Some facts about guns in the US

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.[14]

Prime Minister John Howard immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[15] and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.

Surveys showed up to 85% of Australians supported gun control, but some farmers and sporting shooters strongly opposed the new laws.[citation needed]

The Howard Government planned a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, on the advice of his security team, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. Many shooters were critical of this.[16][17][18]

Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership.[19][20] A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.[21]

The Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[22] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

from......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



It would make for beautiful night time television, watching the destruction of thousands of firearms on the news each evening.
 
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.[14]

Prime Minister John Howard immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[15] and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.

Surveys showed up to 85% of Australians supported gun control, but some farmers and sporting shooters strongly opposed the new laws.[citation needed]

The Howard Government planned a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, on the advice of his security team, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. Many shooters were critical of this.[16][17][18]

Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership.[19][20] A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.[21]

The Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[22] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

from......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



It would make for beautiful night time television, watching the destruction of thousands of firearms on the news each evening.

Nice link. I found this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165563/remains-divided-passing-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

Nearly a year after the Newtown, Conn., school shootings spawned considerable U.S. debate about passing stricter gun control laws, almost half of Americans believe the laws covering the sale of firearms should be strengthened and half say they should stay the same or be less strict.

Americans' Preferences for Laws on the Sale of Firearms -- Trend Since 2000

Public support for stricter gun laws is down from 58% in the days after the December 2012 Newtown shootings, and is lower than it was from 2000 through 2006, when, for the most part, solid majorities of Americans favored such laws. However, it remains slightly higher than from 2009 to 2011, when support for stricter laws fell to record lows of 44% and 43%. Gallup's full trend, dating to 1990, can be found on page 2.

The current results, based on an Oct. 3-6 Gallup poll conducted prior to a recent school shooting in Nevada, are unchanged from what Gallup found in September.

Americans Broadly Oppose Banning Handguns

The new poll also finds public opposition to banning handgun ownership holding at a record-high 74%, identical to a year ago. One in four Americans think the law should limit possession to police and other authorized persons.

Recent attitudes on this are markedly different from the 1980s, when barely half of Americans opposed a ban on civilian handgun ownership. It is also a major turnaround from a half century ago, when only 36% opposed such a ban. Opposition to banning citizens' possession of handguns mounted in the 1990s and 2000s, and first crossed the 70% threshold in 2009.

Support for Ban on Possession of Handguns, 1959-2013
 
People trying to take away all the guns don't give a damn about lives either, else they would have got rid of cars, matches, and pools by now. Go figure!

...don't even get me started on cell phones, airplanes, ladders, and lawn mowers!


....and are you recommending that we take away bridges, so people can't jump from them? Tall buildings too?
False equivalence. None of those things are built to harm guns are it's their only function
 
Thanks. In the US though, there's a clear majority in favour of gun ownership, and it was getting bigger, I think. Any party that campaigned for gun control would surely lose.

Actually the number of people owning guns is going down. The one buying them are buying more
 
False equivalence. None of those things are built to harm guns are it's their only function

Your ignorance of guns is laughable! The only function of a gun is to harm? Would you like to rethink that ridiculous statement?

Which is more important to you, saving lives, or the reason things are built? If guns were built for collecting, because they are beautiful to look at, and someone decided to use them to kill their neighbor, would that be ok, because guns weren't built to harm? You're talking out of both sides of your neck. You should get that fixed.
 
Your ignorance of guns is laughable! The only function of a gun is to harm? Would you like to rethink that ridiculous statement?
Ignorance? are you saying guns aren't weapons? the function of a gun is to fire a projectile at another object. it is an object of destruction. there is nothing to rethink about my statement. a gun is a weapon and there for something designed to cause damage. what other function is there for a weapon?

Which is more important to you, saving lives, or the reason things are built? If guns were built for collecting, because they are beautiful to look at, and someone decided to use them to kill their neighbor, would that be ok, because guns weren't built to harm? You're talking out of both sides of your neck. You should get that fixed.
now this is a ridiculous statement. just what the hell kind of point are you trying to make? I'm for using anything responsibly and safely. I just don't get people like you attempts to paint guns as something other than the weapons they are. guns don't make you safe they make your life more at risk. making stupid arguments like this about public safety puts everyone at risk.
 
Ignorance? are you saying guns aren't weapons? the function of a gun is to fire a projectile at another object. it is an object of destruction. there is nothing to rethink about my statement. a gun is a weapon and there for something designed to cause damage. what other function is there for a weapon?

You said in some half ass way, that the only function of a gun is to harm. BS! Pure unadulterated BS!


now this is a ridiculous statement. just what the hell kind of point are you trying to make? I'm for using anything responsibly and safely. I just don't get people like you attempts to paint guns as something other than the weapons they are. guns don't make you safe they make your life more at risk. making stupid arguments like this about public safety puts everyone at risk.

You keep mentioning the reason things are built, as if that is what is important to you. So I'm asking you again, which is more important, the fact that kids drown in pools, or that the reason pools were built is to have fun?
 
Ignorance? are you saying guns aren't weapons? the function of a gun is to fire a projectile at another object. it is an object of destruction. there is nothing to rethink about my statement. a gun is a weapon and there for something designed to cause damage. what other function is there for a weapon?


now this is a ridiculous statement. just what the hell kind of point are you trying to make? I'm for using anything responsibly and safely. I just don't get people like you attempts to paint guns as something other than the weapons they are. guns don't make you safe they make your life more at risk. making stupid arguments like this about public safety puts everyone at risk.

Guns were made for one purpose.
To kill.
Anything else is red herrings.
 
Guns were made for one purpose.
To kill.
Anything else is red herrings.

Kids drown in pools. Nobody needs a pool, but yet people still die in them every year.


...and nobody is demanding pools be outlawed!

Strange. Very strange indeed. You'd think the very same gun haters that demand guns be outlawed because people die, that those same gun haters would be demanding pool deaths stop immediately by outlawing pools, and cars, and ladders...
 
Thanks. In the US though, there's a clear majority in favour of gun ownership, and it was getting bigger, I think. Any party that campaigned for gun control would surely lose.

Maybe that could be put down to the fault of Hollywood, and the perpetuating of the Wild West and all that.

We did have our own Bush Rangers, who were generally escaped convicts deported from good old Mother England, but we didn't have the conglomerate known as Hollywood to perpetuate their existence.
We do have some Interesting bush ballads though, singing the praises of some Robin Hood like bush rangers. Old Ned Kelly and his gang are still looked on with sympathetic eyes...at least in song.
 
Strange. Very strange indeed. You'd think the very same gun haters that demand guns be outlawed because people die, that those same gun haters would be demanding pool deaths stop immediately by outlawing pools, and cars, and ladders...

Strange????
Your analogy is nothing more then a cop out!


Let's do a scientific experiment to illustrate what I have just said.
100 people go for a swim.....what chances are that any of them will drown?

100 people are shot by a firearm of your choosing...what percentage of them will die?
 
Kids drown in pools. Nobody needs a pool, but yet people still die in them every year.


...and nobody is demanding pools be outlawed!

Strange. Very strange indeed. You'd think the very same gun haters that demand guns be outlawed because people die, that those same gun haters would be demanding pool deaths stop immediately by outlawing pools, and cars, and ladders...
again your trying to equate weapons and non weapons. its dishonest and irrelevant.
 
again your trying to equate weapons and non weapons. its dishonest and irrelevant.

Again, the subject is "Things that kill people." That's why you want the guns gone, right? You want them gone because they kill people! Pools kill people too! So you must want them gone too, no? If not, explain why not. I really want to hear it! The suspense is killing me!
 
Again, the subject is "Things that kill people." That's why you want the guns gone, right? You want them gone because they kill people! Pools kill people too! So you must want them gone too, no? If not, explain why not. I really want to hear it! The suspense is killing me!



Again, everything could kill people [well nearly everything]....some things kill easier then others though.
And guns were made to kill.....pools were made for fun, but all necessary care should be taken.
It's rather hard to take care of some goofball's mind and action against what he is thinking, is it not?
 
Again, the subject is "Things that kill people." That's why you want the guns gone, right? You want them gone because they kill people! Pools kill people too! So you must want them gone too, no? If not, explain why not. I really want to hear it! The suspense is killing me!

no the subject is guns your trying to obscure it because you can't honestly answer why it should be ok to free access to weapons with out some form of regulation.
 
Reassurance

Yo, PJ ... dude ... just let it go. We know what's goin' on, right?
 
Your ignorance of guns is laughable! The only function of a gun is to harm?

Yes. Google "stopping power." (Hint - it's not how fast a gun can slam on the brakes.)

Guns are designed to kill. People use them to kill, or to threaten to kill (and thus deter) or to practice killing (which is why so many targets look like people.) Doesn't mean that they are going to kill people; that's up to the people who use them.

You'd think the very same gun haters that demand guns be outlawed because people die, that those same gun haters would be demanding pool deaths stop immediately by outlawing pools

Anyone who honestly thinks that you should treat a gun like a pool, that they are comparable in their threat to human life . . . . probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Do you think that pools, and cars, and ladders, are just as dangerous as guns?
 
Do you think that pools, and cars, and ladders, are just as dangerous as guns?

No, I think they are more dangerous than guns. Duh? Did you happen to look at the chart I posted that showed that drownings and motor vehicles have a higher percentage of accidental deaths than firearms do?

So any moron can see that the priority for saving lives should be to get rid of motor vehicles and pools/lakes/rivers/oceans...in order to save lives!

Because the ONLY argument you have against guns is that they kill people. I agree, people die from guns. I also state that MORE people die from motor vehicles, so we need to get rid of them first! Priority #1!

It's rather stupid to try to get rid of firearms before motor vehicles, when firearms are so low on the totem pole as far as number of deaths, compared to motor vehicle deaths.

Now, please tell me that the number of deaths is not the only factor in considering what we want outlawed?
 
No, I think they are more dangerous than guns. Duh? Did you happen to look at the chart I posted that showed that drownings and motor vehicles have a higher percentage of accidental deaths than firearms do?

So any moron can see that the priority for saving lives should be to get rid of motor vehicles and pools/lakes/rivers/oceans...in order to save lives!

Because the ONLY argument you have against guns is that they kill people. I agree, people die from guns. I also state that MORE people die from motor vehicles, so we need to get rid of them first! Priority #1!

It's rather stupid to try to get rid of firearms before motor vehicles, when firearms are so low on the totem pole as far as number of deaths, compared to motor vehicle deaths.

Now, please tell me that the number of deaths is not the only factor in considering what we want outlawed?

More people die cause their is more interaction given the rate if contact far more people die due to guns
 
Back
Top