Gun Control (3 Viewers)

[Sentinal]

how do u get to become an
Executive member?

 

[Will Shakespear]

yeah buddy, imagine if another cronulla riots ticked off.
50 anglo saxons dead. 40 lebs deads. 20 cops dead.
is that what some of you want?

well apart from the cops...

 

[Colonel.Burton]

who needs guns, jason from friday the 13th seemed to be doing just fyne with a little knife

 

[ziki]

you can run from a guy with a knife but you cant run from a guy with a gun.... enough said?

 

[Graney]

A .22lr can and will kill you very easily Graney. Dont make the mistake of under- estimating them. People already dont treat them with enough respect and thats what causes accidents. I shot a roo a .22 last night and usually it wont even hit them let alone kill them but i hit it in the chest and it dropped on the spot.

Ya I know.

You can kill a dude with a bread and butter knife if you really want. A couple of dozen people die each year due to licking little 9v batteries.

A .22 can kill, but really. People who attempt suicide with .22's routinely fail. It's a potentially deadly weapon, but so's a car, and plenty of easily accessible knives.

The point is, it's neither an easy nor consistent way to kill someone.

 

[Serius]

Well actually, cities with more free gun control in the US tend to have lower crime rates. Imagine a city where any law abiding normal citizen can carry a concealed gun and many do. Would you try and mug and beat to death someone if they could have a gun?

I think of guns for self defence[which is the main issue we are talking about here, not many people have a problem with guns for sport or hunting] as a force equaliser. A woman is not usually as strong as a man, in a dark alley any average man can grab and assault an average woman, rape her and then kill her unarmed and she wont be able to do much. If that woman had a gun, she would be much safer, and yes even if the rapist had a gun too, skill in guns has nothing to do with your gender or physical fitness...hence the force equaliser.

"but but, criminals get guns then, and everyone will get held up at gunpoint and die! moral panic!"

heres an update for you: the criminals allready have guns, laws dont stop that. The very nature of a criminal is that they dont respect laws. The only thing gun control laws are doing is telling the average law abiding citizen that NO THEY CANT HAVE AN EFFECTIVE TOOL TO PROTECT THEMSELVES WITH, whilst the criminals run around with their illegal guns holding people up and killing marks. Thats the issue everyone tries to ignore. Its worth saying again: the criminals allready have guns, the only thing gun control laws do is stop the law abiding citizens from having them too, making them easier targets.

A few years ago i did a comparison of school shootings in the US, the highest fatalities tended to be in states with strict gun control laws, states like texas where anyone can have a gun, well the kid might get to shoot 1 or 2 others before someone [usually a teacher] pulls out their own gun and takes him down.

The fact is that your safety is your own personal responsability, not that of the police. Where are the police when the 300 odd murders we had last year were going on? oh thats right, either doing nothing or on their way.

I advocate giving any normal law abiding citizen the tools they need to defend themselves.

 

[prime-factor]

Regarding the mass killings, I think that the availability of guns makes it alot easier for insane people to do these sorts of things. But these people are 'insane', and if it wasn't guns they used, it would be something else, like knifes, bombs etc.

On another note, although maybe not exactly related, but statistics show that in areas (USA) with more people carrying guns, the crime rate is lower.

'According to the FBI, states with ``shall-issue'' right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.'

Acessed @ <http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2009/02/11/opinion/letters/135349.txt>

Also, I think that when guns are restricted, good/decent people hand in their guns, and the criminals and low-lifes won't. This occasionally ends up with the bad guys with guns preying on the good guys without guns.

In an ideal society only the police should have guns. But...yeah not exactly an ideal society. Depending on how things go, my opinion could change majorly. But for the moment I reckon that we should have the right to bear arms. Because we will always have insane people and criminals, it is not effective to restrict guns at such a level where people can't carry guns.

 

[Barmble]

Well actually, cities with more free gun control in the US tend to have lower crime rates. Imagine a city where any law abiding normal citizen can carry a concealed gun and many do. Would you try and mug and beat to death someone if they could have a gun?

I think of guns for self defence[which is the main issue we are talking about here, not many people have a problem with guns for sport or hunting] as a force equaliser. A woman is not usually as strong as a man, in a dark alley any average man can grab and assault an average woman, rape her and then kill her unarmed and she wont be able to do much. If that woman had a gun, she would be much safer, and yes even if the rapist had a gun too, skill in guns has nothing to do with your gender or physical fitness...hence the force equaliser.

No. Do you know the sort of mind state it takes to actually kill another human being, along side the physical action of pulling a gun out, aiming, and pulling the trigger? Plus, most rapes do not happen in a "dark alley", or even in violent situations where killing the rapist would be an option for the victim.

"but but, criminals get guns then, and everyone will get held up at gunpoint and die! moral panic!"

heres an update for you: the criminals allready have guns, laws dont stop that. The very nature of a criminal is that they dont respect laws. The only thing gun control laws are doing is telling the average law abiding citizen that NO THEY CANT HAVE AN EFFECTIVE TOOL TO PROTECT THEMSELVES WITH, whilst the criminals run around with their illegal guns holding people up and killing marks. Thats the issue everyone tries to ignore. Its worth saying again: the criminals allready have guns, the only thing gun control laws do is stop the law abiding citizens from having them too, making them easier targets.

The criminals already have guns because of gun advocates. It's called "aiding and abetting criminals". The majority of firearms owned by criminals in the US are not imported from overseas, they are smuggled interstate, so don't bother bringing that up. The sheer amount of guns already out there makes it incredibly easy for any street criminal or low level drug dealer to get one that has the serial numbers erased, use it and then dump it or pass it on. Untraceable in many cases.

A few years ago i did a comparison of school shootings in the US, the highest fatalities tended to be in states with strict gun control laws, states like texas where anyone can have a gun, well the kid might get to shoot 1 or 2 others before someone [usually a teacher] pulls out their own gun and takes him down.

Name one example where that has ever happened.

The fact is that your safety is your own personal responsability, not that of the police. Where are the police when the 300 odd murders we had last year were going on? oh thats right, either doing nothing or on their way.

I advocate giving any normal law abiding citizen the tools they need to defend themselves.

No. People are idiots, people are violent, people have emotions. Too many things you can possibly account for to trust people with a weapons.

Regarding the mass killings, I think that the availability of guns makes it alot easier for insane people to do these sorts of things. But these people are 'insane', and if it wasn't guns they used, it would be something else, like knifes, bombs etc.

There is no possible way the amount of deaths racked up by school shooters could be done with a knife or other weapon compared to using firearms? Bombs are a whole different issue.

On another note, although maybe not exactly related, but statistics show that in areas (USA) with more people carrying guns, the crime rate is lower.

'According to the FBI, states with ``shall-issue'' right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.'

Acessed @ <http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2009/02/11/opinion/letters/135349.txt>

Depends on way too many other factors.

 

[Serius]

No. Do you know the sort of mind state it takes to actually kill another human being, along side the physical action of pulling a gun out, aiming, and pulling the trigger? Plus, most rapes do not happen in a "dark alley", or even in violent situations where killing the rapist would be an option for the victim.

Not personally, i have never killed someone but i haven't studied three years of psychology for nothing, my career is going to be working with violent criminals so i know enough about it. Textbook knowledge only, but still better than nothing. It is not a difficult thing to do. Difficult to live with afterwards, yes often, but to do the act at the time does not take much.
People dont stop to think that they are taking a life, they react with their instincts of self preservation. Rape is a complex crime.
Whilst my scenario of a dark alley is plausible, yes it is much more likely that a husband would rape a wife in their own home. if this woman then desperately reached for a pair of scissors and stabbed the husband to protect herself would she be in the wrong? why would it be any different if she shot him? You did not refute my argument that a gun is a force equaliser, people who cannot normally defend themselves now have that ability.

The criminals already have guns because of gun advocates. It's called "aiding and abetting criminals". The majority of firearms owned by criminals in the US are not imported from overseas, they are smuggled interstate, so don't bother bringing that up. The sheer amount of guns already out there makes it incredibly easy for any street criminal or low level drug dealer to get one that has the serial numbers erased, use it and then dump it or pass it on. Untraceable in many cases.

Then why do we have handguns in Australia? they are EASILY obtainable. With $4000 and dealings with shady people you could own a gun by tomorrow. This is an ugly but well documented truth about Australian crime. We cannot influence the legislation of other countries, perhaps the criminals wouldn't have guns if EVERY country made it illegal, but the fact is that they are legal in more countries than not, mass produced and laws do not make it any harder for a criminal to obtain.

Name one example where that has ever happened.

The often cited example is the edinboro shool shooting, i cant recall all the details, but the guy killed a teacher then shot 2 students when he was subdued by the principle with a shotgun. Who knows how many others he might have killed. Heaps of others have happened but theres your named example.

No. People are idiots, people are violent, people have emotions. Too many things you can possibly account for to trust people with a weapons.

Are you even reading what you are typing? All of these arguments are reasons to give law abiding citizens a means to defend themselves. If people are so violent, so emotionally erratic and untrustworthy then why are we not given the ability to defend ourselves against such people?

There is no possible way the amount of deaths racked up by school shooters could be done with a knife or other weapon compared to using firearms? Bombs are a whole different issue.

Depends on way too many other factors.

School massacres done by people with a simliar mindset and goals when a knife is used cannot reach the huge numbers like mid 20's we very rarely see in shootings, but they easily make 5, 8, 10 kills often enough, especially if no one in the area has a gun to defend themselves from the knife wielding maniac.

If numbers of deaths is such an important point of your argument then surely you understand that in either a shooting or a stabbing, law abiding citizens that are armed and in the area limit the number of fatalities.


Like you said there are other factors, even if these cities are more violent the fact that many people are carrying guns in this city means that massacres are stopped by law abiding citizens before they get more than a couple of kills. If these people cannot defend themselves then nobody can stop the killers before it is too late.




The fact is that guns receive negative coverage and most of it is political. The average non gang related shooting has 1.8 killed. When shootings receive coverage is when one violent man such as cho in the Virginia tech shootings decides to use a gun to take innocent lives. What isnt reported is the 2.5 million times a year that guns are used defensively to prevent crime, including people who use their guns to stop public killings before they happen.

"After concealed handgun laws have been in effect for 5 years, murders declined by at least 15%, rapes by 9% and robberies by 11%." guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce crime.

 

[Empyrean444]

Not personally, i have never killed someone but i haven't studied three years of psychology for nothing, my career is going to be working with violent criminals so i know enough about it. Textbook knowledge only, but still better than nothing. It is not a difficult thing to do. Difficult to live with afterwards, yes often, but to do the act at the time does not take much.
People dont stop to think that they are taking a life, they react with their instincts of self preservation. Rape is a complex crime.
Whilst my scenario of a dark alley is plausible, yes it is much more likely that a husband would rape a wife in their own home. if this woman then desperately reached for a pair of scissors and stabbed the husband to protect herself would she be in the wrong? why would it be any different if she shot him? You did not refute my argument that a gun is a force equaliser, people who cannot normally defend themselves now have that ability.

I doubt in a rape situation (ie during the actual action) a person would be in a position to effectually fire a gun.

The often cited example is the edinboro shool shooting, i cant recall all the details, but the guy killed a teacher then shot 2 students when he was subdued by the principle with a shotgun. Who knows how many others he might have killed. Heaps of others have happened but theres your named example.

Specious proof - if the kid couldn't obtain the gun in the first place (ie tougher enforcing of the gun laws) then no one would be dead.

Are you even reading what you are typing? All of these arguments are reasons to give law abiding citizens a means to defend themselves. If people are so violent, so emotionally erratic and untrustworthy then why are we not given the ability to defend ourselves against such people?

You seem to have made the mistake of classifying humans into 2 categories - ones that can responsibility bear arms and ones that can't - you distance yourself and your mythic 'law abiding' citizens from "such people". These law abiding citizens themselves are subject to the laws of violence, erratic behaviour, untrustworthiness - the fact is you cannot trust anyone who is not trained (and even for the trained the trust is a risk). If someone is really angry/stressed, and they have a gun, what's to stop them from shooting/killing someone who pushes them to breaking point in a fit of rage (or even planned attack - for example, say, the large numbers of people who suffer from depression). As you yourself said earlier, behaviour is instinctual - reason will be forsaken and they won't think about what they will do. In addition, even if someone owns a gun, the would be assaulter will still have the advantage (regardless of whether the gun is intended to be used or is simply there as a threat). Even if they do not initially intend to use it, once someone makes the motion of grabbing/brandishing their gun, or starts cocking it, the assaulter will likely shoot them on the spot. They become, in fact, a more at risk target.

No civilian can, or should, be trusted with a serious gun - too great a risk.

School massacres done by people with a simliar mindset and goals when a knife is used cannot reach the huge numbers like mid 20's we very rarely see in shootings, but they easily make 5, 8, 10 kills often enough, especially if no one in the area has a gun to defend themselves from the knife wielding maniac.

10 people? Rubbish! Knives have too many difficulties - people may run from them, people can dodge them more easily and knives can have a tendency to get stuck/caught in the body (ribs, natural suction, etc), which may result in the attackers disarmaemmnt after only one/two people are dead. In addition, it is far easier to subdue a knife wielding maniac - it is easier to disarm him and to overwhlem him (ie short range of attack and force of numbers etc). Plus, I would think a knife wound generally less severe or life threatening then a bullet wound.

"If someone had a gun to defend themselves..." If this were the case, then the attacker would probably have the gun (indeed, they are unlikely to orchestrate such an assault if they can get a gun rather than a knife). Once again, we come back to our original premise - that the existence of serious guns in the situation simply causes more deaths.

 

[Graney]

Then why do we have handguns in Australia? they are EASILY obtainable. With $4000 and dealings with shady people you could own a gun by tomorrow.

I doubt this, I really do.

I've known some characters, but no one owns illegal weapons.

Most illegal weapons in Australia would be owned and controlled by organized gangs, who would obviously be very restrictive and secretive in their trade, dissemination and use. Given the low levels of gun crime in this country, if criminals have them, they're clearly not enthusiastic about using them.

If they're easily obtainable, why aren't guns used more often in crime in Australia?

Easily obtainable implies there must be a substantial market out there for illicit weapons. Why are so many people buying, selling and trading illegal weapons, yet so few people are ever shot in a given year?

They are not easily obtainable by any means. The average unconnected person can not quickly obtain a gun, if ever.

 

[Graney]

I think of guns for self defence[which is the main issue we are talking about here, not many people have a problem with guns for sport or hunting] as a force equaliser. A woman is not usually as strong as a man, in a dark alley any average man can grab and assault an average woman, rape her and then kill her unarmed and she wont be able to do much. If that woman had a gun, she would be much safer, and yes even if the rapist had a gun too, skill in guns has nothing to do with your gender or physical fitness...hence the force equaliser.

What would be worse, being raped, or being dead?

The attacker in any incident has the element of surprise, preparedness, aggression and confidence.

Force is never equal. The victim in trying to defend themselves, is always substantially more likely to end up worse off in a confrontation than their attacker.

Escalating (or equalizing as you put it) the force to a lethal level for both parties, will simply result in a disproportionate number of fatalities for the hapless victims.

 

[Serius]

Good arguments! i enjoy seeing a good rebuttal

I doubt in a rape situation (ie during the actual action) a person would be in a position to effectually fire a gun.

maybe, maybe not. My scenario is still valid. Who said it has to come down to actually being held down and penetrated before the victim is willing to fight back? If she pulled a gun as soon as the dipshit gets grabby and threatening then she is no longer a victim, the rape is averted.

Specious proof - if the kid couldn't obtain the gun in the first place (ie tougher enforcing of the gun laws) then no one would be dead.

Appalachian Law School, Pearl, Miss massacre, Utah mall shooting. All stopped by armed law abiding citizens preventing a crime. We are not even talking about shootings here, there are plenty of less fatal reasons to wield a gun, a robbery, a bashing, a crazy waving around a knife. Even if we take your argument[which i am not prepared to do] and the kid no longer has the gun because they our outlawed and there are stricter rules, instead he brings bombs and a knife and NOW nobody has a weapon to stop him with. How many more fatalities will occur?

You seem to have made the mistake of classifying humans into 2 categories - ones that can responsibility bear arms and ones that can't - you distance yourself and your mythic 'law abiding' citizens from "such people". These law abiding citizens themselves are subject to the laws of violence, erratic behaviour, untrustworthiness - the fact is you cannot trust anyone who is not trained (and even for the trained the trust is a risk). If someone is really angry/stressed, and they have a gun, what's to stop them from shooting/killing someone who pushes them to breaking point in a fit of rage (or even planned attack - for example, say, the large numbers of people who suffer from depression).

Your understanding of psychology is poor. What stops them from killing people right now with guns being illegal? murder is illegal. Background checks, psych evaluations and such would be necessary. If a teacher who had passed these tests had a gun in my class i would feel 10x safer. A gun is a tool, nothing is stopping them from killing with a different tool, the only difference is everybody else has a diminished capacity to stop them.

Would you be happier if only off duty police/ex-police officers, offduty military personel etc carried guns? I would prefer if every law abiding citizen who can pass the test and willing to be trained is allowed to carry, but this would be a good start. These types of people are proven to be stable, good people with the communities best interest at heart. I would like to see them with the proper tools to handle a situation if one occurs.

As you yourself said earlier, behaviour is instinctual - reason will be forsaken and they won't think about what they will do. In addition, even if someone owns a gun, the would be assaulter will still have the advantage (regardless of whether the gun is intended to be used or is simply there as a threat). Even if they do not initially intend to use it, once someone makes the motion of grabbing/brandishing their gun, or starts cocking it, the assaulter will likely shoot them on the spot. They become, in fact, a more at risk target.

No civilian can, or should, be trusted with a serious gun - too great a risk.

Yes that is true in some situations, but you are denying these victims the right to protect themselves. How many criminals would try to mug someone knowing that people are allowed to be armed in this country? would they risk getting killed for some petty cash in someone's wallet? As it is now once you relinquish control they can do anything. Just a few weeks ago a man did exactly what you suggest and gave up his bag with no resistance at all. He was bashed and kicked in the head repeatedly, suffering brain damage. You are also forgeting that other citizens nearby may be armed. In this same case an uninvolved couple walked past on camera scared and did nothing, what if one of them had a gun? they could have saved him.

10 people? Rubbish! Knives have too many difficulties - people may run from them, people can dodge them more easily and knives can have a tendency to get stuck/caught in the body (ribs, natural suction, etc), which may result in the attackers disarmaemmnt after only one/two people are dead. In addition, it is far easier to subdue a knife wielding maniac - it is easier to disarm him and to overwhlem him (ie short range of attack and force of numbers etc). Plus, I would think a knife wound generally less severe or life threatening then a bullet wound.

Osaka school massacre. 8 fatally stabbed, 15 seriously wounded. When people are unarmed they act like victims, the cower under desks ready to be killed, sometimes they run, but in a disorganised fashion, sometimes right at the aggressor. knife stab wounds are more severe, usually larger, cause more injury and so on. It would be much easier to subdue that maniac if you had a gun.

"If someone had a gun to defend themselves..." If this were the case, then the attacker would probably have the gun (indeed, they are unlikely to orchestrate such an assault if they can get a gun rather than a knife). Once again, we come back to our original premise - that the existence of serious guns in the situation simply causes more deaths.

in America annually there are 2.5 million cases of guns being used defensively to prevent crimes, including stopping massacres before they begin.


1) The right to bear arms is so that if the government becomes corrupt the people can replace said government.

2) Without the right to bear arms you no longer have the ability to defend yourself in any meaningful way against evil men that do have guns.

3) Criminals will always have access to guns. Gun control laws only give more of an advantage to those willing to break the law.

4) Killing people is ridiculously easy with or without guns. The difficult part would be getting away with it, and guess what, a suicidal maniac doesn't care about getting away with it.

 

[xeuyrawp]

1) The right to bear arms is so that if the government becomes corrupt the people can replace said government.

Yes, because armed citizens seem to do such a great job with corrupt governments in this modern age...? Having seen first-hand what happens when it's people vs the government, I can honestly testify that it's not a good attempted sollution.

2) Without the right to bear arms you no longer have the ability to defend yourself in any meaningful way against evil men that do have guns.

So people need guns to defend themselves against people who have guns because other people have guns...?

Or are you falling into the trap of saying good people need guns legally because bad people have guns illegally? Wouldn't it be better to advocate for a better system of policing import and possession of guns?

3) Criminals will always have access to guns.

Yes but that's not really a reason to legalise it...

Gun control laws only give more of an advantage to those willing to break the law.

As opposed to every other criminal activity, which doesn't give an advantage to people who are willing to break the law, eg robbery, fraud, etc etc? :S

4) Killing people is ridiculously easy with or without guns.

It seems to be much easier with guns.

The difficult part would be getting away with it, and guess what, a suicidal maniac doesn't care about getting away with it.

Are you suggesting that every person who kills is a suicidal maniac? What about all those brave soldiers whom you mentioned in point 1), who are simply killing the corrupt government officials?!

To be honest, the points you raised -- whilst easily some of the most commonly raised -- are really the worst arguments for gun ownership.

 

[Graney]

3) Criminals... have access to guns.

I don't believe they do.

 

[Serius]

What would be worse, being raped, or being dead?

The attacker in any incident has the element of surprise, preparedness, aggression and confidence.

Force is never equal. The victim in trying to defend themselves, is always substantially more likely to end up worse off in a confrontation than their attacker.

Escalating (or equalizing as you put it) the force to a lethal level for both parties, will simply result in a disproportionate number of fatalities for the hapless victims.

last one for a while:
victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns.

research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons.[75] There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.

both findings by Gary Kleck, criminologist.

Your statements that resisting rape is more likely to get you killed is not only false, but abhorrent.

Why should it ever be a crime to protect yourself with the best tools available?

Immediately following the ban on guns in 1996 the following happened
# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Draw from that what you will. My theory is that if citizens are allowed to own and carry guns, criminals would think twice before committing a crime. Since the ban on guns, they have nothing to fear. 2.5 million violent crimes are prevented annually in America by guns. How many crimes are occurring in our country that could have been prevented by the legal ownership of guns by law abiding citizens?

Once again, Why should it ever be a crime to protect yourself with the best tools available?

 

[AlleyCat]

i agree with pwar in absolutely every single way.
in fact, i came into this thread to write the exact same thing, but saw that he had already written it.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I see it, however, as a cost that I'd be willing to pay to give people the rights to defend themselves

Well as you know, I hate people, so I just assume they're going to kill each other and not use them for defence.

and use weapons for sport, etc.

But then they don't have to carry them, they can keep them at a place like a rifle range, hunting lodge, etc.

*inserts misty eyed story about the people using weapons to hold a tyrranous government to account which doesn't really work anymore now that the government has a standing army*

Yes, exactly... It also doesn't really work given that western governments spend billions on technology and training. It's completely impractical to assume that anything less than a massive group of the population can do anything.

That being said, in countries where citizens do have a chance, they just end up causing massive civil wars. If the citizen group wins, usually the government they establish is as bad, if not worse, than the previous. Usually nobody wins very quickly, and it's a drawn out affair with massive infringements of human rights even after a victory. The Interpreter basically summarises the history of every African nation, including Egypt, which is supposedly one of the 'two only democratic countries' in Africa (the other being SA). I'm not really up to speed with the history of other areas of the world like east Asia and South America, but I assume the problems there are very similar.

 

[Serius]

I do love a good debate but i am not sure how much more i can add to this one without going around in circles.

Basically i believe that self defence should be a valid reason for owning a gun, and we should have the right to defend ourselves, our property and those around us with the best tools available. Self defence is a fundamental and inalienable human right and i consider guns important tools in the exercising of this right.

Guns in the right hands stop crime all the time. I have no idea why guns were banned in 1996, if it was under some sort of misguided quest to lower crime, the experiment has failed. Crime rose drastically as soon as criminals were given victims guaranteed to be unarmed. In short they have nothing to fear.

I do love our country, i like feeling safe and to be honest i am glad that because of the sparcity of guns in Australia i am a lot less likely to be shot and killed. I dont want us to end up like America with 10 000 fatalities to guns a year. Are guns really to blame for their problems though? yes shooting means guns were used, but a gun is a tool so why are so many people killing others?

I would argue that it is more of a social problem then anything. America would probably have high crime anyway even if guns didnt exist and what about Switzerland. I am surprised nobody has brought this up yet, they have the highest number of guns per population in the world yet they are the safest country in the world. They are in the top couple of countries in just about every category for being a good place to live, which would imply low social problems.

Guns aren't the reason for a high murder rate. Australia would not drastically change to open gang warfare with criminals murdering people with guns all the time, we were a safe country before guns were banned, we are still a relatively safe country[even WITH the increases in crime that banning guns brought about] and if guns were brought back we would continue to be a safe country.

If i haven't changed anyone's opinion i hope i have at least made you think a little more and formulate your views into something better constructed than simply Guns=evil.

I will leave with this lovely quotation "laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

 

[Scissors]

i think we should allow people to have guns, but we should only allow them to buy bullets which DON'T fit the gun.

who's with me?