Thread: Primary Response

Well, this has certainly been a lively discussion

I guess I'm in a minority, having hunted most of my life, spent time in the US.... and even served in the military.
Personally, I found the people in the states to be very friendly, and quite patriotic towards their country. (LA isn't particularly nice, but the midwest was lovely)

Shooting sports are very big over there - something that doesn't seem to attract much media coverage. Despite the fact that many of the disciplines are in fact Olympic sports as well...

Seems like the politicians are milking the publicity now... e.g. the mayor of LA. Firearms laws are passed at the state level only, to ensure uniformity across the state (cities/counties cannot enact gun laws, but some do have ammo restrictions). CA has probably the most restrictive laws of any state, but gang crime with guns is among the worst in the country. Of course, if you pointed to demographics being the major factor, you'd be correct. But the whole media debate has been pretty myopic so far - they aren't really including any factors that won't support their own political agenda.

I know that there are many people who think all firearms should be banned, and I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that point.
But if you can figure out a way to ban crime, you'll get my vote for sure

A friend sent me this, which is a video blog of a teacher who is also a gun enthusiast in the US. He presents an interesting perspective, that I found quite interesting.
Hopefully others will too

Media vs "Gun Culture" - YouTube

Edit... david, you might be interested in these stats as well Articles: Murder by Numbers

Originally Posted by devnull

Edit... david, you might be interested in these stats as well Articles: Murder by Numbers

thanks for that for the record, i am not against guns but i am in favour of gun control and in responsible gun ownership .... although i don't own a gun, i know several people (including my sister) who own (legal) guns and fit into that categoryat the same time, nothing i have read nor information i have analysed convinces me that the US doesn't have a gun problem ... the fact that other countries also have one doesn't mitigate that for me ... i don't think it is the only problem they have, as a society, and i don't think that gun control alone will solve them, however it frustrates me to see that they will make no effort to solve that part of it ... i don't believe that President Obama will have any success at all .... his opponents (not only on guns) seem to believe that any compromise at all is a weaknessregards david

It seems that in Utah some teachers are getting ready to carry concealed weapons:
US teachers take up arms after mass shootings - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by robbygard

thanks for that for the record, i am not against guns but i am in favour of gun control and in responsible gun ownership .... although i don't own a gun, i know several people (including my sister) who own (legal) guns and fit into that category at the same time, nothing i have read nor information i have analysed convinces me that the US doesn't have a gun problem ... the fact that other countries also have one doesn't mitigate that for me ... i don't think it is the only problem they have, as a society, and i don't think that gun control alone will solve them, however it frustrates me to see that they will make no effort to solve that part of it ... i don't believe that President Obama will have any success at all .... his opponents (not only on guns) seem to believe that any compromise at all is a weaknessregards david

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for responsible gun ownership, even the vetting of licence holders. But some of the regulations imposed here seem to be a bit bizarre, to say the least.
I think a big part of the issue is that many of those espousing opinions do so from a basis of ignorance. Understandable, since sport shooting is admittedly not for everyone, and many don't wish to take it up as a sport. The media doesn't help, since providing the general public with unbiased information doesn't sell nearly as well as emotive sensationalist articles, and since that's the primary source of information for many people, misconceptions are the end result.

I think life experience also plays a big part in shaping those perceptions. Having used firearms for much of my life, my perceptions will be different to someone who's primary information is obtained from a 3rd party (media).
Just as, given some of the things I saw when I was a paramedic, I'd be more inclined to support a cc rating limitation for vehicles, and/or the fitting of speed governors than people that haven't seen firsthand what speed and alcohol-fuelled stupidity can do. Some may argue that vehicles aren't designed to kill. Technically correct, but they do, and in great numbers.
Even in that case though, is it the vehicle at fault, or the operator? While imposing restrictions on the vehicle MAY reduce road fatalities (debatable), is that the most prudent method, or is concentrating on the operator the best way to achieve the desired result?

BTW, I was surprised to see that wikipedia had a page on gun politics in Australia, with many citations to research articles Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some interesting reading there.

Cheers,
Gordon

Originally Posted by devnull

I think a big part of the issue is that many of those espousing opinions do so from a basis of ignorance. Understandable, since sport shooting is admittedly not for everyone, and many don't wish to take it up as a sport. The media doesn't help, since providing the general public with unbiased information doesn't sell nearly as well as emotive sensationalist articles, and since that's the primary source of information for many people, misconceptions are the end result.

I think life experience also plays a big part in shaping those perceptions. Having used firearms for much of my life, my perceptions will be different to someone who's primary information is obtained from a 3rd party (media).
Just as, given some of the things I saw when I was a paramedic, I'd be more inclined to support a cc rating limitation for vehicles, and/or the fitting of speed governors than people that haven't seen firsthand what speed and alcohol-fuelled stupidity can do. Some may argue that vehicles aren't designed to kill. Technically correct, but they do, and in great numbers.
Even in that case though, is it the vehicle at fault, or the operator? While imposing restrictions on the vehicle MAY reduce road fatalities (debatable), is that the most prudent method, or is concentrating on the operator the best way to achieve the desired result?

Cheers,
Gordon

Gordon

While I don't neccessarily agree with all your comments, may I compliment you on your calm and considered approach under sustained fire (withering fire at times) .

As always when judging comment we have to assess whether there are hidden agendas. The media are in many ways the worst culprits and we all know how sensationalism sells newspapers and magazines. In a number of instances their investigation and research is downright sloppy at best and a dereliction of duty at worst.

One apsect that incenses me is the presumptions made by people who have no direct knowledge of what they are talking about. If, for example, you have never fired a gun whether in peacetime or war, you are poorly qualified to make judgements and, as you have pointed out, emotion takes over from reason and the dreaded knee-jerk reaction swings into place.

Policticians are the next group who have their own agendas. Don't get me going there! And lastly we all have our own agendas. If I competed regularly in pistol club competitions I would, I think, be dismayed at calls to ban guns in their entirity.

In the case of the schools massacres we are rightly appalled at the slaughter of innocent children and we naturaly ask ourselves if there are too many guns around. In the US they seem to be dished out without sufficient checks (I know it varys from state to state so there are fifty different versions to start with. Just head over the border if things are too difficult). I think there are too many guns in circulation in the US and many many too many of the totally unjustifiable type.

Here in Australia I think we have a balance that for the majority of the time, with the exception of the Port Arthur incident, has worked well. I hope I never have to eat my words on that statement. In fact Port Arthur did result in a tightening of the gun laws; Not perfect but better.

Whilst I see a very comparable situation with numbers of road deaths and gun related homicides in the US (that is not the same case in Oz), I am reluctant to draw direct comparisons. The fundamental reason for guns and cars are diametrically opposed. Fatalaties on the one hand are primarily accidental while on the other are primarily intentional.

Yes, it is the operator of the gun that is at fault, but that is no consolation to the victim or the families and friends.

One problem in the US (actually I think they have more than one problem but...) is that the horse has bolted and in this case I really don't know how you get it back. Most of those who let the horse out are still holding the gate open and refusing to close it.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by devnull

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for responsible gun ownership, even the vetting of licence holders.
a few respondents to this thread have shown that they are responsible, i think ... some of my reading of the situation in the US is quite bizarre though (no checks at all on 40% of sales, most states not requiring mandatory reporting of mental illness to the register that is used when checks are done)

But some of the regulations imposed here seem to be a bit bizarre, to say the least.


I think a big part of the issue is that many of those espousing opinions do so from a basis of ignorance. Understandable, since sport shooting is admittedly not for everyone, and many don't wish to take it up as a sport. The media doesn't help, since providing the general public with unbiased information doesn't sell nearly as well as emotive sensationalist articles, and since that's the primary source of information for many people, misconceptions are the end result.

there is also a lot of disinformation on both sides ... much of what i have read in my research falls into that category ... much "cherry picking" and either misinterpretation or sloppy thinking when it comes to interpretation ... i have seen for instance the same event (the port arthur event) been used to justify BOTH sides of the argument ... unrepresentative statistics (some cherry picking here as well) comparing US total to some insignificant village in kazakhstan etc etc ... and comparing tasmanian statistics post port arthur (hey have they heard the term statistically significant?) to argue in favour of gun control

I think life experience also plays a big part in shaping those perceptions. Having used firearms for much of my life, my perceptions will be different to someone who's primary information is obtained from a 3rd party (media).
Just as, given some of the things I saw when I was a paramedic, I'd be more inclined to support a cc rating limitation for vehicles, and/or the fitting of speed governors than people that haven't seen firsthand what speed and alcohol-fuelled stupidity can do. Some may argue that vehicles aren't designed to kill. Technically correct, but they do, and in great numbers.
Even in that case though, is it the vehicle at fault, or the operator? While imposing restrictions on the vehicle MAY reduce road fatalities (debatable), is that the most prudent method, or is concentrating on the operator the best way to achieve the desired result? hmm again we probably both agree and disagree here ... agree that many of these problems are multifaceted but i don't agree that we should necessarily limit our response to a single facet of the problem ... look at the seatbelt saga where a multifaceted approach was arguably most successful (i still come across some people, or one person actually, who regards the introduction of seatbelts and their compulsory use as an infringement of rigths and quotes some anecdotal event where a life was saved because the passenger was NOT wearing a seatbelt)

i think, it is also worth noting, that someone determined to do something illegal will find a way to do it, gun issues or other ... i doubt that gun control would stop an event like the port arthur or the school massacre if a person was really intent on doing ill ... i do think that it makes OUR country a safer place though ... (i add that because in the context of your comment on speed limiting devices and the use and abuse of such in heavy transport)


BTW, I was surprised to see that wikipedia had a page on gun politics in Australia, with many citations to research articles Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some interesting reading there.

yes quite good reading

Cheers,
Gordon

regards david

Originally Posted by devnull

Well, this has certainly been a lively discussion

I guess I'm in a minority, having hunted most of my life, spent time in the US.... and even served in the military.
Personally, I found the people in the states to be very friendly, and quite patriotic towards their country. (LA isn't particularly nice, but the midwest was lovely)

Shooting sports are very big over there - something that doesn't seem to attract much media coverage. Despite the fact that many of the disciplines are in fact Olympic sports as well...

Seems like the politicians are milking the publicity now... e.g. the mayor of LA. Firearms laws are passed at the state level only, to ensure uniformity across the state (cities/counties cannot enact gun laws, but some do have ammo restrictions). CA has probably the most restrictive laws of any state, but gang crime with guns is among the worst in the country. Of course, if you pointed to demographics being the major factor, you'd be correct. But the whole media debate has been pretty myopic so far - they aren't really including any factors that won't support their own political agenda.

I know that there are many people who think all firearms should be banned, and I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that point.
But if you can figure out a way to ban crime, you'll get my vote for sure

A friend sent me this, which is a video blog of a teacher who is also a gun enthusiast in the US. He presents an interesting perspective, that I found quite interesting.
Hopefully others will too

Media vs "Gun Culture" - YouTube

Edit... david, you might be interested in these stats as well Articles: Murder by Numbers

What shocks me in that video is his statement that you can not buy an automatic rifle in the US at the moment, not because they are banned but because THE ARE SOLD OUT. That bears out his statment about how many people wanted one and were tossing up whether to buy one or not.

With all the statistics flying about it pays to remember it's "lies, damn lies and statistics"

This might interest some of us
From Our Woodworking Colleagues | Woodworker's Journal - Blog
Remembering the original post and that we are a woodworking forum.

Regards

Originally Posted by devnull

BTW, I was surprised to see that wikipedia had a page on gun politics in Australia, with many citations to research articles Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some interesting reading there.

Cheers,
Gordon

I agree.

Some very interesting reading there including gun restrictions in Oz. Also an insight into how statistics may be manipulated to suit the purpose and how "spin" plays such a focal part in today's politics.

Regards
Paul

Can someone tell me why these weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians

AK-47


AR-15



Gotta love this.
H&K 91


UZI

Unbelievable.

It's just for kicks, and that's not a valid reason for then having them available to people who want to kill for kicks.

The nine year old child couldn't properly control the gun either (mainly because he doesn't have enough body mass), and that's just bloody stupid on his father's part.

I just don't get it.

I don't get it either FF.
This is not sport, this is not defending your home. This is macho bullshyte at its worst

Well Grumpy. Those videos just about sum it up.

It knocks the theory on the head that the automatics are derated for civilian use, it brings up a petition to vote against a $200 tax presumeaably on guns, it spreads fear that Obama is going to to take away their guns, it shows a nine year old boy firing a gun he can hardly hold up and probably before he can read and write properly (that's my supposition so you should probably discount it) and it shows that there is a firearms chanel.

Like Brett said: Unbelievable!

Regards
Paul

I didn't go looking for these videos in particular Paul, I just typed in assault weapons in the youtube search window and chose a few at random. I had no idea that I'd get an idiot letting a nine year old fire a weapon he couldn't control. This is the mentality we can't understand devnull.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Well Grumpy. Those videos just about sum it up.

It knocks the theory on the head that the automatics are derated for civilian use, it brings up a petition to vote against a $200 tax presumeaably on guns, it spreads fear that Obama is going to to take away their guns, it shows a nine year old boy firing a gun he can hardly hold up and probably before he can read and write properly (that's my supposition so you should probably discount it) and it shows that there is a firearms chanel.

Like Brett said: Unbelievable!

Regards
Paul

From what I've read they are de-rated but the kits to change them back are legally sold.