Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Gun Control Laws
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
jasoncran
Member
that meter reader wont scare with me with blue water rod ever again!
Free Christian
Member
We used to be able to own anything here in Australia and we had mass shootings. We then got tighter gun control and there has not been a mass shooting since. I lost a number of firearms through it and was real mad about it at the time. But since then, im only guessing, about 18 or so years ago, the mass shootings stopped. Crims still shoot crims and now and then someone shoots someone else but the crazy mass homicides stopped. Was I mad, yes, am I now, no. It was worth it. The proof is in the pudding, Australia's mass shootings were controlled and eliminated. Im not telling you guys what to do over there, but it worked and innocent lives have been saved.
That obviously hasn't worked in all countries around the globe, though. From what I'm reading, some (most?) have worse crime rates since outlawing guns. Which means there are more factors to consider here.
Since Australia is kinda isolated, landmass-wise, from other continents, do criminals perhaps have a much harder time getting guns through the black market there? Just a thought off the top of my head.
Since Australia is kinda isolated, landmass-wise, from other continents, do criminals perhaps have a much harder time getting guns through the black market there? Just a thought off the top of my head.
Hm...also, how much regulation on gun ownership was there before they were outlawed entirely? Lots? Not much?
Also, how much work was done to rehabilitate criminals who committed mass shootings? A lot of those guys who do mass shootings are mentally disturbed people, or so I've read.
Here in the US, the school shooting that took place last year, took place in one of the U.S. states (Connecticut) with the most gun regulation, including a ban on assault rifles. And I believe the criminal used an assault rifle?
Also, how much work was done to rehabilitate criminals who committed mass shootings? A lot of those guys who do mass shootings are mentally disturbed people, or so I've read.
Here in the US, the school shooting that took place last year, took place in one of the U.S. states (Connecticut) with the most gun regulation, including a ban on assault rifles. And I believe the criminal used an assault rifle?
Last edited by a moderator:
Did a little bit of research...well, if you can call looking up one of the blogs I follow to see what sources they could provide research. I guess it's research, but I do feel bad for just going to one place to get these.
Anyway, here's what I found:
Regarding Australia: less mass shootings, yes, but homicide and suicide rates haven't changed much. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
The blog also argued that counting mass shootings is not a good indicator of crime level.
Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since the ban, but neither has New Zealand. And they don't have strict gun laws. http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/09/coulter-doing-the-research-the-new-york-times-wont-do/
Lastly, Switzerland has a low amount of gun control laws, and a high rate of gun ownership: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp Their crime rate is better than other countries in Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm
Hm...not even interested in actual debate. I guess these discussions just drive me to do more thinking and research than I might do otherwise.
Anyway, here's what I found:
Regarding Australia: less mass shootings, yes, but homicide and suicide rates haven't changed much. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
The blog also argued that counting mass shootings is not a good indicator of crime level.
Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since the ban, but neither has New Zealand. And they don't have strict gun laws. http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/09/coulter-doing-the-research-the-new-york-times-wont-do/
Lastly, Switzerland has a low amount of gun control laws, and a high rate of gun ownership: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp Their crime rate is better than other countries in Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm
Hm...not even interested in actual debate. I guess these discussions just drive me to do more thinking and research than I might do otherwise.
As Questdriven has pointed out, gun ownership has no direct correlation with homicide rates.
I am pro second amendment. Philosophically, I believe the right to bear arms empowers the fourth branch of government oversight: the people. Gun ownership is about as democratic is it can get: the First Amendment gives the people the right to speak up. And the Second Amendment gives the First Amendment, as well as all others, teeth. A distribution of power, so to speak. A right written on paper is meaningless unless it is respected. And an armed population demands respect.
Criticism: But American people are no match to the government's military! They [the gov] has nukes and missile submarines and stealth bombers!
Retort:
1. When governments in history have turned on their population, it always happened slowly. Most soldiers are ordinary people, and have to be indoctrinated into atrocity. An armed population would require a sudden atrocity to pacify, as an armed population would not tolerate the slow erosion of their freedom. I doubt many soldiers would comply, and I doubt the government would risk exposing their true nature before the yolk of tyranny has had time to entrench itself.
2. It takes less effort to arrest someone you are told to when they don't resist. When they do resist, it forces every soldier to seriously consider what it is they are doing.
3. Nukes are good for wiping enemy cities of the map, not rooting out a civil rebellion. They are just indiscriminate like that.
4. History. And recent history. A small-arm based insurgency is quite effective against superior military power. For example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland, Syria, Egypt, America (revolutionary war), Libya, Soviet Union, Vietnam, France, ect.
5. Deterrent.
Criticism: But guns kill people! They should be illegal! Then it would stop.
Retort:
Murder is illegal. You think someone willing to violate that rule would hesitate to purchase a firearm illegally?
Guns are in America. There are probably over 350,000,000 of them. The time for gun control is over. They are here to stay. Make them illegal, and law-abiding citizens would lose them. Make them illegal, and criminals would not care, since they purchase them illegally anyways, or use them in violation of law.
For example, did you know that almost all mass-shootings occur in "gun-free" zones? All "gun-free" zones mean is that the only people who will have one will use it to kill, since it is illegal to carry one to stop those who would use it for ill.
P.S. Look at the stats of crimes which were prevented because someone was lawfully armed. There would be a lot more violent crime completed if those who had the power to stop said crimes were unarmed victims instead.
They polled a bunch of prison inmates, and the number one deterrent to committing a violent crime was the fear that the victim was armed. A city which has banned all lawful gun-ownership would be a mecca to criminals. Sorta like Chicago.
Remember folks, the cops are there to solve crimes. Not to prevent them.
I am pro second amendment. Philosophically, I believe the right to bear arms empowers the fourth branch of government oversight: the people. Gun ownership is about as democratic is it can get: the First Amendment gives the people the right to speak up. And the Second Amendment gives the First Amendment, as well as all others, teeth. A distribution of power, so to speak. A right written on paper is meaningless unless it is respected. And an armed population demands respect.
Criticism: But American people are no match to the government's military! They [the gov] has nukes and missile submarines and stealth bombers!
Retort:
1. When governments in history have turned on their population, it always happened slowly. Most soldiers are ordinary people, and have to be indoctrinated into atrocity. An armed population would require a sudden atrocity to pacify, as an armed population would not tolerate the slow erosion of their freedom. I doubt many soldiers would comply, and I doubt the government would risk exposing their true nature before the yolk of tyranny has had time to entrench itself.
2. It takes less effort to arrest someone you are told to when they don't resist. When they do resist, it forces every soldier to seriously consider what it is they are doing.
3. Nukes are good for wiping enemy cities of the map, not rooting out a civil rebellion. They are just indiscriminate like that.
4. History. And recent history. A small-arm based insurgency is quite effective against superior military power. For example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland, Syria, Egypt, America (revolutionary war), Libya, Soviet Union, Vietnam, France, ect.
5. Deterrent.
Criticism: But guns kill people! They should be illegal! Then it would stop.
Retort:
Murder is illegal. You think someone willing to violate that rule would hesitate to purchase a firearm illegally?
Guns are in America. There are probably over 350,000,000 of them. The time for gun control is over. They are here to stay. Make them illegal, and law-abiding citizens would lose them. Make them illegal, and criminals would not care, since they purchase them illegally anyways, or use them in violation of law.
For example, did you know that almost all mass-shootings occur in "gun-free" zones? All "gun-free" zones mean is that the only people who will have one will use it to kill, since it is illegal to carry one to stop those who would use it for ill.
P.S. Look at the stats of crimes which were prevented because someone was lawfully armed. There would be a lot more violent crime completed if those who had the power to stop said crimes were unarmed victims instead.
They polled a bunch of prison inmates, and the number one deterrent to committing a violent crime was the fear that the victim was armed. A city which has banned all lawful gun-ownership would be a mecca to criminals. Sorta like Chicago.
Remember folks, the cops are there to solve crimes. Not to prevent them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Free Christian
Member
The criminals can get what they want. Several years ago a person I know, not a friend, was busted with hand grenades, rocket launcher, machine guns...he even had a working tank! How he got the tank, seriously, is a mystery. I saw the tank so it wasn't a rumour. Police were gobsmacked at how much he had. There are often news reports on big illegal gun busts here. I know though, or can imagine, that doing it how it happened here would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention the cost of the buy backs given your huge population and gun ownership. But here it worked, thankfully. Even if I did lose some good guns.
Lewis
Member
The dude had a tank' Geeeeeez
Free Christian
Member
Yep, a working tank. He also had a cannon too which also worked. Not sure what type it was but you know the ones you see like in movies where one loads, the other fires. Big but could be towed by a small truck. He is crazy and someone to stay clear off.
Australia probably has different laws about that than the US does.
jasoncran
Member
lol. actually you have to a atf type 2 or above for a tank. I know a man that license. most tanks used in Hollywood films are real tanks that work.
Lewis
Member
How to Buy a Military Tank
Wow you guy's were right' you can buy a tank. I never knew that.
<figure class="Thumbnail">
</figure> <figcaption style="bottom: -100px;" class="mainCaption"> Buy a Military Tank
http://www.ehow.com/facts_7450661_buy-military-tank.html
</figcaption>
Buying a tank is not as difficult as you might think. Whether it is an English collector of military memorabilia, or a Czech with a connection to the Russian Ministry of Defense, someone out there has the tank you want. However, transporting it internationally can be challenging. Have a question? Get an answer from a
<section class="Module body FLC" data-module="article-body"> <center id="DartAd_7548897"></center>
<section>
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7450661_buy-military-tank.html#ixzz2Y1P27H00
Wow you guy's were right' you can buy a tank. I never knew that.
<figure class="Thumbnail">
</figure> <figcaption style="bottom: -100px;" class="mainCaption"> Buy a Military Tankhttp://www.ehow.com/facts_7450661_buy-military-tank.html
</figcaption>
Buying a tank is not as difficult as you might think. Whether it is an English collector of military memorabilia, or a Czech with a connection to the Russian Ministry of Defense, someone out there has the tank you want. However, transporting it internationally can be challenging. Have a question? Get an answer from a
<section class="Module body FLC" data-module="article-body"> <center id="DartAd_7548897"></center>
<section>
- Where to Look
- The former Soviet Eastern Bloc has many large-scale distributors of military hardware eager to sell you a tank. The difficulty lies in contacting them, as well as bringing your tank home. Collectors of military vehicles also buy and sell in England, Western Europe
, and the United States, but have less selection.
- There are several Czech military distributors with extensive inventories. The STV Group, with service in English, has four dozen T-72s available, among many other pieces. Excalibur Army, based outside of Prague, has a very extensive selection of military hardware, but their service in anything but Czech is limited. According to "Automobile Magazine," Excalibur Army will prepare the export license and secure the shipping for you as well. This means that you will only be responsible for the import license.
- A number of larger English dealers, such as RP Armour, Khaki Corps Imports, and Ex-Military.com, have tanks available, and the connections through which to procure others. Smaller collectors or individuals who buy, sell, repair, and rent military vehicles, include A+S Armsoft of Norwich, and Dinscott Military Services of Bude, Cornwall. In addition to what collectors own themselves, most also store and transport military vehicles, and are willing to help you find the piece you want.
- The American trade in military vehicles is smaller than the English or Eastern European one, but for Americans is worth investigating, in order to avoid customs difficulties. Based in Ohio, ArmyJeeps.net is one of the largest brokers of military vehicles in the country, and has listings for a wide variety of vehicles for sale by private collectors. And based in New Jersey, Usmilitaryvehicles.com specializes in jeeps, but is worth an inquiry.
- The rules for importing motor vehicles vary widely from country to country, and regulations on military vehicles only more so. For the United States, customs regulations for importing vehicles, as well as the exceptions made for display vehicles, are provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (see References for link). Consider the customs regulations of both the importing and exporting countries, as well as any nations through which the vehicle will be traveling. It is a must to consult someone with experience in the private transport of military vehicles.
- The former Soviet Eastern Bloc has many large-scale distributors of military hardware eager to sell you a tank. The difficulty lies in contacting them, as well as bringing your tank home. Collectors of military vehicles also buy and sell in England, Western Europe
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7450661_buy-military-tank.html#ixzz2Y1P27H00
Free Christian
Member
Yes our laws are different. A person would own one but it would have to be totally disabled to fire and just be like a collector piece. His tank and cannon were fully functioning. His cannon, if im using the correct term, was like ones used in the war with Japan, that era. How he got them as fully functioning is a mystery. Have to admit, I would like to have a go on a tank like that though.