I don't agree with you Michael
 

I live in Australia and I don't even know anyone who has a gun, let alone where to get an illegally imported one. Why would you need a semi automatic rifle or handgun anyway? They are made for killing people! If everyone had a gun for self defence, imagine how many more people would get shot. Just look a the USA! The harder it is for people to get guns the better.

Luke Coyle


Affiliate Marketing Success Tips

Here's a nice little chart...
 

showing that according to this information, use of guns in murders/attempted murders hasn't gone down despite the gun buyback program. Don't know if it's true or not but interesting:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/buybackindex.html

So if there are NO guns how are these people getting killed with guns?

> I live in Australia and I don't even know
> anyone who has a gun, let alone where to get
> an illegally imported one. Why would you
> need a semi automatic rifle or handgun
> anyway? They are made for killing people! If
> everyone had a gun for self defence, imagine
> how many more people would get shot. Just
> look a the USA! The harder it is for people
> to get guns the better.

> Luke Coyle

Disagree. Fine.
 

Luke:

> I live in Australia and I don't even know
> anyone who has a gun, let alone where to get
> an illegally imported one.

I don't know where to get an illegally imported gun either. Then again, I am not a criminal looking for a gun.

And to add to that... I don't know where to buy marijuana, heroin, cocain or any illegal drug either.

I fail to see the point in mentioning that you, an honest law-abiding citizen, does not know where to get illegal guns.

Why would you
> need a semi automatic rifle or handgun
> anyway?

Here are four, of many, reasons...

1: For self-defense.

2: To protect myself from an overzealous gummit... or tyrannical gummit, that may come into power in the near future

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. - Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

3: I enjoy shooting them.

4: I want one.

You see, some people put bars on their windows for protection, some have a baseball bat or five laying around the house for protection, some get deadbolts, some have a gun, some learn a martial art, and some do all of the above. Whatever makes them feel safe.

When the first gun "buy back" happened... shotguns with a magazine capacity above two became illegal - even small little 410s. So out with your 8 shot pump action scrub gun which could save your neck while hunting wild feral boars. And out with any and all semi-auto rifles no matter the calibre.

That left single and double barrel shotguns (side by side and under and over) and center fire and rim fire long arms, in the hands of the public.

The police still have semi-auto rifles and 8 shot pump action shotguns!

If the public no longer has the fire arms why do the police need them?

Because the criminals have them... and the gummit knew all along that taking guns away from the honest public would NOT have the smallest affect on the criminal world. The PM even said as much.

Now with the push to remove all semi-auto hand guns... ask your local police if they will be handing in their semi-auto Glocks and getting six shooters?

You can quote the media statistcis of how such and such has changed for the better after gun registration and gun control have come into being, but before you do, please look up the stats for the years previous. And when you do, you will notice how any "positive" results were already heading that way (a trend) long before any gun control.

Long before the buy back teens were using alternate ways to kill themselves instead of guns.

And when you look at the stats, also note how much certain crime has actually gone up. A check of previous years will show no such trend.

Question WHY such a big deal is made about guns when more people die each year from Heroin overdose.

If
> everyone had a gun for self defence, imagine
> how many more people would get shot.

If everyone had a gun for self defence, there would be very little rape, very few old people would be beaten up for their pension money, there would be hardly any "home invasions", muggers and crooks would all think twice before trying to steal from you.

Would some people get shot?

Yes they would. But considering the vast reduction in ALL other violent crimes... you would ask WHO are these people getting shot? The criminals trying to do the mugging?

Without guns, the muggers, rapists, and so on, know they will not be in any physical danger when attacking you.

Just
> look a the USA!

What about the USA? A country with 15 times the population of Australia and a competely different culture. Please explain your point.

The harder it is for people
> to get guns the better.

Would you please explain what you means by this. Better for what? whom? and why?

Remember, we only enjoy the freedoms we currently have because the public has been armed.

I suggest you read the article Tom linked to:
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

Michael Ross

About the chart...
 

The ABS (the source of the stats) is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They keep stats on everything, conduct the census, etc.

The SSAA - the owners of the website - could be considered the Australian version of the NRA.

The person quoted - Amanda Vanstone - is the Minister for Justice and Customs (not some backbench lackey with no political power).

The link to the chart again is:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/buybackindex.html

Here's a statistic I'd like to see
 

Hi all

Can't resist chucking a couple of thoughts about.

I can understand why farmers here in Oz need rifles and I didn't altogether agree with the government's buy-back a few years ago.

I can (sort of) agree with the right to defend yourself with a firearm if you are threatened with one.

However, it is completely beyond me why the "the right to bear arms" can be so freely translated into the right to bear assault rifles, pump action shotguns etc. What next? Bazookas? Depleted-uranium anti tank missiles?

Why can't people see the difference between "defensive" needs and "offensive" needs? Those who cannot, and who bray loudly about their "right" to run around with assault rifles are the scary ones - the ones who inhabit the darker regions of loopy-land.

Oh yes, the statistic...

Does anyone REALLY know how many people are killed by ACCIDENTAL discharges of firearms in the US, compared to say, Australia, the UK and Japan. Reduced back to a per capita number of course. And let's compare that to the number of firearms out there in the community.

I love reading Bill Bryson's work (although I'll bet he gets Don's blood boiling!). He's amusing and usually very perceptive. He made a comment about the practice in the US of keeping loaded handguns in bedside tables. The problem is, he claimed, the statistics show clearly that the chances of having to use it on a burglar lag waaaaaaaaaay behind the chances of your own kid killing himself with it.

It's the "collateral damage", which inevitably results from sheer numbers of guns, which worries me.

And no matter how you gun lovers dress it up, the more guns out there, the more kids there are who are going to accidentally blow their own heads off.

By the way Michael, brilliant issue this week of "Great Ideas":-)

Cheers

Philip

I'll swap you my 8 shot pump action for your pocket size bazooka
 

Philip:

Thanks for your comments about The Great Ideas Letter :o)

Now on to your question(s).

First, let me say, personally, I have no desire to own a semi-auto high-calibre rifle. I would never buy a Mini 14, for instance.

As far as I'm concerned, any competent rifleman can do as much "damage", if not more, than any old hack with a semi-auto. They can shoot a running target (wild board) with as much accuracy and nearly as fast.

With semi-auto handguns... there are legitimate sporting contests in which the semi-auto's are used.

Eight shot shot guns usually have a short barrel designed for use in thick scrub. You need the eight shots because the scrub could absorb and/or deflect the shot. So multiple shots could be needed to take down the target - feral pigs.

Double barrel shotguns have a longer barrel and are not suited for hunting in thick scrub.

Even though I do not own a semi-auto, nor even desire one, I will defend your right to own one because I know that any step in the direction of getting rid of guns, is a step closer to a disarmed population.

Look at how Australia did it...

A combined NATIONAL license and gun registration system - even to existing licensed firearm holders.

Also, all future firearm purchases from that point on needed a police permit. And the purchase was thus added to your "file" as a new registered gun.

Illegal to sell a gun privately. MUST be sold to a licensed dealer, or with the interaction of a licensed dealer.

All firearm owners had to do a test - safety course - to get/keep their license.

Together with this... the buy back.

So now, before a cop visits your house, he can check his onboard computer and know whether you have a gun or not. And know who else in your street has a gun. And what types.

Personal Safety is NO LONGER a legit reason to own a gun in Oz. A letter of permission from a land owner to shoot on his land, or membership to a sport shooting club (with compulsary visits) are pretty well the only accepted reasons for owning a gun now.

Chip. Chip. Chip. That's how they did it. One small little "it can't harm" step at a time. The old frog in boiling water thing.

Continued small sneaky "can't harm" steps and suddenly, no guns at all. We then become totally defenceless from any and all.

Oh... I love what happened in S.A. With no shooters allowed in the crown land, feral goats bred like wildfire, then the gummit had to hire professional shooters to get rid of them. HA!

Anyway. About the stats. Give me a few days and I'll see what I can find.

> And no matter how you gun lovers dress it
> up, the more guns out there, the more kids
> there are who are going to accidentally blow
> their own heads off.

Possibly. The onus is on the gun owners to keep their guns safe.

People go through a period of training before being let loose to drive a car. I have no objection to similar training being given before owning/firing guns. After all, they can both be a source of enjoyment or be used as a deadly weapon.

Michael Ross

You wanna save lives?
 

Okay... well what about the 1.5 million people EACH YEAR who's lives are SAVED because the presense of handgun prevented further violence?

A gun in the household is 4 TIMES more likely to be used to prevent violence. FBI Crime Stats. Read them for yourself.

- Adam.

> What a load of BS! If you can save just one
> life by taking away guns from all lawful
> citizens then it is justified. Psychos and
> criminals are unchangeable in their habits.
> But why have an additional supply of weapons
> circulating around society? Just to create
> an illusive feeling of "security"?
> No, there are certain areas in which the
> government indeed has to think and act for
> others - and this is one of them.

Even in the USA...
 

When Gov. Bush got elected, he enabled your average citizen to qualify for a concealed carry permit... returning GUNS to the hands of people who live in a very strong "gun culture."

Guess what? Crime immediately dropped 40%.

Same thing happened in Florida with brother Jeb. Crime dropped 30%.

To the criminal, suddenly the "prey" started to not look so defenseless.

Re: Amen Michael
 

> Chip. Chip. Chip. That's how they did it.
> One small little "it can't harm"
> step at a time. The old frog in boiling
> water thing.

Exactly Mike. It's sad what is happening in Oz and it's another reason why firearm enthusiasts in the States are so vigorous about fighting the hundreds of new gun laws the anti's try to pass every year..each one says "it's only one new restriction"...but we know what the ultimate goal is.

Ron

Bearing arms in public places
 

Mr. Katz,

As a Texan and card-carrying NRA'er I agree with you totally.

I think carrying firearms in public places should not only be permitted, it should be mandatory. Yes, there will be accidents and occasional hideous (though very short) gun battles, but it will prevent events even more hideous.

Best,

- Boyd

P.S. If you're ever in the Austin area check out Red's Indoor Shooting Range in Pflugerville, it's air-cooled, it's about one mile from my home as the buzzard flies and Red even offers a discount to frequent shooters. And they even let in long-haired internet types like me.