621 replies to this topic

[MissMelsWell]

Michelle, on 18 December 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

I'm seeing a whole different side of you, darlin'. You're right...wildlife is nothing to sneeze at in a lot of places. A dog and a mousetrap will take care of a lot of people's problems.

Oh don't think I'm Pro firearms either... I'm not really. I'm not anti gun either though. For those who want to own a gun, that's ok, as long as they prove they are responsible. To me, this means keeping them out of the hands of criminals, out the hands of children and otherwise mentally incompetent people.. with great freedom comes even greater responsibility.

To me that means keeping them in a combo locked approved gun safe. That combo should not be shared with anyone. My friends who have gun safes use them. And they're impressive. I'm fairly convinced they can't be opened with a stick of dynamite!

One of my aquaintances had a gun in his nightstand for home protection Six weeks ago, his 16 year old son decided to take it out and look at it. My friend no longer has a son. This is profoundly sad. This accident would not have happened if his father had locked that firearm up in a way that made it inaccessible.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 18 December 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[Kafkaesque]

Virginia Tech, the deadliest school shooting in recent US history, was achieved with a Walther 22 and a Glock 19 - two semi-automatic pistols. The "ban fully automatic weapons" argument makes no sense if you want to make an argument for which type of weaponry has produced the most deaths. One shooter, the VT shooter, used pistols, and the CT shooter used a semi-automatic rifle and pistols.

The one using the least deadliest weapons - who had the least amount of weapons, had more kills because of his actions ensuring that no one would escape. If you want to follow that logic, the anti-fully automatic gun argument is flawed. It was already proven that it wasn't the guns of the VT shooter, but his actions as an individual - locking up the doors with chains, that determined the amount of deaths that day. So how could you argue against automatic weapons with that logic?

He was able to kill more people because he chained the doors. Not because he had a deadlier weapon, like an assault rifle - which he did not even have. That's my point in a nutshell. With that logic, it is not the guns, but the actions of individuals, that kill others. So why go on an anti-assault rifle crusade when pistols are clearly the more dangerous, if you want to be fair and follow that criteria?

No matter the time, place, people, or weapons - those who want to kill will do so.

Similar to how those who want to kill themselves have already made up their minds.

You can't make a law to stop people from killing themselves.

Edited by Eonwe, 18 December 2012 - 04:17 AM.

[Black Red Devil]

Sakari, on 18 December 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

I am looking at other Countries, mainly " hunting " sites to see what they offer...

I came across something interesting, very interesting......I urge everyone to read the entire thing.

This is from a Australian Site, not a US.


Australian Gun Laws.
Australians are allowed to own and use firearms for hunting. Much has been made of the tough approach adopted by the Australian Government following the terrible Port Arthur mass murder of 35 people in 1996 and the consequent vilification of Australia's law abiding firearms owners.
The government dictated that the population could not own semi automatic firearms or pump action shotguns except in very exceptional circumstances. Firearm owners were required by law to hand in these types of firearms, compensation was paid according to a valuation on the firearm.
Money for the compensation payments was taxed from the Australian population as part of a compulsory health benefits scheme. In effect, the government stole money from the people ($500m Aus) to pay for guns that they confiscated from law-abiding shooters.
It was an unforgettable experience to stand in a queue with other law abiding, honest citizens to hand in prized and much loved firearms for destruction! The Australian Prime Minister, dressed in a bullet proof vest, stood before a huge gathering of firearm owners and admitted that this disarmament would do nothing to prevent a future civilian massacre.
The Government also dictated that the population could not own firearms for self-defence purposes, and that all firearms needed to be registered and owners licensed. One of the conditions of license was that the licensee has to justify the need for the firearm. Hunting, target shooting, collecting, club use or tools for primary production (farm use, culling etc) are considered legitimate justification, self defence or protection is not accepted by the government as a reason for firearms ownership.
Handguns are not permitted for hunting and are strictly controlled for club or range use only. Only the Military, police or licensed security operatives are permitted to carry handguns in public in Australia. Criminal offences in Australia involving firearms have risen following implementation of these draconian laws. There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".


http://www.chuckhawk..._down_under.htm

Are you serious?  Your link goes straight to a site called Hunting Down Under. It's obvious they weren't going to promote gun law regulations.

Australia hasn't had a mass shooting occur in 14 years since gun regulations were implemented.  Before this, there had been 13, including the Strathfield Plaza massacre which happened in a Shopping Center me and my girlfriend (now wife) used to go to because it was close to where we used to live (in the next suburb). Just pure luck we weren't there on that day.

So there goes the theory that "this disarmament would do nothing to prevent a future civilian massacre".

Below is a statistic from the Australian Govt Institute of Criminology (save time and go to Chapter 2 page 19 if you want evidence)

The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).

http://www.aic.gov.a...BAA}facts11.pdf

The proportion of homicides by firearms has decreased since 1995 despite a 22% population increase.

[Sakari]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 18 December 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Are you serious?  Your link goes straight to a site called Hunting Down Under. It's obvious they weren't going to promote gun law regulations.

Australia hasn't had a mass shooting occur in 14 years since gun regulations were implemented.  Before this, there had been 13, including the Strathfield Plaza massacre which happened in a Shopping Center me and my girlfriend (now wife) used to go to because it was close to where we used to live (in the next suburb). Just pure luck we weren't there on that day.

So there goes the theory that "this disarmament would do nothing to prevent a future civilian massacre".

Below is a statistic from the Australian Govt Institute of Criminology (save time and go to Chapter 2 page 19 if you want evidence)

The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).

http://www.aic.gov.a...BAA}facts11.pdf

The proportion of homicides by firearms has decreased since 1995 despite a 22% population increase.

Don't bother reading the replies I left after that........You may want to now.





here http://www.unexplain...65#entry4585003

Edited by Sakari, 18 December 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Michelle]

MissMelsWell, on 18 December 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Oh don't think I'm Pro firearms either... I'm not really. I'm not anti gun either though. For those who want to own a gun, that's ok, as long as they prove they are responsible. To me, this means keeping them out of the hands of criminals, out the hands of children and otherwise mentally incompetent people.. with great freedom comes even greater responsibility.

To me that means keeping them in a combo locked approved gun safe. That combo should not be shared with anyone. My friends who have gun safes use them. And they're impressive. I'm fairly convinced they can't be opened with a stick of dynamite!

One of my aquaintances had a gun in his nightstand for home protection Six weeks ago, his 16 year old son decided to take it out and look at it. My friend no longer has a son. This is profoundly sad. This accident would not have happened if his father had locked that firearm up in a way that made it inaccessible.

I know you aren't pro gun, hence my surprise. I feel terrible about your friend's son.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to keep guns out of criminal's hands. There was a big uproar in Tennessee a couple of years ago about allowing guns in places that served alcohol. Anti gun activists made it sound like everyone wanted to take them into bars and it was going to turn into the wild west. In actuality, LEO were the main proponents of the law. They didn't want to leave them in their cars, where they could be easily stolen, going off and on duty while stopping to get something to eat. The majority of places to eat serve alcohol so they were severely restricted in their options without leaving their weapons unattended. The law was passed and bars are no more dangerous than they were before.

Those of us that have businesses, where it is prudent to carry, are in the same situation. It's essential that we are able to access them quickly and are forced to leave them in the car while running errands. Even if you buy a fingerprint safe that's bolted in, a thief can steal your vehicle and take all of the time they need to break into the safe. It is a no win situation. There is no way to make guns safe and secure at all times.

Edited by Michelle, 18 December 2012 - 04:53 AM.

[Maizer]

Sakari, on 18 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

18 children were killed
killed seven children and two adults
killed three children and one teacher
young girl and three adults were killed



18+7+2+3+1+1+3 = 35



Yup, 35.

Point here, take away guns, people will still go out and do this awful thing, with different weapons. And for some reason or another, in China it happens more often. With more deaths to your comparison.

Oh my God, dude, try reading the article again. Carefully. The 18 killed INCLUDE the ones coming after it. Christ, you know what, you have a great saying in your profile. Just assume I'm and idiot and stop arguing with me. I would actually prefer that.

And you are seriously comparing 7 attacks with 1? Yeah, lets not argue anymore

[Maizer]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 18 December 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Are you serious?  Your link goes straight to a site called Hunting Down Under. It's obvious they weren't going to promote gun law regulations.

Australia hasn't had a mass shooting occur in 14 years since gun regulations were implemented.  Before this, there had been 13, including the Strathfield Plaza massacre which happened in a Shopping Center me and my girlfriend (now wife) used to go to because it was close to where we used to live (in the next suburb). Just pure luck we weren't there on that day.

So there goes the theory that "this disarmament would do nothing to prevent a future civilian massacre".

Below is a statistic from the Australian Govt Institute of Criminology (save time and go to Chapter 2 page 19 if you want evidence)

The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).

http://www.aic.gov.a...BAA}facts11.pdf

The proportion of homicides by firearms has decreased since 1995 despite a 22% population increase.

Don't bother arguing with him. You'll only extend the limits of your own patience.

[MissMelsWell]

Michelle, on 18 December 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

I know you aren't pro gun, hence my surprise. I feel terrible about your friend's son.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to keep guns out of criminal's hands. There was a big uproar in Tennessee a couple of years ago about allowing guns in places that served alcohol. Anti gun activists made it sound like everyone wanted to take them into bars and it was going to turn into the wild west. In actuality, LEO were the main proponents of the law. They didn't want to leave them in their cars, where they could be easily stolen, going off and on duty while stopping to get something to eat. The majority of places to eat serve alcohol so they were severely restricted in their options without leaving their weapons unattended. The law was passed and bars are no more dangerous than they were before.

Those of us that have businesses, where it is prudent to carry, are in the same situation. It's essential that we are able to access them quickly and are forced to leave them in the car while running errands. Even if you buy a fingerprint safe that's bolted in, a thief can steal your vehicle and take all of the time they need to break into the safe. It is a no win situation. There is no way to make guns safe and secure at all times.

Get a concealed permit and carry it on you, and if you're in no immient danger, a trigger lock might be prudent. I think it's possible that even a trigger lock could have saved my friends son.

[Black Red Devil]

MissMelsWell, on 18 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

Ok, but let's also add that just about everyone I know owns a firearm (ok, maybe 75%) this is because while i live in a big city, I also live in a virtually empty state. People here are outdoorsmen, we're kind of known for that. Pretty much everyone hikes, camps, fishes (and trust me, if you catch a 70lb+ halibut up here, you have to shoot it before hauling into the boat) and hunts. You might be able to make some kind of zealot libtard argument against hunting, but the fact remains that people here do own guns often for very good reasons. It wasn't so long ago that there was a big old black bear running around downtown Seattle. Granted that's rare, but wild animals are no joke in this part of the US and you can run into dangerous wild animal just outside the city limits.. .and sometime IN them.

I think most people who are in favor of gun control, talk about introducing new and stricter regulations, not a full ban.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 18 December 2012 - 07:26 AM.

[Michelle]

MissMelsWell, on 18 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Get a concealed permit and carry it on you, and if you're in no immient danger, a trigger lock might be prudent. I think it's possible that even a trigger lock could have saved my friends son.

We both have concealed carry permits, but that doesn't permit us to carry them into banks and other establishments, which forces us to leave them in the car. The laws have change but people's paranoia hasn't. We are destined to leave them in the vehicles where they are subject to getting stolen with whatever safegaurds to be gotten rid of later.

Did you miss the part where the cops were concerned about the same issue?

Edited by Michelle, 18 December 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[with bells on]

Michelle, on 18 December 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

We both have concealed carry permits, but that doesn't permit us to carry them into banks and other establishments, which forces us to leave them in the car. The laws have change but people's paranoia hasn't. We are destined to leave them in the vehicles where they are subject to getting stolen with whatever safegaurds to be gotten rid of later.

hey Michelle.. im not having a go at you.. just curious about why would you ever feel the need to have a gun with you when you leave the house?? i cant work out the point of it.. are you scared someone will try and rob you as you walk around your town/city??

thanks..

edit.. i just read back a bit and saw that you are a business owner, so that is the reason??

Edited by with bells on, 18 December 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[questionmark]

MissMelsWell, on 18 December 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Oh don't think I'm Pro firearms either... I'm not really. I'm not anti gun either though. For those who want to own a gun, that's ok, as long as they prove they are responsible. To me, this means keeping them out of the hands of criminals, out the hands of children and otherwise mentally incompetent people.. with great freedom comes even greater responsibility.

To me that means keeping them in a combo locked approved gun safe. That combo should not be shared with anyone. My friends who have gun safes use them. And they're impressive. I'm fairly convinced they can't be opened with a stick of dynamite!

One of my aquaintances had a gun in his nightstand for home protection Six weeks ago, his 16 year old son decided to take it out and look at it. My friend no longer has a son. This is profoundly sad. This accident would not have happened if his father had locked that firearm up in a way that made it inaccessible.

And that is the point: Keep the durn things safe. And as to safes, there have been a few cases where the whole safe was taken by burglars but non that the cops would qualify as bona-fide opened the safe.

Not so long ago somebody broke off the key of the wall safe we keep the narcotics in at the AWK clinic. It took the locksmith 4 hours and 7 diamond studded metal grinder blades to get in there. And that was a 150 Euro safe (about $200). No burglar would have taken the risk unless there was something worth hundreds of thousand of dollars in there. And certainly not for a few guns they can buy under the table from some "honorable" citizen.

[Myles]

Maizer, on 18 December 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

I see no more reason for a civilian to own a rifle than to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher, poison gas weapons, or cluster bombs.

That is where I disagree with you.   I own a rifle that I use for a little target practice and to shoot raccoons and other pests.  A rocket propelled grenade launcher would not work for me.

Just thought this might be relevant here:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around the laws" - Plato

[Uncle Sam]

Myles, on 18 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

That is where I disagree with you.   I own a rifle that I use for a little target practice and to shoot raccoons and other pests.  A rocket propelled grenade launcher would not work for me.

Just thought this might be relevant here:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around the laws" - Plato

Besides, who ever heard of using a cluster bomb to kill an raccoon? That would be unnecessary and sadistic.

[AsteroidX]

But is this the direction this country wants to go ? People dont vote for random events. But they do react to these events as if it was on the agenda.