Gun control in Australia?
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
Hey John, A few minutes of Google resulted in this link: http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html which appears to be the source of the email. It's pretty much verbatim, but includes more links and stats. I'd be interested to hear the feet on the street opinion from Oz, but from a quick look it certainly appears to have backfired. The historical numbers however are all over the place, and while you can look at the trend over a decade and see decline, there are numerous points in the graph that show explosions of violence. David
-
Hey John, A few minutes of Google resulted in this link: http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html which appears to be the source of the email. It's pretty much verbatim, but includes more links and stats. I'd be interested to hear the feet on the street opinion from Oz, but from a quick look it certainly appears to have backfired. The historical numbers however are all over the place, and while you can look at the trend over a decade and see decline, there are numerous points in the graph that show explosions of violence. David
Thanks. I guess I could have checked the web... Subconsciously, I guess I wanted to know what the "people on the street" thought, too. There's likely to be plenty of opinions about information that should have been added to the article. I guess I'm partial to the idea that many would-be criminals who already had guns now know that the "good guys" are turning them in and would be "easy pickings". John
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
Criminals are criminals because they break laws. Why can't liberals ever get that?
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
The gun control issue was spurred by a number of shootings - the worst of which was the Port Arthur massacre. I think you'll be hard pressed to find an Australian (apart from a farmer with a feral pig problem or a sports shooter) who is against the policy of ridding our country of guns - especially the semi-automatic and assualt style weapons. The point is that it's not illegal to have a gun (if it's licenced). It's illegal to have a gun designed to easily kill lots of people at once. So, the NRA states "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent". Do a search and you'll find a Press release from the Australian Institure of Criminology stating "Homicide incidents in Victoria have nearly halved since monitoring began in 1989/90 from 79 to 44." Here's another: "Gun controls cut firearm suicides. Again Homicide in Australia 1999-2000 shows that homocides by firearms has dropped significantly since the gun laws came in. Most armed robberies in Australia are done using knives or syringes. There are still guns on the street but carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, even if it is licenced, so your chances of coming across someone in the street with a gun, or being shot in a road rage attack are slim (but getting your face punched in isn't), and the chances of your sons and daughters getting killed in a school yard massacre are also a lot slimmer than in the States. Even our postal workers are relaxed. Please do not pass on this NRA propoganda. cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
Well, I guess I've made my feelings known. I seem to recall being shocked at how many intelligent people here are rednecks when guns get mentioned, so I suppose I'll make my opinionated comments and then brace myself ( because I'm far to immature to just pull my head in :)) >It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) A few points here. 1/ No-one ever suggested that the gun buyback would in any way stop violent crime. It was a response to the Port Arthur tragedy and the idea was to take guns out of the hands of people like Mr. Bryant, a mentally unstable person with no history of crime whatsoever. 2/ Violent crime will remain on the increase as more and more children who have been brought up by patents conditioned by society and/or apathy not to apply any discipline or teach any standards become young adults. Society will continue on this path simply because our society is one of passing the buck - everything I do wrong is societys fault and so instead of going to jail I will sue someone. 3/ This farcical argument ( law abiding citizens have been disarmed and so crime increased ) would only hold true if previously it was legal for citizens to pack heat in the street, and criminals were scared to rob banks because the little granny behind them in the queue would blow them away. I know this sort of thing happens in movies, and maybe it does happen in the states, but we have never had the right to carry a gun in Australia and therefore using the Australian statistics to promote such a view is just the worst pile of garbage. This sort of applied logic is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and almost an admission that the true facts do not support their case. > While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. See what I mean ? The
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
It's not the matter of not having right to carry arms that is a problem in Australia. Society without weapons is a healthier one, that's for sure. The real problem is judicial system which is far to liberal. What would be the jail sentence for a gun robbery that went wrong? Five years or so? Just to give him a chance to come out and try it again. I don't share american passion for guns, but they are right about three strikes. Dejan Melbourne
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
...I just can't let a gun control argument go by unaddressed! I do agree that this NRA stuff is blatant propaganda. However, anyone who thinks an "assault" rifle is more dangerous than a standard, over the counter, bolt action deer rifle is also the victim of propaganda. (Compare rate of fire to penetration power and range). As an American, for me the question is how many of my rights are to be exchanged for security? Do I want freedom, or safety? I think I'll stick with freedom, Autralians can do as they like. Frankly, I feel safer living around heavily armed neighbors, than with a federal government which can blatantly ignore which ever portion of our constitution it desires.
-
Hi guys, I received this email message recently and would like to know if it's true. I know that some of you are Australian and we've had some gun control threads in here before. So, here it is. Are the numbers valid? John >>>>Forward>>>> Gun Confiscation Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST! DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY AND LET THE VOCAL MINORITY LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. >>>>
Don't own a gun and never wanted to own a gun. The majority of people who own guns (outside of farmers and other who need them in their work) are just the same as the people who need fast and loud cars. Very small dicks and a need to over compensate. Having said that our Prime Minister (and you lot thought Bill Clinton was an embarassment) is renowned for living in the 1950's and having no idea of reality. The compulsory gun buy back at tax payers expense is only one a few ideas passed into law that defy logic. We have a law that forces an ISP to filter content that is not nice and none of this content can exist on Australian based servers. Australian on-line gambling sites cannot have Australian customers, we need to send our money overseas if we wan to gamble. Datacasting is only available to existing holders of Television licenses. This is great for competition and survival of the fitest. Something he purports to believe in. He has implemented the GST. An abortion style implementation of the UK's VAT. There are several more that I used to be able to quote verbatim, now I am just so pissed off that if I see him down the street I will just run the runt (could be a typo) down and be done with it. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018
-
...I just can't let a gun control argument go by unaddressed! I do agree that this NRA stuff is blatant propaganda. However, anyone who thinks an "assault" rifle is more dangerous than a standard, over the counter, bolt action deer rifle is also the victim of propaganda. (Compare rate of fire to penetration power and range). As an American, for me the question is how many of my rights are to be exchanged for security? Do I want freedom, or safety? I think I'll stick with freedom, Autralians can do as they like. Frankly, I feel safer living around heavily armed neighbors, than with a federal government which can blatantly ignore which ever portion of our constitution it desires.
Two problems: 1/ the problem at Port Arthur was not how far one bullet would go, but how many he could fire in a short time, In that enclosed space a bolt action rifle would be one shot, then a group of people attacking him while he tried to reload 2/ You don't HAVE the right to bear arms, unless your country is being invaded. I prefer the freedom of knowing the person who gives me the finger in traffic is unarmed, the freedom of knowing my children won't be shot at school, nor will she have to pass a metal detector on the way in. I got the 'we're armed so the government won't take advantage of us' argument last time, and it is crap. Your government has tanks and nukes. If they decide they want to do something, they will do it. In fact they already do. Your pop gun matters not to them except that a portion of these guns that make you free are used on the spur of the moment in domestic disputes and bar room brawls, which lowers the amount of welfare they have to pay. Christian #include "std_disclaimer.h" The careful application of terror is also a form of communication. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
-
Don't own a gun and never wanted to own a gun. The majority of people who own guns (outside of farmers and other who need them in their work) are just the same as the people who need fast and loud cars. Very small dicks and a need to over compensate. Having said that our Prime Minister (and you lot thought Bill Clinton was an embarassment) is renowned for living in the 1950's and having no idea of reality. The compulsory gun buy back at tax payers expense is only one a few ideas passed into law that defy logic. We have a law that forces an ISP to filter content that is not nice and none of this content can exist on Australian based servers. Australian on-line gambling sites cannot have Australian customers, we need to send our money overseas if we wan to gamble. Datacasting is only available to existing holders of Television licenses. This is great for competition and survival of the fitest. Something he purports to believe in. He has implemented the GST. An abortion style implementation of the UK's VAT. There are several more that I used to be able to quote verbatim, now I am just so pissed off that if I see him down the street I will just run the runt (could be a typo) down and be done with it. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018
Very small dicks and a need to over compensate. Bwhaahahahahahahaha !! Christian #include "std_disclaimer.h" The careful application of terror is also a form of communication. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
-
The gun control issue was spurred by a number of shootings - the worst of which was the Port Arthur massacre. I think you'll be hard pressed to find an Australian (apart from a farmer with a feral pig problem or a sports shooter) who is against the policy of ridding our country of guns - especially the semi-automatic and assualt style weapons. The point is that it's not illegal to have a gun (if it's licenced). It's illegal to have a gun designed to easily kill lots of people at once. So, the NRA states "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent". Do a search and you'll find a Press release from the Australian Institure of Criminology stating "Homicide incidents in Victoria have nearly halved since monitoring began in 1989/90 from 79 to 44." Here's another: "Gun controls cut firearm suicides. Again Homicide in Australia 1999-2000 shows that homocides by firearms has dropped significantly since the gun laws came in. Most armed robberies in Australia are done using knives or syringes. There are still guns on the street but carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, even if it is licenced, so your chances of coming across someone in the street with a gun, or being shot in a road rage attack are slim (but getting your face punched in isn't), and the chances of your sons and daughters getting killed in a school yard massacre are also a lot slimmer than in the States. Even our postal workers are relaxed. Please do not pass on this NRA propoganda. cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
you mean like "give me the money or i'll inject you with 20cc's of rat poison" ??? yikes. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
you mean like "give me the money or i'll inject you with 20cc's of rat poison" ??? yikes. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
No, normally filled with blood. Give your money or I give you AIDS/HIV/etc. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018
-
Two problems: 1/ the problem at Port Arthur was not how far one bullet would go, but how many he could fire in a short time, In that enclosed space a bolt action rifle would be one shot, then a group of people attacking him while he tried to reload 2/ You don't HAVE the right to bear arms, unless your country is being invaded. I prefer the freedom of knowing the person who gives me the finger in traffic is unarmed, the freedom of knowing my children won't be shot at school, nor will she have to pass a metal detector on the way in. I got the 'we're armed so the government won't take advantage of us' argument last time, and it is crap. Your government has tanks and nukes. If they decide they want to do something, they will do it. In fact they already do. Your pop gun matters not to them except that a portion of these guns that make you free are used on the spur of the moment in domestic disputes and bar room brawls, which lowers the amount of welfare they have to pay. Christian #include "std_disclaimer.h" The careful application of terror is also a form of communication. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
And your totally wrong. (BTW, I own nothing more dangerous than a butter knife ) 1) I never said a single shot, bolt action rifle. A round from an assault rifle is unlikely to penetrate past the first victim it hits, its not designed to do that. A round from a "deer" rifle is going to cut down multiple people at a time fired into an unsuspecting crowd, or be more accurate fired at long range. The point is that it is a deadly weapon which can hurt a lot of people. So it is rediculous to ban one type of weapon and not the other if public safty is your main concern. The reason most people who go on these shooting rampages select assault rifles is because they want to look sexy on tv and not like a redneck on a deer hunt. 2) For you, as an Australian, I know the concept of "States Rights" is not a burning issue, however it is the reason the bill or rights exists in the U.S. constitution. The 2nd amendment was written to provide me with protection if the federal government ever decided to take weapons away, unless my state of residence complied with them. My state of residence is supposed to have the final say on the matter via the 2nd amendment. Unlike the NRA, I would have no issue if the state of Indiana decided to restrict weapons, but I would openly defy the U.S. Government if it tried the same thing. I recognize no federal authority to limit my, or my neighbors, ownership of weapons. I do recognize the state and local responsibility to do so. 3) As a former Infantry company commander, I can assure you that there are not enough tanks in all of NATO to subdue the American public at the level of private armament I have witnessed. (For personal reasons, I would prefer to not be reduced to comparing penis sizes as a means of defense.) 4) I send my children to school without concern, and I sometimes flip people off in traffic and expect nothing more than a fist fight at most. I have never even heard a gun fired in anger, and I have lived around them my entire life.:rose: Anyway, wasted enough time on this. Back to the code. Goodnight.
-
And your totally wrong. (BTW, I own nothing more dangerous than a butter knife ) 1) I never said a single shot, bolt action rifle. A round from an assault rifle is unlikely to penetrate past the first victim it hits, its not designed to do that. A round from a "deer" rifle is going to cut down multiple people at a time fired into an unsuspecting crowd, or be more accurate fired at long range. The point is that it is a deadly weapon which can hurt a lot of people. So it is rediculous to ban one type of weapon and not the other if public safty is your main concern. The reason most people who go on these shooting rampages select assault rifles is because they want to look sexy on tv and not like a redneck on a deer hunt. 2) For you, as an Australian, I know the concept of "States Rights" is not a burning issue, however it is the reason the bill or rights exists in the U.S. constitution. The 2nd amendment was written to provide me with protection if the federal government ever decided to take weapons away, unless my state of residence complied with them. My state of residence is supposed to have the final say on the matter via the 2nd amendment. Unlike the NRA, I would have no issue if the state of Indiana decided to restrict weapons, but I would openly defy the U.S. Government if it tried the same thing. I recognize no federal authority to limit my, or my neighbors, ownership of weapons. I do recognize the state and local responsibility to do so. 3) As a former Infantry company commander, I can assure you that there are not enough tanks in all of NATO to subdue the American public at the level of private armament I have witnessed. (For personal reasons, I would prefer to not be reduced to comparing penis sizes as a means of defense.) 4) I send my children to school without concern, and I sometimes flip people off in traffic and expect nothing more than a fist fight at most. I have never even heard a gun fired in anger, and I have lived around them my entire life.:rose: Anyway, wasted enough time on this. Back to the code. Goodnight.
And your totally wrong. (BTW, I own nothing more dangerous than a butter knife ) I hate to be pedantic, but you mean you're wrong, don't you ? 1) I never said a single shot, bolt action rifle. A round from an assault rifle is unlikely to penetrate past the first victim it hits, its not designed to do that. A round from a "deer" rifle is going to cut down multiple people at a time fired into an unsuspecting crowd, or be more accurate fired at long range. The point is that it is a deadly weapon which can hurt a lot of people. So it is rediculous to ban one type of weapon and not the other if public safty is your main concern. The reason most people who go on these shooting rampages select assault rifles is because they want to look sexy on tv and not like a redneck on a deer hunt. In the US I guess the publicity is a major concern for such people, I don't think any of the handful of public massacres we've had in Australia have been demonstrably from people concerned about their public image. 2) For you, as an Australian, I know the concept of "States Rights" is not a burning issue, however it is the reason the bill or rights exists in the U.S. constitution. The 2nd amendment was written to provide me with protection if the federal government ever decided to take weapons away, unless my state of residence complied with them. My state of residence is supposed to have the final say on the matter via the 2nd amendment. Unlike the NRA, I would have no issue if the state of Indiana decided to restrict weapons, but I would openly defy the U.S. Government if it tried the same thing. I recognize no federal authority to limit my, or my neighbors, ownership of weapons. I do recognize the state and local responsibility to do so. No, it's actually a huge issue where I live ( Tasmania ), but not the right to shoot each other. 3) As a former Infantry company commander, I can assure you that there are not enough tanks in all of NATO to subdue the American public at the level of private armament I have witnessed. (For personal reasons, I would prefer to not be reduced to comparing penis sizes as a means of defense.) I could speculate, but won't :) Are you suggesting the American public are LIKELY, or even ABLE to work together to overthrow the Government ? I think not. The point is that the argument is moot, no matter from what angle you want to pursue it. 4) I send my children to school without concern, and I sometimes flip people off in traffic and expect nothing more than
-
And your totally wrong. (BTW, I own nothing more dangerous than a butter knife ) I hate to be pedantic, but you mean you're wrong, don't you ? 1) I never said a single shot, bolt action rifle. A round from an assault rifle is unlikely to penetrate past the first victim it hits, its not designed to do that. A round from a "deer" rifle is going to cut down multiple people at a time fired into an unsuspecting crowd, or be more accurate fired at long range. The point is that it is a deadly weapon which can hurt a lot of people. So it is rediculous to ban one type of weapon and not the other if public safty is your main concern. The reason most people who go on these shooting rampages select assault rifles is because they want to look sexy on tv and not like a redneck on a deer hunt. In the US I guess the publicity is a major concern for such people, I don't think any of the handful of public massacres we've had in Australia have been demonstrably from people concerned about their public image. 2) For you, as an Australian, I know the concept of "States Rights" is not a burning issue, however it is the reason the bill or rights exists in the U.S. constitution. The 2nd amendment was written to provide me with protection if the federal government ever decided to take weapons away, unless my state of residence complied with them. My state of residence is supposed to have the final say on the matter via the 2nd amendment. Unlike the NRA, I would have no issue if the state of Indiana decided to restrict weapons, but I would openly defy the U.S. Government if it tried the same thing. I recognize no federal authority to limit my, or my neighbors, ownership of weapons. I do recognize the state and local responsibility to do so. No, it's actually a huge issue where I live ( Tasmania ), but not the right to shoot each other. 3) As a former Infantry company commander, I can assure you that there are not enough tanks in all of NATO to subdue the American public at the level of private armament I have witnessed. (For personal reasons, I would prefer to not be reduced to comparing penis sizes as a means of defense.) I could speculate, but won't :) Are you suggesting the American public are LIKELY, or even ABLE to work together to overthrow the Government ? I think not. The point is that the argument is moot, no matter from what angle you want to pursue it. 4) I send my children to school without concern, and I sometimes flip people off in traffic and expect nothing more than
>>I hate to be pedantic, but you mean you're wrong, don't you ? Sorry, but I did confess to being a redneck up front:-O >> I am amazed that anyone who doesn't live in a swamp and think the Internet is a new >> fangled road that's no good because there are no road houses where you can get some >> chittlins on your journey could think otherwise. You know, in a strange way that kind of makes me homesick.;P This time I mean it. Good night!!!!!
-
Well, I guess I've made my feelings known. I seem to recall being shocked at how many intelligent people here are rednecks when guns get mentioned, so I suppose I'll make my opinionated comments and then brace myself ( because I'm far to immature to just pull my head in :)) >It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) A few points here. 1/ No-one ever suggested that the gun buyback would in any way stop violent crime. It was a response to the Port Arthur tragedy and the idea was to take guns out of the hands of people like Mr. Bryant, a mentally unstable person with no history of crime whatsoever. 2/ Violent crime will remain on the increase as more and more children who have been brought up by patents conditioned by society and/or apathy not to apply any discipline or teach any standards become young adults. Society will continue on this path simply because our society is one of passing the buck - everything I do wrong is societys fault and so instead of going to jail I will sue someone. 3/ This farcical argument ( law abiding citizens have been disarmed and so crime increased ) would only hold true if previously it was legal for citizens to pack heat in the street, and criminals were scared to rob banks because the little granny behind them in the queue would blow them away. I know this sort of thing happens in movies, and maybe it does happen in the states, but we have never had the right to carry a gun in Australia and therefore using the Australian statistics to promote such a view is just the worst pile of garbage. This sort of applied logic is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and almost an admission that the true facts do not support their case. > While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. See what I mean ? The
I probably shouldn't jump in here, but I will anyway. The problem is that society as a whole is paying for the crimes of a few. Doesn't everyone see the problem here? Governments are taking guns from the law abiding tax-paying citizens without first prosecuting and permanently incrassating (or executing) the criminals committing real crimes. Instead of facing the real problem (which by the way is crime not guns), we have turned our attention to the instrument used in the crimes. I have no problem with the removal of assault rifles and fully automatic weapons as I can see little benefit to them besides killing people. No one uses a fully automatic weapon to hunt with or even to protect themselves (unless they are a gangster.) I also have no problem with laws to prevent people from carrying concealed guns and preventing guns from being brought into public places. However, further limiting the rights of the people without addressing the real problem (crime) is evidence that what politicians wish to do is make it look like they are doing something to reduce crime when actually they are totally unable to do anythin. We have serious problems in America and all over the world. We spend more to keep people in prison than we do for schools. We long ago stopped teaching kids the value of a human life and instead teach them the value of money, self-importance and self-gratification. It is no wonder we have the problems we do. Everyone wants everything for themselves. No concern whatsoever for the other people around us. Not only this, but instead of punishing criminals, we “rehabilitate” (HA HA HA) them. This whole issue of "gun control" and all the arguments that go with it are just plain stupid. I am fed up with sacrificing my freedom and my rights because a few people choose to commit crime. I want my kids to go to well-financed and well-equipped schools where fear is not a problem. Taking guns away from the non-criminals will not make this come true. I really don't care what the conditions are in our prisons and I hope to never hear another "news story" depicting the poor conditions of our jails. Incarcerate or execute the damn criminals, rebuild our schools, stop punishing people for others crimes, and let’s get on with life.
-
I probably shouldn't jump in here, but I will anyway. The problem is that society as a whole is paying for the crimes of a few. Doesn't everyone see the problem here? Governments are taking guns from the law abiding tax-paying citizens without first prosecuting and permanently incrassating (or executing) the criminals committing real crimes. Instead of facing the real problem (which by the way is crime not guns), we have turned our attention to the instrument used in the crimes. I have no problem with the removal of assault rifles and fully automatic weapons as I can see little benefit to them besides killing people. No one uses a fully automatic weapon to hunt with or even to protect themselves (unless they are a gangster.) I also have no problem with laws to prevent people from carrying concealed guns and preventing guns from being brought into public places. However, further limiting the rights of the people without addressing the real problem (crime) is evidence that what politicians wish to do is make it look like they are doing something to reduce crime when actually they are totally unable to do anythin. We have serious problems in America and all over the world. We spend more to keep people in prison than we do for schools. We long ago stopped teaching kids the value of a human life and instead teach them the value of money, self-importance and self-gratification. It is no wonder we have the problems we do. Everyone wants everything for themselves. No concern whatsoever for the other people around us. Not only this, but instead of punishing criminals, we “rehabilitate” (HA HA HA) them. This whole issue of "gun control" and all the arguments that go with it are just plain stupid. I am fed up with sacrificing my freedom and my rights because a few people choose to commit crime. I want my kids to go to well-financed and well-equipped schools where fear is not a problem. Taking guns away from the non-criminals will not make this come true. I really don't care what the conditions are in our prisons and I hope to never hear another "news story" depicting the poor conditions of our jails. Incarcerate or execute the damn criminals, rebuild our schools, stop punishing people for others crimes, and let’s get on with life.
Well spoken. Dejan
-
I probably shouldn't jump in here, but I will anyway. The problem is that society as a whole is paying for the crimes of a few. Doesn't everyone see the problem here? Governments are taking guns from the law abiding tax-paying citizens without first prosecuting and permanently incrassating (or executing) the criminals committing real crimes. Instead of facing the real problem (which by the way is crime not guns), we have turned our attention to the instrument used in the crimes. I have no problem with the removal of assault rifles and fully automatic weapons as I can see little benefit to them besides killing people. No one uses a fully automatic weapon to hunt with or even to protect themselves (unless they are a gangster.) I also have no problem with laws to prevent people from carrying concealed guns and preventing guns from being brought into public places. However, further limiting the rights of the people without addressing the real problem (crime) is evidence that what politicians wish to do is make it look like they are doing something to reduce crime when actually they are totally unable to do anythin. We have serious problems in America and all over the world. We spend more to keep people in prison than we do for schools. We long ago stopped teaching kids the value of a human life and instead teach them the value of money, self-importance and self-gratification. It is no wonder we have the problems we do. Everyone wants everything for themselves. No concern whatsoever for the other people around us. Not only this, but instead of punishing criminals, we “rehabilitate” (HA HA HA) them. This whole issue of "gun control" and all the arguments that go with it are just plain stupid. I am fed up with sacrificing my freedom and my rights because a few people choose to commit crime. I want my kids to go to well-financed and well-equipped schools where fear is not a problem. Taking guns away from the non-criminals will not make this come true. I really don't care what the conditions are in our prisons and I hope to never hear another "news story" depicting the poor conditions of our jails. Incarcerate or execute the damn criminals, rebuild our schools, stop punishing people for others crimes, and let’s get on with life.
In the US the prisons are full, yes. Why? Because no other (civilized) country in the world has similar laws. For example, in no other developed country you can get 5-20years for owning a small amount of marihuana, even kids aged under 21 years ... In no way i want to speak for criminals, drug dealers or anyone else doing crime; but i think the biggest problem in the US is the (wrong) mentality regarding resocialization and crime prevention.
-
Don't own a gun and never wanted to own a gun. The majority of people who own guns (outside of farmers and other who need them in their work) are just the same as the people who need fast and loud cars. Very small dicks and a need to over compensate. Having said that our Prime Minister (and you lot thought Bill Clinton was an embarassment) is renowned for living in the 1950's and having no idea of reality. The compulsory gun buy back at tax payers expense is only one a few ideas passed into law that defy logic. We have a law that forces an ISP to filter content that is not nice and none of this content can exist on Australian based servers. Australian on-line gambling sites cannot have Australian customers, we need to send our money overseas if we wan to gamble. Datacasting is only available to existing holders of Television licenses. This is great for competition and survival of the fitest. Something he purports to believe in. He has implemented the GST. An abortion style implementation of the UK's VAT. There are several more that I used to be able to quote verbatim, now I am just so pissed off that if I see him down the street I will just run the runt (could be a typo) down and be done with it. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018
now I am just so pissed off that if I see him down the street I will just run the runt (could be a typo) down and be done with it. But if you had a gun you wouldn't even have to dent your car! ;P -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Hello, I'm doctor stupid. I'm going to take out your liver bones!" - Ralph Wiggum