what all the caterwauling comes down to is this....
wanna get rid of all the guns? Come get 'em.
Good luck with that, c*nts.
Australia - a world leader in exactly what?
Speaking Japanese if we didn't save you.
During the Vietnam War, Australia was a legendary place for R&R for American GIs. Why? Aussie wome thought Americans were great because Aussie men were losers. Fact.
Sound like you're afraid of your own shadow down under.
You can protect your home with a shotgun maybe 2. You don't need semi-automatic weapons, assault weapons and large clips of ammo.
We have sporting goods stores that look like Armories in this country.
It's not the gun laws. Its the vast size of the country and the lack of social cohesion that leads to this.
That said, I completely disagree with the "if you outlaw [insert type of gun/ammo] here, then only criminals will have it" line of argument.
The fact is, fully automatic weapons have been illegal for quite some time. Yet spree killers like this pretty much always use legally available weapons, obtained legally, rather than full autos. There are two reasons for that, I think. First, supply and demand; I suspect it's a lot harder to get a full auto on the black market because fewer of them are manufactured, since there isn't a robust legal market to sell them in. And second, because spree killers aren't typically hard-core criminals with ready access to those markets; they're usually the "my god, I never thought he would do something like that" types. And even if they were, black market transactions increase the chances of someone identifying the plan before it happens, if their dealer happens to get raided. Much safer to simply buy guns that are legal and use those.
My bet - and this is mainly based on logic and speculation, not study - is that criminals would continue to primarily use legally available (if not necessarily legally obtained) weapons, with a small, hard core using more significant weapons (like mob-types or professional bank robbers with full autos).
The original purpose of teh bearing of arms was one to assist in keeping the State in check. It's quite obvious, given they had just finished toppling a Govt. that oppressed them.
But as tech has marched on, the armed individual is no longer a check vs. the State. The State, simply, has vastly outclassed them individuals in terms of weaponry, meaning this purpose has, through no fault of the individual, become outdated in real terms. I don't like that, but it is what it is.
As such, my own view is one of compromise. Protect gun rights, while limiting access to high-potential high-ammo high-RoF millitary-style weaponry.
Handguns w/ 10 round clips. Shotguns. Rifles. All legal.
Beyond that, illegal.
I can live with that kind of compromise, IF and ONLY IF we could be assured that like so many issues, this wouldn't simply be taken as Step 1 in a Multi-Step Plan to make all guns illegal. Sadly, I have no faith that the left would agree to such terms for long.
This won't come as a surprise to 'fish, but my personal view is you do the right thing and deal with the slippery slope as it comes.
That's the all too predictable lib/crypto-liberal way-someone shoots up a public place once in a blue moon and all guns must be grabbed-except from Psychotic Muslim US Army Officers (who haven't even been tried yet) Illegal Aliens and Inner Cities.
Never mind hanging the guy from the highest yardarm as he deserves
If only I felt we could be so trusting.This won't come as a surprise to 'fish, but my personal view is you do the right thing and deal with the slippery slope as it comes.
The "slippery slope" defense exists becuase neither side accepts compromise. They simply get their next step, them proceed to march on immediately towards getting the step after that towards their all-or-nothing goals on their pet issues.
I would, then, want any such comprimise laid down in a form that disallowed such additional nit-picks around the edges and further efforts to limit/expand rights. The only route I can think of that would suffice is a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the 2nd Amendment clause on the purpsoe, and right, and limitations, of arms bearing in society today as opposed to 1770's.
But that will never happen. Sadly, we as a Nation have seemingly abandoned the idea of adjusting our basic fundamental rights of law via amendment proceedings. But in my view, it's the only real legitmate route to correction/updating/modernizing our constitutional rights the right way.
Time for stricter regulation.
One would need to know if existing regulation worked or did not work, first. Far too early to know any of that yet. If existing law failed, new law is not neccessarily the answer.
The frequency of events of late certainly does raise the issue though of the very right itself. Has the right (and the original reason for the right) become so outmoded, outdated, and impossible to no longer warrant the right in the first place. Remember, if the purpose was to keep Govt. in check (and in fear) of the people, that purpose is outdated. Handguns and rifles will never overthrow a bad U.S. Govt.
I, for one, would accept stronger regulation and a closing of all loopholes (like gun shows). Limitations on ammunation types. IF these changes came along with very specific protections for the right to own for things like target shooting and hunting, if you're not found crazy or covicted of a violent crime, etc.
Plenty of room to quantify this right further, if we (as a people) wish it.
The regulation not allowing guns at school has made the schools a target.
In china 22 children where stabbed by another nut job.
I like my idea of developing non lethal weapons to defend one self and then much greater regulation of guns
If two or three teachers were armed, i don't think we would have seen anywhere near the loss of life that was seen today.
A surge in gun violence isn't indicative of a need for more gun control, it is indicative of a need for rapid lethal response directed at those perpetrating gun violence.
For the record, i disagree with the notion that the original objective of having the means to resist an evil government obsolete. I also object to the notion that "intent" is more important than the letter of the law. If laws are so poorly written that they do not reflect the intentions with which they were passed, they ought to be rewritten.
Stricter regulation is fine so long as that doesn't limit my right to own.
If I am a law-abiding citizen and can pass a background check, psychological exam, gynecological exam, etc. I should be able to possess a firearm for my own safety/protection/hunting/recreational shooting etc.
I wouldn't care how long the above process might take as long as A. I can still own a firearm and B. it can help prevent or hopefully reduce incidents like the one today.
I am suspect of someone who "needs" a firearm immediately or in x number of days.