The sign - not meant to be taken literally - is just bloody ridiculous
Call me simple – lots of people do – but I have this strange theory that if guns were banned there would be fewer people killed.
I dunno how I came to this conclusion but I think it was prompted by this ironic looking sign at the site of the shooting range in Colorado USA where the 29 yearold twin sisters on holidays from Victoria went for a little family outing and decided for some reason to shoot each other (or shoot themselves) in the head.
I dont want to make light of this tragedy and add to anyones pain but the girls seem to have taken the sign to mean ‘This is where you can shoot your family’. I’m only surprised it does not carry the tag: ‘The family that shoots together stays together .. dead or alive’.
Anyway one of them is dead and the other critical but I get the distinct feeling that if it were not for the freely available access to guns neither of them would have come to grief. Oh sure, if it was a suicide pact as has been speculated, they could have decided to do it some other way like jumping off a cliff but I still think guns make it too easy for people to die.
America will never get rid of them because it is in their constitution that they have a ‘right to bear arms’ and they sure take their constitutional rights pretty seriously over in the good ol’ USA.
But what is our excuse for not outlawing guns here in Australia? There is nothing in our constitution to say we are allowed to have them for ‘protection’. Gun-owning is a legislated right but it can and should be taken away.
Its not like we dont also have a problem with people finding themselves dead as a result of the easy access to guns. Even 16 year olds. Recently in northeast Victoria one 16 yearold kid was killed in a shooting accident when his 16 yearold mate mistook him for a rabbit.
What the f*ck were two 16 yearolds doing with rifles? Alone, without supervision. Dumb parents. Maybe the guns were presents?
There was another incident not long ago in the same area involving a 19 yearold copping a stray bullet and a short life. And a woman brushing her teeth was recently mistaken for a deer and is now 6 feet under.
Then there are the people who are murdered by guns. It happens often and in most cases (in my opinion) those murders would probably not happen if a gun were not handy. So many murders are spur-of-the-moment and what is just a drunken argument or domestic can end in death if there is a lethal weapon like a gun in the house – or in the ute.
Okay, I hear you say that the miscreants could also use a knife but why add to the arsenal? Plus its a lot easier to pull a trigger from a distance than to plunge a knife into someone from close range. A lot less gruesome too – could you stab someone? I couldnt, the thought revolts me.
And how would pricks like the Morans & Williams of the underworld have wielded so much power (and killed so many people) if they had not had guns? They would have had far less ability to commit their crimes and stand over people.
Drug dealing, robberies and a whole lot of other serious crimes would be severely threatened if there were no guns – what a loss!
Look I reckon its fairly simple: Make it illegal to own or possess a gun and give stiff sentences for having them. Like 5 years jail for the first offence, 10 for the second and 20 for the third.
Pretty soon the message would get across and if it didnt, well at least we would have most of the serious crims in jail for possessing guns. Its a much easier crime to get a conviction on.
Oh I forgot about the farmers who reckon they need guns to shoot vermin etc. Well stuff the farmers they can find some other way to kill their farm pests. Farmers commit murder and accidentally shoot people too.
Just ban all guns. Its really that simple.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Ok. You’re simple.
Guns are tools. They are used to kill things that’s true, but they are only tools.
If we ban them there will still be times when people who wish to kill other people or themselves, will use other tools.
I remember that shortly after the Hoddle St murders in Melbourne that there was a truckie at Ayres rock who rammed his truch into a diner and killed 6 or 7 people.
Don’t remember anyone standing in front of the nation in flack jacket calling for the compulsory acquisition of Macks.
Thank you for your comment Charlie. I was starting to think my polioemic on banning guns was just so good – and right – that everyone must be agreeing with me. You know, like if no one says nothing then that means they aint got nothing better to say. My theory anyway.
As for your theory we cannot ban motor vehicles because they have what is called a real primary purpose which is to move people and stuff … without killing them. But guns primary purpose is to kill. Kill. And kill. Dont you think?
Other tools? Well yeah they could use a hammer to kill. A hammer is a tool. But you gotta get up mighty close and swing it pretty hard to actually kill with one. A lot harder to do.
You see Charlie I sorta cant get passed this logical equation can you?:
No gun = no bullett = no one shot = no one dead.
BTW a hammer has a primary purpose other than to break skulls which is to hammer nails. And crack nuts. Not your nuts. So we can not ban them.
We can ban guns though and who would be worse off? You can still use a hammer if you really want to kill someone.
Sorry Socky, but that’s not a reason to ban or to allow anything. I’m not able to get my hands on a real lot of semtex. Semtex’s primary purpose is not to kill people, it’s primary pyrpose is as a tool to bust rock and other hard stuff, like my mother in law’s toe jam. However the guvmnt realises the possibility of the tool being used to kill and they therefore ban its use except by those with a seriously difficult to get permit.
However we don’t ban it do we.
The firearm’s primary purpose is not to kill people. At least not in the hands of 99% of its users it isn’t. Certainly not in mine. However, I agree there is a real potential for people to get killed by guns and so I have no issue what so ever with there being strict rules regarding their ownership and use.
The idea that you might stop, or even reduce the number of murders/killings/suicides by banning the gun is like saying that you’ll stop adultery by banning bikinis.
People what wanna kill other people will do it wiv sticks or their bare hands if they really wanna do it.
I like to shoot stuff. About 20% of what I shoot at is alive and when I shoot at alive stuff, make no mistake, the intention is to make it not alive any more ASAP. BUT – I’m not gunna make people my targets. Well except if they is leftys, but they are not strictly people. Carlton supporters the same. But I aint shooting at them coz some of em have family that aint lefty and aint Carlton folks and they don deserve to be sad.
Just kiddin.
Carlton supporters don’t have family.
Anywho.
If I wish to own and use a firearm, and I can prove I am responsible and lawful enough to own it there is no realistic reason for you, or anyone else to prevent me owning and using it, or them. Thousands more people die on the roads each year than die from guns. And we don’t ever contemplate the banning of the car. We regulate the use of them in order to reduce the death toll, but we recognise the right and the need for people to use them and own them.
You’re actually quite wrong on this one.
A car has a good purpose and without a car Charlie we are most of us (nearly everyone) a lot worse off. Guns as you point out the obvious are designed to kill things. Nothing else. They have no other raison de entree. How many people would be worse off (and how) if they could not own a gun? Your life would be pretty much the same as it was before would not it? I think so. Not killing things will not make you a lesser man.
And so would everyone elses life be the same except for gun murder victims who would be better off because they would most likely not be dead (I already covered the bit about guns being much more deadly and convenient so the argument that killers will kill regardless does not 100% wash. It does not 50% wash).
And the people (a whole freakin lot of them) who get accidentally shot every year – even though they look nothing like a deer or a rabbit – they would not get hurt at all if there were no guns, now would they? You cant argue against that – it’s an open & shut lay down win on my side.
Oh and you have not addressed my other winning argument about how banning guns would reduce other serious crimes because underworld shitheads like Moran & Williams would be more impotent.
I think you are quite very wrong on this one.
Sock
You seek to presume too much.
I don’t kill things to make me a man or to make me more of a man. I rarely kill things these days as it is, but i regularly shoot. I put holes in small bits of paper from a very very long ways away. I do that as a source of recreation. I designed and built a lot of the firearms I use to do this and I make my own ammunition. I spend hours and hours creating and testing and planning what I do with the guns I have and I love the challenges that the sport sets me. Aside from that I have numerous sporting and social interactions with people of all ages while doing all of the above.
I have every right to all of that because I am a responsible and analy careful firearm owned. Your wish to remove that right from me would indeed change my life and the lives of very many decent and respectable people I know.
People who are determined to kill other people will use a stick, a stone, a rope, a pencil if they really want to kill them. Hell – the greatest mass murder in history was committed with a houshold pesticide and the worst mass murder in our recent history was performed with Boings.
Firearm homocide in Australia is running at about .44/100,000 population. It is a significantly smaller number than the number of people who die while lawn bowling.
I’ll add to my deconstruction of your argument lated Sock, but now I have to go.
Even if guns were banned outright, do you guys honestly believe that would solve the problem ? You both touched on it, the “underworld” can seem to get their hands on all the fire arms they want, legal or not, so a presumption that the magic “ban” would solve that problem is muted. Victoria tried it after Hoddle Street from memory ? Just how is that working out ?
You guys forget the very old, tried, but very true maxim in your arguments above ?
Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people !
Ok busy time done.
People getting accidentally ingured and killed – where O where do I start?
Electricity? Too easy. Ban it. (greenies want it banned)
Cars? Covered that. Ban (greenies are on that case now too)
Bikes? See cars. Ban (it will only get worse if the greenies win on cars)
Plastic bags? Little kiddies make hats out of em and – DIE in about 2 minutes flat. Ban. (greenies hate em)
Guns? Ban. (greenies absolutely detest them – Except when they are used in Jihad against the west.)
Holy shit Sock! I just realised – you need to be a greeny.
And your argument re Williams and guns?
Big fat Carl died at the hands of a piece of gymnasium equipment. There are no regulations against the use and ownership of dumbells Sock. They are even permitted in maximum security prison and they kill people. You should see what the Toxic Avenger did with a leg press.
I think you’ll be busy extracting your tail from your ample (because you can’t ride a banned bike or use a banned dumbell) butt hole for the rest of the day. So I’m off to finish the work I started this morning.
Catcha.
I do not presume nothing Charlie. You have said that shooting at “stuff” and “live things” makes you feel good about yourself and if the law is changed and takes your “sport” away you will not feel so good about yourself. I said it will not make you feel a lesser man. That is called an opinion not a presumption.
You can quote the numbers from the sporting association pro gun people if you like but you should include all deaths from firearms which in Australia over the past 10 years is about 5000 people. Dead because they were shot. By a gun.
And if guns were banned I say that most of those 5000 people would still be alive.
Please dont keep saying cars & planes kill more people because we already know that. But we cannot ban cars & planes. We can ban guns and we should. No one will be worse off. Not even you.
Sax, guns are not banned in Victoria and my point is that if just having one is a crime then the underworld will be in jail. Read my post again.
Sax has a really good point.
Banning stuff?
Won’t work for the underworld.
Most of the stuff they do is banned. That’s why they are the underworld Sock. They don’t conform with the bans. Speed and extacy are banned. Underworld? Awash with both. Point made. Sockpuppet tail incerted further.
I hope it’s not like a stegasaur’s tail with spines on it.
Unless you are a member of a club, then guns are illegal except for very stringent qualifying regulations Socky ? These new laws were introduced, as a knee jerk reaction after Hoddle St.
Some of those regulations for those who are abiding by the laws ?
* Weapons must be kept in a approved lockable safe
* Ammunition must be stored in a lockable device, separate from the weapon
* A written test must be passed before receiving a shooting licence, sporting or otherwise.
* Owners, as well as their weapons, are registered on a database, as is their locations with local police etc.
* semi automatics are banned, unless crimped down, so only one shot can be fired at a time.
* Recreational shooters have to be a member of a club.
* Farmers, or anyone outside the system, who require a fire arm, have to apply to even purchase a firearm, along with the purpose for firearm. The same regs above apply re storage etc.
and those are only the few I can remember.
What more do you suggest ? You want to take all guns from the street, and I like you idealism, but it would be the same as trying to ban cigarettes ? That hasn’t worked out either has it ?
Yeah yeah guys but listen:
5000 people are dead by guns over 10 years and most of those were with registered guns.
The stringent requirements to get a license to own one Sax just demonstrates how deadly they are.
So I repeat: 5000 people are dead and could have been undead.
If guns were banned.
You guys make no case for owning one. You just try to “deconstruct” my case for banning. But it is indestructible.
5000 dead people say so.
“I do not presume nothing Charlie.”
Double negative = “I presume everything.”
“………..You have said that shooting at “stuff” and “live things” makes you feel good about yourself ”
Now you’re makin’ stuff up. Please quote me?
Your “opinion” is based on presumption, and now seems to have moved to being based on inventions.
“………deaths from firearms which in Australia over the past 10 years is about 5000 people. Dead because they were shot. By a gun.”
Most of them at their own hand. They’ll do it other ways if they really want to so most would still be dead if the gun was banned.
But in that same time more than 8 road deaths per 100,000 population has been the average in Australia. In that same more than 15000 Australians were killed in cars.
And if cars were banned I say that most of those 15000 people would still be alive.
But we cannot ban cars & planes?
Well I never mentioned planes except in the context of them being flown into buildings deliberately as a murder weapon and we’ve banned murder for a while now, but why not ban them if the argument for banning stuff revolves around the numbers of people killed by their missuse? That’s your argument in total Sock. So why not ban cars and hammers and knives (those are buggers of things, but usefull for extracting a tail from a venute shoot)?
Point by strangled point and then i really need to go.
5000 people are dead by guns over 10 years and most of those were with registered guns.
Most at their own hand, most would be dead if not for the gun coz they wanted to be dead.
The stringent requirements to get a license to own one Sax just demonstrates how deadly they are.
True. Same true of semtex, general anaesthetic drugs and plutonium. As it should be.
So I repeat: 5000 people are dead and could have been undead.
Most were dead at their own hand and would be dead anyway.
You guys make no case for owning one.
Well actually I did make one, but you’re welcome to attempt to discuss it rather than pretend it didn’t exist if you like.
You just try to “deconstruct” my case for banning. But it is indestructible.
Only by children under 3.
5000 dead people say so.
Oh – argument as Clairvoyance.
Socky speaks with the dead and invents the statement of his debating opponanats.
Best we keep him away from guns.
Again, I applaud your tenacity Socky, but there is always another old adage,
You can’t legislate against stupidity, or the criminally minded.
That is exactly why the requirements are so strict Socky ?
Lets fact it, responsible ownership requirements can apply to nearly anything we buy in our society these days. I think your selective arguments against gun ownership, are discriminatory, and somewhat pointless. After all, look at what happened in Victoria when they tried it ? A total failure.
We still live in a somewhat free society Socky. You can’t ban anything outright that can kill someone. Sh*t, everything would be banned. You can only legislate as best you can, to reduce the risk to a manageable level .
Finally, as I have a hop to take, there are many reasons as to why someone wants to own a firearm. They have been brought to light, as I said, when Victoria attempted to ban all firearms. There are many more frightening weapons out there, and the weird thing is, most of them are legal. Concentrating on gun ownership and the banning of it is a fruitless exercise, well tried, and well failed. All we can do, as a responsible society, is to legislate as best we can, the conditions under which weapons are imported, sold, and used. That is being done, and for my money, quite sufficient. Again, you can’t legislate against the criminal element or stupidity, but hell, gun ownership is way down on a bloody long list in that department ?
Charlie you said “I like to shoot stuff”. And then you said “I spend hours and hours creating and testing and planning what I do with the guns I have and I love the challenges that the sport sets me.” Which sounds pretty much to me that gun owning & shooting makes you feel good. And I said it will not make you a lesser man (person) which is my opinion not presumption.
But this is a super size presumption you make here about people who suicide by gun Charlie:
“They’ll do it other ways if they really want to so most would still be dead if the gun was banned.”
People can feel suicidal one day or one hour or one minute and not the next. But if a gun is in the cupboard or the ute its just too easy to do it at that moment they are at there lowest. They might regret it later but if they have a hole in there head and there brains are splattered on the wall they cannot undo it and change there minds. Or get help.
Guns make suicide (and murders and accidents) too easy Charlie and you are kidding me if you think the numbers of dead people would be exactly the same if guns were banned.
You are going in circles Charlie and still talking about road deaths and other ways people die but I have already “deconstructed” all that and all your other arguments but you are still not making a case for owning a gun.
Sax the numbers of deaths by guns came down by 50% in the years after Howard changed the laws after Bryant went nuts down in Tasmania. By half Sax. So the next logical step is outright banning. No you cannot legislate against stupidity so why have a law that allows people to do stupid things with a gun – because they still do. 5000 dead in the last 10 years Sax. All done by stupid people with guns. But stupid people will not be able to get there hands on them hardly at all if they are outright banned. There is no faulting that argument Sax.
I liek work too Sock, but that doesn’t mean i do it to make me feel good or that i think myself more of a men because of it.
In fact i don’t know one man – of decent dispossition that is – who does anything to feel more of a man. That’s wank talk or man hating woman crap.
Ok now, in addition to talking to dead people you are talking crap.
If someone is truely suicidal they will use a rope a knife or the ute itself. The gun doesn’t change that. The gun is simply the tool they use because it is there. take it away and they’ll use one of the other tolls. It’s now your argument that the gun made them suicidal. CRAPOLA 101.
The case for owning a gun for most owners is exactly the same as the case for owning a surf board, a set of golf clubs, a motorbike or a bow and arrow.
For others it is the same as owning a hammer, a screw driver or a spanner.
Your case for banning it is restricted to the number of people killed by them and has now moved to focus on the protection of the mentally ill.
Siucide rates in society have risen while gun ownership has fallen so that point looks shakey too.
More people get killed by heaps of other things and I can’t hear you calling for banning those.
Missed your last comment Charlie which was much the same as you said before. I will just respond to your minor other comments:
1. What case did you make for owning one? That you liked shooting as recreation? That is all you said. Not a strong case. Some people like driving at 200 kmh on the freeway – for “recreation” – but we stop them and ban that activity and they are no worse off. They are better off because they are alive and so are the people who might get killed by cars going 200 kmh. You would be no worse off as a person if you could not have a gun Charlie. That is my opinion and just saying you “like” to own one does not justify owning one.There is no useful purpose for owning one that cannot be substituted.
2. I do not speak on behalf of the 5000 dead people who are dead by guns over about the last 10 years. They cannot speak. They are dead. But I reckon there familys loved ones & friends as well as the more clear thinking people would not want them dead by guns and would be happy that they could not have been shot by one. If they were banned. So 5000 dead people do in effect say that guns should be banned – the statistic and fact says it not the corpses.
The fault in the argument is that of those deaths most were suicides. Not stupid people. Sick people. Who would have done that deed another way gun or not.
That FACT regarded – your argument GAWN.
1) We don’t ban cars capable of 200km/h. I don’t want to shoot on the freeway Sock.
I shoot in the range and the bloke who want to go 200 is given access to a racetrack. His car is not banned. (Socky’s heart sinks.)
2) You said that they could speak.
“5000 dead people say so.”
SockPuppet says:
November 19, 2010 at 10:21 am
MOST of those people died at their own hand. They would more than likely be dead anyway and they would say “Yes” not “No” because dead is what they wanted to be.
I agree that their families would say otherwise, but none of them killed themself on my range or with my guns.
Charlie you keep adding comments while I am typing a response to you so I have to do it again. Do you think its he who wont shut up who wins or something. You are just repeating yourself.
1. I think you should get over the “lesser man” bit Charlie. You are making more out of that than what I meant and you are creating what is called a diversion.
2. I did not say the gun makes people suicidal. I said having one makes it too easy to suicide. What, do you think they could kill themself with a hammer? People do go up and down in emotions you know and suicide usually occurs at that lowest point. What stops suicide is intervention and help and what provides intervention and help is time. But if the gun is right there there aint no time for that to kick in and its just “bang” head blown off. No going back. I am getting tired of explaining this clear logic to you.
3. I am not sure about banning a bow & arrow but I don’t reckon people suicide with them. Pretty hard to do. The case for owning a gun for “sport” or “recreation” is not the same as the case for owning other things like a surfboard, golf clubs, or motorbike for sport or recreation. Deaths by those things are not connected to there raison de entree, there main function. The raison de entree and main function of a gun is to kill.
*Yawn*
4. My point about banning driving cars at 200kmh was to show you that “recreation” is not a justification for a pursuit. Your only reason for owning a gun is saying you should be able to have that “recreation”. I am saying if that “recreation” was a banned one you would not be worse off and society would be better off because then NO ONE could own a gun and kill people with one. Your recreation is a small price to pay for better safety for all I think.
I am not going to continue this argy bargy in your style of rapid fire, repeating yourself and circular argument.
You have not made a good case for owning a gun. “Recreation” is not strong enough. Find a better argument to SUPPORT gun ownership or leave it at that please.
1) Trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube eh?
You said it. Bloody stand by it you whimp. And be judged on your arguments and not retreat from them because you’re shown to be wrong.
Or have the good grace to apologise?
2)Unfortunately I know about 4 people who were my friends or close acquaintances who’ve killed themselves. None by a gun. @ of them were gun owners BTW.
I have a mate who does CSI and I just gave him a call and he said less than half of the suicids he attends (which is about 30% of those in a large community of over 200,000) are by gun. Women almost never. Fathers almost never. Old people almost never.
Given that most gun deaths are suicides and that most suicides are not by gun, you have little basis to continue either argument.
3)The main reason for the gun is to kill game. It’s main use, that is the thing that most rounds get used for, is to put holes in bits of paper. I’m aware that it can kill in the wrong hands, but so can anything.
4)You can’t seperate the two.
We ban the use of the car at 200 on the freeway, but not the car. There are cars capable of 300+ km/h which are legal on the street, but you can’t drive them that fast.
We ban the use of the gun in the street, but not the gun. No gun is allowed on the street. As it should be.
” I am saying if that “recreation” was a banned one you would not be worse off and society would be better off because then NO ONE could own a gun and kill people with one.”
but not saying if motor sport “recreation” was a banned one that people would not be worse off and society would be better off because then NO ONE could own a fast car and kill people with one.
You’re happy to regulate on sport you agree to be deadly dangerous, but ban another that is no more dangerous.
Finally. You have mentioned 5000 gun deaths at least a dozen times above.
But you just go right ahead and accuse others of repeating themselves.
Recreation is as good a reason for owning a gun as it is for owning a car that goes 200k.
Ban em both or ban neither.
Here is the deal I will give you on my post Charlie:
1. You take the rest of the day to make all your points. You can do what most people do and think about what you want to say first and then try to put it all in one clear polite and respectful coherent post. Or you can just make multiple rapid fire repetitive posts and talk over me .. like you have been doing. You can also put in a lot of irrelevant pedantic semantic crap … like you have been doing. Your choice. But just get it all said.
2. I will wait until later today. About 9pm. And then I will respond to the whole lot.
3. That will be the end of debate between you & me on this hot topic.
4. My post my rules.
Hardly a convincing way to win or even battle an argument Socky. Play by my rules, or no one plays ?
Thought you were above that sort of crap.
Sax he has made 12 of the 26 comments here and he keeps commenting before responses can be made. I am not trying to win the argument but Charlie has hijacked the thread and does not debate proper – anyone can see that. So he can have another go (as many as he likes) until 9pm then after that I will not argue with him and the audience can form there own opinions. Its not like we dont know where he stands on the issue and he is welcome to say that but his nitpicking and semantic crap is not going to be tolerated okay? He is what is called obsessive Sax.
I agree 90% with the Sock on this one, although I do think that farmers alternatives for vermin are all pretty indisciminate. Trapping and baiting are both as likely to kill the native wildlife as the vermin and take longer and be more stressful – I’m pretty sure the PETA police don’t approve of em…
so maybe an exmeption for them, (and heck if anyone can argue some other fringe cases then fine) otherwise I agree with Socky – ban the gun!
Thank you PKGum. I am still not sure farmers should be exempted but I will not argue you on that. I have to answer – for the last time – Charlie HJ Milburn who has made a lot of comments here and who I said I would give one last response to and leave it at that with him. So:
Apologise for what? For saying “Not killing things will not make you a lesser man”? I have told you that was an opinion not a presumption about your manhood and not a personal attack. It is what is caled a general opinion and if you take that personally that is your problem. Have you stopped to think what is says about you to have such a hissy fit about it? Now in future do not make semantic & pedantic rubbish like that on my posts. I will delete any of your comments that are so prissy like that.
I have already covered this. There are a lot of suicides by gun. And murder-suicides you know where the bloke shoots the wife and kids in a fit of rage and then blows his own head off. It happens too much. I have already pointed out that there would be a lot less of these sort of deaths if guns were banned because they are just too quick & easy for depressed or angry people to carry out on a spur-of-the-moment dumb decision. They cannot regret there anger and calm down after they are dead.
Thats a pretty petty use in my opinion and even if you enjoy that game you will not be disadvantaged if that little game is taken away from you so that other people cannot use guns to murder, suicide or accidentally kill 16 year old rabbit hunters or a woman brushing her teeth in the bush. Thank you for confirming that a gun has a very minor and trivial use and is of no value to society outside of its reason to be which is killing people.
How many times do I have to point out to you that cars cannot be banned because overall they have a very good purpose and perform a great function and a great benefit to society?. unlike a gun which is of NO BENEFIT. We would be far worse off without cars. Banning them would do more harm than good even though people get accidentally killed in them and by them. Banning guns would do much more good and NO HARM WHATSOEVER. Why don’t you get that?
See my answer to “4”.
And that is as far as I will go entertaining your protests to my opinion. You have had your say let others have theres please.
“Stuff the farmers they can find some other way to kill their farm pests.”
Actually STUFF YOU.
What makes your opinion so valuable? You haven’t thought gun control through. This is the most simplistic post on gun control I have read. (Sort of a text version dealing with guns, equivalent of the Greens farmer ad)
No end of waffle about:
“5,000 deaths by gun in 10 years” (but dodging how many are by own hand)
Gun deaths down since the Howard Gun Controls. (But no mention of whether the murder rate has risen or fallen)
Please explain the high Japanese suicide rate, coz it sure isn’t done by guns.
Switzerland has universal ownership of fully automatic military small arms. Please explain why the Swiss aren’t slaughtering each other over traffic disputes.
The USA has lots of gun deaths, but very few in areas where ALL citizens are allowed to carry.
Several years ago Two police officers were shot dead in Melbourne. A payback to the police force from some mobsters. This crime got lots of mention for many reasons, but not for gun control reasons, as the firearm used has never been legally obtainable in Australia.
How would banning guns have prevented that, or any other criminal owning guns that aren’t legally obtainable in Australia?
In future I recommend thinking things through before putting fingers to keyboard.
Hi Steve how is the pub? Thank you for adding your one eyed opinion to my one eyed opinion. We are both one eyed about this it seems.
I will point by point respond to your rant:
1. “What makes your opinion so valuable?” I dunno if its valuable Steve but I think I have on my side a bigger weapon than your gun called logic and clear thinking.
2. It does not matter if it is death by murder suicide or accident. There are about 5000 people dead by guns over the past 10 years. I know that the highest portion of that is suicide but so what I have already explained how guns make suicide too quick & easy with no time for a change of mind or regret or intervention. Simple reality is that there would be a lot less suicides (and gun murders & accidents) if guns are banned. You cannot get around that clear & logical point.
3. People are killed by guns in Japan Swissland & USA too (especially in the USA). What is your point? Are you trying to say its okay because the deaths do not count or something?
4. Yeah Steve there will always be someone who illegally imports a gun if they are banned just like some crims illegally import banned drugs. Should we unban drugs because what is the point, they will just illegally import it anyway?
In future I recommend you use logic not emotion.
Logic and you are strangers. Gun control is illogical.
How is the pub? A lot less safe since that arsehole Howard brought in gun control.
You certainly are one-eyed (Possible Green voter). The Japanese seem to top themselves just fine in wholesale numbers without guns being available. Deal with it.
The Swiss, despite almost universal gun ownership (far more than the yanks) aren’t shooting each other. Deal with it.
Those parts of the USA in which law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry guns have very little gun crime. Deal with that.
Every conservative state government that brought in gun control was voted out at the subsequent election. Most have remained out of power ever since. Deal with that.
What is your suggested alternative for farmers to dispose of injured livestock? I could be flippant & suggest bashing to death with a hammer. But I’ll just leave it at you haven’t thought this through.
You have a fear of inanimate objects (gun – “boo”) you don’t require a gun in your occupation, possession of one wouldn’t make your life easier, then you project this onto the rest of the community. You haven’t thought this through. You are so far removed from gun use that you cannot imagine a reason for it. Yet you condescend to give an opinion. This gives you a lot in common with Greens voters.
Well Steve this is an issue where I tend to disagree with Socky. As much as I hate the idea of Crims and idiots having guns I think that we actually have a fairly reasonable balance between the impossible to achieve and probably excessive total prohibition of fire arms and enough availability for legitimate gun users.
There are legitimate reasons to own and use firearms especially in the country areas.
The United States is an other matter entirely with such a saturation level of guns in the community I tend to think that its a whole different ball game and having a gun for “self defence” has a certain logic to it.
Steve I will ignore your personal attacks & slurs and calling me a Green voter (which is the biggest insult of all – I do not like the Greens) because when people argue like that they are camouflaging that they do not have much substance to what they are saying about the issue which seems to be your problem here.
I will “deal with” what is relevant and deconstruct your stuff:
I am not calling for banning guns in other countries Steve (that is there problem) so you can carry on about Swissland Japan & USA all you like but what you are saying by that is that if guns are more freely available there will be less deaths by guns which is pretty weird logic compared to this: If guns are banned there will be far less deaths by guns. Like, hardly any.
PKD already mentioned farmers maybe should get an exemption to kill vermin or livestock and I said I will not argue him on that because I reckon that is something that needs to be looked at carefully. I still think “stuff farmers” because they also use guns to murder, suicide and accidentally kill innocent kids & women mistaken for game or an animal so I would say if they are to be allowed to have them there would have to be even tighter controls than there are now – like maybe they have to keep there guns locked up at the cop shop and they can only shoot a dying animal by application and under supervision. Whatever – These things can be worked out Steve .. by LOGIC.
Now it is time for you to stop using insults and for you to answer my logical question which is this one:
What is the benefit to society in letting people in Oz own guns?
Sock, you have a lot in common with Greens voters. You don’t get out enough to know how the world works, you have impractible (nay, physically impossible) solutions to real, actual, daily problems, you wish to legislate severe inconvenience onto other people, to satisfy a guilty urge of your own, you have little to no knowledge of your topic, you stand for banning an activity & allowing it only by government licence.
For someone who ticks all the boxes for a Green voter, you seem awfully prickly about the comparison.
It is, and always has been, almost impossible to own pistols in Australia. What few pistols are in the country are VERY tightly controlled. They are controlled right down to having to be locked in gun safes at a remote location (in the pistol club, in the police station, in the army barracks, etc) and their use & where they may be taken is scrutinised out of all proportion. An outbreak of anthrax wouldn’t get any more attention than the location of a pistol.
So please explain why the ban on pistols doesn’t work. Why the rate of pistol crime has gone through the roof. If banning guns reduces the bad stuff that comes with them, there should be no holdups, murders, or anything else done with pistols. (It should be all with single shot hunting shotguns)
Think it through. Gun bans do not work. Try to legally obtain a Glock pistol (same ones the coppers use) and see how you go. If bans worked the Lebanese suburbs of Sydney would be armed with shanghais. Instead they all have a Glock. Why is this?
Why do you advocate for law abiding people to be heavily inconvenienced in the name of a pet theory that DOES NOT WORK?
Steve I will ignore your first ranting 2 paragraphs because they are not relevant to this topic and are what is called a personal attack. The more of that you make the less impact your argument has. Why do gun owners get so angry? Its not a good mix.
I dunno the Greens policy on guns anyway – I think they would be in favour of guns because they want to keep the population down which is why they like euthanasia abortion and people turning gay.
Back to the issue.
Steve you are once again saying there is no point in banning guns because people will get them anyway and still kill themselves & other people with them. I dont think you are right. The two 16 year olds rabbit hunting were not using illegal pistols. The woman brushing her teeth got mistaken for a deer and was shot in the head by a legal rifle. I could get the imperical evidence if you want me to but seeing that you dont produce any yourself I will just give you the acnedote evidence that most people killed by guns are killed by legal guns not illegal ones.
Heavily inconvenienced? Huh?
Anyway I have answered your questions but you have not answered mine. Putting aside the farmers (for now) who needs a gun and why? They are used for either hunting or target practice. Thats about it. How are we – in Oz – any worse off if they are banned? We would be better off and more alive. Letting the public own guns is of no worthwhile benefit to society and having them does more harm (&killing) than good. Obviously. I think that is called a QED.
If you don’t like guns, don’t have one.
There is no need to produce empirical or any other evidence. You don’t know the current gun laws, you don’t know the current firearm policies of any parties, you don’t know the gun laws or their results in other countries.
You don’t even know what guns are used for.
You don’t know anything. Good advice would be to pipe down about that which you do not understand. (And DO join the Greens, you’ll find your mindset has a lot in common with theirs, you’ll feel quite at home).
Critical thinking and analytical skills aren’t your strongpoint are they?
A bit of a reality check for the both of you ?
What instance of “a total banning”, has ever worked on this planet, to eradicate the use of anything considered not in the community’s interest ?
Hmm, nothing as far as I know. “Prohibition” ring a bell ?
As Yoda once said
“Control, control, you must use control !”
Steve that is just a typical response from an arrogant pro-gunner. I won’t “pipe down”. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are yours. The one empirical fact you (and Sax) overlook (although I told Sax this before) is that after Howard introduced tougher gun laws in 96 or 97 the deaths by guns fell by 50%. Repeat: they fell by 50%. What does that tell you? It tells you that if you go to the next step of a total ban the deaths will fall even further. And they need to – 5000 dead in 10 years is too many.
Excellent switch & bait. “Gun deaths down”.
You have already established that deaths per se aren’t your motivation.
What about total deaths? (eg. murder rate) Why aren’t we all safe now?
And why is there one hell of an increase in gun crime? One would have thought that gun crime would drop. Gee… (slap forehead) … perhaps gun crime is being committed by… you know.. criminals.
Criminals just got a free ride from tighter gun control. Despite banning, criminals seem to have little difficulty obtaining guns, and they know their targets are unarmed. Criminals are experts at risk analysis.
I repeat, critical thinking isn’t your strong point.
Time you answered my questions Steve instead of posing leading ones yourself.
“There are a lot of suicides by gun. And murder-suicides you know where the bloke shoots the wife and kids in a fit of rage and then blows his own head off. ”
A lot? How many is a lot? I would doubt that there were more than a dozen or 20 of these annually, nationally. That’s not a lot. I conceed that when a bloke (and it is generally a bloke) does do that he almost always uses a gun, but if you take away the gun, he’ll just drive that car into a dam as happened in Geelong. Of course he whimped it and swam out, but you get the picture.
I agree that it happens too much, but not that it is the fault of the gun.
” I have already pointed out that there would be a lot less of these sort of deaths if guns were banned because they are just too quick & easy for depressed or angry people to carry out on a spur-of-the-moment dumb decision. ”
That’s an opinion, {edited – personal accusation}, but nothing more. There is no data to support that opinion. So like your other claimed opinion here, it is wrong.
” Thank you for confirming that a gun has a very minor and trivial use”
It may seem minor and trivial to you Sock, but that’s only an opinion. The Australians who’s livlihoods rely on the industry directly and indirectly probably would not agree with your assesment of them making their living. I can tell you that I have little time for that assesment of my own hobby.
” ……cars cannot be banned because overall they have a very good purpose and perform a great function and a great benefit to society”
Well the greens would dispute that. And I would point out that the gun has a very good purpose and perform a great function and a great benefit to society also. But my argument is not about the car as such, but cars that go 200km/h. Why not ban them? Especially given that they are statistically far more dangerous that guns?
Thanks for cutting back on the personal & pedantic & semantic Charlie. As you can see I have made a minor edit but you have improved your style a lot here. Keep up the improvement. BTW I have already said my bit to you and I will leave my comment response to you Charlie at that.
Fair enough Sock. The personal accusation you made seems to have slipped through though??????
Oh that? That is just another alias you have used, not a real name. So it’s not a “personal” accusation.
Ditto.