Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
I'll apoagise again I don't know how to quote properly here.

Just use quote tags. There's a button at the top of a post when you're creating it or you can type them.

Definitions are for dictionaries, I legally own 2 shot guns, 3 riffles & used to have a hand gun. Please explain how I am not armed.

You openly admitted yourself that your guns are for self defense and defense of your family yourself in the first post. You have guns yes, but Australia is a disarmed country. I don't acknowledge someone having to have a cover story or alternate reason about their primary reason to have a gun as 'armed'.

I see where you're coming from, but I think your vision is a bit rose tinted if you think Australia is armed.

You can't fight the Gov in a conventional grab ya AR10 kind of way, you will die very quickly

For some people it's a general principal. I don't think it will come up in my life time, so I don't care. My primary use of guns is for work and that's a pain as it is.

Barb wire roofing? Do you live in an indig town or little Lebanon?, cause that is not an accurate portrait of 99% of Australia.

Yes, I live near indigineous people but assaults etc have gone up in the last ten years in general. There is no disputing that. I don't think guns have had anything to do with it either way. Unless people start packing in the street that statistic won't drop. If people do start packing in the street homocides will go through the roof.

I don't know 1 Australian who is in fear of GUN WIELDING home invaders or 1 person who feels greater fear since the gun reforms came into effect.

I didn't say anything about gun wielding home invaders. Your original post seemed to imply that Australia is safer because of the lack of guns I guess. Ironically the only times I've heard of armed hold ups were post gun reform era. That's why I think personal experience about these types of things don't translate; I can easily say that I don't know one person that's afraid of guns period in Australia.

I didn't see many guns prereform era either oddly.

yes my test was open book answers underlined for you and even if you got every question wrong pass or fail was at the leisure of the instructor. Attitude counted for more than knowledge or skills

I don't see anything here as a positive in regards to Australian gun control. You say later that you don't need to go all 'redneck' saying you need a gun to stop people getting you in the night ... but the above sounds ten times more 'redneck' to me and this needs tightening more than introducing new restrictions IMO.

His ego took a beating that arvo but he learned a valuable lesson.

Hahaha was it 'written firearm tests shouldn't be a matter of opinion?'

it had sweet FA to do with restricting guns.

I'll agree with this, but frankly I find white male Australians are responsible for most random assaults I've witnessed. Obviously, I can't back that up with statistics but I don't believe immigrants are the major issue. Different topic anyway.

I don't have to lie to own a gun, I just don't go all redneck saying I need 1 so no one can come get me in the night, I like to target shoot and I like to kill feral animals simple, truthful & legal. Defending myself if the need arises is just a bonus card.

I don't sleep with a gun under my pillow

Not like anyone is coming to check under your pillow at 2am though so if you have half a brain you will have a cover story good to go & not fill out home defense as your reason to own 1 on your application form, if your not that smart then your not smart enough to do that you are not smart enough to own a gun.

Just putting your quotes side by side so you can see where I got this from. I'm still going to say you shouldn't require a cover story at all.

The airsoft thing I agree with 100%. Easier to get a glock in, come on man.

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not but:

It absolutely is. I originally tried to import airsoft and model cycling weapons at extra expense to myself, but it was too difficult. Instead, I ended up with two licensed real weapons.

You can call here licensing here: 1300 171 011

You'll probably end up talking to someone like Senior Constable Nick who will promptly tell you where you can stick your airsoft weapon but will be quite happy to assist you getting a glock 17A.

If you can get a decent airsoft weapon legally in the state of Western Australia in under the time and cost it takes me to get another glock 17A I'll happily pay you for it.

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
$100.00, 8hrs on a Saturday playing with guns & test you can fail yet still pass, a lockable storage unit that is bolted down & A quick police check then your GTG. (Disclaimer, in QLD) apparently in WA even easier.
Any easier & they would give you a hand gun when you open a bank account & an AK when you buy a car.

Disclaimer: WA is very beaucratic and it depends heavily on what you're trying to import and why.

I have an easier time doing what I do in Victoria bar the initial hassles. The wait times are a pain also. I certainly wouldn't describe it as easy as WCM.

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by bellagirl

9 years in a major sydney trauma emergency department....i have seen 2 gunshot victims.

I find that intriguing. I understand that handguns are still available for target shooters in Australia so legal ownership, while restricted, is still possible.

Your figure would suggest that it is possible for guns to be legally held by civilians without the community breaking down into a frenzied, murderous bloodbath. I can almost sense some of the posters in this thread frothing at the mouth at that kind of heretical suggestion

Do you lack any ground to stand on so feel the need to twist peoples posts or did his Aussie accent throw you off the mark?

It's because of the way we are & our gun laws that he has only seen 2 gunshot victims, if we were like Americans & everyone was scared & carrying concealed then we would have much more of a problem, probably something like America, then again maybe it's only Americans who can't be trusted to have guns.
How many gun shot victims would someone in a major trauma emergency department for 8 years in say LA or NY see?

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
Do you lack any ground to stand on so feel the need to twist peoples posts or did his Aussie accent throw you off the mark?

It's because of the way we are & our gun laws that he has only seen 2 gunshot victims, if we were like Americans & everyone was scared & carrying concealed then we would have much more of a problem, probably something like America, then again maybe it's only Americans who can't be trusted to have guns.
How many gun shot victims would someone in a major trauma emergency department for 8 years in say LA or NY see?

No twisting of posts or misunderstanding of accents needed. Your follow up "correction" is pretty much the point I was making. You can own guns without shooting up the town - only 2 gunshot victims in 8 years backs this up. The gun doesn't cause the problem, the problem is caused by what people decide to do with the gun. In this case, Aussies appear to have decided to be responsible with their firearms.

I didn't think it was that difficult an idea to understand. Once again, ATS has caused me to reevaluate things.

Originally posted by Pinke
You would have to compare this to numbers per 100, 000 to actually get a rate. Populations etc have increased since 1981 to 2010 ergo comparing straight numbers won't be accurate. You would also have to do it over time.

That said, the difference between 8 and 40 is surprisingly meaningless in the populations we're talking about. Swimming pools kill more people.

True, quoting per 100,000 would give it more context but perhaps I didn't set out the basis of the comparison properly.

The main point I was aiming to make wasn't that firearms violence had increased, but that it had increased despite handguns and semi auto rifles being completely banned in the intervening period. Not a little increase, not an increase in proportion to the increase in population, oh no. It increased by a factor of 5. It's hard to argue that gun control solves all problems when the country with some of the most draconian controls in the world managed to see gun deaths increase by 400% since those controls were enacted.

While each death is a tragedy, I accept that statistically these numbers are a drop in the ocean, but this leads on to another point - we did not and do not have a realistic problem with gun crime from legally held weapons. We have had a handful of tragic incidents using firearms but these were situations where someone was going to commit murder regardless.

It is true that a complete restriction would have saved some lives but that leads us to the proportionality argument. Is it truly worth it "if it saves a single life"? How many people would jump and yell "yes" while completely ignoring this argument when it applies to something they like.

How about this: let's ban alcohol. I don't drink and I see many people who end up in a lot of trouble because of alcohol. Alcohol addiction destroys families, destroys lives, destroys bodies. People get drunk and get violent, or commit crime, or become victims of crime. People get drunk and drive, they kill themselves and other road users or pedestrians. Think how many lives could be saved by banning alcohol. Seriously, the numbers would be epic. It is inconceivable that we could allow alcohol to continue to be sold.

Wait, what's that? You like having a drink? You manage to have a drink and a laugh with friends on a regular basis without becoming addicted, without driving, without getting into fights? You're saying "why should I, a responsible social drinker, have that taken away because someone else can't control themselves?" After all, alcohol has only one function - to inhibit the functioning of the brain. How is it ever possible for that to be a good thing? Think how many lives could be saved if you weren't being so self-centered and saying "BAW BAW BAW I WANT MY BEER BAW BAW". You have to lose out because some other people can't be trusted. As a happy side effect, firearms-related deaths would probably also drop if we didn't have alcohol or other drugs.

(that's not aimed at the person I'm replying to, by the way, it's to the world at large)

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
We can't own them for purposes such as home defense/fighting the gov or just because it's cool, we can however have them for sport, hunting, & work needs farmer etc.
.

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

Well then, you've pretty much gutted the US Second Ammendment. You see, a major part of why we are not only permitted, but have a Constitutional guarantee to a right to bear arms, is specifically to ensure that we can fight tyranny within our own government.

The second reason, as can be attested to under "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground", is self defense , defense of the home and defense of loved ones.

Why should ANY government have the power to tell you that you have no right to defend yourself against their tyranny or threats of violence against you, your family or your home? That doesn't make you the least bit suspicious? Shame on you!

Parting thought... A great American forefather stated something to the effect that "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security will receive none and deserve neither!"

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
We can't own them for purposes such as home defense/fighting the gov or just because it's cool, we can however have them for sport, hunting, & work needs farmer etc.
.

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

Well then, you've pretty much gutted the US Second Ammendment. You see, a major part of why we are not only permitted, but have a Constitutional guarantee to a right to bear arms, is specifically to ensure that we can fight tyranny within our own government.

The US 2A was born out of a very different situation and approach. Australia has been influenced far more heavily by the UK in that respect. While people point to the English Bill of Rights as introducing a RKBA it was born out of a very different situation and is nothing to do with the US RKBA, other than some minor commonality of language.

One issue I take is the need for reasons. I don't ask anyone to explain why they want to drive cars or play sports and then judge them on their answer. Shooting is a hobby for me. "Because I want to do it and I am responsible enough to do it" is all the answer I should need to give. In fact the only answer I should need to give is "because I don't have a conviction or mental health problem that might prohibit me; my reasons are none of your business" but that might be a little harsh

Originally posted by spoogemonkey

My sincere question to the american gun advocates is: what do you think would happen if you used your guns against your tyrannous (for arguments sake lets say they are) government? Do you truly believe that the 2A will allow you to rise up? and why hasn't that happened yet? Not enough tyranny? seems like staging a peaceful protest over there is hard enough.

I personally feel it's too late for the US to impose more restrictive gun laws. It's too ingrained in your culture.

Excellent question!

The modern disparity between civilian and military weaponry is massive, far beyond the 18th Century. Further factors that worked in favour of the colonies are also no longer applicable - the British had to support an army from across the ocean using 18th Century logistical technology, the colonials had support from other European countries, etc.

On the other hand, there is a large population including vets with the ability to bring military training, technology and innovation to the fight. A trained and well supplied military could wreak havoc but with a big enough uprising it would become a war of attrition. Also you would be asking the military to fight their own people which might lead to hesitation - though I'm sure that hesistation would disappear once the first bullets start flying at them or IEDs take out a patrol.

As it stands, as long as people get wound up and act in isolation they will always be kept under control. The worst situation would be a big enough group that was able to plan and coordinate in secret. A massive difference between "then and now" is that the government can be on top of these groups very quickly and stop them from growing; the current ability of the government to monitor and react is lightyears beyond the 18th Century. It's not as simple as rousing the populace by distributing anonymous leaflets anymore; getting a message out effectively leaves traces both in terms of who is broadcasting and who is receiving that message.

I also think that many people (not just in America) are so used to the comfort and security of our technologically-enhaced lives that the harsh reality of war and the suffering that would follow with it is too much for people to stomach in our first world.

In my opinion, any second American Revolution would fail and the outcome would be a massive escalation in government suppression. It would fail not because of lack of spirit or bravery amongs the fighters but because there are no uncontrolled lines of communication suitable for organising on the necessary scale to overcome the governmental advantage, combined with a general population that hasn't lost enough (and still has far too much to lose0 to feel there is a reason to support revolution.

Besides, there is still the ballot box.

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

Myth actually. The United States is far higher in all of these categories including in terms of per capita, to deny so would be stupid.

Originally posted by JoshBaker
This guy is so right. I Live in the south of the UK and I honestly have never ever seen a gun in my life. We do not need them. How can countries with legalized guns feel at all safe?. I don't think they have thought the situation through. In that video they said somebody ran into a persons house and robbed the house. Nobody died. The man was arguing that if he had a gun he could have shot the robber. Are they #ing crazy? Property isn't worth somebodies life , even if they are doing something awful. The robber needs civilized punishment and help.

As far as i know the only people who own guns in the UK are farmers and chav 'gangsters' who feel 'big' with a gun in their back pocket.
Reading through this thread has seriously questioned the sanity of this world. Having a gun doesnt make you safe , it makes you a coward.
Also the London riots were bad , imagine if most people actually had guns. It would be a #ing massacre!.

You don't see legally-owned guns because the people who legally own them tend to be responsible, which includes not waving them around at people. There are gun clubs and varmint hunters up and down the country and several major shooting competitions held each year. Try a google search for ranges in your area, you might be surprised.

I'm not threatened, I don't need a firearm for defence or to ward off rustlers or raiders. I own one because I enjoy target shooting and have done for decades. It's not about "need" - let's be honest, none of us "need" a fraction of the things we own. If we come down to arguing about "need" then there really isn't a "need" for any of us to drive cars or drink alcohol either, as they are either a simple convenience in the first case and a method of relaxation in the second.

Our local gangs, on the other hand, appear to have a bigger armoury than our local police. This is not and never will be a matter of making guns "more" illegal because the gangs have no legal grounds for having firearms anyway. The people who will use them to break laws will have broken laws to get them in the first place.

Edited to add: And of course London has guns, they even have a specilist unit dedicated to firearms crimes. The whole riot thing kicked off because the police stopped a man who they believed was carrying a firearm.