Civilian Owned Firearms, what do we think?

[Wombat756]

Originally Posted by Jtreds

All the mass shootings in the U.S are not committed by members of organised crime. They are ordinary members of the public who pull these horrific acts for a number of reason, depression, mental ailment, revenge etc. They are able to commit these acts because it's ridiculously easy to obtain the weaponry they need.

That level of accessibility doesn't exist here. The standard argument that "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people", and then to proclaim that cars can kill people is so asinine. How many mass killings are committed by offenders driving cars..........or using anything other than a gun..

People seem to forget about the last mass murder here in Australia. Look up Childers. It happened after 96. If someone wants to kill lots of people, they will find a way. The often quoted "gun laws stopped mass murder here" is wrong.

Also comparing mass gun murders here with the numbers of instances in the states is fuzzy at best anyway. Even before 96 we had no where near the numbers the us does. The gun deaths in the states have a hell of a lot more to do with Americans than it does their access to guns. No offense intended to any American readers.

[Jtreds]

Originally Posted by Wombat756

People seem to forget about the last mass murder here in Australia. Look up Childers. It happened after 96. If someone wants to kill lots of people, they will find a way. The often quoted "gun laws stopped mass murder here" is wrong.

Also comparing mass gun murders here with the numbers of instances in the states is fuzzy at best anyway. Even before 96 we had no where near the numbers the us does. The gun deaths in the states have a hell of a lot more to do with Americans than it does their access to guns. No offense intended to any American readers.

Other than one deliberately lit fire, do you have any more examples of mass killings in the last 17 years? I think comparing what happens here and what happens in the US is completely valid. The reason we had few mass killings before 96 is because there wasn't anywhere near the kind of gun to person ratio that the states have. Guns weren't just laying around in every household. Also these types of mass shootings in public places such as universities and schools were not prominently happening in western countries until the 90s and 00's. Australia saw that there was a problem in 96, a problem that would only get worse, and put in place measures to stop it.

I understand that this probably isn't a popular opinion on these boards considering the nature of the forum, but I have just never heard a valid argument for weakening gun control in this country.

[AroGantz]

Nor have I JTreds, the simple fact is there is a system of controlling guns here and it works, the US system of controlling gun violence with more guns does not work. To be fair to the US gun owners the number of mass shootings versus the number of gun owners is very low but that doesn't mean gun control basics like background checks should not be implemented, it is entirely possible that this one simple change to their laws could stop mass shootings.

[Wombat756]

Originally Posted by Jtreds

Other than one deliberately lit fire, do you have any more examples of mass killings in the last 17 years? I think comparing what happens here and what happens in the US is completely valid. The reason we had few mass killings before 96 is because there wasn't anywhere near the kind of gun to person ratio that the states have. Guns weren't just laying around in every household. Also these types of mass shootings in public places such as universities and schools were not prominently happening in western countries until the 90s and 00's. Australia saw that there was a problem in 96, a problem that would only get worse, and put in place measures to stop it.

I understand that this probably isn't a popular opinion on these boards considering the nature of the forum, but I have just never heard a valid argument for weakening gun control in this country.

I actually think you will find there were many households that had guns prior to 96. It was actually quite common, particularly in rural areas.

And if you actually do a little digging, mass murders have been around for far longer than the last 20 or 30 years. They just didn't get the media coverage that they currently do. Wikipedia (not the best source I know) actually lists one back as far as 1860 here in Australia(the early ones don't mention the method used and I don't have time to look more at them all but I suspect most of the very early ones are not gun related). If you look up Australian mass murders it lists 17, most before 96, but 4 after. The three arson and another shooting (although I'm not sure the shooting should be included as I thought "mass murder" involved more than 2 deaths but any at all is not good)

I also only need one example of a mass killing to prove the statement wrong. But if you like also look into the Churchill fire and the Quakers hill nursing home fire. Both listed on wiki. Both since 96. Guns aren't the problem. Crazy people are.

Meanwhile, just a point, I'm not actually arguing for the "weakening" of our gun laws. Just a change to one, make them more sensible, and two, to make it easier for appropriately vetted people to access what they want. Key point being want. I'm just trying to put forward an alternate view to those of you who don't like guns.

It would be like someone else putting forward an argument that 4 wheel drives should be banned as they are dangerous and can affect others, no one "needs" to go offroading.... . I would argue against that also as it is just as wrong. Different, but just as wrong.

[AusJatzman]

Originally Posted by AroGantz

Nor have I JTreds, the simple fact is there is a system of controlling guns here and it works, the US system of controlling gun violence with more guns does not work. To be fair to the US gun owners the number of mass shootings versus the number of gun owners is very low but that doesn't mean gun control basics like background checks should not be implemented, it is entirely possible that this one simple change to their laws could stop mass shootings.

An eye for an eye and eventually we all go blind...... Tackle gun violence with gun violence and eventually....... (Insert own answer here)

[AusJatzman]

Originally Posted by Wombat756

I actually think you will find there were many households that had guns prior to 96. It was actually quite common, particularly in rural areas.

And if you actually do a little digging, mass murders have been around for far longer than the last 20 or 30 years. They just didn't get the media coverage that they currently do. Wikipedia (not the best source I know) actually lists one back as far as 1860 here in Australia(the early ones don't mention the method used and I don't have time to look more at them all but I suspect most of the very early ones are not gun related). If you look up Australian mass murders it lists 17, most before 96, but 4 after. The three arson and another shooting (although I'm not sure the shooting should be included as I thought "mass murder" involved more than 2 deaths but any at all is not good)

I also only need one example of a mass killing to prove the statement wrong. But if you like also look into the Churchill fire and the Quakers hill nursing home fire. Both listed on wiki. Both since 96. Guns aren't the problem. Crazy people are.

Meanwhile, just a point, I'm not actually arguing for the "weakening" of our gun laws. Just a change to one, make them more sensible, and two, to make it easier for appropriately vetted people to access what they want. Key point being want. I'm just trying to put forward an alternate view to those of you who don't like guns.

It would be like someone else putting forward an argument that 4 wheel drives should be banned as they are dangerous and can affect others, no one "needs" to go offroading.... . I would argue against that also as it is just as wrong. Different, but just as wrong.

Well, actually, there are plenty of people who "Need" to go offroad... but there are also people who "Need" guns. My only issue with any part of your statement is:" and two, to make it easier for appropriately vetted people to access what they want."

I have the most problem with the word WANT... So, someone passed the vetting they can have what ever their heart desires? How about Clive Palmer can go buy some heavy artillery???

Yes, make then sensible... NO, not what ever we want.... Lets keep that word sensible front and centre.....

[AroGantz]

Clive Palmer and crazy are one and the same aren't they

Absolutely Wombat, I am not against people having guns and I believe the vast majority of gun owners are doing the right thing but on page one of this thread we had people throwing around the American Constitution and that is where a lot of this argument came from.

Are our gun laws too restrictive? Maybe.
Are the American gun laws way too loose? Definitely.

So how do we loosen the current gun control laws without them become ineffective at what they are designed to do, that being control gun ownership?