75 replies to this topic

[t Khrist]

Heffay, on 21 July 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Dude. DUDE!

dude...

Told you it would happen.

And one last time. The only thing I said about 'banning' guns is that it wouldn't work.

Marack, even if it only helps 1%, and saves only one life, I'd say it's worth it. Gun control won't help far gone cities like Flint, etc., they need much more help in many other areas for controlling one aspect of the problem to be fully effective. And no, I'm not saying Flint isn't recoverable, they just have a lot more work to do than most places.

Edited by t Khrist, 21 July 2016 - 12:12 PM.

[t Khrist]

Spoiler

A person who wants to possess or use a firearm must have a firearm licence. Licence holders must be at least 18 years of age, have a "genuine reason" for holding a firearm licence[1] and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms in Australia must be registered by serial number to the owner, who holds a firearms licence, except that firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 may not need to be registered in some states. The firearm owner must have secure storage for the firearm. Firearms dealers must be over 21 years of age and hold a dealer's licence, and dealers' employees must be vetted by the police. "Prohibited persons" cannot be employed by dealers. Besides other requirements, dealers must ensure that the purchaser of a firearm holds a firearm licence, must maintain a register and must notify police of each transaction.
No mass firearm deaths (defined as 5 deaths or more) have occurred since the 1996 legislation was passed, although there were frequent incidents prior to that. Total gun crime and gun related suicides have also seen significant reductions since, though the role of the 1996 legislation in those reductions is less clear.

The National Firearm Agreement defines categories of firearms, with different levels of control for each, as follows:.

• Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "genuine reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
  
• Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.
  
• Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles up to 10 rounds. Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
  
• Category D: All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
  
• Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. Neither South Australia nor Western Australia require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after deactivation. This situation[when?] prompted the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black market in Queensland[vague] – the loophole[which?] shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.[3] Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014.[4] Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.
  
• Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.[citation needed]

Certain antique firearms (generally muzzle loading black powder flintlock firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901) can in some states be legally held without a licence.[5] In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.[6] All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a licence in Victoria).

Read that and tell me it wouldn't help out some in the US, and also impact those who legitimately want to own very little. Can you call those laws a 'ban' on firearms? Are those laws in contention with our Constitution?

Edited by t Khrist, 21 July 2016 - 12:22 PM.

[Heffay]

t Khrist, on 21 July 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

Read that and tell me it wouldn't help out some in the US, and also impact those who legitimately want to own very little. Can you call those laws a 'ban' on firearms? Are those laws in contention with our Constitution?

I have several guns that would be banned under those rules. That category D includes all sport rifles, and I won't be eligible to own them. Also a handgun (Glock 19, because it's the most beautiful of all handguns).

So yeah, telling me that I'll be a criminal by doing nothing at all isn't something I'm going to agree to.

And the argument "if it saves just one life" is a horrible, horrible basis for a law. You might as well ban hospitals, since they kill hundreds of thousands of people a year through disease/infections. Or alcohol. You know... if it saves just one life, it's worth it.

Again, if you want to reduce the number of firearm homicides 10 fold, legalize and regulate all drugs. Don't make ordinary lawful people criminals. That's going exactly the wrong way.

Edited by Heffay, 21 July 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[t Khrist]

Heffay, on 21 July 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

You can't compare things in such a way. Alcohol doesn't give someone the same power as a firearm. Maracks silly scenario of a molotov isn't even relevant because it isn't as lethal, and thus not widespread, and thus not a huge problem like guns.

Hospitals save more lives than they hurt. Can you say you think society would be alright without modern medicine vs guns? I think we can live without one of those if it came down to it. <== Extreme hypothetical scenario by the way, I know you want your guns, we all do.

So, to me, that one life is worth it, because drunk drivers and hospitals are accidents and collateral respectively. The guy who kills someone because they were intoxicated didn't intend to kill anyone. Sure they made the terrible choice themselves to get behind the wheel, but we've put laws into place to combat that, and they've helped. We didn't ban alcohol because it wasn't necessary, there was compromise. That being that there is an expected amount of those who defy the law and cause harm because of it.

Anyone who's pulled the trigger of a gun against someone knows what the only consequence of that action will be. They're not shooting another person to drunkenly get home from the bar, or get the laceration on their leg stitched up before they bleed out.

But alas, ultimately I cannot argue that humanity would likely be better without booze altogether, so I do agree. I just don't think alcohol should be used to argue against gun laws. Talk about guns if we're going to talk about guns. Everything else is irrelevant.

I also agree that Australia's laws wouldn't be a perfect fit for the US, amendments would have to be made, likely in your arguments favor.

There are so many compromises that could be made, it wouldn't hurt to have a discussion, and work towards an agreement.

I don't want to ban guns. I don't think the government should take guns away from people. I do think guns are dangerous, and that the American society is developing the wrong mindset about them, and if we don't do something about it the problem will only get worse. It is not something to be taken lightly, or that can be made black and white. It will take time, education, legislation, and willingness to work together.

[Heffay]

t Khrist, on 21 July 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

I don't want to ban guns. I don't think the government should take guns away from people. I do think guns are dangerous, and that the American society is developing the wrong mindset about them, and if we don't do something about it the problem will only get worse. It is not something to be taken lightly, or that can be made black and white. It will take time, education, legislation, and willingness to work together.

The problems aren't getting worse. Things are getting better. We're at historic lows for gun violence... heck, ALL types of crime.

You are so beholden to your particular solution that you won't even consider alternatives. You want people to get rid of their guns, but people don't *want* to get rid of them. They are an enjoyable hobby and don't hurt anyone. You're trying to tell them that they are horrible people and should get rid of their hobby items just because you perceive a problem that has been getting better every year.

So no, I don't want to work with you on this. It's clear you don't respect my choices on how I live my life, so forgive me if I don't help you implement changes that will make my life worse. Once you're ready to admit that my guns are my choice and you have no desire to remove them from me, then I'll come back to the table. But trying to make me a criminal isn't the way to get me to work with you.

edit: And I stand by the alcohol example. It's a perfect analogy, as people choose to drink and kill busloads of kids, at a FAR higher rate than die from guns. The costs to society from alcohol are far more than guns, yet let's not even TALK about restricting rights to your particular golden ox, right? "It's different because it's an inconvenient truth that there are some impossible to ignore similarities between people's choices and the harm they cause!" You don't come after my gun, and I won't come after your whiskey. Deal?

You also said "That being that there is an expected amount of those who defy the law and cause harm because of it" in your defense of alcohol. Are you seriously saying you're ok with more people dying from alcohol than from guns" because you expect more people to die from alcohol, but it's ok because it's within some random acceptable level you're ok with? Why?

Edited by Heffay, 21 July 2016 - 01:57 PM.

[t Khrist]

Heffay, on 21 July 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Now I have to quote myself huh?

t Khrist, on 21 July 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

But alas, ultimately I cannot argue that humanity would likely be better without booze altogether, so I do agree.

I also agree that Australia's laws wouldn't be a perfect fit for the US, amendments would have to be made, likely in your arguments favor.

I don't want to ban guns. I don't think the government should take guns away from people.

How am I beholden to something? I shoot guns as well. I was on a competitive rifle shooting team for three years. I have no problem with your hobby. The only reason I don't own a gun is because it's not in my budget for this point in my life. I grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where 90% of the people hunt.

I never said anyone was horrible for owning a gun. The closest thing to that is me saying the drunk driver made a horrible choice.

You're the one not working with me on the issue, I'm basically on your side. The changes won't make your life worse, gun laws amount to you having to fill out more paperwork, more often. I wish that was the biggest inconvenience of my life.

Just because you have the right to own guns (which you most certainly do and I support that), doesn't mean that every individual does. If we can put systems in place that help to prevent those people from getting them, without taking away your guns, is that not an agreeable situation?

Why do think that stricter regulations will take your guns away, and that I keep saying they will?

Back to alcohol for some reason..

Alcohol is it's own demon, and warrants its own dialog, but it has no place in the discussion of gun control. You can equate them all you want, but neither influence each other as far as I'm concerned, even if they are analogous. I'm here to discuss guns, not booze.

You have every right to come after my whiskey if you disagree with the laws your expected to abide by, or think they're to lenient, but do it in another thread.

Lastly, I'm not saying that I'm 'ok with more people dying from alcohol than from guns', I'm saying since society outright banning alcohol didn't work, regulation is a welcome alternative than nothing. They're separate issues.

[jss78]

I didn't read all of the discussion, but one perspective.

I live in Finland, had an American girlfriend for many years, would like to think I'm fairly well in touch with American society.

Finland is one of the few western countries which, like USA, has a ton of guns. As in USA, private citizens own lots and lots of guns here. The reasons are partially similar: hunting, recreational shooting, just a tradition of owning guns. The big difference is that I don't think anyone in Finland buys a gun to "protect themselves". It's just a far too safe a country to justify that type of thinking.

Legislation is mostly similar as in the more liberal US states: unless it's capable of full-auto fire, it's fair game. Stuff like laser sights and silencers, are AFAIK even more easily available here than in USA. One difference is that the bureucracy for getting a permit is really slow here. This might slow down some nutjob who gets angry over whatever, walks into a gun store, and starts gunning people down.

So here's the beef: unlike USA, there's very little gun violence here.

In a way this a check in the pro-gun people's column: clearly the availability of guns does not, in itself, lead to people shooting one another. Instead, there must be some other factor in US society that produces people who think it's a good idea to gun other people down. What those factors are is a whole another debate, and a big one at that.

IMO the root causes of US gun violence are sociological, not related to gun legislation. So I'd agree that gun control would be a "bandaid solution" as sometimes argued. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't do gun control: if you're bleeding, a bandaid might be a good idea.

Edited by jss78, 21 July 2016 - 06:05 PM.

[Heffay]

jss78, on 21 July 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

So here's the beef: unlike USA, there's very little gun violence here.

In a way this a check in the pro-gun people's column: clearly the availability of guns does not, in itself, lead to people shooting one another. Instead, there must be some other factor in US society that produces people who think it's a good idea to gun other people down. What those factors are is a whole another debate, and a big one at that.

IMO the root causes of US gun violence are sociological, not related to gun legislation. .

Exactly.

Prohibition isn't the answer. Deal with the root causes.

Edited by Heffay, 21 July 2016 - 06:32 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Heffay, on 21 July 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

Exactly.

Prohibition isn't the answer. Deal with the root causes.

The root?
Deal with the root?
Have some nukes? Need to kill some billion of people's to restart the system.

You can't deal with the reason because the reason is founded in the economy system - capitalism = for one to rise, nine have to loose.
Add for example the social economy - either be the best or be the worst = never been good or plain average

Capitalism is a serious problem because it can only exist as long there is something you might want get.
But with on going robotics even the western civilization are soon at a point where it is impossible to get a job - maybe those you don't want to do but even those could be limited with help of machines - on the other hand more people are born in this world - you don't have have to be good in math to see the issue.
Life would go down river soon - ignorance (great example madrack ;-) - I'm American I know what I'm doing - you don't know anything

Edited by Karl Streiger, 21 July 2016 - 09:59 PM.

[EvilCow]

I live in south Italy (near Naples), that nice place where mafia, camorra and similar shits mainly operate. Not exactly a peaceful place as Germany, in theory.

In practice, in my whole life I have yet to see a weapon used or hear that somebody I know has ever been shot. It is mainly criminals that shot each other. A innocent shot is a thing that makes the first page on newspapers.

It is not that you can't own a weapon legally, just people does not feel the need for that. Personally I would look with suspicion at somebody owning a weapon, hunting weapons included.

Edited by EvilCow, 21 July 2016 - 11:34 PM.

[Heffay]

EvilCow, on 21 July 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

It is not that you can't own a weapon legally, just people does not feel the need for that. Personally I would look with suspicion at somebody owning a weapon, hunting weapons included.

What's wrong with hunting? It's a far more ethical way of getting meat than factory farming. Since humans have pretty much eliminated all the alpha predators, someone has to take over that role to keep the food chain working properly.

[Tank]

Guns don't make you safer, they don't help to protect yourself or anyone else in this matter.

Thug knowing that you are armed will shoot you dead instead of just mugging, the element of surprise advantage is key here and no one can always be at 100% ready to fight back, no training will help someone dodge the bullet.

Best defense is to be weary of your surrounding, where are you going and what are you doing. Avoid possible conflicts and don't rely on wherever you carry in your pants.

[Heffay]

Tank, on 22 July 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

Guns don't make you safer, they don't help to protect yourself or anyone else in this matter.

Thug knowing that you are armed will shoot you dead instead of just mugging, the element of surprise advantage is key here and no one can always be at 100% ready to fight back, no training will help someone dodge the bullet.

Best defense is to be weary of your surrounding, where are you going and what are you doing. Avoid possible conflicts and don't rely on wherever you carry in your pants.

Yup, exactly. That's why all my guns are just for fun. I'm no Rambo, but I can run *really* fast. That's my self defense plan!

[EvilCow]

Heffay, on 22 July 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

What's wrong with hunting? It's a far more ethical way of getting meat than factory farming. Since humans have pretty much eliminated all the alpha predators, someone has to take over that role to keep the food chain working properly.

A personal position, it is this thing about enjoy killing.

Don't even try to sell this to me as ethical.

[Heffay]

EvilCow, on 22 July 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

A personal position, it is this thing about enjoy killing.

Don't even try to sell this to me as ethical.

I take it you're a vegetarian then?

I hunt. I don't enjoy killing, but I do it because it provides me with a lot of tasty meat, the options that deer have are starve to death, freeze to death or be torn apart by coyotes, and factory farms bother me a lot so I do what I can to not support them.

I also fish, which I'm assuming you have problems with?

[EvilCow]

We are going very off topic here so I close here: I am not fully vegetarian, I eat meat once a week or so, at very least I don't have to kill my lunch myself.

I don't know about where you live but here big animals are protected, we have less space and wildlife does not exactly thrive outside protected areas.

I understand your position but I think I will stick with my morals. Wildlife is not there to be exploited, if you want to be part of the food chain because it is natural then go hunt naked and use your hands to make whatever tool you are able to build

[Heffay]

EvilCow, on 22 July 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

We are going very off topic here so I close here: I am not fully vegetarian, I eat meat once a week or so, at very least I don't have to kill my lunch myself.

I don't know about where you live but here big animals are protected, we have less space and wildlife does not exactly thrive outside protected areas.

I understand your position but I think I will stick with my morals. Wildlife is not there to be exploited, if you want to be part of the food chain because it is natural then go hunt naked and use your hands to make whatever tool you are able to build

I hunt in Minnesota, where deer are practically a nuisance pest, and the state government issues out licenses to help keep the population under control. They are a very well managed species, where man steps in to fill in the gap that the missing predators used to take. Without hunting there would be millions more deer that would cause untold damage to the ecology, starving to death everywhere, running into cars, and generally creating a pretty dystopian world for them.

Enjoy your burgers! I'm sure the factory where the cow was raised ensured it had a long, prosperous life under the strictest ethical guidelines.

[Karl Streiger]

Well Mediterranean cooking is very low on meat but the quality is much better.
Also started this way to cook not every day meat maybe hardly once a month - but I really pay good money for good beef

Hunting isn't an option the boars in my home town are settling in the town were no hunter can hunt them
The other thing is hunting is expensive you can't go wherever you want and start hunting

Same with fishing - this is something I really like about US - as long as the hunter is really hunting not high tech killing or doing stupid stuff (during a hunt a friend was hit by a hunter - she was hit at the hip - the hunter just saw something and opened fire

---

About evil human (idiotic apes that somebody forget to euthanasia in their mothers belly)
Well there is actually a example from Munich - and I know several fellow Mechwarriors from there.
Anyhow I don't think that a similar weapon regulation like US would have helped very much - only increase the number of victims - because as police officer I wouldn't think twice - the guy has a gun the guy will be dropt doesn't matter if innocent or not.

[Heffay]

Karl Streiger, on 22 July 2016 - 10:26 AM, said:

Anyhow I don't think that a similar weapon regulation like US would have helped very much - only increase the number of victims - because as police officer I wouldn't think twice - the guy has a gun the guy will be dropt doesn't matter if innocent or not.

The number of people with hand gun permits who have been shot by police due to them mistaking who the bad guy was is currently at zero. Although maybe you can make a case for having our first shooting, when a cop shot a guy in a car who was pulled over for a broken tail light. But that wasn't a cop coming on a scene with people shooting each other. That was just a plain racist cop who shot a permit holder after probably giving him conflicting orders.

Heck, even the guy open carrying the AR-15 at the BLM protest in Dallas just walked up to a cop and said "here, hold this, I don't want to get shot." Got a receipt from the cop and picked it back up after all the shooting was done.

edit: Oh, I'm about 95% vegetarian, by marriage. I only eat meat when we go out or for special occasions (like cooking buffalo wings for the Superbowl), but otherwise it's just my veggies.

Edited by Heffay, 22 July 2016 - 10:46 AM.

[Tank]

EvilCow, on 22 July 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

I understand your position but I think I will stick with my morals. Wildlife is not there to be exploited, if you want to be part of the food chain because it is natural then go hunt naked and use your hands to make whatever tool you are able to build

My father used to hunt with self made bow 60 years ago, but not it's forbidden and considered barbaric.