In Australia you do not have the right to defend yourself in your own home? The intruder has more rights than the person that is in danger. I do not own a gun, but no intruder knows that.Even if home owners did have a gun (not many people owned a gun ever in Australia) and shot an intruder, they would be charged, not the intruder.
I hate to say it, but schools are going to have to start checking students for weapons before they are allowed to enter the building.
I have no problem making the licensing process better and stricter. I think that they should make gun owners under go a background check and take a comprehensive training class. My only stipulation would be that the gun haters can not keep adding requirements that would make it so expensive to comply that the ordinary person could not afford to own a gun.make guns illegal unless you have licence, as simple as that.
If you want to go hunting or ranging shooting, then go and rent a gun at those resorts and return the gun after the sport
I guess we do have a few gun owners in this forum who desparately want to keep their toys
1) Short of turning a University campus into a jail (with only one entrance gate onto the premises with security posted and electric fences) there isn't much more you can do to protect students.
2) Stricter gun control does not equal less crime rate. Some reports show a decline in crime, sure, but what are the variables that is causing this - they can be lurking variable which affects more than 1 aspect and can make it seem like gun control affects crime rates.
3) You can't stop the black market, if it were really that easy don't you think somebody in the world would have done it by now? It can't be done.
4) Everyone owning a gun is also not the solution to crime/murders. It can work in theory but like some things, it can only work in theory.
5) Guns do not kill people on their own! Giving a gun into the hands of a criminal does not make him more dangerous because if he couldn't get a gun legally or at all he simply would have used something else to achieve his goal.
6) I do believe that the law regarding high magazine clips shouldn't have been nulled. The law limited pistols to having only 10-15 bullets per clip but with the law gone, the killer was able to get 30 bullets per clip (approx. 60 bullets in one go as he had 2 guns).
I never said that everyone owning guns was a good idea I said it only works in THEORY and not in practice.The argument of everyone owning guns so that in the rare circumstances of violence, you can shoot the criminals back does not justify the hugely increased access to dangerous weapons to general public.
The US allows people to own guns if they are 1) a legal citizen 2) have no previous criminal record 3) the seller of the gun deems him/her to be capableBy legalising civilian ownership of guns, you are giving EVERYONE easy access to weaponaries. There is no regulation of guns falling into the wrong hands. Sure, a small proportion of the society have underground association, but the overall percentage is extremely small.
Very big generalization; very big words.Anyway, if I have a choice to live in USA or Australia, you know which one I am going to choose... purely to live longer
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here is Giuliani. I mean what exactly did he do as a mayor that was credited with reducing crime rates and homicides in New York? You guessed it. Gun control helped reduce NY crime.
Agree laws won't stop people from killing..
It isn't the gun that kills people - people kill people.
Thanks,
Adam
It doesn't have to be one or the other, and it's not. People kill people using guns.
And a brick on a rope would be NOWHERE near as effective as a gun like this gunman had. You might kill a couple and knock out a few more, but you're not going to kill over 30 so quick.
Need more research to say that Gun Control lowered crimes but if you want to go just by stats then here keep reading.