| Author | Message | ||
     Crusty |
Has anyone noticed that the nut cases who go berserk and start killing of large numbers of people never do it at Gun Shows or gun clubs or at NRA Conferences? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I suppose the odds are against anyone trying, they might get 1 or 2 but the vast majority of armed people would fill them full of lead in no time. Much easier for the cowards to take on a soft target in a "gun free zone". | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Speaking of gun shows. There is a big one going on yesterday and today in SLC, Ut. 20,000 people yesterday and all ammo and most guns sold out by noon. The frenzy continues. Now wouldn't it be interesting if our current administration gets a wild idea that they are NOT going to control us with new laws!!! | ||
| Fb1 |
Bob, part of Feinstein's AWB proposal is that weapons we are "allowed" to keep under the grandfather clause will cost us a $200 per weapon fee (annual?) for the "right" to keep such grandfathered weapons. A cynical person (such as myself) could easily imagine our current administration licking their chops at this potential new revenue stream. Gun sales going through the roof?? Ka-ching! Heck, I bet with the added $$ going into the FedGov's coffers the pres and first-lady could finally afford to take a vacation! BTW, didya catch the part of Feinstein's proposal whereupon your death (hey, we're all gonna get there someday) your legally-owned weapons MUST be forfeited to the FedGov? Nope, can't be willed to an heir, or gifted or sold prior to your passing. The gov gets them. Period. BTW, it'd be easy for our admin to insure compliance with any new gun-grabber laws: Freeze your bank account/s, attach a lien on your house and/or business, garnish your wages until you comply, much the same as the IRS might do if your federal taxes were in serious arrears. When guns are outlawed, only liberal politicians will have guns? | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, it'd be easy for our admin to insure compliance with any new gun-grabber laws: Freeze your bank account/s, attach a lien on your house and/or business, garnish your wages until you comply, much the same as the IRS might do if your federal taxes were in serious arrears. If, and I do mean IF they are going to follow our laws, it will be upon the government to prove that you are in possession of illegal weapons. I'm not saying they can't make your life a living hell for a while, but if they can't find them, they eventually have to drop charges against you. Of course, that was all under the old Constitution.  | ||
| Oldog |
I think that this AM' Telling comment comes from Europe which is "gun free"  Much easier for the cowards to take on a soft target in a "gun free zone". } | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I wouldn't say gun free here, but we're in the situation your politicians would like to see you all in. Now I'm not saying it's a better or worse position, but I can't for the life of me see how you can go back, the genie is out of the bottle. What you have to remember is that Europe is relatively crowded, & apart from the last near on 70 years has been almost constantly at war somewhere or other. This colours political thinking in a vastly different way to the US. Gun crime is nowhere near as prevalent here as in the US as a whole, but it's nonetheless on a constant slow rise. I find myself more & more wondering about how to acquire & secrete some home defence equipment, no matter that it would be highly illegal & could easily land me in seriously hot water. I agree entirely with Teddy Roosevelt's policy of "Talk softly & carry a big stick." | ||
| Danger_dave |
Grumps, down here it's different again. Gun control in Australia is a great success. There hasn't been one mass shooting since it was introduced 17 years ago. None. Also "the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 per cent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 per cent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides." That's the freedom the majority here care about. Relative 'Freedom' from whack-jobs with guns. What my American friends can't understand is that it was a popular move. Firearms were never our right, our constitution, or part of what 'made our country great' or even a part of our folk law (Ned Kelly notwithstanding). The majority think it's made the place safer and better to live in. The Genie elsewhere is indeed problematic - I think we're fortunate ours came from a different bottle. (Message edited by danger_dave on January 06, 2013) | ||
| Saxon59 |
Danger;It's a little easier when you live on an island,but when you have a border country that is run by drug lords and your own government refuses to stop the flood of smugglers(of guns and drugs),it's impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.Therefore you must allow citizens to protect themselves.In the U.S.A. there is an average of 1 policeman for every 400 people except in Alaska and Utah where there is an average of 1 in 500.The places in the U.S. where gun control is the strictest(Washington D.C. New York etc.)have the highest crime rate including violent crimes.  | ||
| Sifo |
There hasn't been one mass shooting since it was introduced 17 years ago. None. None? Not even the Monash University shooting, killing 2, wounding 5 more? Of course it still doesn't prevent people from killing en-mass such as the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire, killing 15. | ||
| Danger_dave |
No, none - sadly there is a statistical definition. The law doesn't prevent insanity - just easy access to one of its tools. | ||
| Saxon59 |
If you want to kill there will always be a way,like the dump truck driver that ran over 7(I think)motorcyclists.If I remember correctly,3 died the rest were injured. "WE Don't Blame Cars For Drunk Drivers Why Do We Blame Guns For Murderers?"  | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Danger;It's a little easier when you live on an island,<< Oh entirely. And we started at a completely different place culturally. John Howard wrote this a while ago: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html I think he's sniffing glue. What he fails to take into account is the fervor of some of the posters on here. (Message edited by danger_dave on January 06, 2013) | ||
| Sifo |
So shooting 7 people in a school isn't a mass shooting? Because the shooter was insane? I think some of us know better. | ||
| Strokizator |
Dave, at one time Americans were subjects of the crown as was Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What separates us is that we valued personal freedom and self determination enough to go to war over it. Personal ownership of weapons of war have been necessary to the maintenance of our liberty. | ||
| Cowboy |
Mr. Grumpy you are correct it is just that my big stick goes boom boom boom boom boom | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>So shooting 7 people in a school isn't a mass shooting?<< Yeah - not enough dead. Tragic isn't it. Thing is even if you want to argue what constitues - the number of instances has greatly reduced. They were sadly regular. Now they aren't. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>> we valued personal freedom and self determination enough to go to war over it<< We had a war of independence too. The Canadian and Scots miners put up a show for a day or two. The Aussies got drunk and went home. | ||
| Davegess |
Someone commented on crime rate in NY and DC. Probably not a good argument for or against; DC is pretty high. NYC is not. Crime in NYC has been dropping for quite a while. Top notch policing is mostly the reason. Tough guns laws may have something to do with it also. Mostly as one more tool the cops can use. | ||
| Malott442 |
I hear mixed arguments about the Australian ban. That the trend was already dropping over the course of many years, and that the rate of the drop is reversing since the ban of the gun. This was on Pierce whateverthename's show, when he was doing his best to yell over and interrupt anyone in the "debate" that presented information he didn't want to hear (due to it contradicting his statements). I myself have dived into statistical data crunching city data, comparing relationships between crimes vs. gun crimes vs. overall crime in various cities with various levels of gun control and concealed carry restrictions. For example. St. Louis. Conceal permit is attached to your driver's license. Renewed every 3 years at a cost of approx 100 dollars. Takes quite a bit of time out of your schedule going to at least 2 separate locations, and waiting for background checks to return. Even though the poverty level is high, and the bus system is heavily used, it is illegal to conceal carry in a bus.... St. Louis homicide rate: 1 in 2800 per year. How do guns help or hurt St. Louis? Who knows.... but the local government has decreased violent crime by up to 35 percent (certain peripheral factors could skew the bottom line) by substantially increasing the bail of gun violence suspects. The increase is substantial enough to make it near impossible to post bail before the trial. I guess they saw enough "repeat customers" and finally decided to change the law to reflect the trend. Good on them. | ||
| Aesquire |
Tough guns laws may have something to do with it also Not exactly. The crime rate has dropped, but there has been only negative effects overall from the Sullivan Act. Any Drop due to the Mayor and the Chief actually doing their job is awesome. But has not a thing to do with unconstitutional laws and the relative gun crime rate. ( still higher than free cities, corrected for population and wealth ) Bear in mind, as my Father often says, "figures don't lie, but liars figure like crazy". ( note the actual rise in number of unemployed each time they announce a rate reduction. ) Also note the problem in England where crimes don't get reported as crimes to keep the published numbers pleasing to the politicians. There are substantial cultural difference between the loyal subjects of the Crown, and us unruly citizens of the Rebel Republic. Resisting the King's Troops taking our stuff to make us easier to kill was a fundamental concept. THAT's what is enshrined in our Constitution, a document, as the President Says, of "negative rights". Besides the procedural stuff, 2 houses, 3 branches, election after harvest, etc. The "negative rights" are the important part. The Government may not impose upon me a religion. Nor you. ( the Brit's had it so that God blessed the Divinity and right to rule of a particular inbred European Aristocracy. You were DAMNED if you dissed the King. ) The Government can't tell me I can't worship as I see fit. ( OK, you want to be Christian? Fine. I don't see why you have to be Catholic. Isn't Episcopal just as good? Reasonable restrictions on your right to worship would make things so much more peaceful. If Only One Child Is Saved. ) The Government can't make us not bitch. I get to complain when we go to war for Oil. ( Libya ) So do you. I might not like your idiotic drivel, and vice versa, Tough cookies. There IS NO right against being offended. Suppression of free speech is a bad idea, and the reasonable restrictions laid out on free speech, are simple, in essence. If you lie, you're not covered. Shout "fire" in a crowded theater? There'd better be a fire. Get sued for defaming someones character? Better be true. ( this part is constantly in danger.... it's important ) Btw, the "no violence at Gun Shows" cliche, it's true. Very rare. Also far more uptight in safety rules ( tie wrapped actions ) than just a few years ago. | ||
| Sifo |
Someone commented on crime rate in NY and DC. Probably not a good argument for or against; DC is pretty high. NYC is not. Crime in NYC has been dropping for quite a while. Top notch policing is mostly the reason. Tough guns laws may have something to do with it also. Mostly as one more tool the cops can use. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the NYC gun laws have been around a lot longer than the drop in crime. Policing has far more to do with it than gun laws. In Chicago, the loop area is actually quite safe, at least during the day. There's also a cop on pretty much every single corner. At least that's how it was when I worked down town. A few blocks away, it's a totally different story. The difference isn't in the laws, it's in the policing. There are certainly other factors at play too, but the laws cover the entire area evenly and certainly aren't a deciding factor. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>I hear mixed arguments about the Australian ban. << Sure you do. There are a lot of aggrieved enthusiasts too - and they bang the drum pretty loudly. My feeling is - for all these freedoms references - Aus is a highly democratic place (if these sorts of pages are to be believed): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it also scores highly on the 'personal freedoms index. From memory there was a chance to repeal the ban at the subsequent election - but the government was returned in a majority decision. If you were a gun owner YMMV. | ||
| Sifo |
Suppression of free speech is a bad idea, and the reasonable restrictions laid out on free speech, are simple, in essence. If you lie, you're not covered. Shout "fire" in a crowded theater? There'd better be a fire. Get sued for defaming someones character? Better be true. ( this part is constantly in danger.... it's important ) It's always an interesting argument that our rights are not absolute, and these are some of the examples of how our first amendment rights are curtailed. I think it's worth noting that it isn't the words themselves that are prohibited. It's how and when the words are used that is prohibited. Gun laws should be quite similar. Randomly shooting in a crowded theater certainly shouldn't be protected. The right to own and carry arms though was made purposefully absolute. | ||
| Blake |
Gun control works in Australia? Interesting reporting on the banning of semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns in Australia. | ||
| Blake |
Dave, Is the following reporting inaccurate? 2009 | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Gun control works in Australia? << Yes. It does. Overall it's been a great result if you look at what happened before - Hoddle Street, Strathfield, Port Arthur and all the other tragedies. That doesn't mean I think it would work for you. | ||
| Blake |
Source for the above: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1 7847 More corroborating reporting... http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/564 441/Crime-climbs-in-Australia-after-widespread-gun -ban.html?nav=18 | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Is the following reporting inaccurate? << I don't think the gun ban has made any difference to 'gangster' activity or crime in general. No. Anyway - truth is you can still get a gun here if you want to. There's a rifle range just down the road. It's just a more stringent process. What we've done is about keeping the worst of them out of the hands of the insane. (Message edited by danger_dave on January 06, 2013) | ||
| Danger_dave |
This is better worded: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-shot-at-sa fety/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage |
