The C word has now been said

Saying
has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor and armed citizens... It's totally out in left field.

For those who think the British gun laws are working......

.

For those that think Australian Gun Laws are working


.

That video is ridiculous. It is talking about the gun buy-back as if it were yesterday - it was nearly 17 years ago. Our gun laws were changed to the restrictive ones we have now in 1996. The video itself, with all it's "warning to US citizens" bit, is about the same age - check out the computers in the background, they look consistent with late 90s as opposed to 2012.

It also talks about "home invasions" and "armed robbery". I would like to point out, under Australian law, both of these terms do NOT in ANY WAY mean a gun is involved. In fact, most hold-ups are with tools such as hammers. In fact, we had an armed robbery in Perth today, at a gas station. It doesn't happen that often - it makes the news every time it does. We are a relatively small city, about 2 million residents, but still big enough. Also, the old couple that suffered a home invasion, notice they never said the invaders were carrying guns...

The statistics posted along with it are also misleading. Yes, there has been a rise in armed robberies. But they don't want to tell you the other facts with that - there has been a proportional DECREASE in armed robberies using a fire-arm - meaning that the overall percentage of armed robbers that use a gun is dropping. They are turning to "other" weapons, that are less lethal. They also neglect to mention that it is exceedingly rare for any death to occur in the course of such a robbery - 90% of Australians prefer not to risk their lives for material goods. I am one of them - if you stuck a knife in my face and asked me for my car keys, I would hand them to you, no hesitation. Does that make me a victim according to the US citizens on here?

The claim that gun deaths have gone up since the buy-back and bans are just plain false. Completely trash, worth less than the manure out in the pastures today. In 1996 (the year of the buy-back) there were 516 gun related deaths. In 2010, there were 231. That is total, not per 100 000 population or anything else. Total.

So, before you decide that a buy-back wouldn't work, maybe research the statistics you are presented with, and really understand the situation.

I think I would rather be shot than clubbed to death with a hammer.

The real issue to me is not whether these crimes are committed using a gun or a hammer, but rather why they are happening at all. I don't know about Australia, because I haven't lived there, but in the US the mass killing crimes are committed by mental wackos, and the vast majority of burglaries and home invasions are committed by druggies. Again, I don't know about Australia, but over here we need to be asking ourselves why there are so many more wackos and druggies (and wacko druggies) than there used to be...we need to be evaluating and researching just what has caused the increase and trying to address the actual problem. Take the gun out of the hands of a wacko or druggie, and they are still a wacko and druggie and will find some other means to commit their crimes.

The reason for the increase in druggies is rather obvious to anyone with an open mind - a society that almost glorifies drug usage in movies and by entertainers, too lenient prison sentences and liberal judges, and acceptance of drug use by society, as evidenced by the recent legalization of pot in a couple of states, and even the posts on here we have seen that advocate the legalization of pot.

As to the mental wackos, who knows? There needs to be some sort of research done to try and determine what is going on. Are these people simply products of a wacko society, or are there other factors - anything from polluted air or water, or food additives, or an over medicated society, or who knows what that could be causing chemical imbalances. But before the right kind of research will be done, we first have to admit that we have a problem, and we have to have enough snap to realize the problem goes much deeper than guns...I doubt more than 1% of the 280 millions guns in the US are used in any form of crime. While it is true that ANY gun related death is a tragedy, the guns tghemselves are obviously not the issue...

In 2004, only 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. I can't find specific numbers for the past couple years, but what I did find indicated that alcohol was much more tightly linked with that sort of crime than illegal drugs.

I would agree that crime is associated with drug use, but drugs usually don't cause the crime. According to what I could find, only a small percentage of burglaries and robberies are drug related. Second, studies of repeat offenders show that many of them began their criminal careers before using drugs. The majority of experts agree that even if we could succeed in eliminating drug abuse, there would be only a small reduction in robberies, burglaries, and similar crimes.

This is not a realistic example of UK gun laws as this incident happened in 1999 - 13 years ago - only 3 years after the Dunblane school shooting that was one of the major instigations in removing guns from the hands of people who should never have had them in the first place - in fact this was a perfect example of how guns were getting into the wrong hands
Since then gun crime has dropped making the UK one of the countries with the lowest gun related deaths.
Instead of constantly looking for reasons not to have better gun control laws wouldnt it make more sense to be looking for ways to reduce the number of guns that get into wrong hands because the situation in the US isnt really improving.
Yes people will always find other ways to kill or injure other people but its a lot easier to do it with a gun and given the right gun you can kill a lot of people in a very short space of time without even getting close to them
I totally understand why people in certain circumstances need a gun - landowners, sportpeople, protection in certain areas but really does this mean every idiot who can pull a trigger should have the right to own one?
Amendment | Define Amendment at Dictionary.com
Why not a modern day amendment to something passed in the 1700's in a totally different world to the one we're living in now?

Crimes with guns may have dropped a bit, but violent crime has escalated. The criminals with guns have free rein, now. People have fewer ways to protect themselves and, when they do, are subject to harsher punishments than the offenders.

Totally agree. There need to be stricter controls to keep them out of the wrong hands, but not out of the right hands, IMO.

Every idiot can't get the guns, legally. Yes, we need to tighten the control on gun sales, especially "private" sales that go under the carpet. AND, we need to have stricter enforcement of the laws already in place, with far harsher punishments for any crime committed while using a gun.

How about better enforcement of laws already in place, stricter punishments and BETTER TREATMENT for the mentally ill....you know, the people committing these mass killings?

How about "amending" the written bible (or Torah or Koran) to get rid of pesky things getting in the way of our lives?

I think most people have already removed most of the religious laws based around the 10 Commandments from their lives so how would amending them make a difference? Even the New Testament actually amends many Old Testament commandments
People who believe in the Koran or the Torah tend to be more inclined to obey than your basic protestant.

Those statistics don't really mean much of anything in the context of my post which you quoted. As to the state percentage, that is the number of prisoners - not the number of crimes - nor is the percentage related to burglaries. Such criminals commit many such crimes - rarely just one. 10,000 burglaries are certainly not committed by 10,000 different people. Then there are those that are simply put on probation and/or may serve nominal time or just the time until their trials. And then, many many of these people don't get caught. And lastly, although statistics show 16% of state inmates committed their crimes to get money for drugs, those statistics also show that 33% of state inmates were under the influence of drugs when they committed the crime for which they are incarcerated. Other studies show percentages as high as 41% for state inmates that were under the influence when committing their crime. The number of federal crimes in the "druggie" portion of my post is not relevant, as burglary does not generally fall under federal jurisdiction to begin with...