motor

Mattk · 02-07-2006, 06:47 AM

OK. But don't they sell the AR-15, which is essentially the M16?

If you restricted the purchase of guns, it would be quite obvious that there would be less guns around to steal, and hence use. If nobody bought guns just for the sake of ownership, then many problems could possibly be solved. Yes, most of the guns in Australia that are used in crime, are smuggled in, but the Customs people generally handle that.

Also, I am not aware of any report or set of statistics claiming that violent crime in Australia is higher than in the US. In fact, violent crime is dropping in Australia, particularly firearms-related crime/deaths, and was pretty low anyway.

Furthermore, as I have said before, Australia does not have a complete gun ban. Military hardware and large handguns are disallowed, but hunting/sport shooting weapons, like rifles and shotguns are generally allowed. Recreational gun usage is harmless and it sounds like fun. However, buying guns for the sake of ownership is just a recipe for disaster. Protection? From what? If a robber breaks into your house with a gun, are you sure you'll be able to fight him off with your military-style hardware, or just needlessly create a bloodbath? Self-sufficiency? Are you more productive when you have a gun tucked into your belt? If a Hitler-type comes along, what are you going to do? Revolt with your military-style hardware and create a state of anarchy? The usefulness of guns is quite limited. Some are designed for sport/hunting, and are used as such (except in some outlying cases). Others are designed for the purpose of killing other people, and hence should be restricted to use by police officers and military personnel, and only under extreme duress.

graywolf624 · 02-07-2006, 07:23 PM

If you restricted the purchase of guns, it would be quite obvious that there would be less guns around to steal, and hence use. If nobody bought guns just for the sake of ownership, then many problems could possibly be solved. Yes, most of the guns in Australia that are used in crime, are smuggled in, but the Customs people generally handle that.

Think about it.. If its only the guns smuggled in with no legal ownership what is the only group with guns? Criminals, the same group that uses them.
Its been proven both from studies of criminals and actual instances in ga where gun ownership is required that criminals are pussys... they target people who are unarmed. If everyone is unarmed then... put two and two together and you get what you have in australia and the UK.

Also, I am not aware of any report or set of statistics claiming that violent crime in Australia is higher than in the US. In fact, violent crime is dropping in Australia, particularly firearms-related crime/deaths, and was pretty low anyway.

firearms related decreased in Australia, violent crime has increased.

Here is the comparison in violent crime trends between Australia and the United States for the period of 1995 to 2001, calculating rates by dividing the number of crimes reported (7) by the population figures. (8,9). (Negative trends are in parentheses.)

Homicide: AUS – (11%) US – (32%)
Assault: AUS – 39% US – (24%)
Rape: AUS – 19% US – (14%)
Robbery: AUS – 70% US – (33%) (10)

It is interesting to note that violent crime rates are higher in Australia. Following are selected comparisons for violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2001. While homicide is lower and robbery is similar, assault and rape occur more than twice as often in Australia

Hell it even holds for America. We have a trending upward of gun ownership, but guess what.. We have the lowest violent crime and murder rate we've had in 25 years.

Famous economist Levitt also struck down the idea of gun control affecting the crime rate in the way you assume http://dss.ucsd.edu/~sscroggi/Econ1/...EP163_2004.pdf.

Others are designed for the purpose of killing other people, and hence should be restricted to use by police officers and military personnel, and only under extreme duress.

So tell me.. whats the use of a sports car that will go 200 mph.. It can only be used on a race track legally.. like certain guns can only be used on a shooting range... and it also has a certain attraction like the car.. Are there any practical uses? The number of people dieing from cars is 10x higher then guns.. So lets ban it.. Hopefully this shows you how ludicrous your logic is. At worst theres no correlation between crime and guns... At best theres a negative correlation where the less guns the more violent crime.

OK. But don't they sell the AR-15, which is essentially the M16?

Automatic weapons are illegal to be sold in the US for the average US citizen. An automatic can only be legally owned if manufactured before 1986, registered before 1986, have written permission from a sherrif, be finger printed, pay 200 dollar transfer fee, photograph submited to Atf, 6 month waiting period.... And because only those in existance pre 1986 are legal there are so few they start at 8600 dollars. I've seen 3 non military automatics in my life. All 3 were in private collections and were most likely never fired. Only semi automatic and below are legal to the average citizen. There are examples of guns that were semi-automatic that could be converted to automatic with a little work, however youd be breaking the law to do so. Why is this important? Think about it.. You ban a type of gun, to get ahold of one is a crime.. You build one its a crime.. To use it illegally is a crime. Now who is going to obey the gun ban, the person out to create the crime, or someone who will never does anything illegal.

Furthermore as I said there has not been a automatic weapon used in a crime in the US in more then a decade, making your arguement kinda useless.

If a Hitler-type comes along, what are you going to do? Revolt with your military-style hardware and create a state of anarchy?

Maybe you should ask your ancestors about wwII.. The American public donated millions of guns to the allies to aide the war effort.. No that isnt the manufacturer.. Thats the gun owners themselves.

e46drew · 02-07-2006, 09:13 PM

the one that happened in michigan, my frends dad got shot

, in the head no less. :shock:
fotunetly, he lived

, however the bullet went into his temple and out his eye

. now he has a glass eye :robot: , but no brain dammage and only slight scaring

.

:2gunfire:

nfire:

Mattk · 02-07-2006, 09:24 PM

The difference between guns and cars, Gray, is that cars can generally be used for practical purposes. Guns are relatively limited in usefulness.

graywolf624 · 02-07-2006, 10:00 PM

Gray, is that cars can generally be used for practical purposes. Guns are relatively limited in usefulness.

Hunting for food isn't practical? Technically you can use a machine gun for hunting in the same way technically you can use a ferrari for a daily commute. Neither is a great idea bringing you back around to the same arguement, the only difference being you don't hunt, like to collect rare guns, olympic shoot, enjoy shooting, ect so you don't think its useful. The anti car guys like Nadar use the same arguement your making about guns. If something being practical was a requirement there would be alot of things we could get rid of.... The burden of proof to rob millions of there right to protect themselves, collect something they enjoy, target shoot, and in extreme cases hunt lies with proving gun ownership has anything to do with crime. Even ignoring the fact that violent crime has never decreased due to gun control laws being enacted, at the end of the day owning a gun and the gun itself have nothing to do with the crime. The crime isnt purpetrated by the gun and owning the gun doesnt mean youll cause crime. Given the two it should be legal. Making something illegal to stop it from being used for a purpose that is already illegal in the first place is kinda stupid. A criminal isnt going to think twice about owning an illegal gun if they dont think twice about killing someone. Perhaps you should punish the criminals worse rather then law abiding citizens?

Now I think we should go back on topic.

Mattk · 02-07-2006, 10:04 PM

OK, sport/recreational weapons are fine. They are useful, to an extent. But you can still buy military-issue handguns and they're not useful for much more than killing people.

graywolf624 · 02-07-2006, 10:10 PM

OK, sport/recreational weapons are fine. They are useful, to an extent. But you can still buy military-issue handguns and they're not useful for much more than killing people.

Yet again, what is the use of a car that has difficulty cruising at 60 mph and goes to 200 mph.

You can drive it on a private track(you can shoot those handguns on a private course), and you can collect them as something special(also done with the guns you mentioned). Other then that they have no practical purpose.. You sure as hell dont commute in an f40...Also as I said more people die from cars then guns. I'm not making this arguement up either, ralph nadar has used it numerous times. Id argue rather successfully that a ferrari is as useful in a morning commute as a m16 is to hunt deer.
It comes back to the point, why should I be deprived of something that makes me happy and doesnt harm anyone. If its used illegally punnish the people who do the illegal things worse.. Dont punish me. Especially if its proven that my ownership doesnt increase the likelyhood of an illegal event nor is it a precursor to a illegal event.

As I edited:
Perhaps you should punish the criminals worse rather then law abiding citizens?

It sure sounds like your arguement, even though not proven by statistics, is that criminals can steal more guns if more people own them. Wouldnt that be an arguement for harsher longer prison terms for theives and murders? If they are in jail or know theyll get thrown in jail with the key thrown away if they use a gun, wouldnt that make them more likely not to commit the crime. I mean, even the most rabid anti gun nut should realize the crime is going to take place with or without the gun.. The gun doesnt make the murderer/rapist/ theif, its just one of their tools.

Back on topic?

Mattk · 02-08-2006, 02:24 AM

Uh...fair enough. I was probably playing devil's advocate a bit towards the end.

Postal killings. Why post offices specifically? Sure, they're high stress places, but the stock exchange is a hard place to work as well. Don't see mad stock brokers packing some guns to work and murdering other stock brokers on the NYSE trading floor. Hell, driving can be quite stressful, but people don't start grabbing guns and letting fly whenever someone annoys them (unless you're the US soldiers who mistakenly shot a Canadian diplomatic car in Iraq, after the Canadians tried to pass them).

RC45 · 02-08-2006, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mattk

Uh...fair enough. I was probably playing devil's advocate a bit towards the end.

Postal killings. Why post offices specifically? Sure, they're high stress places, but the stock exchange is a hard place to work as well. Don't see mad stock brokers packing some guns to work and murdering other stock brokers on the NYSE trading floor. Hell, driving can be quite stressful, but people don't start grabbing guns and letting fly whenever someone annoys them (unless you're the US soldiers who mistakenly shot a Canadian diplomatic car in Iraq, after the Canadians tried to pass them).

The stress of a millionaire stock broker is a lot more comfortable than the stress of a $40,000 a year line worker.

nthfinity · 02-08-2006, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by Mattk

Uh...fair enough. I was probably playing devil's advocate a bit towards the end.

Postal killings. Why post offices specifically? Sure, they're high stress places, but the stock exchange is a hard place to work as well. Don't see mad stock brokers packing some guns to work and murdering other stock brokers on the NYSE trading floor. Hell, driving can be quite stressful, but people don't start grabbing guns and letting fly whenever someone annoys them (unless you're the US soldiers who mistakenly shot a Canadian diplomatic car in Iraq, after the Canadians tried to pass them).

The stress of a millionaire stock broker is a lot more comfortable than the stress of a $40,000 a year line worker.

there were a number of stock broker suicides a few decades back... (of course, they lost lots of money... prolly broke the law... lost thier family type thing )

Mattk · 02-08-2006, 09:45 PM

But they kill only themselves! Not others! They don't storm into the companies whose share prices have fallen and shoot up some employees.