Frootloop at Monash

looks like we aren't immune to the US insanity of school shootings

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2002/10/item20021021195344_1.htm

Yes, i got told by my sister upon arriving home. Its tragic. 2 Dead and 3 more injured. I thought this is why we banned semi-automatics. Pistols - which serve no hunting purposes, should also be outlawed.

>_<

the article says 5 injured

Yeh a friends brother nealy got hit in the head, if it wasnt for the double pean glass he might have died, the bullet ricosade(shit spelling soz).
Friend had to go home, cos his parents and the conseller needed him for his bros torment :(

Removing guns from the public only makes the innocent unarmed and the psycho people can always easily get almost any gun from the black market.....not that I approve of anybody outside of the military having guns.
Its tragic and makes Odyssey cry :cry:

Yes Odyssey,

Takling guns away from people does reduce their ability to defend themselve. But by giving people the right to carry a weapon to defend themself, it also gives the right for the criminal element to carry a weapon for misuse safe in the knowledge that they are free from prosecution.

Why do we need to carry weapons at all. I know that hunters hunting feral animals are not only good for the land, they are necessary for its survival but from the hunters I have met, not one ever uses a pistol, why - no range.

Pistols should be banned immediatly. There is no need for pistols expect fpor the police and ADF. Semi-Automatic weapons should be banned. Pump action weapons should be reveiwed, after all, banning pump
action .22s is ridiculous. What real damage could you do with that
anyhow?

Whilst people will always be able to get stuff on the black market, reducing the size of the market here ie from theft from legal owners plus imports will reduce pushing the price up, hopefully taking them out of the reach of your stock standard waco. From what I gather your stock standard wackos dont buy black market weapons either. Crims are too sensible normally - presents too much risk to them.

I never used to be a fan of gun control but now as I learn more, well it is a convincing argument.

BTW I am a qualified weapon handler, I have fired pistols (the safest place is right behind where Im aiming, trust me), .22s, SLRs, Steyrs, 50 cal (woot woot great fun) and even a 76 mm gun (once, Im Navy.)

PS As an aside story, the Mk 92 Fire Control System used on a FFG has a button to fire a gun. Guess what its called ?

Bang !

I suppose thats all you can expect from Americans.

if people want guns, they'll get guns. ive heard of heaps of stories, where guys who have gotten out of prosion for assult or something to do with violence can get a gun as legally as the next person.... scary stuff

i kow a guy at monash too.... hope he is okay, he was studying some kind of economics, which is what the gunman was studying... who knows maybe exams got too much and he went crazy, maybe he wants attention... who knows...

oh the world we live in! :?

Ill scan the front page of "the age" newspaper sometime and post it... interesting about what they said about him.

I like the Swiss idea of Gun control...

All Males over 18 years of age are Legally Required to have a handgun and 20 rounds of ammunition in their place of residence at all times. I don't have the statistics, but I heard domestic crime dropped by 60% in a month....

Also, due to their strict policy on self-defence, they don't have the ridiculous amount of court rulings the U.S. have in relation to firearms matters. Simply put, you are allowed to defend yourself with whatever means you deemed necessary at the time. If you shot him in the head ( and didn't reload....) then its bad luck the assailant died, but still self-defence, NOT manslaughter.

Needless to say, there is not a lot of violent crime in Switzerland!

The whole banning guns issue is a hard one....
The swiss have shown us how it works one way, however if firearms are legal, then these nasty ppl can simply steal your gun and use it in a crime. That being said if guns were outlawed, theyd still get guns, just go to the black market. The benefit of legalising firearms(besides self-defense) is that you know who has what weapons and where they are, thus police can better track bad people as they should have all this info. In other words it's better to know *insert crazy person here* has a gun, what it is, and where it is, rather than have no idea what mr.crazy(sorry crazyC)has hidden.

To ban or not to ban, THAT is the question.

Reasons to Ban:
1: Cuts down the number of guns available in the market
2: Allows immediate prosecution on bringing a gun public
3: Your standard wacko no longer has access to firearms
4: Current Legal precedent supports the action

Reasons NOT to ban:
1: The criminal element won't hand all their guns in anyway
2: Legal Firearms pretty much destroys the black market on such items
3: No criminal wants to face a gun wielded by an intended victim
4: The Intelligent criminals (ie the dangerous ones) will find a way....
5: New Legal precedents need to be set on firearms cases
6: Legitimate, Official Education on firearms becomes much easier
7: The vast majority of guns can be tracked, traced and owners identified

I haven't covered them all, but this sems like a fair list. Of course, then people argue that some points are worth more than others, and as such the number of things on each side doesn't matter......

a town in florida, 0% crime rate.

by law it is impossible not to own a handgun. once incident involved a person robbing a service station in the middle of the day with eight others in the station as he pulled his knife from under his coat.

five had their handguns on them at the time. his crime lasted all of about twelve seconds according to police.

I _like_ this town!

Quote from Seqo_ae:
his crime lasted all of about twelve seconds according to police.

shortest crime spree i have heard in my life :P

12 seconds for around 100 years in jail...

As far as I'm concerned, I think gun control is a completely stupid concept. Freedom? We live in a free country? 'Freedom' sounds a lot like 'being told what to do' to me. I was shocked when I heard that this psychopath was a letigimate firearm owner, and that's because I know many firearm owners, all of whom are responsible, safety cautious individuals who have confidence and respect for weapons. I knew the second I found that out, that we were probably heading for a new bout of firearm restrictions. I found this interesting:

U.S. -Legal handguns can be used in crimes, but legally owned handguns are also used to stop crimes; ten times more often.

Same as a legally owned cars used in a crime; a ram-raid on a bank, for example. Sure, it happends that, sometimes, a legally obtained vehicle is used, but almost always it's stolen. Does the government outlaw private ownership of cars? Of course not. So why do the same to firearms?

There's talk of banning all semi-automatic pistols. That's insane. A GUN IS JUST A TOOL. It's like trying to outlaw needles because a small minority of the population injects themselves with narcotics, and therefore, everyone with a needle must as well and we'll ban all needles- including immunisation, giving blood, anti-allergy injections, everything; just because a small, select group of individuals choose to abuse the privilage.

Another case of a vocal minority drowning out the sensible, law abiding majority. It makes me sick.

From the article -

>Gun controls

>Gun Control Australia has renewed its call for a firearms crackdown in the wake of the Monash University shootings.

>Gun Control Australia spokesman, Randy Marshall, has called for more formal controls.

>"We need far tighter training and test across all gun groups," he said.

>"We need more formal controls over the security industry and pistol clubs, we need far tighter controls on gun collections."

>But the Sporting Shooters Association President, Sebastian Ziconne, says the call for crackdowns on sporting clubs shows their sport is already being used as a scapegoat.

>"The controls on all firearms are adequate," he said.

>There are politicians who will take this an excuse to prohibit, restrict or eliminate the potential for firearm use."

>Meanwhile, the Greens have joined the call for tighter gun controls, demanding a ban on semi-automatic hand guns.

>The Prime Minister convinced the states to ban semi-automatic rifles after a lone gunman killed 35 people at Port Arthur in 1996.

>Greens Senator Bob Brown says it is now time to take the next step to control the growing use of hand guns.

>"There's no place for semi-automatic hand guns in our community, but there's 300,000 hand guns in circulation and the number is increasing rapidly," Mr Brown said.

>"John Howard really should take tough action there. There's a police minister's meeting coming up in Alice Springs in a fortnight and it should be top of the agenda to get rid of these guns."

What idiocy. It's nearly impossible to own a handgun ALREADY- and hey, someone who plays cricket bludgens two people to death with a cricket bat; the sport of cricket's to blame! Lets outlaw all cricket bats, period, unless you're a member of a cricket club. You'll have to attend twelve games over three months, to get aquainted with cricket bat rules and regulations, then you have to sit an exam on cricket bat safety, get 100%, and you'll attend one game a month otherwise you loose your licence. We'll have a 28 day cooldown period after obtaining your licence before you can own a bat, and when you do go to buy a bat, you have to get them from a licenced dealer, fill in permit-to-purchase forms in triplicate, have full police approval and have a cricket bat safe in which to store your highly dangerous cricket bat in the home with a seperate compartment for the cricket balls. Keep in mind that this cricket bat safe must be inspected by the police, and if they're not satisfied, then- hey, you could loose that bat, you know.

Idiocy.

either ban it or make it required
cause the way we have it now only ppl who want guns get them so its left to hunters and crims, and hunters dont use hand guns

You forget the best reason for banning guns: It makes the politician who does it look good.

Wolfspirit

You seem to have missed the point. Why does anyone need a handgun? What is the point of handguns. Your argument about cricket bats is a ludicrious one. Its called over dramatisation. The reason why Im concerned about semi-automatic handguns is that if someone snaps, in 15 seconds I could knock off half a dozen to a dozen people, whereas a cricket bat, well I think I could finish one person off.

As for your freedom argument, well every society has to have some rules. Otherwise I could be free to wak up to your house, tie you up and take all your possesions. You may reply Id be free to defend myself, but then we would live in an anarchy based society that exists in many other countries in the world. Rule based society is what makes the world function, society norms also help to exist.

Gun Control Australia are basically a bunch of left wing crackpots. There are always too extremes to an argument and they are the left wing. As to being shocked about this guy being a registered owner, I am not shocked. Its about to happen sooner or later, someone will slip through the gaps. A person who is not 100% suitable to have a weapon will get ownership of one. By limiting their ability to inflict damage we try to protect society from this menace. People are not allowed to do many things for thhis reason: speed, drink drive, carry explosives around and even comply with council by laws regarding food safety.

I am very sceptical about the limitation of crime in the United States. Obviously legalised handguns do work as the US has the highest per capita rate of prison inmates. It discorages crime obviously. And as for the knowledge that everyone is packinga pistol, well if I was conducting an offence I would go in hard - its almost like an escalation of violence.

As for a small percentage spoiling it for the rest of everyone. Unfortunatly mate thats what happens in life. If we didnt have thiefs we could drive in cars without security systems and reduce our insurance premiums. Save us a whole load of money. But it doesnt happen. Get over it.

Actually, take the word 'cricket bat', replace with 'handgun', and you have the Australian law regarding handguns. No over dramatisation there, mate.

The real danger in society is those damn semi automatic kitchen knives and motor vechiles. But no-one's putting a blanket ban on them.

Deaths by firearms result in an extremely low proportion of all the deaths in Australia. The gunman in Monash killed two people and wounded a handfun more; well, damn. Life pretty much sucks if you get shot, but you're more likely to get killed crossing the street then you are getting shot in today's society. But, lets not talk aimlessly, lets look at the statistics;

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/149c8432d979d4ebca256b360006203a!OpenDocument

The Australian Bureau of Statistics. If you browse that page, it shows that on average 1,800-1,850 people are killed in Australia a year in vehicle accidents. Keep that figure in mind.

http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/outlook99/grabos_h.pdf

Another government site; now, this one is interesting. An average of 66 homocides in Australia each year involved a firearm. Another way of looking at that is, you're twenty eight times more likely to die from a car then a gun.

Take a close look at 'figure three' in that document: Which is higher, Firearms, blunt weapons, or knives? Yep, you guessed it, knives and blunt weapons are far more common then firearms. And the ones that did involve firearms, look at the most common causes; 20% occured in the context of another crime, such as a robbery, and the remainder were evenly distributed among family altercations, general altercations, disputes over drugs or money, matters of revenge or jeliousy, incidents with no apparent motive or where the motive was not known. It should be noted that the assailiant, if killed in the incident, does not appear on the statistics.

Of the above, one could make the blanket assumption that a majority of those cases were preformed with illigal firearms. This is pure speculation, and some were obviously not, but gun fights over 'drugs and money'. Hmm. Last time I checked, drug dealers didn't purchase easily traceable, legal handguns which requried them to attend one shoot a month or else they lost their licences... It should also be noted that, if you have a DVO (Domestic Violence Order) or restraining order against you, you cannot own a firearm; no exceptions. So it is assumed that the 'family altercations' section contained largely illigal firearms.

Also, I would draw attention to figure seven, which gives a roundout of the types of weapons used to commit crimes, which are divided into the following sections: intimate family/other altercation/precipitating crime/other. Firearms took up a very small share, basically a tiny black line at the bottom of each graph.

Now, ok, so this shooting is a tragic thing to happen, especially in a school, but it's *just* two people. Damn, if our road toll was down to sixty six a year, then we would be laughing.

My point is this; firearms are simply a scapegoat. There's a problem with society, one must blame inanimate objects for it's occurance. Banning all guns won't stop death. All it'll do is take money from licenced gun dealers, gunsmiths, and other people trying to make a living. And let us all stab each other.

Who needs a handgun? Recreational shooters, for one. There is such a thing, just as there is recreational archery. Gun collectors, same as coin collectors, target and competition shooters.

Again, I'm going to say what I always say when these debates surface: It's all throwbacks from World War II. The baby boomer generation; kids in the 60's and 70's. Their parents went through World War II, and in general instilled upon them anti-war, anti-violence, peace and love to fellow man; All fine and admirable goals. There's one problem, however; those kids of the 70's are now adults themselves, and the emphasis seems to be on anti-guns more then actual, real, dangerous issues which are actually a threat to us. I mean, almost a hundred Australians were killed two hours from Darwin by international terrorists, our neighbour's leaders are being accused of protecting the leaders of the terrorists, war with Iraq is looming, terrorism is at our very doorstep; and we're talking about gun control? The only solution we can come up with, faced with all these very real and highly dangerous problems, is to disarm ourselves? Close the curtains, turn off the lights, and just make small talk hoping it'll all go away?

I say again, idiocy. Utter idiocy.

Yes, but cars, knifes and cricket bats have a purpose other than killing people. Even knifes were created to carve and eat at the kitchen table.

Guns were made to be killing machines.

If you took away guns, how many out of those 80 people would still be alive? The fact is, that if handguns werent involved in monash, 2 more people would be alive. At least one if a knife was used.

Semiautomatics are meant for fast reloading, constant shooting. Hunting game doesnt need this feature, nor is the range of a handgun any good. Revolvers however, need not be banned, because i think it is fair to leave someting availible to the honest gun owners. Revolvers are not so much a risk to people due to the low capacity and rate of fire. Someone wielding a Revolver will be tackled like the student at monash, possibly before a second person is killed.

btw, i like the effort you've gone to Wolfsprint, although i dont agree with your views, its persuasive nontheless.

Nice counter-point Blue, but you then have to ask, where do people draw the line? You can't make the world a happy-happy-joy-joy place just by padding all the corners, and there are far greater dangers than Guns..

The world we live in is a dangerous place, even in casual circumstances. You can get cleaned up by a bus while crossing the road, a child can fall off a slide at the park, you could get pushed by accident (or on purpose) and fall down some concrete stairs. Just because guns are _intentionally_ used to hurt/maim/kill, doesn't make them the danger worthy of the most attention.

*rant mode engaged* As a side issue just to show my personal amorality, why does it matter? Until we can find a way to provide for the population we already have, why are we so concerned about letting it increase? We are not the most important species on the planet, and there are greater causes around than the expansion of human life and civilisation. Hasn't the human race caused enough trouble to warrant letting the species get culled a little? *rant mode ceased*

Save the world, feed the homeless to the hungry :P

Its a good point though, most lifeforms on earth reach an equilibrium with their environment - the human race just keeps expanding, simply because we can adapt any given environment to our needs.

Perhaps people going psycho and killing isn't genetic, nor caused by lack of parenting, violent games/tv/movies etc etc.

Perhaps its environmental..

I Like that Idea! Kind of like a Preying mantis eating their young....

Heres an alternative strategy for preventing school shootings.

Mandatory firearms training and licensing for teachers.

I think that sounds good, cause teachers are usually pretty smart people. Sure do wonders for class discipline :lol:

(Sarchasm mode on) Hey Crocodiles don't kill many people a year. Why bother putting up warning signs to warn of the danger of salties? On average what were they saying about about death to Croc Attack 0.6 people per year. Why should we worry after all that nothing compared to the road toll. (Sarchasm mode off).

Yes weapons don't kill many people, but then it must be your view on society. If every death is seen as tragic then we try to stop the same thing from happening again. Many murders are spur of the moment and the possesion of a firearm just provides people with the weapon to execute their crime. Yes we are more likely to be killed by crossing the street. We can not ban cars nor ban pedestrians but we can ban semi-automatic pistols.

I realise life is hard guys but lets not provide people with another method of causing large killing sprees. I do realise archery is an olympic sport and I personally would be concerned with widespread semi-automatic bow proliferation (if one ever did such exist). I am still awaiting justification for semi-automatic pistols though. I can see semi-automatic rifles, a banned weapon in Australia, having a much greater rel;evence to nromal society. All pistol competitions in the Olympics, as far as I am aware are not for semi-automatic pistols, so how can anyone really justify their existence?

I agree drug delares don't go down to the gunshop and buy weapons there. Often their weapons are stolen weapons sold between low life (or even leased) after being stolen. Not many illegal weapons are imported into this country. Weapons are easily spotted by X-Ray machines as opposed to illegal drugs. As for the family domestic problems, often the first sign of problem we see is a dead family. Someone snaps etc. DVO aren't taken out willy nilly. People are often reluctant to take their personal issues before a court to obtain one.

Gun collectors may want to keep weapons which I agree about, but do they need functional weapons. From my perspective, no. They can get doctored so as they will nevert function properly again and then from my opinion they could be banned too. If you note too in my arguments wolfspirit I dont ever propose disarming ourselves. I propose removing semi-automatic pistols. A semi-automatic pistol won't protect you from a bomb either. We as a society, should learn to pull together more.

And as a final point, all illegal weapons were once legal.

no, pistol competitions are held around the world with Semi-Automatics. can't be sure about the Olympics (thought they only had clay pidgeon shooting....?) commonwealth games use semi-automatic weapons, and then there are the lesser known events like national and international sport shooting (20m, 50m targets etc) silhouette shooting...etc

i grew up around a father that trains others to use weapons, i've shot many firearms and helped expand the Katherine Pistol Club...

i do not see a problem with Semi-Automatic weapons for this reason:

if they are intent on killing or causing harm in any way to others, they will find a way. even if they are intent on using a semi-autmatic pistol, they will find a way.

kinda like preventing a computer virus without ever seeing what the virus can do or how it goes about getting around your 'blockages'...

Quote from Danny G:
(Sarchasm mode on) Hey Crocodiles don't kill many people a year. Why bother putting up warning signs to warn of the danger of salties? On average what were they saying about about death to Croc Attack 0.6 people per year. Why should we worry after all that nothing compared to the road toll. (Sarchasm mode off).

It costs what? $50 to put up a sign. Does it harm anybody to have that sign there?

Quote:
Many murders are spur of the moment and the possesion of a firearm just provides people with the weapon to execute their crime.

How many other weapons could be found if a firearm wasn't available? A knife, a rock, a chunk of wood.

Over download limit- will post something meaningful at beginning of month.

Quote from Aravi D'teron:
How many other weapons could be found if a firearm wasn't available? A knife, a rock, a chunk of wood.

Yes but its gonna be harder to kill someone with that than with a gun, and definately near impossible to kill more than one person

forunately for many of us jay, we aren't (or are) nerds that have experienced this...

which is a good thing for the discussion and the boards in general.

yeh, it'll be harder with a chunk of wood, or a rock etc.

but - anybody remember from way back 20 years or so (i don't even remember but i had to do a study on it a few years back) truck driver careened into a bus stop with 25+ people standing waiting for a bus. killed about 16 (from what i remember) he had left a note explaining why he did it.

this is just another example of what people are willing to do, if it's not a gun it WILL be something else. it's like banning spoons after someone gets attacked with one....

In this issue, and many many others, what we (as in the government) does, isnt nessicarily the right thing, but the easiest thing. It is far easier to remove firearms than to have more public awareness, ad campaigns, help centers and soliciters telling people about the pitfalls of guns, and the need to talk about problems. Where is this money going to come from? Well, the money is about to be gathered to spend on another buy-back scheme.

It seems that men are more likely to commit such acts, from what ive seen at least. This could be closely related to the fact that men dont talk about their problems as much as women, and there is our (more) aggressive side. If we had a good proper concilling system in Australia, not only would we solve this handgun issue, we'd reduce suicide rates, depress crime and actually help people. Its amazing what talking can do to a person.

and yet they do, typically (read: pathetically), take the easy way out...

they are the usual incompetent government who, as usual, wants the votes...

isn't it drilled into us, at an early age no less, that the easiest way out isn't necessarily the best...

maybe the government could learn from that...?

Quote from Mephiston:
Its a good point though, most lifeforms on earth reach an equilibrium with their environment - the human race just keeps expanding, simply because we can adapt any given environment to our needs.

In most cases, its not so much a creature reaching equilibrium with nature but with nature keeping creatures in equilibrium with it. We have somehow broken out of that equilibrium.

That said, in developed nations we actually have a slightly declining population. The easy access to contraception plus the tendency for couples to wait until they are ready if they want children produces a birth rate lower than our death rate (if only slightly). The resources are present to raise these children with proper education and in a positive environment.

However, lets look at the less developed nations, here contraception is not readily available, and it is beneficial for the parents to have many children and send them all off to work (to raise the money to keep the family going). This short-term strategy creates a long-term problem, their population expands at an incredible rate when even now the resources to properly raise these children are not available, leading to a vicious cycle as the next generation reproduces just as rapidly.

To fix their problem, we have to break THAT cycle, and somehow change their economy to be able to properly educate children. Forbidding child labour in those regions would be a start (render the procreate like crazy and use them to make money strategy illegal - as it should be).

Europeans, englishmen, started out this same way, breeding to survive. Now, even though Third world nations are doing this, which is a way to bring them up in the world (slowly), im guessing in about 40 years, third world nations should break out of this cycle. The big problem is first world exploitation, sweatshops and the like, which can be thought of as someone standing on someones shoulders as the person at the bottom trys to climb higher. Not as easy, without the burden of us.

(dammit, exams make you think biology EVERYWHERE)
One of darwins postulates was that a species has more offspring that can be supported.....in fact im not so sure thats 100% right, ill go study something......but assume it to be true. Then we shouldnt see the population explosion that was expected. As has been said, birth rates are declining, yet the third world keeps expanding. Well, that wont go on for too long. What will get in the way of that, is if explotaion continues, it isnt going to help them achieve a good standard of life.

Exploitation should definitely be stopped, but governments typically aren't eager to do it (corporations which do the exploiting contribute to their campaign funds or are a major part of that countries economy).

Yes, most species have more offspring then can be supported, as there are likely to be deaths. However, most human families in developed nations make sure they can support what they create. That is probably a result of our intelligence and the access to contraception.

I found this interesting.

http://www.gunnerynetwork.com/news/Firearms-in-America.html

Firearms have the comparative and absolute advantage in preventing death, over doctors- for those who don't do economics, that means that for every death a firearm causes, 75 are prevented. That's a better ratio then a doctor. Comparative advantage. Also, absolute advantage (sheer numbers) play a part; doctors kill 100,000 people every year in the U.S.A. through malpractice. Guns kill 3,000, not including criminals killing other criminals, police shooting criminals engaged in felonies.

The article raises some other, substancially strong points overflowing with statistics and examples. A good read.

Quite informative, I doubt anyone can argue against it either.

At least not rationally, anyhow.

My god aravi and wolf :)
Dont belive everything u read
I dont think physicians r dangerous, or their giving some really really bad advice - go eat rat poison, lol
I dont see how they could say that for every person killed by a gun 75 were saved, that assums that they would otherwise have died (something which is impossible to prove)

Just cause its what u want to hear dosnt mean its right, its there for ppl like u to read and feel better bout ur belifes.

FFS look at the url, gunnerynetwork.com id doubt that they would put something in about how bad guns really r

You raise valid points, the article clearly has a bias. However, it was created by an MD (Medical Doctor), who uses cold facts to argue his case. He's a doctor in the profession; if he says 100,000 people die from malpractice a year in America, then 100,000 people die from malpractice a year in America.

And, yes, it is difficult to prove that someone would have died in such a situation. So I have to agree and say, yes, that statistic is somewhat vague.

I have to ask, did you read the article? It was very well structured, and used references from many published books and texts, which wouldn't have made it on the shelf if they were largely incorrect.

And I don't believe that doctors give really bad advice. They are, in fact, just like firearms; the 95% good is drowned out by the 5% bad. No-one's perfect, not doctors, not firearm owners. You'll always get idiots in the batch, but fortunately with doctors and firearm owners, there are very few of those.

Plus the fact that firearms give people the ability to defend themselves discourages attacking armed people.

But taking away their ability to defend themselves makes attacking them more inviting, as there is less risk involved.

It's alot like the MAD theory in that respect.

I'm a big fan of the "Gun's are tools" argument, which of course, sets me up for flamage from moral "high" ground.

What I want to know is this...

Every omnivore/carnivore in the animal kingdom has a method for killing.

Human civilisations have killed for every reason from territory to hunger to differences in beliefs....

Why then, is it so abhorrent that every now and then, we kill each other, and have invented tools to do so?

We are but animals, while we try to rise above, we are still tied to our origins.

Yes, we are animals, no negative connotation or civilised bias...

we are members of the animal kingdom.... so, by what reason do we strive to change the rules of nature?

As for this little issue: Quote:
...we try to rise above...it's a bunch of crap. Mankind has done more damage to the world around us, and each other, than any other plague or historical event short of the Ice Age. By what right do we say "Umm, Killing is Bad."

I like Wolfspirit's line, with a twist:

Hypocrisy. Utter Hypocrisy

Quote from Charybdis:
Mankind has done more damage to the world around us, and each other, than any other plague or historical event short of the Ice Age

i dont know where the hell u got this from but its plain wrong.

i.e. 1 day on a large volcano eruption ~ 100yrs of mankinds polution output

how about the damage we have caused to native habitats? the gaping hole in the ozone layer? the increase in the ambient radiation levels? the depletion of fossil fuels?

need I go on Vinc?

In the paltry few hundred years since the industrial revolution, we have caused more damage to the planet than the entire hundred thousand years or more previously.

I think the most accurate and candid description of the human race I have ever seen was in the Matrix courtesy of Agent Smith. I suggest hiring out the movie (or digging out your Divx copy) for a refresher if you don't remember it.

We try to think we are better.

Foolish, but many people still put a distinction between humans and animals.

Of course, it is our definition of "better" that needs work.

Exactly Aravi

I'm by no means a greenie, I quite like technology and everything that comes with it.

Through all that the human race is capable of, the one thing we seem to have never collectively asked ourselves is if we should.

As Charybdis said, the person sitting back at their mahogany and leather inlaid desk, drinking coffee from a plastic cup while idly doodling on a scratch pad while shaking their finger at the state of the world, and the psycho's therein is the absolute height of hypocrisy

Quote from Mephiston:
how about the damage we have caused to native habitats? the gaping hole in the ozone layer? the increase in the ambient radiation levels? the depletion of fossil fuels?

lol meph :)

Quote from Matt:
[quote:5a2c05192e="Mephiston"] how about the damage we have caused to native habitats? the gaping hole in the ozone layer? the increase in the ambient radiation levels? the depletion of fossil fuels?

lol meph :)[/quote:5a2c05192e]

your point is?

We're all hypocrites in that respect.

my point is im not going to argue with u, im just going to laugh at u

go get out skeptical environmentalist from the library (and read it) if u want to argue with me

so you're basing your entire argument from one book? *shrug* you can believe whatever you want. But if you think only one person has the answer, your more naieve than I thought.

Quote from Aravi D'teron:
Plus the fact that firearms give people the ability to defend themselves discourages attacking armed people.

But taking away their ability to defend themselves makes attacking them more inviting, as there is less risk involved.

It's alot like the MAD theory in that respect.

Not really a bad idea.. Im switzerland <sp?> every male when he reaches the age of 18 is automatically sent into the army for 1 year. From there he is a reservalist, he is issued a rifle to be kept at home by the army..

If a war were to erupt, the entire male population is mobilised to the countries defence.

This is why the swiss have never been invaded in any war. And it is also why they have the lowest crime record for any county in the world..

Would U break into a house where U know the owners not only have firearms, but are trained to use them ??

U see, blatant banning of guns is pointless. In Swtizerland, every household has a firearm ( normally multiple ). And they have the lowest crimerate.

In Japan conversely, no one may possess a firearm except the police and military.. And their criminal element has meerely adapted, and hell the criminals have any gun they wish..

So

everyone has a gun... NO crime
Noone has a gun.. High crime ( not like the US, but still high )

baning guns is a political move only.

Quote from Sly_Fox:
[If a war were to erupt, the entire male population is mobilised to the countries defence.

This is why the swiss have never been invaded in any war.

Also the fact that they look after everyones money - and why would you attack a country which has all your money in their banks :)

Also, (I can confirm, or find it to be incorrect later today) but I believe it is illegal by Swiss law to use the firearms issued to the men unless in a war situation.

I'm sure this is incorrect, as the firearms so issued are permitted for use in defence of your home, be it in wartime or not.

Quote from Mephiston:
so you're basing your entire argument from one book? *shrug* you can believe whatever you want. But if you think only one person has the answer, your more naieve than I thought.

lol at meph
now im going to rip that apart :)

1. who said i was arguing with u?

2. basing my entire argument from one book? see above :)

3. i can believe what i want?, aw thanks for ur permission, much apreciated :)

4. i think only one person has the answer? - why not?, it really depends on the question and ur willingness to accept, - personally i look for answers from a range of sources and form my own opinion (which so happens to be in agreement with that book, u had no way of knowing that did u?, so STFU :) )

5. naieve? calling the oposition stupid, oh how original :roll:

Basically the more u try to argue with me the more im going to laugh at u

Oh and my views on gun laws (why were really here):

what i worry bout is beating someone in a fight, them comming back and shooting me - basically everone needs to be at a similar lvl none have guns or all have guns. The last thing u need is some phycho on a power trip swinging a gun around getting a kick out of scareing ppl. And since ppl can still obtain guns i belive in giving everone a gun license - and revoking it on missuse, ie convicted crims rnt allowed to carry firearms.

I really couldn't care to be honest - I think I've stated that what twice now?

If you can't see the profound impact that the human race has had since we figured out how to make machines to make our lives easier, then I'm not going to waste my time.

You're entitled to your opinion Vinc, but that's all it is - an opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. Go try and convert someone else to your way of thinking, cause I really don't have the energy right now.

I think only people who are afraid of getting hurt use guns....think about that one.

Obviously guns serve there purpose in war, because you dont really want your enemy to survive if your wanting to invade.

If some dude reckons you blow goats....no reason for a gun.

hmmmmm.....

People who don't want to get hurt can use guns on people who don't have them.

People who don't want to get hurt won't use guns on people who do.

the only problem there Darklyte is that your model assumes that the person with the gun isn't mentally unhinged :P

Keep this in mind, guns and knives are viewed in the same light as crowbars and baseball bats in the eyes of the law. If someone breaks into your house, and you grab a baseball bat to beat them silly with, expect to be charged with something. If you happen to smash a lamp against his head, they'll often let it slide.

The government considers knives with blades longer than about 4 inches as a restricted weapon in most states, yet you can buy a machete with an 18 odd inch blade from most any hardware store.

If a psycho wants to kill people, he will find a way, gun laws or not. We should be dealing with the problem ie. figuring out why people go nuts like that, not wasting time on things that wouldn't matter if you solve the problem properly.

We need to understand ourselves before we fix our problems.

People can shout about the problem all they want, but to fix it properly (not some patchwork legislation that tries to fix the symptom), we need to know exactly why it happens that way.

certainly meph....i didnt say it wont stop psychos...i mean if someone wants to kill someone then they will find a way...

also on the break in thing....it all depends what they have also...if they have a bat...you can use a bat....knife knife....but you force can not exceed theres otherwise its not self defence. :)

:roll: trying to legislate what is and isn't self-defense is stupid. In those situations emotions (fear, hate) and instincts take control.

Quote from Darklyte:
I think only people who are afraid of getting hurt use guns....think about that one.

Not really, I am a firearms owner, I till recently used to regularly hunt on a mates uncles property.

I also spent several years as a member of a gun club here in SA. Doing the odd bit of competitive shooting.

I dont see any validity in your comment. But we may both be biased from other sides of the fence.

Quote from Mephiston:
the only problem there Darklyte is that your model assumes that the person with the gun isn't mentally unhinged.

That is a very valid point. I can say with 100% accuracy, that I have never, ever considered using a firearm against another human being. And I have owned various firearms for the last 15 odd years.

Persons sanity dictates whether he would use a gun on another human being. If he cant get a gun, he will find something else. A crossbow, compound bow, knife etc..

So shall we remove archery from the olympics ? cos a bow is a deadly ranged weapon like a firearm ?

Confiscate all chefs tools, as they have nasty edges and pointy ends ??

Quote from Sly_Fox:

Persons sanity dictates whether he would use a gun on another human being. If he cant get a gun, he will find something else. A crossbow, compound bow, knife etc..

and it's not as if some weak legislation is going to stop those intent on using guns anyway.

and i'm about 80% sure after the original gun buyback there was an increase in gun related armed break-ins in new south wales alone.

Quote from Sly_Fox:
So shall we remove archery from the olympics ? cos a bow is a deadly ranged weapon like a firearm ?

Confiscate all chefs tools, as they have nasty edges and pointy ends ??

...and yet i can just imagine five years down the track, the government actually enforcing legislation like this.

well from a northern territory standpoint the "if they have a bat you can use a bat" statement isn't quite accurate.

approx. 18 months ago northern territory followed WA in the changing of Home Invasion/Break-in legislation covering what is considered to be self-defense. ie. if they come in with a bat, you are within your legal rights to subdue or force the person off your property, exempting that of lethal force. however, if you fear for your life then lethal force can be used.

Section 29 of the Criminal Code.

check it here:
http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/legislat.nsf/d989974724db65b1482561cf0017cbd2/479bb5ae6de9e88369256c07000c4e0a?OpenDocument

scrolling down to section 29.
i'm sure if someone does a search..i might if i have the time, to find other states legislation on this.

the argument on baseball bats stems from the fact that if you supposedly take time to select something that is an effective weapon, it classes your actions as pre-meditated. This often negates the like force argument.

It makes it look like you took the time to select a weapon, rather than grab what was at hand. This obviously makes you look bad to a jury.

very true, however, *hypothetical situation...*

your sitting on your couch in the lounge room, prolly about ten metres from your bedroom in the opposite direction to your front door, which is exited through via the lounge room. you have a pair of scissors at hand...obviously not an effective defense. you know you have a baseball bat under your bed. you grab that.

i believe it is within your rights to grab that as a weapon. it's not exactly pre-meditated because the situation isn't able to give you time to think about it, it's more of instinct rather than thought processes. you would go for what you feel would protect you the most, a baseball bat over a pair of scissors.

it'd certainly make you look bad to a jury if you had a golf club at hand but 'selected' the baseball bat...

sorry i didnt mean it as in a people who HAVE guns.....i should have quoted the whole american crime thing....

i was just saying that why not have a fist fight....rather than shooting...at least...you've got more chance coming out alive with fists...hence the whole not getting hurt thing.

I have nothing against guns...in fact i too have gone hunting for roos..and loved it...just thought i'd clear that up. 8)

actually, even going for the baseball bat would look bad, especially if there was something closer.

When you are in fear of your life, you aren't meant to have time to go grab something specific, I believe thats the perspective the law takes.

because fist fights are messy. :P

EDIT: not quite sure, the use of force is permitted and i would interpret that as being within your rights to grab a weapon capable of providing enough force to defend yourself.

and i'd certainly rather fight that in court then be fighting for say...my life in a hospital. (maybe a light exaggeration...but well within possibility

What happens when fear + anger brings out a different awareness in you.

there's alot of grey area in it, and the law isn't exactly well equipped to deal with grey areas

No, logical rules + illogical humans = problems.

They're talking about buybacks. ARG.

Buybacks reminded me of 'Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within'.

"While the Phantom's outside the crater were, indeed, destroyed, other Phantoms inactive within the crater came to life, and overall Phantom density remained the same."

Regardless of your opinion on firearm control, a buyback scheme doesn't work. Example, the first buyback scheme. Sure, most of the illigal guns were handed in. (Note; 80% of the guns marked for 'deactivation' and then removed from the register were later re-activated and used in crime as they had passed into the hands of criminals) However, the overall gun density remained the same, as people who had their guns confiscated went and got new ones. Example; my family. We lost a hairloom shotgun which had been in our family for four generations. So, we went out and bought three new rifles. A gun is a gun, and will kill.

I've noticed the media is on the side of gun control. The president of the S.S.A.A (Sporting Shooters Association Australia) was interviewed a week ago. The reported thrust a microphone in his face and asked, "How can we know you won't go crazy with your gun?" He replied, "You can't, B-" and they cut him off.

I mean, realistically, how can you be sure that anyone will not 'go crazy'? How can you be sure that the person you're driving beside won't suddenly decide life sucks and swerve over to hit you or incoming traffic? No-one can. What that man was about to say remains a mystery, but I can imagine it would be something like the above.

Buybacks are a great thing for the government, because they cause economic growth as people replace their firearms with other ones. In the end, it just causes what I've claimed all along- you create a situation where only the criminals have weapons, and I mean the most powerful of all weapons- you can get an AK-47 on the Australian black market if you wanted to, and the law abiding citizens of Australia can't even own a little .22 rifle.

Someone should write an open letter to the NT news or something, using this knowledge to argue against gun control.

If they don't publish it, we find another way to distribute it.