Gun discussion

[Kangaroo]

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...

Oh you mean the nutjob that was still able to acquire a firearm even though legally he was banned from owning one? Yes that's right, the Texas Church Shooter could not legally own a firearm in the USA, because he was convicted of domestic violence and had a Bad Conduct Discharge from the armed services. The existing gun control laws didn't stop him from obtaining a firearm. Gun laws don't stop criminals. Take a look at Chicago, IL. It has one of the most strict gun control laws in the nation, but they lead the nation in gun related violence.

Kinda, kinda not......

"A somber Vice President Mike Pence, standing outside First Baptist, said Wednesday "bureaucratic failures" were partly to blame for Kelley getting a weapon. The US Air Force has acknowledged it did not relay information about Kelley's court martial conviction for domestic assault to civilian law enforcement, something that could have prevented him from buying the guns used in the shooting. "We will find out why this information was not properly reported in 2012," Pence said."

[sXs]

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...

I find it staggering that someone would believe that "banning" anyone from owning or doing anything actually stops the activity. History has proven over and over that bans do not work.

The Tsarnaev brothers used a "pressure cooker" bomb, NYC was a rented truck, 9/11 it was airplanes. The truth is you started this out seemingly claiming Australia style approach was better. There actually is no statistical difference between the countries. The only difference is Australians have given up their rights.

All gun bans do is prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals will still get them. You proposing 30-day holds and mental health checks. These will only affect law abiding citizens because the criminals will not go through the system to acquire their weapons.

Also, if the argument that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is so wrong, then why do we arm our police? If we could legislate a fix then police would have no need for guns either. Then we could all go on our merry way in a world full of sparkles and unicorns.

I am sorry, the right to self defense, and the right to be secure in your person or property is fundamental in a free society. The man the committed the church shooting should never have had the gun in the first place. The laws were already in place. Yet he got them. More laws and restrictions would have had no affect. The Sandy hook shooter broke 17 different gun laws, yet he still committed the act. More laws and restrictions are not the answer.

[Kangaroo]

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...

I find it staggering that someone would believe that "banning" anyone from owning or doing anything actually stops the activity. History has proven over and over that bans do not work.

The Tsarnaev brothers used a "pressure cooker" bomb, NYC was a rented truck, 9/11 it was airplanes. The truth is you started this out seemingly claiming Australia style approach was better. There actually is no statistical difference between the countries. The only difference is Australians have given up their rights.

All gun bans do is prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals will still get them. You proposing 30-day holds and mental health checks. These will only affect law abiding citizens because the criminals will not go through the system to acquire their weapons.

Also, if the argument that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is so wrong, then why do we arm our police? If we could legislate a fix then police would have no need for guns either. Then we could all go on our merry way in a world full of sparkles and unicorns.

I am sorry, the right to self defense, and the right to be secure in your person or property is fundamental in a free society. The man the committed the church shooting should never have had the gun in the first place. The laws were already in place. Yet he got them. More laws and restrictions would have had no affect. The Sandy hook shooter broke 17 different gun laws, yet he still committed the act. More laws and restrictions are not the answer.

Zero vs 500 odd says there may just be some statistical difference, maybe, not really sure your arguments are so convincing, yet the dead and injured only mount on one side of the statistical equation.

If it's not our approach to gun ownership what is it, because 30 odd years is a metric tonne of coincidence if it's just dumb luck.

[sXs]

221 gun related deaths in Australia not 0.

It doesn't matter the circumstances. Mass shooting, single murder or suicide. Dead by a gun is dead by a gun.

I went over the statistics earlier with sources.

[sXs]

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.

If gun ownership is not the issue, why should you have had to surrender your guns?

You say you were a responsible gun owner were the ban was enacted. were you part of the problem?

[DezNutz]

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...

Oh you mean the nutjob that was still able to acquire a firearm even though legally he was banned from owning one? Yes that's right, the Texas Church Shooter could not legally own a firearm in the USA, because he was convicted of domestic violence and had a Bad Conduct Discharge from the armed services. The existing gun control laws didn't stop him from obtaining a firearm. Gun laws don't stop criminals. Take a look at Chicago, IL. It has one of the most strict gun control laws in the nation, but they lead the nation in gun related violence.

Kinda, kinda not......

"A somber Vice President Mike Pence, standing outside First Baptist, said Wednesday "bureaucratic failures" were partly to blame for Kelley getting a weapon. The US Air Force has acknowledged it did not relay information about Kelley's court martial conviction for domestic assault to civilian law enforcement, something that could have prevented him from buying the guns used in the shooting. "We will find out why this information was not properly reported in 2012," Pence said."

There is no kinda. Gun Control laws do nothing but restrict law-abiding citizens. The fact of the matter is that an armed citizen confronted the shooter, not the police. Seems that you would be more content with the armed citizen not having a firearm, as that is what gun control laws would have done.

[sXs]

2 October 2015 Parramatta shooting - 15 year old Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, an Iraqi-Kurd, shot dead Curtis Cheng, a civilian employee of the New South Wales Police, before being shot dead by a New South Wales Police officer during a shootout.



5 June 2017 Hostage taking, shooting 1 (+1 perpetrator) 3 2017 Brighton siege - Yacqub Khayre shot dead a Chinese-Australian receptionist in a serviced apartment complex and took a prostitute hostage in Brighton, Victoria. Police officers were involved in gunfight with Khayre who was shot dead and three officers wounded. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the incident as terrorism, however Victoria Police warned that there was no evidence to suggest he was acting on orders given from overseas. Khayre had previously been charged in relation to the Holsworthy Barracks terror plot but was acquitted in trial. He had recently been released on parole.[17]

How could these even happen in the Land Down Under. More gun laws work.

The issue is not guns or gun laws. Nationwide the US has over 30k local, state and federal gun laws. In every case of gun violence a law is broken. More laws and more restrictions is not the answer.

[Kangaroo]

221 gun related deaths in Australia not 0.

It doesn't matter the circumstances. Mass shooting, single murder or suicide. Dead by a gun is dead by a gun.

I went over the statistics earlier with sources.

Fact
More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history

Fact
The United States has the highest rate of private gun ownership of any developed nation, at nearly 89 firearms per 100 people. It also leads overwhelmingly in the number of firearm deaths.
For every 1 million Americans, there are 29.7 homicides by firearm each year, the Human Development Index reported.
Switzerland, the nation with the next highest rate, has 7.7 firearm homicides per million people, while Australia, which saw its gun death rate plunge by more than half since 1996 when it tightened gun laws, has just 1.4 firearm homicides per million.

221 deaths vs what?
In ONE year
"Despite the frequency of homicides, suicides actually comprise the largest number of US gun deaths - 21,175 in 2013, compared to 11,208 firearm homicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

I feel it pointless to continue to argue logic against believers, may your gods save you

[DezNutz]

Logic? Here is some logic for you.

France's gun laws are very similar to Australia (if not more strict), yet their laws didn't stop all those people in Paris from being killed.

Additionally, Australia geographically has a very unique setup that makes it incomparable to every other non-3rd world nation in the world. It also doesn't even make it in the top 50 populous nations in the world.

So stop spouting your anti-gun rhetoric about how great Australia is with it's gun laws.

[sXs]

Be careful Kangaroo..... some of your comments could be construed as "hate speech". Wouldn't want law enforcement to showing up at your door and charging you under 18c.

A "reasonable man" may misconstrue some of your comments and take offense.

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.