Las Vegas Shooting.

I find this worrying. The general attitude and reasons of Australians nervous about travelling to the US is because of your gun laws. Who knows who has a gun and how nervous a trigger finger they have which we view as persons being potential live grenades that can go off anywhere anytime.

With respect, I find no qualification in your point for having weapons. On the contrary, it opens possibility of excessive force charges if used under circumstances you've noted.

Reason in Australia "...why people don't start fights or threaten other people...", would be because such as a person may be litigated against per our Section 8(1) of the Crime (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) which defines stalking as ‘the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the vicinity of, or an approach to a person’s place of residence, business or work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any activity’.

Here's a criminal matter Man, 79, charged with murdering environment officer after alleged shooting at Moree, NSW - when the officer came onto his land: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-30/farmer-in-land-dispute-charged-with-murder/5634006
If that guy didn't possess a weapon, that officer would still be alive today - and that officer didn't even have "ill intent".

I have many friends in America who think as I do and do not possess fire arms.

 

I can't believe your country has no criminal people who carry guns. No dealers, no thugs, no body hiding from the law? Must be paradise!

 

Our last hanging was in 1967...there are pros/cons to Capital Punishment...one being a person may be wrongly convicted...

 

I never said that.

Like any country, we have criminals who illegally carry guns. We have dealers, thugs, people hiding from the law. Our criminal courts are always busy.
Having seen police demographics, I am aware that I have criminals living up the road to my house. Where one lives makes no difference to the criminal element - though the level of crime will vary.

What I am saying is that Australia has gun laws and the ratio of gun offences to other countries in comparison is very low as a consequence - that is the point I have been making.

And yes, it is a Paradise to live in many ways.

 

...love your humour...​

 

Your people are so nervous to visit US but you have the same problems there?

 

Didn't realise you meant terrorists...

 

The criminal element here is not as bad as in the US. Criminal element is everywhere, regardless what country one is in, but it is well contained here. We feel safe in our environment.

 

Well, if Australia every grows to have 10 times the population it has now the crime problem will probably grow also.

Remember , the gun crimes and killings you reference were by criminals out to commit that specific crime. Not your average legal firearm owner.

 

Not necessarily so.

Crime types and rates have varied and increased over the years, more so in other criminal areas firearm offences being at the bottom rungs of the ladder. Upon scrutiny and analysis of crimes, drug related crimes being on the top rung of the ladder.

Drugs, fire arms...what can I say, which is the worse evil?...both are catastrophic.

 

Especially when mixed. A dangerous cocktail!

 

NO, Fred_G, PEOPLE PULL THE TRIGGER and shoot a projectile at a target ..... The gun doesn't shoot by itself!!

 

Even the per capita rates are lower. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

I'm interested in how you made this determination.

Like Stephen Paddock? It's a tough line to draw.

 

He started down a criminal path as soon as he started putting his plan in motion. Not an average gun owner as I would know. Out of how many million legal gun owners that there are, how many have crossed that line?

 

No true Scotsman?

 

I'm here expressing my own thoughts not trying to rehash some other study or other person's paper on the subject.
Lived many places and known many people. Many gun owners. Maybe have known 200 or more. Only one I ever knew shot anyone was my brother- a lawman. Got called to a domestic situation. Man comes out of the house with a rifle. Told to put it down. When he charged he didn't make it. The rifle was legal. The man turned criminal. That's how I see it.

 

Actually, not always so. They do make a Ransom Rest (I think I have that right) for test firing guns. But yes, usually people pull the trigger, and the gun then fires a projectile where it is aimed.

 

Hopelessly brainwashed? Or did a criminal element (isis) violate a law and kill a bunch of people with guns that are not legal, thus kinda negating the 'gun laws' prevent mass shootings. Please excuse my brainwashed thinking, but how am I twisting the facts here? Did a mass shooting occur in a gun restricted area or not?

 

But, if the law is not effective, why have it? Do you not think there could be another reason for mass killings? Do you think they only started going on in the age of firearms? Could there not be another reason? Just my off the wall conspiracy theory (that has absolutely no factual basis I know of) what about all the drugs people seem to love to put their children on for ADHD and such?

Humans have killed each other in many creative ways in history, but mass shootings seem to be relatively (in the last 50 years or so) a 'new' thing.

I think we all are seeking some kind of solution, the concept of shooting at a large group of people who I don't know, is just totally alien to me. Always interesting to hear different perspectives. I admit I have not followed all the links, I plan on doing that this weekend.

 

Nirvana fallacy AKA the perfect solution fallacy.

What if it's the Freemasons or aliens? Reducing the ability of madmen to initiate mass carnage is a reasonable goal, independent of their particular motivations.

There is a reason firearms have eclipsed those other ways: They are the most effective personal weapons man has devised. They have also become more affordable in the ensuing years.

Are we?

 

Yes!

True.
And we can debate how many innocents where executed versus how many murderers where executed until we run out of beer...
As Judge Greg Mathis (who was incarcerated) often superciliously says... "Everyone in prison is innocent."

Compromise!!!
You can own a firearm, but you can't own an automatic rifle, or more than 2 firearms, unless you're a collector, hunter, etc. In the case of the latter, then you'll pay for the licenses, and be subject to inspections.

The pro gun lobby wants...
The anti gun lobby wants...

 

Unfortunately, a win-win situation is not enough. Someone must lose for it to count.

Automatic weapons are rare. The domestic sale and importation of them was banned in 1986. The only ones available are those grandfathered in. They're old, rare and most are already in the hands of collectors. I doubt any law requiring licenses and inspections to own firearms would pass a legal challenge.

 

Then there would be chaos...laws cause criminals upon conviction to be incarcerated for a safer society. Even criminals need protection from other criminals.

Personally, I suspect some sort of mental problem for such an anti-social action on a somewhat grand scale given the number of innocent victims. I'm not sure whether some sort of mental illness has been determined.

 

That just seems silly. What does it matter how many guns or rounds of ammo I have? I can only shoot one gun at a time. As JustPlaying stated, auto guns are rare, and very expensive to own legally. I know people that have multiple shotguns for varying conditions to shoot skeet or doves. Add in a short range brush type deer rifle, and a more long range deer rifle, and a handgun for home defense. And where in the Constitution does it say you must pay a license fee for guns? Would that not disenfranchise low income people from owning an item that is 'not to be infringed on"?

And that whole 4'th amendment would make inspections unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

My point here is if murder is illegal, firing a gun in city limits is illegal, attempted murder is illegal, and assault is illegal, how is passing another law going to make someone obey it? Many drugs are illegal, but commonly available if you look around and don't mind breaking the law.

If the Vegas shooter had been captured alive, he would have spent the rest of his life in jail. Laws are already in place.

 

What if Paddock hadn't been able to kill as many people?

What you're going with is the Nirvana fallacy. It does not have to be a perfect solution to be a good solution. DUI laws do not stop all people from driving while drunk, but they stop enough people to make a difference. You're presenting a false dilemma, Fred, that we should do nothing if we can't fix everything. That's silly.

 

Capital punishment continues to be debated here by different government and non-government agencies. In summation, here are the arguments generally submitted (past reference used) and which continue to be debated in the same vein with the same points to this day:

“…Although Australia has abandoned capital punishment, it does not follow that it could never be reintroduced…”[1]

“…Whenever a particularly vicious crime is committed, members of the public, police, politicians and the press ‘reopen’ the debate on the death penalty…”[2]

“…when statistical material from various countries is considered, the presence or absence of the death penalty does not appear to indicate any significant influence upon the rates of murder and homicide and the preponderance of evidence suggests that the abolition of capital punishment has not resulted in any significant increase in the murder rates…[3]

The above argument holds weight as does "when justice errs" noted below:

“…When justice errs - It is too late to reverse the decision or compensate the prisoner for a miscarriage of justice after the death sentence has been carried out…”[4]

“…Conclusion:

While public opinion polls generally indicate that a majority of the community are in favour of capital punishment for certain offences, many people would currently argue that it has little real deterrent value over and above that of imprisonment. Those who argue for the death penalty on the grounds that at least the killer is removed permanently from society, have also to keep in mind the fact that in practice the death penalty is often administered capriciously and that there is always a possibility that an innocent person may be executed…” [5]

With the Death Penalty being abolished, what has occurred is an increase in the length of time and type of incarceration - sometimes dependent on the crime committed it may be multiple life sentences which means the convict will never be eligible for parole, depends on the type of imprisonment and will most definitely end up dying in prison with no possibility of release.


[1] Australian Institute of Criminology Page 2 http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi003.pdf
[2] Australian Institute of Criminology Page 2 http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi003.pdf
[3] Australian Institute of Criminology Page 3 http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi003.pdf
[4] Australian Institute of Criminology Page 5 http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi003.pdf
[5] Australian Institute of Criminology Page 5 http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi003.pdf

 

Hey David. This is quite an emotional and controversial topic.

Australia is one of the countries working globally to abolish Capital Punishment, based on Human Rights arguments, "...The death penalty is a breach of the most fundamental human right: the right to life...Since the abolition of the death penalty domestically, six Australians have been executed overseas...". [1]

Our Prime Minister Turnbull has also sought to have a Treaty with China "...They will send ours and we will send them theirs..." in place to avoid Australians overseas being executed for crimes committed in country.[2].


In addition, prison can be a hell of a lot worse for the convicted, particularly dependent upon the type of crime committed, which I'm sure there is no need for me to expand upon in this instance.

[1] Law Council of Australia – 50 years since last execution in Australia: Call for Government to respond to key Parliamentary report – 3 February 2017
https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media...rnment-to-respond-to-key-parliamentary-report

[2] POLITICS - The Anti-Death Penalty Turnbull Government Wants To Send Criminals Back To China Human rights groups warn the repatriated criminals could be executed. 27/03/2017 6:18 AM AEDT | Updated 27/03/2017 12:00 PM AEDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...-government-wants-to-send-crimina_a_22012205/

 

I have never heard of a Bump Fire Stock. For those, like me, here's some info.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bump-fire-stock-rifle-automatic-weapon.htm

And FWIW... Read this.
Nothing is guaranteed, but it might save your life.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/tips-to-survive-soft-target-attack.htm

 

Clearly the subject is a hot one. After adding my 2 cents I thought I might be banned or attacked for my comments. Funny, no one commented.
I paused for a few moments after reading what turns out to be some better arguments on both-sides here than one can here on TV talk shows including and perhaps especially the ones with a political bent. It occurred to me that there is something about the " rights " that American's have and the interpretation of what " rights " are. Seems to me that the right to an opinion is most important to most. " LET ME say This and That....." who listens? Who hears what's being said?

I read some excellent arguments here but can and will any of them change the way things are? One person mentioned the fact that " Bump Stocks " can be made at home so discontinuing them will do what? Certainly will not stop killing, it will not stop innovation. It will not convince people that this piece of hardware is a bad thing.

It's interesting to me that after an event such as this 1 Gun stocks ( the investment type of " stock " ) go up. AR 15's sell out because there is a run on guns. The price continues to increase so people are making better money than they can make at their job. There is a major increase in gun classes. Ammunition for many weapons goes out of stock and when it comes back the price is also increased.

I've been hearing a lot about 3D printing of guns and gun parts. I've heard that people start moving to Conservative States with Liberal Gun laws.

For those of us who served in the military and watched friends get killed those images are etched in our minds and hearts forever. It changes us and it sort of amazes me that we are trained in KILLING and detaching our self from the emotional attachments.

We're released back into the population with all of that training that we got tempered by the experiences that comes with our tour of duty.

One of the "WHYs" that never seems to be addressed is why is it that parents, friends, husbands and wives assume that the person who has returned from multiple trips to a war zone are the same person who left to serve? How can that be? How can a human being watch and participate in activities that ends the life of other human beings be the same person? Who IS that person that comes home with damage; some visible and some not so visible.

I wonder, of all the entries here does anyone think that one or two contributions sheds a better brighter light on the subject?

Peace if Possible!

 

This is a Nirvana fallacy. It doesn't have to be the perfect solution. You don't see many sawed off shotguns, do you? It's easy to do. I'll tell you one thing: doing nothing at all will most certainly change nothing at all.

 

If you are referring to the Las Vegas Stephen Paddock, nothing appears to have been put regarding his mental state. Nor do those close to him offer any explanation or understanding for his actions. And based upon the type of life he appears to have lived, one must not assume, particularly in any criminal/legal matter. Only facts matter.

How one feels does not give licence to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. We have laws in place to deal with offenders.

Passing over such conduct as being “common form of insanity” excuses actions by such persons who “bucket tip” on others in an excessive and exaggerated manner – not so easily excusable when such persons probably need anger management education.

With respect, that sounds somewhat over dramatical. Such persons seeking attention to do such violent actions against innocents are either positively evil or have some mental disfunction and need medical assistance.

One must take care when it comes to "interpretation" of the law if not familiar how laws actively interact, rely upon and also may relate to other parts of legislation.

When it comes to human rights, the United Nations in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms.”

However, as we are all aware, not all countries have signed up to this Declaration.

Depends what you are referring to and its relevancy.

 

I find your comments astonishing being aware of the understanding and support offered to returned veterans.[1]

Here we recognise and actively support veterans from all wars, particularly on ANZAC DAY (Australia New Zealand Army Corps) which is a yearly, national, Public Holiday with beautiful, solemn Sunrise Services to remember those who have fallen, marches by veterans from past wars and if not present, then presented by their great grandchildren, grandchildren, children who proudly display Medals while they take their place in the march. The rest of the day is a celebration everywhere, particularly in pubs and this is the only day when TWO UP[2] is allowed to be played, even on some streets!

I would be very surprised if some sort of annual celebration in honouring veterans and active defence members is not carried on all around the world in different countries, including America.

There is recognition of what these people have been through once they return back to civilian life...and there are support services available to this end which includes spouses/those relevant family extensions.



[1] Here is one example that recognises and actively supports veterans:
“Prince Harry Launches Sydney Invictus Games With Truly Inspiring Speech”
What a bloke. 07/06/2017 11:35 AM AEST | Updated 07/06/2017 2:05 PM AEST
Anthony Sharwood Sports And Environment Editor, Huff Post Australia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...victus-games-with-truly-inspiring_a_22129687/

[2] Two-up: Your guide to the Aussie gambling game that's legal once a year
http://mashable.com/2016/04/24/two-up-explained/#BbifR1xU2Zqj

 

Actually, it is not too uncommon to see an arrest for a shotgun under length. Most short barreled shotguns sold are at least .5" longer than the legal limit just to prevent any measurement discrepancy to result in a problem.

How does doing "something" better than doing nothing, if no real solution is there?

 

So by this logic, licensing and inspecting vehicles would also be unconstitutional and probably disenfranchises low income people from owning one... yet every single one of us who drives a car is subject to it, and nobody bats an eye.

 

Where? I've failed to see this epidemic of stubby scatterguns.

There are real solutions. They're ones you don't like.

What item is this?

 

Sawed-off?
Probably not epidemic but enough following to have several name brands making versions of the gun many made themself. If you go camping all weekend on the river or fishing in some backwater hole you might want to carry the simplest gun for the job. Many were homemade by country folk. I wouldn't doubt some were used for self defense. Some were had just for the novelty of it.

http://www.nylonrifles.com/wp/2013/11/charming-snakes-with-lead/

 

go to about 1:50 for the answer to the real agenda of "common sense gun laws".

 

Driving is not a Constitutional right. Ask anyone with a suspended license. Or someone who never bothered to get one.

 

Noted on the transcript of that video you posted are statements made by Senator Feinstein:

"...Paddock didn't display any of the signs one might look for in a potential shooter like a criminal record or mental illness...But Feinstein doesn't believe that means Congress should do nothing on gun control.

She has introduced a bill to ban 'bump stocks'..."[1]

Sen Dianne Feinstein on banning bump stocks: ‘We need a law’ banning bump stocks on firearms
"...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who authored the 1990s ban on assault weapons, said over the weekend that Congress must pass a law banning the so-called bump stock devices used in last week’s massacre at a Las Vegas country music festival..."[2]

So it appears there is to be some form of restriction with the bans she is trying to introduce. In my opinion, when it comes to firearms, some type of restriction is better than none if it can minimise catastrophic outcome and number of victims...






[1] Sen. Feinstein says no law could have stopped Las Vegas gunman
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS October 8, 2017, 9:10 AM
Last Updated Oct 8, 2017 9:26 AM EDT
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dianne-feinstein-talks-to-face-the-nation-after-las-vegas-shooting/

[2] ‘We need a law’ banning bump stocks on firearms, Sen. Dianne Feinstein says
By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 8, 2017
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/8/we-need-law-banning-bump-stocks-firearms-sen-diann/

 

Fair enough, as far as the right to drive. I've recently played that game myself.

But what about inspections? Why is it unreasonable to require a person's firearms are inspected? Doesn't that ensure they are in proper working order... you know, like a car before you can drive it? Also, how about insurance? We both know there are gun owners who are considerably more trigger happy than others, and unfortunately just like the rest of life those people ruin it for the ones who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

 

I would like to see a photo iD required for all gun transfers, along with background checks. There should be mandatory jail time for straw buyers. Dealers who are unable to secure their inventory against theft should be stripped of their license. Those who fail to secure their firearms from children or criminals should be held legally liable for the results of their negligence.

 

So, who is qualified to inspect them, and are we going to require ALL lethal or potentially lethal items to be insured and inspected? And how do we "know" the trigger happiness of gun owners?

Again, cars, car insurance inspections and all are not a right, the 2A is a right. If you start requiring more expenses, this will adversely effect the poor. And what other rights require insurance? 1A?

 

But, she knows that ban will not really affect gun crime. Most liberals want to get rid of privately owned guns, so only the gubment and certain people (like the Diane Finstein) only have them. Nancy Pelosi hopes that a bump stock ban starts the "slippery slope" of gun bans.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/05/pelosi-hopes-for-slippery-slope-on-gun-regulations/

The Los Vegas shooter passed background checks for the guns he had.