Thread: Primary Response

Originally Posted by Scott

First and foremost, innocent people need to be protected from firearms and their owners.

Oh ok, I didn't realise all gun owners were all criminals, just waiting for the chance to gun people down ... my mistake.

It seems quite clear you are at the polar opposite end to the NRA on the firearm ownership spectrum, with the same fanatical, irrational stance, just with different objectives. Sorry, but it's pointless attempting a logical discussion with a fanatic.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

It seems quite clear you are at the polar opposite end to the NRA on the firearm ownership spectrum, with the same fanatical, irrational stance, just with different objectives. Sorry, but it's pointless attempting a logical discussion with a fanatic.

And IMO you come over just as fanatical to the right to own a gun.

Leaving aside the gun issue in the USA, which is totally different from a cultural aspect then here, the right to have a licence to own a gun here is much too lax and ought to be restricted even more and any breach should be punished much more harshly then the current slap on the wrist.

Before obtaining such licence proof of need should be required and sport should not be proof of need.


Peter.

Ps. Before anyone misinterprets my words again , I did not call anyone a fanatic.

Please do NOT attack a persons opinion.

Everyone is entitled to one, no matter how right or wrong it is.

Stick to the topic of what could be done in this situation.

DavidG
Moderator

Originally Posted by Sturdee

And IMO you come over just as fanatical to the right to own a gun.

The NRA's stance on gun ownership is what I'd call fanatical (at that end of the spectrum) and I would assume most people would also. I'm not advocating assualt rifles for all or anything even resembling that. I'm advocating a system that minimises risk, but still allows people the freedom to do their job, and/or pursue their chosen sport or hobby without undue interference. Hardly seems fanatical to me.

At the other end of the spectrum are those that want all firearms banned, across the board, regardless of need ... to me that is the other fanatical end of the spectrum, especially in Australia where firearm crime is minimal (while keeping in mind the fact that banning firearms hasn't and won't stop criminals for either obtaining or using them).

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Oh ok, I didn't realise all gun owners were all criminals, just waiting for the chance to gun people down ... my mistake.

I suppose Adam Lanza's mother would of been the ideal gun owner, wouldn't she? Look where we are now.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

It seems quite clear you are at the polar opposite end to the NRA on the firearm ownership spectrum, with the same fanatical, irrational stance, just with different objectives. Sorry, but it's pointless attempting a logical discussion with a fanatic.

Yup, so be it. If you'd like to call me a fanatic, then I'm happy with that. Gun owners and impotent politicians kow-tow'ing to gun lobbies have had it their own way for way too long.

By way of explanation let me explain that my elder brother, as a teenager straight after WW2, lost sight in one eye as a result of being the innocent victim of kids playing with a Luger found on the street after discarded by the Nazi occupation forces.

So my views are formed by this sad experience and I believe that no one in a normal society has the right to own a firearm and that a licence to own one is a privilege granted by society in very specific circumstances.

This privilege to own one must be strictly controlled, and policed, and can only be based on need. This need ought to be justified in each case and IMO sport or hobby is not good enough.

If that means I'm on the fanatical side in favour of banning ALL guns so be it.


Peter.

USA Deaths from motor vehicles

Wikipedia

year	deaths	fatalities per 100,000 population
2008	37261	12.264
2009	33808	11.0737
2010	32885	10.6511
2011 [2]	32367	10.3876

Originally Posted by Scott

I suppose Adam Lanza's mother would of been the ideal gun owner, wouldn't she? Look where we are now.

So one person, in another country screws up and everyone else should be punished .... sound logical. If governments developed policy/law on this basis, God help us (trouble is I reckon they sometimes do).

Originally Posted by Sturdee

By way of explanation let me explain that my elder brother, as a teenager straight after WW2, lost sight in one eye as a result of being the innocent victim of kids playing with a Luger found on the street after discarded by the Nazi occupation forces.

That is a terrible thing to happen to a kid, and I can understand how that may have affected you, however it doesn't exactly relate to gun ownership in modern day Australia.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

So my views are formed by this sad experience and I believe that no one in a normal society has the right to own a firearm and that a licence to own one is a privilege granted by society in very specific circumstances.

This privilege to own one must be strictly controlled, and policed, and can only be based on need. This need ought to be justified in each case and IMO sport or hobby is not good enough.

I think that is the big difference between Australia and the US - they see it as a right and we see it as a privilege, and hence we treat it that way.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

If that means I'm on the fanatical side in favour of banning ALL guns so be it.

Has someone described you as a fanatic, or are you describing yourself as one?

A few years ago I attended a small international science workshop. The workshop was attended by about a dozen people from all over the world and was held in a large government geological science lab in a major city. Security to get into this building was airport style Xray scanners and metal detectors, and we had to show our laptops were working laptops every time we went into the building. There were dozens of guards with automatic weapons at the high perimeter gates and fences and at the entrance to the building. With all respect to the guards doing the right thing they did not appear all that bright and when I heard on the first day that they had a hard time getting people with half a brain and no criminal record to become security guards I felt even less safer than I already was. The reason for all this security had nothing to do with any thing of possible value in the building but purely because it was a government building.

On the evening of the last day we attended a BBQ at the home of the local host. The home was out of the city deep in the woods where the nearest house was a couple of kms away. When we arrived our host gave a short speech whereby he apologized for the ridiculous security and the behaviour of their government and senior politicians on the world stage. While our host was speaking I kept thinking this could have been any soviet bloc or third world dictatorship but no, it was the good ole USA.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

So one person, in another country screws up and everyone else should be punished .... sound logical. If governments developed policy/law on this basis, God help us (trouble is I reckon they sometimes do).

The depiction of laws to restrict gun ownership as "punishment" of people who want to own guns is no more than a clever public relations trick by the US gun lobby, unwittingly repeated ad nauseum by gun enthusiasts around the world.

It is no more "punishment" than the restriciton of any potentially harmful activities.

Stopping people from smoking in restaurants is not punishment of smokers.

The requirement to stick below a speed limit or to not drive while drunk is not punishment of people (and aren't there so many of them) who think they are better drivers than everyone else, even when they're sloshed.

The banning of the lighting of fires on hot, dry days is not punishment of people who think they're really, really good at keeping fires under control.

Lanza's gun-totin' Mom wasn't a criminal. Big deal. If she didn't have a house full of guns there's a very, very good chance she and 26 other people would still be alive, including 20 little kids.

Why aren't people honest enough to just come out and say it: "Owning guns makes me feel good. And that feeling is more imprtant to me than the knowledge that tighter gun laws will greatly reduce the number of gun murders and suicides."

By the way, Vernon, it wasn't just one person in one country. Just scroll back and look at those statistics. Each number represents a dead person.

Originally Posted by DavidG

USA Deaths from motor vehicles

Wikipedia

year	deaths	fatalities per 100,000 population
2008	37261	12.264
2009	33808	11.0737
2010	32885	10.6511
2011 [2]	32367	10.3876

David

Very similar, from your previous stats, to the rate of homicides. We could conclude that cars should be banned too.

Except that we have to assume most motoring fatalities are inadvertent whilst the majority of gun related deaths are intentional.

We keep harking back to a comparison between the US and Oz in the availability of guns and the type of guns available. There is a very big difference. It is quite difficult here. I don't pretend to know all the detail, but in Oz you have to undergo training, have security checks, provide a valid reason for ownership and when the licence is finally issued there is another cooling off period before you can purchase a gun. This I believe is to prevent the crimes of passion and revenge.

Little of this exists in the US.

As far as sporting guns are concerned, to own a hand gun you must, in Oz, be a member of a pistol club and there are further rigorous regulations. Having lived in rural Oz for quite a long time now I have not seen indiscriminate or ill-considered use of guns and I don't believe it is warranted to lump Oz in the same category as the US.

I will repeat I am not a gun owner and I never have been, just so there can be no confusion in that regard.

For me it is the ability, in the US, by the average citizen to purchase enough fire-power to commence a war that is the issue. There is virtually no control (on the pretext of the second ammendment - I think that's the one) and inevitably it will lead to a bad conclusion.

It has done so already.

Several times!

Regards
Paul

I would really like to see some of our American forum members contribute to this debate. I think we need some first hand input into the apparent American obsession with guns and their mistrust of government. We can debate this topic to death and it won't change anything in America, nor should it, they have to recognise that they have a problem and deal with it.

One thing I will say is that "if" I were a sporting shooter and new laws were passed that would negatively impact my hobby because someone circumvented existing laws to obtain a gun and commit this kind of atrocity I would be ropeable. I know how I felt when the Federal Government introduced higher taxes on premixed spirits to counter alcohol fuelled violence, it really p!55ed me off. Why should I be slugged extra taxes to enjoy a quiet Bundy & Coke at home just because some 18 y/o wants to get s#!tfaced and start a fight. Kids still get drunk and start fights, so how well is the alcopop tax working?

Just for the record, I don't believe that city dwellers need guns or rifles, but I worked with a couple of guys that are sporting shooters and I know they are very responsible and I would not like to see them have their hobby taken away from them.

Very nicely put Grumpy .

Regards
Paul

I was reading about the subject on news.com.au and found the attached pic below which I thought was interesting. Many are suggesting that these shootings are not by the law abiding citizens, however the image below suggests that all but two of the shootings were with legally purchased weapons. One of those two used a combination of legal and illegal.

I personally think the pendulum has swung too far towards the anti gun side in Australia to the point that anyone who stands up in support of relaxed firearm laws is treated in a similar fashion to those supporting tighter controls in America.