Views On Gun Laws

[1vngal]

I had an interesting debate last night with someone on MSN about gun laws, the recent massacre in America and all that stuff, and he was trying to say that every one should be allowed to own guns.

I kept asking him to clarify his reasoning behind his claim, but he just kept dodging the issue. Personally, I think he was just sour that he couldn't own one.

But, why let people own them if they don't need to have them?

What is everyone elses views? Should we all be allowed to own them? Are the gun laws that Australia has in place necessary?

[VZTHUNDER]

what i cant see is
why the hell do people need guns
if someone breaks into you home a baseball bat will do the trick and you dont need a permit and **** for it

[Not_An_Abba_Fan]

I reckon we should all be allowed to carry guns, so we can pop a cap in the head of people that **** us off.

Seriously though, the gun laws are what they are whether we like them or not. Personally, not having the need to own a gun, they suit me fine. Laws only really affect the honest people anyway. An 18 yr old was fatally shot here a couple of weeks ago by another young person. Even with the existing laws, he managed to have a .22 rifle in the car with him.

Port Arthur spurred the gun laws and we haven't had an incident like that in Australia since, so it can be argued that the laws are effective.

[azkwazere]

guns arnt nessary for civilains other than farmers. PERIOD. I hate guns.. they **** me to no end. Im a die hard martial artists and follower of its ways. Australias laws arnt tough enough.

aZk.

[cruzncommo]

............

[1vngal]

Originally Posted by azkwazere

guns arnt nessary for civilains other than farmers. PERIOD. I hate guns.. they **** me to no end. Im a die hard martial artists and follower of its ways. Australias laws arnt tough enough.

aZk.

I agree. The only people that need guns are farmers and soldiers. If everyone owned a gun, near every argument that got out of hand, would end in blood shed.

[mulligan-can]

I agree that we do need tough gun laws. HOWEVER I very very strongly disagree with the present system of laws simply because of the way they were brought in. The Federal government had to all but break the constitution in order to bring in their country wide laws. They strongarmed the states into accepting them. It sets a dangerous precedent so far the powers of our federal government (IMO anyway, I'm not an expert ).

Firearm related incidents were already on the downturn before the new (well, the present) laws and the trend has merely continued pretty much the same as it was, there was no significant increase in the downwards trend.

I support the need for tough gun controls but I would have preferred each state to be able to come up with their own laws to suit their own.

[Joe Peeps]

Originally Posted by 1vngal

I agree. The only people that need guns are farmers and soldiers. If everyone owned a gun, near every argument that got out of hand, would end in blood shed.

Are you serious?

We have knives but not every argument that gets out of hand ends in a stabbing! If someone wishes to harm another, they can use an axe, bat, fists elbows knees chain, a brick.

Also, as to your comment on "need to have them" basis, you dont NEED a HSV capable of 200km an hour because of speed limit laws. But you want one. (and so do i )

[1vngal]

Originally Posted by Joe Peeps

Are you serious?

We have knives but not every argument that gets out of hand ends in a stabbing! If someone wishes to harm another, they can use an axe, bat, fists elbows knees chain, a brick.

Yes, I am serious. 2 people very close to me, were shot. One was the 6 months old daughter of the other victim.

This was before the current gun laws, and her partner after an argument went out to the shed, got a gun and shot them both. His own daughter.

People use those other items you mentioned, most likey because they cant legally own a gun, and dont have the resources, contacts whatever to get their hands on one.

If every one had a gun, we would all have to carry it on us, to protect us from anyone else who was a little to trigger happy. And chances are, during an argument that gets a little outta hand (if we were allowed to own guns this is) the gun is going to be the first weapon they go for.

And also, a gun kill more people, in a shorter amount of time compared to a knife, or a brick. If you try to conduct a massacre using one of those, I hate to tell you, but someones gonna get you first....

[1vngal]

Originally Posted by Joe Peeps

Also, as to your comment on "need to have them" basis, you dont NEED a HSV capable of 200km an hour because of speed limit laws. But you want one. (and so do i )

Thats a little different to owning/wanting a gun.

If you want to go by the 'look at what else can kill' theory, then just about everything on this planet should be outlawed.

[Joe Peeps]

Yes but that kind of man is mentally unstable. If he wanted to kill them, he would have done so by any means necessary. It is not hard to get a gun license if you want one, although it does require time and effort. I agree with your point though, guns are quite unnecessary.

[stocky]

i agree that noone should be allowed guns but i had a thought today. was thinking about the shootings in america and how one man was able to kill 33 people, because noone had anyway to really stand up against him. would the situation have ended better if a second student also had a gun and shot the guy before he killed 30 more people?

[1vngal]

Originally Posted by Joe Peeps

Yes but that kind of man is mentally unstable. If he wanted to kill them, he would have done so by any means necessary.

Maybe, maybe not. But it may have given them a bit more of a fighting chance if he wasn't legally allowed to own a gun. He had no use for it, he didn't even go shooting. He just had it because he could.

The gun actually got taken off him by police, a week prior to killing them. They took it away, because he had made threats on her life. The day he got it back, was the same day he shot them both dead.

The police returned the gun because the extensive psychological test he sat, showed he was mentally stable enough to own a weapon of that sort. And being there wasn't very strict laws about it back then, he was allowed to have the gun returned because police couldn't find a valid reason for him not to have it.

Messed up I know. But it happened.