Australian Lawmaker: Our Gun Control Laws Created a Nation of Victims

That australian lawmaker should be awarded the title of master of bull*hit. So you disincentivate terrorists by arming the population so how come there are so many terrorist attacks in one of the most armed areas of the entire world, even with american and israely forces nearby...

 

We believe that if there had been more guns there would have been a greater loss of life

 

This is silly.....US Army sniper school is seven weeks going in with some knowledge of long range marksmanship and they turn out very effective snipers.

10000 hours if one could dedicate to just marksmanship of 4 hours a day it would take 2,500 days before you field the sniper.

ADF does not even dedicate 10000 hrs to the Rifleman.

As for your amateur hour and hero comment it smacks of keyboard commando training.

 

And that is fine with your own Nation. Vote how you want your society.

 

Makes me no difference. Aussies and for that matter Brits are free to do what they want with the vote. It does get old that they whine and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) on this forum about our 2A like old women. Once that starts it gives me the opportunity to politely tell them to (*)(*)(*)(*) off while I enjoy my morning coffee.

Have a Merry Christmas Hoosier8

 

Actually, they don't come here to whine but to boast how much better they are than us without realizing they are just boasting about being better sheep.

 

Better

Our Aussie and British neighbors are no better than some nosy people living across the street peeking over the fence or maybe pointing a CCTV camera your way.

I say let them enact more laws over the people, the more the better. Keeps them busy on the forums and reminds me why the US is wonderful and a special place to live.

 

Someone posted a clip of the rankest amateur hour shooting I've seen in years as evidence that I'm somehow wrong and all you can do is waffle like a teenager about keyboard commandos and attempt to deny what mastery takes.

I'm pretty sure "lol" goes here.

 

IF that were true (?) what's going to happen with the future increase in Jihadist attacks as is a threat per the 'kill & behead a westerner' group that still exists in Australia?!

 

OK, it is a trade-off then, so as long as there are only two murders. But if one of the victims was someone you loved or the murder count would be three would you be inclined to allow these lives to be saved by use of a citizen operated firearm?

Most recently over here, the myopic focus of the most overtly, passionately vocal protester is "black life" preservation when involved with a law enforcement encounter where the use of deadly force has taken place. I personally find great value in all innocent life and think these lives should be defended from serious harm and life threatening criminal acts up to and including deadly force. It is a necessary and logical option not to be denied by those who do so even with the best of intentions...even if the body count is two innocent lives or less.

 

As a founding father of democracy and liberty once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”---Benjamin Franklin

I can guarantee that with the increase of 'random' Jihadist threats (they wont know that you love them), you & other naive gunphobes will be in line to buy a gun once legalized again (or on the black market if not)!!

 

I understand, people lack any confidence as a men. Those people that lack confidences demand a strong government with powerful police force.

 

I keep forgetting that Australia like Canada didnt fight for their freedom like America and are still serving their 'protectorate', the 'latest' King George........

Wait..your protectorate, Great Britain doesnt have guns either....good luck!

 

The funny thing is, some of the most hardcore gun nuts I've met actually suffer from overwhelming fear and weakness. They are scared of everything - going to the grocery store, going to work, driving after dark. They see threats everywhere. It's kind of weird really - they are so lacking in confidence and masculinity that they can't function in the most peaceful society in human history without arming themselves. CCW to the 7-11 around the corner isn't being manly, it is being a giant wimp.

I support their right to do so, but still.

 

I said just one example. Have a few more here.

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...july-8-2014-17-documented-defensive-gun-uses/

 

I've seen 'gun nuts' and also 'responsible gun owners' (many more btw). The gun nuts packed guns on their person 'within' their homes with no threat present. Responsible gun owners had them locked up or child proofed in separate areas......

 

Yup, most people I know are really good about their firearms. But then there are some who just are constantly on edge, who can't function without having their firearm with them at all times. I find that perspective to be deeply worrisome, and based entirely on a view of the Western world that is totally inaccurate.

 

I never owned a hand gun until I got married and my job reqd me to travel frequently. We lived in apmts, and because I 'loved and cared about my wife's safety,' bought a cheap handgun and trained her on how to use it. Many years later, having raised 2 children, still have the gun but have never had to use it----was 'cheap insurance' but also 'peace of mind' for me (and her) shud a situation had arisen.

 

I think having a gun in the home is a reasonable thing, especially given the circumstances you describe. I'm just constantly bewildered at people who think that because they CAN get a concealed carry, and because they CAN always carry a handgun, that they should. It doesn't make sense to me, because frankly, the odds of being involved in an altercation are basically non-existent. It also introduces some new risks even while it addresses others - statistically speaking, that weapon is just as likely to be stolen or used against you then for it to fulfill the stated purpose. They would be better off carrying a first aid kit and investing in a retractable baton.

 

The excuse that a hand gun will be used against them is really disingenuous. That can only occur: if the gun isnt protected (location or safety locked), or if a person isnt trained to use it, or if they hesitate/panic in an emergency situation not being coherent.

A 1st aid kit or baton are useless--I would say to be trained in self defense, to 'react properly' to the situation would help---but being held under gun or knife-point can still over rule & control the situation with the victim.

 

The issue being that the vast chunk of people are not capable of responding appropriately to emergency situations, even if they took a weekend course about it. It isn't disingenuous because it happens all the time - people not taking care of their firearms is a HUGE PROBLEM, and while that shouldn't be the case, it is. The simple truth is that the vast chunk of people simply cannot be trusted to take the proper precautions and the proper actions without years of consistent training. There is a reason why the military is so cautious about how, when and by whom guns are carried and used - even trained soldiers and cops react poorly in combat situations, and they are surrounded by squadmates, after going through intensive training.

Having a first aid kit and a baton is not useless by any measure. What would make you say that?

 

Does anyone really think that in a nation of several millions there will not be at least one gun nut who thinks arming everyone stops mass shootings? Meanwhile, back in the armed capital of the world, we continue to kill each other despite being armed to the teeth.

 

So a 1st Aid kit will be a deterrent?! Baton..eh. Need to go for the eyes or genitals with the hands which are 'readily available!'

I bought my daughter a small can of Mace/Pepper Spray to carry in her purse, as many years ago she was attacked while in HS and still has some fears in parking lots at night. She has 3 young boys and so carrying a small hand gun in her purse is not a good idea....

 

I'd say the choice of non-lethal weapon depends upon who is carrying it. For your daughter, whom I'm assuming is not a bodybuilder, she needs to be able to keep her distance from the perp, while still take them down fairly consistently. So mace makes perfect sense.

For me, a young guy who is perfectly capable of breaking limbs with a baton, it is a fine weapon.

 

Bringing a baton to a gun fight doesn't strike me as real smart. Your baton against someone pointing a gun at you just makes sure he will pull the trigger.