Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

@557

What did create these rights of which you speak....the same rights you reckon I as an Aussie have.

 

I reckon that is a wise thing to do in the USA because you never know when some schmuck is gonna open up on you. Chicken/egg, wot?

Do you wear a parachute when you fly commercial?

 

Do you get permission to leave the house with facial recognition software?

 

No.

 

Something like that.

 

If you don’t have a right to self defense, why were you buying a shotgun to keep at home and talking about using it for self defense? Where DID that right come from?

 

The Queensland Criminal Code.

Where are those rights of which you speak created, the same ones you say we enjoy down here.?

 

Absolutely not. The money people spend on a one time license lasting years, and a one time registration lasting years do not cover the road expenditures in any kind of remote way.
And it's also no argument why you should have firearm registration or gun licenses.

You go try and drive around when your license is confiscated. A license and registration also got nothing to do with confiscating all firearms.
And so again: No argument why you should have firearm registration or gun licenses.

They aren't correct, since they all totally trust the government with drivers licenses and car registration for decades without 1 single protest.

So what. The point is to not get lawful citizens used to sell/give away/rent etc their firearm to people who lost their license.

There are methods to make those serial numbers in gun show again, since they are stamped into the metal. The stamp alters the density in the metal, and is not just on the surface. That way the gun found in the hands of a criminal or at the scene of the crime can always be traced back to whoever had it registered last. And it's rather easy for cops to find lawful citizens and interrogate them about the firearm they still legally own on paper.

 

Maybe you should dare to compare the homicide of the UK with the US.

 

No. If human rights were created by Queensland Criminal Code they would be called “Australian rights” or “Queensland Code rights”. Your government refers to Human Rights and their protection!

Start here to learn more about protection of HUMAN RIGHTS by your government.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work...how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law

 

One time vehicle registration lasting years? Where do I sign up? This spending half a day applying stickers, exchanging papers, and license plates on 20 vehicles every January stinks.

 

Yes. People have gone to jail for having a knife used in their work found in their car. They are considering a national campaign to grind the point off all existing kitchen knives! Who wants to live in a society like that? Not me.

 

Those 'rights' we have are either based on the Constitution (as outlined in your link) or by Statute. But that is not what I am referring to.

Where do the rights you are describing below come from. AND.....you assert whatever those rights you have are, we Aussies also have them. What are they?

 

A. Except the perpetrator purchased the gun legally and the ammo as well, on the day of the killing. Basically he was a "good guy" with a gun that then became a bad guy with a gun.
B. The reason for his mass killing was because certain employees made fun of him because of his recent job change at the company. He specifically targeted those employees.
C. This really has nothing to do with gun laws or how strict they are or not. We have people who think they can solve all their problems with firearms. Until that changes, this will continue. And if you are in that situation, all we will do is offer you "hope and prayer."
D. If I was a foreign government, I would tell the citizens of my country NOT to come to the US at all until that is resolved. That will practically kill the tourism industry in the UNited States and will affect all states, not the blue or red states.

 

Yes you are referring to human rights. And YOUR government, in the link I provided, claims to protect those rights, not CREATE them. Where did those human rights that are protected by BOTH our governments come from?


Here is a link on human rights from the UN.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

You are welcome to show me where the UN claims to have created any right. You are welcome to show where the Australian government has claimed to have created a human right. I think what we have here is your completely unsubstantiated opinion that government creates rights. On the other hand I have overwhelming evidence governments and the UN recognize rights that are inherent and endowed by another “entity”.

If Aussies are human, you have the same human rights as anyone in the US. Or the UK. Or Libya. You are welcome to abdicate your rights to someone else. But as we see, even your government and the UN acknowledge those rights are inherent, not created by government.

You have a lot to learn about your own government before trying to change ours.

 

I've read stories about people getting arrested for carrying potato peelers.....don't know how true that is, but if it is.....I don't even know what to say.

What it does show is the natural anti-gun legislation isn't about guns at all.....it's about the nonsense idea that cracking down on weapons stops crime. Confiscating butter knives is the natural evolution of that mode of thinking.

 

Apples and oranges.

The only accurate way to gauge results of some change is within the country in question.

UK gun laws and cracking down on people carrying butter knives has not affected their homicide rate in any positive way.

 

That must suck not getting permission to leave the house from your overlords.

 

I see no reason why you wouldn't compare the US to similar western nations, and it shows the US is by far the most gun violent nation by miles. The only difference is that joke of a gun regulation they have.


You posted how people got murdered in the UK.
Guns are ranked 5th. That's no doubt the impact of the gun ban in the UK, since I know they had a good drop in all kind of gun related violence.
I find you eyeballing the murder rate as dishonest. It leaves out all other types of gun related crime, as if it doesn't matter.
It does. A cop in the UK doesn't even normally carry a gun because it's simply not needed since the criminals hardly got them to use.
Go explain that to an American cop how the world can be so different in an exceptionally similar nation.

 

I guess you've never heard of mexico. No, you've heard of it but you pretend they don't count because your argument is paper thin and has never stood to reason.

 

I don't see why you wouldn't compare the US to all nations.

Aren't all people and cultures the same?

I don't give a crap what rank gun homicides are in the UK. I care about all homicide regardless of how it was done.

The total homicide rate in the UK is the same and or higher than it was before gun bans.

What does this mean for those who are clearly incapable of using their brains?

People stopped using guns and started killing the same or more people using different weapons.

Homicide was not affected at all.

 

Sounds racist not including Mexico.

 

It's often being said that the west share a rather similar culture.
Nobody has a problem with Trump importing a western immigrant to marry, while he rips on other immigrants who do not share his kind of values.

You do not give a crap about any kind of gun violence. While this is about gun violence in general. Not just homicides.
It's just dishonest.

 

The only dishonesty is caring when someone is killed with a particular weapon.

Shot with a gun. You care. Strangled, stabbed, beaten. You don't care about that.

I'm trying real hard to resist getting my post deleted, so I'll end with that.

 

I'm not sure which Home Office rules you are referring to.
The friend (another farmer) was entitled to possess firearms and shotguns since he held valid licences so I don't think there was a major breach since it's the possession of guns without a licence that is the serious offence not the ownership.
This is one of the advantages of regulations being in the hands of local authorities, especially in rural locations such as this, since the gun owners and the officer in question usually have a relationship going back years. This allows for a little discretion in technical breaches such as Paul's bearing in mind we are talking about a licence that had expired by only a day or two. Paul was able to demonstrate to the policeman, who he is on first name terms with, that he had done everything in his control to comply while he rectified his mistake.

I think the fact that you can only find two instances of ''mass'' shootings in the past 25 years is testament to the success of the regulations in this country and the fact that there are no cases of such shootings carried out with illegally owned guns validates it further.

Now I am perfectly able to recognise that this level of regulation is next to impossible in the US with your, unwise IMO, right to own and your much lower respect for the authorities which is often justified, again IMO, by the often poor quality of some LEOs.

I guess you have no choice than to accept that the death of children and other innocents is the price you have to pay for your rights and freedoms.
It makes me sad though and often a bit angry about the absolute refusal by a large percentage of your population to accept any future restrictions whatsoever on firearms.

Now I see by my notifications that my opinions have attracted the attention of some other members. I would like to apologise in advance for ignoring you all but I'm only prepared to have this discussion with 557 who I have great respect for so don't waste your time ranting and raving at me because I shall not be reading your posts.