Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut ;I see plenty of proposed solutions on this very posting that are not backed up by any serious empircal data . So why zero in on my comments except that they disagree with your preconceived perceptions?

---

Hi Tom,

Yes, I think you are right I am not being very fair to you. In the interests of fairness I should go through every other post as well. I am glad you have pointed this out. Yes,I think I was zeroing in mainly on your comments.

Believe it or not I was going to post a reply to J_9 saying that I was understanding of her position and that Australia is a very different culture. In fact, so different in certain areas we may as well be on different planets. Incredible as it seems from your point of view Australia legislation in this area is something most Australians are happy with.

One thing in my favour is that all of my comments were not aimed at specific domestic situations. There were of a general nature centred on studies and various types of arguments that can be employed.

Tut

Hello again,

I just read this and found it to be very profound:

Speaking of us,

Quote:

---

We have a generally more violent mindset, based on many years of conditioning and some distorted ideas about manhood, nationalism, group identity, and assertiveness. Thus all the guns, the extreme violence in films, video games, etc.

Basically, it's a cultural difference that's pretty deeply rooted.

---

Excon

Agree with the above.

I'm sorry. I can't go with the violent movies or video games. Anyone of sound mind and body knows that these are fictitious. Those that act out due to multimedia are NOT of sound mind. Now we are back to mental health.

Clete, why do you think that the mother was a "survivalist" simply because she owned guns?

Hello J:

They guy was saying that violent video's are a SYMPTOM - not a cause.

excon

I could go with that. Maybe for a disturbed individual.

BTW there are 2 Aspy's in my town, brothers, they can be VERY violent at times and have had to be restrained in public on numerous occasions, one of which I have witnessed in our local grocery store.

They are well known to our police department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

I could go with that. Maybe for a disturbed individual.

BTW there are 2 Aspy's in my town, brothers, they can be VERY violent at times and have had to be restrained in public on numerous occasions, one of which I have witnessed in our local grocery store.

They are well known to our police department.

---

Probably also has other issues.

Quote:

---

The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated but is not supported by data.[1][30] More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers.[31] A 2008 review found that an overwhelming number of reported violent criminals with AS had coexisting psychiatric disorders such as schizoaffective disorder.[32]

---

(from the hated Wiki )
Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I can tell there is a solution it is very costly, try the Australian solution an amnesty and buy back where every surrendered weapon is valued and paid for and destroyed and no questions asked, and from that point on no military weapons, no semi automatics allowed, all weapons licensed, and secure, no carry permits except for cops and licenced security and no concealed weapons and just maybe you need a change to the constitution rewording the second amendment

You could even have a gun buy back led recovery with a lot of cash flowing from disused and surrendered weapons. just think 280,000,000 weapons at say $500.

How about you start with this solution
Adelaide mum Sam Paior plans toy gun 'buy-back' after Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut | News.com.au

---

Yes, because surely the criminals will surrender their guns... no doubt.

No the criminlas won't surrender their guns, that is what you have a police force for, in fact, a police force that will have the power to seize illegal weapons once the amnesty has passed. However you may get a few nutcases to surrender their weapons or at least have reduced access to them. The statistics speak for themselves all over the world

Do I think years after our amnesty there are no illegal weapons in our society, no I don't, Just the other day a licenced gun dealer was found with 1,400 illegal weapons, but oddly enough there have been no massacres either. Look when I was young I enjoyed gun ownership, even carried a rifle in my golf bag. But I am no longer young and stupid. That gun wasn't obtained by legal means, but it wasn't illegal for me to own it. Today it would be, and I no longer own a gun or feel the need of a gun to feel safe.

I must chime in as I see a lot of all or nothing thinking. I don't think this is a one size fits all bandaid. For example when doing mindfulness there are lots of ways to practice it. Why? Because not every way works for every person. Same as this issue. I don't think it is get rid of all guns versus keep all guns. It is not all or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

No the criminlas won't surrender their guns, that is what you have a police force for, in fact, a police force that will have the power to seize illegal weapons once the amnesty has passed.

---

They already have the "power" to seize illegal weapons... how would you suggest that they find these illegal weapons?

And I do know of areas that do gun buys. Philadelphia does it. The high crime area of Philadelphia... they do buybacks... know what wonderful results they're getting? They get garbage. They get junk. Bolt action rifles, rusted handguns, single shot, ww2 relics that people had no idea of value... Never have I seen a gun that would actually be used in a crime in these piles. No AR's, no AK's, no semi-auto handguns of any significance. Big deal. What a great job they're doing getting all those killer guns off the streets. Guns like that are guns that someone had laying around and figured they could cash in on them.

Buybacks don't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrann

I must chime in as I see a lot of all or nothing thinking. I don't think this is a one size fits all bandaid. For example when doing mindfulness there are lots of ways to practice it. Why? Because not every way works for every person. Same as this issue. I don't think it is get rid of all guns versus keep all guns. It is not all or nothing.

---

I agree. It also involves the home and parenting, education and improved outlook for one's future, how our society deals with mental health issues, gun safety training, crime and gang prevention in our cities and towns, and so much more. The problems that need to be addressed are mind boggling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I agree. It also involves the home and parenting, education and improved outlook for one's future, how our society deals with mental health issues, gun safety training, crime and gang prevention in our cities and towns, and so much more. The problems that need to be addressed are mind boggling.

---

That's some good thought and you are right. There is so much more to all of this other than simply pointing the finger at guns only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odinn7

They already have the "power" to seize illegal weapons... how would you suggest that they find these illegal weapons?

---

I hear there is such a thing as probable cause which allows police to enter and search and I have no doubt they do seize weapons under such circumstances

Quote:

---

And I do know of areas that do gun buys. Philadelphia does it. The high crime area of Philadelphia... they do buybacks... know what wonderful results they're getting? They get garbage. They get junk. Bolt action rifles, rusted handguns, single shot, ww2 relics that people had no idea of value... Never have I seen a gun that would actually be used in a crime in these piles. No AR's, no AK's, no semi-auto handguns of any significance. Big deal. What a great job they're doing getting all those killer guns off the streets. Guns like that are guns that someone had laying around and figured they could cash in on them.

Buybacks don't work.

---

You missed the point of general amnesty and buyback, no examination of the weapon to see if it was used in a crime and yes you might get some junk but you will also get some not so junk. If it is done when there is a time of high public feeling and the making of certain weapons illegal you will get a better result. You see the problem is also the high level of criminality associated with drugs, etc. This isn't a panecea for all the ills of society, just a way of dealing with one of them

The street gangs will not be in any hurry to hand over their guns for a buyback.

Buybacks happen right now but again I say, it is 95% junk that wouldn't be used by criminals anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I hear there is such a thing as probable cause which allows police to enter and search and I have no doubt they do sieze weapons under such circumstances



You missed the point of general amnesty and buyback, no examination of the weapon to see if it was used in a crime and yes you might get some junk but you will also get some not so junk. If it is done when there is a time of high public feeling and the making of certain weapons illegal you will get a better result. You see the problem is also the high level of criminality associated with drugs, etc. This isn't a panecea for all the ills of society, just a way of dealing with one of them

---

Probable cause to enter a home is only used if there is a crime in progress. Otherwise it takes a search warrant to enter a private premisis.

As far as your buy back amnesty goes. What if someone turns in a stolen gun? It should be returned to the original owner and not destroyed unless that owner can no long have guns. Also if that gun was used in a murder why would you throw out a key piece of evidence?

Dad if you have a large response you will not have the investigative teams to pursue such investigations, you could check seriel numbers, but if the gun was stolen it was probably used in a crime anyway and in the logical conclusion to your argument kept as evidence, not returned. The point of the amnesty is to get guns off the streets and out of the cupboards and not to chase every litte lead that might or might not be there, but the reward could be paid to the owner, not the person who handed it in. You have 280,000,000 guns in your nation, the logistics of chasing even a small proportion of them all down is staggering. It may even mean more would be stolen just to hand them in and get the reward

What was gun ownership in Aussie ? Less that 7% of the population ? Here you try taking people's guns away you better bring an army with you.

It's not like we didn't try an assault weapon ban before. The ban was ineffective for a decade before it expired . And yes I have a study to back that statement .
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Quote:

---

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

---

Yes our gun ownership is less for a number of reasons, both cultural and historical. The amnesty after the Port Arthur Massacre reduced the incidence of gun ownship considerablyand the most telling statistic is the reduction in crime generally, it is as though the nation came of age

One reason is we are not subject to the same level of lawlessness you are, a true catch 22 situation. As far as an assault weapon ban is concerned action has to be more than just a ban, there has to be conscious and deliberate enforcement. I doubt a real reduction would have been achieved without the buyback, we had had various amnesties previously. You see reduction in weapon ownership as taking your guns away, we see reduction in weapon ownership as an improvement in civic safety and making the task of law enforcement easier. We have a low incidence of death by firearm and a low incidence of firearms being used in suicide, Sorry, but we don't generally regard shooting someone as a manly act.

I have no doubt we harbour groups who think as you do, mainly recent immigrants from the middle east and Yugoslavia. It is surprising and instructive to observe the backgrounds of those engaged in violence of various forms

I see reduction in gun ownership as taking my civil rights away.

You must not take it personally, it is intended to make it safer for you

How would taking my protection away from me make me feel safer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

How would taking my protection away from me make me feel safer?

---

Because everyone else would have that "protection" taken away as well.

It's simple math. If everyone around you can't access high powered weapons, you don't need high powered weapons to protect yourself.

If a criminal is forced to use a knife because he can't purchase a gun, then you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself.

I think you all don't realize that gun laws would affect everyone. That would mean that you don't need to protect yourself to the level you are right now, because there wouldn't be any extremely dangerous weapons out there to protect against.

That's really silly Alty. Drugs are illegal but we still have a drug problem. Guns would be illegal and we will still have a gun problem.

By making guns illegal you take them away from the law abiding citizens. If you think criminals are going to give up their guns you aren't living in reality in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

That's really silly Alty. Drugs are illegal but we still have a dry problem. Guns would be illegal and we will still have a gun problem.

By making guns illegal you take them away from the law abiding citizens. If you think criminals are going to give up their guns you aren't living in reality in America.

---

You're right, I don't live in America. Do you really think people are that different in Canada? The only difference is our laws. We have drugs in Canada, we have crime in Canada, we have gangs, we even have shootings. There's not an iota's worth of difference between Americans and Canadians, when it comes to issues and people. The only major difference is our laws. If you look at the statistics, those laws really do speak for themselves.

Are you forgetting that I live in a town that's only 4km away from a major city? Compare my Canadian city to any major city in the US and you won't see many differences. One major difference, we have "no knives allowed" postings on the bars in the city near me. In the US you don't need to worry about knives, you need to worry about guns, because most people have one. In Canada, seeing someone carrying a gun is like catching a glimpse of a siamese twin. Not a common occurrence.

I understand why most Americans are so against stricter gun laws. But you're literally shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bottom line, if you refuse to have stricter gun laws, follow the examples set by others, then you have to accept the deaths that result in that, as part of your right to bear arms, because sadly, everyone has the same right to high powered weapons that you do.

So, when you see a shooting where 20 children are killed, when you see a massacre in a theater where 12 people are killed, and numerous others are seriously injured, when you see this happening numerous times a year, you really have to accept that as part of your refusal to have stricter laws. You have to accept that as the price you pay to get what you want. It really does come down to that. It's really a matter of "I want to have the right to the weapons I wish to have, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives to maintain that right". I hate saying it, but that's really what it boils down to.

Edit: As for drugs. If someone wants to kill them self by doing drugs, I may not like it, but they're only hurting themselves. Guns, not so much. When that person hurts, they rarely limit it to themselves.

Basically the bottom line is that it is my Constitutional right to bear arms. 2nd Amendment to be exact.

Let's look at the theater killer. What has become of him? He has been found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). He was mentally ill just as this guy was. So rather than focusing on the real issue here, you non-Americans are focusing on the method used. It's like blaming the car when someone dies rather that blaming the drunk who was driving the car. It's like blaming the fire but protecting the arsonist.

There are ways to fix the problem without taking away our constitutional rights, but no one wants to hear that. No one wants to focus on the actual root of the problem.

Alty... as for the drugs... come spend time with me when I work in the ER. The addicts are not hurting only themselves. They stab their significant others because of hallucinations. The molest and kill babies that are 17 days old. That's just two of my days lat week in the ER. Neither of those people used a gun. But both of those people were mentally ill and using drugs to self medicate.

The answer to this issue is to bring back affordable mental health care. Bring back state run mental hospitals.

It's not the sane people committing the crimes, it's the mentally ill and these people could have been stopped if there were programs in place to help them before they got this sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Basically the bottom line is that it is my Constitutional right to bear arms. 2nd Ammendment to be exact.

Let's look at the theater killer. What has become of him? He has been found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). He was mentally ill just as this guy was. So rather than focusing on the real issue here, you non-Americans are focusing on the method used. It's like blaming the car when someone dies rather that blaming the drunk who was driving the car. It's like blaming the fire but protecting the arsonist.

There are ways to fix the problem without taking away our constitutional rights, but no one wants to hear that. No one wants to focus on the actual root of the problem.

---

J, that's ridiculous. I can't even respond to it because there's no way to. Your gun a laws are the very root of the problem. Comparing guns to drunk driving, that makes no sense. No disrespect intended, I think you know that I do respect you, I just don't agree with you, not at all.

Yes, you have your second amendment, and so does every one else in the US. Everyone! Every single person, has the right to bear arms. Every druggy, every insane lunatic, everyone.

Are you a responsible gun owner? Of course you are. I know that. I don't question that for a minute. But, since you have the right to bear arms, so does everyone else.

They can go out and purchase a weapon that should only be in the hands of a solider at war, fighting for your country, and if that person decides that he doesn't like pre-schoolers one day (because he's mentally ill, which I'm not disupting), he can take those weapons and gun them down. If that insane idiot doesn't have access to those weapons, then what happens? He takes a knife to the school and injures a few people? Still a tragedy, but not nearly the tragedy that unfolded on Friday.

You all keep trying to find the solution to this. Video games are too violent, parents aren't doing their job, mental illness, drugs, you name it. Instead of focusing on the one thing you can control, which is keeping weapons of mass destruction away from the people that are suffering through these issues. Why? Because it means you'll have to give up your weapons of mass destruction as well.

Do you not realize how ludicrous that is? If you have a toddler with a toy, and he constantly takes that toy and pokes himself in the eye, over and over and over, what do you do? You take the toy away! You don't try to figure out why he pokes himself, you don't blame it on everything else, you just take the toy away. Problem solved. No toy, no eye poking.

I adore you J, you know that. I just don't agree with you, and contrary to what you may believe, I'm not some naïve girl from Canada. I'm a pretty smart cookie, and I've looked at this from all angles. I see this issue very clearly. I also see that you and I are never going to agree on this issue. I stated that in my original post. I knew this wouldn't lead anywhere. I really didn't even want to be a part of this thread. I only started it so that the other thread would be left alone, and not turned into the war on guns we have going here. I don't want it to be a war that ends up costing me someone I care about, even if we can't agree on this one issue.

On that note, I'm going to bed, I have to deal with retail hell tomorrow, and frankly, most of the customers I had to deal with today should be grateful that we have strict gun laws. Just saying. ;)

One thing tio think about, where I come from we don't need to worry about bringing a knife to a gun fight

Alty... first I want you to know that I take no offense to ehst uou have said and I ask the same in return. I enjoy a friendly discussion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond because it is very clear that you really don't understand our gun laws the way you think you
Do. The weapons that are in the hands of the military cannot be purchased by an ordinary citizen. They are military only and not available to the public. The general public can purchase magazines (not clips) that hold a minimum amount of rounds. High cap Mag's are available to military and police only. The term "assault rifle" is very misleading. The rifle this man used is a popular deer hunting rifle, it just looks intimidating. You are very misled on what types of firearms are available to the general public.

Your comparison of a toddler poking himself in the eye is ludicrous as well. Because one toddler pokes himself in the eye the whole class should be punished?

Again, and no disrespect to you cause you are my online best friends, as a German-Canadian, you really haven't a clue about what kinds of guns are available to whom. What you said above is proof of that.

Let me give you a hypothetical and think before you respond. Please respond as I'm interested to hear what you have to say...

Rod and Jared have to go out of town for the weekend. It's just you and Syd at home. Syd is asleep in her room when the window breaks and a huge monster of a man climbs through the window and goes after Syd. He's going to rape her. You know you can't overpower him, but you have a revolver and you could shoot him to save her or you can call the cops. Now it might take the cops 15 minutes to get there. What are you going to do?

Now let's say that all you have to save her is a steak knife. What do you think will happen?

And no, it's not ludicrous, you are blaming the gun and not finding fault with the person who pulled the trigger.

Can any of you give an instance of when gun use actually saved lives? I can give a few examples but I want to hear from you first.

Funny how these don't make the main-stream liberal media.

I can think of an number of instances where they have cost lives even in the hands of police, there was one recent incident I believe where a citizen with a gun forced a thief to back off, but of course the outcome could have been very different. I heard of an 80 year old man who recently tackled two armed thieves and beat them, but if they came armed with guns he would have been dead

If there were less guns people would have to be trained in self defense wouldn't they? Look, you put forward an emotional hyperthetical but in reality you also tell us your right to have a gun is supposed to deter this situation. If your gun is stored as it should be you will not have time to retrieve it and load it so you will need to handle the situation differently

Where was the police protection in Newtown ? Late to the party .Perhaps the question might be asked. Why was an elementary school targeted ;why a theater in a 'gun-free zone' ? Why was a college campus that has similar restrictions targeted ? I'd bet Portland Oregon has similar restrictions like no conceal and carry . I'm sure no one in the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin was armed except the attacker.
2 houses... one has a 'gun free zone 'sign in front and the other has a 'protected with an R-15 ' .Guess which home will get broken into.

Quote:

---

Now let's say that all you have to save her is a steak knife. What do you think will happen?

---

One person at the most possibly dies.

Yeah the one with the knife protecting self ,and property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Alty... first i want you to know that i take no offense to ehst uou have said and i ask the same in return. I enjoy a friendly discussion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond because it is very clear that you really don't understand our gun laws the way you think you
do. The weapons that are in the hands of the military cannot be purchased by an ordinary citizen. They are military only and not available to the public. The general public can purchase magazines (not clips) that hold a minimum amount of rounds. High cap Mag's are available to military and police only. The term "assault rifle" is very misleading. The rifle this man used is a popular deer hunting rifle, it just looks intimidating. You are very misled on what types of firearms are available to the general public.

---

Im sorry J but I can't let this go. Im going to be sending to your room to do a little research and study. High capacity mags as well as drum mags are readily available to the general public. Mostly it is State law that puts the limits on capacity. Places like California have a limitation of 10 rounds for anything. Pistol or rifle it doesn't matter. Other states like Tennessee have no limitation on capacity. Also the AR15 in .223 is not a deer rifle. It is a varmit rifle. The difference being that it is considered cruel to the animal to not have a quick kill when hunting and hunters respect that. So this round is best suited for smaller game. The AR10 on the other hand (looks like the AR15) is a deer rifle because it shoots a 308 round and can drop a deer on the spot.

There's no doubt that your gun culture is too far gone to be retrenched. That's not the case in other countries.
My response was referring to mass killings reduced if they only had a knife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alty

You're right, I don't live in America. Do you really think people are that different in Canada? The only difference is our laws. We have drugs in Canada, we have crime in Canada, we have gangs, we even have shootings. There's not an iota's worth of difference between Americans and Canadians, when it comes to issues and people. The only major difference is our laws. If you look at the statistics, those laws really do speak for themselves.

Are you forgetting that I live in a town that's only 4km away from a major city? Compare my Canadian city to any major city in the US and you wont' see many differences. One major difference, we have "no knives allowed" postings on the bars in the city near me. In the US you don't need to worry about knives, you need to worry about guns, because most people have one. In Canada, seeing someone carrying a gun is like catching a glimpse of a siamese twin. Not a common occurrence.

I understand why most Americans are so against stricter gun laws. But you're literally shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bottom line, if you refuse to have stricter gun laws, follow the examples set by others, then you have to accept the deaths that result in that, as part of your right to bear arms, because sadly, everyone has the same right to high powered weapons that you do.

So, when you see a shooting where 20 children are killed, when you see a massacre in a theater where 12 people are killed, and numerous others are seriously injured, when you see this happening numerous times a year, you really have to accept that as part of your refusal to have stricter laws. You have to accept that as the price you pay to get what you want. It really does come down to that. It's really a matter of "I want to have the right to the weapons I wish to have, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives to maintain that right". I hate saying it, but that's really what it boils down to.

Edit: As for drugs. If someone wants to kill them self by doing drugs, I may not like it, but they're only hurting themselves. Guns, not so much. When that person hurts, they rarely limit it to themselves.

---

Alty I do accept the responsibility that goes with being a gun owner. Yes there are crazy people out there. That is part of the world we live in. I accept it as I accept driving a automobile / truck down the roadway. More people are killed by autos then are killed by guns. I see no need to eliminate them either. Does the shooting sadden me? Yes it does. Saying it is a tragidy doesn't seem strong enough. The difference that I see through my eyes vs what you see through yours is that in situations like this if more people carried responsibly and had access it could have been stopped sooner. There are countless stories of responsible gun owners putting a stop to situations before they got out of hand or stopping a crime in progress. Being responsible is a way to not only protect yourself but others as well. The fact that we may need a weapon may be a sad commentary about the society we live in but if that is part of living here Im going to stay. If everyone were to carry then criminals would think twice before even pulling a gun as they would know they are outnumbered.