Thoughts on gun control?

[MuffinTopMike]

I think you're slightly off on the amount it would cost for a blackmarket rifle. Maybe if it was an actual military (Automatic Select-Fire Rifle) it would cost $30,000. Also, I would agree that mass murders have almost completely stopped here. In combination to the heavier restrictions against those with past criminal records and mental instabilities, and a much better outlook on mental healthcare; the Government HAS managed to stop those with mental instabilities from obtaining firearms, as these people are the most common for mass murders in America. Most other gun related crime in America is caused by gangs with illegally obtained firearms.

If we had a mix of both America's and Australia's laws I'm sure that there's a medium where gun crime would stay low while allowing legal gun owners to obtain firearms such as an AR15.

I don't believe that it should be as easy as going and buying one over the counter at both low prices and same day aquisition. The prices should be raised as a way to pay for a more efficient "security" system to be put into place and managed. To apply for a Semi-Automatic rifle you should be required to include information about relatives with certain dangerous mental instabilities, any type of crime committed or any ties to anybody in a gang with any history of criminal activity (Family or Friend).

I'm sure there's other things I could add to this to this "idea".

From what I have heard, a hand gun like a Glock costs around $15,000 and an M4 Carbine is around $33,000, and that doesn't include the cost of ammo. Also the types of people and the number of steps it would take, just to meet a dealer who sold these items could be nearly impossible without the right connections.. You are right when it comes to the type of people who commit these crimes, they usually have some type of mental issue. However it is incredibly hard to identify someone who is mentally unstable, the majority of the time these people seem perfectly normal and often just internalize their problems and not talk to anyone about them. That is why it is easy to say, don't sell guns to mentally unstable people, but in practice this could be almost impossible. The majority of people are very happy with Australia's gun control, and the number of gun crimes are low, so I just don't see any point in changing all that, just so some people can own a gun. Also, I think there is probably a 0% chance of ever seeing any changes to Australia's gun control laws.

[skywake]

Like I said, I am writing a paper on it and I need an argument from both sides, since I am pro gun, I need arguments from anti-gun people. 

Like most things painting it as black and white as this is a false dichotomy. It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. Because if someone doesn't agree with you completely they're labelled "anti-gun" and all of a sudden the shutters slam down.

 

I'm an Australian and I support the laws that our conservative government implemented in the 90s. Because it clearly had some impact. But that doesn't make me "anti-gun". I don't have any problem with people owning and using guns for "legitimate" reasons. If they're a sports shooter, hunter, farmer of collector then they should be allowed to own guns for those things. But only if they go through the paper work, get the checks done and can prove that they need a gun for one of those reasons. If they want access to more dangerous weapons? Then the controls are tighter. All the way up to the heaviest weapons which are banned .... unless you're a collector and then you can own decommissioned one. I don't see why anyone would have any issue with that.

 

The counter point is always the old "criminals will still get guns". And that's true. You can't stop the black market, you can't stop smugglers and so on. But lets just go back to the singular big event behind Australia's gun laws. The Port Arthur massacre was committed by a 28 year old with the mental capacity of an 11 year old. He saw an ad in the newspaper, brought a bunch of automatic weapons and killed 35 people. This isn't far removed from the sort of pattern you see in shootings anywhere in the world. Do the new laws mean that such an event couldn't happen again? No, of course they don't. But I'd be willing to bet that it's far less likely, especially for someone who is as mentally impaired as Martin Bryant was. And if you think that's a stupid reason to regulate? Well how about we drop airport security back to how it was before 9/11. Oh you don't want to reduce security? Oh well, you're "anti-freedom"

[Derranged]

From what I have heard, a hand gun like a Glock costs around $15,000 and an M4 Carbine is around $33,000, and that doesn't include the cost of ammo. Also the types of people and the number of steps it would take, just to meet a dealer who sold these items could be nearly impossible without the right connections.. You are right when it comes to the type of people who commit these crimes, they usually have some type of mental issue. However it is incredibly hard to identify someone who is mentally unstable, the majority of the time these people seem perfectly normal and often just internalize their problems and not talk to anyone about them. That is why it is easy to say, don't sell guns to mentally unstable people, but in practice this could be almost impossible. The majority of people are very happy with Australia's gun control, and the number of gun crimes are low, so I just don't see any point in changing all that, just so some people can own a gun. Also, I think there is probably a 0% chance of ever seeing any changes to Australia's gun control laws.

The price of a black gun depends on the dealer, the prices vary. Gangs will usually be contacted by these dealers and will offer a price.

Also, it's incorrect to state that the mentally unstable people who have committed mass murders in America weren't known to have mental issues, because they did.

Sandy Hook is one incident that could've been avoided if the mother had locked up her firearms in a safe (Something that I am for being enforced).

It's also wrong to state that gun crime is low here, sure it's lower than America. However we do not have the type of gang or general criminal activity that America has; but to say it's low? Not at all. There's still hundreds of deaths each year by firearms, and they seem to be becoming more and more common.

A few weaks ago a man shot dead his Ex-Wife. The weird part about this is that he had a DVO on him, which requires all firearms to be taken away from him. So how did he get the gun? No information has been released about how the firearm had been obtained, however when a firearm had been legally obtained it turns into an utter shit-storm against ALL legal gun owners.

As of late the Goverent of Victoria (I believe) attempted to ban Lever Action Shotguns and Rifles, and Bolt Action Rifles due to them being, and I quote "Rapid Fire Rifles".

The Government is trying to make any excuse to take guns away from legal owners, and we have to stand up and tell them no. You have your opinion, and I have mine. It would be like me telling you that you have to forfeit one of the things that you enjoy to use.

[JAKEBAB]

I think you missed the point here, the reason why guns were restricted in the first place, was not because they thought it would stop gun crimes all together, but to greatly reduce it. And if you look at the statistics, the laws and restrictions created in the 90s were successful. Gun smuggling is a problem, because if someone is determined to get their hands on a gun, they probably will, however, a gun that costs $500 in America, could cost up $30,000 on the Australian black market. The high prices would deter the majority of people from buying firearms.

So what if it reduced crime's with a gun, it just made crimes with a knife sky rocket! Crime is crime no matter how it's done!! I can assure you black market guns are priced very attainably even for an assault rifle it's within a regular working mans reach.

 

The result, raw numbers with no opinion:

1. Gun related crime is significantly down. Relative to the population, relative to other kinds of violence and in absolute numbers. As a result of the 1996 laws.

2. The homicide rate in Australia is down from where it was before

I think you should read this. 

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

[skywake]

I think you should read this. 

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

Well ok, lets take this at face value. Lets say that the reduction in the homicide rate in Australia since the change in the laws is purely because of "other factors". That all of the violence that would have taken place before is now done with knives instead. And that the only positive change these laws have brought about is a reduction in the amount and severity of massacres.

 

Where's the downside? Some extra paperwork if you want to get a gun? Heaven forbid!

[vXhanz]

 

 

Should there be more gun control?

 

 

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

 

 

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house? 

. 

 

Any other things you want to talk about on guns? Post it too!

 

 

 

Should there be more gun control?

 

No. I own firearms, use them for hunting and target practice. People are going to use firearms, or whatever weapon they can get to commit a crime. The people who seem to want MORE gun control are those that think if guns were taken away, then there would be anymore crime. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Sure, take the guns away and then what? People will get pressure cookers and take them to a marathon. Now you've taken a perfectly benign object and turned it into a weapon of mass destruction. Are we going to ban pressure cookers now? 

 

 

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

 

Yes, absolutely. If you're going to have a firearm out in the open around other people, then you need to have training, period. The example you use is more or less the same example/training that I was given in the service. Keep your weapon pointed at the end of the range so you don't shoot the soldier next to you. Hell, even in hunter safety training they teach you how to climb over/under obstacles and what to do with your firearm when with other people. 

 

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house? 

 

No. What you do in your own home is your own business. If you're using them to protect/defend your house then how is it going to help if it's locked up? Personally, I lock my firearms up because of my kids and their friends. My kids know they are there, and know that they are not to be touched even if they are locked up. With that said, I also let the parents of my children's friends know that I have firearms and they are locked up. I also ask if they have firearms and if they are locked up. If they are not locked up, then my kids are not allowed to go into that house, period. I don't know their kids or how they were trained. I've read too many things in the news about kids deciding to "show off their guns" and the friend winds up shot and injured or shot and killed. 

 

Too many people IMHO don't respect firearms enough and don't have the proper training to use them. 

[JAKEBAB]

Where's the downside? Some extra paperwork if you want to get a gun? Heaven forbid!

That isn't the problem, it's the fact self defense isn't a valid reason in the governments eyes.

 

Also it's not as easy as you are making it out to be, you have to be part of a gun club, im not sure about this with hand guns since i've only ever had rifles in the house but you need a bolted down safe and police come and check once a year, you can't import any guns from out of the country without approval and your most likely going to get denied anyway, we have pretty shitty variety and you can forget any chance of having an AK even semi varient. 

[Derranged]

Well ok, lets take this at face value. Lets say that the reduction in the homicide rate in Australia since the change in the laws is purely because of "other factors". That all of the violence that would have taken place before is now done with knives instead. And that the only positive change these laws have brought about is a reduction in the amount and severity of massacres.

 

Where's the downside? Some extra paperwork if you want to get a gun? Heaven forbid!

 

I don't think you're following very well, the main reason that firearm related crimes went down was due to the Government implementing background checks and the registration of guns, not due to the banning of Semi-Automatic rifles (By the way, the majority of these were buried by the owners, not given to the Government). I'm pretty sure anybody on this site (Other than the patriotic Americans) would agree that the registration of firearms SHOULD be necessary. We aren't arguing that everybody should have the right to a gun willynilly, they do need to be regulated, however people SHOULD have the ability to own one given that it is not used against another human unless there is a necessary need to (If the other person has a gun and you have the chance to use it).

 

I don't believe people should have the right to Open Carry, unless they specifically have a permit by the state to do so or are hired by the business for whatever specific reason (We pretty much have this already). Open Carry should be granted to those who have experience in the Police/Military which haven't been dishonorably discharged. There should be a way for more people to be out in force, even while not on the beat, as police can't be there all the time. bla bla bla.

[Derranged]

*Double Post* 

[skywake]

That isn't the problem, it's the fact self defense isn't a valid reason in the governments eyes.

 

Also it's not as easy as you are making it out to be, you have to be part of a gun club, im not sure about this with hand guns since i've only ever had rifles in the house but you need a bolted down safe and police come and check once a year, you can't import any guns from out of the country without approval and your most likely going to get denied anyway, we have pretty shitty variety and you can forget any chance of having an AK even semi varient. 

I'd argue that they're right to say that self defence isn't a valid reason. Think about it. You don't own the thing as a collector, you don't own it because of your profession, you don't own it for sport. You don't own it as a person of the land who wants to shoot feral animals or put down a sick animal because you don't have easy access to a vet. If you own it for self defence you're literally saying you own it so you can be a vigilante. Quite frankly that's a bullshit reason to own a gun.

[skywake]

I don't think you're following very well, the main reason that firearm related crimes went down was due to the Government implementing background checks and the registration of guns, not due to the banning of Semi-Automatic rifles (By the way, the majority of these were buried by the owners, not given to the Government). I'm pretty sure anybody on this site (Other than the patriotic Americans) would agree that the registration of firearms SHOULD be necessary. We aren't arguing that everybody should have the right to a gun willynilly, they do need to be regulated, however people SHOULD have the ability to own one given that it is not used against another human unless there is a necessary need to (If the other person has a gun and you have the chance to use it).

TBH I don't think we're actually disagreeing on much other than maybe the point about semi-automatics. I'd argue that there's no reason why anyone other than a collector would have any reason to own such a weapon. And even those people should have to live with a decommissioned weapon. A weapon like that not a "tool", farmers and hunters won't buy those sort of guns. That's a weapon designed for slaughter. If there's a "you should have a reason" test then those sort of weapons would naturally be off the table entirely. Period.

[Derranged]

TBH I don't think we're actually disagreeing on much other than maybe the point about semi-automatics. I'd argue that there's no reason why anyone other than a collector would have any reason to own such a weapon. And even those people should have to live with a decommissioned weapon. A weapon like that not a "tool", farmers and hunters won't buy those sort of guns. That's a weapon designed for slaughter. If there's a "you should have a reason" test then those sort of weapons would naturally be off the table entirely. Period.

 

Mass culling of wild pigs occur on many large properties all over Australia, the pigs ruin the ground that our farmers need to grow crops or to feed their cattle. These pigs can be in groups of 20+ at a time, and the people who are hired to cull pests usually have Semi-Automatics... You may ask why? Pigs can run, duck and weave through the grass; with a bolt action it would be absolutely impossible to destroy an entire group of them before they enter somebody elses property. However yes, it IS legal for these people to obtain Semi-Automatics with a Category D license, however for some reason the Government still restricts these people from owning any rifle that was used by any military throughout the world (For some reason the SKS is exempt). However rifles such as the AR-15, AKM, M1 Garand, ect, are still banned, even though they have a legitimate use for these rifles.

 

I guess I didn't respond to your question very well, so why should normal people be allowed to own a Semi-Automatic rifle? It might just come down to "Because they're fun!", "Because we should have the right to own what we want!", bla bla bla, maybe it's because we aren't allowed to fire them anywhere else and we just want to have the thrill of it. There aren't too many reasons for somebody to own a gun if you're going to bring it down to that sense, as "Because they're fun!" just won't cut it. So I understand your point of view, however I find guns enjoyable to use as I have had the chance to while living out on a farm.

 

There's always a medium though, you can't go banning everything on the planet without people getting upset one way or another. I myself have never had the time or money to travel overseas to America to have the chance to fire one. If they are banned there, where would people like me go to have that type of thrill? Cambodia? Sure, sketchy as fuck but it's legal there because the military hosts tours where you can basically fire anything up to an Anti-Air cannon.

[JAKEBAB]

I'd argue that they're right to say that self defence isn't a valid reason. Think about it. You don't own the thing as a collector, you don't own it because of your profession, you don't own it for sport. You don't own it as a person of the land who wants to shoot feral animals or put down a sick animal because you don't have easy access to a vet. If you own it for self defence you're literally saying you own it so you can be a vigilante. Quite frankly that's a bullshit reason to own a gun.

I live in a place where home invasions are fairly common they have been armed with knives and bats, how is it a bullshit reason? Why do we even need a reason? This all comes down to that link and if it has no effect why does it matter? Why aren't i free to feel safe in my own home? I don't want to my life in the hands of a non guaranteed service.

[watts300]

My two cents:

I have a pistol grip Mossberg 500 12 gauge with an 18.5" barrel loaded (not chambered) in my closet. To me, it doesn't make any sense to own a gun for self/home defense and keep it locked up. If I need it in a moment's notice, I don't want to waste time and fiddle with unlocking it.

[Thunderpup]

Sandy Hook is one incident that could've been avoided if the mother had locked up her firearms in a safe (Something that I am for being enforced).

 

sadly that isn't true.  The mother had her firearms locked in a safe in the basement.  From what I recall she never gave the password to her son, but her son practically lived in the basement so he likely got the combination/code from watching her open it.

 

Personally I make people look away when I am about to open mine.

 

 

 would agree that the registration of firearms SHOULD be necessary.

 

Technically speaking registration already exists here.  If the police find a firearm at the scene of the crime they can contact the manufacturer which will provide the dealer's info and then they can go to the dealer and get the information about who they sold it to.  Dealers are required by federal law to record all transactions of firearms sales and purchases in a bound book within 24 hours of the sale. 

 

Now some states require that the firearm be registered through the states in addition to the above step.  Which would, hypothetically, allow the police to research the state database.

 

Problem with both of these scenarios is if the criminals scrub identifying marks, such as serial number, from the firearm neither method really yields much fruit.

 

 

 However rifles such as the AR-15, AKM, M1 Garand, ect, are still banned, even though they have a legitimate use for these rifles.

 

I cannot fathom the rationale behind not being able to own an M1 Garand.  They are bulky, only hold 8 rounds, are fairly complicated to assemble and disassemble, and people un-familiar with them will end up with "garand thumb". 

I say this as an owner myself, though I've yet to get garand thumb. 

[CalebTheEternal]

Should there be more gun control?

No. I own firearms, use them for hunting and target practice. People are going to use firearms, or whatever weapon they can get to commit a crime. The people who seem to want MORE gun control are those that think if guns were taken away, then there would be anymore crime. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Sure, take the guns away and then what? People will get pressure cookers and take them to a marathon. Now you've taken a perfectly benign object and turned it into a weapon of mass destruction. Are we going to ban pressure cookers now?

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

Yes, absolutely. If you're going to have a firearm out in the open around other people, then you need to have training, period. The example you use is more or less the same example/training that I was given in the service. Keep your weapon pointed at the end of the range so you don't shoot the soldier next to you. Hell, even in hunter safety training they teach you how to climb over/under obstacles and what to do with your firearm when with other people.

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house?

No. What you do in your own home is your own business. If you're using them to protect/defend your house then how is it going to help if it's locked up? Personally, I lock my firearms up because of my kids and their friends. My kids know they are there, and know that they are not to be touched even if they are locked up. With that said, I also let the parents of my children's friends know that I have firearms and they are locked up. I also ask if they have firearms and if they are locked up. If they are not locked up, then my kids are not allowed to go into that house, period. I don't know their kids or how they were trained. I've read too many things in the news about kids deciding to "show off their guns" and the friend winds up shot and injured or shot and killed.

Too many people IMHO don't respect firearms enough and don't have the proper training to use them.

I think these are all good points. When I get older and have kids will I lock them up? Yes. I wouldnt want my kids touching my guns or even his friends guns without a trained parent with them. I would keep one unlocked where I could access it but my children could not.

[CalebTheEternal]

Like most things painting it as black and white as this is a false dichotomy. It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. Because if someone doesn't agree with you completely they're labelled "anti-gun" and all of a sudden the shutters slam down.

Well most of the ones I'm explaining why they are wrong. Like one said you can just go to your grocery store or something and buy a gun and walk out with it loaded. That just simply isn't true at all. The only thing close to a grocery store that sells guns that I can think of is Walmart and I don't think they even sell guns anymore. At least not at my location.

[CalebTheEternal]

Perhaps schools could have some security personnel that keep the grounds safe, and confiscate knives and guns from students if found. They can carry a pistol to protect the students from attack

The second part is just a mentality I cannot understand, but its just different over here I guess, since we have not had a mass shooting in a long time its just not something we feel we have to prepare for

Some schools do have this. My school has 5 security guards without weapons and 3 cops every day. I feel very safe at school but do I feel safer at work? Yes. Because I know everyone around me is carrying and some even carry a rifle. They might be a little dumb on occasion but I trust them and I know that if I needed them they would help.

[ShadowCaptain]

Some schools do have this. My school has 5 security guards without weapons and 3 cops every day. I feel very safe at school but do I feel safer at work? Yes. Because I know everyone around me is carrying and some even carry a rifle. They might be a little dumb on occasion but I trust them and I know that if I needed them they would help.

 

its a different world when you have to have people armed with guns around you to feel safe, 

 

I cant even imagine

[FunkyFeatures]

Here we go again.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

But if we compare USA to Europe, we will start to see that when people can more easily acquire such weapons, the more killings will happen. I am guessing none of us has actually taken another person's life, but lets say you had one moment of weakness, it is so easy to pull a gun on someone if everyone has a gun, while if noone has a gun, it'll most likely be a fist fight with both parties alive.

 

IMHO, gun control is a thing in Europe, it isn't in America. Feel free to run around guns blazing in America, but I am happy that I am not part of that. Literally anyone could pull a gun out, while in Europe, even carrying a knife is (some places) not legal. 

 

In short: We all have one of those flip shit moments, it's easier to take a life in America because you most likely already pack a lethal weapon for "self-defense", while in Europe it'll end up with a fistfight and a beer, since it would require more than just a single short "flip shit" moment to kill people without a weapon

[rcarteraz]

 

Too many people IMHO don't respect firearms enough and don't have the proper training to use them. 

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said but this right here hits the nail on the head. A lot people don't understand the severity of properly handling a firearm. People think it's a joke. They see the movies with people "holdin gats sideways" and crap like that. Anyone who is serious about owning a firearm is going to take some sort of training course before purchasing their firearm. I honestly don't feel there's anything wrong with that.

 

We don't need more laws on the books. Just properly enforce the laws we currently have. If you think not allowing guns is going to do anything then you need to take a look at places like Chicago and see what good that's done.

[ShadowDeity]

My issue is that some states have laws against it and some don't.  But what stops someone from going into the next state, buying a gun, and shooting a school up in their home state.  You can't control guns like that.  The US gives too much power to individual states IMO.

 

Pretty screwed up.... 

I'm happy to live in Canada.... no school shootings, etc.

[rcarteraz]

First off, the founding fathers didn't make these laws based on modern guns.  They were based on muskets and flint lock pistols.  The NRA is just filled with trigger happy morons.  However, I don't believe guns should be taken from the sane or responsible.  But, there does need to be limitations.

 

To say that any of the Bill of Rights wasn't meant for "modern" whatever makes absolutely no sense. Would you say the same about any of the others?

[rcarteraz]

My issue is that some states have laws against it and some don't.  But what stops someone from going into the next state, buying a gun, and shooting a school up in their home state.  You can't control guns like that.  The US gives too much power to individual states IMO.

 

Pretty screwed up.... 

I'm happy to live in Canada.... no school shootings, etc.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Canada

 

You were saying?

 

Also, are you aware the US history? 10th amendment? There's a reason for that.

[Real_PhillBert]

My issue is that some states have laws against it.  But what stops someone from going into the next state, buying a gun, and shooting a school up in their home state.

 

Pretty screwed up.... 

I'm happy to live in Canada.... no school shootings, etc.

 

Federal law. It is illegal to buy a firearm out of your home state. If you buy a gun online it has to be shipped to an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensed dealer) who has to do a 4473 (background check) before the transaction can be completed.

 

This is not directed solely at you but the amount of ignorance of the real firearms laws in this thread is astounding.