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 piss 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[satos]

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.

Don't forget the cops.

[1vngal]

I wasnt going for that angle, more pointing out that the logic that if someone doesnt need a gun, then why should they be allowed to own one is flawed. We dont need plasma TVs, but we want them. Doesnt mean they should be controlled so that only people who have them securely mounted and belong to a TV watching club can own them

The way I see it is, I think guns are only a danger when in the wrong hands, if in the wrong hands, look at what can happen? However, it would be impossible for the authorities to determine who is a nutcase and who isn't, so why not just make it so those that don't have a use for them and don't need to own them, can't own them? So whats the big loss?

This is what I didn't understand from the guy I was arguing with last night. He was getting really worked up about the fact he couldn't legally own one. And yet he couldn't give me a reason as to why he needs one....

[1vngal]

Don't forget the cops.

Oh yes of course.

I sorta catagorised all those sorta occupations in my head under soldiers.

[V85000i]

The way I see it is, I think guns are only a danger when in the wrong hands, if in the wrong hands, look at what can happen? However, it would be impossible for the authorities to determine who is a nutcase and who isn't, so why not just make it so those that don't have a use for them and don't need to own them, can't own them? So whats the big loss?

This is what I didn't understand from the guy I was arguing with last night. He was getting really worked up about the fact he couldn't legally own one. And yet he couldn't give me a reason as to why he needs one....

and the stupid thing is, most of our population is dis armed except for the ones with the wrong hands, all the people that caused these laws were criminals, and they still have the guns (illegaly)

[1vngal]

Unfortunately that's never going to change. There will always be ways to obtain a gun if you know how. But at least the laws are an effort to try and control this sort of incident.

[lxhatch]

australian gun laws are tougher than the states, to legally purchace a gun you need to wait 28 days to get the gun if you already have a licence......

in the states you can go purchace a gun from a shop and take it home the same day....

laws mean nothing!!!!!! if you took a car theifs licence would that stop them from stealing cars????????

[minux]

The way I see it is, I think guns are only a danger when in the wrong hands, if in the wrong hands, look at what can happen? However, it would be impossible for the authorities to determine who is a nutcase and who isn't, so why not just make it so those that don't have a use for them and don't need to own them, can't own them? So whats the big loss?

This is what I didn't understand from the guy I was arguing with last night. He was getting really worked up about the fact he couldn't legally own one. And yet he couldn't give me a reason as to why he needs one....

Ok, i am all for gun regulation HOWEVER, comments like this really annoy me.

Guns in the WRONG HANDS? How do you define wrong hands before a crime is comitted? Most mass killings involving guns the killer gives NO SIGN of what is going to happen, it is only AFTER the fact that people say when the guns are in the wrong hands.

[VicCop]

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?

The reasoning behind it is that it's within their 'constitution'. It can't be broken. Here we don't have their types of ideals, such as a bill of rights for example. They have these things set in stone. We saw how easy it was for gun control to change almost overnight after Port Arthur. It's that rock solid over there that if I did most of the things I did here in my daily job over there, I'd be sued. Things like pulling over cars, conducting random checks and breath tests just because I can is something that isn't allowed there. Cops need 'probable cause' before acting against anyone in the course of their duty. This is all within their bloody 'constitution'!

In relation to firearms though. People have said that yes, if they get into the wrong hands they do kill. But we've even seen bad accidents occur when even people who have been cleared by our firearms laws to be able to own and use these guns.

Almost every day I'm required to have a firearm handed to be, I clear it (that's visibly and manually make sure it's not loaded for those who don't know), and follow a dry fire procedure (that's shooting it without ammunition to make sure it's working). Load it, and place it into my holster on my hip. Then I go out in public and carry it on display for everyone to see. It takes a lot of responsibility and discipline to handle and carry firearms. We're not the army, very similar in some respects though. However when it comes to handling and carrying firearms, we have the utmost discipline enforced upon us.

[R Photon]

there's a bill of rights in victoria isn't there?

[Grennan]

Correct me if im wrong, Canada has the exact same laws. But they dont have nearly the amount of incidents as America. I think America are just nuts about their guns.

Try take them away and everyone will be up in arms about it. A massacre happens, everyone is up in arms about it.

[Doubleshadow]

To understand the gun culture in the US, one must take into consideration the legacy. As an independant entity, America came out of a rebellion against King George of England. The War of Independance was fought by ordinary citizens marshalled into militias. This left an indellible mark on the founders when they wrote the US constitution. The US constitution (second ammendment) specifically states that citizens must have a right to bear arms. And this is the main point. It is an insurance so that the government would not have the right to supress the people. In other words, if it is justified, the US constitution gives the people the right to rise up behind the smell of gunsmoke, against their government. To some that may sound pretty lethal, but coming from the situation where they were supressed by King George, you can see they were simply dealing with the historical experience of their time. The American constitution is built on a foundation of the people mistrusting their government. This is why you have 3 branches of government which is designed to always be adversal against each other. The founders realized if the government were busy fighting among themselves, they would have less time to dominate the people. They discouraged hubris.

For Americans, it is too late to attempt to control guns. If they were to ban guns, only law-abiding citizens would be restricted from having guns. The bad guys would always get around that. There are only 2 options left:
1. Have a personal police for every citizen and ban all guns.
2. Let everyone have the right to have guns.

As you can see, option 1 is ridiculous, without turning the country into some sort of police state. The only solution, flawed as it may be, is to allow law-abiding citizens to shoot back, when they are confronted by gun-toting bad guys. If some of those 30-something students that were killed had guns, it is unlikely that Crazy Bill would have killed all of them, before a few of them got off a few rounds. Unfortunately, the only thing that supresses one bullet, is another bullet that was fired faster and straighter. The threat of violence seems to carry the best guarantees of security.

[1vngal]

Ok, i am all for gun regulation HOWEVER, comments like this really annoy me.

Guns in the WRONG HANDS? How do you define wrong hands before a crime is comitted? Most mass killings involving guns the killer gives NO SIGN of what is going to happen, it is only AFTER the fact that people say when the guns are in the wrong hands.

You're exactly right. There is no way to decide just who is, and who isn't 'the wrong hands' before a crime is committed. It's just a figure of speech. No need to take it out of context.