-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Big Mick
"2014 - Kunce of the year"
I think you are missing the point people are trying to make, and yet you mention it in your reply.
Who said we should give guns to deranged people??
We are simply saying there are no good and no bad guns, and that it is an issue with the people and the management of their mental health NOT the guns.
Guns have not made these people deranged, society and other factors have done this. So changing gun laws will do nothing to address the issue at hand that is causing the problem just like putting a band aid on skin cancer will do nothing to cure the cancer.
Not sure why this is so difficult to understand??
Most so called massacres are carried out by people who have either used guns they have illegally obtained or illegally owned, so how will laws change that, as the laws are already there, yet these massacres still happened, so will banning things twice work??
I mean shooting people is already against the law, so now we have an extra law that says well sorry you can't have guns, so now the person that wants to shoot people will say to himself, 'self, well I was going to kill 20 people with my illegal fire arm but since now they have banned guns I won't be doing it, I will head up to the police station and hand my gun in instead' or do you think this person will go on and obtain the guns anyway even though the law says he can not have them??
Changing gun laws will only affect people that follow the law, it's unlikely that drug dealers, robbers, criminals and murderers will now curb their activity hand their guns in at the local police station before heading to Centrelink to look for a job.
We need the REAL ISSUE causing these incidents addressed, not band aid solutions that will do nothing to address the real problem.
Last edited:
Big Mick
"2014 - Kunce of the year"
Who would be in support of refugees
I support sending them back where ever they came from, as most of them are not real refugees anyway, flying to asia, burning your passport and destroying your identity before paying a people smugglers to ship you to Australia does not make them refugees, it makes them cue jumpers and most likely criminals
jj80
Member
Hey Mick I actually agree with a lot of what you say... and I think most "anti-gun" people would too... so I thought I'd explain my own stance. WALL OF TEXT WARNING SINCE I ATTEMPTED TO RESPOND TO EVERY POINT.
"Guns have not made these people deranged, society and other factors have done this. So changing gun laws will do nothing to address the issue at hand that is causing the problem just like putting a band aid on skin cancer will do nothing to cure the cancer."
Agree completely, it's a band aid fix.
"Guns have not made these people deranged, society and other factors have done this."
Not society, at least certainly not alone - I don't think the deranged nature of these people is due to society. I would bet a lot of these kids are mentally ill, and some perhaps are psychopathic. They overreact to their circumstances at school or in their family. They stab the dog because it looks at them strangely, etc. I doubt this is a problem we can solve by making schools better places, you will always have nutcases who over-react or who are insane.
The only other factor is inherent mental illness... So the only 'non-bandaid' fix is to identify the mentally ill people and treat them all before they decide to hurt others. I don't think this is possible 100% of the time (here is where we may disagree). It would require a mental health program in schools the likes of which we've never seen, every kid would need screening (and constant screening, since mental illnesses can be latent and only emerge at a certain age). I also think it's very easy to disguise mental illness, particularly of the psychopathic variety (no empathy towards others). Take Ted Bundy as a good example of someone who can act very normally and wouldn't want treatment. I think it's probably an issue that needs looking at, I just don't think it will be 100% effective.
So the 'take away guns' or 'tighten up gun control' approach is certainly not a solution to psychopaths or deranged people wielding guns and hurting others, it's just an attempt to reduce the harm they'd otherwise be able to inflict. The argument against this is that they'd find other ways - bombs, etc. I think this is certainly true in some cases - but I believe the level of intelligence and the amount of planning necessary to construct a weapon that would be as effective as a gun is out of the reach of most mentally ill people. I think this point can be debated (please not with fucking statistics).
Hence, gun control is not a solution, but perhaps the best band aid we have currently. I err on the side of caution somewhat quickly in this case since it doesn't affect me, as I no longer own any guns or do shooting.... but given the horrific nature of the crimes we see continually I think it's the best approach. I also think it will never happen. Reducing the number of firearms, especially in America, is a pipe dream... It's a sensible dream though, I think.
On "Most so called massacres are carried out by people who have either used guns they have illegally obtained or illegally owned, so how will laws change that, as the laws are already there, yet these massacres still happened, so will banning things twice work??" Reducing the firearms in circulation by restricting availability to only those who need them for a reason makes it harder for anyone to misuse them. For example, if I wanted to commit a crime the only person I know on a farm is you.... a bit distant. Will you lend me your gun? Otherwise, right now I can't get one. Again, assume I'm mentally ill, at school, and making a fertilizer bomb and borrowing mum's car to take it to show and tell is a bit out of the question.
"I mean shooting people is already against the law, so now we have an extra law that says well sorry you can't have guns, so now the person that wants to shoot people will say to himself, 'self, well I was going to kill 20 people but since now they have banned guns I won't be doing it' or do you think this person will go on and obtain the guns anyway even though the law says he can not have them??"
No, but they may only stab someone now, or have access to a less effective weapon.
"Guns have not made these people deranged, society and other factors have done this. So changing gun laws will do nothing to address the issue at hand that is causing the problem just like putting a band aid on skin cancer will do nothing to cure the cancer."
Agree completely, it's a band aid fix.
"Guns have not made these people deranged, society and other factors have done this."
Not society, at least certainly not alone - I don't think the deranged nature of these people is due to society. I would bet a lot of these kids are mentally ill, and some perhaps are psychopathic. They overreact to their circumstances at school or in their family. They stab the dog because it looks at them strangely, etc. I doubt this is a problem we can solve by making schools better places, you will always have nutcases who over-react or who are insane.
The only other factor is inherent mental illness... So the only 'non-bandaid' fix is to identify the mentally ill people and treat them all before they decide to hurt others. I don't think this is possible 100% of the time (here is where we may disagree). It would require a mental health program in schools the likes of which we've never seen, every kid would need screening (and constant screening, since mental illnesses can be latent and only emerge at a certain age). I also think it's very easy to disguise mental illness, particularly of the psychopathic variety (no empathy towards others). Take Ted Bundy as a good example of someone who can act very normally and wouldn't want treatment. I think it's probably an issue that needs looking at, I just don't think it will be 100% effective.
So the 'take away guns' or 'tighten up gun control' approach is certainly not a solution to psychopaths or deranged people wielding guns and hurting others, it's just an attempt to reduce the harm they'd otherwise be able to inflict. The argument against this is that they'd find other ways - bombs, etc. I think this is certainly true in some cases - but I believe the level of intelligence and the amount of planning necessary to construct a weapon that would be as effective as a gun is out of the reach of most mentally ill people. I think this point can be debated (please not with fucking statistics).
Hence, gun control is not a solution, but perhaps the best band aid we have currently. I err on the side of caution somewhat quickly in this case since it doesn't affect me, as I no longer own any guns or do shooting.... but given the horrific nature of the crimes we see continually I think it's the best approach. I also think it will never happen. Reducing the number of firearms, especially in America, is a pipe dream... It's a sensible dream though, I think.
On "Most so called massacres are carried out by people who have either used guns they have illegally obtained or illegally owned, so how will laws change that, as the laws are already there, yet these massacres still happened, so will banning things twice work??" Reducing the firearms in circulation by restricting availability to only those who need them for a reason makes it harder for anyone to misuse them. For example, if I wanted to commit a crime the only person I know on a farm is you.... a bit distant. Will you lend me your gun? Otherwise, right now I can't get one. Again, assume I'm mentally ill, at school, and making a fertilizer bomb and borrowing mum's car to take it to show and tell is a bit out of the question.
"I mean shooting people is already against the law, so now we have an extra law that says well sorry you can't have guns, so now the person that wants to shoot people will say to himself, 'self, well I was going to kill 20 people but since now they have banned guns I won't be doing it' or do you think this person will go on and obtain the guns anyway even though the law says he can not have them??"
No, but they may only stab someone now, or have access to a less effective weapon.
vonfram88
Active member
Regulation is never 100% effective. Criminals don't tend to play by the rules. My kids are never allowed unsupervised access to any of our firearms. One of my kids is HFA - the latest group to be demonised by left leaning media. Secure storage requirements in Australia go a long way to preventing unauthorised and unlawful access to firearms. (sadly the regulations did nothing to prevent several hundred illegal handguns from recently being smuggled in through customs by criminals).
I can see the USA placing greater onus on law abiding firearms owners to properly secure their firearms.
That's their problem though and I don't really think they give a damn about the views of Australian activists.
I can see the USA placing greater onus on law abiding firearms owners to properly secure their firearms.
That's their problem though and I don't really think they give a damn about the views of Australian activists.
jj80
Member
Regulation doesn't have to be 100% effective for it to be worth it. Kids aren't criminals, and nutbags are often loners without criminal links through which they could obtain weapons. We're not talking about organised crime here or even small time criminals.
Who would be in support of refugees
I support sending them back where ever they came from, as most of them are not real refugees anyway, flying to asia, burning your passport and destroying your identity before paying a people smugglers to ship you to Australia does not make them refugees, it makes them cue jumpers and most likely criminals
So your saying they're all the same? All queue jumpers? Those that do or keep complaining about this country when they get here can get sent back for all I care.
I was just pointing out how much more people are defending their right to have guns then to help out their fellow men. And it's the right I'm talking about they expect in America. I have gun owning friends and I know how difficult it is to legally have one here.
I know it's a mental issue for these killers to just snap but making it a lot harder over there will help in limiting gun crime. Even if it's only a little it's better then nothing.
Last edited:
harry1970
Elegantly Wasted
Big Mick
"2014 - Kunce of the year"
That's not where the guns come from, and that is my point, no law abiding gun owner will 'lend' you a gun. Guns are securely stored in an expensive gun safe, which is bolted to the floor as well as the structural part of a wall with a minimum of 4 x 12mm anchor bolts, securing it to floor and wall, with all ammunition stored in a separate locked compartment with a separate key.
All firearms are registered and you must on a yearly basis prove to the Government that you still have a genuine need to own the said gun.
This is in Australia (NSW anyway).
The firearms used in MOST (not all) of these incidents are illegally owned and obtained, They are bought down the pub, or in back alleys sold by criminals, and not that hard to obtain in most capital cities around Australia.
I have LEGALLY owned guns since I was 14 years old, which is 30 years now, I have been a recreational hunter most of my life. I used to own several semiautomatic guns that I had to hand in to police when the laws changed, so I did (I bet no criminals did).
I agree with safe storage and strict rules for gun ownership, I believe there should be mandatory reporting for doctors, where if anyone suffers from depression, mental illness of any kind, has committed violent crime at any time or appears unstable in any way, they should not be able to own firearms, no if's no but's and no may be's. (this will not stop them obtaining them illegally, but it will at least some what address the issue gun control nazis harp on about, and stop legally owned guns from being used in these incidents)
Not every person should be able to own firearms, and I am also a firm believer that not every person should be able to hold a drivers license, it should be much harder to get a drivers license.
So I guess in some way I agree with gun control, but normal, stable, level headed individuals who have completed the required training should be able to own what ever gun they require for their chosen sport or work.
Last edited:
stevematic
New member
stevematic
New member
NightFallTech
Member
Fantastic way to drop the percentage of rural males seeking treatment for depression even further...
Darkoz
-
Interesting, the study claims that the murder rate rises dramatically when strict gun laws are applied, if true, why do you think that is?
The article was published in a hunting and gun magazine, just to point out.
Last edited:
stevematic
New member
Because criminals know the law abiding citizens have been disarmed and know they're not a threat.
I know that people will think it's a biased source, which it is however it's still providing legitimate sources and statistics.
jj80
Member
I am saying they should, lol. Did you read what I said?
They pretty much said similarly in that article, if you bothered to read it.
God you're fucking daft. The statistics I'm talking about are about general crime and gun ownership, which the article cites. If you want my opinion on that, which is a separate topic to gun ownership and them getting into the hand of crazy fucks, I believe what the statistics state. But it's not really related to what I was talking about. Take a few fucking minutes to think about it and let the light bulb go off.
Last edited by a moderator:
stevematic
New member
I did bother to read it, I figured you were being sarcastic. My apologies.
I don't understand what you mean by "the statistics I'm talking about", I wasn't posting the article to argue with anyone I just thought it was an interesting article.
Look, I want to keep the argument civil and I'm sorry if there's a misunderstanding. I haven't read the previous page.
jj80
Member
Allright. my apologies, the internet does this to me.......
What I mean is the studies they cite show that there's no significant correlation between gun laws and the incident of violent crime. This isn't really a surprise, as violent crime occurs primarily as a result of societal conditions (poverty and proximity breed crime, or whatever the saying is) and suddenly introducing gun laws isn't going to change the occurence of murders in places like Columbia etc..
What I'm talking about is atrocities perpetrated by insane people, who are statistical outliers... they do not contribute in any significant way to gun related crimes, especially in a place like America, and the studies were not measuring them separately (how could you)? Thus the statistics in these cases are not relevant, in my opinion. At least not to the argument which I was stating which goes.. 'making guns harder to obtain by insane people will lessen the number of crimes similar to the ones we've seen recently in America'.
What I mean is the studies they cite show that there's no significant correlation between gun laws and the incident of violent crime. This isn't really a surprise, as violent crime occurs primarily as a result of societal conditions (poverty and proximity breed crime, or whatever the saying is) and suddenly introducing gun laws isn't going to change the occurence of murders in places like Columbia etc..
What I'm talking about is atrocities perpetrated by insane people, who are statistical outliers... they do not contribute in any significant way to gun related crimes, especially in a place like America, and the studies were not measuring them separately (how could you)? Thus the statistics in these cases are not relevant, in my opinion. At least not to the argument which I was stating which goes.. 'making guns harder to obtain by insane people will lessen the number of crimes similar to the ones we've seen recently in America'.
Last edited: