Whats happening in the good old USA

[LewisM]

I don't NEED one, but I have them. I am a collector of firerams, have contributed to a few books (one coming out next week).

It is still a licensed right in Australia to OWN firearms. There is also a licensed right to CARRY and USE firearms.

Same can be said - you don't need a telescope - why own one? None of us NEED one.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I don't NEED one, but I have them. I am a collector of firerams, have contributed to a few books (one coming out next week).

It is still a licensed right in Australia to OWN firearms. There is also a licensed right to CARRY and USE firearms.

Same can be said - you don't need a telescope - why own one? None of us NEED one.

Telescopes don't kill people

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Telescopes don't kill people

Fred, you took the words right off tip of my typing finger
Cheers

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Criminals usually try to keep a low profile and are not typically involved in mass killings.

Ummm, such a sweeping statement is not strictly correct, sadly.

You only have to look to Mexico to see that that statement is totally untrue, as thousands have died from drug wars; 15,000 + in 2010 alone! Many of them totally innocent too.

Drug war related homicides in the US are also on the rise. One statistic shows that an estimated 5700 people have been killed in drug wars in the US over a five year period.

As for Australia, have you forgotten what has happened in Melbourne over the years. They have made several mini series on that subject. Not that I watched them, but I think they were all criminals?

Cheers Peter

[Shark Bait (Stu)]

I heard a report on the radio that President Obama has stated that 'America must change'. This was during an address to the families who have lost a loved one. I remain a skeptic as to what he can do if congress does not back his resolve. I'd like to be proven wrong, but we have heard this all before.

As mentioned earlier, I think Australia has got the balance right regarding gun laws. How a similar model could be successfully translated across all the states of America is beyond me.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I don't NEED one, but I have them. I am a collector of firerams, have contributed to a few books (one coming out next week).

It is still a licensed right in Australia to OWN firearms. There is also a licensed right to CARRY and USE firearms.

Same can be said - you don't need a telescope - why own one? None of us NEED one.

Sorry Lewis, you can hardly compare the two, that is just being ridiculous. I do need mine! Telescope, that is

However, I do agree with you to a point, as I am also a gun owner. I also had semi-auto weapons, and as a gun owner, I never really saw the point. Why would anyone need a semi-auto? I certainly didn't, but had them nevertheless; all because I could. I also saw the need to remove them from society and happily gave mine up.

Also, it must be pointed out, to balance the argument, that the Port Arthur and Hoddle St massacres were carried out with "illegal" weapons anyway. Having strict gun laws are a start, but it would not stop people accessing illegal weapons. This has been the case in recent Sydney shootings too.

Cheers Peter

[Stardrifter_WA]

Here is an interesting article about gun related death in Australia from the Sydney University.

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/n...Dec/061214.php

"The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention."

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

Here is an interesting article about gun related death in Australia from the Sydney University.

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/n...Dec/061214.php

"The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention."

Stats for the USA ... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by OICURMT

Stats for the USA ... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Interesting stats compared to Australia's. Here is the Australian Bureau of Criminology http://aic.gov.au/publications/curre...w%20paper.html

The fact is, per head of population, we have less deaths related to firearms, and that is directly related to firearm access which is more dofficult in Australia than many parts of the World, including America.

We can throw stats back and forth all day it will still equate to more guns, or easy access to guns, means more deaths.

Cheers Peter

[TrevorW]

Interesting stats re poisoning

All poisoning deaths

• Number of deaths: 41,592
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 31,347
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

what this doesn't tell you is things like



a) suicides
b) criminals killed by police

c) people killed in gang or drug related activities

d) police killed in line of duty
e) acts of murder/manslaughter
f) innocent bystanders
g) accidental death



the problem with stats is they can be portrayed in various ways to incite a reaction based on the targeted audience.

This is from the Australian stats

An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males

Most of the 47% reduction came about due to the fall in the number of suicides by firearms.

A wonder if there was a corresponding increase by other means in the suicide rate.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Interesting stats re poisoning

All poisoning deaths

• Number of deaths: 41,592
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

All firearm deaths


the problem with stats is they can be portrayed in various ways to incite a reaction based on the targeted audience.

Absolutely agree Trevor.

For instance, the poisoning deaths may not be all as a result of criminal intent but rather the total number of people who got food poisoning.

If it is food poisoning, I may be very careful where I eat when in the US next year.

Cheers Peter

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Sorry Lewis, but you couldn't be more wrong.
There have been NO mass kilings in Oz since the ban on auto and semi-auto weapons.
My birth country, Canada, my now-home Australia, and my adopted home, the UK have had anti-assault weapon legislation in place for years and mass-gun killings have become virtually unheard-of.
Only Rambo wannabees and mouth-breathing redneck simpletons need or want 'Tactical" weapons to make them feel like men.

Saddos that dress in cammo gear and want to live out some sort of unsavoury soldier-boy fantasies need to be first on the "banned on mental health grounds" list.
If you can't kill what you shoot at with one shot, you have no business owning a gun.
I've never had to shoot anything more than once, and I don't particularly enjoy doing it.
So tell me what the pressing need is for a semi-auto with the a 10 shot magazine.
If you want to collect military firearms, fair enough, but there's no need to have them active. Removing the firing pin or plugging the barrell will leave you with an authentic item without the danger.
Had this nutter not had access to legally bought, military-type firearms he would not haver been able to kill as many as he did.

No-one needs these horrible things and no-one should have them.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Sorry Lewis, but you couldn't be more wrong.
There have been NO mass kilings in Oz since the ban on auto and semi-auto weapons.
My birth country, Canada, my now-home Australia, and my adopted home, the UK have had anti-assault weapon legislation in place for years and mass-gun killings have become virtually unheard-of.
Only Rambo wannabees and mouth-breathing redneck simpletons need or want 'Tactical" weapons to make them feel like men.

Sorry Peter, not strict true, although rare, they are hardly "almost unheard of".

The last one in the UK was in June 2010 when Derrick Bird killed 12 people in a shooting rampage through Cumbria and there were two others, in recent history. There are also instances of gang violence, resulting in deaths from firearms, although stabbings are also very high in the UK.

It must be said that gun crime isn't the only crime that have claimed many lives. There are also serial killers, e.g. Dr Shipley (UK) who is estimated to have killed 250+ people, although this isn't in the same category as gun crime, but no less chilling.

Canada isn't free of such violence either. The last mass shooting in Canada was only six months ago in July 2012 where two were killed and 23 injured after a shooting rampage in Toronto. There are also drug related wars that have mass shootings as well, throughout Canada. Where there are drugs involved there are firearms, it seems?

And, as for Australia, wrong again, as there have been "bikie" related shootings, of which there have been a few, as well as drug related shootings. Mostly, these offences have been committed with "illegal" firearms, so tough laws do not prevent such events, but they do minimise a deranged person picking up a firearm and going nuts. At least here, particularly in the West, all guns must be in a gun safe.

Cheers Peter

[doppler (Rick)]

This might be off center but the us gun supporters would argue that the principal should have had a weapon to protect the school (she did try to tackle the offener but unarmed). In Australia only the criminals and police have the weapons in America just about anyone can have them. I certinally felt safer before Howards compulsory gun buy back. If I find a home intruder after my daughter I have to use a hamer

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by doppler

I certinally felt safer before Howards compulsory gun buy back.

Rick, are you saying that you feel safer with semi-auto weapons in the community? You feel safer with a gun? Where do you live

You should feel safer without them. It didn't mean you couldn't own a firearm, it just meant that you couldn't have one that shoots many multi-rounds a minute. I can shoot almost as many rounds with my leaver-action rifle, and with about as much accuracy, than I could with my semi-auto. Mostly because the semi-auto had less rounds in the mag than my leaver-action.

I don't particularly feel safer having a gun. I would hate to be in a situation where I needed a gun to protect myself either. It certainly isn't why I have them!

Cheers Peter

[TrevorW]

There is no ban in Australia on owning a semi-automatic weapon you can obtain one by going through the necessary licensing requirements.

Howard's gun buyback IMO was a knee jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, many gun owners handed there guns in because they were getting more for them on the buyback scheme than they could have on the second hand market and couldn't be bothered getting them licensed.

Lets hope Obama spends the time to make legislative changes that can placate both sides of the argument.

It also amazes me how people confuse semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

In Australia you can own a semi-automatic weapon and the magazine must not exceed 10 runs.

The good shooter could discharge a 10 round semi-automatic in 5-10 seconds.

A fully automatic weapon the likes used in the US killings could hold 30 rounds or more magazine capable of being discharged under 5 seconds.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

There is no ban in Australia on owning a semi-automatic weapon you can obtain one by going through the necessary licensing requirements.

Howard's gun buyback IMO was a knee jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, many gun owners handed there guns in because they were getting more for them on the buyback scheme than they could have on the second hand market and couldn't be bothered getting them licensed.

Lets hope Obama spends the time to make legislative changes that can placate both sides of the argument.

It also amazes me how people confuse semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

In Australia you can own a semi-automatic weapon and the magazine must not exceed 10 runs.

The good shooter could discharge a 10 round semi-automatic in 5-10 seconds.

A fully automatic weapon the likes used in the US killings could hold 30 rounds or more magazine capable of being discharged under 5 seconds.

Hi Trevor,

I am surprised by your comment that semi auto weapons are not banned. As I understand it, they are a category C item and are only available to "primary producers" and "occupational shooters", such as professional roo shooters and the like.

I know that I cannot just go buy one; mind you, I have no use for one anyway.

I agree with you about the Howard Government reaction. The real interesting thing about Pt Arthur was that the gun was allegedly a gun that was handed in during a gun amnesty in Victoria, as far as I am aware. If correct, it was supposed to have been destroyed, so how did it end up in the hands of Bryant? And, furthermore, he had it illegally anyway, so the gun laws were definitely an over reaction, IMO.

Also interest in the gun buy back. I know of several who ended up with more guns, not less. From the money they received they went out and bought more, as did I, although I have now mostly divested myself of them now. I am thinking of getting rid of the rest anyway. Just can't justify the licence fee any more. I let my explosives licence (Shotfirers Permit) go a couple of years ago for the same reason. Every time I went to renew, I had to get a National Police Clearance, an added cost of $43 on top of the licence fee. Seemed a waste of money, for something I would never use again.

Cheers Pete

[doppler (Rick)]

[QUOTE=Stardrifter_WA;926063]Rick, are you saying that you feel safer with semi-auto weapons in the community? You feel safer with a gun? Where do you live

At the time we lived on a property in rural S.A There were few occasions when people would drive through sometimes late at night, rabbit shooters from the city I guess, and some of the locals were a bit strange as well. I only had semi autos at the time and never relplaced them after the buy back mainly because the licence fees got too high. Our women knew where the guns were and how to use them. We now live in a large country town where the only crime is lads hooning in their cars.

[TechnoViking (James)]

I think guns have a place in a rural community, especially for land holders. I have a rifle which i use for vermin control and for humanly dispatching roos that have been run over and left to die slowly, I hate doing it, it saddens me greatly that people hit animals and don't stop to check pouches or to call someone to put the poor creatures out of their misery. Just this year i have had to dispatch 6 roo's 8 wallabies and 1 wombat, but i also saved 2 Joeys by checking the roo's pouch!!
But getting back to topic, automatic and semi automatic guns should only be supplied and used by the armed forces, In the 5 years i have lived on my 100 acres i have never been in a situation where a semi or auto would be needed, But the main problem with the U.S is their gun culture, I hate to bring religion into this conversation, but telling Americans to give up their automatic weapons would be like asking them to give up their religion which is an impossible task.
The gun debate is one of those debates that will never end, both sides wont budge from their moral standing, the only solution i could see is turning each school into a prison like building with armed guards, razor wire and armed security checkpoints, it would be the only way that children could truly be safe in an American school!

Just watching the news this morning to see 2 houses shot at in two different states in one night, scares the hell out of me, and makes me glad i live 300kms from the nearest city!!!!
and for the argument that professional shooters need semi autos... bollocks!! What they need are suppressors, to dull the noise from the muzzle, but unfortunately stupid, non informed politicians think that suppressors on a large caliber gun makes them silent (like Hollywood movies), so now they are illegal...ZZZzzz...

anyway that's my 2.2cents (including G.S.T)

[Stardrifter_WA]

This is a surprise, America isn't the worst for gun deaths, as it rates quite low. Gun deaths in the US have actually been falling. It is a surprise who is the worst though. I would never have picked it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139