US commentators call for Australian-style gun law reform

Against guns?
Want them gone?
Grow some gonads and step right up in an unarmed condition and start collecting them.

Don't whine and gripe and demand new laws and regulations to have an official group of ARMED, jack-booted thugs go do it for you.

Man up and go collect all those bad firearms.... but don't be a hypocrite, GO DO IT UNARMED.

Silly freaking people.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The US now averages almost one mass shooting per day (where four or more people are shot), with 1125 killed in such attacks since the start of 2013.

There have been close to 1000 days since the beginning of 2013. One mass shooting per day for 1000 days = 4000 killed ..... But only 1125 have been killed.

Math is not there strong point.

Of course and as usual, there is nothing at all to support the figures they give out.

Mindless crap and it should be headed PROPAGANDA.

Where are all these people calling for reform, .... um .... nope, can't see them

If you want reform, then start a Constitution Convention.

Nope, they don't want to do that ... because they can't.

Their influence and power base is not strong enough.

Just a mouthy minority.

Australia and America are completely different countries with very different Constitutions.

Just more loud mouths shooting off their mouths.

P

'Only' 1125 people shot dead is good then, yes?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You do understand the difference between automatic and semi-auto right? Just because a firearm might look like an automatic machine gun does not make it an automatic machine gun. Secondly, we can split hairs all you want, but the "general public" means the average joe is not going to be purchasing a fully automatic weapon as they are not going to pay the fees, licensing, etc associated with procuring those types of firearm.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But I don't want any of those guns, I want to get myself an AK-47.

If I am (as the scenario goes) an American citizen who has there mind set on a AK-47, then why can't I have one? I thought it was my born right to bear arms?

If I'm not allowed to own a AK-47, doesn't that make the 2nd amendment a privilege, rather than a right?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
If I am (as the scenario goes) an American citizen who has there mind set on a AK-47, then why can't I have one? I thought it was my born right to bear arms?

If I'm not allowed to own a AK-47, doesn't that make the 2nd amendment a privilege, rather than a right?

What are you on? You can purchase an AK-47, most dealers have several for sale.

a reply to: butcherguy

I do find it amusing that the gun-haters, the gun-grabbers, will have to arm themselves in order to remove, confiscate firearms.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I'd like to know what you have against freedom?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
If I am (as the scenario goes) an American citizen who has there mind set on a AK-47, then why can't I have one? I thought it was my born right to bear arms?

If I'm not allowed to own a AK-47, doesn't that make the 2nd amendment a privilege, rather than a right?

What are you on? You can purchase an AK-47, most dealers have several for sale.

Yes, and for the price of the transfer fees or tax stamps... what have you, you can own fully automatic weapons, silencers, grenade launchers...etc.

Since when does "ban all the guns, ever, everywhere" equate to "common sense" gun laws?

Your shtick on gun control is well known. Don't even know why you're bothering to pretend your end game is something other than total abolition of gun rights.

To control firearms, would be the end of this country. This country was built on freedom. Without such rights, there is no way to ensure tyrants do not hold onto power. Mentally Ill, that is the problem. I wonder what the statistics are for people who die from guns vs drugs. Bring those two together and you have a really big problem, seems people only want to look at guns as the problem, a tool, and not the operator of that tool. The operator with mentally unstable thinking, or irrational thoughts, that is the problem. Why not make everyone who wants to own a gun, take a piss test, and require some sort of ID before purchase, as it stands now, you are asked if you have any problems leaving it up to the person selling to determine whether you are elgible, and since its a monetary sale, of course the person selling is going to look the other way. There is way more to this mass murder problem than Guns, and the people at the top are well aware of this. They want to make owning a Gun shameful and a problem maker. I agree that there are to many guns, and the ease of the mentally ills ability to get guns. Stop the mentally ill fro easily accessing guns will most definetly cut down such hate crimes.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What are you on?

Ethanol, commonly referred to as beer... just to be completely honest.

You can purchase an AK-47, most dealers have several for sale.

Not a brand new fully automated one, from my understanding. Even then with all the costs involved you'd have to be a 1%er and have more money than sense, to even bother.

Anyway... I really don't have any issue with guns in general. Its just that I think a lot of the American members are just so blatantly wrong, when they claim easy access to guns aren't a huge factor in the extremely high rate of homicides and mass shootings in the states.

I'm just denying ignorance, is all.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Ethanol, commonly referred to as beer... just to be completely honest.

Probably a good idea to refrain while posting.

Not a brand new fully automated one, from my understanding. Even then with all the costs involved you'd have to be a 1%er and have more money than sense, to even bother.

The costs for an automatic AK-47, while pricey, is the same as similarly weapons and you do not need to be a 1%er to purchase one.

Anyway... I really don't have any issue with guns in general. Its just that I think a lot of the American members are just so blatantly wrong, when they claim easy access to guns aren't a huge factor in the extremely high rate of homicides and mass shootings in the states.

I think you do have an issue as someone who was intellectually honest about the situation would not continually make so many glaring errors in their assertions regarding firearms ownership.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You do understand the difference between automatic and semi-auto right? Just because a firearm might look like an automatic machine gun does not make it an automatic machine gun. Secondly, we can split hairs all you want, but the "general public" means the average joe is not going to be purchasing a fully automatic weapon as they are not going to pay the fees, licensing, etc associated with procuring those types of firearm.

LOL...yes, I do understand the difference, that is why I explained that not all AK-47s are fully automatic firearms. Did you mistakenly think I said that they were? You wrote the following:

First off, the general public cannot buy an AK-47. Automatic machine guns have been illegal since the 30s.

The implication in that comment of yours is that AK-47s are automatic machine guns. While some are, most are not...just like some ARs are fully automatic, but most are not. Nearly every person that I know (other than me) who enjoys shooting firearms (most are veterans, like I am) has an AK-47 that they take to the range on a regular basis. All are semi-automatic. I only know one person who has a fully-auto AK, and he shoots it only on his property.

As for your "splitting hairs" comment, every single person (barring felony convictions and the like) in the U.S. of appropriate age can obtain a machine gun--just because they're cost prohibitive to many (if not most) Americans does not mean that you can just make the blanket statement that automatic machine guns are illegal.

Why are you trying to argue with me when you know I'm correct on both accounts?

originally posted by: Glassbender777Stop the mentally ill fro easily accessing guns will most definetly cut down such hate crimes.

While I agree, the slippery-slope problem is this: How do you get someone to volunteer to be assessed for mental stability, and if you don't force it, it would actually backfire and keep people from seeking help if they were worried about losing access to their firearms.

Also, it's easy to change the parameters of what meets the definition of clinical mental illness, so that could then be used as a way to reduce access to guns for people who otherwise pose zero threat by owning them.

I fully understand that some of this sounds conspiratorial, but at the same time, the possibility exists, and when you give the government an inch, we all know how much they take.

Taking guns from American citizens would be like handing our country over to the first foreign army here.
I truly believe if it wasn't for the unknown gun counts in the hands of citizens,we would have been over run by a foreign power years ago.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think you do have an issue as someone who was intellectually honest about the situation would not continually make so many glaring errors in their assertions regarding firearms ownership.

I've been very "intellectually honest about the situation" and haven't made any "glaring errors in assertions regarding firearms ownership". Not that I'm entirely sure what all that is supposed to actually mean, but I'm fairly sure I haven't done it.

I'm also more about freedom and against full on prohibition (of anything) than the majority of conservative god fearing gun nuts, but I'm also capable of realizing that my right to swing my fists should stop where the other mans nose begins. In other words, full on freedom without common sense regulations, threatens the safety and rights of others and that's the problem.

For example, I feel I'm a good driver whose capable of driving my car really fast. There for, I would like to have the freedom to drive at 160 km's an hour well flicking though traffic with Rage against the Machine blasting on my car stereo. Unfortunately, theirs lots of people who would end up smashing there car up and would put other road users at risk, if they had the freedom to drive in this manner. So I accept that regulations are needed for how fast I'm allowed to drive and if the police catch me driving in this manner, its perfectly reasonable there should be laws that allow them to pull me over and take my license off me.

Even freedom needs to be regulated, otherwise its just full on anarchy. It's a concept frustrates me at times, but its also a concept that has to be reluctantly accepted as reality by all of us at times, in order to allow people the right to live in a reasonably safe society.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa


Australia, meanwhile, has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

It wasn’t always this way. In 1988, there were 674 gun deaths here. In 1996, there were 516. But that same year, when a troubled 28-year-old opened fire at a cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, killing 35 and wounding 28, Australia took action.

Prime Minister John Howard, who had been in office six weeks, said enough was finally enough, and enforced sweeping nationwide reform of gun laws. The firearm suicide rate dropped by half over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.

.

yes, and did they tell you that that troubled 28-year-old was intellectly, a 13 year old child who never had any military training at all and no weapons training at all but was supposed to have performed as good as the one of the 10 best shparshooters in the world.

Do readers also know that that a former state leader that worked for Howard said " there will be no gun laws in Australia unitl there is a maccassare in Tazmania."

Do the readers also know John Howared usurped the laws of Australia by saying there would be no coronial enquiry, a decision he has no legal authority to make.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I'd like to know what you have against freedom?

So beezzer, if you are for freedom, why are you passionately against pro choice with abortion? Or are you just saying people should only be free to do the things you agree with?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I've been very "intellectually honest about the situation" and haven't made any "glaring errors in assertions regarding firearms ownership". Not that I'm entirely sure what all that is supposed to actually mean, but I'm fairly sure I haven't done it.

The number of times you have been corrected in this thread shows you do not understand the topic.

I'm also more about freedom and against full on prohibition...

What Australia has, and what you seem to advocate, is certainly closer to full on prohibition than what we in the United States would ever be willing to contemplate, let alone accept.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The number of times you have been corrected in this thread shows you do not understand the topic.

What are you talking about dude? I haven't been corrected even once, to any actual 'facts' within this thread.

What Australia has, and what you seem to advocate, is certainly closer to full on prohibition than what we in the United States would ever be willing to contemplate, let alone accept.

I think you just need to educate yourself on the situation, since guns are far from 'prohibited' in Australia. Plus, in Australia you don't get put into jail or shot to death just for merely breathing the wrong way, unlike the states.

So talking like America is the definition of freedom, simply because you can legally own a AR-15, or own a fully automated Ak-47 that was registered before 1986, is just pure ignorance at its best. Your just a bunch of compliant slaves like the rest of us. Only difference is, you have firearm laws that allow hardcore criminals to have easy access to guns.

Just saying....