearms transfered through a gunshop when selling/buying would be another idea maybe. Im totally against further blanket gun bans though, and (its probably obvious) think the bans here (Aus) are too restrictive. No decent reason serious hunters/target shooters shouldn't have access to Cat C firearms(same as farmers).

Pretty racist comment there

Obama was voted into power so they aren't all the racist rednecks our media make them out to be. Just because many people don't support the Democrats doesn't mean they're ready to go into revolution against them.

I believe it would depend on what the government does, not who they are

"I'd agree that the anti-gun groups will not stop until every law abiding citizen is unarmed (see their campaigns so far)". Yes that's right , the governments out to get you......FFS!

Nate I see your comment above, flattery will get you nowhere

I didn't know you were seeking comment on only the USA laws (or lack thereof) but at any rate, in debating the potential for the USA to ban certain things or have a licencing system it always comes back to the Australian and British experience as we have done it.

It would surely be of value to have a licensing system in the USA but things have gone too far. If they did what we have done, it would disarm the responsible people and the crims would still have god knows how many millions of firearms. I don't believe it succeeded here, it is even less likely to succeed there! The only answer for them now is to continue as they have been.

Panda, I don't see your logic in the mass shooting thing. Why are they always in a school or shops? Because that is where the nice people are not allowed to carry! Ever seen one in say a footy game or the park? No, because the gunman would be cut down by the nice folk. Assault rifles are what the army has so forget that term. It is "semiauto centrefire" (that some people have licensed in Australia and there is about 100,000 of them here illegally incidentally) and it looks similar to what the army have. That does not make it an assault rifle. A practised person with a lever or pump action can do just as much damage. The USA could take every single AR15 away, and a nutter would still take a pump action to the school / shops etc and go for it. That is because the person is the problem, not the tool.

Nobody has yet said in this thread why we did not have mass shootings in the 1920's - 60's when most kids had access to guns, took them home from Army Cadets, dad never locked away his .22 rifle.
Fix mental health, fix drugs, fix the self centred social media bullsh!t culture that we as society created for our kids.
I find it bemusing that those social engineers who foisted all kinds of rubbish upon society, leading to family unit breakdown and out of control kids etc, are also vehemently anti-gun. They are the types who say taking drugs responsibly is OK, "just a little bit but be safe and careful". But they don't believe responsible people can have a gun. Seriously, WTF?

log man said...

"I'd agree that the anti-gun groups will not stop until every law abiding citizen is unarmed (see their campaigns so far)". Yes that's right , the governments out to get you......FFS!

I didn't say the government, I was refering to the nut case lobby groups they seem to listen to because they get on TV and show some hollywood movie with baddies shooting 1000's rounds of ammo, killing everyone in sight, all with a pump shottie (eg: they showed footage from 'The Terminator' as part of their argument for the 1996 bans on hunting shotguns, 60 minutes showed a full auto M-16 as part of their 'discussion' during 1996). A major part of their campaigns are emotive bull dust, but those who don't know any better or different believe it (and its not their fault).

Sorry, as a scientist I get the irits when emotional decisions come before scienctific ones.

lachlan3556 said...

doggie said...

lachlan3556 said...

Pretty racist comment there

Obama was voted into power so they aren't all the racist rednecks our media make them out to be. Just because many people don't support the Democrats doesn't mean they're ready to go into revolution against them.

I believe it would depend on what the government does, not who they are

That was a dumb comment on your dumb comment that I quoted.

Forgive me but may I ask what was my dumb comment?

This one -

This said, the 2nd ammendment gives the right to the American people to stand up the the government if ever needed, therefore they need their 'assault weapons' if this ever occured. A right we were never acknowleged as having in Aus. USA vs. Aus totally different situations. (if you argue that to put up a decent fight against a modern army, you don't need high cap semi autos then unfortunately you've lost me).

^^ This is out dated, how could anybody put up a fight against a modern army. It wouldnt matter how many guns Joe public has they are never going to win.