AussieJester said:
I truly find it sad you have to carry a weapon to feel safe in some parts of America, you need to move to a safer neighborhood, state ans/or country if need be.. ASAP the part in you constitution that says everyone has the right to bere arms is seriously flawed imho..the number of shootings hourly in the US is testament to that, the ease which anyone can get their hands on firearms is utterly ridiculous, I would absolutely hate to live in America, makes me feel so damn lucky I live in Australia when I read posts likE these.
KiM
I understand your sentiments, I haven't lived in an area where I felt the need to carry for years, but I think you need to get your news about the USA from a more credible source, the media and Holywood exaggerate almost as much as the politians. It's big business, the restriction of guns, lots of politics involved, less facts than feelings.
In the USA, it's a fact that there is less crime in areas where legal gun ownership is most common, and in Washington DC, where guns are the most restricted, crime is the highest in the nation.
As far as the effects of gun restrictions in Australia, I would refer you to Wikipedia for some interesting information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [3], from 1985–2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, and firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[29] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[30] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.
So the preferred method changed from firearm to rope, but suicides didn't dramatically decline because gun ownership did, and I would argue neither did crime.
If it were possible to eliminate crime, then gun ownership for self defense would not be needed. I guarantee you that the fact that I own guns and have since 1991 has not made me more likely to get shot, attacked or have them hurt me in any way. I choose to not have to wait for the police to show up in minutes to help when seconds mean life and death.
If eliminating weapons is the answer, why not melt them all down? Why should police have "evil guns" if they are the source of the problems?
I think it's been widely politicized and has accomplished little to have the restrictions on firearms in many countries, I have yet to see any statistics to back up any idea that crime has decreased anymore with greater control of firearms than not. Criminals after all don't care about laws and still have guns in Australia.
From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in a series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. These gangs are a major component of organized crime in Australia and continue to arm themselves illegally.
Also, where did the guns go anyway? Correct me if I am wrong, but according to the laws and restrictions I am reading, it doesn't look like they went anywhere, just certain ones were banned, others were bought, and not much else changed?
Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. A "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. this class is available to target shooters and farmers. To be eligible for a Category H firearm a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for as 9mm/.38/.357 handguns meet the IPSC rules. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.
All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a license, so long as the firearm is registered.
Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns and replica firearms are banned in most states. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.
Air pistols, paintball guns, and AIRSOFT?! Really? I never knew that my nephew was going to turn into a raving murderous lunatic because he has *GASP* air soft guns!
And I thought his understanding that guns are dangerous and handling them safely was a good idea, guess I should never let him even see a toy one.
Kind of like cars, we should ban the ownership of them since more people die because of cars right?!
Hmmm no we teach people how to operate them safely, just like we used to do with guns. Now my nephew can get kicked out of school for DRAWING A PICTURE of one, yep, that's a good way to go!
(not saying you think this, but it's how ridiculous some get about an emotional response to guns and a reality in most schools in the USA)
Monash University shootings
Main article: Monash University shooting
In 2002, an international student killed two fellow students at Monash University in Victoria with pistols he had acquired as a member of a shooting club. As in 1996, the federal government urged state governments to review handgun laws, and, as a result, amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, and even stricter probation and attendance requirements for sporting target shooters.[citation needed] Whilst handguns for sporting shooters are nominally restricted to .38 inches as a maximum calibre, it is possible to obtain an endorsement allowing calibres up to .45 inches (11.43 mm) to be used for Metallic Silhouette or Single Action Shooting matches. These new laws were opposed not only by sporting shooters groups but also by gun control supporters, who saw it as paying for shooters to upgrade to new guns. In the state of Victoria $A21 million compensation was paid for confiscating 18,124 target pistols, and 15,184 replacement pistols were imported.[citation needed] .
One government policy was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licences and their right to own pistols for sport for five years
Looks like this guy had the desire to kill someone with a gun, and wasn't stopped by all those restrictions. Doesn't look to me like changing how law abiding citizens owned or used guns affected this criminal at all. :?
The then Prime Minister John Howard frequently referred to the USA to explain his opposition to civilian firearms ownership and use in Australia, stating that he did not want Australia to go "down the American path".[54][55][56] In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB he said "we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia".[57] John Howard had earlier expressed a desire to introduce restrictive gun laws when he was Opposition Leader during a 1995 interview with Australian political journalist Laurie Oakes ([4]). In a television interview shortly before the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, he reaffirmed his stance: "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil".[58] During the same television interview, Prime Minister Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country".
In the 1940's in the USA most families had guns in their houses readily accessible, and kids were not killing themselves and others right and left. Most were used for hunting and such, and there weren't mass shootings everywhere because there were more guns around.
People were more in touch with daily realities in common sense ways, we had farms and slaughtered our own animals, children learned that guns were tools, and that death was real, not some game where you shoot your friends and come back to life and play again in some video game or TV show.
Now the ONLY exposure most kids have to guns is Movies and Video games, but with out having their feet on the ground and understanding the realities of what it would mean to use these tools like play toys, I'm not surprised we have these problems.
Society has changed, violence is violence, doesn't really matter if someone stabs you to death, beats you to a pulp with a bat or pulls a trigger. Yes there is a problem with violence, but no gun ever jumped up and shot anyone.
I enjoy living in a country where I have the right to choose to own a firearm or not, I don't believe restricting barrel length on a hand gun, and limiting the capacity of bullets held ever made anyone who was shot any less dead. Besides, if anything those kinds of restrictions have done little more than increase the value of "pre-ban" magazines and such, and just made them more expensive to buy.
It's a money game, it's a politics game. I don't believe reclassifying who and how guns are owned, what kinds can be owned by who ever made anyone any safer, but I bet it sure helped a lot of Politians get elected. :wink:
