A Handgun Comment
April 26th 2008 18:42
Although they might be found laying about in warring regions around the world; the infamous AK-47 is a classic, but we're focusing on the handgun element in the US.
The waiting period in the US to purchase a handgun is 7days and is referred to as a cooling off period. During that time a background check is made (the data base has been greatly enlarged) so that known terrorists, criminals and mentally defective persons aren't allowed to purchase weapons legally. BTW, that system is improving by leaps and bounds.
Many of the guns sold on the streets were smuggled into the US along with illegal drugs and other contraband, including human organs and slaves and offered for sale by criminal organizations of one form or another. Some are sic, state sponsored criminal elements from foreign entities such as China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran to name a few.
Some of those weapons offered for sale are too dangerous to even operate, they're of such poor quality.
Modified AK-47
In the event of an internal melt down, their hands are clean in the eyes of the world, candidates for this tactic; Venezuela, Ecuador, Columbia, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Mexico and that is just the countries south of our borders add them to the list above.
There are so many other elements involved with the gun issue, besides the obvious ones, that it's understandable for debates to get myopic.
Are modern societies stable enough to maintain peace without the individual remaining vigilant and responsible for their personal safety? No.
Are guns a viable tool for self defense, Yes.
Are guns used responsibly in the US, for the most part, Yes.
And things are gradually improving.
Raven
| 105 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Too many massacres, leaving war out of the equation, I am no pacifist, believing that is just stupidity, although it would be nice if it were not.
I am not the best one to be replying to this post, being rather ignorant of such matters, but you have put a lot of thought into what you have written, so I am just providing you with what I think about the matter.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
I truly hope that you never find yourself facing the business end of a firearm, but crazy stuff happens. With that being the case, I would rather know that people are familiar with firearms and not afraid to use them, but are also self disciplined enough to know when it's appropriate to discharge them.
I'd rather deal with that, then to have the population at large ignorant.
Raven
Comment by Damo
Just a few point.
We are not talking about the regular bolt action 22 and the single barrel single shot shotgun. Suitable for hunting.
We are talking about small repeat fire armaments. Designed for shooting people.
The calling a gun a tool is correct but every tool is designed for a purpose.
Dynamite is a tool but do not let people walk around with it in their pockets.
Fertilizer is also useful but we restrict its use for security reason.
Yet as soon as anyone mentions restricting the kind and types of guns legally sold there is a huge uproar.
Unfortunately I fear that America may need to face a mass killing on the social proportion of Australia's Port Arthur before the penny drops.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
What was assumed, was that Americans would continue to be taught and schooled in the use of firearms. But only a portion of the population did so; those that lived in the wild west did so, the carpet baggers to the east robbed us with their attorney's and insisted that no one had a need for personal firearms. It generally made life safer for them.
Raven
Comment by Damo
Anyway constitutions are hardly ever perfect.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
We cannot resrticts 13 year olds from heavily lurid rap becaue they get it off Limewire.
We cannot stop criminals getting guns becasue there is always a willing seller with a brown paper bag.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
And our constitution was and in very unique; it didn't assume that it would require change; it was designed for it.
~ ~ ~
Brenton, if you click on the first picture, you'll see that it is manufactured from M-16 parts. Our problem, we have criminal elements in this country fully capable of churning out illegal weapons; the AK-47 is one of the easier and more reliable models.
Raven
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Very much like the Israeli system.
That is one of the primary reasons for the right to bear arms, secondly, it was to protect the people from an oppressive US government. Corruption was a problem even then.
May I redirect your attention to the conflagration in pre-WW II Europe where the general public was stripped of arms for their own welfare; much to the future detriment of Jews and other minorities?
That was one of the first matters of business that the US government did to first nations people when they surrendered; they were disarmed, because they were beyond a doubt, some of the best guerrilla fighters on the continent.
Everyone seems to take the attitude that the arms pandemic is the fault of the US, firearms were invented in China right after the discovery of gun powder. Which admittedly occurred over a lengthy period of time.
Anyway, am I happy about the firearm situation in the US, no. That is another reason why I won't live south of the Canadian border; armed gangs. They tried to infiltrate here in Alaska and were shot to pieces; they then moved back south.
Do I want stricter guns laws or stricter enforcement of existing gun laws. The teeth was stripped from the current laws by erosion at the hands of the very politician we look to for leadership.
Personally, I think career politicians pose more of a threat to the safety of society and the people than do the firearms.
Additionally, when the Japanese attacked and occupied part of Alaska during WW II, we didn't have sufficient military forces to drive them out. But we had a well armed civilian force that would have given them a fit had they tried to come closer to the mainland. It isn't a well kept secret that Alaskans keep arms, we do, many, many many of them. And we practice with them.
Raven
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
LOVE shooting! Black powder, reloading, you name it I've done it but people get confused because I don't hunt. I just don't find a lot of sport in scoping out a deer at 1000 yards and then pulling the trigger.
Too many times the people who want to abolish guns are the same people who want to give more "rights" to criminals. I have NO sympathy toward criminals. Flogging, salt in open sores, public humiliation--maybe we should go back to that sort of thing with gun-criminals??????
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Damo
So which guns laws are you calling to be tightened?
Also I had not heard about the Japanese invasion of Alaska before. Did they occupy any land and if so how were they removed?
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
~ ~ ~
Hi Damo, try this link for starters,
Japan invades Alaska,
Yes they occupied land in 1942 and were finally driven out by the US and Canadian military in 1943.
Raven
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
We have laws that stop under 18s getting alcohol... apparently.
My faith in these laws is akin in my faith for laws to make sure only the good guys have the tools to kill humans.
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
It seems to me that the US seems to have, for the lack of better words, a love affair with guns.
We don't seem to have the same affinity with guns here in Australia.
So not that this is a wasted conversation, but try as I might I don't understand the attraction to the gun and Americans will probably not understand how Australians can be so anti-gun.
I know that is a pretty gross generalisation but when Martin Bryant shot 35 people and our then Prime Minister introduced laws banning guns and also introduced a buy-back scheme to get rid of guns there were some rumblings but certainly not enough to stop either of those initiatives going through.
From what I see, I doubt this would ever happen in America.
It really is a cultural difference.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Have handguns killed as many as have the AK-47's? I doubt it. Where the hue and cry about that point?
Legislation isn't the entire answer and is like a locked door, it will only keep honest thieves out.
Raven
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Many of us are subsistence hunters, and that isn't easy with bow and arrows or spears.
Lastly, living in an area as large as we do, we must depend upon ourselves for home security.
In the other 49 states, guns are status symbols of machismo, we really don't need that up here; we are very secure in our personal images. But then, we aren't ruled by either gang or mob related hysteria and fear.
But, you're correct; until physically yanked from our cold dead hands, most of us will not give them up. My personal security is my responsibility; not the states.
Mrs. M, it really isn't the wild west in America that the media would have you believe that it is.
Raven
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Raven I've got a question for you.
The usual rhetoric I hear is that the constitutions says that you have the right to bear arms so introducing gun laws contravenes that right.
Which is it that strikes the chord? The fact that the gun will be taken away or the constitution will no longer be the foundation that the US is built on.
Can you see what I'm getting at? I hope I'm making sense.
I find it interesting that you say that you safety is your responsibility not that states. I think that it's both. Again, these are just cultural differences I think.
I appreciate that if you live in Alaska where you might come across a bear you need to defend yourself. Or if you have a farm.
I don't really dig the hunting thing myself. I can appreciate shooting as a sport - shoot clay pigeons to your hearts content.
You make a valid point with the Japanese invasion of Alaska in WWII but does the average modern day major metropolitan city dwellers need guns? Especially as you say, have they had the training?
When the Virginia Tech shootings happened there were media reports saying that some students claimed if they were allowed to conceal carry that they would have shot the shooter and not as many people would have died.
But if no-one is really trained in guns, or determining where gun shots have come from all I can see happening is 5 people all standing up pointing guns at each other because they are unsure who the first shooter is and people screaming all around how could anyone make sense of what was going on and have the clarity to ascertain who is the guilty party and who is innocent.
Don't police officer and defence force people train to deal with these sorts of situations? How is the average civilian supposed to match the mental wit?
Enough rambling from me.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
You would think so.
Easily.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
There are various shooting and training facilities in most metropolitan areas, along with programs offered by law enforcement officials. So, there is training readily available.
When the shooting started, the class room doors were secured by the students and I doubt that anyone had real difficulty knowing where the shooting was occurring. So, had there been someone armed inside a classroom, they'd have had a pretty good idea who was doing the shooting.
Armed citizens aren't as naive as you might believe, and I have been in a situation where I was armed, during a robbery and chose not to engage the armed thugs because of the crowded environment. I chose instead to talk the clerk through the situation and the men collected the receipts and left without harming anyone.
They were involved later in a vicious shoot out (less than a couple of hours later) in a drug deal that went bad.
Anyway, this is an argument that you and I won't agree on, we have diametrically opposed views concerning this issue and that's alright. We can agree to disagree over the issue.
~ ~ ~
Hiya Kleo, I have to agree with your pithy comment.
Raven
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Hi Raven
You come across as a very sensible, sane, rational, cool as a cucumber type of person but not everyone is like you and I suppose that's my fear.
It's not that I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong so I hope I haven't given you that impression. I'm not trying to argue in a bad non constructive way......just have a discussion and throwing ideas up.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
I know that they (guns) have served real and useful purposes in the development of this country but I can see the handwriting on the wall, their useful utility is waning; much like the role of men.
But in all the conflicts around the world, those that suffer the worse are those unarmed souls that plea and hope for mercy from their armed attackers; it won't be there.
Look with open eyes at the world around you and answer this question; to what do you owe your relative security? Someone is bearing arms to keep you safe, but what if those very same individuals decide to turn on those they're to protect. Historically is has happened many times in the past and will likely do so again in the future.
Living as a slave to the foibles of armed mercenaries of any kind is not something I will tolerate, on any level. It is something that must be opposed and would be by at least this one man.
Raven
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
But for Mrs M and just generally, I used to think that doctors and cops were super human - imbued with some power the rest of us did not posess. A long time ago I learned the truth about doctors and recently the other - they are all JUST HUMAN.
This Raven,
Has worried me for years. If there is a cataclysm of some kind the average person is defenceless. Its not impossible that our government would turn on us, but in times of war you have to think of missile strikes and invasion. The populace is going to go nuts. Just how are you going to get your family to a safe location without weapons? My axe will only get me so far and if I was going to stay and defend my position Id need a lot more than an axe and a cermonial sword.
I adore this post because it isnt afraid of the truth - a gun is a tool. With any powerful tool, a person must be educated, but all people should have access to useful tools if they can prove they can use them safely.
We should be allowed the right to prepare for the worst.
Comment by Damo
That is all wanted to establish.
That they were not driven off by a local militia but by a proper army.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
~ ~ ~
Damo, there was more civilian involvement than met the eye or historical notes.
But, officially, the proper army blundered their way to a victory against an enemy already weakened by the elements.
Alaskans are well armed and conditioned to the elements here in Alaska, and most are more than willing and able to defend it in a protracted guerrilla action.
My fervent prayer is for peace; but the realist within says, peace ain't a given.
Raven
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven
Comment by Sanctuary
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
lack of guns
Hi Kleo,
When has our government turned on us?
You talk about war and war is an exceptional circumstance and sure if someone invaded Australia I probably think that I would need a gun but is this what we prepare ourselves for? What about in the meantime? In peace time?
You two are rational beings. You won't be stupid with your firearms, but not everyone is rational.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Historically almost every country that I know about has experienced an armed internal or civil war.
Your civil war (Oz's) may be looming further away on the horizon, but, it will happen if history does tend to repeat itself. And one side or the other will be aligned with the government so when that happens, won't the other side feel abandoned by their government?
Most civil insurrections aren't fought and resolved over debating tables; Iraq and its future for example isn't being resolved exclusively with dialog, but with a deadly mixture of firearms and (ego driven) rhetoric.
Raven
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Im pretty sure Johnny turned on us. Luckily we gave him what he deserved. Oh that was a happy day!
Fact is, it could happen. We are not at peace now, we are at war. Our greatest threat is the islands but luckily we're not at war with them. Ive heard all sorts of things - people not wanting to be in Sydney or Melbourne because the harbour and capitol cities are TARGETS. We're America's lapdog and just as 'decadent' as any western country - we bury our heads in the sand and say it'll never happen, but its far from impossible.
So it is not my belief we are at peace. Our troops are there, they're dying, thats not peace.
Thank you very much for calling me a rational being...!
Now for your final comment. I know there are guns in this country. Machine guns, hand guns, shotguns. And I know the people who have them are not trained, not responsable. Not rational? Anyway, the guns are here and they cannot be eradicated. I think a law abiding citizen like myself, who is actually contributing to society, deserves to be able to protect myself from those who have guns.
I like the American system as it controls, at least a little, WHO has them. Our system ensures the most dangerous of people are the only ones who get them. I know we come from different cultures Mrs M, maybe you didnt believe there were automatic weapons in Oz at all, but there are. I know. The worlds a scary place.
G'day Raven bet you never thought all this would come out of one lil post!
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Because it looks to me that ammunition can be purchased legally in Oz, by the criminal element that possess illegal arms; for me, that's crazy.
Here's an interesting link that you kleo and MrsM might want to check out.
Raven
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
And...
You said it.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
This one reminded me of you; scroll over and click to enlarge it.
Raven
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
I'm no fan of Johnny's but he still didn't turn the guns on us.
Sending troops to a war is something else.
I'm also well aware that there are guns out there.
I like the American system as it controls, at least a little, WHO has them.
But how many illegal guns are floating around, both here and in the US?
I went through this whole discussion with youranter last year just after the Virgina Tech shooting.
Youranter claimed that crime rates had increased in Australia since guns were banned but couldn't tell me his sources.
The below are some quotes that I wrote to him.
This report presents key results of the Australian component of the 2004 ICVS, noting that both recent rates of crime victimisation and fear levels have declined since the last survey in 2000.
(Australian Institute of Criminology)
Also I looked into homicide rates for both Australia and US.
Australia in 2004 had 305 homicides 1.5 people per every 100,000 - Of those, 53 (17%) were gun related.
In the US in 2004 there were 16,138 homicides. 5.4 people per every 100,000. Of those, 10,654 (66%) were gun related.
In Australia, guns were third on the list after knives, and physical beatings in causes of death. 17% murders versus 66% in the US is a big difference.
Not only is the US homicide rate is higher than Australia but the likely use of a gun is higher.
In the 2005, the homicides in Australia actually went down by 38 (2004 – 305 murders; 2005 – 267 murders). That’s a decrease of 12.5% in overall murders.
Even when I looked into armed robberies here in Australia, only about 10% of armed robberies of service stations, corner stores, on the street robberies used guns. Knives are predominantly used.
Hi Raven,
Your civil war (Oz's) may be looming further away on the horizon, but, it will happen if history does tend to repeat itself.
The closest we've come is the Eureka Stockade (1854) and that battle lasted one day. It was a revolt of gold miners against officials because they were charging the miners too much for miner's licences.
I'm feeling a bit flat today so I'm sorry my response isn't a little more stimulating for the discussion.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
I am aware that you haven't had an official serious civil conflagration or uprising against the government.
That is largely true, unless you include the impact of colonization upon the indigenous occupants of the land who were eradicated with the use of firearms; had they been equally armed, there would have been a different outcome. They'd still have been forcibly annexed into the new OZ, but perhaps more family lines would have survived.
Safety one year after the ban:
One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, to be destroyed in a government program costing over 500 million dollars, the results are in...
The latest crime statistics reveal a dramatic increase in criminal activity. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".
Unfortunately, the ban has made the Australian criminal safer now. Link to source
Safety after two years:
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Link to source
Safety in 2004:
The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level. Link to source.
And then there is:
Gun laws haven’t cut murder rates: study - October 23, 2006
Australia’s guns buyback has not reduced rates of gun murder or suicide, a new study says.
The paper, published in the British Journal of Criminology and written by pro-gun lobbyists Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, found the buyback of 640,000 guns at a cost of some $500 million failed to make Australia safer.
In the period 1991-2001 the number of firearm deaths in Australia, including murder, suicide and accidents, dropped by almost 50 per cent.
But University of Sydney public health professor Simon Chapman attacked the report, complaining aspects were “verging on academic dishonesty”.
Link to source
Anyway, even the facts appear to have been shuffled MrsM and contested in all directions.
I remain fixed on my stand concerning guns.
Raven
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Actually Mrs M, Im not legally allowed to have a gun. I did extensive research on all sorts of things at my last job, as I had access to information there that you cant get anywhere else.
It just made me believe harder in conspiracy, and conspiracy within conspiracy!
I believe in Australia ALL our rights are slowly being taken - only a few years ago I could smoke when I went to the pub. You have no idea how it burns me up - ok, fine, so non smokers dont want our smoke. Why not cater for both instead of just booting out half the patrons because smoking is 'bad'?
Im not going to go off topic, I just believe that this is one of the many issues where Australia is getting gipped. The guns are already here, despite the great efforts to remove them and to put it bluntly, I want one too. I want to smoke in pubs and I want lots of other things too.
I dont think the government has the right to decide who has and who does what. Its as simple as that.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Raven,
Kleo,
Love a good conspiracy theory and quite frankly having blind faith in your government is just foolish.
I agree that governments put restrictions on us that generally steer me down a path I might not have chosen, so I definitely hear you on that.
As for the smoking....gotta admit I'm torn on this one. I would never want to infringe on your right as an adult to do what you please. It is not my place and should never be my place. But in the case of smoking, nothing good can come of it in the long run. And I know you are well aware of that but.....I don't want big tobacco companies exploiting of you or me....but you have a right to choose.....but I want you to stay healthy....but you have a right to choose
As you can see I go round and round on this one. I don't really have an answer. But when tobacco companies denied for years that nicotine was addictive, they really are taking advantage of the little guy.
Whose the bigger bastard, the tobacco company or the government?
Anyways. this has been fun. Thank you for stretching my brain and hopefully warding off any signs of alzheimers.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven
Comment by Damo
I thought that this debate was over but for some reason Orble keeps popping email notifs to me.
Just a quick comments on the web link that you provided Mrs M. Many are rehashed old stuff that flooded the spam mail lists some years ago. Often the people writing them either have no ability to read statistics or have intentionally skewed them to match their agenda. Cause and effect, demographic, types of killings, population density and the fact that Melbourne just had a gang war all change the results dramatically. Cumulative numbers are often deceptive.
The true results can be found at the ABS web site where spikes in data can be identified and explained.
Reports released in Australia that try to prove that the ban on weapons has failed have never gained any momentum because of the easy access to the correct data to refute the findings.
However such reports (no matter how dodgy) seem to the spam world in the USA. I can suspect that it is because many in the gun owners lobbies see the test case of Australia as a threat and need to discredit its success.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Raven