Las Vegas Shooting.

There are not going to be gun bans. Only fools believe otherwise.

 

I beg to differ. I have already provided statistics and facts that show comparison on a world wide scale - most definitely in Australia - that gun restrictions and bans has effected a decrease in gun crimes. With our bans, fire arms crime is at the bottom rung of the ladder as I already noted in an earlier Post.

While fire arms is an American culture, there is evidence that gun laws are being noted and compared - we can compare ad nauseum in this instance as well. Be aware, I am referring to gun laws (per case in Australia) which casts restrictions on fire arms and as already noted/discussed in previous Posts above.

Here are some samples of how gun laws and bans are being noted and viewed here as well as in America - the first reference here notes American experts comparisons of what gun laws would/are effective:

How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths?
Experts Say These Gun Laws Could Help
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ and QUOCTRUNG BUI OCT. 5, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

Are Australia's gun laws the solution for the US?
By Katie BeckBBC News, Sydney 4 October 2017 From the sectionAustralia
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251

Gun Control in America After Las Vegas Mass Shooting
Too Soon For Gun Control, Donald Trump? Our Experience Begs to Differ
3 October, 2017 by GENEVIEVE ROTA
https://www.popsugar.com.au/news/Gun-Control-America-After-Las-Vegas-Mass-Shooting-44100749

Gun violence in America, explained in 17 maps and charts
In the developed world, these levels of gun violence are a uniquely American problem. Here’s why.
Updated by German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com
Oct 2, 2017, 12:05pm EDT
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

Australia's Lessons on Gun Control
The 1996 Port Arthur massacre resulted in legislation that saw a dramatic decline in gun crimes.
Reuters
KRISHNADEV CALAMUR OCT 2, 2017 GLOBAL
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

Opinion | OP-ED COLUMNIST
Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack
Nicholas Kristof OCT. 2, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/opinion/mass-shooting-vegas.html

How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths?
Experts Say These Gun Laws Could Help
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ and QUOCTRUNG BUI OCT. 5, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

 

Ahh, OK.

Care to tell that to the DieFie? Who got a carry permit in CA when she felt "threatened".

 

She probably felt or was threatened by some *law abiding* right wingers who wish death to her and her party. BTW: you are just like #45 fond of name calling instead of naming people by their given name.

 

In the late eighties and begin nineties hubby and I went twice to the US to visit (Las Vegas and Naples, FL) and I felt even intimidated by all the *stuff* that the police carried on their hips. No thanks, I prefer living in my country although things have changed since a lot of guns here come from the USA illegally.



.

 

She knows. That is why she has not wasted time proposing a ban. It's why no one has. Anyway, tell me how it would be done, especially considering the Heller and McDonald decisions. I'll wait.

 

I don't mind the everyday weaponry worn by our police shown here with a motorcyclist clad policeman...and that's the only time.

​

With recent terrorist activities occurring in Australia and the deaths that followed, our police powers have increased to shooting their guns for similar life threatening occasions as what has taken place in our states...that was a huge step and a major decision for Australia...however, our gun laws and bans have tightened further as a consequence for the civilian...so this shift in power while reflecting our times is a good move.

 

Legalsuit, gun bans just don't go with our 2A.

The liberals are the supreme name callers. I have called her that for years. And what "law abiding" right wingers do you refer to? She got the permit back in the '90's I think.

 

I presume by "2A" you mean your "Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which reads: 'A well ... general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens...'"

Given the American gun culture, I can't see an overall ban on firearms occurring at any time in the U.S. Plus as you pointed out re your Constitution's Second Amendment. However I see a possibility on bans re types of firearms based on certain criteria being met by citizens.

I'm reckoning based on overall news media , there is again a push for controls - Australia commonly being raised in comparison. Here, while there are bans on types of firearms and restrictions as to who has what, only citizens that meet certain criteria are allowed firearms. That is the line I was referring to in my earlier post re considerations in the U.S.

 

There are very few firearms actually banned in the US. The National Firearms act of 1934 provides for the regulation of certain types of guns and other weapons. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans automatic guns manufactured after it's passing, however any legally owned beforehand can be transferred as a Class II firearm under NFA rules.

The 2nd Amendment covers any resident of the United States, citizen or not, same as the others listed in the Bill of Rights. There are legal restrictions on some felons and nonresident and illegal/undocumented aliens but mainly the only criteria is being a resident of the US.

 

Oma, I like how you slipped "#45" in when saying I don't call people by their real names.

 

2A "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And keep in mind, when that was written, except for cannons, the average citizen was armed with pretty much the exact same gun as the army had.

 

Incremental gun laws. They claim they want only "Common sense gun safety laws" when their goal is a ban. Look at what the DieFie said, if she could have gotten the votes she would have banned all guns from citizens. Ever notice it is not called "gun control" anymore? Now it is always "common sense" laws. You can't eat a horse in one bite, you have to take a lot of small bites.

 

Giving a number to a person is not the same as giving someone a false or derogatory name. We all know who #45 is....

 

Wow! "Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791"[1]
Given the state of the nation at that time, I can understand such an Amendment...Australia wasn't colonised until 1788.

But now-a-days? State of the nation must be in a pretty bad way if the same Amendment must apply.


[1] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii

 

It doesn't work that way. It would behoove you to recall that there is more to the Constitution than just the 2nd Amendment.

 

http://classroom.synonym.com/historical-weapons-1789-1864-19795.html

Given that at the time of writing the 2nd amendment there were only muskets that could shoot only once in a couple of minutes, it is deplorable that the same 2nd amendment still applies in these times when guns, semi-automatic weapons and whatnot have *improved* so much that in a time span of 10 minutes 50 or more people can be mowed down. I am sure that the founding fathers (people who wrote the 2nd amendment), if they could, would get up from their graves and would have written the 2nd amendment differently .

 

Right on: AFAIK it goes all the way up to including the 25th amendment.......

 

I am quite "behooved" on the Constitution. Incremental law changes have been going on here for a long time. The goal is often the same, the terms change.

 

So, what parts of it are not good now? Are all old laws no good?

 

If you were, you would understand that the Heller and McDonald decisions have made gun bans a moot point.

 

Not entirely, and Supreme Court rulings can change. Federal offices are still gun free zones, so laws can be changed over time. Not long ago, we had the 'assault weapon' ban. Several are talking about bringing that back, even though it was proven to have little or no effect on crime.

 

I'm not an expert on firearms, however, logically speaking, firearms have come a heck of a long way since 1791. So yes, I'd say there should be some adjustment to how the law is written...Post 117 (OMA) puts it rather succinctly. Firearms experts may better put to noting which parts "are not good now" or if needs amendment.

Re "Are all old laws no good?'

No, that isn't the point. In general, old laws are still applicable now-a-days dependent on their relevancy and if in line with current status quo.. Other old laws need to be (and are) amended to correctly reflect current status, relevancy and to be in line with other applicable legislation to avoid discrepancies.

When interpreting legislation, practice is to refer to other pieces of legislation in conjunction and relevancy because not all legislation is stand alone.

 

Actually, I think the founders, if you go by the literal interpretation of the 2A, would not re write it. As slow loading as the old muskets were, they were (besides cannons) the best weapon of the day.

Once in a couple of minutes? Really? How about 3 times in 46 seconds? How many people can a plane "mow down" in 10 minutes? Shall we ban all technology?

 

I am not the legal expert that you are. And yes, laws do change. I am sure the interstate speed limits were much slower when there were only horse drawn wagons on them.

But, the Constitution is not really 'law' like other laws. It is the framework on how laws are written. The 4th amendment has evolved pretty well with newer technology that would have been witchcraft back in the day.

And the 1A, freedom of the press... does it mean only freedom of things printed on old printing presses, or freedom of speech and expression in old and new ways? Should speech be limited to how loud you can yell on a street corner, or what you can manually print and distribute by hand or horse? How much faster can mis information be spread now vs the old days?

I can't say I would object very strongly if Rumps twitter feed was slowed down a LOT.

 

Ignoratio elenchi.

Ignoratio elenchi.

Ignoratio elenchi.

 

I'm only focused on the Amendment in question which relates to firearms, which I believe is your Constitution's Second Amendment.

While I'll not claim to be au fait with American law, I will try to present logical arguments. And yes, your Constitution (which is open to interpretation by the courts), simply put, looks at structure and has general by-laws. My thread "Separation of Powers" based its arguments upon your Constitution.

What I was debating is how applicable and current is your Constitution's 2nd Amendment? (Oma also highlighted a similar argument in her Post #117).

In mind was the difference in firearms between 18thC to 21stC, and how applicable is the 2nd Amendment's currency. It's the chart from this link which compares what Experts say are/are not effective:

How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths?
Experts Say These Gun Laws Could Help
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ and QUOCTRUNG BUI OCT. 5, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...hs-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

 

LegalSuit, I would like your thoughts on this. From your link, it seems to me, that they want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to reduce the availability of guns to people who might use them illegally. But, the Las Vegas shooter bought his guns legally. And, if someone is willing to kill 50+ people and injure hundreds more, how do we make them obey the laws?

I just don't see the logic in it.

And again, when the Constitution was adopted, the average citizen had the equal to the army rifle at the time.

I have to admit I am not an expert in this area, but I think it would come down to negative and positive rights. The way I see it, the Constitution is negative rights, as in it is things the gubment can't do to citizens. Can't restrict speech, can't force a religion on you, right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, can't force you to testify against yourself, and searches of private property are restricted without a court order...

 

That link's information you refer to, is based on extensive research and feedback, and in many aspects is in line with the Australian approach for gun control (type of firearm(s) allowed to be purchased); and restrictions as to who/what type of person/where allowed possession of firearms.

Australian State laws are clear re the need for an appropriate firearms licence covering its category to be held by the purchaser. The currency of the permit being issued by state Police Firearms Registry must be in the same state purchaser lives in.

Given the increased police powers here, they now have access to all sorts of private information whether citizen, resident, anyone on a visa and so forth*. So, it’s not that easy to legally purchase a firearm.

When it comes to some one with evil intent - how does one recognise such persons, much less make them "obey the law"?

I don’t know if you have uniform gun laws in America. We recently had a National Firearms Amnesty which ended 30 September 2017. The aim of the amnesty was to either register firearms or remove them from the community – this was towards again ensuring uniform gun laws across all states here in Australia.

So, if similar uniform gun laws across states were to be applied in America, would that have made a difference as to what could have been purchased by the Las Vegas gunman? Some one with ill intent?



I see you making two points that require consideration noted below:

Firstly, the point of a right to bear arms which was “…the equal to the army rifle at the time…”

This referred to an 18thC firearm of the time. So, I would be looking at type of allowable firearm.

Would the equivalent 20thC army rifle be allowable?

Secondly, the point “…right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”

Okay. That right may still be maintained, but it becomes too ambiguous by not clearly defining what type of “arms”.

Unless the writing is specific, it will be open to interpretation by the courts – particularly when there are debates/issues raised.





* e.g. I smiled when a visitor on a visa was stunned upon receiving a phone call from the Police who not only had his mobile (cell) number, but also his address. He couldn't figure out how the Police had all this information, particularly given he had only been in country a few weeks and they had tracked him down for an offence he had committed just a few hours earlier.

 

Hey David! Thanks.

I'm not a firearms expert, or au fait with laws outside Australia...so need to be careful with any form of interpretations.

It appears there are different laws per state in the U.S. And for uniform laws across states, there's a need to be an agreement - because Federal law is not that easy to come by.

Given the American firearm culture, I reckon it's going to be a battle whether any changes are brought about by uniform or Federal law, because in spite of the number of massacres that have occurred over there, nothing appears to have changed or going to change.

Whereas here, after the 1996 massacre occurred, all states agreed to uniform gun laws.

 

Same here...still have illegal arms here - hence amnesty gave people chance to surrender same...regardless, firearm crimes are well contained here.

And yes, while firearms are bottom rung of ladder for crimes here, drugs heads top of rung and knife crimes more common (actually, for some reason, machetes have become a popular offensive weapon used of late)

 

While knives are illegal, machetes appear to be a trend I guess because they are so easily accessible - as you already pointed out - I can just Google. Of late there have been a number of crimes where the offenders brandished machetes - obviously because so easily accessible.

 

this

 

You do know that in America, it is virtually impossible for the average American to get military grade weapons, which is to say, fully automatic firearms? Also, to knowingly make a firearm military grade, which, if you are a machinist you can do, is also illegal.

Some people are pointing out Australia's gun laws. Every Australian I've met since the gun confiscation went into effect has said the same thing. "Don't let them take your guns mate...Because now the criminals are the only ones that have them."

 

Curious to know what type of Australians you've met who made that comment...our firearm crime rate is much lower in comparison to other countries in particular to America. (See previous Post in this thread that shows statistics from different countries.) So when looking at criminal reports to date, machetes, knives, other things are used, not that often are there firearms...so just who have you been speaking to and in what circles does that particular person(s) move in to make such a comment?

Cheers

LS

 

"this"

?????

Please explain.

 

Correction - not a "gun confiscation" it was an Amnesty:

Your Australian friends should already be properly aware of the requirements to possess firearms. It would appear perhaps your Australian friends couldn't justify and/or qualify why they need/want firearms:

Cheers

LS

 

Hmmm I don't know the Australians that you have met who would say that and besides whether the criminals have guns or not is mostly irrelevant, over here if you shoot someone robbing you then you will be the one to be booked for using unreasonable or deadly force. In our country if the police shoot someone and can't prove that it was absolutely necessary because they feared for their life or the life of a member of the public then that policeman is also booked for using unreasonable or deadly force.

If your defining criteria for "military grade" as fully automatic then that leaves a lot of very powerful semi auto weapons available for anyone to purchase and use and consider that even a semi automatic or lever action 30/30 can do a lot of damage in a very short time

I understand the need for gun laws because once people can have more powerful weapons it becomes a pissing contest to have the most powerful weapon and very soon the majority of guns will be the most powerful.

I know a lot about guns and gun law as my son was the National Australian Junior Rifle 3P (3 positional) Champion and also the National Australian Junior Metallic Silhouette Off Hand Rifle to 600 metres champion and he shoots rimfire, centrefire in both pistols and rifles. He was also the winner of the Australian Junior Sporting Shooter of the Year as awarded by the SSAA (Sporting Shooters Association Australia) and won a stack of prizes and a write up in Sporting Shooter Magazine.
That being said, Do we have guns at home? No although I used to have a Ruger 10/22 and a 12 guage Winchester Riot gun but after the shooting in Tasmania all semi automatic guns and all shotguns shooting more than two cartridges were outlawed so I had to hand them in for destruction. Oh well the government paid me more for each gun than I originally paid so a small win.

Since the bans on most weapons it became very difficult to demonstrate a need for guns especially high powered weapons and pistols even harder again plus now even being a sporting shooter has a stigma attached. My son gave up shooting when he started University as anyone who googled him knew he was a champion shooter in several disciplines and so at first it was difficult to make friends because being associated with guns and shooting was very unfashionable but eventually common sense prevailed when they realised my son was just like them although deadly when playing Counter Strike lol.

As shooters we understand the bans had to happen because we would now be like the US where there seems to be a mass shooting somewhere every other week and as an outsider you can see they are getting worse. Take the pointless killing at Sandy Hook and now concert goers at Las Vegas ........where do you draw the line and say enough is enough.

Your country has more guns than anywhere else in the world and the number of gun related deaths per year is appalling and then there are all these mass shootings but still nobody in power can step back, show a bit of leadership and say "SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT GUNS TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE"

 

Legalsuit said:
… if similar uniform gun laws across states were to be applied in America, would that have made a difference as to what could have been purchased by the Las Vegas gunman? Some one with ill intent?
Fred_G said:
Gun laws vary from state to state. Take Chicago Illinois. Very anti gun city, with massive gun crime.
(CNN)The revelry of fireworks and parades offered little comfort in some parts of America's third largest city.

Chicago again -- as in recent years -- celebrated a bloody Fourth of July weekend, with at least 14 homicides between Friday evening and Wednesday morning, according to police…
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/us/chicago-july-fourth-violence/index.html

_______________________________________________________________________​

Fred, I am saddened by such news.

But Fred, even though Chicago as you stated is a “very anti-gun city, with massive gun crime”, being anti-gun is very different to not having access to firearms.

Naturally, we also have similar celebration events here with massive crowds, where the inevitable brawls occur. However, with high police presence, things are quickly squashed and offenders removed to police lockup.

Now, if we had similar access to firearms as that in the U.S. such hotheads would be using guns instead of fists. Do the Maths.

_______________________________________________________________________
​

Legalsuit said:
Would the equivalent 21stC army rifle be allowable?
Fred_G said:
I tend to think it would, as the average person at that time had the same gun as the army in their homes. In reality, military technology has pretty much surpassed the average citizen's budget. I am not necessarily for the average person having full auto rifles and stinger missiles.

_______________________________________________________________________
​

You can answer better than I here, as to whether the average citizen is allowed to legally purchase the same type of firearms/weaponry as that used by Defense Forces. I certainly would be surprised if they are – as I can’t see how a citizen could really justify/qualify to own such firearms/weaponry.
_______________________________________________________________________

Legalsuit said:
Unless the writing is specific, it will be open to interpretation by the courts – particularly when there are debates/issues raised.
Fred_G said:
I agree, many things happen on the whim, so to speak of my gubment. But, as I stated, the Constitution is a negative rights thing, so if they are not stated, there should be no restriction.
_______________________________________________________________________

Understand where you’re coming from. And it is because firearm types are not stated is the very point to consider amendments. Your Constitution provides the powers and procedures re administration of state. And in respect to coming in line with changes in current times, it can also accommodate amendments.

As you stated earlier: “I am not necessarily for the average person having full auto rifles and stinger missiles”.

Re such weaponry, would you still stand by your earlier comments: “if they are not stated, there should be no restrictions”?

This goes back to my earlier argument re being specific – and this is where an amendment to the Constitution’s Second Amendment to reflect change may be applicable.


p.s. didn’t understand “gubment” – had to Google.

 

Comparing one country to another is pointless. Compare cities in the US. Gun laws vs gun deaths.

 

Many firearms in Chicago are most likely obtained in states around Illinois that have more lax gun laws. The Las Vegas killer purchased his weapons in numerous states in order to circumvent suspicion.

 

Most of those guns come from outside Chicago. NYC's laws are as strict and their gun crime rates are declining. Of course, NY and many of the surrounding states don't have such lax laws so one can't just drive out of city limits and buy a gun, unlike Chicago.

Why not?

 

Fred_G said: I am not necessarily for the average person having full auto rifles and stinger missiles.

So according to what you wrote, what should the NOT average person be entitled to = full auto rifles and stinger missiles?

 

America is not stand alone on the world stage when it comes to violence and crimes by firearms. Nor is comparison by country pointless, because realistically it shows ratios and influences of events when viewing effects of more vs less guns.

You will find comparison of cities in the U.S. has already been noted per web site cited in Post #38 earlier, and noted again here for you:

Gun violence in America, explained in 17 maps and charts
In the developed world, these levels of gun violence are a uniquely American problem. Here’s why.
Updated by German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com Oct 2, 2017, 12:05pm EDT
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

DOA, by reading further on the article within that site, you will find this comparison re U.S.:


"...5) States with more guns have more gun deaths
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DDZo2LeJKmDYZV4f7cEKP_ajkwY=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9371353/gun_ownership_states.pngMother Jones
Using data from a study in Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mother Jones put together the chart above that shows states with more guns tend to have far more gun deaths. And it’s not just one study. “Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health."

 

Well, I doubt the average person could afford to shoot singer missiles. And I don't think the average gun owner wants the Wal Marts to sell full auto M-16's.

Just Plyin, don't a lot of illegal drugs come from Mexico? Don't you think illegal guns would as well? How well is the gun control in Chicago working out?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...appened-in-the-first-half-of-the-year-191171/