Gun discussion

[Meliva]

Murder Suicide 28 June 1997 Richmond, Tasmania 5 Peter Shoobridge cut the throat of his 4 daughters whilst they slept then took his own life with a rifle after cutting off one of his hands with an axe.
Wright St Bikie Murders 8 October 1999 Adelaide, Australia 3 0 Hell's Angels feud[11]
Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire 23 June 2000 Childers, Queensland 15 unknown Arson attack by Robert Paul Long, which killed 15 international backpackers
Monash University shooting 21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria 2 5 Mass shooting attack by Huan Yun "Allen" Xiang
Churchill Fire 7 February 2009 Churchill, Victoria 10 unknown Arson attack by Brendan Sokaluk that killed 10 people, during the Black Saturday bushfires period
Lin family murders 18 July 2009 North Epping, New South Wales 5 unknown Blunt instrument attack that killed 5 members of the Lin family
Quakers Hill nursing home fire 18 November 2011 Sydney, NSW 11 Arson attack by Roger Kingsley Dean, a nurse, which killed 11 people
Rozelle fire murders 4 September 2014 Rozelle, New South Wales 3 2 Arson attack by Adeel Khan which killed 3 and injured another 2.[12]
Hunt family murders 9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales 5 0 A Mass shooting and Familicide by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself
Sydney Siege 15 - 16 December 2014 Sydney, NSW 3 4 Siege. A lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia. The NSW Police Tactical Operations Unit shot Monis dead, after he executed a hostage. In the exchange five others were hit by Police bullet fragments, causing accidental death to one of them.
Cairns child killings 19 December 2014 Cairns, Queensland 8 1 (self-inflicted by perpetrator) Stabbing attack. 8 children aged 18 months to 15 years killed. Thirty-seven-year-old woman also found injured. The woman, Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday, was later charged with the murder of the children, 7 of whom were hers, plus her niece.[13]
2017 Melbourne car attack 20 January 2017 Melbourne, Victoria 6 30 Vehicular attack. Dimitrious Gargasoulas drove a Holden Commodore into Bourke St Mall, resulting in the deaths of 6 people and injuring 30+ others.


There have been massacres in Australia in the last 2 decades, but like you said earlier-its easy to draw a conclusion you want by ignoring certain numbers.

None of those above 5 involved firearms, and only 2 in that entire time with 5 did, so yeah, quoting stats without bias nicely avoided

You said there have been NO massacres in Australia-you did NOT clarify and said there have been no massacres in Australia with firearms. You said no massacres flat out-and as I showed there have been massacres and my point stands. No guns does not mean no massacres. That is the point I am making- remove guns and then nut jobs use cars, knives, bombs anything they can get their hands on. Gun laws are irrelevant. The only people who commit massacres in the first place are nut jobs and odds are they wont care what they use as a weapon or how they obtain that weapon whether or not by legal means. They could steal a car and mow people down, jump an officer when he isn't looking and steal his gun, make a homemade bomb ETC.

[Stan Rogers]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I like guns, long guns to be specific.
Where some of the differences between the USA and other nations come to light is, in Singapore, when someone runs "Amuck", they do it with a knife, sword or meat cleaver and maybe 2-3 people get killed and a couple wounded.
In the USA when someone goes "Amuck" they smoke 35 kids in a school, 29-30 in a church or maybe 50-60 at a concert.
Same intent but the causality rate is much lower where guns are restricted or at least where there are far fewer guns to access.
There is much the USA could do to help prevent the hundreds of accidental firearm discharges that take place each year that result in death and lifelong maiming of it's citizens but they refuse to.
It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms and has everything to do with responsible gun ownership.
Why in hell can a law be proposed to prevent someone from getting on an airplane without taking off their shoes but cannot get a law passed that bans bump stock adapters that turns a semi-auto rifles into a full fledged automatics or stored guns to have trigger locks so the kids can't accidentally shoot their best friend when showing them Mom or Dads latest purchase. I guess it's the slippery slope theory of soon as 1 law is passed, there will be an onslaught of further laws that wind up banning all firearms.

For the record, Canada adopted a gun registry a few years ago - a knee **** reaction by the gov at the time that pissed off a lot of bonafide, responsible gun owners. I do not think it made 1 wit of difference in the homicide rate but the police force sure loved it. Before responding to any sort of domestic dispute, the police would see if the address had any registered gun owners and approach the door to the complainant either with guns drawn and megaphones to come out with hands up or, the normal way of walking to the door and knocking. Yep...gun control pissed a lot of people off who's firearms were used for a few months in the fall during hunting season and stored safely the other 8 months.
Just for the record, a subsequent government rescinded the law of long gun registration and forced the police to destroy the records of ownership. All handguns and restricted guns must still be registered as it always has been.
I say this because the slippery slope theory is not as slippery as one might think.
The old adage comes to mind of "reap what you sow" and "you make your bed, you sleep in it."
I have become numb and desensitized to mass killings we hear about all to frequently. I really don't want to know about these mass shootings any more. I just assume it happens all the time now and keep me the hell away from it.

[Lana]

I find it rather silly how it seems some people seem to think guns cause violence, or no guns means less violence, when in reality a gun is just a tool, a very dangerous tool, but a tool none the less. And a person who wants to use that tool to kill people will either find a way to GET a gun illegally since they are planning to do something illegal already which they need the gun for, or they will simply use a different tool-knives, bombs, a car etc. And with no guns, that person could cause a lot of harm before police arrive and take them down, when its possible a law abiding citizen could have done it if they hadn't had to get rid of their gun.

Totally agree, the issue isn't ownership, it's availability.

In countries or states where ownership is properly regulated, the nutjob doesn't have the arsenal available that he does where they are not.
A prime reason we have zero vs 500 odd isn't the gun, it's the availability of the gun to people who really shouldn't have them.

IF the US had a 30 day cooling off period and a mental health check associated with gun ownership then the mass shooting incidents would in all probability decline significantly. I don't recall where I saw it, but I did read that the majority of US massacres where at the hands of people who had diagnosed mental health issues.

Gun ownership of itself isn't the issue in my opinion, it's letting people have them who really shouldn't.

As stated previously, I was a gun owner when our laws where enacted, I was an accomplished shot with a rifle and a responsible licensed owner.
Most people are, but some things genuinely are for the common good and I believed the changes we made were and so relinquished my gun.

I find it staggering that the defence of gun ownership is that the licenced guy shot the offender, if the nutjob didn't have the weapon in first place no-one dies...

It's all about mentality of society. If you are born in society who teach you that the only way to save your property and life is to use guns, then you will fight to preserve that ''only way''. And the roots of this philosophy lay in the past (of Wild West), in the time of America's colonization, when guns have been used to declare your own (occupied) property. So, if you used guns to occupy it, you will use it to save it too. It's simple. Gun control is successfully implemented in so many parts in the world, but in USA society, I am afraid, will be never established. And not to talk about arms manufacturers and their lobbies…
I just can say, never have had the gun (used it few times as a part of compulsory school education on defense and protection), never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have.

[sXs]

]

It's all about mentality of society. If you are born in society who teach you that the only way to save your property and life is to use guns, then you will fight to preserve that ''only way''. And the roots of this philosophy lay in the past (of Wild West), in the time of America's colonization, when guns have been used to declare your own (occupied) property. So, if you used guns to occupy it, you will use it to save it too. It's simple. Gun control is successfully implemented in so many parts in the world, but in USA society, I am afraid, will be never established. And not to talk about arms manufacturers and their lobbies…
I just can say, never have had the gun (used it few times as a part of compulsory school education on defense and protection), never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have.

I think you misunderstand the "mentality of society" in the USA and the history of the Second Amendment. I was never taught that owning and using a gun was "the only way". It isn't a "wild west" mentality either. We have an inherent right to be secure in out persons and property. The Second Amendment is simply an acknowledgement of that Right.

The history goes back to before the US Revolution. In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts. These Acts, along with several other acts by King George III and the British Parliament triggered the Revolution. The US Revolution is the basis for our Bill of Right. Free Speech and freedom of the press, Illegal search and Seizure, Freedom of Religion, as well as the protection of gun ownership, all stemmed from things the British tried to impose upon us. The Second Amendment was put in place not for hunters, not to protect the sportsman. It was put in place to guarantee citizens the right to protect themselves from a government that may become something other than what was laid out in the Constitution.

Now you said "never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have." I feel similarly but with one caveat. I would rather own a gun and never have the need to use it in defense, then to not have one in when it is needed. It has nothing to do with a "Wild West" mentality, it has nothing to do with guns being "the only way" to defend myself. It is simply a belief that, should the need ever arise, I can and will defend myself, my family and my property, against those that wish us harm and I will have the tools to do so equal to the tools of those who wish to bring that harm upon us.

[DezNutz]

]

It's all about mentality of society. If you are born in society who teach you that the only way to save your property and life is to use guns, then you will fight to preserve that ''only way''. And the roots of this philosophy lay in the past (of Wild West), in the time of America's colonization, when guns have been used to declare your own (occupied) property. So, if you used guns to occupy it, you will use it to save it too. It's simple. Gun control is successfully implemented in so many parts in the world, but in USA society, I am afraid, will be never established. And not to talk about arms manufacturers and their lobbies…
I just can say, never have had the gun (used it few times as a part of compulsory school education on defense and protection), never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have.

I think you misunderstand the "mentality of society" in the USA and the history of the Second Amendment. I was never taught that owning and using a gun was "the only way". It isn't a "wild west" mentality either. We have an inherent right to be secure in out persons and property. The Second Amendment is simply an acknowledgement of that Right.

The history goes back to before the US Revolution. In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts. These Acts, along with several other acts by King George III and the British Parliament triggered the Revolution. The US Revolution is the basis for our Bill of Right. Free Speech and freedom of the press, Illegal search and Seizure, Freedom of Religion, as well as the protection of gun ownership, all stemmed from things the British tried to impose upon us. The Second Amendment was put in place not for hunters, not to protect the sportsman. It was put in place to guarantee citizens the right to protect themselves from a government that may become something other than what was laid out in the Constitution.

Now you said "never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have." I feel similarly but with one caveat. I would rather own a gun and never have the need to use it in defense, then to not have one in when it is needed. It has nothing to do with a "Wild West" mentality, it has nothing to do with guns being "the only way" to defend myself. It is simply a belief that, should the need ever arise, I can and will defend myself, my family and my property, against those that wish us harm and I will have the tools to do so equal to the tools of those who wish to bring that harm upon us.

+10

[Banger]

]

It's all about mentality of society. If you are born in society who teach you that the only way to save your property and life is to use guns, then you will fight to preserve that ''only way''. And the roots of this philosophy lay in the past (of Wild West), in the time of America's colonization, when guns have been used to declare your own (occupied) property. So, if you used guns to occupy it, you will use it to save it too. It's simple. Gun control is successfully implemented in so many parts in the world, but in USA society, I am afraid, will be never established. And not to talk about arms manufacturers and their lobbies…
I just can say, never have had the gun (used it few times as a part of compulsory school education on defense and protection), never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have.

I think you misunderstand the "mentality of society" in the USA and the history of the Second Amendment. I was never taught that owning and using a gun was "the only way". It isn't a "wild west" mentality either. We have an inherent right to be secure in out persons and property. The Second Amendment is simply an acknowledgement of that Right.

The history goes back to before the US Revolution. In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts. These Acts, along with several other acts by King George III and the British Parliament triggered the Revolution. The US Revolution is the basis for our Bill of Right. Free Speech and freedom of the press, Illegal search and Seizure, Freedom of Religion, as well as the protection of gun ownership, all stemmed from things the British tried to impose upon us. The Second Amendment was put in place not for hunters, not to protect the sportsman. It was put in place to guarantee citizens the right to protect themselves from a government that may become something other than what was laid out in the Constitution.

Now you said "never had the reason to have it and hopefully will never have." I feel similarly but with one caveat. I would rather own a gun and never have the need to use it in defense, then to not have one in when it is needed. It has nothing to do with a "Wild West" mentality, it has nothing to do with guns being "the only way" to defend myself. It is simply a belief that, should the need ever arise, I can and will defend myself, my family and my property, against those that wish us harm and I will have the tools to do so equal to the tools of those who wish to bring that harm upon us.

Nail on the head.

[Haron]

Just out of curiosity: Can everyone who is NOT from the USA, and who thinks easy and unregulated access to guns for everyone is a good idea, please raise their hands?

[sXs]

Just out of curiosity: Can everyone who is NOT from the USA, and who thinks easy and unregulated access to guns for everyone is a good idea, please raise their hands?

Yes, because governments should be the only entities that have firearms. Nothing bad has ever happened when citizens are disarmed by their own government.......

[Most Lee Harmless]

Having just observed Remembrance Sunday, marking the Armistice which ended the Great War of 1914-18 and since taken to mark the Fallen in all wars : I'd say an awful lot of bad stuff happens when governments arm their citizens....

[Mack]

Goverment isnt arming citizens here we arm ourselves