Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.
First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Why do you feel people will care here? I'm not trying to be dismissive but there has been a countless numbers of posts exactly like yours. Have been for a long time.
We do not feel that the answer to crime is in punishing law abiding citizens.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Perhaps you should look at the rulings SCOTUS has made on this subject instead....
I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.
First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Okay, let the bullets fly!
Thank you for having the courage to post this. First of all, your opinion is especially well qualified because of your personal experience.
America is very gun-loving and Michael Moore has highlight this in his film (can't recall the name -senior moment!) . . . I do expect you will get a lot of flack from right-winged "patriots" - many of whom support the 2nd Amendment, come Hell or High water . . . and that is what they are waiting for . . .if a few dozen, hundred, or thousand are killed in the process, so be it (I would imagine they would think) . . .
You aren't going to get the Charleton Heston crowd to change their fervent stance any time soon, so indeed, the bullets will fly and the innocent people be damned!
Why do you feel people will care here? I'm not trying to be dismissive but there has been a countless numbers of posts exactly like yours. Have been for a long time.
We do not feel that the answer to crime is in punishing law abiding citizens.
Bingo. Nor do most of us feel the need for nanny state mentality. It's gotten worse since 9/11, with politicians taking advantage of fear and manipulating it to strip us of our rights, but we don't lie down so easily to such behavior. Remember, you still have a queen, figurehead though she may be (and God bless her!). We got rid of the monarchy a long time ago.
imcurious, I saw the Michael Moore film, and it didn't say what you apparently think it said. I was quite surprised to find what it REALLY was about, given what anti-gun people were saying about it.
i fail to understand why people attack an inanimate object that is merely a tool. guns dont kill people, bullets dont kill people, cars, knives, baseball bats, etc. DONT KILL PEOPLE. ALL of these items and more require a human agency to make them work.
as to deaths caused by firearms, would these people be any less if they were tossed out a 10 story window?
why has there been an rise in violent deaths since the 60s? we have been cheapening human life by making abortion easy to get, and working hard to remove god from society. we make movies that embrace drugs, and violence, and the more violent the movie, the more we like it. same with TV shows, and video games, etc. we need to get societies moral compass set straight again, and stop coddling criminals.
Thank you for having the courage to post this. First of all, your opinion is especially well qualified because of your personal experience.
America is very gun-loving and Michael Moore has highlight this in his film (can't recall the name -senior moment!) . . . I do expect you will get a lot of flack from right-winged "patriots" - many of whom support the 2nd Amendment, come Hell or High water . . . and that is what they are waiting for . . .if a few dozen, hundred, or thousand are killed in the process, so be it (I would imagine they would think) . . .
You aren't going to get the Charleton Heston crowd to change their fervent stance any time soon, so indeed, the bullets will fly and the innocent people be damned!
More people have been killed by governments than through any other means. Not citizens owning guns.
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Actually, the term "well organized" is very ambiguous and subject to broad interpretation. If you knew people in this country who were gun enthusiasts, you would know that they are often members of groups and that those groups are very well organized. And the amendment does not specifically mention what a "group" or "militia" consists of. In theory, it could consist of two, or even "just one" person. If one person is sworn to uphold the liberty of the country, then I would say that makes them a "well organized militia". Who are you (or anyone else) to say differently?
Quote:
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
It has been statistically proven time and time and time again that restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens DOES NOT reduce gun related crime and deaths. In fact, places in this country that did pass laws restricting gun ownership have seen a DRASTIC increase in gun crime and deaths. If you do not believe me you can google Chicago and Washington DC for yourself and see the numbers and statistics.
the fact is that criminals DO NOT CARE IF THEY BREAK THE LAW. Therefore, even if guns are outlawed, they are going to find a way to acquire illegal ones. If they do not use guns, then they will use machetes or knives or swords or something else and the defenseless VICTIM of the crime will have no way to defend themselves.
It has been shown conclusively over and over that guns are a DETERRENT to crime - especially violent crime. To remove the only means of defense is not the answer. Besides, I'm sure you are well aware that in both Nazi German and Communist Russia, before mass atrocities against innocent men, women and children, stringent gun laws were put into place.
There are two problems. One is generic crime on the streets and that can best be solved by increasing the number of law enforcement officers in difficult areas and not tying their hands with laws that benefit the criminal. And the other problem is insane monsters who go on killing sprees. All you can do is hope that someone is present with a weapon who can stop them. And by encouraging the "man on the street" to carry a firearm, that is the best defense.
It might interest you to know that gun sales in the US are higher now than they have been in recent history and that more and more people are getting licensed to carry a concealed weapon. You cannot always count on someone else to protect you when a crazy person decides to become a murderer.
20yrsinBranson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
