[oneguyinohio]

It seems as if it were just too simple of a fix to have had a doctor (with equipment available) to respond along with the social services people... If the judge wanted to order something, he should have looked into having the county foot the bill for a qualified person to visit the home... It doesn't sound as if the "authorities" were ever prevented from access to the child in question. The father did allow others to see the child, but to what means... The social services people were evidently not doctor's qualified in making any medical decisions...

I think there was some over zealous behaviours by people who believed in what they were doing. Thankfully, the situation did not lead to serious bodily harm to anyone. In an environment where some parents are willing to have their children suffer to say the least, I can understand the feelings of wanting to prevent that with all necessary force. I think that the problems that arise in this particular case point to a need to work toward better options being available for the authorities to use in fairness to both sides. I do not think it means that guns and bullets should be purchased to further escalate situations. Rather than make that kind of proposal, it would be better to work toward reforms via legal means. If the father in this case is successful in his legal endeavors, it would seem that the agencies will take notice, and perhaps have better solutions the next time.

[kindj]

it would be better to work toward reforms via legal means.

But what if the legal system IS the problem, then what?

[ETWolverine]

They arent down here. Never heard of such a thing happening here. Thats not a personal belief like your is either. Its fact!

Skell,

We've discussed this in the past. Legal gun ownership in Australia is UP not down. There is a very large segment of the Australian population that is armed. That is why it can never and will; never happen there.

In Germany in the 1930s, where guns were completely illegal, except for government officials (police, military, SS, etc.) that sort of erosion of rights was the norm. Nazi officials could (and did) literally raid any home they wished with impunity because nobody could fight back. However, in the one case where civillians did get their hands on guns, they fought back... the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The only problem with that situation is that there weren't ENOUGH civillians armed to make a difference.

Or take Cuba, for example... civilian gun ownership in Cuba is very low, practically non-existant. That is why a leader like Castro, who is practically on his deathbed, is able to maintain power, despite his despotic ways. There's nobody there to stop him. His underlings can and do raid any home they desire, with or without reason, because they are armed, and the civilians are not.

I could go through other examples... the Soviet Union and communist China being the clearest examples. But you get my point.

Where there is legal gun ownership in significant numbers, individual rights are protected from organized government. In places where there is no such legal gun ownership, organized government inhibits individual rights.

Elliot

[Skell]

Skell,

We've discussed this in the past. Legal gun ownership in Australia is UP not down. There is a very large segment of the Australian population that is armed. That is why it can never and will; never happen there.

I can assure you that that is not the reason it deosnt happen down here at all. 100%. Perhaps looking at why it doesn't happen down here one should concentrate on why it DOES happen up there.

Your assertion that there is a very large segment of Australia that is armed is just plain and simply wrong. And the reason being is that, as we have discussed before, legal gun ownership is up in Australia is because illegal gun ownership is so far down. A lot of the previously illegal guns are now legal. But legal gun ownership down here does not allow guns to be kept in the home (except in rural areas for farming). It is illegal to keep a gun in the home and people simply can't do this legally.

So how is it that legal gun ownership prevents this from happening down here if legal gun ownership means that a gun isn't to be kept in the home but rather at a rifle range? That doesn't stack up!

Anyway, its going over old ground.

[ETWolverine]

I can assure you that that is not the reason it deosnt happen down here at all. 100%. Perhaps looking at why it doesn't happen down here one should concentrate on why it DOES happen up there.

Your assertion that there is a very large segment of Australia that is armed is just plain and simply wrong. And the reason being is that, as we have discussed before, legal gun ownership is up in Australia is because illegal gun ownership is so far down. A lot of the previously illegal guns are now legal.

According to the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA, which I have been told is your country's largest gun-ownership advocacy organization, roughly similar to our NRA) there are currently 764,518 gun licenses in Australia, and over 2,165,000 registered firearms. Considering that your ADF only has about 52,000 people at present, and your federal police force is only another 5-6,000, I would argue that 765,000 private gun owners is a "significant number". Private gun owners outnumber military and federal police by roughly 13:1.

Do you truly believe that the fact that private gun ownership in your country outnumbers the military and police by an order of 13:1 has nothing to do with keeping your country's government honest? I'd say that it most certainly has an effect on keeping your government from usurping your rights.

But legal gun ownership down here does not allow guns to be kept in the home (except in rural areas for farming). It is illegal to keep a gun in the home and people simply can't do this legally.

So how is it that legal gun ownership prevents this from happening down here if legal gun ownership means that a gun isn't to be kept in the home but rather at a rifle range? That doesn't stack up!

You apparently do not know your own country's gun laws. There is no prohibition of keeping firearms in the home. They must be stored in a safe made of the appropriate materials, and that safe must be bolted to the building that houses it with two bolts. But there is no prohibition of keeping weapons in private homes. Queensland doesn't even have the requirement that the safe be bolted to the building, as long as the safe weighs more than 150 kg when empty. In fact, Queensland even permits type R firearms to be stored in private homes. Type R firearms include machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, 50-calibre BMG weapons, etc. If you can get the license you can store it in the home. Getting the license for a Type R weapon is kind of tough, though.

So in short, your understanding of Australian gun laws is flawed. I suggest that you read up here.

Anyway, its going over old ground.

Yes it is, but it clearly bears repeating.

Elliot

[Skell]

Fair enough Elliot. So given the fact that you say our guns laws is what makes this sort of thing never happen in Australia and then why don't you support the adoption of our gun laws given the fact that this sort of thing does happen in your country? That would make sense to me!

[ETWolverine]

Skell,

Gun laws that allow any citizens to own any guns they want as long as they are properly stored? All for it. In fact, that is what I have been arguing for since day one. That's also what the NRA is in favor of. And just about any pro-gun person I have ever met.

That's what they have in Israel too... they have storage laws and legalized gun ownership for any citizen without a criminal record. And just about every citizen in Israel is armed (full carry is common there, by the way). They have lower crime rates and lower gun accident ates than anywhere else in the world.

So I'm all in favor of the types of gun laws that allow ownership as long as storage is done properly. Yeah, I'd adopt a system like the one in Australia that I have described... one that allows the citizenry to be armed to the same level as the military. Why would you think otherwise?

Elliot

[Skell]

I just find it astounding that one of your main arguments for gun ownership is to ensure you and your families safety, yet you now claim to support guns being locked away and stored as above. You claim that guns is what prevents crime on the streets. It prevents intruders entering your home. It prevents you being mugged in the street. It prevents rape and violent crime. You claim that guns are needed to be carried by the public in order to shoot down the mass murderers before they kill many more. How can this be done if the guns are locked away safely in storage as described above? That doesn't stack up.

You present a nice case above with respect to gun laws in Australia. But you only present a small part of the case. The small part that involves Storage and Transportation of LICENSED fire arms.

You fail to present the case that outlines the Act in relation to gaining that License.

"1. Licensing requirements

Section 12 of the New South Wales Firearms Act 1996 sets out a comprehensive table detailing the "Genuine reasons for having a license". Included are the following:

* Sport/target shooting.
* Hunting/vermin control
* Primary production.
* Vertebrate pest animal control.
* Occupational requirements relating to rural purposes.
* Animal welfare
* Firearms collection."

Citizens can not own a gun or obtain a License for self protection or uprising against the Government which has always been your main argument for gun ownership.

And even those with Hunting Licenses can only use it on privately owned land and for the purposes of pest control.

I know my countries gun laws Elliot. In fact I know ALL of it. Not just the small part you tried to present as evidence of guns in every home. That's just simply incorrect.

But I'm glad Elliot that you are happy to have laws similar to ours implemented in the US. That is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. It just means that you will also be happy to give up that assault rifle you carry, or at least obtain a license to use it legally for sport shooting at a Rifle Range or on your farm to keep those pesky rabbit numbers down.

Other than that you simply won't be allowed to legally own it.

We're making progress though Elliot. I never thought I'd sway you that's for sure. :)

P.S. I don't like to take my statistics from Shooters Associations. They are biased and irrelevant in most cases. I much prefer to use the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other much more respected organisations such as I have when presenting you with the numbers and crime statistics previously.

[Skell]

So Elliot are you really willing to have the US implement laws like this? Im interested.

[tomder55]

The 2nd amendment is very clear about both the right of individuals to "bear arms".....AND the right of the states to regulate them ("necessary to the security of a free state" Elliot is right .The 2nd amendment guarantees primarily the right to stage a revolution against a State that is no longer free.

BTW ;the Bush Adm .made a terrible blunder this week in their Amicus Brief of District of Columbia V Heller http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/07...itedStates.pdf

The lower court ruled in favor of the individual to own guns ;the DC law had banned all hand guns and rifles in the district. But the question remained ;which weapons were permitted and which laws could the locals could adopt.

The court had ruled based on the the weapons ordinary people owned in the Founding eraaccording to the second Militia Act of 1792 that :

"It follows that the weapons described in the Act were in 'common use' at the time, particularly when one considers the widespread nature of militia duty.. . [T]he Act distinguishes between the weapons citizens were required to furnish themselves and those that were to be supplied by the government . . . The Act required militiamen to acquire weapons that were in common circulation and that individual men would be able to employ, such as muskets, rifles, pistols, sabres, hangers, etc., but not cumbersome, expensive, or rare equipment such as cannons."

The court went on to say that

"The modern handgun -- and for that matter the rifle and long-barreled shotgun -- is undoubtedly quite improved over its colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller's standards. Pistols certainly bear 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' They are also in 'common use' today, and probably far more so than in 1789."

The court also ruled that Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a concealed weapon that gun registration and proficiency testing are acceptable. Prohibitions on gun ownership by people who exhibit "insanity or felonious conduct" don't infringe a constitutional right.

So the Bush Justice dept ;interested in maintaining Federal Assault Rifle bans write in the brief the following .

"The court's decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of 'Arms' that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."

(I will not get into the absurdity of this argument .If machine guns aren't traceable to the weapons of the 18th century then neither is any other modern rifle.)
In other words ;according to the Justice Dept. some guns are "lineal descendants" and some aren't .

Further when discussing which regulations are acceptable the Justice Dept argues that

courts "should consider (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions on the plaintiff's ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (including the nature and practical adequacy of the available lawful alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government's interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction."

In other words the courts should consider what degree of infringment of the 2nd Amendment is acceptable.
The Bush adm. Has had a pretty good record regarding 2nd amendment issues. But with this brief they should consider turning in their NRA cards .

[ETWolverine]

Skell,

I fail to understand your confusion over the idea that when a gun isn't being used it should be properly stored.

In Israel, everyone is armed. And yet they also have strict gun-storage laws that require double locks, never leaving a weapon unattended, etc. Violation of those laws is subject to some pretty severe punishment, inluding long prison sentences. If the weapon is not currently on your person, it should be stored properly. Storage laws do not prevent full carry.

I have no problem with such laws in the USA. When a weapon is not being used (carried) it must be properly stored in lock-boxes or safes. What's confusing about that?

But the key part of the law is that full carry should be permitted. One should be able to carry any weapon for which one is licensed. (After all, as you point out, what's the use of getting a license for a weapon that you can't carry with you. Kind of pointless to not have the weapon on your person when you need it. You can't exatly tell a mugger or rapist, "Wait here, I have to run home to get my gun.")

Australia clearly has such provisions, and three quarters of a million people (roughly 4% of your population) manage to obey those laws.

Again, I can't really understand your confusion.

Yes, I would have no problem with storage laws in the USA. I would also have no problem with a requirement for a weapons-safety course before licensing, similar to a drivers' education course needed for a drivers license.

What I have a problem with is the arbitrary banning of guns because "guns kill". Or even more idiotic, the banning of CERTAIN guns because they kill more than other guns... and then using such things as length of barrel, configuration of hand-grip, etc. to determine WHICH guns you will ban.

Here are some of the idiotic criterion that determine whether a weapon is an "assault weapon":

• A detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds (5 rounds for shotguns).

I had no idea that the military only uses 10 rounds at a time. And here I thought that a typical assault rifle used by the military uses a 30-round magazine. So why the arbitrary 10-round limit, which has NOTHING to do with assault weapons?

• Military-style appearance, including semi-automatic replicas of military selective-fire assault rifles and machine guns

So if it LOOKS like an assault rifle, it's therefore more deadly than other weapons? Huh?

• A folding or telescoping stock

I have never seen anyone shot by the stock of a rifle. What does the configuration of the stock have to do with the deadliness of the weapon?

• Attached grenade launchers such as the M203 or rifle grenade

Never seen a street-crime take place with a grenade launcher. Not even an illegal one. Have you?

• On rifles and shotguns, pistol grips that extend vertically from the stock

Never seen anyone shot with a pistol grip either.

• A bayonet lug

Not the actual bayonete... just the ring to hold it. And for some reason adding a knife to a gun makes the gun more deadly? Might as well just carry the knife, then, since by itself there's no ban on the knife.

• Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or sound suppressor

I have no idea what makes a weapon with a silencer more dangerous. Suppressors slow the speed of the bullet, decrease the range of the weapon, and make the weapon harder to hide. What part of this makes the weapon deadlier?

• Weapons that include a barrel shroud

Huh? This one makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are they saying that if you take the barrel shroud off an AK-47, and wear gloves instead to protect your hands, that AK is no longer an "assault weapon"?

• On pistols, those on which the magazine attaches outside of the pistol grip

Never seen a weapon shoot from the magazine either. Who cares where the weapon keeps its bullets?

• A forward mounted pistol grip

Again, never seen anyone shot by the weapon's grip.

What is NOT talked about is the size of the round (except in California where weapons that fire the .50 BMG round are specifically prohibitted), rate of fire, muzzel velocity, effective range of the weapon, or anything else that actually determined the lethality of the weapon. The criterion above are completely arbitrary and are NOT indicative of the lethality of the weapon. Banning weapons based on those criterion is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. Banning any gun as "more deadly" than any other is ridiculous. Dead is dead, and one gun is not going to make someone MORE dead than any other.

Here's a hint. No gun has ever killed a single person, ever. Guns don't kill. PEOPLE kill. Guns are just the tool that people use to do their killing. Sometimes people kill by accident, by leaving a weapon unattended. But it is still the PEOPLE that kill. Banning the guns won't stop the people from killing. They will either get the guns illegally, or they will find another implement, like knives, sticks, stones, or bare hands. Banning guns neither decreases the number of people killed, nor decreases the amount of crime.

But guns, when owned and carried by responsible people who are trained in both their safety and their effective use, can prevent those people from being victims of crime. It can also prevent government abuses of their rights and freedoms.

BTW, your government in Australia allows individuals to apply for a class-R license, which includes personal ownership of machine guns and other assault weapons. If we implement Australian gun laws here, it wouldn't require a ban on "assault weapons". For that matter, as I mentioned in a prior post, the Class R license allows for ownership of BMGs, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. And no, there is nothing in the law that says that they are only for use at sport shooting ranges. Basically, if you can afford it, you can carry it, if you have the license.

And I don't carry an assault weapon on my person. Wish I did, but somebody decided to ban them. Based on the idiotic criterion mentioned above.

Elliot

[Skell]

What's your definition of "being used"? Shooting someone, or just carrying for self protection?

You ignored my point about reasons for which one can obtain a license and down here self protection isn't one of them. Did you read my post?

So no, you don't support our laws. You only support the part about Storage. And that is insane, because as you say, you need it for self protection against muggers and rapists. So therefore you need it all the time. It would never be stored, so a law on storage would be pointless. That's what confuses me.

Or are you saying when you get home at night you lock it away and just pray to god you don't have a home invasion from a gun yielding maniac that you claim roam freely everywhere?

You want people to carry guns for self protection but you also want them stored when not needed. Tell me when exactly that is please Elliot?

My previous post deals with reasons one can obtain a license and the restrictions to Licenses. Its quite clear. Our law does not allow one to carry a weapon simply if they have a license and can afford to buy it. That's simply incorrect.

Sorry Elliot, my knowledge on weapons isn't up to your standard because of the simple fact that I don't own one. I don't need to. We don't need to. But I also know we do have laws relating to knives too.

Your argument gets weak when you bring out the old "guns don't kill people, people do".

No banning guns won't stop people killing people. I never said that. But it will help stop the slaughter of innocent kids sitting in a class room minding there own business like at Virginia Tech. Ive proved that to you time and again using statistics that show gun laws significantly reduce mass murders which are presently at an unprecedented level in the US.

Have a nice weekend.