It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NJE777
Your right! Guns don't kill... bullets do.
Perhaps if bullets were so readily available... ?
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
No, the asshole who unilaterally decides to use a gun for deviant purposes is who kills.
www.spiegel.de...
Australian Prime Minister John Howard also gave his sympathies to the families of the dead on Tuesday. He went on to suggest that the "gun culture" in America had to change. He referred to an Australian massacre in 1996 by a man with a semi-automatic rifle who killed 35 people in Port Arthur on the island of Tasmania. At the time, Howard confronted Australia's gun lobby and banned almost all types of semi-automatic weapons.
"Eleven years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns," he said. "We showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
You see, it's easy to blame everything under the sun. All of the excuses are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent personal responsibility.
www.guncontrol.org.au...
About 640,000 guns were taken in under the amnesty and buy-back scheme which operated soon after the Port Arthur massacre. Victoria was been the most successful state to call in its prohibited weapons. Before the scheme started the Victorian Firearms Registry records showed that there were about 750,000 registered guns in Victoria. About 210,000 were handed in because they became prohibited weapons. These were mainly military style rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns and .22 low power rifles with 10 shot magazines. About 20% of those guns however were unregistered
Originally posted by NJE777
You see, it's easy to blame everything under the sun. All of the excuses are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent personal responsibility.
Well, this is where I disagree with you. Personal responsibility - means taking responsiblity for ones actions/choices. With any crime, the issue of 'causation' arises. You cannot make a finding on liabililty without addressing the issue of causation.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You tell me what you think it is and then I will respond.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, your lack of "sociability" just indicates to me that you have no answer for what I just presented. So, don't answer. It's no sweat off of my chest.
Originally posted by NJE777
You have come across very agressive. Seems you would rather have an argument than a discussion. Who are you to dictate the terms of the discussion or shape my response? Go and suck a fart.
However, the fact remains, that if guns were not so freely available, then this sort of crime would happen less frequently.
How many criminals are armed with guns that have been stolen from a law abiding person, or armed with guns that they bought themselves?
Originally posted by crustas
Guns are not a form of art but a device to impose power.
www.guncontrol.org.au...
These were mainly military style rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns and .22 low power rifles with 10 shot magazines. About 20% of those guns however were unregistered
Originally posted by budski
This does nothing to excuse his crime, or nullify the points mad on this thread.
What it does do is raise more questions, such as;
if authority's were aware of his violent and aggressive tendency's, why was he not receiving treatment;
how did he purchase the weapons and why was he allowed to given his mental state;
during the TWO HOUR time gap, where were the police;
why was this person allowed to remain on campus, when the campus authorities were fully aware of his "illness";
why did campus security not maintain at least a modicum of surveillance, given that the higher ups KNEW he was unstable.
Originally posted by budski
Can ANYONE seriously tell me that tighter controls would not have prevented this person getting hold of the weapons he did.
I haven't changed my mind about the need to get ALL guns off the streets, merely addressed some points that, perhaps, could have prevented this tragedy.
Surely though, this news is a point for, at the very least, mental health checks on individuals wanting guns, a block on private sales and gun fair sales and some semblance of order in the process of buying or obtaining a gun.
Originally posted by budski
but the fact remains that he COULD NOT have murdered 32 people with any of those things,
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by budski
but the fact remains that he COULD NOT have murdered 32 people with any of those things,
He could have murdered a lot more with poison in the cafeteria or several bombs.
AND if other students had guns, he could have been disarmed or taken out right quick-like.
Originally posted by budski
I know it could probably never happen in reality, without becoming, at least in part, a police state.
My approach would be an amnesty on ALL guns, but with special emphasis on illegal guns,
This has worked in the UK to a degree, and also in Australia where gun crime has fallen drastically.
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
...
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
Nonetheless, the changes in the law post Hungerford and Dunblane have made most of the UK a safer place.
The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.
Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.
www.smh.com.au...
# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
www.worldnetdaily.com...
Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise.
www.fraserinstitute.ca...