Thread: Primary Response

Originally Posted by Scott

I get the feeling your sitting on the fence here ozhunter

"help, I can't breathe (not that I want to atm)"

Originally Posted by Scott

I get the feeling your sitting on the fence here ozhunter

Nah, he'd complain too much.

Originally Posted by Scott

I'd also like to state that one of the requirements of owning a gun should be an IQ above a certain score. On that point, I reckon most members of the NRA would fail dismally.

Do you really think the NRA is what it is today because of low IQ's? There are lots of people out there who's IQ doesn't reflect them as a person, being outside a certain set of parameters on a scale doesn't make you an idiot, nor is it a pre-requisite for being a homicidal maniac.

Originally Posted by Scott

Mind you, some of the nutters who perpetrate these mass shootings could very well be of the intelligent variety.

I have no statistics or reports to back it up, but I would say that could very well be the case.

Originally Posted by Scott

Another solution would be to herd all gun owners into a large compound and allow them to have a shootout. That would weed out the minority who think they're invincible with gun in hand.

If you think you are invincible with a firearm in hand, you probably shouldn't have one to start with.

Originally Posted by Scott

On a serious note, the issue of gun control is a very big conundrum. I'm glad I don't live in the U.S. where it's citizens have a 'right' to bear arms. To that end, it shows how powerful the NRA is and how 'gutless' the lawmakers are. In my not so humble opinion the second amendment is, at this point in time, an indictment upon the rational portion of American people.

Trouble is, the rational portion of Americans would have a large proportion of firearms owners. 99.9% of them are normal people like you and I. Unfortunately, most people from outside the US that are exposed to USicans, are only exposed to the loud mouth, over bearing tourist. The people I have met over there are just like you and I, except they talk funny.

Originally Posted by Scott

Let me start an interesting debate which would affect some members of this forum. How would you feel if one of the bullet casings from your bullet pen was used to kill/maim/injure? Should we (the forum as a whole) be taking some recognisable action by shunning bullet pens? Please note, I'm intentionally stirring a debate here but in the light of these shootings, am I taking things TOO far?

Please!!

I was going to stay out of this as it often simply degenerates into a highly polarized argument which serves no purpose other than people venting their views and offers no rational solution - if I had to put it simply "people may hear but they do not listen". So far I'm impressed with the tone and tolerance of the views put.

Generally speaking, I have no problem with people using guns doing the wrong thing being banned / confiscated / punished - I would stand behind / beside / in front of you 110%. However, I do have a big problem if people who own [legally] guns are banned / confiscated / punished because of what is implied as to what they might or could do. I do not see punishing innocent people as the solution for the wrongdoing of others.

Society requires rules and those who break them deserve what they get [often far too lenient sentences] however, those who do the right thing should be encouraged to continue to do so rather becoming resentful for being punished for the actions of wrongdoers.

Leaving firearms aside for a moment - using mobile phones while driving - I don't really believe that any thinking person would have a problem with those that do the wrong thing getting punished. However, because of those that do the wrong thing should all mobile phones be confiscated or banned. I can only imagine what an uproar this would cause.

I could go on but I've probably said enough.

Regards,
Bob

Originally Posted by Bob38S

I do not see punishing innocent people as the solution for the wrongdoing of others.

Hallelujah, Amen, all hail the wise man. Very well said.

Taking Scott seriously I believe the NRA stance is going to create the situation it dreads. They seem to see any diminution of the right to own arms as an attack on democracy and the thin end of the wedge. Their apparently rigid belief is in my mind more likely to mobilise opposition. God knows how it is going to work out but apparently He's on both sides.

Originally Posted by Bob38S

I do not see punishing innocent people as the solution for the wrongdoing of others.

Originally Posted by ozhunter

Hallelujah, Amen, all hail the wise man. Very well said.

With respect, seriously? Then I think you've (we've) now lost sight of who is innocent here. Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners?

Hmm, let me think about that one.

Originally Posted by Scott

With respect, seriously? Then I think you've (we've) now lost sight of who is innocent here. Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners?

Hmm, let me think about that one.

So do you also advocate banning alcohol, cigarettes, non-public transport, swimming, etc, etc ... they are all much more of a danger to children in Australia ... where do you stop?

The lack of response from our US members is quite noticeable, only the second post, they have just let us waffle on, may be they are too outraged at our opinions or they are rolling on the floor laughing and can't reach the mouse.

Regards

Originally Posted by Vernonv

So do you also advocate banning alcohol, cigarettes, non-public transport, swimming, etc, etc ... they are all much more of a danger to children in Australia ... where do you stop?

Yup, we've lost sight.

Originally Posted by Scott

Yup, we've lost sight.

I don't think so. You can dismiss it all you want, you can be blinded by the emotion of it all if you wish, but the fact remains that kids face much larger dangers in our society than those posed by guns.

I know who has lost sight, and it's not me.

I don't think anyone has lost sight of anything. Conversation ebb and flow, but the eddy stays within the pool.

It was you that suggested removing all firearms from civilian ownership, or that all firearms owners should put into a corral and shoot it out, or that if you have a lesser IQ than others, you shouldn't be able to own firearms. None of that is any further from sight than saying that the persecution of innocent (in a different context) people will help.

May the souls of those 26 victims rest in peace.

I'm going to make some shavings on the lathe.

One thing the NRA is good at is using people who in normal circumstances would not go along with them. It's the thin end of the wedge argument - if 'they' restrict the ownership of assault rifles 'they' will next take away your hunting rifles, shotguns etc, etc.
'They' are often seen by those of extreme opinions as equating to tree-hugging, immoral lefties of indeterminate gender (certainly not red-blooded) who wish to pollute the young.
I support Scott in that we are seeing mental troubles, assault rifle and dead children.
ps I'm going to go to the shed too. this is too painfull

Originally Posted by jimbur

I support Scott in that we are seeing mental troubles, assault rifle and dead children.

Thanks Jim. If gun owners are going to divulge their interests, let me divulge mine. 2 daughters aged 6 and 4. I could make it a bit more emotional by posting a picture but that's going a bit far. Morally, I know that my stance is pure and with a rock solid foundation (see 3rd sentence).

I'm not denying anyone the right to own a firearm here, just injecting some emotional arguments from a non-gun ownership point of view. First and foremost, innocent people need to be protected from firearms and their owners. It just seems a frightfully imbalanced situation; gun vs child and one which scares the bejesus out of me.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

There's a rather black side to this that I just don't get. An M4 assault rifle can fire 700 to 1000 rounds per minute, which is 11 to 16 rounds per second. How come there were only 27 killed?

An M4 can fire 700 - 1000 rpm but the weapon found at the scene was an AR15. The AR15 is the 'civilain' version of the M4 (it's probably more acurate to say that the M4 is the military version of the AR15) and is not capable of full auto or select fire. It is semi auto only. There is also some debate as to whether the AR15 was used. It is possible that all deaths were as a result of the two hand guns. I haven't been able to confirm or deny that though.

Although I whinged about it at the time, I now believe the Australian banning of semi auto guns and buy back was a good thing. I had to hand in three guns at the time. And while I used the money to buy a new, more powerful, single shot rifle I no longer own any guns and can't see myself owning any in the near future.

Unfortunately I just don't see the US being able to do a similar thing. The cost of a buy back scheme would be enormous and the NRA is extremely powerful. Nearly four and a half million members and revenue of over $270 million per year. Thats a lot of lobby power.