Grahaml wrote:tipper wrote:unfortunately, by restricting guns, you only leave the criminals with guns. The UK has zero handguns. even their olympic competitors had to leave the country to train. however their stats on handgun crime are terrible. since they banned them, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of handguns in crime. show me where you sourced your claim from, as i am not aware of such a relationship.
and in case you didnt realise, guns in this country are actually used to shoot more than targets. farmers use them every day to protect livestock, hunters regularly use them to harvest their own meat, professional cullers make a living out of killing everything from feral dogs to foxes, roos, goats, cats, even some bird species. personally i have shot more feral animals than stationary targets (all legally before anyone asks). target shooting is definitely a legitimate use of firearms, but there are still other legal uses in this country.
can you tell me how many licenced firearms owners have committed gun crime in the last ten years in australia? i think you will be surprised by the answer. people that have met appropriate standards, and have proven that they are responsible people should be able to own pretty much whatever gun they want.
guns in the hands of criminals on the other hand.... unfortunately as it stands in australia, criminals seem to be able to get their hands on whatever type of firearm they want. they are either manufacturing them in backyard setups, or importing them
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/raids- ... 6298625034guns being owned by private citizens has no impact in this country on criminal misuse of firearms. i dont see how making some things easier for the appropriately screened people will result in people being killed.
Ouch, wrong again. UK has one of the LOWEST rates of gun related deaths in the world. To get lower you have to go to Japan's laws. Check those out and their annual gun deaths numbers. As for my sources, well, an internet search comes up with a large variety of sources that provide consistent evidence.
That was a nice story about legal use of firearms, but we're talking about activities that are currently illegal.
Guns owned by private people DO have impacts on gun crime. The evidence is incredibly clear. The reasons behind it are varied but basically the crims don't need military weapons to carry out their crimes when citizens are unarmed. By arming the civilian population all you do is force the crims to arm themselves more thoroughly. Imagine a bloke holding up a servo in the US with a screwdriver or other non projectile weapon as is rather common here. They would EXPECT to get a gun pulled on them. So they take a bigger gun. Stats and logic say introducing guns at all increases the risk of injury or death. Make that a more lethal type of gun and you only increase the danger.
I like how the parts of your response that make sense weaken your own argument.
i said gun
crime in the UK, not deaths. you are misreading my post. you are also missing the point that criminals in australia currently do have firearms (whatever a military firearm is you havent defined) the story i linked showed the importation of around 200 semi automatic handguns, and did you notice that the article didnt say whether the guns in question have been recovered or not? they havent, they recovered some, not all.
currently your whole argument of arming the population means the criminals will arm themselves more is crap here in australia. people that are licenced for firearms, cannot currently use them in self defence (aside from maybe security guards while on duty, but that is a commercial licence, not private). it is not one of the approved "purpose of use" that has to be endorsed on a licence. there would need to be major changes before a crim would have to worry about the clerk at the servo shooting them.
you are linking owning guns, to being able to use them for self defence. they are two separate arguments. currently most states prohibit the ownership of any item specifically for the purpose of self defence. that includes something like a cricket bat. its different if you have it for playing cricket, and it was handy, however i would be in strife if i used one in self defence, i dont play cricket and never have, prosecutors could probably successfully argue that i owned it for self defence (and they would be right) and despite using it on a home invader, i would have charges to answer. this would need to change long before criminals would have to worry about being shot by their intended victim.
personally i am not advocating that myself anyway. but somehow you have assumed i am. i said i agreed with some of their policies, not all. i do like though that you approve of criminals being able to do whatever they want to their victims, as long as they dont kill them, how generous of you. if the law did change however, i would certainly look into owning something for the protection of my family. im no John Wayne, and even if i lived in the states i wouldnt want a gun on me all the time, however having one in the house would be seriously looked at. but alas, its not an option, and i seriously doubt it will lever be an option in our country.
you have still failed to show me how increasing the allowance of licenced people to own guns in this country would increase the criminal misuse of firearms? i dont see how making it easier for farmers to own semi automatics, or for target shooters to do the same (there are actually international events specifically for semiautomatic firearms) or even hunters will mean the bloke going in to hold up the local maccas will bring an M60. maybe check out New Zealands gun laws. much less restrictive than ours, and yet they have had a longer period of time without a "gun massacre". they are far from the US style open slather, yet anyone that wants one, and can meet their standard can purchase an AR15 if they so wish. no reason it couldnt be the same here.