I am a left wing Australian liberal

I like guns. I've only ever fired a couple of firearms. The first was a 9mm pistol by Tanfoglio. I forget the exact model. I suck at pistol shooting. Did that a few times at a range. Was a lot of fun.

The second was a .22 rimfire rifle. That was also fun. I was a bit better at that but I've only done that once and it was quite a short range just for learning about firearm safety. I wouldn't mind doing it again but none of my friends are interested in it. I play paintball with my friends in a club. Yes, in Australian paintballs fall under the same laws as firearms.

I also believe in gun control. What do I mean by that? Not outright bans. I think that's stupid, not workable and not fair. I think certain classes of people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms at all, such as those who have been convicted of violent crimes. Will that stop them from illegally obtaining them? No, but we shouldn't get rid of laws just because criminals break them.

What sort of firearms do I think people should be allowed to own? That's a tough one.

However, I think there should gun clubs and the like where you could go and fire off all sorts of weapons that the range owns. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, machine guns.

I also think that you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm unless you can show that you safely know how to use them. We don't let people drive cars without training and licensing and I don't see why firearms should be any different.

I am a left wing libertarian liberal. I don't think the gun issue is just something that is the left wing vs right wing. In Australia it was a right wing government that heavily restricted firearm ownership, not a left wing one.

 

Let me pick and choose here for a bit.

Some of this is a very good point and one pro-gun people support. We agree outright bans are stupid and not workable nor fair because law abiding citizens generally follow the law. We agree violent criminals shouldn't own guns and that they will still be able to obtain them and guess what we even agree we shouldn't get rid of some laws just because criminals break them. (Good first step)

What is tough about this one? Let me ask a question. If I handed you a 22 rifle on a range or in your home would you as a law abiding citizen (think USA) go on a shooting spree killing lots of innocent citizens? If the answer is no then why would you assume because I as a law abiding citizen who purchased a fully automatic 50 cal machine gun go on a shooting spree. Keep in mind you had just stated you had lots of fun shooting a weapon that could cause mass destruction given the right circumstances.

There are clubs like that here now, and they are used respectfully, there is also private land where those same weapons are used respectfully by law abiding citizens as well. A club neither makes a bad person nor prevents one so I fail to follow the implication.

Here we part ways, while I think safety and training are important, I don't think mandating it is essential to ownership. Point in case, People get training and licensing in driving and still do some of the dumbest crap you have ever seen. It's not a case study in effectiveness, wouldn't you agree?

I think you are striving to understand and while you may never reach the same conclusions as I do, I laud your efforts.

 

No,thank you.

 

Well, good to know I'm not alone. It's all about making sure that you know how to use a gun, and to handle a gun, not outright banning them.

 

I don't think your version of what is Left- or Right-Wing fits in well with America's.

I'm not a big fan of any gun control law in the last 200 years.

But crime is more influenced by the criminal justice system, in the manner in which felons are handled, than by regulating what is a "good gun" for the common man.

You can look up your stats, but wasn;t crime very low before the late 1960's in your country as it was here in the US?

Why were there not mass shootings and high crimes back then when guns were more easy to get and less restricted?

As far as the light punishments that violent felons are given in Australia, I think they are inferior to what the Aboriginals typically used in their culture.

 

The difference is not the potential intent- we assume that someone using a butcher knife is not going to kill someone either, but both the capability for mass destruction and what the weapon is designed for.

Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated in the United States because of their greater potential for being used to kill- a .50 caliber of course not only has the faster rate of fire, and the heavier bullet, but range will makes it far more likely that someone a mile off, or on the other side of a wall is hit than from a .22.

I am in favor of sensible restrictions which allow gun ownership, and think that military weapons such as the Browning should be very highly restricted to ensure that it is not used in crimes.

 

Potential intent is exactly what we are speaking of, If I gave you a nuclear weapon would you use it? If I gave a nuclear weapon to a potential terrorist would they use it. I think the distinction is clear. Guns have many uses and the potential intent is exactly what the problem is, no amount of banning can fix that. Look up the North Hollywood shootout and tell me how effective a ban is when a determined bad guy has bad intentions.

And as expected, those who legally possess an automatic firearm through legal means have almost zero crime rate yet those who could or have owned them illegally have used them illegally However I haven't seen many legally owned 50 cals used for crimes of mass destruction...have you? The distinction is intent and there is yet to be a law enacted that effectively controls that...eh?

I however think that the sensible restrictions you favor, simply restrict those who follow the law.....not those who have no intention nor inclination to do so. Example: War on drugs, how are all those restrictions working?

 

The "outright ban" meme has reached hysterical proportions. Panzer's post shows how silly it is. But it helps for propagandists to use the phrase to whip up fear, hence the rush to empty gun stores. Wooly-minded thinking.

 

I would like him to clarify what he means by classes, but I otherwise agree. There needs to be better regulation.

 

But simply owning a gun is not doing anything wrong. Why should there be a pointless law that criminalizes something that is not inherently wrong?

And besides, some "violent" crimes are really rather minor (like getting into a fight at a pub). These people should not be denied the right to own a gun for the rest of their life. What about a man who loses his temper and beats up another man who was secretly having an affair with his wife? These are not the type of people who should have guns permanently taken away from them.

 

Before someone can "own" a gun first they have to obtain it. They can obtain it in two ways - legally or illegally. The requirements for legal acquisition are rightly the topic of public debate.

As for the associated dv restrictions - I can see your point but can you see how someone inclined to violence might not be the sort of person who should be permitted to own a firearm legally?

 

It is true that right wing and left wing and Liberal can all have different definitions in different places. I enjoy guns too but never get a chance to shoot like I'd like to. I believe in guns for self defense. Whatever it takes basically. And I do have trouble seeing paint ball catagorized under "firearms".

 

They're classified as air rifles in my state of QLD.

 

So long as they don't take an ostrich approach to the fact that illegally obtained guns are out there and in mass. That fact should be a primary consideration in the discussion of legally purchased guns. It is funny that leftists want to keep abortions legal because women will do them anyway, but fail to see that this applies just as well to gun ownership!

 

What exactly is 'potential intent'? There is intent or not intent.

Not intent at all- the lack of use of .50 caliber's in crime shows that a very highly regulated atmosphere can work when it severely reduces the ownership of such weapons.

This is the reason that we still have very few crimes where fully automatic weapons are used- most crimes are committed with the much less regulated and much more widely distributed semi-automatic pistols, and to a lesser extent shotguns and rifles.

 

name one crime committed in the US in the past 50 years where a full auto weapon was used................The bank robbers in LA used semi auto weapons w/30rd magazines

 

Illegally obtained firearms usually fall into two parts. One, manufactured; two, home made. For the manufactured weapons to get into the hands of criminals they have to be somehow available. To reduce or at least come to grips with the issue of criminals using weapons then the supply aspect has to be examined. It seems, for example, that background checks may help there, especially if they are used to stop private sales, particularly those at gun shows or fairs. Proper security of weapons stored at home would also reduce the potential for theft.

While I have argued that crime and firearms control use are separate issues I do accept that there is a connection in terms of supply. Both illegal and legal avenues of supply to criminals need to be examined. This is in addition to the use of firearms control laws to reduce the harm from lawful firearms use.

 

Good lord you do realize I was quoting your use of the words "potential intent". You do remember what you post eh?

Highly regulated reduces crime err no, Dope is highly regulated, that doesn't work so well eh? The work and effort required to acquire one for the criminally inclined, yes that reduces criminal use, limited availability from legally acquired sources yes that reduces criminal use. Remember the Clinton ban on so called assault weapons had little to no effect effect on criminal use of so called assault rifles so highly regulated produces ummmm exactly squat.

For gods sake what weapon today isn't highly regulated today? Fully automatic weapons are legally owned by many many law abiding citizens and hardly a crime committed by them. Same with any of the antigun named assault weapons out there. It's always the same thing with you all, it's the gun that makes bad things happen...never the criminal and their intent.....sheesh

 

Yeah,evidently your government thinks you'll shoot your eye out,kid.

 

Sorry,but the bank robbers in north hollywood used an illegally converted ar-15 with a 100 round beta mag and tw0 AKM's also illegally converted

they had an HK-91 that was semi auto

 

Since you claim to be from the United States, you know there is marked difference in both supply and regulation of automatic weapons from non-automatic weapons- automatic weapons are far, far more heavily regulated, and subsequently there is a far, far smaller amount of fully automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens.

The extreme regulation of automatic weapons shows how extreme regulation could have worked, but of course the extreme regulation of automatic weapons has been in effect since I believe the 1930's.

 

I don't claim to be from the US, I am from the US. Let me break this down for you so you can understand why your automatic weapon regulation theory is bogus.
#1. Criminal intent is the key here, as in criminals intend to do bad things with weapons and not get caught.
#2. Machine guns don't work well with point #1 as carrying around a fully automatic weapon seems to draw attention to said bad guy causing them to get caught.
#3. Number 1 and number 2 render your point moot since even if automatic weapons were unregulated it wouldn't be the weapon of choice for your average bad guy.
#4. Small arms have many regulations and laws regarding their use/ownership and that hasn't stopped said bad guy from owning/using them in an illegal manner, rendering your point moot because even though pistols are heavily regulated especially in states like Illinois and New York they are still the main choice of criminals.

Your argument suffers many fatal flaws but nice try eh?

 

Australian liberal,

Here in the USA we can go shoot whatever kind of gun we want, we have many places you can do so safely without disturbing anyone. "Clubs" are a bad idea. Why would anyone want to go to a "club" to exercize their first amendment right to free speach? Although liberals humanists want "club" status for religion too...

Our constitution guarantees certain rights - God given rights. As for you in Australia - I wish you had our constitution, but you don't. If you are happy with what YOU'VE got or what you DON'T have - that's fine.

 

The US doesn't have debating clubs?

 

Panzerkampfwagen,

Not really. It's called "talk shows", letters to the editor, town meetings, political debates, etc. The United States would not be the great unique country we are if we did things like the rest of the world. We really don't want to be like Australia, England, Sweden, France, Germany, China, Korea, or anywhere else. We are THE United States of America.

To me a "debate club" sounds about as effective as a discussion at a bar. What would be the point exactly? It sounds like a good way for political types to keep people off their back - "Please attend the debate club every Tuesday night and leave me to more important matters."