News & Events Gun Control is NOT WORKING

[quotemokc]

The police aren't a threat if they don't have to assume that every swingin' dick out there is packing heat

This thread shows a pretty divided opinion on police in general

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/police.115074/

 

[flashmanvc]

I have a gun, an old. 22 Brvno from Czechoslovakia. I use it to kill pest species (rabbits, foxes and Indian Mynahs) out at my old man's bush block. Our goal is to reduce competition from introduced species as much as possible. I've also been known to deliver a mange-ridden wombat into the sweet embrace of Wombat Jesus. There is no joy in any of this.

In Australia, a gun is a tool; it's used for killing nuisance animals or hunting for a feed.

Pathetic gun nuts want to change this mindset. It seems they want bigger, badder guns to be made available, and also the right to have them prominently displayed. Why? It will not help get rid of the deer that's causing grief on your property; the legally available guns are good enough.

Getting to the point, the gun movement here in Australia isn't about rights, or protection. It's because these flogs have incredibly tiny dicks. Perhaps we can compromise and let you fools paint veins on your rifles.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Lunatics don't seem to have much trouble getting guns in countries with more lax gun laws

All the ones I mentioned who are threats, have guns. That's the irony of the problem. That everyday harmless people who want to defend themselves against those mentioned aren't allowed to have guns.

If anything, gun control laws should forbid govt, police, criminals, cartels, mkultra victims and lunatics from having guns.

 

[Power Raid]

Mass shooting suicide in Margaret River

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...uicide-could-not-be-predicted-wa-premier-says

 

[Kyptastic]

Mass shooting suicide in Margaret River

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...uicide-could-not-be-predicted-wa-premier-says

It’s sad, but it really shouldn’t be seen as criticism of Australia’a Gun laws. The same crime could have been committed with a knife or hammer, for example (such as with the Lin family in Sydney). No way Julian Knight, Frank Vitkovic or Martin Bryant could have caused the same amount of carnage without access to high powered guns.

 

[Gough]

Mass shooting suicide in Margaret River

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...uicide-could-not-be-predicted-wa-premier-says

I know some in America have used this to have a pop at our laws but this was a farm where guns are necessarily present. If anything it strengthens the argument for our laws, can you imagine if mentally ill people had ready access to guns as per the US?

 

[Upgrayedd]

An example for the 2nd Amendment....

7th highest firearm related murders in the world, losing out to beacons of freedom such as Venezulala swaziland and guatemala, countries you really dont want to go to

 

[Exe Gesis]

7th highest firearm related murders in the world, losing out to beacons of freedom such as Venezulala swaziland and guatemala, countries you really dont want to go to

Again, all those countries the guns are rife among the criminals/etc. Take it away from THEM. Not everyday people.

 

[Kyptastic]

Again, all those countries the guns are rife among the criminals/etc. Take it away from THEM. Not everyday people.

Stephen Paddock was just an everyday guy until he decided to lug a dozen guns up to a hotel room in Las Vegas and decided that those damn kids at the music festival underneath were too dang loud.

Nobody is a mass murderer until they are. And then it's too late.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Stephen Paddock was just an everyday guy until he decided to lug a dozen guns up to a hotel room in Las Vegas and decided that those damn kids at the music festival underneath were too dang loud.

Nobody is a mass murderer until they are. And then it's too late.

He had ties with intelligence agencies....again....forbid govt/intel types from owning guns.

 

[Thrawn]

I have a gun, an old. 22 Brvno from Czechoslovakia. I use it to kill pest species (rabbits, foxes and Indian Mynahs) out at my old man's bush block. Our goal is to reduce competition from introduced species as much as possible. I've also been known to deliver a mange-ridden wombat into the sweet embrace of Wombat Jesus. There is no joy in any of this.

In Australia, a gun is a tool; it's used for killing nuisance animals or hunting for a feed.

Pathetic gun nuts want to change this mindset. It seems they want bigger, badder guns to be made available, and also the right to have them prominently displayed. Why? It will not help get rid of the deer that's causing grief on your property; the legally available guns are good enough.

Getting to the point, the gun movement here in Australia isn't about rights, or protection. It's because these flogs have incredibly tiny dicks. Perhaps we can compromise and let you fools paint veins on your rifles.

A lot of these slack-jawed yokels suck at aiming, too.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Again, all those countries the guns are rife among the criminals/etc. Take it away from THEM. Not everyday people.

yes cool tell the criminals give back guns so we can give it to good people case solved. Good luck doing that!

After that maybe we can sell some sand to the saudi's

 

[Father Jack]

Guns aren't like the 'like' function on Bigfooty, you just can't give them out to everybody and expect things to be ok

 

[Power Raid]

It’s sad, but it really shouldn’t be seen as criticism of Australia’a Gun laws. The same crime could have been committed with a knife or hammer, for example (such as with the Lin family in Sydney). No way Julian Knight, Frank Vitkovic or Martin Bryant could have caused the same amount of carnage without access to high powered guns.

100% agree. Domestic issues are a separate issue to attacks on the public. As horrible as that sounds, but gun laws aren't designed for domestic issues.

one of my fellow directors, is a neighbour of this family. He returned from the Philippines last night to join the community in grief and disbelief.

 

[Angus Young]

Gun control is not working.

It seems like every day now we hear of people being shot at, and killed, or businesses and homes struck in a drive-by.

CRIMINALS are still getting guns, and using them, almost care-free. Yet what was gun control supposed to do? Oh yeah, we forgot. What has it done?

All it has done is lawfully hog-tie the good people, the innocents - and allow those already in possession of a gun or able to obtain a gun - to roam free, as if the country is their buffet line.

And Australia is just that now, a buffet line.

In fact, in comparison to elsewhere with our population without our gun control, our gun crime is one of the worst.

Only it's the criminals, who do not care for the law, that are given the leg up. It's only those willing to break the law that have no care for it. They are the kings in Australia.

You often hear quotes like the following from police references... "a gun is not for self-defense"

And yet in a society very much still full of them, in the hands of the reckless, they use guns to do what... spread vegemite on bread?

For self-defense.

is this campaigner serious?

 

[Power Raid]

To me guns should be controlled but that’s only half the story.

Take Switzerland for example. They have loads of guns and loads of high powered military weapons yet low gun murder rates (high gun suicide though).

The reason for responsible use and ownership is training and proper assessment process. Essentially the crazies are identified during military training. Also culturally they have a strong sense of community and a village outlook on life. Together forming a great recipe for control and gun ownership.

This means guns are not the problem rather people and cultures are. In short Australians and Americans should not own guns as our culture has proven we are not responsible and we don’t have the right training and assessment frameworks.

 

[Power Raid]

Gun control is not working.

It seems like every day now we hear of people being shot at, and killed, or businesses and homes struck in a drive-by.

CRIMINALS are still getting guns, and using them, almost care-free. Yet what was gun control supposed to do? Oh yeah, we forgot. What has it done?

All it has done is lawfully hog-tie the good people, the innocents - and allow those already in possession of a gun or able to obtain a gun - to roam free, as if the country is their buffet line.

And Australia is just that now, a buffet line.

In fact, in comparison to elsewhere with our population without our gun control, our gun crime is one of the worst.

Only it's the criminals, who do not care for the law, that are given the leg up. It's only those willing to break the law that have no care for it. They are the kings in Australia.

You often hear quotes like the following from police references... "a gun is not for self-defense"

And yet in a society very much still full of them, in the hands of the reckless, they use guns to do what... spread vegemite on bread?

For self-defense.

Toughen the laws with life imprisonment for possession.

Even charge whole families for aiding criminals where they knew an individual had a weapon or ammunition.

 

[Power Raid]

Notice how America is the only one brought up as an example.

Despite having 320 million people, and having diversities in society that our country may never comprehend, let alone endure.

What about Switzerland? How come no one ever says Switzerland? Or Finland?

Because it doesn't pander to the scare mentality - the same mentality everyone's brainwashed by despite contradictions on the news.

The fins and Swiss have a suitable culture and a village outlook on life. These are favourable traits for gun ownership. Then add military training and military character checks for controls.

Sadly Australia like America has not got the right culture or outlook. Nor do we have the military training or military checks and controls.

This means gun ownership in the US is actually AGAINST the US bill of rights. As you can’t own guns unless they belong to a well trained militia. For me well trained is more than just being able to use a gun but well trained in being part of a militia.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Notice how America is the only one brought up as an example.

Despite having 320 million people, and having diversities in society that our country may never comprehend, let alone endure.

What about Switzerland? How come no one ever says Switzerland? Or Finland?

Because it doesn't pander to the scare mentality - the same mentality everyone's brainwashed by despite contradictions on the news.

Most gun owners are part of the millitary, Plus you cannot buy ammo or even keep ammo in the home, So rendering them basically as expensive clubs,

Plus, It's not like Switzerland hasnt had a parliment shot up either.

 

[quotemokc]

The fins and Swiss have a suitable culture and a village outlook on life. These are favourable traits for gun ownership. Then add military training and military character checks for controls.

Sadly Australia like America has not got the right culture or outlook. Nor do we have the military training or military checks and controls.

This means gun ownership in the US is actually AGAINST the US bill of rights. As you can’t own guns unless they belong to a well trained militia. For me well trained is more than just being able to use a gun but well trained in being part of a militia.

That is incorrect.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

[Power Raid]

That is incorrect.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Yep you’re correct Re regulated vs trained

The Swiss leave the military and serve as a militia

I perceive this as an example of well regulated rather than no regulation or not even belonging to a militia

 

[Power Raid]

Ftr though

Even though I’m anti guns. If I was an American, I would own a gun.

I would want protection against the US government, the police and the system......especially if I were black

 

[quotemokc]

Yep you’re correct Re regulated vs trained

The Swiss leave the military and serve as a militia

I perceive this as an example of well regulated rather than no regulation or not even belonging to a militia

Its quite interesting the perspective of Americans and Australians (and I suppose the British)

Americans have a very big belief on the right to self defense, they have access to tasers, mace, knives (we don't get butterfly or flick knives) whilst we are not allowed that at all. (crossbows too, we also barely even get access to air guns and I was able to buy one at a Walmart in the US when I was there)

And whilst there is a contingent of Americans that don't want people to have semi-auto rifles etc a lot of them still believe that people should be allowed a handgun or shotgun to be able defend their home.

 

[Power Raid]

Its quite interesting the perspective of Americans and Australians (and I suppose the British)

Americans have a very big belief on the right to self defense, they have access to tasers, mace, knives (we don't get butterfly or flick knives) whilst we are not allowed that at all. (crossbows too, we also barely even get access to air guns and I was able to buy one at a Walmart in the US when I was there)

And whilst there is a contingent of Americans that don't want people to have semi-auto rifles etc a lot of them still believe that people should be allowed a handgun or shotgun to be able defend their home.

with the battles and or threats against the indians, mexicans, english, french, spanish, blacks and themselves; you can understand the history and need for guns. but that's 99% all history now.

where today perhaps if they had a fair social security system, they wouldn't need guns to defend their homes. but giving money to blacks and hispanics would probably test most americans and instead they deal with the consequences of poverty.

 

[Gough]

I'm over gun control as an issue in America. If after everything we've seen recently people can't force change then it will never change. On the other hand I'm passionate make sure it remains as tight as possible here, we're a better country for not having our citizens armed to the teeth, even in the age of Dutton at Home Affairs.