They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

A few years back, a psychotic man got hold of a couple of guns. He did not have a license - something which is needed to buy guns in Australia.

One of the guns was like the gun the army has - cost about $6,000. The other had been confiscated in a police raid two states away six months earlier.

So how did this unlicensed man get these guns?

Shh.

This "man" then went and shot a whole bunch of people.

The Australian gummit in their "wisdom" decided that ALL semi-automatic rifles and ALL shotguns with a magazine capacity above two, were illegal and proceded to buy them back.

Of couse, only the honest people handed in their guns. Duh! The crooks and psychos who never bought the guns from a proper licensed source didn't hand anything in. Double Duh!

Now, the Australian gummit is at it again. This time it's semi-auto handguns. If it has no "sporting shooter" use, it is being made illegal.

Why?

Because some drongo Crooks and psychos killed some people with similar type weapons. Would these types of people hand back their illegal weapons?

NO!

Only law-abiding honest people will.

"But it gets those guns out of circulation and the crooks and psychos can't steal them" the anti-gunners say.

"They never got them from legitimate sources in the first place. It's all black market and illegal importing."

Stop THAT and you really hinder their ability to use these weapons.

Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding ordinary honest citizens solves nothing.

Of course, taking the guns wins votes.

America... watch carefully what is going on in England and Australia with relation to gun laws. Let our examples serve as your warning...

The Gummit wants your guns.

An armed man is a citizen. And unarmed man is a subject.

Gun control works all right. Ask the experts - Hitler, Castro, Gadaffi, Stalin.

Michael Ross

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

Michael you are so right. It has often been said that "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Jim Rohn One of America's foremost business philosopher said "Beware of those who seek to take care of you lest your caretakers become your jailers". Another of Jim Rohn's quotes
is "You cannot base your life on what the government does or how your tax dollars are being spent. You've got to vote well, and then chart your own course; vote well,and then take charge of your own life". Since today is election day in America I pray to God that us conservatives take charge of this great nation by voting right and defeating the religion of Liberalism which in my opinion is a far greater threat to the world than any terrorist for the well intended but misguided left are enables who permit evil to go unopposed.

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

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.

> Michael you are so right. It has often been
> said that "When guns are outlawed only
> outlaws will have guns". Jim Rohn One
> of America's foremost business philosopher
> said "Beware of those who seek to take
> care of you lest your caretakers become your
> jailers". Another of Jim Rohn's quotes
> is "You cannot base your life on what
> the government does or how your tax dollars
> are being spent. You've got to vote well,
> and then chart your own course; vote
> well,and then take charge of your own
> life". Since today is election day in
> America I pray to God that us conservatives
> take charge of this great nation by voting
> right and defeating the religion of
> Liberalism which in my opinion is a far
> greater threat to the world than any
> terrorist for the well intended but
> misguided left are enables who permit evil
> to go unopposed.

Wiser men with first hand experience thought differently
 

Cast your mind back in time... way way back to the 18th century.

Now ask yourself if America would be free if the ruling British back then had thought,

"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

That's why the men of the constitution wrote things such as...

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... - Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ... - James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

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. - Jefferson quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764

The Constitution of the United States shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the miltary forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tench Coxe (writing as "A Pennsylvanian") in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them. - Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Priciples of the Federal Constitution"(1787).

These wise men had to FIGHT for their FREEDOM. They new what could happen if the population was not armed. They new they couldn't not prevent tyrants from taking office. So to help prevent what those tyrants were cabable of, they urged the population to be armed and insisted that this right NOT be infringed upon.

And while there may be no need to protect yourself from a tyrannical gummit today. Tomorrow and next year is a different story.

Also, an armed populace makes any possible invader think twice because...

An armed man fighting for his home land is worth ten paid soldiers on a foreign shore.

Michael Ross

Not quite the same topic... but sort of
 

Pythagorean theorem : 24 Words

The Lord's Prayer : 66 Words

Archimedes' Principle : 67 Words

The 10 Commandments : 179 Words

The U. S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage : 26,911 Words

:)

- Dien

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

> 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.

Yes indeed there are things our government can do to
take guns out of the hands of outlaws like maybe putting
some Hellfire up the tailpipe of an SUV filled with outlaws
thus removing six terrorist from their guns. Like I said many
people mean well but the road to hell is paved with good
intentions. You can pass all the laws that you want but
action supercedes talk. Enforce our present gun laws and
remove criminals from their guns and I for one won't ever
be willing to give up my right to protect myself. Yes government
can do some things to protect you but you must also refuse to
be a victim and take responsibility for your own protection and
take charge of yourself for despite all the laws there will always
be bad guys who if giving the chance will stab innocent victims and
willing victims in the back. Maybe the government can take all knives
out of our kitchens because it would be worth it if saves just one life.
Am I right or am I wrong?

Sorry! It's been proven.....
 

One suburb of Chicago passed an Ordinance that REQUIRED EVERY CITIZEN TO POSSESS ONE GUN.

Guess what happened to the crime rate in that Town?

Yup! Even your warped little brain can possibly figure this one. Burglaries, Robberies, Rapes and other crimes went down to zilch, nada, close to zero.

Why? Because the chance of running into an ARMED citizen was HIGH! Too much RISK of being SHOT!

And sure nuff...there were some warpies(like you) who said this would "Help Arm Criminals!" because all the criminals had to do was break into any home and grab the weapon or weapons.

HA! What freakos!

An ARMED COMMUNITY is a SAVE COMMUNITY!

One of the things I enjoy seeing in RURAL OREGON is....every other pickemup truck has 2 things in it;
1) A dog
2) A Rifle

One day last month, as I was driving down a rural road listening to the news reporting the "Sniper" had gunned down another innocent citizen....I passed a group of 5 men walking on the side of the road....ALL CARRYING RIFLES!

Do you think the "Sniper" would come to rural Oregon?

Most Oregonians I know will tell people like you that..."The ONLY way you're gonna get my weapon away from me is to PRY it from my cold, dead hands!"

I keep wondering where you LIBBIES get your warped ideas.

Giving up our weapons is NOT the way to protect us! Clintons way of handling an aggressor like Russia or North Korea was to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT...and hopefully they will go away!

Ha! They will only see how WEAK you are!

Yesterday's elections show that the giant ship called America is slowing turning RIGHT! Thank God! America is starting to "wake up" and get wise to the Libbies failed agenda.

Long Live Conservatism!

Long Live Capitalism!

Now if the Republicans can ACT like WINNERS (unlike their performance after the '94 elections where they didn't face up to the Libbies and the Liberal Press)

Don Alm....Card Carrying Member of the NRA and PROUD OF IT!

> 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.




Make a Bundle from Restaurants

Look where UK went wrong
 

excellent story.... confirms why Don's oregon post works

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

Another story
 

Last week a man was killed in California
(where only criminals have unregistered
guns) after he broke into a house and a
ttacked three people there with a hatchet.
Yes, hatchet.

Fortunately one of the three people had a
shotgun in the trunk of his car. The man
made it outside and was able to kill the
intruder.

The homeowners were the mother and father of the
dead man's ex-wife. The man who shot him was
her new boyfriend.

The dead man was out on bail after attacking
the woman previously and was violating a restraining order by coming into contact
with the parents.

What a different story it would have been
if the boyfriend hadn't had access to a gun.

The problem is that there is no real way to
stop people who commit domestic violence. Restraining orders are a joke. The wife/child
beaters get out on bail or they do 2-months
in a county jail and then they're back out.

Yes, it would be nice to live in nirvana
where there is no need for self defense
but look around at the real world.

The people who would be happiest with more gun
restrictions and confiscations are the Mexican
drug cartels because then they'd have a great,
new market = illegal guns and ammunition.

One gun-totting woman's opinion.

You have a point there...
 

You have a point there - not a good point but a point.

I've always figured an easy way to keep a lot of people from dying is to take away cars.

In 2000 41,821 were killed needlessly. 3,189,000 were injured. And there were 4,286,000 cars that had property damage from accidents.

Think of the lives we'd save. Think of the money we'd save if our insurance rates went down and we didn't have to pay for those people who were injured and didn't have insurance through our taxes.

Think of the lost work time and productivity while all those people were at funerals, at the doctor, or getting their car fixed.

Think of us not being as reliant (USA) on foreign oil. There are many, many reasons why this is a good idea.

Of course then if we did this there would be a lot more injuries and death due to bicycles or horses. Heck let's just all walk.

And then we'd need to get rid of hatchets like a previous post mentioned. Ted Bundy killed a couple of girls when I was a teenager in Tallahassee, FL just about a mile from my house. I don't remember if there were other weapons used (it's been a long time) but one of the weapons he used to kill was a limb off an oak tree. So let's get rid of all the tree limbs that could be used as weapons.

I hope you see (but probably not) that if it's not one thing it's another that evil people will use to hurt or kill people. But you might say that 6 year old boy who accidentally shot his friend wasn't evil. So true. The six year old boy that killed his sister by playing with matches wasn't evil either. So let's take away matches or Frisbees or fishing poles.

Just my 2 cents worth.

> 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.

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.

Do Australians have bigger bazookas than Americans? [DNO]
 

dno
> 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.

> 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

Course we do
 

We got bigger EVERYTHING, especially here in Western Australia!

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

> Now, the Australian gummit is at it again.
> This time it's semi-auto handguns. If it has
> no "sporting shooter" use, it is
> being made illegal.

> Why?

> Because some drongo Crooks and psychos
> killed some people with similar type
> weapons. Would these types of people hand
> back their illegal weapons?

I think this recent buy-back initiate was sparked by university shootings where the shooter was a legal owner of his guns, and not a crook.

So what's the point of making many guns illegal?

I think the main point is that it decreases the supply of guns in the community. Not all murders are carried by career criminals with underground connections.

Perhaps you have a person who is very stressed, very anxious, or going through a crisis. Perhaps they're just going through a divorce, and they're on the edge and about to snap.

Such people may feel the inclination to kill themselves, or to kill others, and I believe that limiting legal gun ownership would decrease the probabilities of such events happening.

On the flip side, you're taking away the enjoyment derived from owning a gun from potential gun owners (whether that enjoyment is from feelings of protection/self-defence, or recreation, etc).

So it's a trade off between these two. Is it a worthwhile trade off? I think it is, but I'm biased due to having no desire to own a gun.

- Thomas.

The difference between guns and cars
 

Let's suppose you have an economy where you're the only person in it. You grow your own food, fetch your own water, cut your own hair, build your own house, and all the other activites that life involves.

Now imagine you suddenly discover a neighbour. Great, you now decide to grow the food, cut the hair, while he can fetch the water and build houses.

Suddenly another person comes, and as more and more people come into your world, you all become a little more specialised and more efficient at your tasks.

Overall, providing transaction costs are sufficiently low, this increased specialisation will probably lead to greater productivity and efficiency.

So, this all sounds well and good, but what does it have to do with cars? Well, cars (and other forms of transport) make the world a smaller place by making travel easier. The number of "specialists" you can reach vastly increases with a car, and thus it allows for greater specialisations and greater efficiencies.

The internet does the same thing to some extent, by the way.

In other words, cars have a very real effect on the efficiency and productivity of the world we live in, and getting rid of all cars would hinder this.

Guns, on the other hand, do not have this direct impact on efficiency.

Having said that, you are right, taking away cars would probably decrease deaths (via the road toll). Is it worth it?

You could calculate it. All you'd need to do is compare the dollars saved in car crashes and medical plus the dollar value of the lives lost (which is what you'd gain if you banned cars) to the dollar value of the efficiency loss you'd incur by getting rid of this.

You'd probably also want to include a value for the "freedom" people enjoy from owning a car (as you would with a similar "gun" analysis).

Just my 2 cents,

- Thomas. :)

Re: Don't run with scissors in your hand . . . .
 

Hi Mark

Just a thought about "guns" and "cars".

A gun is made only for one purpose "to blast a hole in an object".
The object could be a target, tin can, bottle, animal, or people.

Once the gun is in a persons hands he/she decides who, and what to KILL.

A car only purpose is to transport people or product from point A
to point B and back to point A.

Once a person is in the drivers set they decide on the safety of
the people or product.

So trying to compare guns and cars makes no sense.

Ciao,
D.R.(Don) McArdle

In Context
 

Don:

> So trying to compare guns and cars makes no
> sense.

Mark's response was to the comment about saving lives. As if saving lives is the sole and only reason to take guns away.

So if you look only at saving lives as a reason, then comparing guns with cars makes perfect sense, in the context is was written.

Michael Ross

Pitcure this...
 

All guns are taken away from honest people - leaving only the crooks and the police with guns.

The crooks, knowing no-one can defend themselves, find all households easy pickings. Hold ups run rampant.

Many people trying to defend themselves end up being shot. If killed, their productivity goes down to zero. If wounded, there are medical bills coupled with a loss of income. Their productivity suffers.

It can all be covered with insurance... which, of course, would skyrocket. Even before the affects of gun removal would be felt - because the insurance companies know what would happen.

On top of this, add the collapse of the whole firearm industry - metal suppliers, powder suppliers, sporting shooter clubs, outfitters, camping gear, safes, firearm manufacturers, their specially designed safe transport, etc., etc.

If cars and transport were treated like the anti-gunners want to treat guns - leaving them only in the hands of the professionals - then there would be a vast increase in public transport and private licensed mass moving transport to compensate for the loss of our cars.

People would move closer to their jobs or get jobs closer to home.

There are already many thousands of people who use publics transport, even travelling great distances.

The affects of car removal - as in leaving them only in the hands of the necessary people - would be minimal though the surrounding car industry would have a similar residual and flow on effect as removing guns would have. But it would be within their respective industry.

Seeing as you brought freedom into it, you would also have to weigh up the loss of freedom removing firearms would have, as you would now be totally as the mercy of the gummit. (Cross fingers and hope no tyrants get into power, eh?)

What is more important... freedom or a car?

Michael Ross

Re: Bearing arms in public places
 

Boyd,

I live 10 minutes from Red's (the one that used to be Cook's).

Red reminds me of Burt Reynolds.

I was there last week, playing around with a new CZ75B I bought a couple of months ago.

I think I'm gonna buy the Kel-Tec P32 next. Only 6 oz. Great for deep concealment.

And especially good for when the ladies ask, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are just happy to see me?" ...

I can whip it out and say, "Why yes... it IS a gun in my pocket!" :)

That should go over REAL WELL with the ladies.


Click here to Get Your Dog To Listen To You, Anywhere You Go!

Doubting Thomas...
 

Thomas,

Nice to meet you.

You state: "I believe that limiting legal gun ownership would decrease the probabilities of such events happening. " [In regard to wackos who legally purchase a gun and then SNAP!]

I reply: You are correct. There probably would be less wackos who use a gun when the fall off the deep end. And then they'll go get a bag of fertilizer or a tank of gas and make a bomb and blow up a McDonald's instead of walking in with guns ablaze.

So what's next? Banning fertilizer?

There is no perfect solution. However, the number of violent acts that are PREVENTED because there is a gun in the house (at least in America) far outweighs the number of deaths at the hands of wackos by about 900,000 to 1.

Number-wise, banning guns just doesn't make sense, if your true motivation is to save lives.

- Adam.




Get your dog to listen to you, anywhere you go! Click here to learn more...

Well said [DNO]
 

dno
> Boyd,

> I live 10 minutes from Red's (the one that
> used to be Cook's).

> Red reminds me of Burt Reynolds.

> I was there last week, playing around with a
> new CZ75B I bought a couple of months ago.

> I think I'm gonna buy the Kel-Tec P32 next.
> Only 6 oz. Great for deep concealment.

> And especially good for when the ladies ask,
> "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are
> just happy to see me?" ...

> I can whip it out and say, "Why yes...
> it IS a gun in my pocket!" :)

> That should go over REAL WELL with the
> ladies.

To buy back or not...
 

> I think this recent buy-back initiate was
> sparked by university shootings where the
> shooter was a legal owner of his guns, and
> not a crook.

I mentioned crooks in my post because there was also an episode with crooks.

Of course, the gummit (and media) will ignore the crime element, because it might make people realise that crooks have illegal guns which aren't even supposed to be in the country. And they might then question a gun buy back. And may even begin to want guns, for safety.

> So what's the point of making many guns
> illegal?

The gummit's point, regardless of what they tell you, is to remove POWER from the people and give themselves more POWER. More control.

> I think the main point is that it decreases
> the supply of guns in the community. Not all
> murders are carried by career criminals with
> underground connections.

True. Not all murders are carried out by criminals. Then again, not all murders are done with a gun either, are they?

Shining example is the guy who had his throat cut as he arrived home one night. Remember, it was all over the news. (Lets ban knives, eh?)

A person intent on killing will find a way to carry out whatever he wants to do - gun or no gun.

Remember Bryant... the guy in Tassie? At the time Tas had the toughest gun laws in Australia... he was unlicensed. And yet, despite these two things, he managed to get hold of guns - guns the general public would have difficulty getting hold of at the time.

> Perhaps you have a person who is very
> stressed, very anxious, or going through a
> crisis. Perhaps they're just going through a
> divorce, and they're on the edge and about
> to snap.

> Such people may feel the inclination to kill
> themselves, or to kill others, and I believe
> that limiting legal gun ownership would
> decrease the probabilities of such events
> happening.

Nope. Stats show it has no bearing. People find other ways to kill themselves and/or others...

Like the woman who locked herself in the car with her kids and ran the exhaust inside - killing herself and them. Just so her husband wouldn't get the kids (she wanted to kill herself and not let her husband have the kids).

> On the flip side, you're taking away the
> enjoyment derived from owning a gun from
> potential gun owners (whether that enjoyment
> is from feelings of protection/self-defence,
> or recreation, etc).

> So it's a trade off between these two. Is it
> a worthwhile trade off? I think it is, but
> I'm biased due to having no desire to own a
> gun.

Just so I know I understand you correctly...

You're saying, ban all guns because it might stop someone from taking another person's life if/when they become so unstable they decide to kill themselves/others. Is that right?

And despite all evidence that proves taking guns away does not prevent these things.

Michael Ross