General discussion


What gun possession implies

By chdchan ·
Tags: Off Topic
With gun weapons, one can protect or kill. Not too soon after Colorado shooting, Americans are tolling themselves again with the Connecticut shootout.

The U.S. is a country respecting freedom. While the police and soldiers have guns, so do the general public. With freedom in American minds, privacy is also secured by Law, hence one can kill an intruder to one's premises. The reasons behind this practice are: Americans are above-par wealthy and they need some extra security against crime (also reflected in their possession of most nuclear missiles in the world); Americans are relatively selfish and self-protecting (people are putting security of oneself above public safety by advocating gun possession, plus developing nuclear weaponry whilst disallowing poorer countries to follow suit); Americans think they are so morally superior that most people can restrain themselves from gun abuse.

In fact, if some would like to prevent crime with guns, they should first think about how easily guns can cause crime. For the first time in history, after many gun-related crimes, people from the rest of the world should become hesitating when considering emigration or traveling to the U.S. and other gun-approving countries. As Chinese ourselves, we applaud for our own better-off personal safety without undiscriminated gun possession. When guns are publicized for eliminating their inner lack of security, Americans are haunted with even greater homicidal fears.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

no an attempt to deal with the subject of this sub-thread - causes

by Deadly Ernest In reply to As far as I know

this split off as a discussion of the causes as to why people go nuts with guns, and I simply pointed out there are other ways to kill people in numbers if you want to, but few look into why that's happening or the causes behind any of the rage attacks.

When someone walks into theatre and starts shooting people the media scream "nutter with a gun, let's ban guns." When someone flips for the same reason and drives their car at high speed into a bus load of people killing many passengers and them self the media say "man loses control of car and kills twelve in accident." In the first case it's clear the person was a nutter acting out of rage, in the second it's not clear and totally ignored as a rage attack unless they left a note saying something.

In any case where someone goes crazy with rage there has to be some reason why, and we (as a society) need to find out what that is and what's causing it so we can treat the illness and no just one observable symptom.

Collapse -

a subject you initiated to change the discussion. nt

by JJFitz In reply to so does a car - they kill ...
Collapse -

no, I didn't change it at all, follow the thread topics.

by Deadly Ernest In reply to a subject you initiated t ...

Slayer - But are guns the real problems
Maxwell - People in the USA don't care what the root cause(s) is (are)
PurpleSkys - I don't blame guns
highlander - Guns don't kill
me - so does a car - they kill more people than guns do each year, let's
(admittedly I was being very sarcastic in the way I wrote it)
then you respond about there being few mass car killings and I responded about not knowing if it was a rage attack and we had a few exchanges on that and causes.

Collapse -

me - so does a car = subject change nt

by JJFitz In reply to a subject you initiated t ...
Collapse -

What you mean like this

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to so does a car - they kill ...

Vehicle Prohibition Act of 1996

The recent death of 4 innocent pedestrians caused by the actions of a drunken driver in charge of a Stolen Automatic sedan has caused the following laws to be passed for public safety

Surrender of Vehicles

On or before 1st July 1997 all vehicles fitted with an Automatic Transmission must be surrendered to police at disposal points to be announced for demolition. It has been decided to include front wheel drive vehicles as well as Go-carts. These vehicles have been declared prohibited and compensation will be paid to owners at an amount to be fixed at some point in the future, payment may be also be made at that time.

All parts including nuts, bolts, windscreen wipers, ashtrays used or new, and petrol tanks are prohibited. Sale or transfer of the above vehicles is immediately prohibited with severe penalties provided under The Act for infringement.

The “Buy Back” scheme will be financed by a 5%increase in Statutory Registration charges. If not enough money is collected those surrendering their vehicles will not get full compensation.

Licences will be allocated by enforcement authorities on a requirement basis, any person who has need for an automatic vehicle has to be the owner of a large property and the license will be allocated for a certain period only.

Licenses for all vehicles will be allocated on a genuine need basis for a Two Year Period. {Personal Transport will not constitute a genuine need.}


By Order of Council.

However the only incident that I am aware of where a Motor Vehicle killed numerous people was a complete accident and happened at Le Mans in 1955 if I remember correctly. It involved a Mercedes after hitting a slower moving car hitting some bollards and literally stopping immediately but owing to the type of barrier the Engine & Gear Box and some other bigger parts tore out of the vehicle and traveled through the crowd while it was still running till it's Inertia was exhausted.

I'm unaware of anyone deliberately doing anything similar unless of course you want to include using a Motor Vehicle packed with Explosives to kill people and destroy buildings. There are quite a few instances of that but the motor vehicle is more of a afterthought than a prime motivator in those events. It would be just as devastating to use a Horse and Cart to move the explosives or at a pinch The Little Red Wagon that where toys for so many children years ago.


Collapse -


by JJFitz In reply to What you mean like this

My point was that the risk associated with driving is in no way comparable to INTENTIONAL mass killing sprees with a firearm.
Any attempt to bring it up in a firearms discussion is merely there to change the subject.

Collapse -

Col, the point I was making is that we do NOT know

by Deadly Ernest In reply to What you mean like this

of an incident where the driver dies as well is a true accident or an intentional action of some sort - our automatic action is to assume and accident. The recent case in Queensland where a bus went over the edge of a mountain and the driver died is being investigated as an accident, it probably was, but if the driver had flipped and wanted to kill or harm his passengers as well (all tourists from Asia) we'd have no way of knowing. The same applies to any number of cases where people have been driving on a crazy manner while behind the wheel of a car and caused harm to others.

I admit I may be a lot more aware of this sort of odd rage behaviour than some, having been a significant witness in an event where a fellow in a rage deliberately rode his motorcycle into a crowd at a bus stop at speed in Queanbeyan back in the late 1980s. The only reason it was investigated as murder and not an accident while fleeing police custody was a I, and a couple of others, were able to testify about his rageroid riding half an hour before the police pursuit began. The police were all set to see it as an accident until the earlier behaviour was brought to their attention. It was on when confronted about the earlier sightings that he admitted his rage over his girlfriend dropping him a bit earlier that day.

Teen on a motorbike killed on girl and put a dozen others into hospital because he rode into the pack of thirty people at 80 plus kph. If he had a car it would have been dozens dead.

his going crazy and hurting people has an underlying cause that relates to people going crazy with guns, which is the point of the sub-sub-thread that guns are a tool and only a tool that other tools can be just as harmful if the causes aren't researched and treated.

Collapse -

almost forgot, there have been a number of speedway crashes

by Deadly Ernest In reply to What you mean like this

where cars have left the track and killed people in the crowd - those were clearly accidents.

Collapse -

So what you are saying is

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to What you mean like this

Any Tool will do when someone goes Nuts?

Though I have to admit that people with Firearms going nuts do worry me more than people with cars unless of course the person with the car is unlicensed and been prevented from driving.

Even then it's generally speaking their car and they have to pay the bills for the repair of loss of the vehicle where in this country at least we tend to need Motor Vehicles.

We have long distances where there is little to no human occupation and large areas where you can live off the land but with considerable difficulty. Lack of water being the biggest issue in AU.

However by the same token it's not that difficult to get a Fire Arm License here I could in all likelihood get one early next year if I was so inclined without too much trouble. I don't have a Criminal Record or am subject of an AVO and other than working with computers are relatively sane so I really shouldn't have any issues in getting a Long Arm License. I most likely could even get a Pistol License if I so desired but that's highly unlikely as I just don't see any need for one though going by my Uncle I must be doing a lot of Practice as when he dragged me to do some Target Shooting I just placed a big hole in the target with 9 rounds instead of little holes all over the target.

But even you have to admit that the Laws in NSW are changing in a day or 2 and as of March next year Amateur Shooters can access National Parks and shoot the crap out of whatever it is that they want to aim at. I've seen way too many Armature Shooters seeming to believe that 2,000 rounds to kill an animal is perfectly OK and that if you only take the 1 shot and do the same job it's no where near as much fun.

I'll admit that people like that scare me and having them let loose in National Parks isn't a place I would be visiting any time soon. What way too many people forget or never knew in the first place is the range of those Rifles that they use and think that a couple of hundred yards is all you have to watch out for. YEA Right give me a break and stay in the Hole you dug till they pass.

Add in some drinking at night while they argue/boast about the One That Got Away and you have a Recipe for Disaster no matter what the Shooters Association says is something you need to avoid.

A few years ago I visited a sheep property in Northern NSW which boarded onto a National Park and not only did you not shoot in the National Park but you didn't shoot over it either from outside it no matter what was going on. If there was something that you had to shoot it was fair game on the farm but the moment it went over the fence it was perfectly safe. The main reason for that was you never knew if there where any people just over the river/creek that boarded the National Park and it was a common thing to find Gill Nets in that creek that the Farm Owner reported to the National Park Authorities so there was always a fair chance that there where either National park Rangers or Poachers very close by and you acted accordingly. That place had feral pigs and they where really nasty little beasts so moving around more than a couple of hundred yards from the Homestead without a rifle wasn't an option. Well at least not if you liked walking and not experiencing severe pain and suffering not to mention a slow painful death.

Skippy's where a nuisance because they competed with the sheep for food but the pigs where a completely different story, you had to be careful. Of course the Exchange Students he had there where thinking of little pink piglets and saying just how cute and harmless they where till they ran into one of them, who took a very dim view of them getting too close to her offspring. They didn't believe that anything would attack a car which was the only thing that saved them as if they had of been walking they would have been in a world of hurt.


Collapse -

Col, I've seen a lot of irresponsible handling of many tools

by Deadly Ernest In reply to What you mean like this

including cars, guns, etc over the years. Most of it has been due to no, bad, or poor training in their use. I agree that guns can be a hazard in the hands of a nutter, we've seen that. But those who really want to get them can, regardless of the laws, as has been proven. From the records here in Australia, and also overseas, most rage case nutters end up getting killed or killing themselves - as best as we can tell they start their rage attack with the intent of dying at the end of it.

In this sub-thread I've been trying to get across three significant points:

1. It matter not the tool used by the nutter, they can and will kill people unless some one can stop them very early in their rage.

2. We need to identify and deal with the causes of their rage so they don't go off.

The way people are focussing on the guns and ignoring the underlying cause, and usually do in these cases, is a major concern as it seems they don't mind the person going nuts, just object to them doing it with a gun.

3. When some one dies and kills others in a motor vehicle incident we ALWAYS assume it's an accident. Yet we have no evidence that is the case. It could be a case of rage and they decided to use a car instead of a gun. The fact they're dead means we can't ask them.

In a recent incident a person was involved in a case of road rage, drove off, and smashed into someone else. Not so long back a fellow used his car to attack another several times in a case of road rage, if he'd managed to kill them both it would have been called an accident; because the other got away it's a road rage incident.

If I wanted to take out a lot of innocent people as a matter of rage, I'd not worry about a gun as it's too limiting. Just wait until near lunchtime in any fair sized city, drive down the road until the pedestrians start crossing, plant the accelerator and plough through ten to fifty (depends on the city) then race off to the next crossing, keep up until stopped. Or I could just drive around running people into roadside obstructions, killing and hurting many, then go head on with a police car - - if I have an open bottle of whisky in the car and the place reeks of it, they'll call it all accidents due to a drunk driver. The point here is the natural assumption is NEVER rage being involved, yet we do NOT KNOW.

Related Discussions

Related Forums