# Guns- Educate Me.



## Underock1 (Oct 1, 2015)

This is for the Canadians, Brits, Aussies, and any other non-US inhabitant. What are the gun laws like in your country, and more importantly what are your own feelings about the culture surrounding them?
 I am not on a crusade here. I would just like your feed back.
While I would like to see the guns gone here, they are not really the whole story when it comes to these shootings. Its the culture we live in that's producing a lot of sick people. Some times they even run for President.
We must frighten the daylights out of the rest of the world. Not because of our military might, but because we're nuts!


----------



## boozercruiser (Oct 1, 2015)

I of course am a brit Underock1.
Gun laws are very strict here and one has to have a licence to own one.
These are only granted under very strict contitions.

Of course the vast majority of our police don't carry guns either.

And any policy whereby practically any nut case can go and buy a gun is well.
NUTS!


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 1, 2015)

Whether it be the high price of prescription drugs, the exhorbitant cost of military weapons, millions of dollars for a bridge to nowhere... or slaughter by firearm... our Country today is completely legislated by dollars.  Whoever has the best paid lobbyists to make the largest campaign contributions to elected officials get the nod on legislation.
The gun lobby in America spends billions on "buying" Congressmen.  Everything is done under the guise of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.  The statement "a well regulated militia" has been interpreted that any and all gun laws are a restriction to the freedoms afforded under that Amendment.  The gun lobby keeps the responsible gun owners fired up in order to keep the flow of firearms unrestricted, even to those who are mentally deranged.  It IS a political issue that has seen 41 shooting on school campuses already this year.  That is unacceptable, but will be ignored by the gun lobby.

As the President stated this afternoon, we need to look more at the gun laws of England and/or Australia.  Won't happen as long as the dollars continue to be pumped into Congress.  Students and other innocents will continue spilling their blood on classroom floors until some semblance of common sense overrides lobby dollars.

No one wants to take away the firearms of responsible owners.  What is needed are a couple simple things.  If you want to own a firearm in America, you sign authorization to have your HIPPA file opened.  (HIPPA) is your private medical record file.  If you have been treated for any mental disorder, you cannot own a firearm.  Second, if you give/sell/bequeath a firearm to someone you know has had mental issues, you are culpable for any crimes committed with that firearm.  Lastly, ALL firearm transactions should be required to have criminal background checks.  Currently, private sales and sales at small-town gun shows are exempt for background checks.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

Not intending to "bust open" the nest of wasps, but an old adage from long ago, said something like, "If everyone had a gun, there would soon be no criminals."

What does it mean? First, those considering becoming criminals would have lingering second thoughts about doing so.

Second, those already criminals, will not likely get away with exercising another crime.

Third, those law-abiding folks who are not, and will never be, criminally-inclined, pose no threat to anyone other than criminals.

imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> Not intending to "bust open" the nest of wasps, but an old adage from long ago, said something like, "If everyone had a gun, there would soon be no criminals."
> 
> What does it mean? First, those considering becoming criminals would have lingering second thoughts about doing so.
> 
> ...



Tired old cop out and a load of BS..... I'm not even going to debate this nonsense.. I predicted this was coming in the other thread... I was just wondering who would be the first to puke it out... You win the prize...


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> Not intending to "bust open" the nest of wasps, but an old adage from long ago, said something like, "If everyone had a gun, there would soon be no criminals."
> 
> What does it mean? First, those considering becoming criminals would have lingering second thoughts about doing so.
> 
> ...


Well, you asked for that "nest of wasps"!!!!  Any statement such as "If everyone had a gun, soon there would be no criminals" is absurd.  Hand a firearm to those mentally deranged... someone dies.  Hand a firearm to those who have been convicted of violent crimes, done time in prison, and are back on the streets... someone dies.  How many innocent lives would be taken before there were "no criminals"??  How could anyone assume that it would be the law-abiding who prevail?  Does some gene guarantee that a law-abiding citizen is a better shot or "quicker on the draw"???  

I guess history proves that both England and Australia should have armed every single one of their citizens, instead of having some of the lowest homicide rates in today's world.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 1, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Whether it be the high price of prescription drugs, the exhorbitant cost of military weapons, millions of dollars for a bridge to nowhere... or slaughter by firearm... our Country today is completely legislated by dollars.  Whoever has the best paid lobbyists to make the largest campaign contributions to elected officials get the nod on legislation.
> The gun lobby in America spends billions on "buying" Congressmen.  Everything is done under the guise of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.  The statement "a well regulated militia" has been interpreted that any and all gun laws are a restriction to the freedoms afforded under that Amendment.  The gun lobby keeps the responsible gun owners fired up in order to keep the flow of firearms unrestricted, even to those who are mentally deranged.  It IS a political issue that has seen 41 shooting on school campuses already this year.  That is unacceptable, but will be ignored by the gun lobby.
> 
> As the President stated this afternoon, we need to look more at the gun laws of England and/or Australia.  Won't happen as long as the dollars continue to be pumped into Congress.  Students and other innocents will continue spilling their blood on classroom floors until some semblance of common sense overrides lobby dollars.
> ...



:applause2::applause2::applause2:


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 1, 2015)

I'm a regular on several UK senior and dog sites. You want to know how they see us? Visualize a really bad video of someone walking into Wally World. As you walk through the crowds every man, woman, child, banger and banjo picker has a visible weapon. Welcome to Americka. You want to know something I saw the other day? I was leafing through a Men's Journal just because Anthony Bourdain is on the cover. There's a full page advertisement for a clothes line called 511Tactical. The tagline is "Proven Like You". Apparently clothes designed to hold your weapon at the ready. Oh I just had to look at the site, even as it makes me wince...yup, everybody armed to the teeth.
http://www.511tactical.com/mens.html
You just know this is a US of A based company


----------



## BobF (Oct 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Tired old cop out and a load of BS..... I'm not even going to debate this nonsense.. I predicted this was coming in the other thread... I was just wondering who would be the first to puke it out... You win the prize...



Just because you don't like the words you call it a load of BS.   Well, as long as we have President that won't stand on his own two feet and give his idea to the Congress to be debated it won't happen either.   As long as our Congress agrees there should be no changes to our Constitution there won't be any changes.   As long as most of the population agrees, don't mess with the Constitution, there should not be any changes.   

In the mean time we have a big mess of illegal, unregistered guns, in the hands of dead beats and if any guns should be removed, those are the ones to go get.


----------



## Underock1 (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> Not intending to "bust open" the nest of wasps, but an old adage from long ago, said something like, "If everyone had a gun, there would soon be no criminals."
> 
> What does it mean? First, those considering becoming criminals would have lingering second thoughts about doing so.
> 
> ...



The criminals will always have the better guns and know how to use them. In a contest with the latest shooter are you suggesting that everyone in the class room would whip out their trusty six shooter and gun him down?

Criminals don't have lingering second thoughts about anything. Many, if not most are desperate people willing to risk all.
The mentally deranged responsible for these incidents are often expecting, if not actually hoping to die.

Then there are all of the gun accidents at home that would and do occur simply because the gun is in the home and people are careless.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2015)

The Australian solution will not work in America for a number of reasons.

First, although like the USA we are a federation of states, we only have 6 states, not 50, so getting commonwealth/state co-operation is not such a difficult problem.

Secondly, unlike the US which manufactures firearms to the world, we rely on importing most of ours so the federal government by virtue of its powers can prohibit certain imports i.e. certain classes of weaponry and there is a long list of things you cannot import, and not just guns.

Last, we have no bill of rights that can be used to justify a universal right to own a firearm.
 People need to apply for a licence and have a very good reason for needing one.
Self defence is not a sufficient reason for firearm ownership.
A gun register is maintained so that police know when they are called to a property whether they are likely or not to be confronted with an angry armed man.

Having said that, this link explains something of what happens over here:

https://www.ag.gov.au/CRIMEANDCORRUPTION/FIREARMS/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## Underock1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Thanks Warri. Sensible laws. What will they think of next? You were kind not to list "because you're all sick" as a reason why it wouldn't work here


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 1, 2015)

Glad you asked Underock. Re gun control. No guns without a background check--two month wait if you are lucky. Even if no impediments, must show just cause to need a weapon. Papers to transport rifle to shooting range required. Very difficult to get a handgun permit. Very limited in what type of handgun permitted, same deal with ammo. We like this, it seems sensible. We are leery of shooting people in our homes. (home invasion.) Unless one can prove a life threatening situation existed, crimes against property is not a viable excuse. We kill the intruder, we go to jail. Of course, very few people are shot by burglers here. Owning guns is seen as a privilege, not a right. Given that our homicide rate continues to fall,  I believe our attitude re gun control is obviously a good thing. I recall the surprise exhibited by an American police officer on holiday in Calgary during Stampede week, incensed because he had not been permitted to bring his gun across the border. He was freaked about how to 
protect himself on the mean streets of Calgary?????? Different mind set to be sure.


----------



## BobF (Oct 1, 2015)

Interesting as in Switzerland there are guns in almost every home and they do carry them openly on transports and into restaurants.   Especially on their gun shooting days.   They don't have all the shootings the US seems to be having lately.   

We do need to tighten up our registrations an make sure the mental types never get permission.   Many of the guns are floating around in the criminal areas.   Somehow we need to get them off the streets.


----------



## applecruncher (Oct 1, 2015)

Underock1, looks like a lot of people missed your first sentence.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Tired old cop out and a load of BS..... I'm not even going to debate this nonsense.. I predicted this was coming in the other thread... I was just wondering who would be the first to puke it out... You win the prize...



Go ahead, then, and "outlaw" the myriad of non-gun objects used to commit crimes. Then we can all puke over it.   imp


----------



## BobF (Oct 1, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> The Australian solution will not work in America for a number of reasons.
> 
> First, although like the USA we are a federation of states, we only have 6 states, not 50, so getting commonwealth/state co-operation is not such a difficult problem.
> 
> ...



Maybe in this proposed new way of running your government you might have some written guarantees for the people.   I know it is not happening right now, but it is not a dead subject either.

And here is a list of weapons manufacturers in the world.   A lot more than just the US.

http://www.waoline.com/detente/sport/hunt-/ArcheryLinks/ArmsLinks.htm


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 1, 2015)

Imp, that cat won't hunt. Knives etc lack fire power to mow down people en masse from a distance. Fact is, countries with stricter gun laws have lower homicide rates. Check out stats.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2015)

Underock1 said:


> Thanks Warri. Sensible laws. What will they think of next? You were kind not to list "because you're all sick" as a reason why it wouldn't work here



I don't believe that you are all sick at all. I do recognise the role of history and custom as an influence on national thinking.  The US was once a post revolutionary society and later a post civil war society. These major historical events have cast long shadows into the present. However, I do not believe that any society need be held hostage to the past when history has clearly moved on.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

BobF said:


> Interesting as in Switzerland there are guns in almost every home and they do carry them openly on transports and into restaurants.   Especially on their gun shooting days.   They don't have all the shootings the US seems to be having lately.
> 
> We do need to tighten up our registrations an make sure the mental types never get permission.   Many of the guns are floating around in the criminal areas.   Somehow we need to get them off the streets.



Unless Switzerland has changed it's basic laws, all able-bodied young men (do not know today about women) must spend a certain amount of training in military exercises. Each is issued a _machine-gun, _which is intended to be kept for life. There is hardly an unarmed residence in Switzerland. Do they have crime? Sure. Lots of it? No. Different cultural mindset. 

Curiously, in direct opposition to the city-folk here who advocate gun controls, our largest gun-controlled cities had, and have, the highest incidence of gun-related crime, Chicago and New York City among them.     imp


----------



## Underock1 (Oct 1, 2015)

applecruncher said:


> Underock1, looks like a lot of people missed your first sentence.



Well I did get nice responses from a Brit, Canadian and Australian. Not bad for the way topics wander on here.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> Go ahead, then, and "outlaw" the myriad of non-gun objects used to commit crimes. Then we can all puke over it.   imp



Another tired old BS argument...  Cars kill more than guns... Let's outlaw cars... or hammers... or knives... or frozen chickens..


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> Go ahead, then, and "outlaw" the myriad of non-gun objects used to commit crimes. Then we can all puke over it.   imp


Columbine... Newtown... Navy recruiting station... Today's college massacre... Are you serious that we would have see that many lives snuffed out and that many families burying their loved ones had the deranged killers had scissors or a claw hammer or even a machete??  Today's autoloading weapons have the ability of store 12 to 15 lethal rounds of ammunition in the clips.  Even without reloading, a dozen or more can die.  The red herring of outlawing skillets because some deranged housewife used one against her husband's head is a slap in the face to those who have buried their children shot dead by gunmen who should never have laid a hand on a firearm.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2015)

BobF said:


> here is a list of weapons manufacturers in the world.   A lot more than just the US.
> http://www.waoline.com/detente/sport/hunt-/ArcheryLinks/ArmsLinks.htm



You're missing my point Bob. Because we have no significant manufacturers of firearms in Australia, the Commonwealth government is able to exercise control on the types of firearms allowed into the country. You do not have that luxury because most of the firearms in the US are home grown and prohibiting imports wouldn't do a thing.

As I said earlier, the Australian solution won't work in the US because the background circumstances are markedly different. 
The US problem needs a US solution. 

As to writing a bill of rights into the Australian constitution should we ever make the move to a republic, majority opinion over here wants no bar of that because we have seen how things operate in in the US. We prefer to deal with cultural and social issues such as civil rights as the issues arise and do it by means of legislation rather than amending the constitution.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 1, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> I don't believe that you are all sick at all. I do recognise the role of history and custom as an influence on national thinking.  The US was once a post revolutionary society and later a post civil war society. These major historical events have cast long shadows into the present. However, I do not believe that any society need be held hostage to the past when history has clearly moved on.




Yeah too many people here think they are cowboys at the shoot out at the OK corral....


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 1, 2015)

Re Switzerland. Guns in the home yes, bullets no. Google it.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 1, 2015)

One of the fallacies of arming the masses, thinking that the good guys will eradicate the bad is this...  Most of those who suggest this as the solution have never taken another's life with a firearm.  The "good" in this Nation will hesitate before killing their fellow man.  That moment's hesitation will render them as another victim of the deranged who has no such conscience.  
In some red states... our being one... the GOP lead governments have begun allowing college students to carry on campus.  How many of those students can or would actually pull the trigger to take another's life?  Making the split second decision to take another life is lightyears different than poking holes in paper targets.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 1, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Re gun control. No guns without a background check--two month wait if you are lucky. Even if no impediments, must show just cause to need a weapon. Papers to transport rifle to shooting range required. Very difficult to get a handgun permit. Very limited in what type of handgun permitted, same deal with ammo. We like this, it seems sensible. We are leery of shooting people in our homes. (home invasion.) Unless one can prove a life threatening situation existed, crimes against property is not a viable excuse. We kill the intruder, we go to jail. Of course, very few people are shot by burglers here. Owning guns is seen as a privilege, not a right. Given that our homicide rate continues to fall,  I believe our attitude re gun control is obviously a good thing. I recall the surprise exhibited by an American police officer on holiday in Calgary during Stampede week, incensed because he had not been permitted to bring his gun across the border. He was freaked about how to
> protect himself on the mean streets of Calgary?????? Different mind set to be sure.



Similar to current California law, as a gun owner I can live with these conditions.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Similar to current California law, as a gun owner I can live with these conditions.



As an unarmed citizen I am reassured by those conditions.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Well, you asked for that "nest of wasps"!!!!  Any statement such as "If everyone had a gun, soon there would be no criminals" is absurd.  Hand a firearm to those mentally deranged... someone dies.  Hand a firearm to those who have been convicted of violent crimes, done time in prison, and are back on the streets... someone dies.  How many innocent lives would be taken before there were "no criminals"??  How could anyone assume that it would be the law-abiding who prevail?  Does some gene guarantee that a law-abiding citizen is a better shot or "quicker on the draw"???
> 
> I guess history proves that both England and Australia should have armed every single one of their citizens, instead of having some of the lowest homicide rates in today's world.



You miss the philosophical point, which is, the worst of the worst are weeded out and eliminated. Harsh, cruel, inhumane, yeah, call it all of those. Fact remains, if a maniac or miscreant bent on hurting people is eliminated from society through death, everyone benefits. 

Of course the idea of universal gun possession is absurd. Never said it was not. Cannot say unequivocably, though, that it's existence would not produce the results mentioned.   imp


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 1, 2015)

Hmm. No reliable statistics proving that worst of the worst get weeded out. More often, it is the law abiding who are wounded/killed. Psychopaths have no aversion to killing, normal people do. In my country most of us are unarmed, our homicide rate is similar to that of Australia.


----------



## mitchezz (Oct 1, 2015)

I was listening to the radio and they had some expert guy who said that USA makes up 4.5% of global population but has 44% of global gun ownership. Amazing statistics.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Re Switzerland. Guns in the home yes, bullets no. *Google it*.



Well, I did:

*"Gun politics in Switzerland* are unique in Europe. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but *compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted*."

And:

"Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world"

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

imp


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 1, 2015)

Thanks for the correction Imp. Then there are different factors at work there. I shall endeavour to discover what they are.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> "Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world"
> 
> Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
> 
> imp


Gun ownership rates by country:
Switzerland 45.7 per hundred population; USA 88.8 /100; Canada 30.8; NZ 22.6; Australia 15; UK 6.6.

Firearm related death rates 100,000 by country. Includes suicides, accidental fatalities, and justifiable homicides
Switzerland 2.91 per 1000,000; USA 10.64; Canada 2.22; NZ 1.45; Australia 0.86 and UK 0.26.

There are other factors besides the rate of gun ownership but a low ownership rate and lower homicide rates do exhibit a mathematical correspondence.
Switzerland is the statistical anomaly. Some other factor may be operating here.

Still it all boils down to the question - what is more important to you - the freedom to own as many guns as you want or reducing the number of lives lost, deliberately and accidentally, from gunshot ?

For myself, I lean towards action that saves lives, especially the lives of children.


----------



## Debby (Oct 1, 2015)

My husband bought a gun (don't ask me why) and he had to take a gun ownership/safety/responsibilities course.  Then he had to maintain membership at a recognized local gun club, his written application to the RCMP had to have three references, each of whom were phoned and question by the RCMP as to his state of mind and then all the rest of the stuff Shalimar said I guess.




Shalimar said:


> Glad you asked Underock. Re gun control. No guns without a background check--two month wait if you are lucky. Even if no impediments, must show just cause to need a weapon. Papers to transport rifle to shooting range required. Very difficult to get a handgun permit. Very limited in what type of handgun permitted, same deal with ammo. We like this, it seems sensible. We are leery of shooting people in our homes. (home invasion.) Unless one can prove a life threatening situation existed, crimes against property is not a viable excuse. We kill the intruder, we go to jail. Of course, very few people are shot by burglers here. Owning guns is seen as a privilege, not a right. Given that our homicide rate continues to fall,  I believe our attitude re gun control is obviously a good thing. I recall the surprise exhibited by an American police officer on holiday in Calgary during Stampede week, incensed because he had not been permitted to bring his gun across the border. He was freaked about how to
> protect himself on the mean streets of Calgary?????? Different mind set to be sure.


----------



## Debby (Oct 1, 2015)

imp said:


> You miss the philosophical point, which is, the worst of the worst are weeded out and eliminated. Harsh, cruel, inhumane, yeah, call it all of those. Fact remains, if a maniac or miscreant bent on hurting people is eliminated from society through death, everyone benefits.
> 
> Of course the idea of universal gun possession is absurd. Never said it was not. Cannot say unequivocably, though, that it's existence would not produce the results mentioned.   imp




The problem I see with your statement is that it's not just the miscreants and maniacs who are getting weeded out.  In some cases, it may be your best and your brightest as well.


----------



## Underock1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> I don't believe that you are all sick at all. I do recognise the role of history and custom as an influence on national thinking.  The US was once a post revolutionary society and later a post civil war society. These major historical events have cast long shadows into the present. However, I do not believe that any society need be held hostage to the past when history has clearly moved on.



Excellent post. I agree with you on that. Not everyone has that kind of grasp of the long arm of history.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

Longarm of history? A RIFLE then, as opposed to a pistol?    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2015)

Now you are being childish imp, but this topic is very serious - deadly serious in fact.


----------



## imp (Oct 1, 2015)

Being "childish" sometimes loosens the grasp of "feverishness" applied to an unresolvable issue, do you not think?   imp


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 2, 2015)

Hmm. I embrace irreverence with both hands, it keeps me sane (more or less) in an insane world, but there is a fine line between irreverence and dismissal. The more horrific the situation, the more problematic that division becomes.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 2, 2015)

A tragic and what seems to be an intractable problem.  After the massacre of the elementary school children brought no change I doubted any further event would, and they haven't...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 2, 2015)

Birth control?

BAN IT!

Abortion?

BAN IT!

Gay marriage?

BAN IT!

Guns?

Look, banning things never works. People will find ways to get them.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 2, 2015)

I believe there have been 4 mass shootings in the UK since 1987.  One was in 1996 at a primary school in Scotland.  Gun laws are very strict here, as they should be.


----------



## Debby (Oct 2, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Birth control?
> 
> BAN IT!
> 
> ...



Hmmm, I thought a pattern was emerging......


----------



## Capt Lightning (Oct 2, 2015)

The trouble with the UK is the "knee-jerk" reaction to any tragedy.  There was a mass shooting  and immediately all the "do gooders" were shouting "Ban them".  So in typical fashion, the government tightened up gun laws and it had virtually no effect except to punish responsible gun owners.   The problem is that various atrocities have been carried out by people who, on closer examination, should never have been given a gun licence in the first place.  But then, it's easier to punish everyone rather than to seek out the guilty.  (This applies to many areas as well as guns)

If somebody went mad with a cricket bat and clubbed a number of people to death,  I swear there would be a cry to ban cricket.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2015)

> If somebody went mad with a cricket bat and clubbed a number of people to death,  I swear there would be a cry to ban cricket.



Something like that did happen over here. A father beat his son to death in the nets at after school cricket practice, in full view of the mother and dozens of other children present.

What happened? Well, cricket hasn't been banned but there is a lot of action finally happening that is designed to support women and children who are subjected to domestic violence. 

Some events shock people into taking action that is long over due.


----------



## oldman (Oct 2, 2015)

I have to be stupid on this question, but do other countries allow hunting for animals? If so, what weapons do they hunt with?


----------



## boozercruiser (Oct 2, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Tired old cop out and a load of BS..... I'm not even going to debate this nonsense.. I predicted this was coming in the other thread... I was just wondering who would be the first to puke it out... You win the prize...



Calm Down QuickSilver.
Calm down.

Now don't you mince your words there QuickSilver, will you? 

In fact, if I very nicely may say so, you remind me of a blinkin' gattling gun!


----------



## boozercruiser (Oct 2, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I believe there have been 4 mass shootings in the UK since 1987.  One was in 1996 at a primary school in Scotland.  Gun laws are very strict here, as they should be.



Hear hear.
Gun laws are VERY strict, so GOOD! 

How many mass shootings have there been in the USA during that period ?  
(O.K. I know the good old US of A is a little bit bigger than the U.K.).layful:
I wonder how many people get shot to death every day, in the USA ?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2015)

oldman said:


> I have to be stupid on this question, but do other countries allow hunting for animals? If so, what weapons do they hunt with?


Most Australian native animals are protected and may not be hunted. Kangaroos are the exception and sometimes need to be culled. 

Feral species also need culling from time to time too. Licenced shooters, with the permission of property owners, can shoot problem animals using whatever firearms they have that are legal. It's not exactly hunting as other countries would know it.

In some states there is a duck shooting season. What is a suitable gun for shooting a duck? Whatever it is, that's what they would be using.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 2, 2015)

boozercruiser said:


> Hear hear.
> Gun laws are VERY strict, so GOOD!
> 
> How many mass shootings have there been in the USA during that period ?
> ...



4?  Oh that's the amount just about every month in the US!  Not over nearly 30 years.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 2, 2015)

In Canada we have a hunting season during which you can hunt ducks, geese, deer etc. I believe rifles are the approved weapon. BC has implemented a controversial wolf cull which has many people including me up in arms. Some creatures such as the Bald Eagle are protected.


----------



## boozercruiser (Oct 2, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> 4?  Oh that's the amount just about every month in the US!  Not over nearly 30 years.



Well surely Ameriscot, that is cast iron proof NOT to allow a society.
Any society.
To have easy and unfetered access to GUNS!
It is a no brainer!


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 2, 2015)

I can't find any links re how many mass shootings Canada has had over the past  thirty years. I can only recall four, I think? Perhaps someone else will have better luck.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 2, 2015)

boozercruiser said:


> Well surely Ameriscot, that is cast iron proof NOT to allow a society.
> Any society.
> To have easy and unfetered access to GUNS!
> It is a no brainer!



It's crazy!  They distort the 2nd amendment by leaving off half of it.  I don't see any way the US can fix this.  They could make it more difficult to get guns, but what about the 88% of population who already own guns?  As far as I know no one in my family owns a gun.  

If the reaction to the murder of 20 5 and 6 year olds and 6 staff is to buy even more guns, then I see no hope.


----------



## Fern (Oct 2, 2015)

> Last, we have no bill of rights that can be used to justify a universal right to own a firearm.
> People need to apply for a licence and have a very good reason for needing one.
> Self defence is not a sufficient reason for firearm ownership.
> A gun register is maintained so that police know when they are called to  a property whether they are likely or not to be confronted with an  angry armed man.


Ditto here too.
When I heard about the latest massacre, because it has become commonplace, my first thought was,  here they go again. To have a law that everyone is entitled to own a gun, or words to that effect, is totally ludicrous. 
Geez talk about living in the wild West.


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 2, 2015)

We broke down the School Shooting List and it average two incidents a week over a period of two years. As someone said they should build a single monument in Washington. It could have ongoing names added to it. Every victim of a mass shooting in the US after the time the memorial is erected. A visible reminder of a problem that will be ongoing. Something like the 9/11 site with a reflecting pool, somewhere for people to sit and mourn together all the lives lost.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 2, 2015)

Very poignant Furry.


----------



## oldman (Oct 3, 2015)

You can check out the stats here...http://www.bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence

I have often tried to figure out a way to disarm a society that has had weapons ever since the pilgrims arrived and before that, if you include the Native Americans, although they were not of the type of weapons that shot bullets.


----------



## imp (Oct 3, 2015)

*It Is Not! (off-thread)*



Warrigal said:


> Most Australian native animals are protected and may not be hunted. *Kangaroos are the exception and sometimes need to be culled.
> *
> Feral species also need culling from time to time too. Licenced shooters, with the permission of property owners, can shoot problem animals using whatever firearms they have that are legal. It's not exactly hunting as other countries would know it.
> 
> In some states there is a duck shooting season. What is a suitable gun for shooting a duck? Whatever it is, that's what they would be using.



Warri, when I was a kid, the Old Man occasionally got a taste for rabbit stew. This would have been 1950-ish. Our butcher shop had a good supply of huge, whole (though skinned), frozen rabbits. They were being brought in, if I recall correctly, all the way from Australia, my Mother said. Was there some kind of gross overpopulation of rabbits back then, or was their origin fabled?

BTW, birds in flight are rarely shot at with single-projectile firearms. Shotguns are used, which throw an expanding "ball' of multiple tiny projectiles called "shot" (surprise!).

Only Henry Bowman shot at aerial objects using single-projectile firearms.    imp


----------



## imp (Oct 3, 2015)

*Incredible Feats, Gun Skills*

A "revolver", type of handgun, has a rotary cylinder which contains it's ammunition. Compared to the other distinct type of handgun, the semi-automatic "pistol", which contains it's ammunition within a "magazine", and requires very little effort to use, the revolver is cumbersome, though distinctly safer in practice. 

Having explained the revolver was necessary, for the understanding of the photo below. Taken at the Montana State Fair sometime in the mid-1930's, it shows a man named Ed McGivern firing his revolver at 5 glass bottles thrown simultaneously into the air. The puffs of burst glass are clearly visible. He performed this feat repeatedly, rarely failing to hit all 5 targets, using 5 rounds loaded in his revolver. He was capable of firing those five rounds in 1/2 second. For comparison purposes, a Thompson submachine-gun fires at a rate of about 5 rounds per 1/2 second!

McGivern is the man at the left, wearing the light-colored hat. He accomplished the feat by simply pointing his arm, since no "aim" could be taken quickly enough. He likely was the best hand-gun shot who ever lived. Picture quality not great, but given it's age......     imp


----------



## imp (Oct 3, 2015)

*One Additional Amazing Exhibition*

On Dec. 11, 1906, a man, Ad Topperwein, employed by Winchester Repeating Arms Co. as an exhibition shooter, finished his task at the San Antonio Fairgrounds. He had used a Winchester .22 caliber rifle, firing at children's toy wooden blocks 2-1/4" across, which were flung into the air. The goal was 50,000 blocks, he had missed only 4! The "dead" blocks were stacked in a pile: 8 feet high and 30 feet in diameter! However, after the process of shooting at the blocks, one thrown into the air every four seconds for a week, 8 hours a day, Topperwein chose to better this, his own, world record, by continuing to shoot. When the fairgrounds closed on Dec. 15, 1906, he had shot at 72,500 wooden blocks, missing NINE! His record has never been broken. Below, he sits atop the mass of blocks.


----------



## Sassycakes (Oct 3, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Whether it be the high price of prescription drugs, the exhorbitant cost of military weapons, millions of dollars for a bridge to nowhere... or slaughter by firearm... our Country today is completely legislated by dollars.  Whoever has the best paid lobbyists to make the largest campaign contributions to elected officials get the nod on legislation.
> The gun lobby in America spends billions on "buying" Congressmen.  Everything is done under the guise of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.  The statement "a well regulated militia" has been interpreted that any and all gun laws are a restriction to the freedoms afforded under that Amendment.  The gun lobby keeps the responsible gun owners fired up in order to keep the flow of firearms unrestricted, even to those who are mentally deranged.  It IS a political issue that has seen 41 shooting on school campuses already this year.  That is unacceptable, but will be ignored by the gun lobby.
> 
> As the President stated this afternoon, we need to look more at the gun laws of England and/or Australia.  Won't happen as long as the dollars continue to be pumped into Congress.  Students and other innocents will continue spilling their blood on classroom floors until some semblance of common sense overrides lobby dollars.
> ...



I have to say,Grumpy you make some very intelligent statements and I agree with you 100%. I wish you would  run for President,you have my vote.
:encouragement:


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 3, 2015)

imp said:


> Warri, when I was a kid, the Old Man occasionally got a taste for rabbit stew. This would have been 1950-ish. Our butcher shop had a good supply of huge, whole (though skinned), frozen rabbits. They were being brought in, if I recall correctly, all the way from Australia, my Mother said. Was there some kind of gross overpopulation of rabbits back then, or was their origin fabled?
> 
> BTW, birds in flight are rarely shot at with single-projectile firearms. Shotguns are used, which throw an expanding "ball' of multiple tiny projectiles called "shot" (surprise!).
> 
> Only Henry Bowman shot at aerial objects using single-projectile firearms.    imp



In those days rabbits were in plague proportions and destroying good pasture land. Rabbits are not native to Australia but were imported by early English settlers who liked to shoot. They also imported foxes to hunt and both species became feral. The rabbits however were the biggest problem until the introduction of myxomatosis and later the khaleesi virus. Rabbits were trapped for food during the Great Depression and the skins were used to make felt hats. Ferrets were used to kill the young in the burrows and dynamite was used to blow up the burrows. A rabbit proof fence was built across much of Western Australia to stop their spread. They were a major economic pest.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 4, 2015)

Sassycakes said:


> I have to say,Grumpy you make some very intelligent statements and I agree with you 100%. I wish you would  run for President,you have my vote.
> :encouragement:


Thanks!  I'll pm you my home address so you can forward $100,000 as seed money for my campaign!!!


----------



## imp (Oct 4, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> In those days rabbits were in plague proportions and destroying good pasture land. Rabbits are not native to Australia but were imported by early English settlers who liked to shoot. They also imported foxes to hunt and both species became feral. The rabbits however were the biggest problem until the introduction of myxomatosis and later the khaleesi virus. Rabbits were trapped for food during the Great Depression and the skins were used to make felt hats. Ferrets were used to kill the young in the burrows and dynamite was used to blow up the burrows. A rabbit proof fence was built across much of Western Australia to stop their spread. They were a major economic pest.



I thank you for that info! So, it was all true, storied though it seemed, 'twas hard to imagine an entire country overrun by rabbits, to us Chicagoans, who were overrun by quite a variety of other things!     imp


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 4, 2015)

Grumpy, if I were an American, I would vote for you also! This was a balanced, reasoned argument.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 4, 2015)

imp said:


> I thank you for that info! So, it was all true, storied though it seemed, 'twas hard to imagine an entire country overrun by rabbits, to us Chicagoans, who were overrun by quite a variety of other things!     imp



When I was growing up it was illegal to own a pair of rabbits.


----------



## imp (Oct 4, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Thanks for the correction Imp. Then there are different factors at work there. I shall endeavour to discover what they are.



Maybe not necessarily a correction, Shali. We  can only assume the validity of reporting is accurate to the letter, if we witness the data and facts ourselves. imp


----------



## imp (Oct 4, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> When I was growing up it was illegal to own a pair of rabbits.



Truly amazing! Even if they were stuffed? Could you own one rabbit? I had two in a hutch in the back yard as a kid, when the neighborhood erupted in the Cicero Race Riot of 1951. I was 9. During the unending commotion all night long, the frightened bunnies escaped. By that time in the fracas, National Guard Troops had "perimeterred" the area, our house included. At sunup, a pounding on our back door: young soldier, fully garbed as for warfare, held our two rabbits up to my Mother! He said they had noticed the hutch, spotted and caught the rabbits "out on Main Street". Actually 18th. Street. It was a frightening and ridiculous time:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero_race_riot_of_1951

imp


----------



## imp (Oct 4, 2015)

Debby said:


> The problem I see with your statement is that it's not just the miscreants and maniacs who are getting weeded out.  In some cases, *it may be your best and your brightest as well*.



Very true, Debby! Facetiousness hidden within my posts often goes unnoticed. Best and brightest: Henry Gwynn-Jefferies Mosely, probably destined to become one of the 20th. Century's top Physicists, killed in action in Europe during WW-I. He had been placed in an infantry artillery unit, through the "wise-use" of available manpower, so moronic were the War schedulers. Mosely was  British.

Rather off-topic. Sorry, I get carried away.   imp


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 4, 2015)

I don't remember the exact rules. I think it was illegal in some states to keep more than one domestic rabbit as a pet and feral rabbits were not allowed anywhere in Australia. Farmers were obliged to attempt to eradicate them and they employed trappers who sold the dead bunnies for meat. The cry of "rabbito" would bring housewives out on the street to buy a cheap feed for the family. One of our rugby league clubs is nicknamed the Rabbitos.

I just opened the link to the riot. Unbelievable.

It doesn't happen these days but in the early colonial days riots were dispersed by the reading of the Riot Act. Basically this said that people should disperse and go home immediately. If they did not a cannon would be fired into the crowd. It usually worked.


----------



## imp (Oct 4, 2015)

*"I just opened the link to the riot. Unbelievable."

*So glad you took the time! Try to imagine a neighborhood of European immigrants, all hard-working, family-raising, striving to fit in to American mores, confronted with it! The square city block in which our house sat, had been overrun by innumerable foot traffic for days, front lawns were gone, many out-of-state license plates were seen. My Dad, arriving home from work, had to prove residency. Several "punks" were bayonetted by troops. My Mother walked  almost daily the 3 blocks from our home to the primary street of our suburb, Cermak Rd., and eventually became recognized as OK (she never had a D.L.).  Most accounts indicate that the event was over in only a few days, but I recall at least 2 weeks of incessant noise, crowds of folks never before present, general mayhem. It may have been the single most informative circumstance to solidify this ex-Chicagoan's opinion against the "machine" prevalent there.     imp


----------



## drifter (Oct 4, 2015)

Comment was off topic.


----------



## Elsie (Jun 4, 2017)

Has anyone here researched how Jihadist's everywhere think about gun control for a nation's citizens?  I bet they're for it.  Afterall, they care about keeping citizens safe & alive.  Don't they?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 4, 2017)

Underock1 said:


> We must frighten the daylights out of the rest of the world. Not because of our military might, but because we're nuts!



:lol: You got that right. Most Aussies do think you Americans are a bit nuts about gun ownership.

Contrary to popular opinion, guns are not prohibited in Australia. Since our last (and worst) gun massacre in Tasmania in 1996 the states were persuaded to adopt uniform legislation regulating the kinds of licences needed to own different classes of firearms. Ownership is not considered to be a right but a privilege, and to own one a person must satisfy the authorities that he/she has a legitimate reason and is a responsible person who will store it safely.

The result is a lot less firearms per head of population and a culture where guns are not something that many of us worry about on a daily basis.

Edit - I only just realised that this is an old thread that has been revived. I have posted extensively before this latest post, so my apologies for adding nothing new to an old debate.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 5, 2017)

Elsie said:


> Has anyone here researched how Jihadist's everywhere think about gun control for a nation's citizens?  I bet they're for it.  Afterall, they care about keeping citizens safe & alive.  Don't they?



I betcha you're right, Elsie!  We sure wouldn't want citizens taking potshots at jihadists while they're doin' their thing, would we?


----------

