Control Arms (guns being legal)

FlamingXbaby:

The animal habitat is shrinking, the population is growing. Therefore, the animals would starve. Each generation would be smaller and smaller. It's been proven.

I'm talking about hunting for food and stuff. I've heard of people who keep their families alive off animal meat. I've had deer meet several times.
And Indians? They have guns, I'm sure, on their reservations.
People keep alive off eating.

I say hunting is more humane than slaughter.
If you don't agree, I can show you some videos of slaughter.

Were that to happen, that would be natural. However, shooting them isn't going to keep the numbers up. Thats ridiculous. And they wouldn't necessarily starve, they would breed less.

People don't need to eat MEAT to live. But thats another discussion. Besides, if they were given the choice between being shot and eating fresh-caught meat, which they don't actually need, do you seriously think they'd go for being shot?

I don't eat meat. I never have. I think its always wrong to kill animals unnecessarily for food. Its intensely selfish.

The fact of the matter is, ownership of drugs IS punishable (in most countries), but it is a far less serious offence than illegal ownership of a gun, unless you intend to deal. Police don't go wildly out of their way to stop a few kids smoking weed. If you own a gun illegally, it is easy to assume that you have some intention of using it.

Widows didn't necessarily want to burn. Many were forced anyway. You didn't answer my question. Is it right that the families' right to force widows to burn themselves alive was taken away?

You have the right to form opinions of me, and I of you.

I don't understand that argument. If they had guns, they may have fought back, but then so would those in power and they would simply have massacred them en masse. (More so.) I think the right to own a dangerous weapon and the right to freedom of speech are very separate issues. Besides, one is guaranteed by the charter of Human Rights. Guess which?

In your country and the one where I live, people are killed for murder. How much tougher do you want punishment to be? In the country I live in, people can be whipped for drug abuse, but if they think they can get away with it, they'll still do it. Take away a prime weapon and fewer murders occur. If a gun is readily available, murder doesn't take much planning. But the average Joe in a country where guns are illegal doesn't have one lying about. If he wants to shoot someone, he'll really have to think it through.

Its far easier to come by guns you shouldn't when they're readily available legally. Unless I'm much mistaken, they bought bullets from Walmart for crying out loud! If those bullets had been harder to come by, it would at least have been more difficult for them to carry out the shooting.

About animals:
I think (since I'm "Christian" that people have been given power over animals. I think also that animals kill each other, and they're going to die anyway, so why not use the meat for us?

Not all the widows wanted to burn, but some got really mad because that's what they were taught all their life and now some people were telling them it was wrong.

I believe that a valiant death in a battle is better than sitting around and watching the world go to Hell. I would rather die fighting than live like they did in 1984 (the book).
Comparing freedom of speech and gun ownership is like comparing apples and oranges, in the sense that apples and oranges are fruit and gun ownership and free speech are rights.

What needs to be done to fight killers is making it harder to get guns. Not impossible, just more difficult.

If they can change the bill of rights or the constitution to say we can't have guns, what makes you think they won't change the charter of human rights?

If the criminals have to really think it through, they will get smarter and have more ways around the laws. Then more laws will have to be made.

Right now, most murders that I know of are probably done with easily accessed legal weapons. If they made them harder to get to, it would cut down on murders.

Here, I don't know what they do to killers, but I'm guessing it isn't much. I'm pretty sure the death penalty has been done away with.

You have a lot of valid points though.

I think we should stop the meat argument and save it for the Vegetarianism thread. However, I'll just say, the fact remains, we don't need to eat meat and, thus, guns aren't actually necessary.

They didn't die in 1984. Unless you mean in the sense that their spirits were broken. And yet, if you have a disease that kills all the apples, it probably won't affect the oranges.

Killers don't wear signs proclaiming "I intend to shoot people. Don't give me a gun." They could look and seem, to anyone else, exactly the same as you.

Because the charter of Human Rights doesn't contain anything that has the potential to kill others. And the charter of Human Rights is decided on by many governments, not just one.

Besides, the US already takes the right of freedom away from all the prisoners it holds at Guantananmo without trial. Thats a lot scarier than someone saying you can't hold a fire arm.

FlamingXbaby:

Right now, most murders that I know of are probably done with easily accessed legal weapons. If they made them harder to get to, it would cut down on murders.

^ Exactly. Like guns.

I don't know what state you live in, but the US does still condone capital punishment.

I've lost interest in this discussion.
I might pick it back up later, but for now I'm done.
No reason, really.

In the past two months or so, I'm pretty sure there has been at least three threats in my state by kids saying they were going to come to school with a gun and basically do another columbine act.

in my own school district, a principal was shot by one of the students...

I really can't imagine if guns were most accessable...I really just can't see any good coming from it.

also, the whole "it's my second amendment right"...yea, I'm pretty sure we need to all put that into context.
When that was written, a.) they had to hunt for their own food and b.) those british were always barging into their log cabins.

I really haven't had a problem with some random british guy breaking into my house lately...and I prerer the meat market as opposed to shoot a squirrell out of my back yard...

I'd rather the animal die before someone cuts it open. Hunting is far more humane.

People still break into people's houses. If EVERYONE had a gun to defend themselves, they would be more likely to be able do defend themselves.

Criminals DON'T CARE if it's illegal. It's illegal to drink and drive, and you get arrested for doing it, it's unnecassary. If I don't drink and drive, I could still be killed because someone else drank and drove.
Me being able to drink and drive wouldn't protect me, but laws don't do much to stop it.
The laws would do nothing but take the guns from people who are already abiding the laws. People who kill with guns are already breaking the law. One more law won't fix anything.

people who use guns to kill people believe it's a quick and easy way out......so many people thesedays are being killed or seriously injured by a gun!
i watched a programme of street-crimes and 1 man said 'that he could just walk into a shop and buy a gun it's so easy' in lots of countries guns are legal and they're the ones with the most deaths and lots of poor countries aren't bothered with how old you are either so i don't think guns should be legal

guns arent legal in the Uk ... and i wouldnt want to make them legal either

i dont see the benefits

people can use the protection argument, but by having a gun an intruder could get to it before you and use it against you, and although it may give people peace of mind, i think the cons outweigh the pros drastically.

if guns arent legal, some people will still get them, but LESS people will, and that is the important thing.

Ahhh, gun control...
Okay, well this will probably sound somewhat stupid to US-residing INOers, seeing as guns are about as common as colour TVs over there, but see if you can try and see things from an Australian perspective.
Now, over here, gun laws have always been pretty strict. However, they were still somewhat easily accessible until Martin Bryant, a paranoid schizophrenic, went on a shooting rampage around ten years ago in Port Arthur, gunning down 35 people and wounding a further 37.
When that happened, the Australian government rubbed their hands together with glee - they now had the perfect excuse to further restrict the average citizen's right to bear arms to practically nil. My husband is absolutely convinced that the government doesn't want Aussies to have firearms in their homes in the case of, for instance, civil war breaking out - martial law could be declared and there's not a damn thing you or I could do to stop anybody invading our homes and doing as they wish.
My gripe is this: Not only was Martin Bryant a complete and utter freaking psycho, but the weapons he used were already outlawed in Australia. Therefore, further restriction of guns was unnecessary as he wasn't abiding by the laws that were in place at the time, and he wasn't supposed to have a gun to start with, even a legal one, because he was off his damn tree.
Same as the Virginia Tech shooter - he shouldn't have owned a gun because he was a mental case! How simple is it to do a background check on a firearm application and check whether they have a history of mental illness, suicide attempts, assault or other violent, anti-social behaviour?

Now in Australia you can only be granted a gun licence if you're a member of a recreational shooting club, or if you live on a property and need, say, a shotgun for taking down rogue dingoes or rabbits. If you do own a gun, it must be kept locked, unloaded, in a gun safe, which is fair enough, but the ammunition has to be kept in a separate safe.
To me, that's ridiculous - I mean, I'm all for having the gun in a safe where only the owner has a key/combination and therefore access to it, but if somebody broke into my home with the intent to rape or murder me, I'd be dead because I simply wouldn't have time to go to one safe and retrieve the gun, then to the other end of the house to the other safe to retrieve ammo, load up and shoot.

My opinion is that gun control doesn't do a damn thing except make it harder for the average, law-abiding you or me to protect their homes, their families, their property and their lives - people who are going to use guns for purposes other than protection are going to get them anyway, they just won't be licenced or regulated by the government. Sick people, or people who are planning a bank robbery, or drug dealers, are going to buy their guns on the blackmarket regardless of what laws are in place to prevent them having guns - firearms are still out there, not just being sold in hunting stores. They're the people who need guns taken off them, as they're the ones who are using them against others to cause injury, death, or simply to threaten. And they're far more likely to have guns such as semi-automatic rifles and machine guns, that are completely illegal in Australia to start with.

I'm planning on getting a gun regardless of the laws, and I don't care if that makes me a criminal. I feel like I have the right to protect myself, my family and my property, because if somebody broke in here and held a knife to my throat, the cops wouldn't arrive at my doorstep until I was dead or raped, and my house had been ransacked.
Screw it - I'm going to get a handgun, stash it away, and if the situation ever arises where I need to use it, I'll shoot to kill and then when the cops come, I'll say the crim had brought it with them and I'd managed to wrestle it away and shoot them. Being an unlicenced gun, there's no documentation proving where it came from, and I'd probably go to court, but self-defence wins out most of the time, and I'm otherwise a totally law-abiding citizen who keeps their nose clean and stays way out of trouble, so I'm confident I'd get away with it.
And even if I didn't, I'd sooner be in jail for a few months than dead.

Yeah here in Germany itz like really hard to get guns but like in the states and im not trying to like offend the states im from there too
but like i feel that it is super easyy for like people to get guns
and I think they should be more careful on that.
An yway i dont think guns should be legal ANYWHERE


in my opinion...
<3

Resurgam:

^But really, what are the chances of someone breaking into your house, you getting the gun before he does, and you being able to shoot him before he attacks you? I'd say it's far, far more likely that someone else finds the gun and shoots themselves/someone else accidentally.

Say I wake up in the middle of the night and I hear someone climbing through a window - I've got the gun and I'm halfway down the stairs with it pointed at his face before he even knows I'm there. Because it's extremely unlikely that someone's going to come crashing into my house when I'm sitting on the couch watching TV - they'd be stupid to risk it, unless they're high on drugs.
With regards to someone finding the gun and injuring themselves with it, well, I live with my husband, who's had lots of experience with guns since he was a toddler, and it's not like we're going to be sitting around playing with it and risking an accident. We don't have people traipsing through our home, so if it was locked in a small safe in our wardrobe, I'm confident that there is absolutely zero chance of anybody else getting their hands on it - he and I are the only people apart from our landlord (and our cats) who have ever been in the bedroom, so I doubt there would ever be any incidents in that regard.

I agree that there are a few gun-control laws in America that should be tightened, Cho Seung-Hui was a prime example - in Australia, when applying for a gun licence (which must be approved before you're allowed to purchase a gun), the background check not only looks at your criminal record/court history, but also at your medical records, as the majority of mental illness that's not severe is simply treated with counselling and/or medication by a GP, so hospital and other medical records are looked at to ensure that you have zero history of instability. See, I'll never legally be allowed to own a gun because I've been treated for depression since the age of 15, and survived several suicide attempts, so in the government's eyes I will never, ever be permitted to own a firearm. My husband, though he has a totally clean record as far as mental illness goes, will also never be permitted a gun licence while we reside in the same house together, due to my history.
Now, that's all well and good, but I believe that individual circumstances should be taken into account - yes, okay, so I took a bunch of sleeping pills at the age of 16 and needed counselling for a while. Today, I'm as healthy in my head as the next person, and am no risk to myself or others, so I figure that I should be able to get my GP or a counsellor to confirm this and that I should be given a clean slate, as I'm no longer an angsty teenager with attitude problems.

I just disagree with the fact that it's so heavily restricted in Australia. America's laws need a little revision, sure, but so do Australia's - in the opposite direction. They need to be lightened a little, because I figure if an American has the right to bear arms for protection, then why should I not have the same right, providing I have a clean criminal record (which I do) and abide by the laws the government sets out for me (which, in order to obtain the privilege of owning a gun, I would definitely do)?
It just sucks that in Australia, a 'legitimate reason' for owning a gun doesn't include 'self-defense/protection'. How is that not a legitimate reason?
I mean, to be honest, my husband and I already possess several (probably illegal, I've enver bothered to look into it) knives that could cause some serious harm to an intruder, but being six months pregnant and kind of unsteady on my feet, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer with the power of a firearm in my hands, than having to get within arm's reach of a threat in order to disarm or hurt them. Especially in the neighbourhood we live in, right in the middle of the worst part of town, where there are two pubs, a single-men's quarters and a pawn shop on either side of our house, my husband's car has been broken into repeatedly (they attempted to start it, but obviously coudn't hotwire it with whatever knowledge they had) and theived from, our front door has almost been taken off its hinges by would-be intruders, and junkies have casually walked up to the front door and tried to convince us to let them in, and when refused have become so violent that I've literally feared for my life (one guy, when refused entry, went around to the back door and tried to break it down, then smashed the kitchen window in a drug-induced rage - it was the scariest thing I've ever experienced) - and all this in the space of less than six months! We have to call the police at least once a week to get rid of drunks/junkies fighting on the footpath or street outside our home, and I can tell you that I'm praying for the day we can move to a quieter, safer suburb. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in months, but I'm scared to stay a night at my mother's in case I come home the next day to find the place trashed.

Yes, I want a gun. At least then I might be able to get back some confidence in the ideal of my home being my fortress.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

It just sucks that in Australia, a 'legitimate reason' for owning a gun doesn't include 'self-defense/protection'. How is that not a legitimate reason?

I think that it isn't a legitimate reason to the government because of statistics.
Don't quote me on this, but a very high percentage of the people who carry a
firearm or weapon on them for personal protection and are attacked have that
weapon turned back on themselves.
I saw the stats a long time ago, so I can't remember exactly where they came from.

The Australian government may also be casting a baleful eye at the US
and are hesitant to lessen their grip a little, for fear of the possible consequences
and increased rate of accidental shootings and school shootings that may happen.

I don't agree with it, but I think that may be the way the Gov't sees it.

Poopsie:

I believe guns should be legal. If they did make it illegal, it would go against the first Amendment, 'Right to Bear Arms'. There are some people who shouldn't own guns, but why take them away from everybody?

late but still,
that is the most bullshit statement ever

you SHOULD be going against the first amendment. it should be ABOLISHED

and these people who "shouldnt own guns" get guns from
"everybody" who has them.
yes take them away.

was purpose does an AK-47have?
NONE
you dont kill deer wit that shit.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

It just sucks that in Australia, a 'legitimate reason' for owning a gun doesn't include 'self-defense/protection'. How is that not a legitimate reason?

its not a legitimate reason because its a airy fairy statement. you cant back it up with evidence like hunting (you need a hunting license before you can get a gun)

you could say "aww i needs me a gun to protect my family" and when they go home with that gun you see they dont have a family and go shoot innocent people.


and where are you living that you need knives and guns to protect yourself?

I think guns should be legal, but they should be controlled.

For instance, police need their guns. They're vital to their job. Even if the general public can't have a gun, they can still have knives and create bombs. Snipers are necessary to take them out if possible to protect innocent lives.

My dad liked to hunt. -shrug- Nothing wrong with that.

bad people..are ALWAYS gona be able to get their hands on a gun..no one or no law can really stop that...unless the production of guns was totally stopped but..thats not gona happen lol..like..police need them etc. Like, its not legal here in the UK to have a gun, but still, people have them and shootings go on everyday.

Imagine if the gun had never been invented. Stupid, I know. But if there was no such thing a a gun, then we wouldn't be protected from, uh, guncrime? There would be no guncrime in the first place.
Alright, so the gun was in fact invented. But imagine if no one had one, they were only used in warfare and hunting (again, illogical but hey, it's that cer-azy world of hypothetics!), wouldn't we be a lot safer?
I'm from England, and I'm so glad it's illegal to own a gun here. Believe me, I feel much safer this way

Frankie-Oreo:

its not a legitimate reason because its a airy fairy statement. you cant back it up with evidence like hunting (you need a hunting license before you can get a gun)

you could say "aww i needs me a gun to protect my family" and when they go home with that gun you see they dont have a family and go shoot innocent people.

and where are you living that you need knives and guns to protect yourself?

Your first point: my point was that the restrictions on 'legitimate reasons' for owning guns in Australia are bullshit compared to America. If any old US citizen is allowed to have a gun in their house, why the hell can't I? I'm probably a lot smarter than some hillbilly with a sawn-off, so I feel if they have a right to have one 'just because', so should I, providing I have a clean criminal record, no history of mental illness, violent/antisocial behaviour, etc.

Your second point: I could say a lot of things in order to legally obtain a firearm, but I do agree with the government's thorough background checks on such applications - they would be able to check and confirm that I've signed a marriage licence and (after August) my child's birth certificate, and census forms, electoral roll details etc would confirm that we all live together, therefore they can quite obviously see that I have a family to protect. If America can't even be so half-assed as to do a background check on a firearm licence applicant, they're morons.

Your third point: Did you read my entire post? I detailed some of the crap that I've gone through in the last 6 months (which is the length of time my husband and I have lived at this address). Funnily enough, though it sounds like I could be residing in Compton, I actually live a couple of blocks from the CBD of a town of 40,000 people in Central Queensland. And I'm not even close to exaggerating when I wrote about those incidents. For a small town, this is a dangerous place to live these days, I mean, my friends can't even take their kids to the park because there are too many needles in the sandpits and paint-sniffers on park benches - and the council doesn't care, just tells everyone to avoid those places for their own safety.
Meanwhile, we're being held to ransom by junkies, alcoholics, and mentally ill people who either won't seek or can't get treatment for their problems.
That's why I want a gun. Because I know that if I came across an adult male high on speed or something, there is absolutely no way even a knife could protect me, as I'd have to get in close contact and people who are high on certain drugs have super-human strength. I'd be dead.

Besides, I figure if a knife is just as lethal or as potentially injurious as a gun, why are people allowed to own those huge knife-blocks with six different knives, including butcher's knives, without any restrictions, and sit them out on their kitchen benches where someone could easily pick one out and hurt themselves? Their kids could so very easily slide one out and drop it on themselves... Why should guns be any different to kitchen implements, if indeed they are both potentially deadly weapons?