Cost of Gun Reform

The problem with the US is not that they have guns, we have guns, our laws just make sure as best as possible that you are not a criminal or psycho. The problem is the US has issues. They rant and rave about how they are the bastion of freedom and democracy, may we should have a new label. Gunocracy: The defense of yourself because your country cannot.

It is still the most amazing fact, the the bastion of democracy, when they needed to solve their biggest issue was to declare war on themselves. Brother against brother, father against son, a true picture of democracy .... down the barrel of a gun. Go figure ... but it does explain their fetish for guns.

 

The government do not control our freedoms, the people do, we elect the government. Anyway, what freedoms are you talking about, in Australia you can own a gun, you just have to show you can use it and your not a criminal. As for owning high power assault weapons, we don't have problems with penis size in Australia.

 

LOL, for one, to buy a gun here, you have to show you are also not a criminal through NICS.

You must have a penis size problem if you think an assault weapon is 'high powered'. The alleged 'assault weapon' uses an intermediate cartridge good for coyotes and most people will not use them for something larger like deer. It is a round sized between a handgun and a rifle round.

Government does control your freedoms. You are just willing to give them away for a misplaced sense of security.

 

If a criminal breaks into your home with the sheer intent of robbing and killing you, then how do you protect yourself and your family? Call 000 and wait a few hours for the cops to arrive; hoping the criminal will no kill you and your family in the meantime? I suppose you could always offer them some coffee and cake, and ask them to wait.

Its really easy for people to say guns are bad, when you have lived a safe life and nothing has every happened to you or any member of your family, but I just wonder if you would be singing the same song if the situation was different, and a member of your family was killed or murdered by a home invasion criminal.

 

Number One I know what an assault rifle is, I spent 6 years in the military as an assault trooper. Of course I trust my government, it's about having faith in your fellow citizens, sure we have crime, and some pretty nasty stuff, but there would be no way that arming citizens would decrease that, probably inflame it actually. Nothing misplaced about my sense of security, I live in the highest crime rated area of the highest crime rated city in Australia. I would have no problems asking my daughter to bring my grandson by train to see me at midnight. I feel very secure, our police themselves have issues, well many of them do, especially since my current girl friend is black, but on the whole they do a good job, one if In was worried about security I may have even entered myself.

You see it's like this. I have spent times in the US in different sates. I was actually in Los Angeles during the riots, I never once felt so scared I felt I had to arm myself. It's about civilisation vs the jungle. I actually think a lot of you would be upset if it wasn't that bad a crime rate there .... no reason to own a gun, oh dear, can't have that can we?

Before you say we have a "misplaced sense of security" maybe I could say "You have a misplaced sense of insecurity". I have three cousins that have married up over there and currently good Americans and raising their families over there and all without exception keep going on about how some people are so screwed up over there, and they say that they are the ones with guns.

 

I know, you think that those that take their own security seriously are crazy. Police only mop up after the fact. You think that being prepared to defend oneself is a sign of insecurity yet your own country prepares to defend itself. Is your country insecure?

 

With all due respect DV, if its so safe like you advocate. Then "why" do the cops need to carry guns, and NOT just tasers? They can protect themselves by carrying & using guns, but everyone else is legally prohibited from protecting themselves with the same force.

Logic would suggest that there is real and present danger in the community that police want to guard themselves against, but its the same real and present danger we are not allowed to protect ourselves against.

 

CD, yes that is why we have police, so we don't have to take the law into our own hands, most cannot so we work at getting the best police force for everyone, we do not however just give up, and take up a gun.. Civilised.

 

I will never leave Australia completely.

 

Logic would suggest that there is real and present danger in the community that police want to guard themselves against, but its the same real and present danger we are not allowed to protect ourselves against. What happens in the situations of serious violent crime, and help is an 1 hour away? Are we just suppose to die at the hands of a murderer, because we are not allowed to defend ourselves? How is that civilised?

 

You do realize that the Police have no duty to protect you don't you? If you ever tried to take them to court on that you would lose. You are your first line of defense and to think otherwise is to abdicate your own responsibilities.

 

That's quite frightening to think police have "no duty" to protect the people, but the majority don't understand that. I know someone who tried to use that as an argument against the police for them no responding within their set parameters of responsibility, but the solicitors told the person it would fail the legal test.

 

It is not the uni that is publishing the journal, it is the students. This is what the journal says about itself.

 

Wow,
the US (please you Americans reading those lines don't take it personlly) would be the last Western country I would want to move to.
And yes, just in case the question arises, I did spent half a year there, long time ago. So just my 50 cents....
Regards

 

The studies may not be but there is a gender bias in Para suicide and suicide. Men have a tendency to choose more physical means - shooting, hanging, diving off of buildings whereas women are more likely to swallow tablets

 

They can't be liable for everyone's personal safety, a police force couldn't exist under those terms.

But their liability definitely needs to be reviewed in regards to things like, restraining orders, arrest warrants, parole decisions, etc. There's very little accountability for their neglect and incompetence relating to such things.

 

If the police have no legal responsibility to protect people, and they take away our means to protect ourselves, then how the hell are we suppose to protect ourselves and our families against a real threat or danger?

Offer the threat and danger coffee and cake, and hope it waits an hour until a tax collector (police) arrives?

 

Surprisingly there are other ways to protect yourself other than with a gun. Admittedly they do not work at a distance if your opponent is heavily armed and determined to shoot you but then the most common occurrence for that is in a war situation. When the citizens of a country are armed civil war is not far off

 

LOL, really? This countries citizens have been armed since it's inception and we still vote to change politicians instead of shooting them.

 

The reality is this. The law (especially criminal) exists only for that abstract we call "society". It only does something for us individuals as a sort of by-product. In Anglo-Saxon England the most powerful law was folk-law, customary law. It had the power of peer pressure. But it was very regional and regional chieftains benefited by it. After the Normans hit town and centralised power in the King everything changed. The King made sure there was one law - his (hence the King's Peace/Queen's Peace) - which was essentially for the King's economic benefit. If you killed someone under the old law you weren't strung up, you paid a compensation to the family of the deceased (eminently practical). But when the King and the feudal system got together, killing each other meant a loss of labour for the local Lord so to deter killings the law said up you go on the old gibbet (or worse). The legal system got more sophisticated as English society changed. During the time of Henry II when the wool trade became so important to the country's economy the King's judges (yes, they were his judges) made sure that the law protected those economic interests. Under Edward IV the judges cooked up a smart and politically wise judgement in a case against a common carrier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier's_Case. Essentially the law of larceny was changed by those judges to suit the needs of the economy. We couldn't have those Flemish merchants losing bales could we? Bad for the export business.

Today things are a bit more enlightened but even so victims are bit players in the theatre of criminal justice. The aggrieved party is the State (via the Monarch). If you want personal revenge you have to go to civil law.

 

I agree there are some ways to extract yourself from some danger, but in some cases, the only way to protect yourself and your family is with a gun. An individual or family does not have to be in a war zone or situation for a professional criminal or psychotic killer to enter your home or business with the intent of taking your life; the life of a family member or employee to satisfy their psychotic needs. Would you really want to confront someone like Martin Bryant breaking into your home in the middle of the night, and have "nothing" around to protect yourself or your family with? Do you really think gathered together hiding in the bathroom waiting for a response from 000 with nothing to fight back with would have saved "you" or your family from a psychotic killer on the rampage like Martin Bryant?

 

You do understand that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and they have never had a civil war?

 

To my mind 'protection' is a pretty lame reason for owning a gun. I doubt you would ever get the chance to use it if you needed it, especialy with the absurd storage laws we have today. You would need to see a threat coming a long way off and you would need the courage to get the gun out and use or branish it. Unless you have had some training and experience a hand gun is next to useless unless you are standing closer than about 5 metres from the person who is going to harm you. I was a member of a pistol club for many years, I even won a few medals at various competitions. I used to love taking a newbee out to the range, giving them a hand gun with five rounds in it and asking them to shoot at a 1m x 1m target 25 metres away. None of of them ever hit the target anywhere with those first five rounds!
There are lots of reasons for owning a firearm, foremost simply because you want to own one.

For goodness sake! Where do you get this rubbish from? Australia as always had a very high level of gun ownership and if you believe the powers that be, there are more guns in private hands now than ever and nowdays all the police are armed all the time. In the past most cops you saw around the place were not packing hand guns on their hips.

 

Under the current regulations; by the time you found the key to the secure cabinet where the gun is kept and unlocked it, and the found the key to the secure cabinet where the ammunition is kept and unlocked it (ammunition and the gun cannot be stored together), a killer or psychopath like Martin Bryant would have you, and all your family in the grave.

But we can always offer these killers and psychotic murderers coffee & cake while we wait for a few hours response to the 000 call to the tax collectors. I'm sure they would appreciate a nice latte and a slice of mud cake before they put you and your family into the dirt

 

What makes you think that your family members can't be shot in the street, or in a school, or anywhere, by some random lunatic who happens to own a gun for their "protection" culldav? How is your gun going to help exactly?