Why Can't We Be Like the Aussies?

[Skull Pilot]

*sigh* I understand your point, I really do. The majority of people are responsible with their firearms - but at the same time, why do people need an assault rifle to protect themselves?

I don't believe anyone should tell someone else what they "need".

Sometimes I think its necessary.

Why else do Americans want assault rifles? Is it because they need them, or because they want them?
There is a big difference between a need and a want, after all.

The term assault rifle is meaningless. For one true assault rifles are capable of automatic firing (AKA machine gun).

Civilian versions of military weapons are semi automatic only. The cosmetics do not matter. One can hunt with a AR frame rifle. They are light, accurate and dependable.

And how many things do you have that you merely want and do not need and who would you like to tell you that you can no longer buy those things you don't need?

 

[peach174]

you could be, just move there

That's the Redneck Credo. Americans are so stupid, they would rather see more useless deaths than admit another country could come up with a model solution to a terrible problem.

That's called epic myopic ignorance.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to keep a well-armed militia, not ordinary citizens.

The supreme court disagrees and so did our Founder's.
You are the one who is ignorant. You really should read up on American History.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

 

[peach174]

*sigh* I understand your point, I really do. The majority of people are responsible with their firearms - but at the same time, why do people need an assault rifle to protect themselves?

I don't believe anyone should tell someone else what they "need".

Sometimes I think its necessary.

Why else do Americans want assault rifles? Is it because they need them, or because they want them?
There is a big difference between a need and a want, after all.

Because we need them.
Mexican Drug cartel use AK47's and other semi assault weapons.
Our government is not protecting our citizens from them.Even though they say they are, they aren't.
This is the only reason why the cartel are not breaking into our homes and robbing us blind and killing us, it is because they don't know which homes have just as much fire power as they do.
The Mexican citizens are not able to own these type of weapons and the cartel are murdering them and taking control of their cities and towns.
This is just one example of many as to why we need them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.



On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?

We still had mass shootings during Clinton's "assault"weapons ban.
How ever has the ban in Australia stop any killings with firearms?

 

[liarintheWH]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.



On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA]Gun Control in Australia - Watch and Weep - YouTube[/ame]

Thread over.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why Can't We Be Like the Aussies?

You can. You can move to Australia and be just like them.

 

[Bern80]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.



On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?

There isn't any reason we can't be, so long as we went through constitutional process of changing the ammendment. The question ought to be 'Why should we be like Australia?'. That law is a classic example of legislating out of fear and as far as practical problem solving goes is the equivalent of trying to swat a fly with a cannon.

 

[percysunshine]

Why Can't We Be Like the Aussies?

You can. You can move to Australia and be just like them.

Of course, if you spend more than 5 years there, the government takes 50% of your 401k retirement fund.

 

[SniperFire]

Turns out this article is libtard horsehit.

The USA is experiencing a faster decline in gun deaths than Australia:

Note that the homicide rate did not fall after the government’s adoption of draconian gun control, although it has dropped in the last few years, as have such rates in most countries. (The peak in 2002/2003 is attributable mostly to 172 homicides attributed to Dr. Harold Shipman.)

'So adoption of harsh gun laws that likely would be unconstitutional in the U.S. did little or nothing to improve homicide rates in either Australia or the U.K. '

The Times Embarrasses Itself on Guns–Again! | Power Line


One should never assume these communist assholes are starting a thread by being truthful.