# Gun laws in Australia



## PhotonGuy (Jun 27, 2014)

From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders. I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 27, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders.



You can still get firearms in Australia.  If anything, lawful gun ownership is back to same levels as it was before the Port Arthur Massacre.  

I don't like the idea that you have to jump through a lot of hoops to be able to lawfully own firearms, and I hope that they can someday reverse this, but in the meantime, it's not nearly as bad as other gun-free "paradises," such as Jamaica...  

Of course, this doesn't include the unlawful firearms ownership that seems to be increasing amongst certain factions, but that's a discussion for later.  

Regarding crime rates, just a quick comparison:

Australia and United States Compared by Crime: NationMaster.com

It's certainly true that Australia has significantly higher crime rates in certain categories such as burglary, and also true that the US has significantly higher crime rates in certain categories such as murder.  At the same time, certain crime rates, such as assaults and rapes, are virtually identical.  




> I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.



Broad brush painting isn't going to win the argument here.  While it's true that it was once a penal colony, that doesn't apply anymore.

Otherwise, one could apply this kind of bashing to any nation.   After all, would it be fair to judge the USA in a similar manner, because President Roosevelt put American citizens in detention camps simply because they had Japanese blood in them?


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders. I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.



Guess what champ?

Where do you think the English used to send the convicts before they started sending them to Australia?
One guess buddy.......... that's right America.

We got all the good looking ones and you lot got all the crazy ones.
I'm not all that surprised that you have so many serial killers running around , I mean considering you were once a prison colony yourselves.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders. I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.



So, even after our recent PM conversation, you're happy to insult an entire nation? Especially when you begin by saying you don't know what you're talking about in the first place?  Really?

I'm going to be a little blunt. You don't know what on earth you're talking about. You don't know what our current laws are, what they were, why and when they changed, what effects the changes had, or anything else&#8230; so try to refrain from any labelling of crime or culture here, deal? 

Actually, while I'm here, I'm going to ask something&#8230; try not to be offended by this, as I'm genuinely asking. Is there something that we should know about you? Is there some form of autism or similar that we're unaware of? You've started a number of threads with a seemingly paranoid psyche behind them (the current one of "speaking your mind", which misses a lot of reality to it, comes to mind), as well as quite a few that show a more fantasy-infused desire for the way you want the world to work, such as asking if things like Force powers from Star Wars are something you could really attain&#8230; then there's the lack of any sense of tact that is shown in posts like this. If there is something we should be aware of, please let us know&#8230; it'll certainly help in communicating with you&#8230; if not, then, well, you might want to think things through before you hit "post"&#8230; particularly focusing on whether it's really saying what you want it to, and taking note of how it is likely to be received.



Grenadier said:


> You can still get firearms in Australia.  If anything, lawful gun ownership is back to same levels as it was before the Port Arthur Massacre.
> 
> I don't like the idea that you have to jump through a lot of hoops to be able to lawfully own firearms, and I hope that they can someday reverse this, but in the meantime, it's not nearly as bad as other gun-free "paradises," such as Jamaica...



To be honest, Grenadier&#8230; we'd probably consider such a reversal a major step backwards. On a number of levels. We don't consider that any "freedoms" are being infringed or restricted, and really get quite amused at the argument from our American cousins, when all's said and done&#8230;


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders. I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.



 Would you be surprised that coming from a prison. We now are in the top ten most livable cities. Top ten in freedom. And one of the least corrupt governments.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders. I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.



OK... so ONE of the SIX colonies was a penal colony. And the exile of prisoners to Australia ended in the mid-19th Century.

What the hell do you think that has to do with crime rates 150 years later?


----------



## K-man (Jun 28, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK... so ONE of the SIX colonies was a penal colony. And the exile of prisoners to Australia ended in the mid-19th Century.
> 
> What the hell do you think that has to do with crime rates 150 years later?


Well it's a nice thought but in reality convicts were sent to five colonies. Not so many to Queensland and Victoria but more to New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia.  And, for what it's worth, one of my forebears was a convict.
:asian:


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 28, 2014)

K-man said:


> Well it's a nice thought but in reality convicts were sent to five colonies. Not so many to Queensland and Victoria but more to New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. And, for what it's worth, one of my forebears was a convict.
> :asian:



OK, so more than one. You live and learn. 
I still don't see any connection between criminals being exiled in the 18th Century and crime rates today. It's not like being a bank robber is hereditary.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 28, 2014)

Lol :feedtroll


----------



## zamanbutt (Jun 28, 2014)

i dont have any idea about your post. :/


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2014)

Gun violence,in Australia is isolated, for now, in their biker gangs and immigrant communities...and there have been public shootings since Port Aurther.  another point...Australia didn't have much gun crime to begin with and as has been pointed out, in other threads, New Zealand doesn't have much gun crime either and they didn't increase their gun control.measures...

And another point...America's gun crime rate also dropped significantly even though our gun ownership rate is increasing...we also have a border with an almost failed state, Mexico, and drug gangs and cartels as well as big cities run by democrats are where our gun violence is usually located...in fact...gun violence here can be traced to small, multi block areas in those cities...the rest of the country is good...

And the main reason they don't have mass shootings in Australia...no one has decided,to do them lately...they still have,handguns and long guns...they just haven't had anyone do it lately...

Some,thoughts,on crime stats...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847



> It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
> 
> 
> Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
> ...


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 28, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> So, even after our recent PM conversation, you're happy to insult an entire nation? Especially when you begin by saying you don't know what you're talking about in the first place?  Really?
> 
> I'm going to be a little blunt. You don't know what on earth you're talking about. You don't know what our current laws are, what they were, why and when they changed, what effects the changes had, or anything else&#8230; so try to refrain from any labelling of crime or culture here, deal?
> 
> ...




Since you've read my "speak your mind" post than that will tell you why I say what I say. I say what I say because I have a right to. I don't care if I embarrass myself on some internet board. If anything, my "speak your mind," thread is very realistic, in most places in this world you are allowed to speak your mind.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 28, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> So, even after our recent PM conversation, you're happy to insult an entire nation? Especially when you begin by saying you don't know what you're talking about in the first place?  Really?
> 
> I'm going to be a little blunt. You don't know what on earth you're talking about. You don't know what our current laws are, what they were, why and when they changed, what effects the changes had, or anything else&#8230; so try to refrain from any labelling of crime or culture here, deal?
> 
> ...



Furthermore I do find it interesting that you would post on, or even visit a firearms board since you've made it clear that your hoplophobic (gun phobic).


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Furthermore I do find it interesting that you would post on, or even visit a firearms board since you've made it clear that your hoplophobic (gun phobic).


Of all the Australians in this forum, Chris is the guy I'd pick for most likely to own a gun.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Since you've read my "speak your mind" post than that will tell you why I say what I say. I say what I say because I have a right to. I don't care if I embarrass myself on some internet board. If anything, my "speak your mind," thread is very realistic, in most places in this world you are allowed to speak your mind.


Except you have no right to speak your mind on a privately owned forum you might want to remember that


----------



## K-man (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Since you've read my "speak your mind" post than that will tell you why I say what I say. I say what I say because I have a right to. I don't care if I embarrass myself on some internet board. If anything, my "speak your mind," thread is very realistic, in most places in this world you are allowed to speak your mind.


I beg to disagree. In most places in the world speaking your mind if it is contra to local law or custom will have you incarcerated or killed. We are fortunate to live in countries where free speech is allowed. Don't abuse the right you have been given.
:asian:


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Since you've read my "speak your mind" post than that will tell you why I say what I say. I say what I say because I have a right to.



Martialtalk.com does allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to people discussing heated topics, and people are encouraged to contribute to the discussions if such discussion is productive.  

And yes, it does specifically say in the Constitution:



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



I am going to give you a friendly reminder, though, that Martialtalk.com and its staff are NOT Congress, and that your First Amendment rights do not apply to a privately owned forum.  If you post something that is excessively offensive, and delves into attacks and flame, they can certainly remove such material, or even the user, if things get out of hand.   



> I don't care if I embarrass myself on some internet board. If anything,  my "speak your mind," thread is very realistic, in most places in this  world you are allowed to speak your mind.



  The forum staff does care, since they are here to help promote the civil discussion of things.  Again, while most places in the world do allow you to speak your mind, privately owned forums are not in the category of "most places."


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 29, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Since you've read my "speak your mind" post than that will tell you why I say what I say. I say what I say because I have a right to. I don't care if I embarrass myself on some internet board. If anything, my "speak your mind," thread is very realistic, in most places in this world you are allowed to speak your mind.



No, reading your thread told me that you don't seem able to comprehend social cues, consequences, or differentiate contexts. It is not realistic (the way you present your argument there, or here), nor is it accurate.



PhotonGuy said:


> Furthermore I do find it interesting that you would post on, or even visit a firearms board since you've made it clear that your hoplophobic (gun phobic).



Please. For one thing, the reason I posted on this thread is due to your completely ludicrous comments on Australian gun laws and culture, as well as a massive slur on the populace here. You're right in that I'd normally leave this area alone, as it's more commonly populated by people who are of the "guns are good, everyone should have 10!" ideology, which I don't agree with, but have no issue with others beliefs on. I'm hardly "hoplophobic" (some information for you&#8230; it's not a real phobia, it's a term coined by someone who was very pro-gun, but had no real understanding of psychology, no training thereof, and just wanted a way to label those who went against his beliefs), as the term is designed to infer someone who has an unrealistic/irrational fear of gadgets, most specifically firearms, which is far from the case with myself. I have no love of guns, but that's hardly the same thing (oh, and for the record, I'd actually consider myself an amateur hoplologist&#8230; if you want a new term to look up&#8230.



Steve said:


> Of all the Australians in this forum, Chris is the guy I'd pick for most likely to own a gun.



Nah, give me a sword, any day&#8230; which, for the record, has about the same amount of restrictions/hoops to jump through to get the licence for as firearms here (specifically Victoria&#8230; the laws change from state to state).



ballen0351 said:


> Except you have no right to speak your mind on a privately owned forum you might want to remember that





K-man said:


> I beg to disagree. In most places in the world speaking your mind if it is contra to local law or custom will have you incarcerated or killed. We are fortunate to live in countries where free speech is allowed. Don't abuse the right you have been given.
> :asian:





Grenadier said:


> Martialtalk.com does allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to people discussing heated topics, and people are encouraged to contribute to the discussions if such discussion is productive.
> 
> And yes, it does specifically say in the Constitution:
> 
> ...



With these three quotes, thank you gents, that's precisely what I was meaning when I mentioned to PhotonGuy that his other thread is not realistic. PhotonGuy, listen to them.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 30, 2014)

Grenadier said:


> Martialtalk.com does allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to people discussing heated topics, and people are encouraged to contribute to the discussions if such discussion is productive.
> 
> And yes, it does specifically say in the Constitution:
> 
> ...



As Martialtalk.com is a privately owned board they do have the right to censor certain stuff and the forum rules state what you can and can't say here. Some of the rules say that you can't use profanity or post links to porn or post inappropriate pictures or advertise or post any kind of derogatory comments about a race or ethnicity. As it is, I don't post those kinds of things anyway. In the USA though you are allowed to state your opinion and that is how the country is run and how it evolves, people state their opinion and that influences laws that are passed or repealed. Some people's opinions you might say are absurd but people do have a right to say what's on their mind, as absurd as it might be.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 30, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Guess what champ?
> 
> Where do you think the English used to send the convicts before they started sending them to Australia?
> One guess buddy.......... that's right America.
> ...



The English might've sent some convicts to America but most of the people coming to America from England and other places in Europe were settlers looking for a better life. That is what most of the modern day white American population is descended from.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 30, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> As Martialtalk.com is a privately owned board they do have the right to censor certain stuff and the forum rules state what you can and can't say here. Some of the rules say that you can't use profanity or post links to porn or post inappropriate pictures or advertise or post any kind of derogatory comments about a race or ethnicity. As it is, I don't post those kinds of things anyway. In the USA though you are allowed to state your opinion and that is how the country is run and how it evolves, people state their opinion and that influences laws that are passed or repealed. Some people's opinions you might say are absurd but people do have a right to say what's on their mind, as absurd as it might be.



The internet isn't the USA and your rights don't apply here.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 30, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> No, reading your thread told me that you don't seem able to comprehend social cues, consequences, or differentiate contexts. It is not realistic (the way you present your argument there, or here), nor is it accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't recommend bringing a knife or a sword to a gunfight. But aside from that, with your suspicions that I might be autistic or have some other disorder, its you that makes posts that are off topic. For instance, you bring up posts that I make in other boards, some of which I made a long time ago, over a year ago, and you mention them here. If you're going to respond to or mention my posts you should do so in the boards that I make them and you should post your response when I make them, not a year afterwards. Otherwise you're posting stuff out of place and that is unrealistic. And you do seem to like my posts since you read them all.

And about Australia being used as a prison, that is not a slur on the populace, its a historical fact.


----------



## K-man (Jun 30, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, gun laws in Australia weren't all that restrictive until around the mid 80s when there was a rise in violent crime and again in the 90s with all these high profile murders. I don't know what the crime rate in Australia is now but considering the fact that the country was a prison, Im not all that surprised about the crime.


It is a fact that convicts were transported to Australia. That has absolutely nothing to do with crime today. To suggest that you are not surprised that our history is responsible for today's crime is actually quite pathetic.

But let's look at historical facts.



> North America was used for transportation from the early 17th century to the American Revolution of 1776. In the 17th century, it was done at the expense of the convicts or the shipowners. The first Transportation Act in 1718 allowed courts to sentence convicts to seven years' transportation to America. In 1720, an extension authorised payments by the state to merchants contracted to take the convicts to America. Under the Transportation Act, returning from transportation was a capital offence.
> 
> 
> The gaols became overcrowded and dilapidated ships were pressed into service, the hulks moored in various ports as floating gaols. The number of convicts transported to North America is not verified although it has been estimated to be 50,000 by John Dunmore Lang and 120,000 by Thomas Keneally. These went originally to New England, the majority of prisoners taken in battle from Ireland and Scotland. Some were sold as slaves to the Southern states.
> ...



and ...



> During the late 18th and 19th centuries, large numbers of convicts were transported to the various Australian penal colonies by the British government. One of the primary reasons for the British settlement of Australia was the establishment of a penal colony to alleviate pressure on their overburdened correctional facilities. Over the 80 years more than 165,000 convicts were transported to Australia.
> Convicts in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And some convicts in America were sold into slavery. 

So, is the crime rate for New England higher than the rest of the US?
NEW ENGLAND CRIME RATES OVER FIVE YEARS
I don't think so.



PhotonGuy said:


> And about Australia being used as a prison, that is not a slur on the populace, its a historical fact.


You comment is a slur and it relates to the historical fact.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 30, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> As Martialtalk.com is a privately owned board they do have the right to censor certain stuff and the forum rules state what you can and can't say here. Some of the rules say that you can't use profanity or post links to porn or post inappropriate pictures or advertise or post any kind of derogatory comments about a race or ethnicity. As it is, I don't post those kinds of things anyway. In the USA though you are allowed to state your opinion and that is how the country is run and how it evolves, people state their opinion and that influences laws that are passed or repealed. Some people's opinions you might say are absurd but people do have a right to say what's on their mind, as absurd as it might be.



You've missed the point entirely. Frankly, it doesn't matter what you think your rights are under the US Constitution here&#8230; this is not the US (I'm talking about the site itself) even though it's based (physically) there. It exits in the international domain known as the internet&#8230; and is a private entity, which means that you have to abide by the rules here, which might be the same, similar, or absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the US Constitution. 

Oh, and you might want to read the rules a little more carefully&#8230; you're also not allowed to attack members, to fraud bust, to art-bash, or many other things. I'd also point out that your comments about Australia (and your guesses as to it's crime rate&#8230; you do, after all, start by saying you don't know anything about it&#8230 and it's past can be classed as an attack or derogatory comment on the nation itself. The simple fact is that you might feel that your comments are protected (as it's just your "opinion") due to the fact that you're American, but that means exactly nothing here. 



PhotonGuy said:


> I wouldn't recommend bringing a knife or a sword to a gunfight.



Who the hell said anything about that?!?! I just mentioned to Steve that I prefer owning a sword to owning a gun&#8230; this is what I mean when I say you don't seem able to take context into account.



PhotonGuy said:


> But aside from that, with your suspicions that I might be autistic or have some other disorder, its you that makes posts that are off topic. For instance, you bring up posts that I make in other boards, some of which I made a long time ago, over a year ago, and you mention them here. If you're going to respond to or mention my posts you should do so in the boards that I make them and you should post your response when I make them, not a year afterwards. Otherwise you're posting stuff out of place and that is unrealistic. And you do seem to like my posts since you read them all.



You're not that special, I read most posts here by most people. And really, my comments are due to your behaviour, which has shown the patterns I mentioned, including the PMs you sent me, so it's been a cumulative account. There's no point going back over all your threads to answer them then, as this is not addressing the thread topics themselves, but your behaviour that is shown through them. Frankly, if you aren't suffering from some disorder, then you have some very serious issues when it comes to social interaction.



PhotonGuy said:


> And about Australia being used as a prison, that is not a slur on the populace, its a historical fact.



No, it was a slur based on ignorance and using a historical fact as it's basis.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 8, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> The internet isn't the USA and your rights don't apply here.



MartialTalk is a privately owned website and as such they do have the right to censor certain stuff. As it is, they don't allow racism or profanity among other things but the worst they could do if you don't meet their guidelines is ban you. They can't press charges or anything. Furthermore I would not say anything racial on MartialTalk or anywhere else for that matter since Im personally against racism, and neither will I post anything else that MartialTalk prohibits, although I do have other strong opinions which I will express, on MartialTalk and in other places.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 8, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Who the hell said anything about that?!?! I just mentioned to Steve that I prefer owning a sword to owning a gun



Good for you. Although your sword won't be that useful against a gun.



Chris Parker said:


> Frankly, if you aren't suffering from some disorder, then you have some very serious issues when it comes to social interaction.



Yes, that I do.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 8, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> MartialTalk is a privately owned website and as such they do have the right to censor certain stuff. As it is, they don't allow racism or profanity among other things but the worst they could do if you don't meet their guidelines is ban you. They can't press charges or anything. Furthermore I would not say anything racial on MartialTalk or anywhere else for that matter since Im personally against racism, and neither will I post anything else that MartialTalk prohibits, although I do have other strong opinions which I will express, on MartialTalk and in other places.



Thoroughly and completely besides the point.



PhotonGuy said:


> Good for you. Although your sword won't be that useful against a gun.



Thoroughly and completely besides the point.



PhotonGuy said:


> Yes, that I do.



I'd get myself tested, if I was you&#8230; specifically for Aspergers', possibly for autism, honestly. Your inability to see any nuance is just going to make interactions difficult for you here, and elsewhere. You seem to have an idea that "This is the way it is", with no variance&#8230; here, you're arguing about my using a sword in a gunfight&#8230; which has nothing to do with anything I've said&#8230; you continue to insist on what you feel your rights or ability to speak freely are&#8230; while ignoring entirely the fact that none of that applies here, so not argument about it is relevant or of any effect whatsoever. 

If you're genuinely not suffering from either syndrome (you might be, just not diagnosed presently, or you might not be at all), then you really need to stop, listen to what you're being told, take on board the fact that other people have other values and ideas, and go from there. If you're not able to do that, your time here will be nothing but frustration (for yourself and everyone else), which will lead to growing tension, and likely to bans down the road.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 11, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Thoroughly and completely besides the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right whatever.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 11, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Thoroughly and completely besides the point.



Besides whose point, yours? Who are you to decide what the point is and isn't? If anything, its you that gets off the point, bringing up old posts from other boards.



Chris Parker said:


> I'd get myself tested, if I was you&#8230; specifically for Aspergers', possibly for autism, honestly. Your inability to see any nuance is just going to make interactions difficult for you here, and elsewhere. You seem to have an idea that "This is the way it is", with no variance&#8230; here, you're arguing about my using a sword in a gunfight&#8230; which has nothing to do with anything I've said&#8230; you continue to insist on what you feel your rights or ability to speak freely are&#8230; while ignoring entirely the fact that none of that applies here, so not argument about it is relevant or of any effect whatsoever.
> 
> If you're genuinely not suffering from either syndrome (you might be, just not diagnosed presently, or you might not be at all), then you really need to stop, listen to what you're being told, take on board the fact that other people have other values and ideas, and go from there. If you're not able to do that, your time here will be nothing but frustration (for yourself and everyone else), which will lead to growing tension, and likely to bans down the road.


Right, whatever.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 13, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Besides whose point, yours? Who are you to decide what the point is and isn't? If anything, its you that gets off the point, bringing up old posts from other boards.



Besides the point of the discussion, besides the point of the rules as you're reading them, besides the point of your beliefs that because you're American, you can apply American constitutional rule to your conduct here, and more.

Completely and thoroughly besides the point. As well as, well, inaccurate. 



PhotonGuy said:


> Right, whatever.



You have to admit that your posting style here is certainly showing all the signs that would be expected&#8230; it's not out of the realms of possibility that it'd be remarked upon&#8230; and who knows? Maybe I'm right.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 14, 2014)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

The topic of this thread is Australian gun laws. It is not about any individuals personality. Let's keep it on topic please.

Thank you.
Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 15, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> The topic of this thread is Australian gun laws. It is not about any individuals personality. Let's keep it on topic please.
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2014)

In regards to criminals and guns.

The laws make guns harder to get. And more costly to use. The lack of guns in society means police have more resources to deal with gun violence.

Australia has a culture of responsible gun ownership.

So gun crime incidents are less.

There is a difference between a beat cop investigating a crime. CIB investigating and a task force investigating.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 16, 2014)

States where its easier to get and carry guns such as Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, Oregon, Indiana and Pennsylvania have really low crime rates. States where its harder to get guns and all but impossible to legally carry guns such as New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York have a much much higher crime rate.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> States where its easier to get and carry guns such as Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, Oregon, Indiana and Pennsylvania have really low crime rates. States where its harder to get guns and all but impossible to legally carry guns such as New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York have a much much higher crime rate.



Yeah but you can drive a gun from one state to another. So police resources are still stretched to combat illegal gun carry. You can't drive to get an illegal gun. You have to fly it in. And that is a big risk.

So if you are the sort of Rambo that wants a gun for the ring reason here. Chances are you will struggle to get one. Even a crook won't sell you one. Because of the trouble he will get into.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> States where its easier to get and carry guns such as Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, Oregon, Indiana and Pennsylvania have really low crime rates. States where its harder to get guns and all but impossible to legally carry guns such as New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York have a much much higher crime rate.



These states are also much more densely with larger urban centers.  

I'd also be curious to see Arizona's crime rate.  My impression is that it's on the high side but I may be mistaken.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So if you are the sort of Rambo that wants a gun for the ring reason here. Chances are you will struggle to get one. Even a crook won't sell you one. Because of the trouble he will get into.



Nonsense that's the entire point of a black market


----------



## K-man (Jul 16, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> States where its easier to get and carry guns such as Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, Oregon, Indiana and Pennsylvania have really low crime rates. States where its harder to get guns and all but impossible to legally carry guns such as New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York have a much much higher crime rate.



That can also be the chicken and egg situation. Is the crime rate higher because of the gun laws or were the gun laws introduced as a response to higher crime rates?

But according to this list your theory doesn't hold up.

The most dangerous states in America

Tennessee, Nevada,  Alaska, Oklahoma, *Maryland*, Florida, Louisiana, Delaware, South Carolina, and New Mexico are the states with the most violent crime.

So let's look at gun laws ...

10 states with the strictest gun laws | Deseret News

Pennsylvania, Illinois, Rhode Island, *Maryland*, Hawaii, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California.

Only one State, Maryland, is on both lists. Pennsylvania according to you is a state with lower gun restrictions but according to this list it is in 10th spot on the strictest laws list and none of the states you list as most violent are in the top ten by this list.

Then we can look at gun violence.

States With the Most Gun Violence - 24/7 Wall St.

Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama, Alaska and Louisiana. 

None of the states is on the restricted list and obviously Maryland has reduced the level of violence involving firearms by introducing its laws as it is not in the top ten.

But, Arizona is in your list and is listed top 10 for violence in this list.

What if we look at murder rates?

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina, Missouri, *Maryland*, Delaware,Tennessee and Arkansas.


In the list of states with the most murders just one of the strictest gun law states appear in the top ten.

And finally to look at the most gun friendly states.

#10 - Wisconsin | 10 states with the most lenient gun laws | Deseret News

Wisconsin, Idaho, Kentucky, *Louisiana*, Montana, North Dakota, *Oklahoma*, *Arizona*, *Alaska* and Utah.

Three of these in the top ten for murders and four in the top ten for violent crime.

I think these figures show the flaws in the arguement that more guns and less restrictions on firearms reduce the crime rate and vice versa.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense that's the entire point of a black market



No a black market won't sell to any idiot unless they can reasonably get away with doing so. Or they will eventually either sell to a cop. Or sell to someone who will talk to a cop and at that point they are done.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No a black market won't sell to any idiot unless they can reasonably get away with doing so. Or they will eventually either sell to a cop. Or sell to someone who will talk to a cop and at that point they are done.



You obviously have no idea what your talking about.  So nobody can buy a gun on the street anywhere in Australia huh?  BS you have plenty of illegal guns and gangs and drugs and crime just like everywhere else in the world.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> You obviously have no idea what your talking about.  So nobody can buy a gun on the street anywhere in Australia huh?  BS you have plenty of illegal guns and gangs and drugs and crime just like everywhere else in the world.



I certainly can't.

You are welcome to try. Tell me how you get on.

I am certainly going to suggest it is harder to get a gun here than america.


----------



## K-man (Jul 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> You obviously have no idea what your talking about.  So nobody can buy a gun on the street anywhere in Australia huh?  BS you have plenty of illegal guns and gangs and drugs and crime just like everywhere else in the world.


Yes we do but I'll lay you London to a brick that it's a lot easier to get a gun illegally in the US than it is here. Drop Bear is right. Criminals are very wary of supplying firearms to people they don't know.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I certainly can't.
> 
> You are welcome to try. Tell me how you get on.
> 
> I am certainly going to suggest it is harder to get a gun here than america.


I never said it was or wast harder but your saying it's impossible and your either lying, just dont know any better or well I'm not allowed to say the other option


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> Yes we do but I'll lay you London to a brick that it's a lot easier to get a gun illegally in the US than it is here.
> Drop Bear is right. Criminals are very wary of supplying firearms to people they don't know.



Are you a criminal?  How do you know?  For me it's very easy to get an illegal gun here because I know exactly where to go.  For a normal non cop or non criminal like say my uncle he would have no clue what to do or where to go.  What's easy or hard depends on the person


----------



## billc (Jul 16, 2014)

> *Highest Crime Per Capita*
> 
> 
> Washington, D.C.: 1,243.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants
> ...


...


----------



## K-man (Jul 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Are you a criminal?  How do you know?  For me it's very easy to get an illegal gun here because I know exactly where to go.  For a normal non cop or non criminal like say my uncle he would have no clue what to do or where to go.  What's easy or hard depends on the person


I have many cop friends one of whom was in charge of the area I reside.


----------



## billc (Jul 16, 2014)

> *California (423.1), New York (406.8)*



They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books...and New York used to have "Stop and Frisk," of people suspected of being criminals which scooped up a lot of guns from gang members...that is over now so expect their crime rate to go up...


----------



## billc (Jul 16, 2014)

and from the gun grabber groups...



> These two groups scored states according to their level of nutty gun control...the tighter the controls, the higher the grade they recieved...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it simply showed that they are more concerned with banning guns than they are stopping murder...
> ...


----------



## K-man (Jul 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> That can also be the chicken and egg situation. Is the crime rate higher because of the gun laws or were the gun laws introduced as a response to higher crime rates?
> 
> But according to this list your theory doesn't hold up.
> 
> ...


I forgot to look at gun ownership.

Top 10 states.

*Alabama*, *Alaska*, *Arkansas*, Idaho, *Mississippi*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Four of these states figure in the most violence.

Bottom 10 states.

District of Colombia, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

None of these states figure in the most violence.

So now we look at the states with least murders.

Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, *North Dakota*, *South Dakota*, Vermont and *Wyoming*.

Three of these have lots of guns, the others are in the main lower than the US average.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if more guns equals less crime and less violence why doesn't it show in these figures?

Australian gun laws have achieved several things. We don't have handguns all over the country and we don't have military style weapons. We still have gun crime but at a very low level when compared to the US in general.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> I have many cop friends one of whom was in charge of the area I reside.



And?  That makes you an expert now?  I bet they know neighborhoods and areas where the black market resides and they can get guns drugs or anything else they want


----------



## K-man (Jul 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> And?  That makes you an expert now?  I bet they know neighborhoods and areas where the black market resides and they can get guns drugs or anything else they want


No need for snide remarks. I don't claim to be an expert and I wouldn't have the first idea as to how to source drugs or a gun.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> I wouldn't have the first idea as to how to source drugs or a gun.



Most people dont.  That's the point.  Most people here don't either. But I'm sure your less desirable citizens know right where to go


----------



## billc (Jul 16, 2014)

Here you go...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/states-gun-violence_n_3091993.html



> Based on* data provided by the Center for American Progress,* 24/7 Wall St. analyzed the 10 states with the most gun violence. These rankings were based on 10 different criteria, including 2010 firearm homicide deaths per 100,000 people and 2011 firearm-related aggravated assaults. Calculated by the Center, the average rank among all states for each criteria was used to determine the ranking. We also considered data from the FBI&#8217;s Uniform Crime Report, such as a state&#8217;s crime rate per 100,000 people and property crime rates, as well as the crime rates for large metropolitan areas. Gun laws by state were compiled by the NRA&#8217;s Institute for Legislative Action and various news outlets. All data are for the most recent available years.



Sooo...let's start looking for the anti-gun bias and distortions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress



> Its President and chief executive officer is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obamaand Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton&#8217;s campaigns.[SUP][6][/SUP] Its first President and chief executive officer was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remains with the organization as chairman of the board. The Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing Podesta's influence in the formation of theObama Administration, a November 2008 article in _Time_ stated that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway".[SUP][7][/SUP]


----------



## billc (Jul 16, 2014)

> District of Colombia, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.
> 
> None of these states figure in the most violence.



District of Colombia...really?  Illinois...home of Chiraq...New York...really?



> Australian gun laws have achieved several things.



Actually, Australian culture achieved those things, not the gun laws...you are at a violence level around 1950s America...once you have big inner cities, with large and diverse minority communities riddled by drug gangs and children raising children on government welfare...we'll see...

You have guns, you just don't use them...

Death penalty by state...from your sources K-man...

*[SIZE=+1]NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES[/SIZE]*
*BY 2012RANK, HIGHEST TO LOWEST*
*(2010 to 1996 Shown for Comparison)
MURDER RATES PER 100,000 PEOPLE
YEAR20122011201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996Louisiana10.811.111.011.811.914.212.49.912.71313.211.212.510.712.815.717.5Mississippi7.47.86.96.68.17.17.77.37.89.39.29.997.711.413.111.1Alabama7.16.25.76.87.68.98.38.25.66.66.88.57.47.98.19.910.4Michigan7.06.25.96.25.46.77.16.16.46.16.76.76.777.37.87.5South Carolina6.96.85.76.76.888.37.46.97.27.36.35.86.688.49Missouri6.56.17.06.57.76.56.36.96.255.86.66.26.67.37.98.1Maryland6.36.87.47.78.89.89.79.99.49.59.48.38.19109.911.6Delaware6.25.35.74.66.54.34.94.422.93.22.93.23.22.82.54.3Tennessee6.05.95.67.46.66.46.87.25.96.87.27.47.27.18.59.59.5Arkansas5.95.44.66.25.76.77.36.76.46.45.25.56.35.689.98.7Georgia5.95.65.75.86.67.56.46.26.97.67.17.187.58.17.59.5Illinois5.86.15.56.06.15.96.166.17.17.57.97.27.78.49.210Oklahoma5.75.65.26.35.86.15.85.35.35.94.75.35.36.96.16.96.8New Mexico5.67.66.89.97.28.26.87.48.968.25.47.49.810.97.711.5Arizona5.56.16.45.86.37.47.57.57.27.97.17.5788.18.28.5Pennsylvania5.45.05.15.35.65.85.96.15.25.35.15.34.94.95.35.95.7Florida5.25.25.25.56.46.66.255.45.45.55.35.66.76.56.97.5California5.04.84.85.35.86.26.86.96.76.86.86.46.166.689.1North Carolina4.95.25.05.26.56.56.16.76.26.16.66.277.28.18.38.5Indiana4.74.74.14.95.15.65.85.75.15.55.96.85.86.67.77.37.2Kentucky4.53.54.34.34.64.844.65.74.64.54.74.85.44.65.85.9Nevada4.55.15.85.96.37.598.57.48.88.38.56.59.19.711.213.7New Jersey4.44.34.2 3.74.34.44.94.84.54.73.943.43.544.24.2Texas4.44.44.95.45.65.95.96.26.16.466.25.96.16.86.87.7Ohio4.34.34.2 4.64.74.54.75.14.54.64.643.73.544.74.8Alaska4.14.14.3 3.14.16.45.44.85.665.16.14.38.66.78.97.4Connecticut4.13.63.7 3.03.533.12.92.632.33.12.93.34.13.84.8North Dakota4.03.51.5 1.90.51.91.31.11.41.90.81.10.61.61.10.92.2West Virginia3.94.73.14.63.33.54.14.43.73.53.22.22.54.44.34.13.8Virginia3.83.84.74.74.75.35.26.15.25.65.35.15.75.76.27.27.5New York3.53.94.5 4.04.34.24.84.54.64.94.75555.167.4Rhode Island3.21.92.8 3.02.81.82.63.22.42.33.83.74.33.62.42.52.5Colorado3.13.02.6 3.23.23.13.33.74.43.943.63.14.64.644.7South Dakota3.02.42.83.73.22.11.22.32.31.31.40.90.92.51.41.41.2Wisconsin3.02.42.7 2.62.63.333.52.83.32.83.63.23.43.644.2Washington3.02.42.3 2.92.92.733.33.13333.333.94.34.6Kansas2.93.93.4 4.443.94.63.74.54.52.93.46.365.966.6Nebraska2.93.73.0 2.33.83.82.82.52.33.22.82.53.73.63.132.9Montana2.72.92.5 3.32.41.51.81.93.23.31.83.81.82.64.14.83.9Wyoming2.43.21.4 2.01.93.11.72.72.22.831.82.42.34.83.53.3Oregon2.42.22.5 2.32.21.92.32.22.51.922.422.73.82.94Hawaii2.11.51.8 1.81.91.71.61.92.61.71.92.62.93.7243.4Maine1.92.01.8 2.02.41.61.71.41.41.21.11.41.22.2222Massachusetts1.82.83.3 2.62.62.92.92.72.62.22.72.32221.92.6Idaho1.82.21.4 1.61.53.32.52.42.21.82.72.31.222.93.23.6Utah1.81.81.9 1.41.42.21.82.31.92.5231.92.13.12.43.2Minnesota1.81.41.8 1.42.12.22.42.22.22.52.22.43.12.82.62.83.6Iowa1.51.41.2 1.32.51.21.81.31.61.61.51.71.61.51.91.81.9Vermont1.31.81.1 1.32.71.91.91.32.62.32.11.11.52.92.61.51.9New Hampshire1.11.21.0 0.811.111.41.41.40.91.41.81.51.51.41.7




*Looking at the table you linked to K-man...murder rates are all down from 1996...in all the states...while gun ownership increased around the country including all of the states having some sort of carry provision for guns...


Looking at the states with the most gun violence...you would have to look at the biggest city in the state...I would imagine...drugs and gangs account for the gun violence...which would mean that those folks aren't allowed to own guns at all...and yet...

Alabama for example...

http://blog.al.com/montgomery/2013/07/what_is_causing_the_spike_in_v.html



> MONTGOMERY, Alabama -- Violent crime is on the rise in the city of Montgomery, but no one seems to have a concrete answer as to why.
> The city has already recorded more homicides this year than it did in all of 2012 or any year since 2007.
> According to the Montgomery Police Department,* most of the homicides are related to drug activity,* and a criminologist at Auburn University at Montgomery said that makes sense following the country&#8217;s recent economic downturn.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Most people dont.  That's the point.  Most people here don't either. But I'm sure your less desirable citizens know right where to go



Really. How would you know?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Really. How would you know?



Because most people are not criminals and don't think that way.  .oat people I talk to have no idea the crime that goes on blocks from their back yards they believe crime only happens in the big nasty city like Washington DC and Baltimore.  When I tell then we just had a homicide two blocks over they are shocked.  When I tell then you can buy any drug imaginable from an apartment complex down the street they freak out.  When I tell people we bust prostitutes near there favorite restaurant on main street they have no clue.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 17, 2014)

billc said:


> _*Highest Crime Per Capita*_
> 
> 
> Washington, D.C.: 1,243.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants
> ...



There you have it. D.C. is rated as the place with the most crime in the USA and D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws, more restrictive than any state although D.C. is technically not a state. Maine has the lowest crime rate followed by Vermont. Both Maine and Vermont are very gun friendly. In Vermont you can even carry a concealed handgun without a permit.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Because most people are not criminals and don't think that way.  .oat people I talk to have no idea the crime that goes on blocks from their back yards they believe crime only happens in the big nasty city like Washington DC and Baltimore.  When I tell then we just had a homicide two blocks over they are shocked.  When I tell then you can buy any drug imaginable from an apartment complex down the street they freak out.  When I tell people we bust prostitutes near there favorite restaurant on main street they have no clue.




Yeah but you don't have the gun laws to put a restriction on sales. So of course you would think it is easier to get.

Our situation is different.


----------



## Kurai (Jul 17, 2014)

I'll add, that as a Nevada resident some gun laws are at a county level.  You have a higher violent crime rate in Clark County (Las Vegas) than other counties in the state.  Gun laws are more strict in that particular county than anywhere else in the state.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 17, 2014)

Kurai said:


> I'll add, that as a Nevada resident some gun laws are at a county level.  You have a higher violent crime rate in Clark County (Las Vegas) than other counties in the state.  Gun laws are more strict in that particular county than anywhere else in the state.



Yes I believe Nye county has a lower crime rate than Clark County and Nye county has less restrictive gun laws. Also Las Vegas is located in Clark County and I wouldn't be surprised about Vegas having a higher crime rate, it being a big city and all, and they call it sin city for a reason.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you don't have the gun laws to put a restriction on sales. So of course you would think it is easier to get.
> 
> Our situation is different.



Sure we do.  I'm a cop and still need to show ID pass a back ground check and wait 7 days before I can pick up my legally purchased hand gun.  But we are not talking about legally purchased guns.


----------



## billc (Jul 18, 2014)

I wonder, from reading some of these posts, if the people against owning guns know the steps to buy a gun.  I would expect that people who live in other countries won't know the process, especially because we have 50 different states and there are some differences in the laws.  In illinois, you have to get a firearm owners I.D. Card verified through the state police.  Then, each time you buy a gun you have to get a check on your card and wait three days.  
To get a concealed,carry permit, you have to have 16 hours of fire arm training, 4 hours of law, 4 hours of range, and another 8 hours of training, pass another background check where you give another photo, and if you want to speed up the process you give them your finger prints.

Of course, you can't be a felon, mentally I'll or a drug user (do not get a medical marijuana card if you want a concealed carry permit).

Some states have easier processes, but none of them allow criminals, the mentally ill or drug addicts to have guns...and yet the criminals don't follow the law and there is no process to catch the dangerously mentally ill before they kill...


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2014)

billc said:


> I wonder, from reading some of these posts, if the people against owning guns know the steps to buy a gun.  I would expect that people who live in other countries won't know the process, especially because we have 50 different states and there are some differences in the laws.  In illinois, you have to get a firearm owners I.D. Card verified through the state police.  Then, each time you buy a gun you have to get a check on your card and wait three days.
> To get a concealed,carry permit, you have to have 16 hours of fire arm training, 4 hours of law, 4 hours of range, and another 8 hours of training, pass another background check where you give another photo, and if you want to speed up the process you give them your finger prints.
> 
> Of course, you can't be a felon, mentally I'll or a drug user (do not get a medical marijuana card if you want a concealed carry permit).
> ...



Gun control?

You don't register guns though. So it is pretty easy to straw man or private sale.


----------



## billc (Jul 18, 2014)

In order to " straw man" you personally have,to go through the background check...if you then sell those guns to a criminal for criminal purposes you are committing a crime...a felony.  if you are caught you go to jail....

The same with "private sales."  if you sell a gun to a felon it is against the law since the felon can't legally posses a gun....when the felon gets,caught they should go to jail...

All of these laws and yet...the criminals ignore them...

The problem isn't the selling of the guns, it is that criminals aren't punished enough to make dealing in illegal guns unprofitable...


----------



## billc (Jul 18, 2014)

again...please explain what registering guns does to stop or prevent crime?

No one has ever explained, at all, why this magic word is so wonderful or helpful...it is however the first step to mandatory turn ins of specific models of weapons...by law abiding people...

Criminals do not get permits, background checks or register their guns...

So please, please tell me what registering guns will do to stop any crime at all...

The most recent mass shooters...permits, background checks, magazine limits were all enforced and obeyed...and they didn't stop the killer...

The worst mass killers in the world who used guns to kill we're in Norway and South Korea didn't obey their countries laws either...


Someone, please explain how registering guns actually works...

And straw man purchases...the last big case of that...was Obama forcing the border area gun stores,to allow straw purchases of guns to the drug cartels...read the accounts of the local gun stores...they didn't want to sell the guns but were told to by the ATF...

The myth of registering guns...

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm





> Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that "gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns."
> 
> 
> *Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. *8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration--citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.



By constitutional law criminals are protected from registering any gun in their possession...


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 22, 2014)

billc said:


> again...please explain what registering guns does to stop or prevent crime?
> 
> No one has ever explained, at all, why this magic word is so wonderful or helpful...it is however the first step to mandatory turn ins of specific models of weapons...by law abiding people...
> 
> ...



Supposedly the anti gun crowd claims that registering guns, and taking other measures to bring about stricter gun control will cut down on gun sales in the black market. The reason why criminals don't need permits, background checks, or gun registration is because their source of guns is the black market, and the black market doesn't require permits, checks, or registrations. By making guns harder to get legally, that will cut down on the stock of the black market or so the anti gun people claim. Im not saying I agree with that Im just pointing out the position the other side is taking.


----------



## K-man (Jul 22, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Supposedly the anti gun crowd claims that registering guns, and taking other measures to bring about stricter gun control will cut down on gun sales in the black market. The reason why criminals don't need permits, background checks, or gun registration is because their source of guns is the black market, and the black market doesn't require permits, checks, or registrations. By making guns harder to get legally, that will cut down on the stock of the black market or so the anti gun people claim. Im not saying I agree with that Im just pointing out the position the other side is taking.


There is no single law that will stop gun crime. There are a large number of small steps and a lot of time and effort. By resisting each individual small step the gun lobby can stop any change occurring.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2014)

K-man said:


> There is no single law that will stop gun crime. There are a large number of small steps and a lot of time and effort. By resisting each individual small step the gun lobby can stop any change occurring.



We could make it illegal to kill people with guns.  Since laws work and all.......


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 22, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We could make it illegal to kill people with guns.  Since laws work and all.......



I though it all ready was illegal. What we need to do is enforce it.


----------



## K-man (Jul 22, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We could make it illegal to kill people with guns.  Since laws work and all.......


If your existing laws aren't working, perhaps it's time to change the laws. After all, one definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over expecting a different response'.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2014)

K-man said:


> If your existing laws aren't working, perhaps it's time to change the laws. After all, one definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over expecting a different response'.



Who says they are not working?  Murder and violent crime have been on the decline for many years.  Chances of you being murdered are very slim here or anywhere except a few major urban centers which I might add have the harshest gun laws and even there they are trending down.  Funny thing as we fill our prisons with bad guys our murder rates fall..........


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 22, 2014)

K-man said:


> If your existing laws aren't working, perhaps it's time to change the laws. After all, one definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over expecting a different response'.



No, its time to enforce the laws. If existing laws aren't working its because they aren't being enforced enough.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2014)

Static Data | HumanProgress.org 

Dont let the facts get in the way Kman carry on


----------



## K-man (Jul 22, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Who says they are not working?  Murder and violent crime have been on the decline for many years.  Chances of you being murdered are very slim here or anywhere except a few major urban centers which I might add have the harshest gun laws and even there they are trending down.  Funny thing as we fill our prisons with bad guys our murder rates fall..........





> Incarceration in the United States of America is one of the main forms of punishment, rehabilitation, or both for the commission of felony and other offenses. *The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world*. At year-end 2009, it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population.
> Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> The annual National Prisoner Census, conducted on the night of 30 June, counts all people held in Australian prisons who are in the legal custody of adult corrective services, including periodic detainees in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, but excluding persons held in juvenile institutions, psychiatric custody and police custody. At any given point in time, most prisoners are serving long sentences for relatively serious offences, but the flow of offenders in and out of prisons consists primarily of people serving short sentences for less serious offences.
> 
> At 30 June 2010, there were 29,700 prisoners (sentenced and unsentenced) in Australian adult prisons. *This represented an imprisonment rate of 170 prisoners per 100,000 adult population.* Of the total prisoner population, 92% (27,472) were men and 8% (2,228) were women. . Of the total prisoner population, 92% (27,472) were men and 8% (2,228) were women.
> 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012


 For the record, the Australian figures include people in jail awaiting trial and the figures are a percentage of adult population.

It is difficult to compare the figures for violent crime as the US figures generally are aggravated assault  ...


> Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon. A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person attempts to:
> 
> 
> cause serious bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon
> ...





> (1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person's consent, or with the other person's consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person's consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person's purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.
> 
> 
> Additionally, all State criminal codes have further definitions of actions that may constitute an assault, such as causing physical discomfort by the use of: heat, light, electrical force, and odorous gases.



But for the record these two sites give an idea.
Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Australian Institute of Criminology - Violent crime

But if we stick to homicides
United States  4.7 per 100,000
Australia         1.3 per 100,000

I reckon the Australian rate is way too high yet you reckon your laws are working. I guess we live with different expectations.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 22, 2014)

K-man said:


> For the record, the Australian figures include people in jail awaiting trial and the figures are a percentage of adult population.
> 
> It is difficult to compare the figures for violent crime as the US figures generally are aggravated assault  ...
> 
> ...



Well also, from what I've heard about Australia some of the things that are considered crime in the USA are not considered crime in Australia. Particularly some of the victimless crimes. That could be partially why there isn't as high a prison population in Australia as there is in the USA.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2014)

K-man said:


> For the record, the Australian figures include people in jail awaiting trial and the figures are a percentage of adult population.
> 
> It is difficult to compare the figures for violent crime as the US figures generally are aggravated assault  ...
> 
> ...



Yep I recon they are working.  As the trend show a downturn for decades.  And guess what as we put more criminals in prison the numbers kept falling.   So instead of banning guns let's put away criminals that seems to work better


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 22, 2014)

We also don't have any law in this state called aggravated assault.  Each state has its own wording and laws.  It really doesn't matter how it's worded however or how hard you want to spin it the trend is DOWN for over 30 years


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 22, 2014)

We also spend too much money to make the prisons nice for the inmates. Running prisons is expensive and the answer to reduce costs is obviously not to turn the inmates loose, or not send people to prison who deserve it, but to cut down on all the amenities in prison that cost so much to have and maintain.


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We also don't have any law in this state called aggravated assault.  Each state has its own wording and laws.  It really doesn't matter how it's worded however or how hard you want to spin it the trend is DOWN for over 30 years


http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/homicide-by-firearm-v-gun-ownership.jpgView attachment $homicide-by-firearm-v-gun-ownership.jpg

Yep, you're doing a great job.  World leaders in fact from this graph. And, the trend is down, certainly but only really since 1993. 



> The trend is downward during these last decades, but all in all we&#8217;re still talking about almost 20.000 murders a year in the U.S. Americans still kill one another at a much higher rate than do residents of comparable western European nations. This gap persists despite a roughly 40 percent drop in the US homicide rate in the last 15 years or so. Americans have been notably more violent than western Europeans since about the mid- or late 19th century. Americans are 4 times more likely to get murdered than Brits, 6 times more likely than Germans, and 13 times more likely than the Japanese. Maybe the US gun culture has something to do with this: guns are used in two-thirds of all murders in the US. In the UK that&#8217;s only one in ten. There were over 11.000 gun murders in the US in 2010 (that&#8217;s 3.7 victims per 100.000 population vs. 0.04 in the UK) and over 55.000 non-fatal gun injuries.
> Statistics on Violence | P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.


However, I fail to see how you could feel satisfied with those statistics.


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

Hmmm...they always fail to mention the other statistic Kman, the other one you pointed out...that guns are used to stop violent crime over 100,000 times a year here in the states...I do believe that that number is higher than 11,000...unless they do math differently over seas...and keep in mind...the 11,000 number is solid because they can actually count the bodies, while the 100,000 number is actually larger because guns stop crime often with no shots fired and no bodies being created...meaning those cases aren't reported in the crime stats...

And to repeat...100,000 that is the number from the gun grabber,crowd so it Is the lowest number they could find...the actual number for defensive gun uses is much higher since a lot of defensive gun uses go unreported or un counted, since many times no shots have to be fired and no one gets killed, thereby not counting in he statistics....

So again...if you get rid of guns, the total crime rate goes up by 100,000 crimes,a year spread across robbery, rape and modern since this are the crimes that force victims,to draw their weapons in self defense...

So countries with strict gun control want their citizens to be victims of rape, robbery and murder instead of not being victims because they used a gun to stop the crime...right?

So if you get rid of guns, you get rid of defensive gun uses, and create 100,000 more victims...that is better right?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

(Keep in mind...Hemmenway is an anti-gunner)



> Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.[9]




The Ncvs survey yields about 108,000 defensive gun uses a year...which is 8,000 more...which means that you have a hard dead body number of 11,000 and a gun grabber number of 108,000 defensive gun uses against violent crime...11,000 vs. 108,000...again, no wonder they don't mention the other number...


Hmmmm...other social scientists say how many defensive gun uses...250,000 to 370,000....



> . Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences




..no wonder anti-gun activists fail to mention that nip umber when they bring up the dead body count of 11,000...I guess that is because one number is larger than the other....thereby weakening their claims...with their  own numbers...



> Kleck notes that many other surveys (at least 20) have likewise obtained huge estimates of DGU frequency, from 500,000 to over 3 million per year -common enough to outnumber criminal uses[15] and further notes that studies of methodological errors in surveys concerning other crime-related behaviors and experiences have consistently found that the errors produce, on net, underestimates of the frequency of the behaviors, including victimization experiences, offending behavior, and gun ownership.[15] He has pointed out that critics' assessment of possible errors in surveys are one-sided - that they consider only flaws that would contribute to overestimation of defensive gun use frequency.



Remember K-man...you originally brought up these stats. In another thread...they are your numbers...


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

Here is another estimate from the Wikipedia article...



> Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[8] Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[10][11]



So a poll by the police foundation....

11,000 vs. 4.7 million....again, no wonder the anti-gun side doesn't mention defensive gun uses...

Now let's give the gun grabbers their absolute minimum number of defensive gun uses...just to be nice...



> ] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[



sooooo...11,000 vs. 55,000...one number is still larger than the other...meaning...if you get rid of guns...and people using them for self-defense, you would still create 55,000 more victims of violent criminals...

But that number is the lowest of the low scale from gun grabbers, so it is already way off...


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

Why are defensive gun uses sometimes,hard to accurately quantify...



> Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[21] and the Los Angeles Times.[22]
> 
> 
> *In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. *Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent brandishment-only.[23] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[24] Lott explained the lower brandishment-only rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[25] Most surveys used a recall period of "Ever" while some (Hart, Mauser, and Tarrance) used the previous five years. The Field Institute survey used periods of previous year, previous two years and ever.[3] The NSPOF survey used a one year recall period.[8] Lott also used a one year recall period and asked respondents about personal experiences only, due to questionable respondent recall of events past one year and respondent knowledge of DGU experiences of other household members.[25]


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

Oh...and the European numbers for gun deaths...they never average in the real total...when you also add gun deaths committed by government...you know...by the Germans before and during World War Two...well...that is embarrassingly large...isn't it...

That period of 1939-1945...that period where innocent unarmed people were murdered by their military and police...you know, the ones that the gun grabbers,want to be the only ones allowed,to have guns...that throws off the totals for Europe a lot more than we have experienced here in the states...

Yeah, disarming the citizens and just letting the police and military have guns worked out real well in that 7 year period...of course guns only directly caused the death of so many people...but guns only in the hands of the German military allowed the murder of close to 12 million people, 6 million Jews, and another six million non-Jews...

Of course...we can't count those numbers can we...

Did some quick figuring...

The gun grabbers only want police and military to have the guns in a society...

Germany murdered 11,000,000 people according to wiki...so from 1939-2013 that is 74 years....11 million divided by 74 = 148,648 people murderd each year in Europe. Since the Germans murderd people in all the countries under their control from 1939-1945...


(of course this doesn't add the normal murder rate numbers for those countries in Europe to the average during this 74 year time period, and the U.S. Murder rate was probably lower during this time period as we'll, not the 11,000 we have today...just to keep that in mind)

Now, if you take the average murder rate in the U.S. And multiply it by the same 74 year period...74 x 11,000 = 814,000 total

sooo...leaving guns in the hands of only the police and military when they turn bad...

148,648 vs 11,000 a year...for Europe vs. the U.S.

So that pretty much takes Europe out of the running in these comparisons...doesn't it...


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

To be honest Bill I don't see the point of responding to your incomprehensible rant. Comparing what the Nazis did in a war with what is happening in peacetime in the US. Really! You have your guns, you have thousands losing their lives every year but you cannot accept that the guns are responsible. You keep saying that without guns the crime rate would go through the roof. Well that speaks volumes for your fellow countrymen. Without guns everywhere to keep them in check they would be out of control. 

Well, I would say three things. Firstly why do you even bother having police if they need all this civilian backup? Secondly, if guns overall were reduced don't you think the guns in criminal hands would also be reduced? And thirdly, no one is taking of taking all guns away anyway. You keep spouting this rubbish knowing that what you are writing is wrong. Why?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/homicide-by-firearm-v-gun-ownership.jpgView attachment 18847
> 
> Yep, you're doing a great job.  World leaders in fact from this graph. And, the trend is down, certainly but only really since 1993.
> 
> ...


When we have 300000000 million people your bound to have a few hundred thousand criminals that can't live by the rules. You tell me what law makes people behave and treat people with respect?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Secondly, if guns overall were reduced don't you think the guns in criminal hands would also be reduced?



I would agree if we were an island that didn't share a border with some of the largest most violent criminal organizations in the world.  If you magically removed every gun in the US tomorrow.  It would create a huge new black market for guns coming up from Mexico.  The smuggling routs and distribution networks are already in place.  Add a few thousand handguns to the kilos of cocaine your already shipping over the border.  It's not a gun problem it's a lack of value for human life problem.


> And thirdly, no one is taking of taking all guns away anyway. You keep spouting this rubbish knowing that what you are writing is wrong. Why?


They are taking away our guns as of Oct I lost the ability to buy over 80 different guns.  Why?  Who have a hurt?  Why am I being punished?  Other places like Chicago and Washington DC all but banned guns for decades and only after long court battles did the Constitutional rights of citizens get somewhat restored.  So it's not rubbish and it's not wrong there are politicians that want to take away all guns.  They already started.


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> When we have 300000000 million people your bound to have a few hundred thousand criminals that can't live by the rules. You tell me what law makes people behave and treat people with respect?


Well for a start you have way more than a few hundred thousand criminals.



> According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 &#8211; about 0.94% of adults in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole. In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 &#8211; about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population. A 2014 report published by the National Research Council asserts that the prison population of the United States "is by far the largest in the world. Just under one-quarter of the world's prisoners are held in American prisons."
> 
> 
> In addition, there were 70,792 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2010.


Maybe it's something lacking in the education system, I don't know. But you have about 7 million criminals under some form of supervision. When you see such figures doesn't it make you wonder if something could be done better? Even with all those guys locked away your crime rate is still very high compared to the rest of the First World. Why do you think that is?


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I would agree if we were an island that didn't share a border with some of the largest most violent criminal organizations in the world.  If you magically removed every gun in the US tomorrow.  It would create a huge new black market for guns coming up from Mexico.  The smuggling routs and distribution networks are already in place.  Add a few thousand handguns to the kilos of cocaine your already shipping over the border.  It's not a gun problem it's a lack of value for human life problem.
> 
> They are taking away our guns as of Oct I lost the ability to buy over 80 different guns.  Why?  Who have a hurt?  Why am I being punished?  Other places like Chicago and Washington DC all but banned guns for decades and only after long court battles did the Constitutional rights of citizens get somewhat restored.  So it's not rubbish and it's not wrong there are politicians that want to take away all guns.  They already started.


I agree with you about the problem you have with illegal immigrants but if you want to combat criminal organisations in other countries you need to assist the governments of those countries in addressing their issues before they become your issues. We all know guns will not be magically removed overnight so that is not even a point for discussion.

I don't believe many people believe anyone wants to take away all guns. However, if 80 different guns are now off the market, for a good reason I suspect, then that should be a cause for celebration. Maybe it's a small step towards a safer society.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> I agree with you about the problem you have with illegal immigrants but if you want to combat criminal organisations in other countries you need to assist the governments of those countries in addressing their issues before they become your issues. We all know guns will not be magically removed overnight so that is not even a point for discussion.
> 
> I don't believe many people believe anyone wants to take away all guns. However, if 80 different guns are now off the market, for a good reason I suspect, then that should be a cause for celebration. Maybe it's a small step towards a safer society.



See that's where we differ you believe the gun causes the crime I believe the criminal does.  I own a few of the now banned guns guess how many crimes they have committed?   


Kman If you believe a gun ban is stopping killers and making society safer then in your opinion why does that work but a ban on killing doesnt?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Well for a start you have way more than a few hundred thousand criminals.


I'm talking about violent killers not all criminals.  The average criminal isn't a killer.


> Maybe it's something lacking in the education system, I don't know. But you have about 7 million criminals under some form of supervision. When you see such figures doesn't it make you wonder if something could be done better? Even with all those guys locked away your crime rate is still very high compared to the rest of the First World. Why do you think that is?


We have 7 million criminals because 7 million people broke the law.  It's nobody's fault but their own


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> See that's where we differ you believe the gun causes the crime I believe the criminal does.  I own a few of the now banned guns guess how many crimes they have committed?
> 
> Kman If you believe a gun ban is stopping killers and making society safer then in your opinion why does that work but a ban on killing doesnt?


I think that you could get a PhD for producing the answer to this question. Why do people kill each other? Is it because they simply lose control? Certainly that is true in some cases. Is it because they are insane? Yes, sometimes. Is it because of drugs? Certainly that can be a factor. But the real career criminals who kill probably believe they can get away with it and quite often they do. But even if you removed all guns, it wouldn't stop all murders as we all know and understand. But the evidence from other countries is there for all to see. Countries with less firearms have less violent crime and murder. So by reducing the number of firearms in the community you would expect to see a reduction in violent crime. Of course this would also mean an additional effort by police to reduce the number of weapons in criminal hands also.



ballen0351 said:


> I'm talking about violent killers not all criminals.  The average criminal isn't a killer.
> 
> We have 7 million criminals because 7 million people broke the law.  It's nobody's fault but their own


The average criminal is not necessarily a killer but I would suspect that many of the criminals roaming the streets these days would be armed, if not with a gun, at least a knife? Don't you find that a little disturbing?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think that you could get a PhD for producing the answer to this question. Why do people kill each other? Is it because they simply lose control? Certainly that is true in some cases. Is it because they are insane? Yes, sometimes. Is it because of drugs? Certainly that can be a factor. But the real career criminals who kill probably believe they can get away with it and quite often they do. But even if you removed all guns, it wouldn't stop all murders as we all know and understand. But the evidence from other countries is there for all to see. Countries with less firearms have less violent crime and murder. So by reducing the number of firearms in the community you would expect to see a reduction in violent crime. Of course this would also mean an additional effort by police to reduce the number of weapons in criminal hands also.


There is a difference between other countries and the US. We have glorified criminal behavior in this country.   We have said it's ok to have 8 kids with 7 different mothers and not be a father to any of them.  We have a society that believes talking to the police is just cause to kill you for snitching.  I've talked to victims that refuse to tell me what happened because r they don't watch to snitch.  We have the largest drug markets in the world. That's not a gun problem that's a screwed up mentality and no laws can fix it.  And if banning things worked so well why cam I buy cocaine in every town in this country? 


> The average criminal is not necessarily a killer but I would suspect that many of the criminals roaming the streets these days would be armed, if not with a gun, at least a knife? Don't you find that a little disturbing?


As a police officer I don't find this true.  Most criminals I arrest are not armed at all.  Maybe 1 in 10 and of them armed ones 90% have something other then a gun.  I do find guns on people but it's not very often in comparison to the number of people I come in contact with.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> There is a difference between other countries and the US. We have glorified criminal behavior in this country.   We have said it's ok to have 8 kids with 7 different mothers and not be a father to any of them.  We have a society that believes talking to the police is just cause to kill you for snitching.  I've talked to victims that refuse to tell me what happened because r they don't watch to snitch.  We have the largest drug markets in the world. That's not a gun problem that's a screwed up mentality and no laws can fix it.  And if banning things worked so well why cam I buy cocaine in every town in this country?
> 
> As a police officer I don't find this true.  Most criminals I arrest are not armed at all.  Maybe 1 in 10 and of them armed ones 90% have something other then a gun.  I do find guns on people but it's not very often in comparison to the number of people I come in contact with.



Ballen there is not that much difference between the US and other countries.  Almost all of them have some sort of drug problem, crime problem, etc.  People interacting with the police in other countries quite often do not want to snitch either.  I will agree though that their is a mentality that quite often is screwed up here but it really is not that much different than other places!


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

> Countries with less firearms have less violent crime and murder



The police can also do things that they can't do here in the U.S. For example...Japaneses can search anyone, at anytime for little to no reason...makes it a lot harder to catch the hard core criminals carrying guns when you have to explain to a judge why you searched a particular criminal for no reason...Japanese routinely hold prisoners for days without legal counsel...non starter here...


also, so, from an article I saw posted on one of these threads...the prison sentences handed out in japan for mere possession of a gun is so draconian the organized crime bosses won't touch guns...in the states...in Chicago...one of the shooters who shot up the park a few months ago had a 3 year sentence for a gun crime and was back on the streets in 18 months...if not less...

Generations of children having babies,and raising them on government welfare, with no adults role modeling mature behavior plus drugs and poverty raises stone cold killers...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Ballen there is not that much difference between the US and other countries.  Almost all of them have some sort of drug problem, crime problem, etc.  People interacting with the police in other countries quite often do not want to snitch either.  I will agree though that their is a mentality that quite often is screwed up here but it really is not that much different than other places!



I don't believe it's glorified in other places like it is here in our cities.  THUG LIFE. And all that nonsense.   Here guys biggest ambition in life is to get on there very own RIP "dink" t shirts.


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

This is why Chicago has a gun murder problem...the mass shooting in a park in a gang retaliation for a slight wound...

Four now charged in South Side park shooting that hurt 13 - Chicago Sun-Times



> Four men were held ordered held without bail Tuesday in the shooting that wounded 13 people in a South Side park, including one police say fired a military-grade weapon into the crowd, allegedly an act of revenge because one of the men had been grazed in a shooting hours earlier.




what did one of the shooters recieve for a previous gun crime...



> Champ&#8217;s criminal record includes a 2012 conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and a 2011 conviction for receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to Cook County Jail boot camp for the gun-possession conviction and had received probation in the other case, records show.On Monday, McCarthy pointed to the case to highlight the need for stricter gun laws.&#8220;He received boot camp for that gun crime and was back out on the streets to be a part of this senseless shooting,&#8221;​



So...2012 conviction...a conviction, for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in 2012...and he commits a mass shooting in 2013

That is the problem causing gun crime...no punishment for criminals using guns...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 23, 2014)

Thug culture culture seems to be glorified in a lot of western countries ballen0351!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Thug culture culture seems to be glorified in a lot of western countries ballen0351!



Sure Now. But it started and is at its peak here.  I read a report that Chicago has more verified gang members then the entire country of Australia.  I'll have to find it.  It also said California prision have more gang members then the 5 largest cities in canada.  I read it in some class i had I'll look for the paperwork and find the author


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 23, 2014)

*Still you and I agree that this issue revolves more around culture than anything else*.  The best way to address it is with knowledge and improvement of our culture.  Yet, we are not the only one's with issues in culture.  All of Europe has cultural and immigration issues as well.  Yet very low gun violence.  Reason?  Just not as easy access to guns.  Sure the criminals can get them but someone who goes off the deep end may not have access to them right away.  Europe certainly has violence just like us but mostly without guns.  Nor is it fair in any way to look at a few European countries that have a high percentage of gun ownership because they are simply at this point not as culturally diverse as we are. (they have kept their older culture in tact to this point)  That kind've would be cherry picking which is what the right wing and or left wing love to do.  Culture and education plus mental health is where we need to address our problems. (funny how nothing has been done in these areas)  As someone who is a staunch 2nd amendment rights person I also personally see "no issues" with waiting periods and training requirements.  This does not bother me at all.  While I am highly trained it is in *my opinion,* unfortunately that the vast majority of American gun owners have little or no training and yet some still parade around carrying a firearm either with open carry or a concealed permit. (I ran into an open carry idiot just yesterday)  The firearm education and training in this country when applied to your common everyday person is appalling.  Especially considering we have so many firearms!  Firearm training for adults and or kids should be some thing we encourage and have happen.

So as a staunch 2nd amendment person I believe in:

Waiting periods
Registration
Mandatory firearm training 
People who have committed violent crime and or have mental health issues not being allowed to own them
People with substance abuse history not being allowed to own them
Certainly all far right and far left people should not own them (just kidding  )  

I am also for a national campaign and or education about firearms for the entire US.  Ie How to use firearms properly.  What to do if you come across one and what not to do.  How and what effects a shooting can have on the individual as well as all those individuals involved and their families. , etc.....  Crist we have done this for other things!

Now I know someone is going to say, "who is going to pay for this".  Well typically in the firearm training area right now a registered owner pays for their own training.  I am okay with that continuing just mandating that if they want to "open carry" or "concealed carry" that they have some training and it be fairly substantial training.  I cannot tell you how many civilian ccw courses and non-ccw courses I have taken that were just plain terrible.  It is such a pick or choose situation and really depends on the instructor.  The NRA has done a terrible job so far in the quality of the instructors that they have endorsed.  Some are good, some even great but a lot are just horrible!  As for paying for the national campaign on tv, etc.  We waste so much money I do not think it would be hard to cut back in some certain area like say "foreign aid" and develop a national program that gets a strong message out there about gun violence.  *This is some thing we really should have been doing for a long time!*

Having said all of the above as someone who sits in the middle I understand that probably nothing will get done.  The far right wants no interference in firearms laws and pretty much love the status quo and all that entails.  The far left want to take away all of those bad guns thinking that this will some how stop the violence.  The vast majority of American's will sit in the middle frustrated with both of these pathetic sides.  While the far right puts there head in the sand like and ostrich and says, "nothing to see hear and nothing to do."  While the far left ineffectually basically screams at the top of their heads but gets nothing done as well.  *Bottom line both sides pretty much suck!!!*


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Still you and I agree that this issue revolves more around culture than anything else*.


Yes its not a gun law issue its a society issue


> The best way to address it is with knowledge and improvement of our culture.  Yet, we are not the only one's with issues in culture.  All of Europe has cultural and immigration issues as well.  Yet very low gun violence.  Reason?  Just not as easy access to guns.  Sure the criminals can get them but someone who goes off the deep end may not have access to them right away.  Europe certainly has violence just like us but mostly without guns.  Nor is it fair in any way to look at a few European countries that have a high percentage of gun ownership because they are simply at this point not as culturally diverse as we are. (they have kept their older culture in tact to this point)  That kind've would be cherry picking which is what the right wing and or left wing love to do.  Culture and education plus mental health is where we need to address our problems. (funny how nothing has been done in these areas)  As someone who is a staunch 2nd amendment rights person I also personally see "no issues" with waiting periods and training requirements.  This does not bother me at all.  While I am highly trained it is in *my opinion,* unfortunately that the vast majority of American gun owners have little or no training and yet some still parade around carrying a firearm either with open carry or a concealed permit. (I ran into an open carry idiot just yesterday)  The firearm education and training in this country when applied to your common everyday person is appalling.  Especially considering we have so many firearms!  Firearm training for adults and or kids should be some thing we encourage and have happen.


You cant really compare cultures anywhere really. The culture in say West Baltimore or North East Washington DC are totally different then where I live and Im only about an hour away.  Just like I dont think bad areas of Chicago compare with anyplace in say Spain or Australia.  We also spend the most money on illegal narcotics then anywhere else in the world.  Where there is money there is violence.


> So as a staunch 2nd amendment person I believe in:


fair enough I dont agree with most of these


> Waiting periods


In my opinion waiting periods do nothing to prevent crime.  Most of these mass spree shootings where planned far in advance so waiting a week wont stop them.  I alrady own a ton of guns whats awaiting period accomplish on making me wait a week for another one? Also does nothing to put a dent in the black market sales


> Registration


what purpose is a gun registry serve? Criminals dont register guns.


> Mandatory firearm training


I dont disagree with that aslong asits not used as a method to prevent people from owning guns.  If you make the mandatory training so expensive that people cant afford it.  Also who provides the training?  Atone time they taught weapons classes in schools Id like to see it go back to that.  


> People who have committed violent crime and or have mental health issues not being allowed to own them


I agree its the mental health part I wonder how we address


> People with substance abuse history not being allowed to own them


For how long?  What If they quit can they then get guns back?


> Certainly all far right and far left people should not own them (just kidding  )
> 
> I am also for a national campaign and or education about firearms for the entire US.  Ie How to use firearms properly.  What to do if you come across one and what not to do.  How and what effects a shooting can have on the individual as well as all those individuals involved and their families. , etc.....  Crist we have done this for other things!


I agree put it back in schools


> Now I know someone is going to say, "who is going to pay for this".  Well typically in the firearm training area right now a registered owner pays for their own training.  I am okay with that continuing just mandating that if they want to "open carry" or "concealed carry" that they have some training and it be fairly substantial training.  I cannot tell you how many civilian ccw courses and non-ccw courses I have taken that were just plain terrible.  It is such a pick or choose situation and really depends on the instructor.  The NRA has done a terrible job so far in the quality of the instructors that they have endorsed.  Some are good, some even great but a lot are just horrible!  As for paying for the national campaign on tv, etc.  We waste so much money I do not think it would be hard to cut back in some certain area like say "foreign aid" and develop a national program that gets a strong message out there about gun violence.  *This is some thing we really should have been doing for a long time!*


Again it comes down to who sets the classes up?  Is it on the Fed level or State Level?  Im not sure how effective a "gun Violence" campaign would be if we need movie stars to tell us to stop the violence then we are farther gone then I thought


> Having said all of the above as someone who sits in the middle I understand that probably nothing will get done.  The far right wants no interference in firearms laws and pretty much love the status quo and all that entails.


Do you really think things are that bad?  The trends have been falling for decades.  The truly random innocent victim is a rare occurrence. Act right live right and behave and your chances of being a victim are slim


> The far left want to take away all of those bad guns thinking that this will some how stop the violence.  The vast majority of American's will sit in the middle frustrated with both of these pathetic sides.


The vast majority needs to get off their butts and do something then.  


> While the far right puts there head in the sand like and ostrich and says, "nothing to see hear and nothing to do."  While the far left ineffectually basically screams at the top of their heads but gets nothing done as well.  *Bottom line both sides pretty much suck!!!*


  Thats the price you pay when You have a Constitutionally protected right.  All our rights have consequences


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

Yeah, registration...what exactly does that do...?


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> There is a difference between other countries and the US. We have glorified criminal behavior in this country.   We have said it's ok to have 8 kids with 7 different mothers and not be a father to any of them.  We have a society that believes talking to the police is just cause to kill you for snitching.  I've talked to victims that refuse to tell me what happened because they don't watch to snitch.  We have the largest drug markets in the world. That's not a gun problem that's a screwed up mentality and no laws can fix it.  And if banning things worked so well why cam I buy cocaine in every town in this country?


I think it's important to keep the issues separate. Certainly there has been a huge change in society values over the past 60 years but the issue of criminal behaviour needs to be looked at without the emotional things like family breakup etc. That is being used as an excuse for the bad behaviour. It is not the reason. Education is the only way out. That and assisting young people to escape the trap of poverty. You have posted elsewhere that people should just get off their arses, get a job and get on with it. It doesn't work that way for a big percentage. Youth unemployment is a big problem in many countries. You can't get work if the jobs aren't there.

As to the drugs issue. I agree with you. What I can't get over are the so called 'law abiding' citizens who buy the drugs for their recreational use and in the process support the criminal organisations. We have had discussion on MT in the past as to whether drugs should be legalised and I am sure doing that would remove a lot of the criminal behaviour. However the other problems arising from unrestricted drug access might be too high a price to pay. 



ballen0351 said:


> As a police officer I don't find this true.  Most criminals I arrest are not armed at all.  Maybe 1 in 10 and of them armed ones 90% have something other then a gun.  I do find guns on people but it's not very often in comparison to the number of people I come in contact with.


If that is the case it flies in the face of those advocating that more people should be carrying firearms. Interesting.


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

> If that is the case it flies in the face of those advocating that more people should be carrying firearms. Interesting.



More,law abiding people should carry guns...they aren't the ones shooting other people...as to criminals not carrying...they only have to carry when they are working...you know..robbing, raping murdering people.

The reason these problems exist is children raising children on government welfare, generation after generation with the only male role models being criminals who see people who work 40-50 hours a week and go to school to improve their lives  as chumps...

thug life...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think it's important to keep the issues separate. Certainly there has been a huge change in society values over the past 60 years but the issue of criminal behaviour needs to be looked at without the emotional things like family breakup etc. That is being used as an excuse for the bad behaviour.


 I get what your saying but I dont think you can keep the issues  separate.  I think in my opinion trying to treat each and every symptom  is whats failing.  Family break ups, being raised with out a father in the picture, being brought up to think laws dont apply to you, ect do lead to criminal behavior.  Emotional or not it just is.



> Education is the only way out. That and assisting young people to escape the trap of poverty. You have posted elsewhere that people should just get off their arses, get a job and get on with it. It doesn't work that way for a big percentage. Youth unemployment is a big problem in many countries. You can't get work if the jobs aren't there.


Jobs are here.  Every paper in the country has a help wanted section with jobs in them.  This too isn't a single solution. Education is important as you said, so is securing our border to free up jobs for our youth. This also goes back to being raised in a good family.  If your not raised with a strong work ethic your not going to want to work.


> As to the drugs issue. I agree with you. What I can't get over are the so called 'law abiding' citizens who buy the drugs for their recreational use and in the process support the criminal organisations. We have had discussion on MT in the past as to whether drugs should be legalised and I am sure doing that would remove a lot of the criminal behaviour. However the other problems arising from unrestricted drug access might be too high a price to pay.


I agree and it also doesn't stop related crimes like thefts and robberies needed to fund the addiction


> If that is the case it flies in the face of those advocating that more people should be carrying firearms. Interesting.


not at all.  I believe that Ill never need to use my gun off duty in any self defense situation.  The odds say I wont.  However Id much rather carry it every day and never need it then not have it the one time in my life I need it.  Preparation is the key.  Ill probably never need to use my martial arts training outside of work either but I still train just in case.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 23, 2014)

*So ballen0351 we agree that it is a society issue and that education is the key*.  So a national campaign against gun violence and gun education is in order and you agree with this?

We seem to be agreed on mandatory training.  Cool.  I agree it should not be so costly that people cannot afford it but hey people pay anywhere right now from $75 to $200 to get poor training and a ccw.  What we need to do is mandate that the people training them for their ccw do a better job.  If they do not want to take a ccw class then maybe have them take a basic firearm class and hold the instructors of said course to a very high standard.


We do not agree on registration but hey the fact of life is that you have to register a lot of things.  Like cars, etc.  That is never going away whether a Republican is in the White House or a Democrat so it is truthfully not an issue in my opinion but more of just a talking point.  Never going away, ever......  The government wants to know who has the guns and frankly that is it.  If Ronald Reagon was elected today he wouldn't touch the registry issue either. (heck as a moderate Republican he couldn't even be elected today)  This isn't changing no matter what so do not waste my time with it.  Whomever is in power will want to know!  

Agreed that we definitely have a huge mental health issue in this country.  Needs some serious reevaluation on our part on how to get this under control.  I know you deal with this every day and frankly I feel for you.  I have like every one else no idea how to address this.  

Truthfully you and I agree on several points.  Where we probably would have the biggest disagreement is on waiting periods.  Frankly, I see no reason why someone has to have their firearm the day of the purchase.  Why?  To hunt?  I come from a family of sportsmen.  My grandfather was probably one of the best hunters and fishing expert you could find in Michigan.  He never needed to purchase a gun that day and then go hunt that day.  Actually, he as a hunter knew when to purchase at the right time when the price was low and he would wait.  Likewise I have a few iaito and shinken from Japan.  I had to wait to have those and one took over a year and a half.  Did not affect me at all.  So why does someone need to have a firearm the day of?  What reason can you give?  Self defense.  Okay, maybe someone made a threat to them and if it was documented and a retraining order placed then maybe that could be an exception to get it early.  Can you think of any other reasons?  Now most of the places I know seem to be getting away from the waiting periods for handguns and we both know it was really never there for long guns and shot guns.  So the whole waiting periods that we have had in certain places have been pretty much a joke.  Now in my opinion I have no problem with waiting periods and if they were long enough and over all firearms it might, I said it might make a difference.  So for me waiting periods are fine even up to a month or more.  However, we both know people do not have the stomach for this as we are a spur of the moment purchase society.  Lord knows big business in the firearm industry would never stand for waiting periods for rifles and shotguns.  It is just not going to happen!

Now violence statistics have been on the decline both for firearm and non-firearm related offenses.  That is good!  Hopefully the very recent mass murders will not continue on a monthly pace.  How do we stop that?  I think it comes down to education about firearms.  The effects of firearm violence both to the victims and the perpetrator.  Not to mention the effects on the families of the victims, perpetrator, etc.  Education is the key, mental health resources are the key.  That we can seem to agree on and hopefully people on the far left and far right will start to work together to make and effect in these areas.

*
I bet we both could also agree that we wish gun violence in the United States was as low as what they have in Australia*.  Unfortunately it is not and we are a very different country on several levels.  However, hopefully we can make serious progress on declining crime rates and even less mass shootings in the future.  Education is the key.  Mental health resources is the key.  Hopefully, some politicians step up and do the right thing.


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

billc said:


> More,law abiding people should carry guns...they aren't the ones shooting other people...as to criminals not carrying...they only have to carry when they are working...you know..robbing, raping murdering people.
> 
> The reason these problems exist is children raising children on government welfare, generation after generation with the only male role models being criminals who see people who work 40-50 hours a week and go to school to improve their lives  as chumps...
> 
> thug life...


Well perhaps you could catch them when they are working ... you know ... robbing ... raping ... murdering people. 

Now if there is a reason for all the crime and violence as you attribute above, why aren't you demanding action to fix that problem rather than spending all your time promoting extremist right wing propaganda?


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I agree and it also doesn't stop related crimes like thefts and robberies needed to fund the addiction.



Addiction is the very visible tip of the iceberg. It is people with disposable income who are fuelling the drug scene. High profile people who feel they are doing nothing wrong by buying illegal drugs from a criminal. Solicitors, 'respected' businessmen, etc. I am constantly amazed. These people don't commit crime to fund their addiction, they commit the crime in purchasing the drug.



ballen0351 said:


> not at all.  I believe that Ill never need to use my gun off duty in any self defense situation.  The odds say I wont.  However Id much rather carry it every day and never need it then not have it the one time in my life I need it.  Preparation is the key.  Ill probably never need to use my martial arts training outside of work either but I still train just in case.


It is the same here and in all the countries I have visited. I have never felt threatened and I have never felt the need for a weapon. I doubt I will need my martial art skills either, but that is not the reason I train.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *So ballen0351 we agree that it is a society issue and that education is the key*.  So a national campaign against gun violence and gun education is in order and you agree with this?


I wouldnt say I Agree.  I dont have an issue with it but I have less faith then you do it would work.  I do agree on the gun education side not so much violence campaign.  Gun education would prevent accidents.  My kids have been training with and using guns since they were small.  The "wow" factor is gone they dont even look twice at them. If they found one on the street or at a friends Im confident they would know what to do.  I just dont think a stop the violence campaign would work not when you get so much pro-violence for lack of a better word on TV, Music, games, ect.  I wouldnt be against it however ifit where done well


> We seem to be agreed on mandatory training.  Cool.  I agree it should not be so costly that people cannot afford it but hey people pay anywhere right now from $75 to $200 to get poor training and a ccw.  What we need to do is mandate that the people training them for their ccw do a better job.  If they do not want to take a ccw class then maybe have them take a basic firearm class and hold the instructors of said course to a very high standard.


yeah again that would prevent accidents.  It would stop crime in my opinion.  Criminals are not taking classes


> We do not agree on registration but hey the fact of life is that you have to register a lot of things.  Like cars, etc.  That is never going away whether a Republican is in the White House or a Democrat so it is truthfully not an issue in my opinion but more of just a talking point.  Never going away, ever......  The government wants to know who has the guns and frankly that is it.  If Ronald Reagon was elected today he wouldn't touch the registry issue either. (heck as a moderate Republican he couldn't even be elected today)  This isn't changing no matter what so do not waste my time with it.  Whomever is in power will want to know!


Just dont see a point in it.  It wont help lower crime and there is only one reason the Govt wants to know how has what.  Again criminals wont register them so it does nothing to address that aspect of the issue.


> Agreed that we definitely have a huge mental health issue in this country.  Needs some serious reevaluation on our part on how to get this under control.  I know you deal with this every day and frankly I feel for you.  I have like every one else no idea how to address this.


yep thats the tricky one how you balance the liberty of the mentally ill vs the safety of others


> Truthfully you and I agree on several points.  Where we probably would have the biggest disagreement is on waiting periods.  Frankly, I see no reason why someone has to have their firearm the day of the purchase.  Why?


Why not?  I bought it I want it now.  I buy a new TV I dont need to wait, I buy anew car I dont need to wait.  I own guns already if I want to go on a rampage I can without that gun Im waiting on.  So it serves no purpose really in my opinion.


> To hunt?  I come from a family of sportsmen.  My grandfather was probably one of the best hunters and fishing expert you could find in Michigan.  He never needed to purchase a gun that day and then go hunt that day.  Actually, he as a hunter knew when to purchase at the right time when the price was low and he would wait.  Likewise I have a few iaito and shinken from Japan.  I had to wait to have those and one took over a year and a half.  Did not affect me at all.  So why does someone need to have a firearm the day of?  What reason can you give?  Self defense.  Okay, maybe someone made a threat to them and if it was documented and a retraining order placed then maybe that could be an exception to get it early.  Can you think of any other reasons?  Now most of the places I know seem to be getting away from the waiting periods for handguns and we both know it was really never there for long guns and shot guns.  So the whole waiting periods that we have had in certain places have been pretty much a joke.  Now in my opinion I have no problem with waiting periods and if they were long enough and over all firearms it might, I said it might make a difference.  So for me waiting periods are fine even up to a month or more.  However, we both know people do not have the stomach for this as we are a spur of the moment purchase society.  Lord knows big business in the firearm industry would never stand for waiting periods for rifles and shotguns.  It is just not going to happen!


Again I cant think of any crime a waiting period would prevent. 


> Now violence statistics have been on the decline both for firearm and non-firearm related offenses.  That is good!  Hopefully the very recent mass murders will not continue on a monthly pace.  How do we stop that?  I think it comes down to education about firearms.  The effects of firearm violence both to the victims and the perpetrator.  Not to mention the effects on the families of the victims, perpetrator, etc.  Education is the key, mental health resources are the key.  That we can seem to agree on and hopefully people on the far left and far right will start to work together to make and effect in these areas.


Mass killings are not really on a rise they are holding steady for the most part small swings up and down but no real huge upswing 
*



			I bet we both could also agree that we wish gun violence in the United States was as low as what they have in Australia
		
Click to expand...

*


> .  Unfortunately it is not and we are a very different country on several levels.  However, hopefully we can make serious progress on declining crime rates and even less mass shootings in the future.  Education is the key.  Mental health resources is the key.  Hopefully, some politicians step up and do the right thing.


I honesty dont believe our violence rate is that high.  Stay away from a few major cities were are at or lower then most of the world.  There has not been a gun related homicide in the town I live in over 20 years.  The last homicide at allwas in 1998 and a wife poisioned her husband and they were not even from here they were at a hotel.  So Im not really troubled by the crime rate in the US


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Addiction is the very visible tip of the iceberg. It is people with disposable income who are fuelling the drug scene. High profile people who feel they are doing nothing wrong by buying illegal drugs from a criminal. Solicitors, 'respected' businessmen, etc. I am constantly amazed. These people don't commit crime to fund their addiction, they commit the crime in purchasing the drug.


Thats the point.  Making it legal wouldnt stop the addicts that are stealing, robbing, and killing people to fund the habit.  


> It is the same here and in all the countries I have visited. I have never felt threatened and I have never felt the need for a weapon. I doubt I will need my martial art skills either, but that is not the reason I train.



BUT that is the reason alot of people do train.  Also the reason alot of people want to carry a gun.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> promoting extremist right wing propaganda?



WHat part of allow people to bear arms to defend themselves and their family right wing propaganda?


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats the point.  Making it legal wouldnt stop the addicts that are stealing, robbing, and killing people to fund the habit.
> 
> BUT that is the reason alot of people do train.  Also the reason alot of people want to carry a gun.


First part ... so true, and it would compound the already obvious mental health issues.

Reason for training? Mmm! I doubt whether any of my guys train for that reason. The only one who joined so he could 'beat up on his neighbour' changed his tune after the first lesson. He is the only one I have come across in decades with that attitude. The rest just love the physical and mental aspect of the training. The RBSD aspect of it is a bonus. As to carrying a gun ... it's not an issue here.


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> WHat part of allow people to bear arms to defend themselves and their family right wing propaganda?


Nothing. That's not what I said.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Reason for training? Mmm! I doubt whether any of my guys train for that reason. The only one who joined so he could 'beat up on his neighbour' changed his tune after the first lesson. He is the only one I have come across in decades with that attitude. The rest just love the physical and mental aspect of the training. The RBSD aspect of it is a bonus. As to carrying a gun ... it's not an issue here.


LOL so nobody comes looking for martial arts for self defense?  come on man get serious


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Nothing. That's not what I said.



Thats all I see him promote.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> First part ... so true, and it would compound the already obvious mental health issues.
> 
> Reason for training? Mmm! I doubt whether any of my guys train for that reason. The only one who joined so he could 'beat up on his neighbour' changed his tune after the first lesson. He is the only one I have come across in decades with that attitude. The rest just love the physical and mental aspect of the training. The RBSD aspect of it is a bonus. As to carrying a gun ... it's not an issue here.



The reason I train is so I won't have to fight. If I train to the point where Im the toughest person around nobody will bother me and so I won't have to beat anybody up. And that's where the concept of an armed society being a polite society comes into play. That's why the cowboy six shooter was called the Peacemaker, because that's what it did. When good citizens have got guns nobody will cause any trouble so there you have it.


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats all I see him promote.


Then you have extremely blinkered views. I would have thought you might have remembered his posts on climate change for a start. Then there are the disparaging remarks about a certain past President and his family, not to mention the attacks on those pesky socialist countries in Europe, or Obama-care, then the abuse of position by Democrat politicians ... and that's just off the top of my head.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> Then you have extremely blinkered views. I would have thought you might have remembered his posts on climate change for a start. Then there are the disparaging remarks about a certain past President and his family, not to mention the attacks on those pesky socialist countries in Europe, or Obama-care, then the abuse of position by Democrat politicians ... and that's just off the top of my head.


Whats any of that have to do with gun laws crime and violence since thats the topic at hand?


----------



## K-man (Jul 23, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> The reason I train is so I won't have to fight. If I train to the point where Im the toughest person around nobody will bother me and so I won't have to beat anybody up. And that's where the concept of an armed society being a polite society comes into play. That's why the cowboy six shooter was called the Peacemaker, because that's what it did. When good citizens have got guns nobody will cause any trouble so there you have it.


False hope. Sorry to burst the balloon but you will never be the biggest toughest dude around. There will always be someone bigger and tougher than you, especially as you get older. Just for the record, I have never felt the need to beat anyone up. 

And if you look at the violence of the Wild West, 'Peacemaker' is a most inappropriate description.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 23, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> The reason I train is so I won't have to fight. If I train to the point where Im the toughest person around nobody will bother me and so I won't have to beat anybody up. And that's where the concept of an armed society being a polite society comes into play. That's why the cowboy six shooter was called the Peacemaker, because that's what it did. When good citizens have got guns nobody will cause any trouble so there you have it.



This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen you post.

1 - You'll never be the toughest person around.
2 - Even if you're tough, the people around you won't know it.
2.5 - If you walk around with a sign telling people that you're tough, someone will want to test it. See #1...
3 - "An armed society is a polite society" is a quote from a Science FICTION novel. You do know the difference between fiction and reality, right?
4 - The Peacemaker was named that because some guy in the advertising department thought the name would boost sales.
5 - Good citizens being armed will never, under any circumstance a sane and rational mind will consider possible, stop other people from causing trouble.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 23, 2014)

Its a confident person who doesn't get messed with. Knowing you can take care of yourself makes you confident so people wont bother you, you don't have to show anybody you're tough you just have to know you can take care of yourself and you will be confident. You just don't get it. Dirty Dog I am sick of your insults and in case you haven't noticed its against forum rules.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Dirty Dog I am sick of your insults and in case you haven't noticed its against forum rules.



Perhaps you should both ignore each other?  Can you put a mod on ignore?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Perhaps you should both ignore each other?  Can you put a mod on ignore?



Now that you mention it, I should find out how to do that.

Sometimes when you try to be nice, or when you at least don't mean any harm, people get hostile for no reason. Easy to do when you're hiding behind a computer screen.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Now that you mention it, I should find out how to do that.


open their profile and under their name is an add to ignore button


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2014)

> Now that you mention it, I should find out how to do that.





> Sometimes when you try to be nice, or when you at least don't mean any harm, people get hostile for no reason.



I have a list of names you might want to look at...


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 24, 2014)

billc said:


> I have a list of names you might want to look at...



I have my own list. Ironically, this is supposed to be a friendly martial arts chat board and the martial arts itself is supposed to promote respect for yourself and others but on this board, as on most boards, it has its share of cowardly bullies that hide behind computer screens.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> I have my own list. Ironically, this is supposed to be a friendly martial arts chat board and the martial arts itself is supposed to promote respect for yourself and others but on this board, as on most boards, it has its share of cowardly bullies that hide behind computer screens.



You do realise everybody is hiding behind a computer screen don't you?

You are not the exception.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats the point.  Making it legal wouldnt stop the addicts that are stealing, robbing, and killing people to fund the habit.
> 
> 
> BUT that is the reason alot of people do train.  Also the reason alot of people want to carry a gun.




Yeah but for all the good reasons to carry there are also bad reasons. And in a society without gun control they are just as valid. 

Everybody makes this statement that they are only carrying for the best of reasons. But at the same time are supporting those who don't.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 24, 2014)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

This thread is in The Firing Range, not a Hosted Forum.  ALL of the regular site rules apply.  If you feel ANY poster, including Staff, has violated them, use the RTM button.  Staff members are held to the same rules as anyone else, and have been punished in the past.  With that said, let's get back to the original topic.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but for all the good reasons to carry there are also bad reasons. And in a society without gun control they are just as valid.
> 
> Everybody makes this statement that they are only carrying for the best of reasons. But at the same time are supporting those who don't.



Who am I supporting that has bad reasons?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You do realise everybody is hiding behind a computer screen don't you?
> 
> You are not the exception.



Obvously. But to insult somebody and act hostile towards them when you're behind a computer screen is just downright cowardly. If you've got such stuff to say, say it to their face.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 24, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> This thread is in The Firing Range, not a Hosted Forum.  ALL of the regular site rules apply.  If you feel ANY poster, including Staff, has violated them, use the RTM button.  Staff members are held to the same rules as anyone else, and have been punished in the past.  With that said, let's get back to the original topic.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the pointer but it is really too bad that you should have to punish anybody here. People should follow the rules so that you don't have to punish them. The martial arts is about respect and about being courteous and not insulting and hostile towards others. That's how people should act on these boards in the first place.


----------



## vincymull (Jul 31, 2014)

The aussies are nothing more than tax slaves.  Surprized their masters  still let them vote between their masters hand picked candidates.   Pathetic.


----------



## jezr74 (Jul 31, 2014)

vincymull said:


> The aussies are nothing more than tax slaves.  Surprized their masters  still let them vote between their masters hand picked candidates.   Pathetic.



Compelling argument.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 1, 2014)

vincymull said:


> The aussies are nothing more than tax slaves.


 
Hmm&#8230; the definition of a "tax slave" is someone who isn't paid the full worth that they work for, due to some of the wages being taken by an external entity (such as the government) in taxation&#8230; isn't that pretty much most of all societies and cultures, especially those represented on this forum?

For the record, of course, the idea of "tax slaves" is a desperate fallacy born of ignorant rhetoric and deep lacks in understandings of reality, and the structure of governmental societies&#8230; so&#8230; no.



vincymull said:


> Surprized their masters  still let them vote between their masters hand picked candidates.


 
You really don't know how things work here, do you? 



vincymull said:


> Pathetic.



Right back at ya, kid.

Tell me something, what exactly is "karate lvelv 2"? Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind either backing up anything you're saying here with actual evidence, rather than inflammatory, ignorant tripe? Or, you know, apologise. That'd be good too.

EDIT: Letting us know where you're posting from (country, at least) would be good too&#8230;


----------



## PhotonGuy (Nov 19, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Guess what champ?
> 
> Where do you think the English used to send the convicts before they started sending them to Australia?
> One guess buddy.......... that's right America.
> ...


I know this thread hasn't seen any action for awhile but I thought I might revive it. As for saying in Australia that you got all the good looking people, would you say that Kristen Stewart is good looking? Although she is not from Australia, she is from CA, she is nevertheless half Australian.


----------



## jezr74 (Nov 19, 2014)

Sure, half of her is good looking.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 20, 2014)

Okay, this will be blunt.



PhotonGuy said:


> I know this thread hasn't seen any action for awhile but I thought I might revive it.



Why? I'm very serious with that, why are you reviving it? It's frankly a ludicrous thread from the outset, with a heavily ignorant, inflammatory, and largely baseless OP (from you), with the bulk of the thread being about "Guns are good, we're American!", "Gun control is good, we're Australian!" "You don't know what you're talking about!", "You don't know what you're talking about!", and so on it's a done thread, with nothing to offer other than the same self-serving and blinkered rhetoric that's been posted over and over again. Do you have anything that you feel is pertinent that you need to add to the conversation? 

What is your reason for thinking this needs to be revived? And for then doing it?



PhotonGuy said:


> As for saying in Australia that you got all the good looking people, would you say that Kristen Stewart is good looking? Although she is not from Australia, she is from CA, she is nevertheless half Australian.



Good god, can you not pick up on a tongue-in-cheek comment, even from 5 months ago (when you started this bizarre "conversation")? And what the hell does Kristen Stewart have to do with anything here? A person with an Australian mother, who has never lived here, was born in the US, is about as American as any other there, has exactly what to do with anything?!?

Dude get a grip. If you're going to make a comment on the attractiveness of Australian people (I really can't tell if you think you're continuing MJM's light-hearted comment, or if you're taking it as a serious comment I fear the latter), then how about you actually pick Australian people, yeah? Miranda Kerr, Elle MacPherson, Samantha Jade, Gabriella Cilme, Margot Robbie, Emily Browning, Gemma Ward, Phoebe Tonkin (she was actually born here, for the record), Indiana Evans, Isabel Lucas, Jennifer Hawkins or just have a look through here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/photos-that-prove-australian-women-are-insanely-gorgeous

But a little more seriously, claims such as "we have the most beautiful people" can be made the world over surely you didn't think that MJM was completely serious in his comment, yeah?


----------



## Dylan9d (Nov 20, 2014)

I don't want to read through the whole topic but just a question. Im from the Netherlands and i wonder if Australia's law are the same as ours, here in the Netherlands it basically comes down to this:

People that can carry a firearm are:

- Policeofficers
- people that have a sportspermit (these people can only use it at the firing range)

For everyone else it's forbidden. If anyone with sportspermit shoots someone else in their home they will go to jail!!!


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 20, 2014)

Hi Dylan,

There are differences (as you'd expect), and it changes from state to state, but broadly, it's not too dissimilar to that.


----------



## Dylan9d (Nov 20, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Dylan,
> 
> There are differences (as you'd expect), and it changes from state to state, but broadly, it's not too dissimilar to that.



Well at least your government has some common sense, something we can't say about the US government.

All those people that say: "i need a gun to protect my home" are crazy as hell, the chances of a child getting his or her hands on that firearm in the house is more likely than beeing robbed in your house.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Well at least your government has some common sense, something we can't say about the US government.
> 
> All those people that say: "i need a gun to protect my home" are crazy as hell, the chances of a child getting his or her hands on that firearm in the house is more likely than beeing robbed in your house.


Oh boy.................we should just stick to discussing Hot Australian woman


----------



## seasoned (Nov 20, 2014)

We are starting down a road again we don't want to take, where this thread is concerned, unofficial (advice).


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Well we do lack common sense and are crazy as hell so you can't really blame us


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Oh boy.................we should just stick to discussing Hot Australian woman



I demand equality here! Hot Australian men....Qantas Wallabies Player Profiles

and they are playing here on Saturday!


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I demand equality here! Hot Australian men....Qantas Wallabies Player Profiles
> 
> and they are playing here on Saturday!



I'm all for fairness


----------



## Dylan9d (Nov 20, 2014)

It is noticeable when you criticize the weapon crazed American that you receive a new reputation here as "disrespectful".

Only confirms my previous post &#55357;&#56832;


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> It is noticeable when you criticize the weapon crazed American that you receive a new reputation here as "disrespectful".
> 
> Only confirms my previous post &#55357;&#56832;




To be fair though, calling people as crazy as hell is maybe not the way forward. You could say you disagreed, you thought they were wrong or mistaken rather than crazy. Crazy people do not like to be called crazy.....( joke, people before you have a go)


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

To be fair I think not having guns in crazy and giving up your right to protect yourself and your family is lacking common sense........... But we're not allowed to discuss topics like that here anymore


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Now back to hot woman or for Tez men too


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> To be fair I think not having guns in crazy and giving up your right to protect yourself and your family is lacking common sense........... But we're not allowed to discuss topics like that here anymore



Yep the arguments used to get very personal which is a shame really as it would make an interesting debate if  conducted in a dispassionate way but I think for many they have more invested in the gun argument than the rest of us. I think too in the US owning a gun is a symbolic act as much as a practical one so the arguments we have pro and against guns outside the US tend to be more about the actual gun ownership than about what it represents. I've never expressed a view on US gun control other to tell people not to bring other countries into the argument, it doesn't concern us and really you wouldn't be thankful if we poked our noses into your business so vice versa applies too.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I demand equality here! Hot Australian men....Qantas Wallabies Player Profiles
> 
> and they are playing here on Saturday!



So.. given up on Norwegian quality and settling for Australian quantity?  *runs away*


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Yep the arguments used to get very personal which is a shame really as it would make an interesting debate if  conducted in a dispassionate way but I think for many they have more invested in the gun argument than the rest of us. I think too in the US owning a gun is a symbolic act as much as a practical one so the arguments we have pro and against guns outside the US tend to be more about the actual gun ownership than about what it represents. I've never expressed a view on US gun control other to tell people not to bring other countries into the argument, it doesn't concern us and really you wouldn't be thankful if we poked our noses into your business so vice versa applies too.


I think you need look no farther then the riots in Furguson Missouri  that are about to start in the next few days.   The local police have basically said we won't be able to help most of you so your on your own.  So your left with 2 choices leave and hope your home is still standing when you get home.  Or stay and defend what you have worked your whole life for.  Me I'd send my wife and kids away and I'd stay to protect what's mine.  That's one of many reasons.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> So.. given up on Norwegian quality and settling for Australian quantity?  *runs away*



Hmmmmm Norwegian woman now we're talking


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I think you need look no farther then the riots in Furguson Missouri  that are about to start in the next few days.   The local police have basically said we won't be able to help most of you so your on your own.  So your left with 2 choices leave and hope your home is still standing when you get home.  Or stay and defend what you have worked your whole life for.  Me I'd send my wife and kids away and I'd stay to protect what's mine.  That's one of many reasons.



Are these annual riots? that's not facetious, we have annual riots in Northern Ireland in what's called the Marching Season. That's when the Orange Lodges (the Protestants) march with bands through the Catholic areas. It's provocation and causes no end of damage as well sometimes as loss of life. No, the Northern Ireland situation hasn't been resolved, it's better but no peace yet.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Are these annual riots? that's not facetious, we have annual riots in Northern Ireland in what's called the Marching Season. That's when the Orange Lodges (the Protestants) march with bands through the Catholic areas. It's provocation and causes no end of damage as well sometimes as loss of life. No, the Northern Ireland situation hasn't been resolved, it's better but no peace yet.


No they are in response to a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed black male. There is some dispute to what actually happened.  But we have a grand jury system here where the evidence is given to the jury to decide if they should or should not criminally charge the officer with shooting the guy.  Well that went from peaceful protests to now looting burning stealing and destroying the community.  Well the Grand Jury decision about charges is expected this week.  The "protesters" I call then criminals but either way they have said if the officer isn't charged the city will burn.  National guard is already called in for standby.  Police departments all over the country have been told to prepare for civil unrest


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2014)

*Thread Locked.*

Please take Political Debates to US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The hot women/men discussion's better suited elsewhere on here...I'd suggest MT, After Dark


----------

