It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A question for our European and Aussie friends...Do you regret giving up your right to own firearms?

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:41 AM
In reply to the OP... I'm Australian, and last I checked, I didn't give up any such right. They've only been taken away by successive Governments I never voted for. Such is 'democracy'.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by lifeform

Welcome to America! May the best shot win!

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:11 AM
Just to clarify:

3. The death of 35 people and serious injuries to almost 20 others at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 prompted the Australian government to urge a meeting of the eight state and territory police ministers to introduce a new and stricter range of gun controls. Three major changes were introduced.

(a) Gun registration was introduced to all eight jurisdictions (b) Attempts were made to have uniform gun laws throughout Australia (c) A new standardised gun licensing scheme was put into practice. This new scheme allowed non-self-loading guns to be readily available but placed restrictions on high capacity self-loading rimfire rifles, self-loading centrefire rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns. These were the types of guns mainly used in Australian gun massacres. The basis for these changes had been laid in 1990 when the National Committee on Violence (NCV) made about 20 recommendations for improved gun controls. The NCV itself was formed as a result of the six gun massacres in 1987. There were about four million guns in Australia. One million were no longer in the legal category so a gun buy-back scheme was introduced to purchase these. The estimated average price was $500 per gun. Hence 500 million dollars was set aside. Only 640,000 guns were offered for purchase, hence $320 million was used for this purpose. About another 40 million dollars was used for administration and assistance to gun traders. Since the 500 million dollars had come from a medical levy the balance was distributed to medical research and welfare. It should be noted that the total amount spent on purchasing guns was only about 200 million dollars US. It should also be noted that up to 40% of Australian gun owners did not obey the law, making the term 'law abiding shooters' look somewhat ridiculous.

4. Several exemptions to the gun licensing schedule were made by most jurisdictions. Members of certain shotgun target shooting clubs were permitted to use self-loading shotguns and many rural property owners and professional shooters were permitted to use self- loading rifles and shotguns.

5. In Australia, handguns have only been available to bona-fide members of approved pistol clubs and to gun collectors. None of the changes to gun laws made in recent decades have affected the availability of handguns. Non-self-loading long-guns are readily available to Australians who are at least 18 years of age, have no police record and who pass a simple shooters licence test. As Australian gun laws have become stricter in the 1990's gun deaths have lowered; never-the-less, several serious weaknesses remain within the Australian gun law system. Too many Australians still die from gun wounds.

So, to answer your question nothing was really given up, hence , ne regrette pas. If you want to get your gun off, sorry, bear arms in Australia, you can. Straw man.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:16 AM
I’d rather feed my neighbour, by planting a plum tree that can supply much more fruit than I alone can eat – and share the fruit with a neighbour that has too many apples (or tomatoes… or whatever)

If you buy a gun, and your neighbour buys a gun, what will either one of you eat? Steal fruit from someone like me at gunpoint? You've got rights to own a gun - but do you also have the right to help your fellow man?

Preparing for war – leads to war. It’s crazy listening to your politicians talk of “We may have to invade or chastise (flavour of the month country name here)”

Peace begins within self first, then family, then neighbour, then workplace, then community, then state, AND THEN NATION. We get about 1 murder in our city every 6 to 12 months… probably longer. What’s the rate in your state (approx. will do).

[edit on 29-10-2008 by peterwilson_69] - Sorry, having trouble with edits.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by peterwilson_69]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:24 AM
Australian laws are decided by our politicians and most of the time they are added or changed without any real consent form the people. In the case of the gun laws they must have thought they would have a problem so they had a massacre at a tourist site called Port Arthur in Tasmania with a Manchurian style candidate who could not have possibly caused that amount of carnage alone, especially given that he was developmentally challenged. It is also understood that he had had psychiatric treatment prior to the incident with an American psychiatrist. These are just details off the top of my head. Seem to remember that the psychiatrist had some creepy intelligence service background in the States.

The results of these gun laws has been an increase in gun related crime and for a time an increase in house burglaries - well it stands to reason that this would occur because the householder no longer has a gun to threaten any intruders. There is also a thriving black market in guns, so no shortage for serious criminals. Probably the result the instituters of these gun laws wanted - the usual chaos.

Another negative consideration is that Australians are losing the skills associated with shooting. In the two world wars most of the fighting Australians would have had experience with guns long before they enlisted and this stood them in good stead as soldiers.

Growing up in the bush I had my own rifle at age eight and was trusted to use it without supervision without any mishaps other than a final revulsion towards killing anything, although I can if I have to!

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:32 AM
they banned some guns in oz after port arthur, it didnt do any good.

your average law obiding, gun owning citizen is perfectly within his right to own a gun or three as long as he is alway practicing proper gun safety and keeps the gun in a safe, locked up manor like a responsible gun owner.

the australian gun buy back scheme was a complete failure. it forced law obiding gun owners to become criminals if they wanted to keep their guns, and criminals sure wont become law obiding gun owners either

gun control means using both hands - well its more than that, gun control to me is the safe practice of storing and owning guns. and there is nothing illegal, immoral or wrong with a registered gun in the hands of a licenced owner.

its the criminals you need to worry about, and they arent coming clean on their weapon stash anytime soon.

if i was american i would see anyone who tries to take away my gun rights (2-A) as a traitor to the wording of the constitution.

note: i did own a gun and have a lic. i handed it in after 10yrs of never using it.
i still use the scope like a pirates looking glass from time to time though

[edit on 29/10/08 by Obliv_au]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
I hear there is an epidemic of stabbings in the UK.
Correct me if I am wrong but, If the Chav that was coming to cut you saw you pull out a 45, would he change his mind about making you the next stabbing victim?

Yeah there have been quite a few highly-publicized stabbings in the UK, mainly in London and mainly black-on-black stabbings between kids. Altho we also have our gun probs too - illegally armed crims who don't care if a 10 yr old gets caught in a cross fire and killed.

re the chav - yeah they probably would think twice. But...would they just upgrade to a gun too, if they could get one? Escalation is always a risk but on the other hand, at least private ownership evens the playing field. Other UK posters have already covered how only the police and the scum have weapons now. And gun crime is on the rise... Another fine mess courtesy of the Zanu Labour idiots.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:37 AM
Interesting question BlackOps!

I think you have highlighted a major cultural difference in asking whether it is jealously that lies behind our 'anti-gun' attitudes. The US is a great country, I have visited a lot and have always found the American people to be friendly and welcoming. However, we in the UK are not sentimental in nature, and therefore do not in any way understand the unquestioning pride you have in the constitutional right to bear arms if you wish to.

We get ourselves into trouble with Americans when we patronise or smirk at the nature of your love of your country - and it's quite right that you should tell us where to go, because that's the way you live as a nation. It certainly isn't jealousy. We are very, very cynical as a nation. You have flags on your lawns, we get them out for the Rugby. We simply have a different way of expressing national pride.

One of the major reasons that we have very tight gun laws is because of the massacre at Dunblane. As a nation, at the time, it was generally agreed that not everyone should be able to bear arms, especially if they can walk into a school and kill children. That isn't meant to be sarcastic, just that history has taught us that change in inevitable. You can still own a gun, you can still hunt or use it for sport - but under very controlled laws and regulation. That to us is common sense - not a loss of fundemental rights.

When I was younger (from ages 10-12) I used to shoot air rifles at our local gunclub. I was quite promising and was in line to train for the commonwealth games once I was old enough. Dunblane put a stop to that. You cannot imagine how angry I was at the time. Suddenly I had no hobby and a great deal of talent in the UK went to waste. However, I simply do not accept that most people have that respect or sporting affinity with guns, or the dicipline to know that they are and should be the last resort of protection. That goes for UK and US citizens alike.

When you sentimentalise the fact that you have the right to protect yourself, it makes sense - it isn't the issue really. In a country that lets everyone own a gun it's the only real way you can do that. So you see, fear breeds fear.

And on the subject of constitutional rights, you weren't to bothered about the 'Patriot Act' it seemed from over here. You wonder why Europe placates and caricatures Americans as Gun loving crazies who howl about the constitution (and I'm not saying that's fair or right) but that's the only right you seem to mind giving up. The Patriot Act basically walks all over a number of amendments, which are ironically the very things you are patriotic about - these are clearly pointed out here:


And here:

So come on. Jealousy? More like you guys pick and choose what rights are more important and this leaves objective obsevers scratching their heads - and quite rightly so. Personal privacy...the right to a fair trial - not as important as everyone, even criminals, having the right to own and use guns...

It's more to do with the fact that this 'Gun rights' business appears to be more about the love affair the US has with guns and the delusional idea that they give you power. That's the problem. The user has all of the power, the gun is merely a tool - and that tool should be used by skilled professionals or people who have respect for that fact. They should not be available to children to shoot up their classmates, or criminals, or groups like neo nazis - or Dick Cheney apparently

It's common sense really.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:38 AM
Question for the Americans or anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership is commonplace:

If you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon, are you on guard all the time for 'suspicious behaviours' and wondering who else is carrying?

Do you think that the American gun policy has encouraged people to be more polite and respectful when dealing with strangers who may be armed?

Does the American gun policy discourage potential trespassers and burglaries?

Have you ever had to fire your gun in self-defence?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by ICTguy]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:52 AM
I can honestly say, I am so happy that people here aren't walking around with guns.. I really, really am.

I couldn't imagine living in the area I do if these people had guns. It would be terrifying.

It's bad enough being threatened with knives, I can run away from those though. If someone pulled a gun on me, the only choice I'd have would be to pull mine out, and I can see that all taking a huge downward spiral. When a knife is pulled, I am off, and they'll have to chase me. Good luck to them.

In the UK, it's quite easy to get a shot gun licence, and that's the only weapon I'd need for hunting. So there's no problem there at all.

I'd rather have a fist fight rather than a gun fight any day.

It all seems so simple to me.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:53 AM
I have never given up the right to bear/own arms. In fact, I have never had the possibility to choose.

But let's take a recent example: '8 years old monkey shoots himself through the head with an uzi gun' I mean, how retarded is it to let your kid shoot with a(n) (uzi) gun...

Here in Holland we would say ''These crazy Jan-Kezen (Yankees) again''.

The problem with fire arms is that there are far too many lunatics out there having very bad intentions. The question is would you be willing, as a people, to take the risk?

On the other hand, I would love to own a gun now with the financial crisis and a possible situation X coming up. All I could do was importing a Seal SOG 2000 knife from the US legally.

But imagine if sh$t hits the fan in Holland (slight bigger than New Jersey) and food supplies are stopped to be delivered, 16 million inhabitants would go berserk. You could only wish to have a gun to protect your family then.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:16 AM
Hey i've just joined, sorry if there is something wrong with my post

snipped from:

PER 100,000

(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5

i found theese numbers quite interesting, i know its a bit off topic, but they are interesting if you compare the populations of usa(280M, correct me if im wrong) and the 729M in europe. I was a bit shocked over Helsinki(it must be the cold

I come from Denmark and i will proberbly never understand the need for guns in the USA. but if let's say we took the very hard socio/eco areas out of the equation(i mean if you live in a harsh nabourhood), and take the "protecting the home argument with a gun" like in an average household aren't you more likely to kill a family member/jalouxy murder than killing an intruder(with the gun)? just a thought
Sorry for spelling, hope you like my first post


posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by Portugoal

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by andy1033

Yes the US has a history of violence, but show me one major country that doesnt.



Who did all of those pasty white Europeans take the land from when they arrived in Canada? Or are you saying that noone was home when all of those English and French settlers arrived?

Did they peacefully negotiate a fair and peaceful settlement with the indiginous folk or did they take it through other means? Sorry to stray off topic but Im genuinely curious here.

Really I don't think your straying off topic. Anyways, Canada wasn't a country at this point. I understand what you're saying but the question was show me one country that doesn't have a history of violence. Canada has generally been a country of peace. We were forced to join WW1 as a 'sister' to Britain. And in the same position really in WW2 even though the choice was ours (we couldn't abandon those we fought beside in WW1).

Name one war Canada has been a major force in-->And I know Canadians will say that we did a lot in the WWs and I believe that but the rest of the world doesn't see out contribution as a major contribution unfortunately. You probably won't find one. Afghanistan is supposedly a NATO peacekeeping mission so you can't say that it is Canada promoting the violence.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:31 AM
No Guns = No one getting shot.
No Bombs= No one getting Bombed.
Then there is the "prtoection from government."
What do you think you are going to do against the government?
What firearm tdo you possess that can stop the government from cutting your life short? They could blow you up without you having the chance to lay your scope in their general direction.
The fact that every average and/or stupid person in America can own firearms is ridiculous. How do you not see the answers.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:34 AM
I am new to this site, just checking out things and saw that yall were talking about guns and America so I thought I would join in. I am from Texas born and raised and I have a concealed handgun license and I am a avid hunter. I guess that means I wear cowboy boots and a cowboy hat and ride down the main street on my horse lol. I am starting to see a trend on this post that Americans are stupid and should let the our goverment do like your yours and take away our rights because they will protect us, I say over this Texans dead body. And as far as being stupid, I served in the army, I have an M.B.A. with a specialty in Marketing. and I honestly dont get a damn what you think about me and my guns. My state is bigger than most of your countries put together and you can start on one side of the border and drive all day and still not make it to the next border. That is alot of wide open space were your out on on the road by your self and anything can happen. I dont think gangs are big problem because all they really do is kill each other, our big problem is drugs that come from our South American friends and what people will do to get them. If they need money for their next high, they dont care whose house they rob to get money. I have 2 children and I have no problem with protecting my family and property with deadly force. so in other words, I will kill your ass if i catch on my property and that is the bottom line. Thanks for letting me post and just remember, dont always believe what you see on tv, because they only show you one mostly biased view of what is going on.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Merriman Weir

MW, for the sake of a tangible discussion about my questions, I was hoping we could pretend the pretense was true. That for whatever reason, however unlikely, you have been invaded.

What, are you expecting me to say, 'drat! if only I had a handgun and a pocket full of bullets, then I could repel these damned hypothetical invaders'? Or maybe 'oh if only I'd listened to more Americans!'?


If an invading force hypothetically entered my country, it wouldn't matter if I had a handgun or not. It wouldn't make a difference if half my town did either. I mean hypothetically, why haven't this force carpet bombed all the cities or used some dirty weapons to thin the population out in the first place? Or is this something where you want to imagine only a scenario where you'd think small arms would stand a fair chance against a fair invading army and I therefore have to respond with 'gee, you're right'? An invading army would be using all manner of weapons that handguns would be of very limited effect in retaliating with.

This isn't the thinking of a coward, someone who doesn't love his country or doesn't give a # about their kids &c either, it's the thinking of a realist who doesn't buy into a Rambo mentality. I'm sure that, if there was an invading force, my kids would prefer the fact that I went through a takeover with them and lived through it rather than be able to get misty-eyed at the memory of a father who was enough of a dick to think he could take on a tank with a handgun.

I'm similarly sure, if an army thought everyone in Britain had handguns, they'd have factored that into their plans before they checked to make sure they had their wallet, keys and phone before they left their own country to invade us. They'd simply bring more 'fire power' of their own.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:39 AM
Just this week I read in the papers about a guy who believed in his duty to have a gun at home so he could protect his famlily.

His son, about 6 years, found it and a shot went off which hit and killed the boy's sister.
Shocked, he lets drop the gun, when it hit the ground another shot went off and killed the boy.

An extreme situation, granted, but I doubt anyone will buy a gun hoping his loved ones will ultimately get killed by them.. This was in the paper 'Het Laatste Nieuws' a couple days ago.

A gun might save lives in some circumstances, but it all depends on who is behind the trigger. If you are doubting you could shoot, don't get one. If you are maniacally nodding your head, hoping to get to do it, I hope by all the gods you don't get one. And if you do have one, at all times avoid it falling into the hands of a kid loaded and good to go

Anyway, here in Belgium, an investigation is made into you when you want to get a gun permit. They check if you have a history of violence, mental problems, etc, which could make it a liability for you to own a gun.

This wasn't allways so, it's a rather recent development after some kid strolled around Antwerp inner City, shooting random people because of their skin color, and also shooting a 3-year old caucasian kid who had an African nursemaid taking her out for a walk.

We don't see nearly so much violent crime in Belgium, I believe because of the difference in penal systems. If a guy gets caught here he could get sentenced to 30 years, and get out of jail after 10 years. If a guy gets caught in the States, that same felon is looking at life doing hardtime being Big Bubba's little bitch, several lifetimes if multiple counts.

I'd say that'd motivate people to do whatever they can, to whoever they must, to stay the hell out of jail.

I'm not saying our system is so much better, in fact I think it leaves a sour taste, especially for the victim's relatives, to know they can get on with their life after a symbolic term has been served. But at least here people will not go to such extreme measures to avoid having to pay the price for a transgression.

Even high-speed pursuits are véry rare here in Belgium. The damage they could do to third partys while fleeing recklessly could easily cost them multiple times what they'd have to pay for their original transgressions. It's not worth it ergo it don't happen.

When people get caught 3 times in the USA with some pot, they are looking at a possible life sentence in Gang Hell. If that was the case here in Belgium, we'd have so many high speed pursuits here, just south of Holland, it'd be so trivial they wouldn't even make a little byline in the papers, except if they where truly spectacular, with a lot of collateral damage and possibly some dead people.

Thanks for the post by the way, Anonymous, shame you weren't registered or I'd have starred it. Very funny reference to Dick Cheney's 'aptitude' for guns at the end as well..

Edited for spelling.. allways getting that where -were wrong :p

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Phatcat]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:26 AM
This concept of "how will you defend your family from the government???" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The government isn't coming to take you away. Stop being so damn scared of everything. Why is everyone in America so afraid of every little thing?

Nobody is coming to get you. Relax!

Besides, if the government was going to come get you (but they won't), there'd be nothing you could do. You really think you and that gun you bought are going to be any match for well trained military with machine guns? You'd maybe, MAYBE hit one of them in the arm before being shred to peices by assault rifles.

You know, I get the feeling sometimes...Reading the posts here...That people actually WANT bad things to happen. They actually WANT society to fall apart because I think they have this weird fantasy about defending their families from attackers and looters and stuff. Like they want to be heroes or something. Methinks people watch too many movies.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:49 AM
what! , well its not illeagal to own a gun in Norway,ya just gotta have the right papers and stuff,
I'd gladly own one, I will for sure ,in the future

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by gate13
reply to post by BlackOps719

i think these statistics speak for them selfes ....

The Coalition for Gun Control has the most recent statistics for Gun
rate Death available.

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47


"Gun Crime" does not equal violent crime

here is a "violent crime" stat (which INCLUDES gun crime) that will clarify

Britain and Australia lead in violent crime rates

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in