Gun control in Australia?
-
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
-
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.
In certain countries you can go to Jail for smoking a ciggarette in the street. In Singapore you get fined for having a dirty pond. The US is definately not the strictest country in the world when it comes to laws. (2b || !2b)
-
In certain countries you can go to Jail for smoking a ciggarette in the street. In Singapore you get fined for having a dirty pond. The US is definately not the strictest country in the world when it comes to laws. (2b || !2b)
Did i say developed, civilized countries? :cool:
-
Did i say developed, civilized countries? :cool:
The world is so small for some people... (2b || !2b)
-
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 kind of agreed, ( apart from trying to figure out why bearing arms is a 'right' ) until you said: 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. And pray tell how you will tell who is a criminal BEFORE they bring a gun to school which they steal from their parents ( a preacher and a bank teller who are certainly not criminals themselves ) and shoot your kids. They will be dead, dead, dead, and for what ? Your right to carry a gun ? 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.
-
I kind of agreed, ( apart from trying to figure out why bearing arms is a 'right' ) until you said: 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. And pray tell how you will tell who is a criminal BEFORE they bring a gun to school which they steal from their parents ( a preacher and a bank teller who are certainly not criminals themselves ) and shoot your kids. They will be dead, dead, dead, and for what ? Your right to carry a gun ? 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.
You are correct, but again overlook the real problem which I addressed in my original response. Guns are not the problem. We have created a society in which 1) everyone wants everything for themselves, 2) no one appreciates the value of human life and 3) no one is punished for their actions. If my kids are to go to safe schools it will not be because they take guns away from law abiding citizens, it will be because we start to punish (and I mean truly punish) criminals, we teach the value of human life and we stop glamorizing crime. The media needs to stop glamorizing every school shooting to garner ratings and instead spend time working on improving peoples understanding and appreciation of human life. People need to stop wasting their time worrying about guns and start worrying about what our kids think is right and wrong. People need to spend more time with their families (especially children) and stop worrying about having more stuff. If I were a politicianand someone wanted to institute a tax-payer buyback of guns, I would have a fit. I would say before we spend tax-payer money on guns, lets build new schools, hire new cops, hire better teachers, and if there is money left over pay off our citizens debt. I believe that the greatest thing a government can do for its people is not just protect but empower it. They can empower us by reducing opressive taxes, paying off our debts (individual debts and national debts), educating our children, working to compete globally, encouraging family time and values and staying out of our way. Stop worrying and fretting about the guns and start solving the real problems of society. Next time your politicians want to waste more of your money on crap, or you want to waste more of your money on crap, remember what the real cost is: Reduced freedom, less free time, less time with your families and the continued decay of childrens quality of 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.
Build more prisons!!!! (On a side note, I believe that all drug convictions should include harse punishment. Although one person carring a small amount of marihuana may not be a large threat, where did the marihuana come from and what was the cost in money, lives and values of that marihuana. How much are we willing to accept? I say I am not willing to give one more inch to the criminals!) In the US you can get more years in jail for robbing a bank than for killing someone. Which is exactly what I was saying before. Where is the justice in that? Both murderers and bank robbers should go to jail, but what are we teaching about the value of life (and conversely, the value of money and wealth). A few years ago I served jury duty on a double murder trial. The man killed his mother and step father by stabbing them to numerous times. After the first part of the trial was over and the man was convicted we were informed that he had just gotten out of jail a few months earlier on a previous murder conviction! This man had only served 5 years for raping and killing a woman. WHY DO WE DO THIS? Like I said, people get punished worse for tax evasion and bank robbery than murder. This man (and all others like him) should never have been returned to society. Murderers, rapists, child molestors, and all other violent offenders should not ever be freed. Now, we have the 3 strikes you are out laws. Unfortunantly 3 strikes means at least 3 murders, rapes, molestations, etc per murderer. WHY DO WE DO THIS? Our television shows are filled with violence which we just let our kids watch because we are too busy paying the bills, (drinking, ) to spend time with them. Too many parents fail to teach their children values, too many parents fail to instill a since or right and wrong, too many parents fail to educate their children on the value of human life. Again, fix the real problems of society and stop looking for "quick fixes" which fix nothing.
-
You are correct, but again overlook the real problem which I addressed in my original response. Guns are not the problem. We have created a society in which 1) everyone wants everything for themselves, 2) no one appreciates the value of human life and 3) no one is punished for their actions. If my kids are to go to safe schools it will not be because they take guns away from law abiding citizens, it will be because we start to punish (and I mean truly punish) criminals, we teach the value of human life and we stop glamorizing crime. The media needs to stop glamorizing every school shooting to garner ratings and instead spend time working on improving peoples understanding and appreciation of human life. People need to stop wasting their time worrying about guns and start worrying about what our kids think is right and wrong. People need to spend more time with their families (especially children) and stop worrying about having more stuff. If I were a politicianand someone wanted to institute a tax-payer buyback of guns, I would have a fit. I would say before we spend tax-payer money on guns, lets build new schools, hire new cops, hire better teachers, and if there is money left over pay off our citizens debt. I believe that the greatest thing a government can do for its people is not just protect but empower it. They can empower us by reducing opressive taxes, paying off our debts (individual debts and national debts), educating our children, working to compete globally, encouraging family time and values and staying out of our way. Stop worrying and fretting about the guns and start solving the real problems of society. Next time your politicians want to waste more of your money on crap, or you want to waste more of your money on crap, remember what the real cost is: Reduced freedom, less free time, less time with your families and the continued decay of childrens quality of life.
Wait a minute - the gun buyback achieved "Reduced freedom, less free time, less time with your families and the continued decay of childrens quality of life." What crap. I have less time with my family because I'm not allowed to carry a gun ? If I had a gun I could spend more time with my children ? How, by shooting the people ahead of me in the supermarket queue ? I'm sorry, your statements regarding values, the media and crime and punishment maek a lot of sense, but I doubt the mixed up individuals who go to school and shoot people really think about it that far. I think they are sad, lonely, mixed up people who can do what they do because you live in a society where guns are freely at hand. I can tell you that kids get socially isolated in schools here, the difference is they don't have access to the same ways the 'express' that emotion here, because the average house is unlikely to contain a gun. Of COURSE we need to address the root cause - a society that has forgotten to take the time to both discipline and love it's children, but putting the guns out of their reach while we work on that is surely a good thing. I reiterate - we have as many social problems with the youth in Australia, but no school shootings. Assuming for a moment that you would be against removing guns from the house of a specific individual on the basis that their offspring seems not to fit in at school, I see no way for you to emulate the level of personal safety children in Australia enjoy at school unless you just disarm everyone. Because let's face it, no matter what we do, there will always be people who don't fit in, and always the possibility that they will have what it takes to accept the unreasonable solution of hurting people in revenge for their own shortcomings. It's clear the guns are a problem, now that our society has forgotten to teach basic values. The odds of them being used for anything apart from this sort of thing are a lot lower than they were a hundred years ago, where conversely, the odds of someone taking a gun and shooting as many random citizens as possible were less. 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.
-
Wait a minute - the gun buyback achieved "Reduced freedom, less free time, less time with your families and the continued decay of childrens quality of life." What crap. I have less time with my family because I'm not allowed to carry a gun ? If I had a gun I could spend more time with my children ? How, by shooting the people ahead of me in the supermarket queue ? I'm sorry, your statements regarding values, the media and crime and punishment maek a lot of sense, but I doubt the mixed up individuals who go to school and shoot people really think about it that far. I think they are sad, lonely, mixed up people who can do what they do because you live in a society where guns are freely at hand. I can tell you that kids get socially isolated in schools here, the difference is they don't have access to the same ways the 'express' that emotion here, because the average house is unlikely to contain a gun. Of COURSE we need to address the root cause - a society that has forgotten to take the time to both discipline and love it's children, but putting the guns out of their reach while we work on that is surely a good thing. I reiterate - we have as many social problems with the youth in Australia, but no school shootings. Assuming for a moment that you would be against removing guns from the house of a specific individual on the basis that their offspring seems not to fit in at school, I see no way for you to emulate the level of personal safety children in Australia enjoy at school unless you just disarm everyone. Because let's face it, no matter what we do, there will always be people who don't fit in, and always the possibility that they will have what it takes to accept the unreasonable solution of hurting people in revenge for their own shortcomings. It's clear the guns are a problem, now that our society has forgotten to teach basic values. The odds of them being used for anything apart from this sort of thing are a lot lower than they were a hundred years ago, where conversely, the odds of someone taking a gun and shooting as many random citizens as possible were less. 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.
Here you pulled a statement out of my response and mis-used it. I did not say that having guns increased time with your children freedom or anything else, I said that gun buy backs didn't help these issues (the core issues.) Once again, the instrumnet used in crime is being targeted. Video cameras are used to tape kiddie porn, should we ban video cameras? Computers are used to distribute all kinds of contraban, should be ban computers? Air planes, cars, boats are used to transport drugs across borders, should we ban planes, cars, boats? Knives are used to murder people, should we ban knives? Alcohol kills people, should be ban it too? Regulation YES, all out bans, NO. Why? Because none of this solves the real problems and attempts to substitute a "quick-fix" (which is no fix) for a real solution. We can continue to take away rights and privilidges without solving the real problems at hand, where do we stop? School shootings (and school violence in general) are a serious and problematic issue. If our primay concern is to protect children, then lets protect children by creating positive school environments, building positive families, encouraging children to succeed and not building up their self-esteem beyond reason. Pass laws to protect children by: 1) requiring that guns (in homes where children are present) be kept in locked boxes where the key is not accesible to the children. 2) requiring that metal detectors be installed in schools. You would not think of getting on an airplane if people were not first checked for guns. This would not only help to eliminate the problem of guns in schools, it would help with knives and other contraban as well. 3) reduce childrens personal privacy and require that their lockers be searched regularly. 4) punish offenders thourougly and swiftly. 5) educate our children on the value of human life. 6) Pass laws to limit the amount and types of television children can watch. 7) Hire more and better teachers and pay them better. 8) Build schools with more safety in mind. 9) Limit media coverage of these events involving school violence so we can stop glamorizing this behaviour.
-
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
Well, I must say that I knew there was another side to the opinions expressed in the email I received, but I had no idea that it was so deceptive. It just gives great evidence for the Proverb: "The first to plead his case seems just, Until another comes and examines him." Thanks for all the valuable feedback. (Even though I really hadn't planned on starting arguments. *shrugs*) John
-
Here you pulled a statement out of my response and mis-used it. I did not say that having guns increased time with your children freedom or anything else, I said that gun buy backs didn't help these issues (the core issues.) Once again, the instrumnet used in crime is being targeted. Video cameras are used to tape kiddie porn, should we ban video cameras? Computers are used to distribute all kinds of contraban, should be ban computers? Air planes, cars, boats are used to transport drugs across borders, should we ban planes, cars, boats? Knives are used to murder people, should we ban knives? Alcohol kills people, should be ban it too? Regulation YES, all out bans, NO. Why? Because none of this solves the real problems and attempts to substitute a "quick-fix" (which is no fix) for a real solution. We can continue to take away rights and privilidges without solving the real problems at hand, where do we stop? School shootings (and school violence in general) are a serious and problematic issue. If our primay concern is to protect children, then lets protect children by creating positive school environments, building positive families, encouraging children to succeed and not building up their self-esteem beyond reason. Pass laws to protect children by: 1) requiring that guns (in homes where children are present) be kept in locked boxes where the key is not accesible to the children. 2) requiring that metal detectors be installed in schools. You would not think of getting on an airplane if people were not first checked for guns. This would not only help to eliminate the problem of guns in schools, it would help with knives and other contraban as well. 3) reduce childrens personal privacy and require that their lockers be searched regularly. 4) punish offenders thourougly and swiftly. 5) educate our children on the value of human life. 6) Pass laws to limit the amount and types of television children can watch. 7) Hire more and better teachers and pay them better. 8) Build schools with more safety in mind. 9) Limit media coverage of these events involving school violence so we can stop glamorizing this behaviour.
I'm sorry if I misread you. Reread your post and you'll see it was easy to do, even if not intended. I'd like to know how guns have as many family friendly uses as video cameras do ? The simple fact is that none of the examples you give are of instruments that were not designed to take life. That is what a gun is for. In response to your points: 1/ Am I right in thinking you'll protect your right to have a gun by taking away the right of people to have privacy in their own homes ? Because only a fool would think that passing a law will make every US citizen lock their guns out of reach of their children without fail. You'll need to do random spot checks and impose heavy fines if you want that system to come CLOSE to working. 2/ I don't think that turning schools into a war zone by installing metal detectors is a remotely sane solution. All the child need do is come to school late, set up on a nearby grassy knoll and start shooting at lunch time. 3/ Aha - so the right to bear arms DOES override the right of our children to privacy ? What does that teach them - the benefits of a police state ? 4/ No problem there, but while someone elses child may be punished, mine will be dead. 5/ It's probably too late for that, but I agree. 6/ This is also dumb. Only parents can control what children do or do not watch. I saw my first X rated movie at 14. I assure you this was not legal. The problem again is that the state would be trying to cover for useless parents, which will never work. 7/ This is also a good idea. Sadly, it will not win votes. 8/ How do you mean, sniper towers around the school ? Seriously, I don't get what you're saying 9/ If only it could be done. The trouble is the media is a money making machine with no conscience to speak of. In fact I see news becoming less and less important in the media, and sensationalism more and more so. The basic problem is that you've been indoctrinated to think that having a gun is somehow a right, something that they better not take away, no matter what steps you have to take to try and solve the problems it causes. 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.
-
Well, I must say that I knew there was another side to the opinions expressed in the email I received, but I had no idea that it was so deceptive. It just gives great evidence for the Proverb: "The first to plead his case seems just, Until another comes and examines him." Thanks for all the valuable feedback. (Even though I really hadn't planned on starting arguments. *shrugs*) John
Don't feel bad - the arguments only start because I am pig headed and too stupid to shut up about my opinions. :) 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.