It did not prove an effective barrier to people having the shotguns who wanted them, or criminals having them.
Exactly; why would a criminal pay the tax stamp when it is nearly free (one hacksaw blade) to make one? After all being a criminal they are already fine with breaking laws.
Yeah, its bullshit. I think its mostly so they can do tack-on charges, especially if the court doesn't go their way. Its kind of like switchblade laws. They're not really any more dangerous, but at the time criminals supposedly used them. They were made illegal so that they could at least get them for that if the actual crime couldn't be proven.
I'm increasingly for similarly strict regulation in the US. Not that it matters, but nonetheless my position on guns has moved steadily toward effectively banning them.
I don't believe that laws like those stated in the video are impossible to live with. They are stricter than in Australia but I think of it it in the context of a question - When does a person in society need an item who's sole purpose is to take away life?
It's a silly argument for anyone to say a weapon is only for killing/taking life. It's a silly argument to say we could/could not get rid of all of the guns in a country. It's a silly argument to say we should/should not rely on government to protect us from others/ourselves... And it's very very silly argument to compare any other nation to the United States in terms of gun culture and ownership.
I can't think of any nation that comes close to the same set of circumstances and criteria that one could in any reasonable way or combination, make a valid comparison between country A, and the USA. No comparison of ownership rates, crime rates, usage rates, violence rates, rates of taco consumption, rates of obesity, rates of cat videos watched per hour and/or rates of weapons purchased per second could make a valid argument that Country A does this and gets X result, thus we should try the same in the US, so that we get X result. It won't even be W or Y result. It would end up D,H, and $ results depending on where you look.
You can't even test one method of control in, say, detroit and expect to get the same results in Ann Arbor. What works great in one area will be unsuitable for another.
That, along with the fact that our laws are consistently misrepresented and unforgivably broken, is why I'm slowly getting more and more annoyed with Australia being the Go-to example for effective Gun control laws.
Would you say that a woman with a stalker ex who can't get a restraining order against him shouldn't have a gun? Should a family with an aggressive neighbor who is threatening them but has made no action that would provoke a police response not have a gun? And this may sound paranoid, but should I not be allowed to carry a weapon to protect myself in case of attack? As SWATrous said the argument that just because a tool is designed for the singular purpose of killing doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses. Yes it takes a combination of taking responsibility of your personal safety and government action, but the police have pistols to protect themselves, not you. And permission to bear your own arms, provided you haven't proven that you should otherwise be barred, is guaranteed, at least in America.
Would you say that a woman with a stalker ex who can't get a restraining order against him shouldn't have a gun? Should a family with an aggressive neighbor who is threatening them but has made no action that would provoke a police response not have a gun?
Those people should have locks on their door and a phone accessible.
And this may sound paranoid, but should I not be allowed to carry a weapon to protect myself in case of attack?
Good shoes to run in and something like pepper spray would be more preferable alternatives in my option, to gun.
I admit that I don't know how common violent crimes are in US, but I can't imagine that situations where there are lives on the line, in ether him or them situation, those can't be so common that it would really justify carrying gun around.
Would you say that a woman with a stalker ex who can't get a restraining order against him shouldn't have a gun?
Why can't she get a restraining order or any assistance from the police? A guy who was in a car accident with me threatened to come to my house and violate my female room mate because he didn't have insurance. I went to the police, gave them his phone number address and license number. They immediately made a call to him, a family member and his boss (who's car it was). They asked if they wanted me to go over there as well but by that point I knew it was posturing and didn't pursue it.
Should a family with an aggressive neighbor who is threatening them but has made no action that would provoke a police response not have a gun?
Do you think carrying a weapon is going to inflame the situation rather than talking it out with the family like civilised people? If this doesn't seem to be an option once again going to the police to act as intermediaries or a lawyer. The crazy dude that lives behind us bought a feral cat trap which is illegal in most states of Australia in urban areas due to cat laws (my state was a few months away from finally passing the new domestic cat law), was trapping cats and they were disappearing. My cat went missing and the next morning I heard him vocalising in the distance in response to his name. I drove over there and released him. The dude wasn't home, so I rechecked the city laws regarding the situation then lodged a complaint with the RSPCA. They sent 2 officers down and spoke to the man, took his trap and warned him that when the new laws pass (which they have now) that I could have prosecuted him. No problems since then.
And this may sound paranoid, but should I not be allowed to carry a weapon to protect myself in case of attack?
Why would you be attacked? Could carrying a gun cause a suspicious, paranoid person to accidentally killing someone because they have psychological issues? Couldn't any small event turn a street into a wild west shoot out because everyone is fearful of everyone else? When I lived in Sydney 2 friends and I were in a very unsafe neighbourhood going underneath a train station. We were attacked by 15 or so teenagers because of a stupid joke my friend made to one of them. We fought them off and then went to the emergency room for a stitch up of one of my friend's wounds and some x-rays to make sure there was no serious damage done. No problem it's a funny story I can tell people about.
If I had a gun, how many kids would I have shot and on my conscience? If they had guns we would be dead. I still go for the option of bruises and a good story.
As SWATrous said the argument that just because a tool is designed for the singular purpose of killing doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses. Yes it takes a combination of taking responsibility of your personal safety and government action, but the police have pistols to protect themselves, not you. And permission to bear your own arms, provided you haven't proven that you should otherwise be barred, is guaranteed, at least in America.
The police are a Government service, you pay for this service by paying taxes. There purpose should be to keep the peace. The police have protected me through authority and presence. They have also taken money for speeding traps but that was just me.
America and most countries in confict, chaos or lower levels of development are where you should go to "bear your own arms". No wonder you guys have so many home grown terrorists; and certain parts of the country feel like a warzone.
Would you say that a woman with a stalker ex who can't get a restraining order against him shouldn't have a gun? Should a family with an aggressive neighbor who is threatening them but has made no action that would provoke a police response not have a gun?
Those people should have locks on their door and a phone accessible.
The response time of the police is eleven minutes. In that time they can show up to document the dead body. Pepper spray can work but you better pray your attacker doesn't get a good swing at you in blind rage after being sprayed.
And Skope to answer your questions sometimes the evidence isn't enough to get a warrant in order to issue the restraining order, as they are issued by courts here, and police do not provide round-the-clock protection here. If the neighbor in question doesn't know you have a firearm then it isn't going to escalate right away, and anyway if they're going to be set off by you buying one they were probably close to doing something anyway. As for concealed carry, you must go through twelve hours of training to be certified, in which it is up to the instructor's discretion to say you are to be trusted with such a responsibility. Anyone who is paranoid enough to cause such an issue would exhibit outward signs and therefore not be certified.
I believe in a trained society, so that we don't HAVE to go running to the police every time there's trouble, because in America we don't have a precinct every block and certainly not a police officer on every corner or at every stoop. Also we have a different opinion of authority here, coming from a rebellious heritage, and there are documented cases of calling the police escalating a situation with a deranged person. Yes the police should keep the peace, but if that were the case why are several cities, including Detroit, such shitholes when they have some of the strictest laws on the books? I don't trust in the ability of the police to protect me, which is clearly the complete opposite of your opinion.
You can murder someone with a hammer or shoot tin cans with a gun, neither of which is the "intended purpose" normally. And Japan is a bad example anyway because they have really low violent crime rates regardless of weapon.
I am in favor of pepper spray or a Taser for self defense in many cases because there may be a situation where you need to defend yourself with more than your fists but a gun wouldn't be appropriate, at least in a courtroom. Whats kind of bullshit is here in Michigan a Taser is actually harder to get than a pistol. You need a concealed carry license and then take a special Taser course. Considering I can walk down the street and buy pepper spray for like $8 no questions asked it seems a bit silly.
I am of course all for alternate methods, as most of the time mace or a taser will be just as effective at subduing a perp, but then we get into how litigious Americans are and how you'll likely be sued for assault.
but then we get into how litigious Americans are and how you'll likely be sued for assault.
I'd like to see statistics where, say, 15% of home defenders are successfully sued for assault. That would qualify as pretty litigious, to me. Hell, I'd even take 10%.
Or is that statement not backed up by anything but sizzle-reel news stories? Do you also believe the lady who spilled coffee on her lap at McDonalds was a baby who should've sucked it up?
In my experience, whenever a dude on the internet talks about needing a gun/knife/anything "for protection" there is basically a 100% chance they live in an area where their odds of being attacked by a stranger/felon are pretty much nil.
Now I don't have any statistics to follow up on that but that sprung to mind immediately.
I wouldn't say the woman who sued McDonald's is a baby because I think she did indeed suffer burns from her coffee, but I feel there is a certain extant knowledge that if you order a hot beverage that you should take certain precautions to protect yourself (again getting back to personal responsibility) which she obviously failed to do and I think that is hardly the fault of McDonald's for not mentioning.
And while I myself have not been assaulted crime is actually on the rise in the suburb I live in.
You know, my problem with people carrying for protection isn't that they're carrying for protection, or have almost nil chance of being attacked. The majority of cops won't shoot someone either(even with American cops rather less than proud record of shooting people who probably didn't need shooting), and are far more likely to encounter a situation where they'd need to, or at least where it would be considered a reasonable response to a threat.
It's that even most police(whose training standards I've criticized and even outright mocked before) are better trained to deal with threats than your average CCW holder. I'm okay with people carrying guns around, but the idea of untrained yahoos carrying guns around itching for an excuse(even though that's a small minority of even those untrained CCW holders) gives me the willes a bit. There are knowledgeable, well-trained CCW holders out there, but they're in the minority to the best of my knowledge, and every report to the contrary that I've seen is pretty much just the same yahoos self-reporting that they're hot shit with a shooting iron.
So I guess I agree with Jack, sort of - trained, armed people within the populace isn't a bad thing. It's just that what I'd demand for standards of training are very high, and very strict - carrying a firearm in public is not just a privilege, it's a burden, an incredibly heavy responsibility to shoulder. I've laid out the general idea before, so I'll save the long version this time.
So out of acquaintances and friends I have one in Chicago, one in New York, one in Long Island and one in California. The only person that owns a gun is the girl in California where as the other 3 don't own guns.
The gun owning girl not only has one gun but a collection of pistols and her husband also has an M16, some hunting rifles and shotguns.
Why would one need a military Assault rifle in their home (in a suburb)? Is their an advanced tin can shooting sport I'm missing out on?
How many murder in the 2nd degree or manslaughter chargers are going out to hammer wielders? Are their many mass head cavings? You can't accidentally kill someone with a hammer. I'd be surprised if there were many mass murders by way of hammer.
When I Google for this, I get a gun nut journalist / blogger comparing FBI numbers on hammer (misrepresented as they include all blunt force weapons) deaths vs. rifle (specific sub category of gun). The targeted audience and uneducated are eating it up like a Mississippian at a Chick-fil-A.
You lost me at using the term "assault rifle" so I will just leave it at there being a very different attitude about guns in the US than in the Commonwealth. Also you only have contacts in three of the most heavily restricted states in the union.
I'm done for now, good day.
Okay that was knee-jerk I admit. You did use the proper terminology for an M16 or any intermediate rifle. However, I will offer that possibly that your California friend's husband was in the military and opted to purchase his rifle after his service. I don't know the man so I can't say for sure, that's just what sprang to mind.
All gun restrictions in the US have failed solely because they have been sub-federal. New York a while ago showed that almost ALL of the guns used in crime here were purchased legally in less awesome places where guns are less restricted.
Now I don't have any statistics to follow up on that but that sprung to mind immediately.
I wouldn't say the woman who sued McDonald's is a baby because I think she did indeed suffer burns from her coffee, but I feel there is a certain extant knowledge that if you order a hot beverage that you should take certain precautions to protect yourself (again getting back to personal responsibility) which she obviously failed to do and I think that is hardly the fault of McDonald's for not mentioning.
Did you not understand what I meant by "sizzle-reel news stories?"
I picked the McDonald's lady for a reason, because she was demonized by the far right as an example of our extremely litigious society; they used her case to pass incredibly restrictive tort reform and basically end punitive damages in many states.
But actually it turns out that her 3rd degree burns that could've been fatal. Furthermore:
Testimony showed that the coffee was heated to 180 to 190. At 180 degrees, liquids can cause burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. Coffee served at home is generally 135 degrees. Many commercial establishements serve coffee in the range of 130 degrees to 140 degrees. A burn risk exists with any coffee over 140 degrees.
In 1993 Stella filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s alleging that the coffee was exceptionally hot and that she wasn’t warned about the extreme temperature. During the trial it came out that McDonald’s was aware of over 700 similar claims and had paid out over $500,000 to settle other burn claims.
I chose that case because it's the perfect example of a hype machine that has convinced the public, you included, apparently, that we are suffering an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.
They need to be used and kept by very responsible people. It's very clear that the systems in place do not ensure guns are being handled by responsible individuals.
They need to be used and kept by very responsible people. It's very clear that the systems in place do not ensure guns are being handled by responsible individuals.
In the same way that chainsaws and cars are unsafe yes. Like any tool a firearm is dangerous when treated carelessly or used with intent to harm. When left on a shelf in a case, a firearm is no more dangerous than a rock. So it does matter how you look at it.
They need to be used and kept by very responsible people. It's very clear that the systems in place do not ensure guns are being handled by responsible individuals.
Not going to argue with that one. We need comprehensive reform, but reform that reform needs to be put into place by someone who A) Knows firearms, Cares about improving safety C) Isn't beholden to firearms manufacturers and D) Recognizes that firearms can be owned responsibly.
Unfortunately If such a party exists, they aren't in a position to effect any change.
Something akin to the regulation we have for cars would be nice. Licenses with mandatory testing, universal registration and yearly safety inspections on the firearms, and policemen able to stop someone and issue tickets or even remove a license for things like poor safety and lack of maintenance.
par·ty noun 1: a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest 2: a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government 3: a person or group participating in an action or affair: a mountain-climbing party, a party to the transaction 4: a particular individual : person : an old party approaching 80 5: a detail of soldiers 6: a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it
I have little faith in a political party making much of a difference. the NRA and their opponents have been long established in Washington. The competing anti-gun and pro-gun lobbies make a politician staying neutral about the issue long enough to make up any effective legislation near impossible.
Those same pressures are the reason our current laws suck so badly. Legislation simultaneously bans safe guns owned by responsible people while failing to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals.
I'd be happier if responsible people were denied guns than if irresponsible people were allowed to have them.
As an individual with no need for a firearm and no interest in having one that is a reasonable stance for you to take. By that same token, it's reasonable for someone living in a rural are with both a need and an interest in firearms to take an opposing stance.
Need for a firearm. Interesting phrase. I acknowledge that there any many reasons, some even good, for person to want a firearm, but actual need for it, I don't think exists.
I do not like to say that I'd deny guns from people who like to go target shooting, or hunt, but if that's the price to pay for keeping guns away from hands which would be willing to point the gun to other people, then it's so, sacrifices sometimes have to be made.
Comments
I can't think of any nation that comes close to the same set of circumstances and criteria that one could in any reasonable way or combination, make a valid comparison between country A, and the USA. No comparison of ownership rates, crime rates, usage rates, violence rates, rates of taco consumption, rates of obesity, rates of cat videos watched per hour and/or rates of weapons purchased per second could make a valid argument that Country A does this and gets X result, thus we should try the same in the US, so that we get X result. It won't even be W or Y result. It would end up D,H, and $ results depending on where you look.
You can't even test one method of control in, say, detroit and expect to get the same results in Ann Arbor. What works great in one area will be unsuitable for another.
I admit that I don't know how common violent crimes are in US, but I can't imagine that situations where there are lives on the line, in ether him or them situation, those can't be so common that it would really justify carrying gun around.
A guy who was in a car accident with me threatened to come to my house and violate my female room mate because he didn't have insurance. I went to the police, gave them his phone number address and license number. They immediately made a call to him, a family member and his boss (who's car it was). They asked if they wanted me to go over there as well but by that point I knew it was posturing and didn't pursue it.
Do your police not keep the peace?
Do you think carrying a weapon is going to inflame the situation rather than talking it out with the family like civilised people? If this doesn't seem to be an option once again going to the police to act as intermediaries or a lawyer.
The crazy dude that lives behind us bought a feral cat trap which is illegal in most states of Australia in urban areas due to cat laws (my state was a few months away from finally passing the new domestic cat law), was trapping cats and they were disappearing. My cat went missing and the next morning I heard him vocalising in the distance in response to his name. I drove over there and released him. The dude wasn't home, so I rechecked the city laws regarding the situation then lodged a complaint with the RSPCA. They sent 2 officers down and spoke to the man, took his trap and warned him that when the new laws pass (which they have now) that I could have prosecuted him. No problems since then.
Why would you be attacked? Could carrying a gun cause a suspicious, paranoid person to accidentally killing someone because they have psychological issues?
Couldn't any small event turn a street into a wild west shoot out because everyone is fearful of everyone else?
When I lived in Sydney 2 friends and I were in a very unsafe neighbourhood going underneath a train station. We were attacked by 15 or so teenagers because of a stupid joke my friend made to one of them. We fought them off and then went to the emergency room for a stitch up of one of my friend's wounds and some x-rays to make sure there was no serious damage done. No problem it's a funny story I can tell people about.
If I had a gun, how many kids would I have shot and on my conscience?
If they had guns we would be dead.
I still go for the option of bruises and a good story. The police are a Government service, you pay for this service by paying taxes. There purpose should be to keep the peace. The police have protected me through authority and presence. They have also taken money for speeding traps but that was just me.
America and most countries in confict, chaos or lower levels of development are where you should go to "bear your own arms". No wonder you guys have so many home grown terrorists; and certain parts of the country feel like a warzone.
And Skope to answer your questions sometimes the evidence isn't enough to get a warrant in order to issue the restraining order, as they are issued by courts here, and police do not provide round-the-clock protection here. If the neighbor in question doesn't know you have a firearm then it isn't going to escalate right away, and anyway if they're going to be set off by you buying one they were probably close to doing something anyway. As for concealed carry, you must go through twelve hours of training to be certified, in which it is up to the instructor's discretion to say you are to be trusted with such a responsibility. Anyone who is paranoid enough to cause such an issue would exhibit outward signs and therefore not be certified.
I believe in a trained society, so that we don't HAVE to go running to the police every time there's trouble, because in America we don't have a precinct every block and certainly not a police officer on every corner or at every stoop. Also we have a different opinion of authority here, coming from a rebellious heritage, and there are documented cases of calling the police escalating a situation with a deranged person. Yes the police should keep the peace, but if that were the case why are several cities, including Detroit, such shitholes when they have some of the strictest laws on the books? I don't trust in the ability of the police to protect me, which is clearly the complete opposite of your opinion.
I am in favor of pepper spray or a Taser for self defense in many cases because there may be a situation where you need to defend yourself with more than your fists but a gun wouldn't be appropriate, at least in a courtroom. Whats kind of bullshit is here in Michigan a Taser is actually harder to get than a pistol. You need a concealed carry license and then take a special Taser course. Considering I can walk down the street and buy pepper spray for like $8 no questions asked it seems a bit silly.
Or is that statement not backed up by anything but sizzle-reel news stories? Do you also believe the lady who spilled coffee on her lap at McDonalds was a baby who should've sucked it up?
In my experience, whenever a dude on the internet talks about needing a gun/knife/anything "for protection" there is basically a 100% chance they live in an area where their odds of being attacked by a stranger/felon are pretty much nil.
Now I don't have any statistics to follow up on that but that sprung to mind immediately.
I wouldn't say the woman who sued McDonald's is a baby because I think she did indeed suffer burns from her coffee, but I feel there is a certain extant knowledge that if you order a hot beverage that you should take certain precautions to protect yourself (again getting back to personal responsibility) which she obviously failed to do and I think that is hardly the fault of McDonald's for not mentioning.
And while I myself have not been assaulted crime is actually on the rise in the suburb I live in.
It's that even most police(whose training standards I've criticized and even outright mocked before) are better trained to deal with threats than your average CCW holder. I'm okay with people carrying guns around, but the idea of untrained yahoos carrying guns around itching for an excuse(even though that's a small minority of even those untrained CCW holders) gives me the willes a bit. There are knowledgeable, well-trained CCW holders out there, but they're in the minority to the best of my knowledge, and every report to the contrary that I've seen is pretty much just the same yahoos self-reporting that they're hot shit with a shooting iron.
So I guess I agree with Jack, sort of - trained, armed people within the populace isn't a bad thing. It's just that what I'd demand for standards of training are very high, and very strict - carrying a firearm in public is not just a privilege, it's a burden, an incredibly heavy responsibility to shoulder. I've laid out the general idea before, so I'll save the long version this time.
The gun owning girl not only has one gun but a collection of pistols and her husband also has an M16, some hunting rifles and shotguns.
Why would one need a military Assault rifle in their home (in a suburb)?
Is their an advanced tin can shooting sport I'm missing out on? How many murder in the 2nd degree or manslaughter chargers are going out to hammer wielders? Are their many mass head cavings? You can't accidentally kill someone with a hammer. I'd be surprised if there were many mass murders by way of hammer.
When I Google for this, I get a gun nut journalist / blogger comparing FBI numbers on hammer (misrepresented as they include all blunt force weapons) deaths vs. rifle (specific sub category of gun). The targeted audience and uneducated are eating it up like a Mississippian at a Chick-fil-A.
I'm done for now, good day.
Okay that was knee-jerk I admit. You did use the proper terminology for an M16 or any intermediate rifle. However, I will offer that possibly that your California friend's husband was in the military and opted to purchase his rifle after his service. I don't know the man so I can't say for sure, that's just what sprang to mind.
I picked the McDonald's lady for a reason, because she was demonized by the far right as an example of our extremely litigious society; they used her case to pass incredibly restrictive tort reform and basically end punitive damages in many states.
But actually it turns out that her 3rd degree burns that could've been fatal. Furthermore: I chose that case because it's the perfect example of a hype machine that has convinced the public, you included, apparently, that we are suffering an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.
They need to be used and kept by very responsible people. It's very clear that the systems in place do not ensure guns are being handled by responsible individuals.
Either have strict gun controls or no guns.
RightPrivilege to bear arms.Unfortunately If such a party exists, they aren't in a position to effect any change.
Something akin to the regulation we have for cars would be nice. Licenses with mandatory testing, universal registration and yearly safety inspections on the firearms, and policemen able to stop someone and issue tickets or even remove a license for things like poor safety and lack of maintenance.
Those same pressures are the reason our current laws suck so badly. Legislation simultaneously bans safe guns owned by responsible people while failing to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals.
I do not like to say that I'd deny guns from people who like to go target shooting, or hunt, but if that's the price to pay for keeping guns away from hands which would be willing to point the gun to other people, then it's so, sacrifices sometimes have to be made.