Using a gun for protection in Australia is next to impossible anyway. I dont know what the gun laws in the other states are but here i have to have guns locked seperate to my ammo and i believe with bolts removed. by the time i get everything unlocked and ready to fire any crim breaking in couldve done what ever they wanted. a better choice would be a baseball bat by your bed.
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...
Mark,
It doesnt matter how much we point out the real facts, figures, proof and common sense- 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 one day they see the light- like the Institute of Criminology boss. not holding my breathe though.
Here is an interesting quote for you.
"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 consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
How many lies have our politicians tried to use over the years to push thier own (or someone elses) agenda.
Remember the GST that we would never ever have, or the children overboard dishonesty, the WMD's held by Iraq (which took us to a war for the wrong reasons)or the carbon tax that would never be introduced, or our National Rifle Association of Australia being told that our rifles and clubs would be protected.
All those lies followed the principals outlined in the above quote.
stephen
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. Stop the world, I wanna get off...
Yeah I'm the same Doggie, I have no issue with guns for pest control.
But the gun crime argument I don't buy as proof of for or against gun control, it's like putting up feral animal numbers and saying if they have increased that it's due to lack of guns.
The simple idea behind the gun amnesty/ law changes was to get guns out of the community and by the number of guns that were handed in it seems a success. Sure it's going to annoy people that it affects most like most government decisions but as a whole I think it was a good idea and a success.
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.
I say again, the issue is not gun crime such as hits, robberies and the like, but shooting sprees by people that can legally buy a cache of assault rifles and ammo and walk into a cafe or school or cinema or shopping centre and kill dozens of innocent people.
It seems ludicrous that people such as this can buy or have access to such weapons. How can anyone defend this?
Surely we are all agreed on this matter? If so then what's the argument? gun laws in the U.S. need revision.
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?
