Gun advocate mocks Australia's tough laws

[rasputin0009]

Another way to limit accessibility is to have proper storage laws. Just because you're a "responsible" gun owner doesn't mean your wife, your child, or your friend that visits every 4 months is a responsible person with a gun. So why give them open access to your lethal weapons? These kind of laws wouldn't limit your freedom to have your assault rifle with 60 round banana clips that prove your manliness or anything. You would just have to lock up your guns and ammo. Kind of how you lock the front door of your housr.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Another way to limit accessibility is to have proper storage laws. Just because you're a "responsible" gun owner doesn't mean your wife, your child, or your friend that visits every 4 months is a responsible person with a gun. So why give them open access to your lethal weapons? These kind of laws wouldn't limit your freedom to have your assault rifle with 60 round banana clips that prove your manliness or anything. You would just have to lock up your guns and ammo. Kind of how you lock the front door of your housr.

Then you have the problem of "Someone is breaking into my house, time to get the gun........but its locked in a safe. -_-"

Also, as an aside, I DONT lock the door to my house or the door on my truck when I am home. Because I where I live crime is so low there is no reason. Although, everyone around here still owns a gun just in case there is a break in, but there are usually used to scare off the coyotes. Or in my families case, practice shooting by shooting at the pile of wood behind the house.

 

[IndomitableSam]

Think I'll leave this here, it may help the discussion. It's an an infographic (pdf, though), from a Canadian newspaper about Gun ownership and crimes around the world.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/guns-ownership-around-the-world-graphic/ [http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/guns-ownership-around-the-world-graphic/]

SOURCES: INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL CENSUS REPORTS, NATIONAL POLICE FORCES, NATIONAL MINISTRIES
OF JUSTICE, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION & GUNPOLICY.ORG

My stance? Guns should only be used by law enforcement/military and hunters should only have long-barrel limited shot guns. No one else needs guns. And hunters should only be allowed guns if their hunting lisences are up to date and they actually do hunt.

 

[rasputin0009]

Another way to limit accessibility is to have proper storage laws. Just because you're a "responsible" gun owner doesn't mean your wife, your child, or your friend that visits every 4 months is a responsible person with a gun. So why give them open access to your lethal weapons? These kind of laws wouldn't limit your freedom to have your assault rifle with 60 round banana clips that prove your manliness or anything. You would just have to lock up your guns and ammo. Kind of how you lock the front door of your housr.

Then you have the problem of "Someone is breaking into my house, time to get the gun........but its locked in a safe. -_-"

Why does it always come down to that silly fantasy that you're going to save the day when someone tries to break in to your house? You are literally hoping someone will wrong you just so you can take revenge. I don't specifically mean you when I say this, more as in referring to the general gun advocate.

But it really doesn't take that long to unlock a safe.

What you could do instead is install better locks on your doors. And maybe an alarm system.

 

[MopBox]

Dude that video scared the hell out of me. What the fuck is wrong with the average voter in the US that encourages these guys to behave like this? O_O

Eh, poor education and yellow journalism mostly.

 

[devotedsniper]

I'm off to capture an Australian...I've always wanted a pet alien...

As for the article/videos the guy is your typical American idiot outspoken gun nut, thinking guns are the solution to everything and when presented with evidence which says otherwise backs into a corner and lashes out with stupid statements.

P.S i'm not claiming all gun lovers are idiots.

 

[JokerboyJordan]

It's funny, I was just thinking, when will America come to the logical conclusion of having people committing gun massacres in order to convince the nation that they need legislation?

How much suffering is necessary before people realise they have to stand up and say "enough is enough".

 

[amuasyeas]

Another way to limit accessibility is to have proper storage laws. Just because you're a "responsible" gun owner doesn't mean your wife, your child, or your friend that visits every 4 months is a responsible person with a gun. So why give them open access to your lethal weapons? These kind of laws wouldn't limit your freedom to have your assault rifle with 60 round banana clips that prove your manliness or anything. You would just have to lock up your guns and ammo. Kind of how you lock the front door of your housr.

That's basic gun safety, most people do lock up their guns and keep their ammo separate.

 

[RoBi3.0]

What happened to the good old days where we would pass amendments try them out for a while and if they didn't work just pass another amendment to make the original amendment not count.

Look, at prohibition. Back then we were brave enough to at least try it out to see if it would actually work. Americans nowadays are complete pussies.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Why does it always come down to that silly fantasy that you're going to save the day when someone tries to break in to your house? You are literally hoping someone will wrong you just so you can take revenge. I don't specifically mean you when I say this, more as in referring to the general gun advocate.

Its not a fanatsy. It happens, and it works. Just last year there was a farmer afew towns over who had his house broken into, and he got a shotgun, shot one of the guys (who was injured but survived), and forced the other to surrender until the cops showed up. That sounds like a good thing to me.

But then there is the fact that no one outside of a small minority WANT to shoot people breaking into their homes. I think I speak for most when I say I dont WANT to shoot anyone, I want to put the shotgun in thier face, telling them to get on the ground, and make them stay there until the police show up to cart him to jail.

What you could do instead is install better locks on your doors. And maybe an alarm system.

And why do those mean I cant have a gun. Because as far as I am concerned, a gun is just another security system, like locks on the door or an alarm. Besides, an alarm wont do jack shit to scare off coyotes.

And I will say it again. I live in an area were crime is so little, I can leave my doors unlocked and THE KEYS IN MY TRUCK without fear of them being broken into or in the case of my truck stolen....But I will still keep a gun as a "just in case" thing, even though as long as I say out of the bad areas of the 3 big cities [footnote]Topeka, Kansas City, and Witchita[/footnote], the odds of me being robbed or heaven forbid, shot fall somewhere between "Plane Crash" and "Meteor falling into my house."

 

[FoolKiller]

Funny... no one took their recreational pool to hold up a store or drown a school.

I think they should all get rid of guns and have broadswords instead. If you're gonna kill someone, you should have to actually work for it.

 

[wulf3n]

stuff

This seems like a contradiction.

You say you don't want to shoot someone yet you create a scenario that increases the likelihood of you having to shoot someone.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Dude that video scared the hell out of me. What the fuck is wrong with the average voter in the US that encourages these guys to behave like this? O_O

There's a lot of right-wing talking heads that constantly repeat "Liberals will take all your guns! Liberals will take all your guns! This bill will only lead to jack-booted government thugs taking all your guns away!" They're all paid by the NRA which is a puppet for the gun industry--not gun owners.
Universal background checks, which was a part of the recent gun bill that failled to pass, by most polls, has the support of over 80% of Americans. The NRA was still against it. Republican representatives were still against it. They'd never vote for a gun bill, because they know--with how badly gerrymandered districts are--the only way they'd ever get voted out and lose all that sweet sweet lobbyist money was if they get primaried. They know that the NRA will set up someone whose even farther right to run against them in a primary and will win because of it.

American Congressional pollitics are really fucked up.

OT:
It's seriously gotten to the point where I'm not allowed to stand on the corner and preach the violent overthrow of government, but I'm allowed to stock up for it. I'm not allowed have a mass assembly in the steets without a permit, but I'm allowed to walk down the sreet with a loaded assault rifle hanging from my shoulder.

 

[Scolar Visari]

A US gun lobbyist has said Australia is not on the same planet as the US when dismissing the success of Australian gun control laws.

It's true. What works in Australia doesn't translate very well into another country vastly larger, with actual physical neighboring nations and a vastly different culture.

I'm not arguing either side and I personally couldn't give more than one-half of two fucks about anyone mentioned in that article or their opinions.

But that's not the point of the article. The point is that this guy is basically saying that because America is different and because gun control wouldn't get rid of all crime, nothing at all should be done. Even if it would save at least some lives.

Nobody is saying that America is the same as Australia. What is being said is that Australia is an example of how better gun control can at least save some lives, but there's a fairly fringe element in the US that don't think even some saved lives are worth any gun control. I'm quite comfortable calling these fringe thinkers lunatics.

Apparently you missed the point of my statement, which is that the bolded sentence I quoted is a truth. Only that and nothing more.

I don't care who said what or what could have been said better or who's right and who's wrong. Also, the use of the "Even if it only saves one life!" argument is a shitty fallacy and anyone using it to argue a point in any sort of forum, formal or otherwise, should be hounded from the pulpit.

 

[triggrhappy94]

"A US gun lobbyist has said Australia is not on the same planet as the US"

Given american knowledge of geography maybe he was sincere? ;p

I can't say I wasn't surprised to hear that it wasn't.
Australlia is the only country that's also it's own planet, right?

 

[BOOM headshot65]

stuff

This seems like a contradiction.

You say you don't want to shoot someone yet you create a scenario that increases the likelihood of you having to shoot someone.

Actually, no I didnt. Most studies and work into this topic shows that most burglars will surrender or flee when confronted with armed resistance. The exact numbers from a study of 2,000 convicted felons, 34% said they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or caputred by an armed victim", 69% said they knew another criminal who also had, 34% said they often or reguarly feared meeting armed resistance, and 57% said that they agreed with the statement "Criminals are more afraid of meeting an armed victim than meeting the police." And thats just one, there are others. Most data shows that even just showing the gun will cause most criminals to back down.

 

[Vegosiux]

Apparently you missed the point of my statement, which is that the bolded sentence I quoted is a truth. Only that and nothing more.

Last time I checked, Australia and USA were on the same planet. Yeah, I know, hyperbole is a thing, but the context doesn't seem to be "Australia is different", it seems to be "There's nothing but crazy people down there, why'd anyone want to do something they did?"

 

[RicoADF]

A US gun lobbyist has said Australia is not on the same planet as the US when dismissing the success of Australian gun control laws.

It's true. What works in Australia doesn't translate very well into another country vastly larger, with actual physical neighboring nations and a vastly different culture.

I'm not arguing either side and I personally couldn't give more than one-half of two fucks about anyone mentioned in that article or their opinions.

It's one thing to say that their 2 different cultures, and different situations. It's another to say that Australia is on another planet and that "with real humans" (as he said) it doesn't work, as if to say we're inferior or something.

Then again I guess we can take this as a compliment, he see's us as too civilized to compare to
(that was a joke btw)

 

[wulf3n]

Actually, no I didnt. Most studies and work into this topic shows that most burglars will surrender or flee when confronted with armed resistance. The exact numbers from a study of 2,000 convicted felons, 34% said they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or caputred by an armed victim", 69% said they knew another criminal who also had, 34% said they often or reguarly feared meeting armed resistance, and 57% said that they agreed with the statement "Criminals are more afraid of meeting an armed victim than meeting the police." And thats just one, there are others. Most data shows that even just showing the gun will cause most criminals to back down.

But by not locking your doors you're creating a scenario in which a gun is necessary. If you can provide/point me to statistics that show more home invasions are prevented by firearms than proper security, then I'll concede the point.

captcha: Yee haw.