Gun control in Australia

[Aaron Gustaveson]

These are my suggestions on how gun control should work.

1. Mandatory semi-annual Mental health screening: Those responsible for these tragic shootings are not responsible citizens. They are people with mental health issues. An effort must be made to keep these weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

2. Mandatory written test and firearms training with final assessment: You need to pass a written test and road test for your drivers license. Why? Because cars are dangerous. We need to make sure that you know how to drive properly before you get out on the road. Most gun accidents are the result of ignorance. At the very least, a written test, training, and final performance assessment would ensure that you know proper firearms safety, use, maintenance, self defense laws, and know how to properly use the firearm. This should be done BEFORE a person is even allowed to purchase a firearm.

3. Criminal Background check: History of violence? Rejected. History of drug and/or alcohol abuse? Rejected. Simple.

4. Mandatory participation in local militia for anyone interested in owning an assault rifle: The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t so much about the right to own cool toys. It’s about the right to own guns for the purpose of defense. In historical context, the idea was about national defense. I believe that we should get back to the historical purpose of this amendment. Anyone who wants an assault rifle should also go through additional paramilitary training. They should also be mandated to join a local state approved militia.


I understand guns are dangerous. But as a citizen, I understand the role they played in the founding of this country, and the potential role they'll have in preserving this country. The US is no longer seen as bulletproof. If we ever hit economic collapse (which is still a possibility), a foreign invasion on our weakened country may not be totally out of the question. Or civil war. Or just a period of anarchy. While I have no desire to go on a shooting spree, I do want to have the tools to defend my family if need be. The forefathers understood this. And this is why we shouldn't tamper with restricting guns. Instead we should focus on educating and training gun owners.

I agree with every thing you said but the second amendment did seek to allow citizen not involved in militia to own guns as well. The thinking was that a militia could get out of hand just like the governments arm could. I just learned this.

Whats more important than what some guys thought a couple hundred years ago is logic and reason.

[David Rosado]

the numbers I posted are per capita so higher populations is not a factor statistically.

Well, all things being equal, and everyone having knives readily at their disposal, we have to ask, "Why does the US have more violence?" Clearly it's not about knives. It's about the people. The same should be said about guns.

The right to bear arms was seen as necessary because citizens need the ability to fight the government if it became oppressive.

Sound plausible? Yes. Therefore, let us keep our guns. The simple fact that the government would want to take them away seems suspicious.

"Arms" is not defined strictly as guns so I think back then you could have cannons.

I'll look into it. I'm thinking civilians weren't allowed to have cannons.

Your wrong about the intent being to allow self defense weapons. I dont know how long its been since you took history but this is right off of wikipepdia,

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;/
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Check the bolded homie. I understand that resistance was a part of the equation, but so was self defense. Otherwise, revolvers would've been illegal to carry from the beginning.

I don't feel anyone is blaming gun laws in the sense that you would blame a person for their actions but knowing that people do go nuts sometimes should we have these things around? In term of the car analogy, I feel a non-auto shotgun or hunting rifle would be akin to a car and a handgun or auto would be like a car with spikes all over it and provisions that make it specifically more able to kill humans.

Agreed. I'm for restrictions on assault weapons. That's why I believe anyone who wants to own one should be willing to volunteer in a militia. There's no other reason to have that kind of weapon besides fun. But hey, you can have fun shooting it while you train to serve your country, right?

The supreme court in a a split derision decided "arms" meant weapon not specifically designed for military use but at the time of the drafting civilian rifles and military rifles were the same, No? None of the original language makes sense if we cant bear arms adequate to defend against a military force.

Not a bad stretch, but it doesn't fit 100%, IMO. The right is for militias and personal defense. Militias are not military. So, while the muskets may have been the same at the time, there is still a difference between a militia and the military. A civilian isn't allowed to own an F16 or a javelin. Those are military weapons. Same with RPG's. I do agree that our weapons should never be restricted to a point where we could never take care of ourselves. But then again, Arabs are doing just fine with AK's and IED's.

I agree with every thing you said but the second amendment did seek to allow citizen not involved in militia to own guns as well. The thinking was that a militia could get out of hand just like the governments arm could. I just learned this.

Whats more important than what some guys thought a couple hundred years ago is logic and reason.

Good point.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I'm not arguing that the US is more violent than most other first world countries, it seems t be the case and it is a factor in these things.

I really don't think we could ever fight the military with the weapons we are allowed to own but oddly enough many hobbiest do make and own cannons. For miniature cannons and salute cannon you dont need anything, bigger cannons and breech loading artillery you must file for approval with BATFE, this can take several months. And a $200 tax stamp.

Now we aren't allowed to own the same level as the militarily because despite the amendment reasonable people have decided over the years that we probably are not in danger of an oppressive government and cant allow citizens to have that level of killing potential.

I should have said you are wrong about self defense being the main intent, as you pointed out it was part of it, just a minor part.

Besides that I can defend my home pretty effectively with my pump shotgun. Don't need a semi-auto handgun or automatic rifle to do it. I do think semi auto rifles should have a reasonable limit of rounds, only what you would need hunting.

Bottom line is do countries with stricter gun laws have a significantly lower incidence of gun deaths? I think they do, and yes maybe partly because Americans are violent or have mental health issues but I really doubt that a significant aspect.

[Stewart Landry]

check that Link 75% of all mass slayings were with registered guns or "normally purchased" weapons

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

Gun control only keeps guns out of law abiding citizens hands. Bad guys will always find a way to have guns, always.

[Stewart Landry]

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

[Stewart Landry]

Im not Anti gun for the record but the problem with guns is that they put immediate power into the hands of people who dont have to learn respect for the force they control. At least by the time you get great at jits youve been humbled enough that you respect what you have as a tool. Im not anti gun but truth is it turns non threats into deathly threats.

[David Rosado]

Im not Anti gun for the record but the problem with guns is that they put immediate power into the hands of people who dont have to learn respect for the force they control. At least by the time you get great at jits youve been humbled enough that you respect what you have as a tool. Im not anti gun but truth is it turns non threats into deathly threats.

You're a great instructor, and a wise man. Great points.

[Marty McLaren]

Personally, I believe one of the reasons we have less gun related deaths in Australia has nothing to do with craziness and inherent cultural violence but more to do with the fact that there are less guns in Australia (both physically and per capita). I do not know a single person in my life who owns a gun. I know that the one of the founding principles of America is the right to bear arms and removing that would be a major shift but put simply IMO less guns = less gun deaths. As I said in an earlier post, we still have homicides in Australia, bashings, stabbings (anecdotally there appears to be an increase in knife related crimes since tighter gun laws were introduced), vehicular manslaughter but (touch wood or knock on wood too) we are lucky enough to not see mass shootings.

Regardless of where anyone stands on this issue, the fact there is healthy debate about gun laws is a positive sign. BTW David, I thought you had some excellent suggestions for tighter laws around gun ownership.

[Kurzy]

The gun is civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

– Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

http://www.ballistics101.com/the_gun...vilization.php

[David Rosado]

Bottom line is do countries with stricter gun laws have a significantly lower incidence of gun deaths? I think they do, and yes maybe partly because Americans are violent or have mental health issues but I really doubt that a significant aspect.

Switzerland has a ton of guns and has a super low crime rate. And also, let's rephrase your question: do other countries have a lower incidence of violent crime? Yes they do. So, it's not about the guns. It's about the people.