Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
I'll apoagise again I don't know how to quote properly here.

Just use quote tags. There's a button at the top of a post when you're creating it or you can type them.

Definitions are for dictionaries, I legally own 2 shot guns, 3 riffles & used to have a hand gun. Please explain how I am not armed.

You openly admitted yourself that your guns are for self defense and defense of your family yourself in the first post. You have guns yes, but Australia is a disarmed country. I don't acknowledge someone having to have a cover story or alternate reason about their primary reason to have a gun as 'armed'.

I see where you're coming from, but I think your vision is a bit rose tinted if you think Australia is armed.

You can't fight the Gov in a conventional grab ya AR10 kind of way, you will die very quickly

For some people it's a general principal. I don't think it will come up in my life time, so I don't care. My primary use of guns is for work and that's a pain as it is.

Barb wire roofing? Do you live in an indig town or little Lebanon?, cause that is not an accurate portrait of 99% of Australia.

Yes, I live near indigineous people but assaults etc have gone up in the last ten years in general. There is no disputing that. I don't think guns have had anything to do with it either way. Unless people start packing in the street that statistic won't drop. If people do start packing in the street homocides will go through the roof.

I don't know 1 Australian who is in fear of GUN WIELDING home invaders or 1 person who feels greater fear since the gun reforms came into effect.

I didn't say anything about gun wielding home invaders. Your original post seemed to imply that Australia is safer because of the lack of guns I guess. Ironically the only times I've heard of armed hold ups were post gun reform era. That's why I think personal experience about these types of things don't translate; I can easily say that I don't know one person that's afraid of guns period in Australia.

I didn't see many guns prereform era either oddly.

yes my test was open book answers underlined for you and even if you got every question wrong pass or fail was at the leisure of the instructor. Attitude counted for more than knowledge or skills

I don't see anything here as a positive in regards to Australian gun control. You say later that you don't need to go all 'redneck' saying you need a gun to stop people getting you in the night ... but the above sounds ten times more 'redneck' to me and this needs tightening more than introducing new restrictions IMO.

His ego took a beating that arvo but he learned a valuable lesson.

Hahaha was it 'written firearm tests shouldn't be a matter of opinion?'

it had sweet FA to do with restricting guns.

I'll agree with this, but frankly I find white male Australians are responsible for most random assaults I've witnessed. Obviously, I can't back that up with statistics but I don't believe immigrants are the major issue. Different topic anyway.

I don't have to lie to own a gun, I just don't go all redneck saying I need 1 so no one can come get me in the night, I like to target shoot and I like to kill feral animals simple, truthful & legal. Defending myself if the need arises is just a bonus card.

I don't sleep with a gun under my pillow

Not like anyone is coming to check under your pillow at 2am though so if you have half a brain you will have a cover story good to go & not fill out home defense as your reason to own 1 on your application form, if your not that smart then your not smart enough to do that you are not smart enough to own a gun.

Just putting your quotes side by side so you can see where I got this from. I'm still going to say you shouldn't require a cover story at all.

The airsoft thing I agree with 100%. Easier to get a glock in, come on man.

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not but:

It absolutely is. I originally tried to import airsoft and model cycling weapons at extra expense to myself, but it was too difficult. Instead, I ended up with two licensed real weapons.

You can call here licensing here: 1300 171 011

You'll probably end up talking to someone like Senior Constable Nick who will promptly tell you where you can stick your airsoft weapon but will be quite happy to assist you getting a glock 17A.

If you can get a decent airsoft weapon legally in the state of Western Australia in under the time and cost it takes me to get another glock 17A I'll happily pay you for it.

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
$100.00, 8hrs on a Saturday playing with guns & test you can fail yet still pass, a lockable storage unit that is bolted down & A quick police check then your GTG. (Disclaimer, in QLD) apparently in WA even easier.
Any easier & they would give you a hand gun when you open a bank account & an AK when you buy a car.

Disclaimer: WA is very beaucratic and it depends heavily on what you're trying to import and why.

I have an easier time doing what I do in Victoria bar the initial hassles. The wait times are a pain also. I certainly wouldn't describe it as easy as WCM.

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by bellagirl

9 years in a major sydney trauma emergency department....i have seen 2 gunshot victims.

I find that intriguing. I understand that handguns are still available for target shooters in Australia so legal ownership, while restricted, is still possible.

Your figure would suggest that it is possible for guns to be legally held by civilians without the community breaking down into a frenzied, murderous bloodbath. I can almost sense some of the posters in this thread frothing at the mouth at that kind of heretical suggestion

Do you lack any ground to stand on so feel the need to twist peoples posts or did his Aussie accent throw you off the mark?

It's because of the way we are & our gun laws that he has only seen 2 gunshot victims, if we were like Americans & everyone was scared & carrying concealed then we would have much more of a problem, probably something like America, then again maybe it's only Americans who can't be trusted to have guns.
How many gun shot victims would someone in a major trauma emergency department for 8 years in say LA or NY see?

reply to post by mal1970


@OP

I'm guessing the dingos will overrun your country and
you will all be forced to swim for it?

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by just_julie
Australia and USA are very very different countries.

Exactly. yet a person in Australia can use an American shooting to justify confiscating guns in Australia. Where is the logic in that? I cannot find the interview, but my ears were not lying either.

Good denying ignorance there! If you bothered to do your research you'd know that the auto ban and tighter licensing happened because 35 people got killed by a maniac en.wikipedia.org...(Australia)


Also as an Australian, i'd say I feel very very safe without a gun. I live in a big city, i've never had a problem, never heard a gun shot in the city.
the statistics are interesting, but i'd say there are a lot of other factors at play as well as the gun ban.

Originally posted by bonnieprince

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by just_julie
Australia and USA are very very different countries.

Exactly. yet a person in Australia can use an American shooting to justify confiscating guns in Australia. Where is the logic in that? I cannot find the interview, but my ears were not lying either.

Good denying ignorance there! If you bothered to do your research you'd know that the auto ban and tighter licensing happened because 35 people got killed by a maniac en.wikipedia.org...(Australia)


Also as an Australian, i'd say I feel very very safe without a gun. I live in a big city, i've never had a problem, never heard a gun shot in the city.
the statistics are interesting, but i'd say there are a lot of other factors at play as well as the gun ban.

Maybe I didn't say it clear enough. I was watching an old prick on sky news last week who was using the Aurora shootings in the USA to justify banning weapons in Australia, because obviously the guy accused of the batman shootings must have strong ties to Australia somehow...

I know why semi automatic weapons were banned in Australia. What I was talking about was even tighter laws being brought in because of something that did not happen in our country. Obviously you did not see the interview som maybe you should do some research yourself. I can't find it btw.

Funnily enough I seen another report on the news last night about a guy in Sydney who was ready to open a gun shop and had a range of guns at his home. 2 armed guys robbed him and a range of hand guns, including semi automatic pistols were stolen. Wait a minute.. how was this guy aloud to purchase and sell semi automatic weapons in the first place? Don't hand guns count or something? Now those weapons are most likely on the black market and no doubt, they will fall into the hands of the criminals who are running around shooting the city up.

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by bonnieprince

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by just_julie
Australia and USA are very very different countries.

Exactly. yet a person in Australia can use an American shooting to justify confiscating guns in Australia. Where is the logic in that? I cannot find the interview, but my ears were not lying either.

Good denying ignorance there! If you bothered to do your research you'd know that the auto ban and tighter licensing happened because 35 people got killed by a maniac en.wikipedia.org...(Australia)


Also as an Australian, i'd say I feel very very safe without a gun. I live in a big city, i've never had a problem, never heard a gun shot in the city.
the statistics are interesting, but i'd say there are a lot of other factors at play as well as the gun ban.

Maybe I didn't say it clear enough. I was watching an old prick on sky news last week who was using the Aurora shootings in the USA to justify banning weapons in Australia, because obviously the guy accused of the batman shootings must have strong ties to Australia somehow...

I know why semi automatic weapons were banned in Australia. What I was talking about was even tighter laws being brought in because of something that did not happen in our country. Obviously you did not see the interview som maybe you should do some research yourself. I can't find it btw.

Funnily enough I seen another report on the news last night about a guy in Sydney who was ready to open a gun shop and had a range of guns at his home. 2 armed guys robbed him and a range of hand guns, including semi automatic pistols were stolen. Wait a minute.. how was this guy aloud to purchase and sell semi automatic weapons in the first place? Don't hand guns count or something? Now those weapons are most likely on the black market and no doubt, they will fall into the hands of the criminals who are running around shooting the city up.

edit on 9-8-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)

I have seen very little interest in tightening gun control in Australia, you're just spooking yourself. I'd like to think we have a pretty good balance now, it isn't too hard to get your license, and as long as you store your stuff properly (it sounds like that gun store guy wasn't), it's easy to keep it.

reply to post by just_julie


Yes, but the human brain is built consistently. With consistency come similarity.

reply to post by bonnieprince


Yeah, I guess I'm spooking myself when I see someone calling for tougher gun laws in Australia because of an incident which occured in the USA.

The point is, they will use anything, including foreign incidents to try and justify a stance on certain topics. Because of something that happened 6000 km away and has nothing to do with the Australian popultation to start with. Do you actually find that logical or something?

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
Do you lack any ground to stand on so feel the need to twist peoples posts or did his Aussie accent throw you off the mark?

It's because of the way we are & our gun laws that he has only seen 2 gunshot victims, if we were like Americans & everyone was scared & carrying concealed then we would have much more of a problem, probably something like America, then again maybe it's only Americans who can't be trusted to have guns.
How many gun shot victims would someone in a major trauma emergency department for 8 years in say LA or NY see?

No twisting of posts or misunderstanding of accents needed. Your follow up "correction" is pretty much the point I was making. You can own guns without shooting up the town - only 2 gunshot victims in 8 years backs this up. The gun doesn't cause the problem, the problem is caused by what people decide to do with the gun. In this case, Aussies appear to have decided to be responsible with their firearms.

I didn't think it was that difficult an idea to understand. Once again, ATS has caused me to reevaluate things.

Originally posted by Pinke
You would have to compare this to numbers per 100, 000 to actually get a rate. Populations etc have increased since 1981 to 2010 ergo comparing straight numbers won't be accurate. You would also have to do it over time.

That said, the difference between 8 and 40 is surprisingly meaningless in the populations we're talking about. Swimming pools kill more people.

True, quoting per 100,000 would give it more context but perhaps I didn't set out the basis of the comparison properly.

The main point I was aiming to make wasn't that firearms violence had increased, but that it had increased despite handguns and semi auto rifles being completely banned in the intervening period. Not a little increase, not an increase in proportion to the increase in population, oh no. It increased by a factor of 5. It's hard to argue that gun control solves all problems when the country with some of the most draconian controls in the world managed to see gun deaths increase by 400% since those controls were enacted.

While each death is a tragedy, I accept that statistically these numbers are a drop in the ocean, but this leads on to another point - we did not and do not have a realistic problem with gun crime from legally held weapons. We have had a handful of tragic incidents using firearms but these were situations where someone was going to commit murder regardless.

It is true that a complete restriction would have saved some lives but that leads us to the proportionality argument. Is it truly worth it "if it saves a single life"? How many people would jump and yell "yes" while completely ignoring this argument when it applies to something they like.

How about this: let's ban alcohol. I don't drink and I see many people who end up in a lot of trouble because of alcohol. Alcohol addiction destroys families, destroys lives, destroys bodies. People get drunk and get violent, or commit crime, or become victims of crime. People get drunk and drive, they kill themselves and other road users or pedestrians. Think how many lives could be saved by banning alcohol. Seriously, the numbers would be epic. It is inconceivable that we could allow alcohol to continue to be sold.

Wait, what's that? You like having a drink? You manage to have a drink and a laugh with friends on a regular basis without becoming addicted, without driving, without getting into fights? You're saying "why should I, a responsible social drinker, have that taken away because someone else can't control themselves?" After all, alcohol has only one function - to inhibit the functioning of the brain. How is it ever possible for that to be a good thing? Think how many lives could be saved if you weren't being so self-centered and saying "BAW BAW BAW I WANT MY BEER BAW BAW". You have to lose out because some other people can't be trusted. As a happy side effect, firearms-related deaths would probably also drop if we didn't have alcohol or other drugs.

(that's not aimed at the person I'm replying to, by the way, it's to the world at large)

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
We can't own them for purposes such as home defense/fighting the gov or just because it's cool, we can however have them for sport, hunting, & work needs farmer etc.
.

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

Well then, you've pretty much gutted the US Second Ammendment. You see, a major part of why we are not only permitted, but have a Constitutional guarantee to a right to bear arms, is specifically to ensure that we can fight tyranny within our own government.

The second reason, as can be attested to under "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground", is self defense , defense of the home and defense of loved ones.

Why should ANY government have the power to tell you that you have no right to defend yourself against their tyranny or threats of violence against you, your family or your home? That doesn't make you the least bit suspicious? Shame on you!

Parting thought... A great American forefather stated something to the effect that "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security will receive none and deserve neither!"

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan
We can't own them for purposes such as home defense/fighting the gov or just because it's cool, we can however have them for sport, hunting, & work needs farmer etc.
.

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

Well then, you've pretty much gutted the US Second Ammendment. You see, a major part of why we are not only permitted, but have a Constitutional guarantee to a right to bear arms, is specifically to ensure that we can fight tyranny within our own government.

The US 2A was born out of a very different situation and approach. Australia has been influenced far more heavily by the UK in that respect. While people point to the English Bill of Rights as introducing a RKBA it was born out of a very different situation and is nothing to do with the US RKBA, other than some minor commonality of language.

One issue I take is the need for reasons. I don't ask anyone to explain why they want to drive cars or play sports and then judge them on their answer. Shooting is a hobby for me. "Because I want to do it and I am responsible enough to do it" is all the answer I should need to give. In fact the only answer I should need to give is "because I don't have a conviction or mental health problem that might prohibit me; my reasons are none of your business" but that might be a little harsh

Hey all, first post from me, thought I'd chime in on this discussion.

I am an Australian, and I applauded the buyback scheme we had here in 90's.

From reading the responses in this thread, it's quite obvious that there is a rather large cultural difference between Aussies and Americans in relation to guns. There are still a lot of hand guns and shot guns here, but very few semis / autos. Gun fatalities however have been on the decline (not sure where people get the idea it has gone up) sydney.edu.au...

My sincere question to the american gun advocates is: what do you think would happen if you used your guns against your tyrannous (for arguments sake lets say they are) government? Do you truly believe that the 2A will allow you to rise up? and why hasn't that happened yet? Not enough tyranny? seems like staging a peaceful protest over there is hard enough.

I personally feel it's too late for the US to impose more restrictive gun laws. It's too ingrained in your culture.

And again.. hello all

Originally posted by spoogemonkey

My sincere question to the american gun advocates is: what do you think would happen if you used your guns against your tyrannous (for arguments sake lets say they are) government? Do you truly believe that the 2A will allow you to rise up? and why hasn't that happened yet? Not enough tyranny? seems like staging a peaceful protest over there is hard enough.

I personally feel it's too late for the US to impose more restrictive gun laws. It's too ingrained in your culture.

Excellent question!

The modern disparity between civilian and military weaponry is massive, far beyond the 18th Century. Further factors that worked in favour of the colonies are also no longer applicable - the British had to support an army from across the ocean using 18th Century logistical technology, the colonials had support from other European countries, etc.

On the other hand, there is a large population including vets with the ability to bring military training, technology and innovation to the fight. A trained and well supplied military could wreak havoc but with a big enough uprising it would become a war of attrition. Also you would be asking the military to fight their own people which might lead to hesitation - though I'm sure that hesistation would disappear once the first bullets start flying at them or IEDs take out a patrol.

As it stands, as long as people get wound up and act in isolation they will always be kept under control. The worst situation would be a big enough group that was able to plan and coordinate in secret. A massive difference between "then and now" is that the government can be on top of these groups very quickly and stop them from growing; the current ability of the government to monitor and react is lightyears beyond the 18th Century. It's not as simple as rousing the populace by distributing anonymous leaflets anymore; getting a message out effectively leaves traces both in terms of who is broadcasting and who is receiving that message.

I also think that many people (not just in America) are so used to the comfort and security of our technologically-enhaced lives that the harsh reality of war and the suffering that would follow with it is too much for people to stomach in our first world.

In my opinion, any second American Revolution would fail and the outcome would be a massive escalation in government suppression. It would fail not because of lack of spirit or bravery amongs the fighters but because there are no uncontrolled lines of communication suitable for organising on the necessary scale to overcome the governmental advantage, combined with a general population that hasn't lost enough (and still has far too much to lose0 to feel there is a reason to support revolution.

Besides, there is still the ballot box.

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

Myth actually. The United States is far higher in all of these categories including in terms of per capita, to deny so would be stupid.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by mal1970

 

Let's see here, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology there were 253 murders in Australia in 2007. According to the CDC there were 16,799 homicides in the United States the same year. That's 66 times less than the US.

In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms in Australia.

There were 176,427 recorded assaults in Australia in 2007. In America the number was 1.8 million. That's 10 times less than the US.

There were 19,781 recorded sexual assaults in Australia in 2007. The United States recorded 203,830 sexual assaults in 2008. That's 10 times less than the US.

In 2007 the population of the US was 301 million, in Australia the population was 21 million. That's 14 times less than the US.

Overall, you're safer in Australia than you are in the United States.

The gun argument aside, over 16,000 homicides in a year.......that's a pretty startling statistic!

Originally posted by spoogemonkey
Hey all, first post from me, thought I'd chime in on this discussion.

I am an Australian, and I applauded the buyback scheme we had here in 90's.

From reading the responses in this thread, it's quite obvious that there is a rather large cultural difference between Aussies and Americans in relation to guns. There are still a lot of hand guns and shot guns here, but very few semis / autos. Gun fatalities however have been on the decline (not sure where people get the idea it has gone up) sydney.edu.au...

My sincere question to the american gun advocates is: what do you think would happen if you used your guns against your tyrannous (for arguments sake lets say they are) government? Do you truly believe that the 2A will allow you to rise up? and why hasn't that happened yet? Not enough tyranny? seems like staging a peaceful protest over there is hard enough.

I personally feel it's too late for the US to impose more restrictive gun laws. It's too ingrained in your culture.

And again.. hello all

There may not be fatalities but I have to admit, gun incidents have sky rocketed. Melbourne gangland was one and it seems something similar has been brewing in Sydney. That is only two examples and I'm sure there are heaps more that could be pointed out.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by 13th Zodiac

 

I live in the state of Massachusetts in the United States in a small town where just about everyone owns several types of Guns. Rifles, Shotguns, Hand Guns and Rifles such as AR-15's and AK's.

We have very little crime and what crime we do have is trivial in it's level of violence....because EVERYONE IS ARMED!

Taking away GUNS from Citizens who own them legally as well as use them legally and for Hunting as well as Defense or Target Shooting Hobbies is just plain CRIMINAL as far as a Government forcing people to give up their weapons.

All this does is allow Criminals to be the ones with Firearms. Split Infinity

And over here in the UK we have little crime (it is actually concentrated in a few "hotspots" where crime is increasing slightly which allows for some cherry picked stats). But here's the really strange thing, hardly anybody has a gun....why is that?

Let me think, would I rather live in a country where I am 99.99% guaranteed to never even see a gun (except on TV at the olympics) let alone be a victom of a gun crime or live in a country where guns are the fear factor that keeps us under control by our gun toting neighbours. NO BRAINER.

You US folks are still living with the mindset of an 18th century homesteader.......i's time to grow up.

My d.ck is bigger than your gun, or is that too subtle.

This guy is so right. I Live in the south of the UK and I honestly have never ever seen a gun in my life. We do not need them. How can countries with legalized guns feel at all safe?. I don't think they have thought the situation through. In that video they said somebody ran into a persons house and robbed the house. Nobody died. The man was arguing that if he had a gun he could have shot the robber. Are they #ing crazy? Property isn't worth somebodies life , even if they are doing something awful. The robber needs civilized punishment and help.

As far as i know the only people who own guns in the UK are farmers and chav 'gangsters' who feel 'big' with a gun in their back pocket.
Reading through this thread has seriously questioned the sanity of this world. Having a gun doesnt make you safe , it makes you a coward.
Also the London riots were bad , imagine if most people actually had guns. It would be a #ing massacre!.

Originally posted by JoshBaker
This guy is so right. I Live in the south of the UK and I honestly have never ever seen a gun in my life. We do not need them. How can countries with legalized guns feel at all safe?. I don't think they have thought the situation through. In that video they said somebody ran into a persons house and robbed the house. Nobody died. The man was arguing that if he had a gun he could have shot the robber. Are they #ing crazy? Property isn't worth somebodies life , even if they are doing something awful. The robber needs civilized punishment and help.

As far as i know the only people who own guns in the UK are farmers and chav 'gangsters' who feel 'big' with a gun in their back pocket.
Reading through this thread has seriously questioned the sanity of this world. Having a gun doesnt make you safe , it makes you a coward.
Also the London riots were bad , imagine if most people actually had guns. It would be a #ing massacre!.

You don't see legally-owned guns because the people who legally own them tend to be responsible, which includes not waving them around at people. There are gun clubs and varmint hunters up and down the country and several major shooting competitions held each year. Try a google search for ranges in your area, you might be surprised.

I'm not threatened, I don't need a firearm for defence or to ward off rustlers or raiders. I own one because I enjoy target shooting and have done for decades. It's not about "need" - let's be honest, none of us "need" a fraction of the things we own. If we come down to arguing about "need" then there really isn't a "need" for any of us to drive cars or drink alcohol either, as they are either a simple convenience in the first case and a method of relaxation in the second.

Our local gangs, on the other hand, appear to have a bigger armoury than our local police. This is not and never will be a matter of making guns "more" illegal because the gangs have no legal grounds for having firearms anyway. The people who will use them to break laws will have broken laws to get them in the first place.

Edited to add: And of course London has guns, they even have a specilist unit dedicated to firearms crimes. The whole riot thing kicked off because the police stopped a man who they believed was carrying a firearm.