Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by MickR

...I used to go all day in bare feet as a young bloke. Growing up in the bush is a different life though. I couldn't go 100metres now, let alone 3Kms...

Yeah, we were talking about years ago, Aboriginals, etc, bare foot. We then had a discussion about general survival skills, "how long we would last, right here, with what we had" and "how long we would last, right here, naked" topics. A lot of our time camping when they were kids was spent with me teaching them to site a machine gun in defence and about depth of fire and vital ground...The rest of the time it was philosophy and The Bible...

I've been staying away from this thread. But, what the heck, I'll give it a go. I am a gun owner. I am responsible and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself, and hope I never have to. I represent many, many people. There are enough laws restricting gun ownership and type and number of rounds/clip capacity. You will never get all the guns out of America, cant be done, just too many. AND, it wouldn't flippin' matter, because if someone is going to commit a crime, I really don't think that using a banned weapon will bother or hinder them. I live in the Socialist People's Republic of Kalifornia. The laws here are crazy, most are knee jerk reactions to incidents such as the crime in Colorado. That being said, what you will NEVER ban or control, is the actions of a determined person with a screwed up brain.

If he wanted to rack up a better death toll, he would have left the guns at home, taken two, one gallon plastic anti-freeze jugs of gas, block the fire exit from outside, buy ticket, spill gas, flick Zippo, done.

I feel this guy wasn't too concerned about number of dead, he just wanted to put on a show. As soon as I'm made Supreme Ruler of Earth, I'll address problems like this, but for now, I'll say a prayer for those who's lives have been taken, and those who's lives have been forever changed.

The killer is a rare find, as normally these things end with the death of the killer. That, and his station in life, he's no dummy, just got a bad brain. I say study him as much as possible, then, just put one through his head and bury him and move on.

Sorry if I upset anyone, PC is not my strong point. G'nite all, donv

You have to agree that amongst modern democratic societies the US does poorly in some areas like homicide rates. However, two years ago, a teenager killed his girlfriend, her friend, the mother of the girlfriend and the grandfather. This happened in a small town. I lived about a half mile from where the gruesome scene occurred.

The point is the kid did not use a gun. It was a mass murder or serial killing. The Colorado incident is a similar occurrence. It was a rampage and a mass murder. This time the killer did use guns. When it comes to gun violence we tend to look at the incidents like Columbine, Va Tech and Aurora to cite reasons for gun control.

Aren't they just isolated incidents? They are stunning and shocking to be sure because they strike at us to the very core. Don't they represent a small portion of gun violence in the US? http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

If we are going to cite the need for gun control let's not confuse the reasons behind it. Mass murders or spree killings are endemic of something else gone wrong in US society. Not guns. I am not saying we should not have gun control but please look at the real reasons so appropriate measures can take place.

In my opinion, the reason that slaughter was successful was that it was the perfect storm. He came in from a lower exit and began firing. When people conduct an ambush they have the tendency to shoot high. The people were sitted higher than the shooter was standing. This allowed someone with little training to still hit targets. The technique when getting incoming int most situations is to get down and access the situation. That works great in a long distnce fire fight on level ground. What seems to work better is to turn toward the shooter and move toward him in a shooters crouch immediately. It ismyour only chance in a close fight. Do the unexpected. Now, that is easier said then done. Those folks did not have the training to know that unfortunately, and they were on high ground, a crouch doesn't help... He second issue was the high capacity magazine. Those things hold 30 rounds apiece. If he didn't have access to those, he would have to change magazines more often causing pauses in firing. Allowing for an opportunity to bum rush. Wearing a gas mask would reduce his capability to see. The third issue is the semi automatic weapons. If they were automatic, he probably would have not been as successful. Weapons are harder to control when on auto. My final opinion is that people do not need M16 or AK 47's type weapons. They are good for nothing other than shooting people. They are not for home protection or hunting. They have no place in somebodies home arsenal. I have both of these weapons for work related needs. I would not mind requiring a special license to own these for business. I would feel comfortable having a ban on large capacity magazines. There is no purpose for them. I realize people will get poopy pants about that, but I would like to see my kids go to a movie with worrying about being ambushed.

Originally Posted by TheGeek

Your aregument is rediculous and I will tell you why.

As a reservist in the swiss militia you are required to maintain a service rifle. However you don't get any ammo for it. In fact it is so restricted that there is a requirement that you use said gun at firing ranges where you purchase ammo that must be used there.

On top of this, unless you are a hunter or game keeper in order to carry a private firearm you require a permit and a bonafide reason for applying.

Almost full gun ownership is not the reason for low gun crime. Sensible restrictions and possibly lower social issues are the key.

I am not for the removal of guns from public. I am however fully in favour of who has what and what they have. Also violent crime has less to do woth availability of weapons and more to do with social issues, maybe you should look there.

Geek

SOunds to me more like gun crime is low due to having a very well disciplined population. Military training will teach discipline and respect like that. For what it's worth controlling the firearms and knowing who's got what has done nothing for gun crimes in Australia since the mass goverment 'buyback' of all pump and semi-auto firearms. Gun crime is still there and has in fact risen slightly. Gun suicides are down, Hanging suicides and over-doses are up. Everything is still in balance regardless of the restrictions imposed by "Jack Boot" John Howard.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Exactly, what are the key issues here? Attack the reason you get the common cold; not the symptoms...

Instilled discipline and respect might do it Carl. My opinion anyway.


Mick

Wintchase,Your 100% right,No Need for the general populace to own AR 15s or any derivatives of them, no need for high cap mags,no need for 50 cal. BMGs.no need to be able to buy 6000 rnds of ammo.
Have been a member of the NRA for 50 yrs and they are starting to really piss me off.
It may be an american right to own this stuff,but the times They have changed.
Something needs to be done,have not a clue as to what tho

I agree with you Wintchase...To a point. The control of magazine capacity hasn't worked in Australia. The criminals or those of criminal intent, seem to be able to lay their hands on just that sort of thing. Guns arrive in this country illegally from overseas. They can't seem to stop it, or are too busy enforcing restrictive regulations on legal gun owners to care. I daresay it would be easier to run guns in America than it would be here, so the problem won't go away with restrictions. It will just make it tougher for legitimate gun owners.


Mick

I'm more concerned about the trend in the United States where because of issues of "privacy" and "fear of litigation" that people or organizations don't take action before something like this happens. I haven't read enough about this person yet but look at the past mass shootings. These guys just didn't snaps and say 'I going to... ' in almost all cases there has been a long history of them being troubled. Look at the Army Psychiatrist that shoot his fellow solders here in on base in the US. His commanding officers were afraid of taking action because it wasn't " politically correct". the same with the last mass college shooting. The college knew he had really problems but did nothing! Somethings gone wrong with our legal and mental health systems!

Stayed out of this one, till now, but read the whole thread. Seems most of the rhetoric on both sides of the gun issue has died down a bit. When an incident like this takes place the immediate reaction is to focus on the gun issue both pro and con. That is only a part of the issue, the bigger part is how a person winds up in that state of mind to do such a thing. There are deeper societal issues as the root cause that need to be focused on too. These are difficult to access and come to grips with and even more difficult to correct.

I live in a country that has fairly strict gun control laws and yet we still have still have similar incidents. When this happens the very first thing that happens is to call for more gun control and not question what causes the perpetrators to think that this kind of behaviour is in anyway, shape or form tolerable. The simple answer here has been even more gun control and not much in the way of looking for at root causes. Politicians seem to like simple answers and have conveniently obliged with more, not so effective, gun control. Sort of a pacifier/soother for the general public who for the most part are urbanized and have little if any dealings with or knowledge of guns. Long winded way of saying there are much larger and more important causes at work than solely guns.

Bob

Originally Posted by TheGeek

Your aregument is rediculous and I will tell you why.

As a reservist in the swiss militia you are required to maintain a service rifle. However you don't get any ammo for it. In fact it is so restricted that there is a requirement that you use said gun at firing ranges where you purchase ammo that must be used there.

On top of this, unless you are a hunter or game keeper in order to carry a private firearm you require a permit and a bonafide reason for applying.

Almost full gun ownership is not the reason for low gun crime. Sensible restrictions and possibly lower social issues are the key.

I am not for the removal of guns from public. I am however fully in favour of who has what and what they have. Also violent crime has less to do woth availability of weapons and more to do with social issues, maybe you should look there.

Geek

First of all, In a country of people where they all have guns, don't you think ammunition would be inherently cheaper? It sure does make sense. Also, the poverty rate is only 6.9 percent. Not that high.

Second, I don't see why the government should control who is getting the guns, because criminals will get guns either way, so the only people you are limiting are the people who want to buy guns legally.

Parker