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.
.........
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. ..........
So Austrailians, historically subjects of the crown, willingly surrendered their natural right to self-defense in a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy; and, you would like Americans to be equally naive. Does that about cover it?
I politely suggest you take a longer look at US history, the gun confiscations by the British Crown that were the last straw leading to "the shot heard round the world", and that our Constitution affirms and protects the natural rights of the citizens (not subjects) from abuse from a tyrannical government.
Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeated it. I'll be damned if law abiding American gun owners will be as stupid and naive as the Aussies who surrendered to the gun grabbers.
I think what the OP expressed is consistent with what most people in other countries feel.
And a huge number of people in this country are xenophobic, fearing that the US may be like some other country. That, to them, is a bad thing.
Different countries, even different regions, have different customs and styles of living. Good or bad, the US is a much more gun oriented country than most of the rest of the world. The image of the "Wild West" is still alive and well. The Marlboro Man, Wyatt Earp, Annie Oakley all are still in our culture. Maybe Somalia has higher gun ownership raes than the US - I don't know if other countries do. You cannot change this way of life in years or even decades. As a good friend always says "It IS WHat It Is."
If we have things rising in crime it is a combination of:
Bad economy.
Not prosecuting and keeping bad guys behind the bars.
Refusal to get rid of all the illegals (which have brought lots of violent gang members with them).
We have various government entities unwilling to do their job.
Huh? Crime rates - basically across the board - have been dropping steadily in the US for the last 25 years (although we still have a major violence problem).
We're much more aggressively prosecuting crimes and punishing offenders than every before.
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.
You've just solved your own curiosity. Those politicians work for us. Unfortunately there's just not a lot of choice when it comes to candidates. It's the ones that do have the intestinal fortitude that preserve our Constitutional rights. And when it comes to Constitutional rights, the 'We' are that militia, which 'We' choose to regulate.
As far as people being killed by people... it happens in a lot of places where people can't even have guns. But guns in the right hands can spoil the opportunity.
...the 25 year-old resident of Anaheim, California who was shot to death by Anaheim police on Saturday. The circumstances of the shooting are under investigation, but it has been reported that Diaz was unarmed at the time of the shooting.
No bullets from me, but perhaps an astonishing insight (credit to Michael Moore and his movie "Bowing for Columbine" Americans are AFRAID. . . .OF EVERYTHING. . . and yet they count themselves as the most fortunate people in the world, due soley to the fact that they were born in the U.S. I don't "get it" either, but unlike many of my fellows, I was raised to think critically. BTW, did you know that the U.S. State of Texas has forbidden the teaching of critical thinking skills? One hardly knows if one should laugh or cry!
Education begins at home. Never give a government educator an opportunity to eff it up.
Huh? Crime rates - basically across the board - have been dropping steadily in the US for the last 25 years (although we still have a major violence problem).
We're much more aggressively prosecuting crimes and punishing offenders than every before.
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!
G'day mate. You realize the real issue is a justice system that is lenient on habitual criminals, a failure to address the drug issue, and no system in place to handle the mentally insane, right?
In Australia, there have been incidences of east Indian students being attacked at night by criminals, courtesy of knives. Nevermind the Aussie police not being sympathetic to these students safety, I imagine if they had a gun they wouldn't need the racist police.
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!
For the same re4aqson we actaully don't take people freedon way unless its proved in a hearings that the perosn because of mental issues is a IMMENT threat. That is a tall burden to prove but we always take the individual rights or freedom over society i general. that is the foundation of our constituion of indivdual fredom and protectio of them. its quite the opposite from the conllective . But it alos is why we beleive that the death penalty once provwen is not wrong. We only have tyo loo at the recent italian case of the america girl to see hwat allowing prosecutors strong rights over individual freedom means. Its the basicas that this country was founded on when it broke form its ancestorial european roots.We allow maximum freedom but alos expect maxium responsiblioty for indivdual actions.
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!
His opinion is certainly interesting, but I don't lend his law enforcement experience the same value as I would if he were an officer here in the US. Laws are different, the amount and natures of some crimes are probably different both in reality and laws affecting them.
I also don't give Michael Moore any credit for anything, ever, because he is simply out to make a buck and is extremely biased/politically motivated.
His opinion of firearms and your average American's opinions of firearms are likely to be different because of different laws and differently worded documents concerning basic rights. The right of Americans to bear arms was, at the time the Constitution was written, extremely important. Not only was it important for the initial secession of the colonies from Britain, it was important for many conflicts after- Marines defending shipping from Barbary Coast pirates, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the World Wars- our familiarity with arms as a society is second to none in the world.
What I'm getting at is intent- despite the huge population of the US in comparison to other countries, and the huge number of privately owned firearms, very, very few people are actually inclined to use them for anything other than hunting, sport shooting, or home/self defense here. I can't tell you how much more I've heard of people dying from car accidents, stabbings, beatings, gang/prison violence involving non-firearm weapons, etc. I feel like firearms laws are fine where they are at now, and don't need to be made more strict or more lax. Guns don't just get up out of safes, or holsters, or out from car glove compartments or bedside tables and do these things themselves- they require a user with the intent to harm.
Furthermore, firearms throughout the US are not uniform between the states. You effectively have 50 kids in a room trying to vote on what kinds of cookies are the best- you are never going to get a straight consensus, no matter how many times you ask the question- currently the consensus concerning guns is that a majority of Americans are in favor of firearm ownership and leaving things the way they are. The only way to change that on a national level is to get a great majority of states to agree to something, as well as our representatives and senators- it'd be extremely difficult to get anything like that through at this moment.
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.
It's a logical extension of the liberal pseudo-Christian mentality: "hate the sin, love the sinner."
In this case, the gun is the sin.
So liberals hate the guns but love the criminals.
Who's teaching this distorted philosophy ?
The modern liberal church.
.
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.
