What the hell, gun people!?!

[Dancing Fire]

I do agree with Alj and Libby LA...

OMG, it can't be true! DF and I agree on something! the world is coming to an end, I tell you!

Not yet...the world will end when you and I agreed on politics... anyway, I have always believe that a citizen should have the right to own guns.

 

[Karl_K]

For that reason alone, I think unannounced home visits to registered owners is not only appropriate, but necessary.

No way in hades is any cop coming into my house uninvited without a warrant.
Passing anything like that will guarantee a shooting war breaking out.
Not to mention its unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.

And you wonder why registration is being strongly resisted.

 

[justginger]

For that reason alone, I think unannounced home visits to registered owners is not only appropriate, but necessary.

No way in hades is any cop coming into my house uninvited without a warrant.
Passing anything like that will guarantee a shooting war breaking out.
Not to mention its unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.

And you wonder why registration is being strongly resisted.

Please explain to me how a provision like this differs from being pulled over for a license check or a breath test. I would consider the privilege of owning a weapon that could be stolen and used to murder my family sufficient grounds for a warrant, for gun safe inspection ONLY.

 

[movie zombie]

just ginger, a car is not a home.

the US Constitution was written to make sure that what you are suggesting would never happen again. the Brits did it prior to 1776. no one wanted to see a repeat of that, even by their own government after ridding this country of Brit governance.

legal, law following gun owners are not the problem.
criminals are.
taking guns from people who are not criminals is not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
checking the homes of legal gun owning people?
sounds more like Nazi Germany than the US.

 

[Dancing Fire]

taking guns from people who are not criminals is not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Sometime even liberals like MZ make sense!...

 

[iLander]

Anger and fear motivates people to vote.

Gun advocates use that mobilize their voters to vote against even basic restrictions.

Maybe the anti-gun people need a little more motivation to get out and vote the way they feel.

Plenty of reasonable laws have been defeated because the pro-gun people have just been more motivated to get out and vote against them.

 

[Karl_K]

For that reason alone, I think unannounced home visits to registered owners is not only appropriate, but necessary.

No way in hades is any cop coming into my house uninvited without a warrant.
Passing anything like that will guarantee a shooting war breaking out.
Not to mention its unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.

And you wonder why registration is being strongly resisted.

Please explain to me how a provision like this differs from being pulled over for a license check or a breath test. I would consider the privilege of owning a weapon that could be stolen and used to murder my family sufficient grounds for a warrant, for gun safe inspection ONLY.

4th amendment.
This is America not a cocoa republic or Nazi Germany.
It is none of the governments nor your business what is in my gun safe... if I have one

Whats next?
Your video camera can be stolen and used to make kiddie **** therefor the cops have to make sure it is locked up so they can come in anytime they want?

 

[movie zombie]

no, karl, someone does a study and decides that redheads are more inclined to violent crime due to their genetics and they are forcibly sterilized to make sure they don't do harm to your family.

 

[aljdewey]

Guns' other purposes, alj, are still death.

Or the threat of it. A side effect may be that it conveys protection, but that effect is due to the fact that it is made to kill and thus is feared. Guns were made to murder, animals or humans, full stop. A guillotine was made to kill as well - if you use it to make fruit salad, that doesn't negate its chief purpose. Same with a Molotov cocktail. I can use one to light my fireplace, but it was concocted to cause harm, and thus citizens possessing it is inappropriate in my opinion.

Did you see any comment from me saying otherwise? What I said, and *all* I said, is that death isn't its sole purpose. I didn't deny that it might be the primary purpose; all I said was it's not the only purpose. FULL STOP.

You seem absolutely hell bent on portraying my comments as some denial of the harm that guns can do, which would be fine if that was what I said OR how I felt. It's not. I know you don't agree with my position that guns may have some purposes other than slaughtering everything in sight, and that's fine, but I really would appreciate it if you'd stop overstating my position.

One guy I know owns a wide array of rifles and handguns, and the only thing he's ever shot at is a paper target or a clay sporting disk. Yes, he believes in his legal right to own them. Yes, he has incredible respect and caution for the power and damage they can unlease. And no, he didn't purchase them to kill anyone.

As for 'murdering' animals (i.e. hunting), I personally couldn't do it, but I respect that others may feel differently.

 

[justginger]

The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search. I am stating that my opinion is that checking for proper gun storage is not unreasonable. In fact, to me it is VERY reasonable, and an important part of keeping guns away from criminals. Camera for kiddie ****? When cameras become items that require background checks, mental health checks, and safety classes to own, then yes, I'd be happy for the police to ensure it was not available for free and easy grabbing from someone's nightstand.

And Nazi Germany? Really? I mentioned nothing of seizing the firearm, just ensuring it was properly stored. It's not? Sorry - $500 on the spot fine. Then maybe next time you can be bothered to secure weapons that are often stolen for other home invasions, robberies, rapes, and murders.

 

[justginger]

Guns' other purposes, alj, are still death.

Or the threat of it. A side effect may be that it conveys protection, but that effect is due to the fact that it is made to kill and thus is feared. Guns were made to murder, animals or humans, full stop. A guillotine was made to kill as well - if you use it to make fruit salad, that doesn't negate its chief purpose. Same with a Molotov cocktail. I can use one to light my fireplace, but it was concocted to cause harm, and thus citizens possessing it is inappropriate in my opinion.

Did you see any comment from me saying otherwise? What I said, and *all* I said, is that death isn't its sole purpose. I didn't deny that it might be the primary purpose; all I said was it's not the only purpose. FULL STOP.

You seem absolutely hell bent on portraying my comments as some denial of the harm that guns can do, which would be fine if that was what I said OR how I felt. It's not. I know you don't agree with my position that guns may have some purposes other than slaughtering everything in sight, and that's fine, but I really would appreciate it if you'd stop overstating my position.

One guy I know owns a wide array of rifles and handguns, and the only thing he's ever shot at is a paper target or a clay sporting disk. Yes, he believes in his legal right to own them. Yes, he has incredible respect and caution for the power and damage they can unlease. And no, he didn't purchase them to kill anyone.

As for 'murdering' animals (i.e. hunting), I personally couldn't do it, but I respect that others may feel differently.

I'm sorry you felt I was overstating your opinion - I clearly misunderstood what you were trying to convey.

 

[aljdewey]

Please explain to me how a provision like this differs from being pulled over for a license check or a breath test. I would consider the privilege of owning a weapon that could be stolen and used to murder my family sufficient grounds for a warrant, for gun safe inspection ONLY.

If recollection serves, I think you reside in a country other than the U.S. and may not aware of what it really takes to stop someone for the things you listed. There are a few differences:

1. There is no constitutional amendment outlining the right to drive or to drink. There is a constitutional right to bear arms. Edited to add: I will fully grant that this is subject to wildly divergent interpretation, but it doesn't even get off the blocks for driving/drinking - there's no foundation on which to even argue about interpretation.
2. It's not legal to pull you over (for a license check or a breath test) without probable cause in the U.S. There has be some legal reason to pull you over. If you were speeding, that's grounds to stop you - and you would be asked then to provide your driver's license. If you are weaving down the road, touching the lines, or driving erratically in some way, that's grounds to pull you over. Once pulled over, other things are normally observed that suggest a breath test is warranted - slurred speech, weaving on your feet, strong smell of booze, etc.

 

[aljdewey]

The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search. I am stating that my opinion is that checking for proper gun storage is not unreasonable.

It might not feel unreasonable as a matter of opinion, but it is unreasonable as a matter of law without probable cause.

I mentioned nothing of seizing the firearm, just ensuring it was properly stored. It's not? Sorry - $500 on the spot fine. Then maybe next time you can be bothered to secure weapons that are often stolen for other home invasions, robberies, rapes, and murders.

If there was probable legal cause to enter a home, and once entered it was discovered there were firearms not properly stored, I'd fully agree that the consequence should be costly in at least monetary terms if not other terms, too (i.e. suspension of license).

This, of course, would only slow down one side of the supply chain to criminals (the other being the black market), but slower would be an improvement.

 

[justginger]

Please explain to me how a provision like this differs from being pulled over for a license check or a breath test. I would consider the privilege of owning a weapon that could be stolen and used to murder my family sufficient grounds for a warrant, for gun safe inspection ONLY.

If recollection serves, I think you reside in a country other than the U.S. and may not aware of what it really takes to stop someone for the things you listed. There are a few differences:

1. There is no constitutional amendment outlining the right to drive or to drink. There is a constitutional right to bear arms.
2. It's not legal to pull you over (for a license check or a breath test) without probable cause in the U.S. There has be some legal reason to pull you over. If you were speeding, that's grounds to stop you - and you would be asked then to provide your driver's license. If you are weaving down the road, touching the lines, or driving erratically in some way, that's grounds to pull you over. Once pulled over, other things are normally observed that suggest a breath test is warranted - slurred speech, weaving on your feet, strong smell of booze, etc.

I am now out of the States, but I certainly received all my American social studies education there and lived there for a significant amount of time. And at 18, I definitely was pulled over for a "random licence check." Something tells me things wouldn't have gone the same way if I indignantly declared that the officer had no grounds to do so, lol.

Having a constitutional right to bear arms has no bearing on inspection of storage. I'm not stating the guns will be removed, just that the gun safe will be sighted, on grounds that you possess a firearm that requires background checks and should ensure it remains in your possession.

Edited: upon reflection, my opinion has no place here. I feel blessed that I unintentionally ended up living in a country that upholds the same beliefs about firearms as I do. Ownership rate is 15% compared to the States at almost 90%, and homicide rates by firearms are 28,000% lower. I still vote in American elections according to my beliefs, which are shaped by the sort if statistics I've outlined above - but my genuine hope is that everyone manages to find a niche in which their beliefs are supported by the majority of citizens around them. Peace is good.

 

[movie zombie]

.......I am stating that my opinion is that checking for proper gun storage is not unreasonable. In fact, to me it is VERY reasonable, and an important part of keeping guns away from criminals. ........

this will not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
why?
the only homes that LE will know has guns are those that have legally purchased them and thus are registered. criminals don't buy guns legally and they certainly don't register them. searching those home will of course find guns. the guns to be worried about are not those guns!

what you are really suggesting is that each and every home in the US must be open to unwarranted search regardless of a firearm being registered to someone that resides in that home.
unless every home is open to unwarranted search w/o probable cause there is no way to keep a firearm out of the hands of criminals.
that means that whether or not you own a firearm you must allow a search.
who here is willing to have that happen?
those w/o guns: are you willing to have your home searched without advance notice at any time day or night to make sure you don't have a firearm?
be careful what you wish for. be very very careful.

 

[aljdewey]

2. It's not legal to pull you over (for a license check or a breath test) without probable cause in the U.S. There has be some legal reason to pull you over. If you were speeding, that's grounds to stop you - and you would be asked then to provide your driver's license. If you are weaving down the road, touching the lines, or driving erratically in some way, that's grounds to pull you over. Once pulled over, other things are normally observed that suggest a breath test is warranted - slurred speech, weaving on your feet, strong smell of booze, etc.

And oh - forgot to note - you can still refuse to submit to the breath test.

 

[aljdewey]

I am now out of the States, but I certainly received all my American social studies education there and lived there for a significant amount of time. And at 18, I definitely was pulled over for a "random licence check." Something tells me things wouldn't have gone the same way if I indignantly declared that the officer had no grounds to do so, lol.

The fact that it happened doesn't mean it was legal. And, he was probably counting on the fact that you wouldn't have the presence of mind or the knowledge at 18 to push back. I'm guessing, though, that if you had sufficient confidence to challenge the stop, it may have fallen apart a lot more quickly than you think. If you'd felt inclined to firmly assert rights you were confident you had (i.e. you were in law school or daughter of a police chief/prosecutor/attorney, etc.), I'd bet money on pretty immediate stammering and backing off by any smart officer.

Edited: upon reflection, my opinion has no place here. )

Respectfully, I think it does. I think anyone who brings their viewpoints and reasons behind them to the table respectfully contributes to the broadest discussion, and the best solutions often come when all the possible angles have been heard. I'm glad you feel happy to live in a place that aligns with your personal beliefs, but I still feel you're entitled to express your opinion.

 

[packrat]

I'm trying to figure out how many more officers would be needed to accomplish this. Every home in the entire United States. How often would there be checks? Once a year? How many homes are there in the US? How much paperwork would be required after each? Some traffic stops, routine hey you're not wearing a seatbelt, can take 20+ minutes. And if they were random, you'd have a lot of people not home, then you'd have to leave them a form that you stopped for the check, then you'd have to fill out paperwork that you were there and they weren't home, or it was just the wife and she was uncomfortable, or it was just the kids..Then the department is opened up to all kinds of issues b/c there was an officer in a home..something is missing, this happened, that happened..unless you have two officers doing each check which holy moly.

and really, you'd have to do regular psych evals on everyone in the home.

 

[justginger]

I'm trying to figure out how many more officers would be needed to accomplish this. Every home in the entire United States. How often would there be checks? Once a year? How many homes are there in the US? How much paperwork would be required after each? Some traffic stops, routine hey you're not wearing a seatbelt, can take 20+ minutes. And if they were random, you'd have a lot of people not home, then you'd have to leave them a form that you stopped for the check, then you'd have to fill out paperwork that you were there and they weren't home, or it was just the wife and she was uncomfortable, or it was just the kids..Then the department is opened up to all kinds of issues b/c there was an officer in a home..something is missing, this happened, that happened..unless you have two officers doing each check which holy moly.

and really, you'd have to do regular psych evals on everyone in the home.

At no point have I suggested home checks for all individuals, only those who are registered owners - perhaps it could be extended to those living in government housing? It could simply be regulation - subsidised housing with provisions for checking for weapons. We have communities here that require certain roof colors, for crying out loud. Surely safe weapon storage is not too much to ask. This is only as a means to prevent legally purchased guns from theft from legal owners - goodness knows the criminals have other means of getting them, but this is one avenue that could be closed with vigilance.

Still, it would require a lot of manpower. Think of the potential impact on unemployment. Maybe then we'd have jobs for returning vets.

 

[packrat]

the thing of it is, cops can't stop every speeder, every person not wearing their seatbelt etc, there aren't enough of them to catch every single person, no matter how vigilant. so even checking registered gun owners..you're still basically just checking people complying w/the law. You can check my license/registration when I'm pulled over and see that I'm following the law...but that doesn't mean someone won't steal my car and use it to commit a crime, even if it's locked in my garage w/a security system. And no matter what checks are put into place, the issues will never stop. The city can barely afford to pay the cops we have now-we'd never be able to hire more. There will always be something that happens and then again, the anger will start. It wouldn't matter if you had one gun, and it was encased in 3 feet of concrete sunk into a tank of great white sharks. Someone hell bent on it is going to get it and do something, and then the onus is on the gun owner, where it always lands. B/c the sharks *should* have had laser beams on their heads...and there *should* have been an elaborate pully and lever system in place w/a net. It *is* a can't win for losing situation, all around. The ONLY way, as I have said before, to prevent gun crime, is to have NO way for guns to be available *anywhere* to *anyone* and that is impossible.

ETA I would however, love to see jobs for returning vets..and lord knows there's enough homeless vets that are not being taken care of that could use a job.

 

[House Cat]

Anger and fear motivates people to vote.

Gun advocates use that mobilize their voters to vote against even basic restrictions.

Maybe the anti-gun people need a little more motivation to get out and vote the way they feel.

Plenty of reasonable laws have been defeated because the pro-gun people have just been more motivated to get out and vote against them.

I'm in California.

I do vote. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation. We also have one of the lowest mortality rates per capita due to guns in the nation.

 

[movie zombie]

JG, most do keep their guns in a safe or locked per law.
many guns are manufactured and sold with auto locks on them.
in California you cannot purchase a gun w/o also purchasing a lock for it.
and people do report guns when stolen.
and for the record: i do not want a young PTSD returning vet knocking on my door at 1a who forgets he is no longer in afganistan.
what you are suggesting is a police state. we've got enough problems here in the US, thank you.
again, the homes that should be inspected under your plan are those with no registered guns!
if you're not willing to have them inspect your home to make sure no one in your home has a gun then why would a registered gun owner consent to it?

 

[justginger]

You know, I'd be happy to allow my home to be searched for firearms, especially in the case I actually did own one, or I was living in government housing. But even now, if it was plausibly going to result in tens of thousands of illegal firearms used to murder and molest innocent people being confiscated before the crimes occur, it would be a resounding yes from me. Here's the open door, Mr. Police Officer, don't mind all the cat fur. Maybe because I grew up with a police officer father and brother, I am not paranoid about the presence of law enforcement?

I dunno, they have consensual and non-consensual search abilities for firearms here (and have for nearly 20 years)...and Australia has hardly descended into the depths of a 'cocoa republic' or Nazi Germany.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

just ginger, a car is not a home.

the US Constitution was written to make sure that what you are suggesting would never happen again. the Brits did it prior to 1776. no one wanted to see a repeat of that, even by their own government after ridding this country of Brit governance.

legal, law following gun owners are not the problem.
criminals are.
taking guns from people who are not criminals is not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
checking the homes of legal gun owning people?
sounds more like Nazi Germany than the US.

Excellent post, MZ, and also those by Karl and Alj, etc.! (and I am sure there are others..I just haven't read all 9 pages)

 

[movie zombie]

JG, I recognize and respect your concern for your family.
please know that I also am concerned re my family and that is why I have firearms.
although I was raised around firearms, my father was a hunter, and I had a rifle at age 8, I was a pacifist at one point.
I wouldn't have even defended myself if attacked.
what changed that?
the birth of my daughter.
I decided I would fight to live if attacked because I wanted to see her live.
I decided I would fight anyone that broke into my home and tried to hurt my daughter.
it was a calculated decision.
my life and her life were worth fighting for.
I examined the tools that would help me with that I decided that a handgun was my tool.
that anyone would want to take away my ability to defend myself and my family doesn't sit well with me.
i'm not asking that you or anyone else take up a gun.
I do ask that you think about what you're going to do if someone attempts to hurt you or your family.
perhaps even someone with a gun as you fear. how will you defend yourself and them?
will you call the police? what is their response time? what if they are busy with other reports? what if they are understaffed and cannot respond? what is your weapon of choice to defend you and yours?
there are many. a baseball bat is a good tool but means the bad guy is on top of you. same with a knife. pepper spray?
think about it. decide what your tool of choice is.
but please do not tell me that there is something wrong with my choice.
personally, I want to be better armed than my assailant if at all possible and thus I have a gun.
but if you choose otherwise I will respect your decision.

 

[justginger]

JG, I recognize and respect your concern for your family.
please know that I also am concerned re my family and that is why I have firearms.
although I was raised around firearms, my father was a hunter, and I had a rifle at age 8, I was a pacifist at one point.
I wouldn't have even defended myself if attacked.
what changed that?
the birth of my daughter.
I decided I would fight to live if attacked because I wanted to see her live.
I decided I would fight anyone that broke into my home and tried to hurt my daughter.
it was a calculated decision.
my life and her life were worth fighting for.
I examined the tools that would help me with that I decided that a handgun was my tool.
that anyone would want to take away my ability to defend myself and my family doesn't sit well with me.
i'm not asking that you or anyone else take up a gun.
I do ask that you think about what you're going to do if someone attempts to hurt you or your family.
perhaps even someone with a gun as you fear. how will you defend yourself and them?
will you call the police? what is their response time? what if they are busy with other reports? what if they are understaffed and cannot respond? what is your weapon of choice to defend you and yours?
there are many. a baseball bat is a good tool but means the bad guy is on top of you. same with a knife. pepper spray?
think about it. decide what your tool of choice is.
but please do not tell me that there is something wrong with my choice.
personally, I want to be better armed than my assailant if at all possible and thus I have a gun.
but if you choose otherwise I will respect your decision.

I can understand your POV. I think what I am lamenting is the fact that you need be worried about 'outarming' a criminal. If guns hadn't supersaturated the US, you wouldn't have to fight fire with fire. In Australia, yes, a baseball bat is sufficient protection because common criminals do NOT have guns. You have to get into the depths of the drug world to start to see that element, the general public just isn't involved or at risk. The per capita firearm homicide rate is .15. The chances of being murdered by a gun are 1:667,000, compared to 1:27,000 in the States. I understand why you're scared. I just think the situation is only getting amplified as more people accumulate firearms.

Perhaps the landlocked position of the US will never allow for a gun scale back. Direct land contact with drug cartels who are running guns and all that.

 

[TooPatient]

the thing of it is, cops can't stop every speeder, every person not wearing their seatbelt etc, there aren't enough of them to catch every single person, no matter how vigilant. so even checking registered gun owners..you're still basically just checking people complying w/the law. You can check my license/registration when I'm pulled over and see that I'm following the law...but that doesn't mean someone won't steal my car and use it to commit a crime, even if it's locked in my garage w/a security system. And no matter what checks are put into place, the issues will never stop. The city can barely afford to pay the cops we have now-we'd never be able to hire more. There will always be something that happens and then again, the anger will start. It wouldn't matter if you had one gun, and it was encased in 3 feet of concrete sunk into a tank of great white sharks. Someone hell bent on it is going to get it and do something, and then the onus is on the gun owner, where it always lands. B/c the sharks *should* have had laser beams on their heads...and there *should* have been an elaborate pully and lever system in place w/a net. It *is* a can't win for losing situation, all around. The ONLY way, as I have said before, to prevent gun crime, is to have NO way for guns to be available *anywhere* to *anyone* and that is impossible.

ETA I would however, love to see jobs for returning vets..and lord knows there's enough homeless vets that are not being taken care of that could use a job.

Yep!

I comply with the law. BTW you are NOT required to register your guns. Period. So how would they actually know who has guns (legally!)?

The police are busy with what they currently have to deal with. You can't pile random home searches on top of that!

Where do the police check for guns in a "random search"? Does the owner point to a safe and say "Look, I'm in compliance!" How do you know they don't have others in the clutter of their home office? Or the basement? I once found a goat head in my grandparents' attic when I thought I knew everything that was up there. So, what.... the officers get to spend a day or two or three going through all of my belongings to make sure my guns are all secure and I don't have any others that I didn't register (despite the fact that there is NO law saying I have to)?

FWIW, I am not the sort to confront the police with violence but I can imagine a lot of people would as this would be a serious breach of our rights.
What I WOULD do is refuse them entry into my home and call my attorney. They'd be fighting me clean up through the courts before I ever let them set foot in my home and if they thought they'd do it with some illegal warrant, you can sure as heck bet I'd file suit for illegal search.

If you want to reduce the deaths, you've got to approach it from a respectful and constitutional way. The responsible gun owners who would be harassed in such a scenario are NOT the people who are causing the problems so all of the trouble, expense, and loss of rights would probably barely affect the statistics.

 

[TooPatient]

the thing of it is, cops can't stop every speeder, every person not wearing their seatbelt etc, there aren't enough of them to catch every single person, no matter how vigilant. so even checking registered gun owners..you're still basically just checking people complying w/the law. You can check my license/registration when I'm pulled over and see that I'm following the law...but that doesn't mean someone won't steal my car and use it to commit a crime, even if it's locked in my garage w/a security system. And no matter what checks are put into place, the issues will never stop. The city can barely afford to pay the cops we have now-we'd never be able to hire more. There will always be something that happens and then again, the anger will start. It wouldn't matter if you had one gun, and it was encased in 3 feet of concrete sunk into a tank of great white sharks. Someone hell bent on it is going to get it and do something, and then the onus is on the gun owner, where it always lands. B/c the sharks *should* have had laser beams on their heads...and there *should* have been an elaborate pully and lever system in place w/a net. It *is* a can't win for losing situation, all around. The ONLY way, as I have said before, to prevent gun crime, is to have NO way for guns to be available *anywhere* to *anyone* and that is impossible.

ETA I would however, love to see jobs for returning vets..and lord knows there's enough homeless vets that are not being taken care of that could use a job.

Packrat,

Now you're just being silly...... The Navy of Ukraine found that dolphins work MUCH better for this purpose


(no... really! Heavily Armed Sex Crazed Dolphins)

 

[movie zombie]

JG, part of the point of all this is that the history of the US is very different than that of AU.
we overthrew the Brits and the Brits learned from that.
they never did allow firearms into the population in AU in the same way they were allowed in the American colonies.
early English settlers here were not part of a penal system and thus firearms were not denied them.
the Brits did not want another uprising and successful revolution in AU and they played their hand a bit differently which they could because for the most part the original settlers there were not freemen. they could establish control much more easily. and they did.

you misconstrue: I am not afraid. I am not afraid because I know that I have the means with which to defend myself and my family.

AU is seeing a rise in meth related problems and I know the Perth area has a problem in some areas already with gun incidents. the criminal element is alive and well and growing.

it is our history and our US Constitution which you do not have in AU which will never allow us to let go of our guns. we hunt. we defend. and we honor the service of those that fought to preserve our way of life.....which includes gun ownership. do not mistake this as a fear based reaction. fear is only a part of a bigger picture which being in AU is not understood because the history is just not the same. AU did not take up arms to remove itself from colonization. admittedly, despite being a penal colony [especially the east coast] there were some free men and women as well as some military. but the access to guns and who was allowed to have them and what they did with them is a very different history.

 

[nkarma]

the thing of it is, cops can't stop every speeder, every person not wearing their seatbelt etc, there aren't enough of them to catch every single person, no matter how vigilant. so even checking registered gun owners..you're still basically just checking people complying w/the law. You can check my license/registration when I'm pulled over and see that I'm following the law...but that doesn't mean someone won't steal my car and use it to commit a crime, even if it's locked in my garage w/a security system. And no matter what checks are put into place, the issues will never stop. The city can barely afford to pay the cops we have now-we'd never be able to hire more. There will always be something that happens and then again, the anger will start. It wouldn't matter if you had one gun, and it was encased in 3 feet of concrete sunk into a tank of great white sharks. Someone hell bent on it is going to get it and do something, and then the onus is on the gun owner, where it always lands. B/c the sharks *should* have had laser beams on their heads...and there *should* have been an elaborate pully and lever system in place w/a net. It *is* a can't win for losing situation, all around. The ONLY way, as I have said before, to prevent gun crime, is to have NO way for guns to be available *anywhere* to *anyone* and that is impossible.

ETA I would however, love to see jobs for returning vets..and lord knows there's enough homeless vets that are not being taken care of that could use a job.

The fact is there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and a constitution that says people have a right to them. I imagine the day America abolishes gun ownership is the day the world ends. This is coming from a realistic gun fearing would never own a gun person. I would feel the complete opposite of safe with one in or near my home, but for others it is the complete opposite and I respect that.

I hear often, that no law or one thing we do will stop gun violence completely. Of course not! There is no way to completely eliminate any crime or wrongdoing to others, so let's just not deal with it then! Rape is illegal & cops can't prevent it all the time. When the rapists are caught, they are prosecuted. So because rapes happens hundreds of times everyday, so let's just make it legal then.