Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

nivek

As Above So Below
You even missed the point of me posting the meme, the whole point was it is meaningless.

Actually you missed the point of my meme post, it was totally meaningless and just a poke lol...A bit of tasteless humour lol...
 

Dundee

Fading day by day.
Actually you missed the point of my meme post, it was totally meaningless and just a poke lol...A bit of tasteless humour lol...
OK Sorry,
I am an Aussie so I am good at getting the piss taken out of me, (Aussie term) but you have to remember I have a bit of the dreaded Asbergers. If I had female friend call around, take all her cloths off and lay on my bed, I would probably assume she was overheating and go get her a fan. :)
Alas such is my lot. :)
 

AlienView

Noble
I just don't get the nastiness of you all, It is no wonder you run around shooting each other.
Now you see how you are?

That statement shows preconceived bias that does not reflect reality;

"It is no wonder you run around shooting each other." - Come on get serious, AmericanS don't go around shooting each
other, with the possible exception of inner cities like Chicago, which tried a total gun ban and it backfired - giving
Chicago the highest murder rate in the country.

And the fact that countries, especially Britain, which seems to forget that in the middle of the 20th Century they came very close to an invasion by the Nazis - Granted Australia is not as bad and does at least allow the ownership of firearms.

Now tell me something - If someone was trying to break into your home, actually succeeded in breaking in the door, or was found inside of your home, could you legally shoot them? And if it appears there may be a prowler on your property
could you unlock you gun and have it ready for self defense?

Another words in the US self defense shooting can be justified but each state and jurisdiction has different rules and laws as to win you could use a firearm for self defense. Can a gun be used legally for self defense in Australia?
And from what I gather from what you have said - You can not own a handgun, which is usually the best self defense
weapon - This does not fly in the US - Recent Supreme Court rulings have overturned laws that outlawed handguns in
some areas.

Another thing, what all the statistics DON'T TELL YOU is a fact which the gun lobbyist of the NRA are quick to point out - and have documented - there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases every year in the US
{and probably elsewhere} where brandishing, or showing a gun, has stopped the perpetuation of a crime
before it takes place - Not having a gun allowed the crime to proceed. Didn't they first try a complete gun
ban in Australia - And didn't that backfire leading to your current law? Last time I did the research,
home invasions in Britain went way up as Britain restricts all personal gun ownership.

And yet some debates, including this one with you, it amazes me that gun control advocates from other countries feel sorry for us - when the real sorry and pity belongs to them!

It is unfortunate that most Liberals in the US are almost Australian at heart - Thy give right wing Republicans a big advantage in elections which they otherwise would not win. You see the gun issue and the Second Amendment are a much bigger issue than public safety - Yes criminals with guns make people nervous
- But totalitarian governments that outlaw, or even overtly restrict gun ownership, makes people even more nervous.

Besides all the genocides that preceded gun bans as has already been mentioned
- This old cliche still applies:

074d4e63e91e0695353698343b19-is-it-true-that-when-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-guns.jpg


7008aa3c938faa2048f730aa650e8130.jpg
 
Last edited:

Dundee

Fading day by day.
......................................

A. The comment wasn't directed at you.
B. You are about as a biased, obtuse person I have ever encountered in 20 years of forum life, and not worth debating. Particularly on this subject. You have no interest in anything but the argument. Never let rational thought get in the way of a good fight hey.
 

Dundee

Fading day by day.

Dundee

Fading day by day.
"Maybe your right - Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun!

gunfreezone.jpg

See what I mean, all that matters is the fight and the sarcasm. If you don't give a shit about what others think, why not just start a Blog or a twitter feed where you get to talk and not care what others think. That way you can sprout all your agro biased bullshit and not have to even care what others think.
 

AlienView

Noble
See what I mean, all that matters is the fight and the sarcasm. If you don't give a shit about what others think, why not just start a Blog or a twitter feed where you get to talk and not care what others think. That way you can sprout all your agro biased bullshit and not have to even care what others think.

Have you tried psychiatry? - We can't help you here. - I'm glad they make you keep your guns locked up.


"
Mandalay Bay Hotel Was a “Gun Free Zone”

The screencap above tells the tale: the hotel from which spree killer Stephen Paddock fired on a crowd of 22 thousand concert-goers was a “gun free zone.” The question of whether or not any hotel staff detected any of the 23 firearms in Mr. Paddock’s room takes on new urgency.And while those calling for civilian disarmament in the wake of this horrific attack will ignore this fact, it’s more evidence, if evidence be needed, that gun control doesn’t work."
Quote source:
Mandalay Bay Hotel Was a "Gun Free Zone" - The Truth About Guns
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
A lot of people take Valium CB, and have a drink or two, they don't all go nut so with a Machine gun. So I hardly think you can use this as a cause or even a contributing factor.

You keep saying stuff like this as though it was true.

Anti-depressants cause suicidal idealization in a small percentage of patients.

It is 3% or more depending on the drug.

We have 33 million Americans on them

Valium (diazepam) Uses, Dosage, Side Effects - Drugs.com
Side Effects:
  • confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior;

  • unusual risk-taking behavior, decreased inhibitions, no fear of danger;

  • depressed mood, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself;

  • hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, hostility;

  • new or worsening seizures;

  • weak or shallow breathing, a feeling like you might pass out;

  • muscle twitching, tremor;

  • loss of bladder control; or

  • little or no urinating.
If we have 1 million Americans with suicidal idealization, some of them are going to want to bring friends along on the ride.
F3.large.jpg


You are one of these "correlation is causation" types.

For you this should be "case closed".


But again, I caution: Paddock is such an extreme oddity that it is hard to use him to make a case for anything.

His behavior is more like an assassin's than anything else. He deliberately covered his trail.
 
Last edited:

Dundee

Fading day by day.
You keep saying stuff like this as though it was true.

Anti-depressants cause suicidal idealization in a small percentage of patients.

It is 3% or more depending on the drug.

We have 33 million Americans on them

Valium (diazepam) Uses, Dosage, Side Effects - Drugs.com
Side Effects:
  • confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior;

  • unusual risk-taking behavior, decreased inhibitions, no fear of danger;

  • depressed mood, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself;

  • hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, hostility;

  • new or worsening seizures;

  • weak or shallow breathing, a feeling like you might pass out;

  • muscle twitching, tremor;

  • loss of bladder control; or

  • little or no urinating.
If we have 1 million Americans with suicidal idealization, some of them are going to want to bring friends along on the ride.
F3.large.jpg


You are one of these "correlation is causation" types.

For you this should be "case closed".


But again, I caution: Paddock is such an extreme oddity that it is hard to use him to make a case for anything.

His behavior is more like an assassin's than anything else. He deliberately covered his trail.
Have you ever suffered from depression CB,? what are you suggesting, people don't take medication where needed?
Almost every medication has potential side effects. But overall the good outweighs the risks. Are you truly saying that people should not take medication, but lets keep the guns ?
What next, ban pain killers, because of side effects. What about immunization, I suppose your against that too. This line of thinking is just nutty. People need medication in some instances, people don't need automatic weapons. Are you truly saying that your right to own a gun is a higher priority than your neighbors to take medication. You cant be serious.
 

Dundee

Fading day by day.
Have you tried psychiatry? - We can't help you here. - I'm glad they make you keep your guns locked up.


"
Mandalay Bay Hotel Was a “Gun Free Zone”

The screencap above tells the tale: the hotel from which spree killer Stephen Paddock fired on a crowd of 22 thousand concert-goers was a “gun free zone.” The question of whether or not any hotel staff detected any of the 23 firearms in Mr. Paddock’s room takes on new urgency.And while those calling for civilian disarmament in the wake of this horrific attack will ignore this fact, it’s more evidence, if evidence be needed, that gun control doesn’t work."
Quote source:
Mandalay Bay Hotel Was a "Gun Free Zone" - The Truth About Guns
I'm sorry mate, in my opinion your as mad as a snake. And as blind as a bat.
There is nothing more to say to you. Your opinion is laughable.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
I'm sorry mate, in my opinion your as mad as a snake. And as blind as a bat.
There is nothing more to say to you. Your opinion is laughable.

"Sigh" more of this from you.

If all the shootings occur in gun free zones (which there aren't a lot of) the solution is to make gun free zones illegal.
 

Dundee

Fading day by day.
"Sigh" more of this from you.

If all the shootings occur in gun free zones (which there aren't a lot of) the solution is to make gun free zones illegal.
I can't believe I have to have this conversation, I think you are both quite mad!!

Last try, after this, I just plain and simple give up. Please, just this once, try and stay with what I am saying and address it directly. Just this once if you can.
I am going to present 3 hypothetical scenarios to you for your consideration, see if you can follow, and tell me where I am wrong with MY SCENARIOS.
Forget figures, we both know we can hunt up numbers to support any position.
Forget laws and rights as gun owners, forget Wyatt, Doc and the Oztralian, just consider only my 3 hypothetical situations. Please, just this once try and stay on topic.


1. Planet X has 10,000 people on it 1000 are armed criminals who will always have guns because criminals will always find a way. However, you and I are the only people other than the criminals out of all the people that have guns.

In My house, they are locked and secured as per my previous description. Also as per Australian gun laws, my guns are fairly tame.

Your house has loaded guns lying unsecured, ammunition unsecured, and guns such as semi autos, as per your previous descriptions.

Something unforeseen happens, we each have a break in, a family member goes mad or whatever.
Given our situations, whose house is more likely to provide a means for a single, multiple of mass shooting?
Yours or mine?

So common sense says in scenario 1. Gun control will work not work well, but my house is safer. You cant argue with that.

2. Planet Y is now the same, but everyone can have guns, we still have the 1000 always armed criminal, but everyone can have guns, but, some neighborhoods have strict gun laws, like here in OZ, some neighborhoods have relaxed gun laws like in the US.

Because the laws are inconsistent, people can just go where they need to get guns, they can ship them, buy and sell them, transport them. So, planet Y has gun laws that do not work, because they are just too easy to get around because they are not consistent across the planet, and don't apply to every one. This in my opinion is the US and why you say it wont work. I agree with you, in the US, this type of thing wont work.


3. Planet Z has the same population as X and Y, still has its 1000 ever armed criminals, but has consistent planet wide strict gun laws like Australia, no exceptions. Every single gun owner in every neighborhood must adhere to the strict storage and ownership laws. On this planet, gun laws work because there are No exceptions, and no guns lying around.

My Conclusion, and please tell me where I am wrong.
Planets X, will always have 1000 armed criminals with the possibility of 1001 if your house is broken into and your unsecured semi autos stolen or used by a crazed family member.

Planet Y, will always have 1000 armed criminals, plus an abundance of easily obtainable guns for other new criminals, crazed family members, angry husbands and wives, so you have an uncontrollable situation because the gun laws are strict in some places, not others and thus unenforceable.

Planet Z will have 1000 armed criminals, and 9000 people subject to very strict, controlled and policed gun laws. Guns are not easily stolen, and are safely stored. All owners are screened and taught. Planet Z is the safest environment. This Is Australia


Now please remember I am not talking about your rights as Americans, or your constitutional laws.
just and only just 3 hypothetical planets without politics, Planets X, Y, and Z.

Tell me where my thinking is wrong.
Gun laws on planet Z work the best.

Any law will only work if it is applied consistently, you and Doc take your figures from scenarios that are all true and valid, but have no meaningful relevance because your gun laws and no gun zones are ineffectual becus you all live on planet Y.

Please don't throw me more numbers, or some stupid insult about Australians being untrustworthy with guns, just stick to my examples. Just this once.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
I can't believe I have to have this conversation, I think you are both quite mad!!

Last try, after this, I just plain and simple give up. Please, just this once, try and stay with what I am saying and address it directly. Just this once if you can.
I am going to present 3 hypothetical scenarios to you for your consideration, see if you can follow, and tell me where I am wrong with MY SCENARIOS.
Forget figures, we both know we can hunt up numbers to support any position.
Forget laws and rights as gun owners, forget Wyatt, Doc and the Oztralian, just consider only my 3 hypothetical situations. Please, just this once try and stay on topic.


1. Planet X has 10,000 people on it 1000 are armed criminals who will always have guns because criminals will always find a way. However, you and I are the only people other than the criminals out of all the people that have guns.

In My house, they are locked and secured as per my previous description. Also as per Australian gun laws, my guns are fairly tame.

Your house has loaded guns lying unsecured, ammunition unsecured, and guns such as semi autos, as per your previous descriptions.

Something unforeseen happens, we each have a break in, a family member goes mad or whatever.
Given our situations, whose house is more likely to provide a means for a single, multiple of mass shooting?
Yours or mine?

So common sense says in scenario 1. Gun control will work not work well, but my house is safer. You cant argue with that.

2. Planet Y is now the same, but everyone can have guns, we still have the 1000 always armed criminal, but everyone can have guns, but, some neighborhoods have strict gun laws, like here in OZ, some neighborhoods have relaxed gun laws like in the US.

Because the laws are inconsistent, people can just go where they need to get guns, they can ship them, buy and sell them, transport them. So, planet Y has gun laws that do not work, because they are just too easy to get around because they are not consistent across the planet, and don't apply to every one. This in my opinion is the US and why you say it wont work. I agree with you, in the US, this type of thing wont work.


3. Planet Z has the same population as X and Y, still has its 1000 ever armed criminals, but has consistent planet wide strict gun laws like Australia, no exceptions. Every single gun owner in every neighborhood must adhere to the strict storage and ownership laws. On this planet, gun laws work because there are No exceptions, and no guns lying around.

My Conclusion, and please tell me where I am wrong.
Planets X, will always have 1000 armed criminals with the possibility of 1001 if your house is broken into and your unsecured semi autos stolen or used by a crazed family member.

Planet Y, will always have 1000 armed criminals, plus an abundance of easily obtainable guns for other new criminals, crazed family members, angry husbands and wives, so you have an uncontrollable situation because the gun laws are strict in some places, not others and thus unenforceable.

Planet Z will have 1000 armed criminals, and 9000 people subject to very strict, controlled and policed gun laws. Guns are not easily stolen, and are safely stored. All owners are screened and taught. Planet Z is the safest environment. This Is Australia


Now please remember I am not talking about your rights as Americans, or your constitutional laws.
just and only just 3 hypothetical planets without politics, Planets X, Y, and Z.

Tell me where my thinking is wrong.
Gun laws on planet Z work the best.

Any law will only work if it is applied consistently, you and Doc take your figures from scenarios that are all true and valid, but have no meaningful relevance because your gun laws and no gun zones are ineffectual becus you all live on planet Y.

Please don't throw me more numbers, or some stupid insult about Australians being untrustworthy with guns, just stick to my examples. Just this once.

Well...

Lets take your example.

There is a break-in.

1. You have to go to where your gun is, which might take you right past the trespasser(s).

2. You then have to fumble around with the lock to the gun, alerting him to your presence, if you didn't already by stumbling through your home.

3. You then have to fumble around with the lock to your ammunition, alerting him to your presence if you didn't in steps 1 & 2.

4. You then have to slam the clip home, alerting him to your presence if you didn't in steps 1 & 2 & 3.

5. You then have to chamber a round, alerting him to your presence if you didn't in steps 1 & 2 & 3 & 4.

6. You then click off the safety and if you aren't dead already you are ready to face an intruder, having totally ignored the intruder(s) for several minutes while you desperately tried to arm yourself.

I on the other hand:
1. Grab my piece and a second clip.

2. Lie in wait until I determine the location and number of intruders.

3. Click off the safety.

4. Blaze away with a full clip. Actually I would put three rounds into each assailant then fairly distribute the remaining rounds.

5. Reload and go to check for signs of life, or continue blazing away if there is still movement.

Now, who is more likely to survive this encounter with hostile intruders?
 

Dundee

Fading day by day.
Well...

There is a break-in.

1. You have to go to where your gun is, which might take you right past the trespasser(s).

2. You then have to fumble around with the lock to the gun, alerting him to your presence, if you didn't already by stumbling through your home.

3. You then have to fumble around with the lock to your ammunition, alerting him to your presence if you didn't in steps 1 & 2.

4. You then have to slam the clip home, alerting him to your presence if you didn't in steps 1 & 2 & 3.

5. You then have to chamber a round, alerting him to your presence if you didn't in steps 1 & 2 & 3 & 4.

6. You then click off the safety and if you aren't dead already you are ready to face an intruder, having totally ignored the intruder(s) for several minutes while you desperately tried to arm yourself.

I on the other hand:
1. Grab my piece and a second clip.

2. Lie in wait until I determine the location and number of intruders.

3. Click off the safety.

4. Blaze away with a full clip. Actually I would put three rounds into each assailant then fairly distribute the remaining rounds.

5. Reload and go to check for signs of life, or continue blazing away if there is still movement.

Now, who is more likely to survive this encounter with hostile intruders?
See what I mean CB, you are incapable of addressing the question.
Answer the bloody questions as posed of stop having a go at me, what is the point of a conversation where you refuse to answer anything I say.
You said gun control is ineffective, I answer that, so your response is a home defense situation.
See why this is pointless, answer my questions as posed or bloody leave me alone.
 

AlienView

Noble
I can't believe I have to have this conversation, I think you are both quite mad!!
Answer the bloody questions as posed of stop having a go at me

Now whose going at whom? Basically the debate is now between 4 people, probably Americans, and obviously pro Second Amendment - And you as an Aussie who have decided that Australian gun control is what the US needs - You feel sorry for us? I feel sorry for you - If you were so secure in the Australian stance on guns, I don't think you would spend all you efforts to try converting the US to your viewpoint. We have enough 'Liberals'
seeing things your way already {say like Hillary Clinton}.

BUT ONE FACT YOU CAN NOT DENY - Every time Liberals start gaining power nationally, and every time they even start talking about 'gun control' serioulsly - There is a spike in gun sales - Gun scales skyrocket, through gun dealers and gun shows. Tha last President {Barrack Obama} probably did more for the gun industry then any other President to date by talking so much about gun control.

So in essence what you are doing Dundee, is aiding the gun lobby and gun sales in the US - That's assuming your limit the Second Amendment rhetoric is having any effect at all.

And talking about not answering questions that you pose - I'm still waiting for your response to this:

"............
Now tell me something - If someone was trying to break into your home, actually succeeded in breaking in the door, or was found inside of your home, could you legally shoot them? And if it appears there may be a prowler on your property could you unlock you gun and have it ready for self defense?

Another words in the US self defense shooting can be justified but each state and jurisdiction has different rules and laws as to when you could use a firearm for self defense. Can a gun be used legally for self defense in Australia?
And from what I gather from what you have said - You can not own a handgun, which is usually the best self defense weapon - This does not fly in the US - Recent Supreme Court rulings have overturned laws that outlawed handguns in some areas.

Another thing, what all the statistics DON'T TELL YOU is a fact which the gun lobbyist of the NRA are quick to point out - and have documented - there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases every year in the US {and probably elsewhere} where brandishing, or showing a gun, has stopped the perpetuation of a crime before it takes place - Not having a gun allowed the crime to proceed. Didn't they first try a complete gun ban in Australia - And didn't that backfire leading to your current law? Last time I did the research,
home invasions in Britain went way up as Britain restricts all personal gun ownership..........."


 

CasualBystander

Celestial
See what I mean CB, you are incapable of addressing the question.
Answer the bloody questions as posed of stop having a go at me, what is the point of a conversation where you refuse to answer anything I say.
You said gun control is ineffective, I answer that, so your response is a home defense situation.
See why this is pointless, answer my questions as posed or bloody leave me alone.


In My house, they are locked and secured as per my previous description. Also as per Australian gun laws, my guns are fairly tame.

Your house has loaded guns lying unsecured, ammunition unsecured, and guns such as semi autos, as per your previous descriptions.

Something unforeseen happens, we each have a break in, a family member goes mad or whatever.
Given our situations, whose house is more likely to provide a means for a single, multiple of mass shooting?
Yours or mine?

I was answering your question.

I've had a home break-in when I was in the house.

Your view on guns and their use against an intruder is naive and misinformed.
 
Last edited:

Dundee

Fading day by day.
..........................................

And talking about not answering questions that you pose - I'm still waiting for your response to this:

"......................................
Now tell me something - If someone was trying to break into your home, actually succeeded in breaking in the door, or was found inside of your home, could you legally shoot them? And if it appears there may be a prowler on your property could you unlock you gun and have it ready for self defense?

Another words in the US self defense shooting can be justified but each state and jurisdiction has different rules and laws as to when you could use a firearm for self defense. Can a gun be used legally for self defense in Australia?
And from what I gather from what you have said - You can not own a handgun, which is usually the best self defense weapon - This does not fly in the US - Recent Supreme Court rulings have overturned laws that outlawed handguns in some areas.

Another thing, what all the statistics DON'T TELL YOU is a fact which the gun lobbyist of the NRA are quick to point out - and have documented - there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases every year in the US {and probably elsewhere} where brandishing, or showing a gun, has stopped the perpetuation of a crime before it takes place - Not having a gun allowed the crime to proceed. Didn't they first try a complete gun ban in Australia - And didn't that backfire leading to your current law? Last time I did the research,
home invasions in Britain went way up as Britain restricts all personal gun ownership..........."
Oh for god sake, OK. Lets play it your way. I will directly answer your points above, in turn, no sidestepping, nothing. But in response, may I ask you address my 3 hypothetical situations, exactly as described.
OK Here goes to the best of my ability...
Now tell me something - If someone was trying to break into your home, actually succeeded in breaking in the door, or was found inside of your home, could you legally shoot them? And if it appears there may be a prowler on your property could you unlock you gun and have it ready for self defense?
As my understanding of Australian gun laws goes, No i cannot legally shoot them. I am not an expert but I am pretty sure there is NO provision for self defense in Australian Gun ownership. To take that one step further that no doubt will make you think we are mad here. I stated earlier about me being a security guard in a previous job, and the fact I refused to carry a 38. If my memory serves correctly, If I had chosen to carry a pistol, and through defense of robbery had to use it, Australian laws regarding shooting someone are so strict, that it is probably easier to get into the Chinese Space program as the Dalai Llamas gay black transsexual alien little brother. In short, NO we as Australian citizens, in my understanding are almost never for any reason allowed to shoot another human being as a private citizen, and those allowed to do so have more trouble than its worth if they have to do so.

Another words in the US self defense shooting can be justified but each state and jurisdiction has different rules and laws as to when you could use a firearm for self defense. Can a gun be used legally for self defense in Australia?
And from what I gather from what you have said - You can not own a handgun, which is usually the best self defense weapon - This does not fly in the US - Recent Supreme Court rulings have overturned laws that outlawed handguns in some areas.
Ok I think I covered the first bit above, our gun laws vary a little bit from state to state, but in essence I am pretty confident a private citizen cannot shoot another person even in self defense. But, I am happy to be corrected if i am wrong. As for Pistol ownership, I refer you to the following link, I live in Victoria but I am pretty sure that our licensing is pretty uniform across Australia
As I recall, you can own a handgun as a collector, with very strict storage and use regulations. As a member of a Pistol club, again with very strict storage and use, and I think but am not 100% sure that I can legally own a historic cap and ball pistol unlicensed, providing it is antique and of a vintage that I cannot go to a guin shop and buy ammunition. I confess I am a little unsure on this one though.
Here is the link to Victorian Gun Laws that should tell you our licensing categories, ow
nership rules etc
It is only for the state of Victoria but I am pretty confident most Australian States are similar. Again, happy tobe corrected.
Victoria Police - Firearm licence application forms

Now tell me something - If someone was trying to break into your home, actually succeeded in breaking in the door, or was found inside of your home, could you legally shoot them? And if it appears there may be a prowler on your property could you unlock you gun and have it ready for self defense?
I think I have covered this, but my understanding is NO, I am not allowed to shoot them. My understanding is that guns in Australia in the hands of private citizens are to be used for Sport, Hunting, Collecting, or target shooting, such as a Pistol Club, or Clay Pigeons, But If there are other Aussies reading this that know better I am happy to be corrected. Self defense is not included as a reason to own a gun in Australia as far as I am aware.

OK, to my summation. I apologize for calling you Doc, And CB Wyatt. That was not helpful and I will stop doing that. It is obviously a passionate subject for some, and that is not helpful.
I also realize your first thoughts may be, well what the hell is the use of owning a gun in Australia, I respect that from our different histories how crazy that may seem to you. I get it.
But you have to understand how different our countries and people are. It is just not something Aussies think about that much, being able to shoot someone. However come down to one of our pubs and make some derogitory comments about us, and see what happens. You will end up in a Blue quick smart, you or I would win depending. But most decent Aussies would buy you a beer after woods. The thought of one of us pulling a gun to sort it out, well, its just, in general, not something that happens here.

OK, I hope I have answered your questions with respect, and I hope you accept my appology for prior smart arse comments.

Now, hopefully you will return the courtesy.
Here, with respect, and as much understanding as a non US citizen can have is my opinion, without the sarcasm.

You have offered in several posts statistics saying that strict gun laws don't work in the US, the numbers according to your posts support that. But here is how my understanding sees it.
And please if you are able, can we leave behind just for this conversation your rights to bear arms, your laws, and your 2nd amendment.

If I have a lake full of endangered fish, on one side of the lake, strict laws apply, no fishing, no swimming, no pollution, nothing. Have a pick-nick, but just look. However on the opposite side of the lake, no such restrictions apply. On that side, I can fish, dump rubbish, swim drop sticks of jelly. Whatever I want.
The laws designed to protect the fish wont work. All I have to do is walk to the other side and do what I want.

This (in my opinion) is why gun restrictions don't work in the USA. What use is a gun free, no carry, zone, if I can just drive to the next area or state that has no such laws and buy what I like, stick it in my pocket, and carry it into the gun free zone and still commit a murder.

So my point is this, and I know you are passionate about your laws and your right to bear arms, If I was born in your country, likely as not I would be too.

But if you can, please refer back to my three hypothetical worlds, X, Y and Z.
If hypothetically, your 2nd amendment didn't exist, and uniform, country wide laws were brought in that were strict like Australian laws. It may take many generations, many gun amnesty's, many police interventions, but given enough time. Tighter gun laws would eventually work.
It would not stop the criminals, they will always find guns, it would not help you survive a house break in by an armed robber, I accept that. But, it would eventually help to stop 16 year old Johnny from next door, grabbing dads semi Auto out of the shed and shooting his class mates because he has for whatever reason become unbalanced.

This is the point I have been trying to make from post 1.
Gun laws work if they apply to everyone, no exceptions, country wide.
And I am reminding you I am not talking about your right to bear arms under your laws. I understand the importance of that to you folks.
But, (in my opinion) it is your own 2nd amendment that prevents strict gun laws from working.

And yes, you are right, if we are neighbors, my guns are locked in a gun safe with the keys and ammo secure, and you have a loaded 38 in your bedside table. And we both get broken into by a murdering thief at 3 am. I will probably be dead, and all my stuff taken, you will probably call 911 and say come get this dead burglar off my kitchen floor. But that is a separate argument altogether. And (in my opinion) has nothing to do with the prevention of a crazed 16 year old grabbing dads semi auto and shooting his classmates.

I apologize for past insults, and hope this response is appropriately respectful and relevant.
 
Top