I think it is interesting that in Austrailia you can still own a gun. You just have to provide a reason but self defense is not a reason to own a gun and therefore you would be denied by the government.

I saw that too. This link provides greater detail:

 

Firearms Licence information | Western Australia Police

 

I only gave it a cursory glance but seems like a lot of reasonable requirements in there...

Looks like they had some very impressive drops in gun-related violence.

 

Not according to this:

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

You certainly don't hear of too many people that hunt for sport in Japan.

 

I'm sure there's a joke in here, but I can't come up with it.

Not according to this:

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

That site looks like it was created by Geocities and from the references the newest referenced material was in '99.

I saw that too. This link provides greater detail:

 

Firearms Licence information | Western Australia Police

 

I only gave it a cursory glance but seems like a lot of reasonable requirements in there...

 

That would never fly here. Self-defense is a biggy, that I know.

Using results from Chicago v McDonald is not as clear cut as some would have you believe.

 

Summary: City of Chicago had a ban on handguns in he home (I think I'm correct on that). Following the SCOTUS ruling in the Heller case (DC had a similar ban in the home) the city of Chicago was sued. Long story short the ruling was overturned. Handguns were allowed in the home.

 

What I often hear is that the city of Chicago has seen a decrease in violent crime ie the allowance of handguns in the home worked.

 

However, Chicago is also in the middle of a terrible year for murders. They had a high number in 2010. In 2012 they hit that same number in late October ie it's getting worse.

 

So, which is it? Did the ruling help or hurt?

 

My argument is that you can't land on one fact and have it as the basis for your conclusion in such a complicated area such as crime and guns.

 

That would never fly here. Self-defense is a biggy, that I know.

Could that be the actual problem? Our gun-crazy cultural will not allow for the necessary changes to actually have an impact...

That site looks like it was created by Geocities and from the references the newest referenced material was in '99.

 

Jerry Phillips, just follow the trail to see his views weigh into his "studies".

Could that be the actual problem? Our gun-crazy cultural will not allow for the necessary changes to actually have an impact...

 

People owning guns for self-defense??? Or just closed minded people like myself when it comes to your right and my right to bear arms?

 

I say no to both. I do think changes need to be made. I'm in favor of what some have mentioned about clips holding a certain amount of rounds. I think there are places where I would be willing to sacrifice some things, but I don't want to see a broad over reaching. It will only lead to more bans down the road.

 

I know how gov't works. Once they get their hands on something they think they can take more later on. You hardly ever see it go the other way.

IMO, Guns are like drugs. You can ban them and make them illegal to own, but the people that want them are still going to find them and use them. I would much rather have the good people who will follow the law be allowed to have guns. The bad people don't care about the law and they are going to have them anyway.

IMO' date=' Guns are like drugs. You can ban them and make them illegal to own, but the people that want them are still going to find them and use them. I would much rather have the good people who will follow the law be allowed to have guns. The bad people don't care about the law and they are going to have them anyway.[/quote']

 

Major difference. Drugs can be grown and/or easily manufactured in the home. Not saying a gun can't be created at home but I bet it would be a hell of a lot harder. Especially one with the ability to do this type of damage.

^He could have achieved the same results with a handgun. IMO, the issue isn't guns, it's lack of security/training for schools on how to deal with crisis.

Major difference. Drugs can be grown and/or easily manufactured in the home. Not saying a gun can't be created at home but I bet it would be a hell of a lot harder. Especially one with the ability to do this type of damage.

 

I understand this. My point is the bad people that want guns are going to get guns regardless of the legality of them. The good people are most likely going to follow the law. Guns aren't the issue, the user is the issue.

Dude - you're the one mentioning Dems and Repubs, not the President, so who's politicizing it? Seems to me if the President would have said "Everyone with a drivers' license gets a free gun" you would find something wrong with that too.

 

Why does the implied hint of gun control send people into a frenzy? What are you/they afraid of? This issue needs to be addressed, in the open, by everyone. The fact that we track and register cars better in this country than we do guns is absurd.

Dude, you missed the point, but that's no big deal.

 

The problem is we have gun control. Connecticut has the 4th strictest gun laws in the country and it still happened. Chicago had banned guns for a long time and it solved nothing. That's what you all don't seem to get. I want this madness to stop, maybe more so then most for obvious reasons. It's just that more gun control isn't likely to affect the ones that are going to commit these murders. We need something that will work. I don't know what that is at this time.

I didn't ignore reality. I just choose not to respond to a number picked out of thin air. Zero context accompanies it so it really doesn't add anything...

It wasn't picked out of the air. It's a fact.

 

You're wrong, it does apply, it just doesn't fit what you want to hear.