More than 30,000 Americans die from gun violence every year...

[bozodos]

@Fadi; yes it all seems to be completely stable etc, as I'm sure that many in Weimar Germany could never have forseen Hitler's rise, or those in the former USSR with the Bolsheviks, Cambodians etc etc. I don't think its for us Australians to tell the Americans that their constitution is no longer valid because "it's _____ year".

In the Australian context - I've got no problem with licence holders being allowed to conceal carry if they wish - I'd carry a G17 personally. Given our licensing and storage requirements, I couldn't see much happening apart from some crooks meeting a premature demise or reconsidering 'soft targets'. Great thing about guns is that they are a true force equalizer as well.

One of the good things about living in a rural areas is that many of those who don't like guns or shooting can at least accept those who do. I can count 10 or so shooting clubs locally, and 5 ranges. Great community, very family orientated, starting to see a lot of women entering the shooting sports as well. Much less drama queens and fragile egos than in powerlifting, that's for sure!

Lots of interest in hunting as well, though it's not as easy as in years gone by.

I can kind of understand the hoplophobia of many Aussies, especially after 20 years of non stop media conditioning, but it's still disappointing nonetheless.

 

[Fadi]

@Fadi; yes it all seems to be completely stable etc, as I'm sure that many in Weimar Germany could never have forseen Hitler's rise, or those in the former USSR with the Bolsheviks, Cambodians etc etc. I don't think its for us Australians to tell the Americans that their constitution is no longer valid because "it's _____ year".

In the Australian context - I've got no problem with licence holders being allowed to conceal carry if they wish - I'd carry a G17 personally. Given our licensing and storage requirements, I couldn't see much happening apart from some crooks meeting a premature demise or reconsidering 'soft targets'. Great thing about guns is that they are a true force equalizer as well.

One of the good things about living in a rural areas is that many of those who don't like guns or shooting can at least accept those who do. I can count 10 or so shooting clubs locally, and 5 ranges. Great community, very family orientated, starting to see a lot of women entering the shooting sports as well. Much less drama queens and fragile egos than in powerlifting, that's for sure!

Lots of interest in hunting as well, though it's not as easy as in years gone by.

I can kind of understand the hoplophobia of many Aussies, especially after 20 years of non stop media conditioning, but it's still disappointing nonetheless.

I hear you bozodos, I hear you mate. Please don't think that I was, or that I would tell the Americans how to run their affairs, not for a moment mate. I was only making a suggestion based on bull's post, and within the context of his post and no more really. So re the subject of tyranny which you have stated earlier, are you saying that even though the American government of today is not a tyrannical government, one of the justification for a civilian to own/carry arms is based on his anticipation of what the American government might become one day in the future..., pointing to such examples as Hitler's rise etc?

Using this logic, what would you recommend for a country whose people are now, and not some time in the future, is being governed by a tyrannical government..., would you suggest they arm themselves if they could and go head to head with their tyrannical government?

I know we live in Australia and we can not project our way of life onto other nations and vice versa, however nations world wide are always learning from each other's experiences, and at times do implement / change certain laws of their own country to see what outcome would result from such a move.

By the way, I'm not for or against gun ownership, that was not why I started this thread. My emphasis throughout has been (and still is); the current American system is not working when it comes to gun related violence/suicide etc, irrespective of the whys. Based on this glaring observation, I asked, and I am still asking, what solution may we offer that would perhaps begin to make some positive changes? I mentioned the phone lock and fingerprint technology, to which Von did not see as being something that is perhaps feasible. Has anyone got something to offer? We're having a meeting of the minds here, no different from what anyone else who's interested in positively contributing to the situation is doing. That is all really.

 

[bozodos]

'Smart guns' are a pipe dream.

The US has severe societal issues; I think they're on the way down, like Russia in the later half of the 20th century. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA has it right - more enforcement of the existing background check system would be a good start, personally I think that storage requirements and licensing would fix a lot of the problem, but if you are owning firearms in the defense of government tyranny, you don't exactly want to advertise to the government that you own them either.

Got to remember that the US has a 'user pays' healthcare system as well, so mental health isn't exactly a priority, coupled with Obamacare being a failure. To be honest, almost all gun control is politicians trying to create a legacy for themselves, and giving the appearance of doing something meaningful without really doing anything at all. There's something seriously fucked up when people kill or wound each other over trivial things, or because women don't like them, or because they think that people are racist. To blame the tools used is pointless. Not to mention the pervasiveness of gang culture, areas of extreme poverty, constant identity politics so forth.

On the topic of suicide, much is made about impulsiveness etc, it might sound a bit callous but if someone wants to end their own life, that is their choice and their choice alone.

Self defense, whether it is from individuals or a government is a human right, so therefore civilians should not be prevented from owning firearms for that reason.

 

[Fadi]

There's something seriously fucked up when people kill or wound each other over trivial things, or because women don't like them, or because they think that people are racist. To blame the tools used is pointless. Not to mention the pervasiveness of gang culture, areas of extreme poverty, constant identity politics so forth.

To blame the tools used is pointless would be the thrust of your argument here and I accept it. Based on my acceptance of your argument, would you even consider it an argument if I was to say that even though we can not blame the gun for the violence/killing/suicide etc...., would you accept that the gun being what it is, would facilitate for one to act out their frustration or whatever negative things are boiling inside of him/her? I can not easily reach you with a knife, this hurdle is quickly eliminated from the equation when a gun is involved. In other words, a gun makes things easier. My point is, would you even consider this "gun makes things easier" as an argument, or (you as a gun owner), would consider it an invalid argument? I'm just after your opinion here.

I think that self defense, whether it is from individuals or a government is a human right, so therefore civilians should not be prevented from owning firearms for that reason.

Where does calling the police fit in this argument bozodos? What is their role, or does it depend on the circumstances at hand? If so, who decides whether those circumstances were in fact worthy of you grabbing for your gun and defending your family/self etc?

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to have answers to all my questions mate, I'm simply having a mature and open discussion with you...I hope you (and others) don't mind.

 

[bozodos]

I'm not bothered - it's rare to see someone who isn't totally anti or pro gun, it's a fairly polarizing topic.

People often mention the facilitation aspect - I would counter that with the 'means to an end' aspect that an alternative tool may be used, whether that be a knife, bat etc. Look at the amount of stabbings that occur in the UK with extremely tight gun control, but also a myriad of societal issues for one example.

There is a saying "when you need the police in seconds, they are minutes away". I don't think it would take a genius to decide if the circumstances warranted brandishing a firearm, as you would only be pulling it out with the intention of using it.

 

[vonfram88]

@Fadi; yes it all seems to be completely stable etc, as I'm sure that many in Weimar Germany could never have forseen Hitler's rise, or those in the former USSR with the Bolsheviks, Cambodians etc etc. I don't think its for us Australians to tell the Americans that their constitution is no longer valid because "it's _____ year".

In the Australian context - I've got no problem with licence holders being allowed to conceal carry if they wish - I'd carry a G17 personally. Given our licensing and storage requirements, I couldn't see much happening apart from some crooks meeting a premature demise or reconsidering 'soft targets'. Great thing about guns is that they are a true force equalizer as well.

One of the good things about living in a rural areas is that many of those who don't like guns or shooting can at least accept those who do. I can count 10 or so shooting clubs locally, and 5 ranges. Great community, very family orientated, starting to see a lot of women entering the shooting sports as well. Much less drama queens and fragile egos than in powerlifting, that's for sure!

Lots of interest in hunting as well, though it's not as easy as in years gone by.

I can kind of understand the hoplophobia of many Aussies, especially after 20 years of non stop media conditioning, but it's still disappointing nonetheless.

A 9 x 19mm for personal defence? You'll be needing all those extra rounds to stop most bad guys.

My carry option if in such a country would be something that throws the number 1 man stopper 125gr jhp 357 magnum. All you need is five.

 

[vonfram88]

To blame the tools used is pointless would be the thrust of your argument here and I accept it. Based on my acceptance of your argument, would you even consider it an argument if I was to say that even though we can not blame the gun for the violence/killing/suicide etc...., would you accept that the gun being what it is, would facilitate for one to act out their frustration or whatever negative things are boiling inside of him/her? I can not easily reach you with a knife, this hurdle is quickly eliminated from the equation when a gun is involved. In other words, a gun makes things easier. My point is, would you even consider this "gun makes things easier" as an argument, or (you as a gun owner), would consider it an invalid argument? I'm just after your opinion here.


Where does calling the police fit in this argument bozodos? What is their role, or does it depend on the circumstances at hand? If so, who decides whether those circumstances were in fact worthy of you grabbing for your gun and defending your family/self etc?

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to have answers to all my questions mate, I'm simply having a mature and open discussion with you...I hope you (and others) don't mind.

Nope, gun does not always make things easier and a particularly callous individual would probably choose a more "personal" means of causing death or injury to their victim.

Even with only moderate skill levels, a knife or stabbing implement can inflict lethal injury very swiftly. Many practitioners would agree that a distances of 20 feet or less, it is very likely that a knife would be able to defeat a holstered firearm or a long arm at low-ready. I have tried the experiment with several trained security and military personnel and only on a handful of occassions could they draw and fire their guns onto target in the time it took me to cover 20 feet. Knives are bloody lethal.

 

[vonfram88]

Where does calling the police fit in this argument bozodos? What is their role, or does it depend on the circumstances at hand? If so, who decides whether those circumstances were in fact worthy of you grabbing for your gun and defending your family/self etc?

.

If you live in one of the states where the law recognises the "castle doctrine" then if you are on your own property and feel threatened by someone, the law allows you to use whatever force that you "feel is necessary at that time" to prevent harm to yourself or others in your house. This replaces the concept of proportionate response to a threat where fore example if someone has a knife, you can only respond with equal force ie can't pull a gun.

It's an example of the law at last being sensible with regards to protection of yourself and those around you whilst you are enjoying the presumed safety of your own home. It does not allow you to lie in wait for someone to come onto your property so that you can Dirty Harry them out of existence and to the attending law enforcement officer it would be pretty obvious if you had set some kind of man trap or deliberate plan to cause someone harm irrespective of the threat posed.

the practicality of using a firearm to defend ones house is defeated by the firearms storage regulations in Australia. Law abiding firearms owners take the security of their guns very seriously. Ammunition must be stored separately to the firearms. Both need to be locked in a storage cabinet. You aren't even allowed to store a magazine with any rounds in it. So in the scenario of a sudden, unannounced violent trespasser(s) who may choose to visit while you are sleeping, it would seem very unlikely that the occupant could retrieve firearm and ammo before the threat is upon them. Heck, even if you slept with a loaded pistol under your pillow, you are asleep. The intruder is not and is probably wired on meth or some shit.

 

[Fadi]

If you live in one of the states where the law recognises the "castle doctrine" then if you are on your own property and feel threatened by someone, the law allows you to use whatever force that you "feel is necessary at that time" to prevent harm to yourself or others in your house. This replaces the concept of proportionate response to a threat where fore example if someone has a knife, you can only respond with equal force ie can't pull a gun.

It's an example of the law at last being sensible with regards to protection of yourself and those around you whilst you are enjoying the presumed safety of your own home. It does not allow you to lie in wait for someone to come onto your property so that you can Dirty Harry them out of existence and to the attending law enforcement officer it would be pretty obvious if you had set some kind of man trap or deliberate plan to cause someone harm irrespective of the threat posed.

the practicality of using a firearm to defend ones house is defeated by the firearms storage regulations in Australia. Law abiding firearms owners take the security of their guns very seriously. Ammunition must be stored separately to the firearms. Both need to be locked in a storage cabinet. You aren't even allowed to store a magazine with any rounds in it. So in the scenario of a sudden, unannounced violent trespasser(s) who may choose to visit while you are sleeping, it would seem very unlikely that the occupant could retrieve firearm and ammo before the threat is upon them. Heck, even if you slept with a loaded pistol under your pillow, you are asleep. The intruder is not and is probably wired on meth or some shit.

Thank you for that reply Von, I appreciate it mate. Re your last paragraph, I'd be extremely disappointed if I was a gun owner when it came to such half-hearted "allowance" by the government for me to keep a firearm at home for the purpose of defending myself and family. Has not the Australian gun lobby taken issue with such a wishy washy type of a regulation? Some on the anti gun lobby may disagree with my sentiments here, however I'm simply using logic that says if you're going to give me permission to defend myself, then why the heck are you tying my hands behind my back whilst doing it?!

 

[vonfram88]

Thank you for that reply Von, I appreciate it mate. Re your last paragraph, I'd be extremely disappointed if I was a gun owner when it came to such half-hearted "allowance" by the government for me to keep a firearm at home for the purpose of defending myself and family. Has not the Australian gun lobby taken issue with such a wishy washy type of a regulation? Some on the anti gun lobby may disagree with my sentiments here, however I'm simply using logic that says if you're going to give me permission to defend myself, then why the heck are you tying my hands behind my back whilst doing it?!

Ahhh....the castle doctrine does not state that you can use a firearm for self defence. Nor does it state that you can't use a firearm for self defence. In the unlikely event a firearm was at hand at the time of threat, then there is no reason that it should not be used if the threat was extreme enough to warrant its use.

The gun laws in Australia do not allow ordinary citizens to possess a firearm for self defence. If someone legally owns a firearm, the license endorses that firearm for use for a genuine reason or genuine need. Personal defence is not presently recognised as genuine reason or genuine need. I tend to stay out of debates about amending laws to allow guns for personal defence. It tends to conflict with the safe storage dictum.

I wholeheartedly support the safe storage measures and consider it a duty of all firearms owners to ensure their guns can't be accessed by the wrong people or easily stolen. Aside from the pious statements about my duty and being responsible, they are my personal possessions that I have worked hard for, I really like them and I really don't want anyone else to take them.

 

[Fadi]

Ahhh....the castle doctrine does not state that you can use a firearm for self defence. Nor does it state that you can't use a firearm for self defence. In the unlikely event a firearm was at hand at the time of threat, then there is no reason that it should not be used if the threat was extreme enough to warrant its use.

The gun laws in Australia do not allow ordinary citizens to possess a firearm for self defence. If someone legally owns a firearm, the license endorses that firearm for use for a genuine reason or genuine need. Personal defence is not presently recognised as genuine reason or genuine need. I tend to stay out of debates about amending laws to allow guns for personal defence. It tends to conflict with the safe storage dictum.

I wholeheartedly support the safe storage measures and consider it a duty of all firearms owners to ensure their guns can't be accessed by the wrong people or easily stolen. Aside from the pious statements about my duty and being responsible, they are my personal possessions that I have worked hard for, I really like them and I really don't want anyone else to take them.

Ahh, I've learned something. Thank you indeed.

 

[vonfram88]

Hopefully I can help dispel a few of the myths and provide some rebuttal to the irrational and often false information that the popular media portrays. In time we will return to pre-1996 firearms ownership limitations. There are a lot of us working on it and the arguments against freedom of ownership of certain types of firearms are fading into the night.

Whether or not Yamamoto actually said it, the following is food for thought

Does this lady pictured with the semi automatic rifle look like a criminal?

 

[Darkoz]

^ what

 

[Fadi]

Hopefully I can help dispel a few of the myths and provide some rebuttal to the irrational and often false information that the popular media portrays.

A dialogue / an open debate without serving a particular agenda is what we all need. If a law , or an amendment in a particular law/legislation is for the common good, then by all means, it should be put on the table and discussed, analised, and scrutinised.

Does this lady pictured with the semi automatic rifle look like a criminal?

What does a criminal look like? If we knew, we'd be ahead of the game. However I see your point.

 

[Big Mick]

Where does calling the police fit in this argument bozodos? What is their role, or does it depend on the circumstances at hand? If so, who decides whether those circumstances were in fact worthy of you grabbing for your gun and defending your family/self etc?

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to have answers to all my questions mate, I'm simply having a mature and open discussion with you...I hope you (and others) don't mind.

I am not intersted in a gun argument, but in Australia owning a gun for self defence is not an option.

Calling the police would be the obvious choice, residing in a capital city would make response time reasonably fast 1-10 minutes I would guess for an urgent job depending on how close police are.

Where I currently live police response time is 1 - 2 hrs, so if farmer joe was getting threatened. assaulted, or his family was getting murdered, police would take at least one hour before attending, closest police station is 90km away and it is not a 24hr station, so in the middle of the night an officer or two would be called out of bed, would have to get dressed get his gun etc, get in a car and travel 80-100km to reach your property.

Personally I think in that situation a gun would make me feel safer.

Anti gun nutters seem to be blaming inanimate objects and seem to ignore the facts, throwing false information out disguised as facts, like the US has the highest rate of gun murder, when this simply is not true, countries with much stricter gun laws have higher numbers of gun related murder, countries with much loser gun laws have much lower rates of gun related murder in some cases.

The US has the highest number of firearms per capita (112 firearms per 100 persons), yet has no where the highest number of gun related murder per capita.

No correlation can be shown between gun ownership and murder rate of a particular country or state.

In Australia Gun ownership is currently at an all time high, yet gun related murder is at an all time low, so if we were going to apply the logic of the anti gun nutter, we should have more guns to reduce gun related crime further.

 

[El Testicle]

^ what

 

[Goosey]

That's a good reply Mick

 

[Johnnie Walker]

so [MENTION=12011]vonfram88[/MENTION] would you trust me with open access to fire arms? in refrence to your previous post about me being unstable, pr whatever it was

 

[Johnnie Walker]

I am not intersted in a gun argument, but in Australia owning a gun for self defence is not an option.

Calling the police would be the obvious choice, residing in a capital city would make response time reasonably fast 1-10 minutes I would guess for an urgent job depending on how close police are.

Where I currently live police response time is 1 - 2 hrs, so if farmer joe was getting threatened. assaulted, or his family was getting murdered, police would take at least one hour before attending, closest police station is 90km away and it is not a 24hr station, so in the middle of the night an officer or two would be called out of bed, would have to get dressed get his gun etc, get in a car and travel 80-100km to reach your property.

Personally I think in that situation a gun would make me feel safer.

Anti gun nutters seem to be blaming inanimate objects and seem to ignore the facts, throwing false information out disguised as facts, like the US has the highest rate of gun murder, when this simply is not true, countries with much stricter gun laws have higher numbers of gun related murder, countries with much loser gun laws have much lower rates of gun related murder in some cases.

The US has the highest number of firearms per capita (112 firearms per 100 persons), yet has no where the highest number of gun related murder per capita.

No correlation can be shown between gun ownership and murder rate of a particular country or state.

In Australia Gun ownership is currently at an all time high, yet gun related murder is at an all time low, so if we were going to apply the logic of the anti gun nutter, we should have more guns to reduce gun related crime further.

i dont see to much issue with owning rifles/shotguns in farming/rural environents. my main issue is with semi automatic weapons. like you said in the city you hve armed police ussualy minutes away, in what is a low crime country, there is no justification to owning a semi auto assault rifle here in bondi beach

 

[vonfram88]

so @vonfram88 would you trust me with open access to fire arms? in refrence to your previous post about me being unstable, pr whatever it was

I dont know you. You have an online character who posts on a bodybuilding forum but doesn't seem to actually do anything in the gym or lead a bodybuilding lifestyle but likes to boast about alcohol and drug abuse, misogyny, roid use (as Genics/Miscellaneous other trolling accounts).

If you are like your online persona, you are already ineligible to hold a firearms license unless you have a very good shrink who can write a letter to the police commissioner on your behalf.

there are plenty of other forums around where you can discuss politics and gun ownership or throw tantrums. Why you persist here is a mystery to us all given you don't even lift.

Someone post something here on the matter of firearms, it sure gets my attention. Some may not like my views; don't discuss politics on a bodybuilding forum and you won't have to put up with them.

But don't insult those of us who live a good life, abide by every law and actually have something invested in the debate other than a hangover and a seedy opinion.