Legalise Weapons in Australia? So we can be like Americans? (1 Viewer)

[Serius]

we are talking about self defence here right? why would a civilian car about if his pistol can be detected in a metal detector? he will be hiding it st home seen as the law reform we are discussing is to have pistols in your home.

in this case, the glock 17 standard model is arguably the best self defence pistol around. it has minimal muzzle flash, its muzzle velocity is not as great as other pistols, meaning ure shot wont go through your assailant and through several walls behind him killing ure family. it is more reliable and less prone to jaming. most self defence situations occur at a range of 6-7 feet, so accuracy is not a factor, weight is light so draw is much qucker, recoil...minimal meaning second shot is gotten off fast... only stopping power is lacking, but who wants to kill the guy anyways? u only really want to shoot them to stop them attacking u.
that is why is feel the glock is an ideal weopon for self defence.. instead of calibre i should have said power compared to advantages ratio, that would have been more specific as heavyer weopons such as Para Ordnance P-40 S.W, .44 magnum, 357 magnum oh and dont forget the 440 Cor-Bon. these weopons are known to be used by criminals in america.

i beleive nsw police use the glock 22 semi auto but i may be wrong. considering we are up the the glock 37 is it now? it is a far outdated weopon. S.A and VIC do have the newest model though, so this argument applies to NSW only

 

[supercharged]

Legalise weapons in Australia and have the gun crime mayhem of America? Why not just go all the way and legalise RPG 7 rocket launchers, AK47s, mortar launchers and IEDs so the streets of Australia can have a daily blood bath like the streets of Iraq then?

 

[Xayma]

A rubber bullet wont necessairly stop an assailant at short range. Civilains shouldn't have firearms for self defence. It is a fallacy to think that robbers nearly always have firearms or other weapons, in fact in most cases they don't. In other cases they are nearly always showing it, meaning you trying to stop him or her is likely to result in your injury. A more reliable way would to make your home secure in the first place, with alarm systems (although it gets expensive for one that actually works) and other basic measures.

 

[tattoodguy]

The person who said........assailants who enter....dont know the place as welll as you............so you can serve them on a platter?

how many criminals killl pppple in their own home?

how many robbers are killled??????

ur arguement is bull shit.


There was a UN weopons inspectiion in progresss.................the coalition rushed in..and didnt give that processs a reasonable chance...... They should be punished..... they fucking gambled and lost.....and there should be a penalty ----

The government invades a country ----------because one day in the futre at some stage.............they might atttack us ---------------------thats a fucked arguement.

our country has a right to defend itself............but our citizens dont have a right?

I understand ur arguement we put faith in certain people with certain positions giving them extra powers.............but shouldnt those extra powers come with added responsibilities.....................and severe penalties for the abuse of those powers????????????????????????????????????????????


Dont you seee the hypocrisy that the governmetn inprisons people every day --- to teach them responsibility................................but it went to war on fabricated information-- it rushed to war........leading to the deaths of 1000's of people ----------and they are immmune from the consequences?

 

[Korn]

I was referring to thieves, not assassins who go into a home and waste the owner.
Not everyone is a tactical thinker, using the layout of their homes to their advantage to surprise and beat the intruder over the head with a frying pan/butcher knife (in the rare occasion of being home when a thief tries to loot the place/ assassin tries to waste you).
What's the point of leaving two spaces at the end of your sentence?


If that's your opinion... let's just say everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

EDIT: Forgot to put in a "?" where required when I posted.

If an assassin is going to kill you, i would think that they would have been tailing you, and would know when your home or not

 

[Korn]

we are talking about self defence here right? why would a civilian car about if his pistol can be detected in a metal detector? he will be hiding it st home seen as the law reform we are discussing is to have pistols in your home.

Because i dont believe that Glocks should be availible to the public, or that guns should necessarily be used for self-defense, because, say ur a parent and ur kid sneaks in late on night, and u were asleep, u might think that they are an intruder, and shoot them

 

[tattoodguy]

Im just saying................................there isnt enufff evidence to support.....that

if someone is trying to kill you.................or has planned a robbery on you...home invasion etc............

that you are at any advantage because you know the way around your home.


Criminals may have a greater perpensity to voilence.....they have the element of surprise and they are sometimes armed or pick on the vulnerable.

Knowing ur way around ur house isnt as significant as these other variables.

 

[Korn]

In the extreme unlikely case of an assassin wanting a civilian dead, I don't think the civilian has much chance regardless of who has what weapon and where it happens (with the exception of a military base). The civilian can have a M60 (albiet inexperienced with it) and the assassin has only her/his bear hands and still score the kill, but that's going into that tactical rubbish again.

Legalising weapons for self defence purposes isn't going to do jack if someone hires a pro to kill ya.

Yeah, and most likely, an assassin wouldnt be hired to kill a civ, more likely a political, or powerful figure, like a businessman, cop, lawyer, jury or crime lord

 

[katie_tully]

Hi,

Just wondering, who want to legalise weapons in australia?
Just for self defense just incase some multicultural civil war breaks out in australia...I.e. azn populations rise without end and stupid country rednecks want to kill em all. Azns fight back, and australia becomes america where everyone has the right to carry M60s.

I think you'll find alot of differences in the "national identity" of Australia and America, which will dictate our attitudes to weapons.

Unlike America, Australians do not see it as their "god given right", to own any gun or weapon they want. Your average suburban household does not need to own a gun, and the laws regarding blades are becoming stronger.

Your idea of an uprising by large Asian populations is kinda skewed, and where do these Asian hating rednecks come from? Even if there are some people in Australia who resent the growing Asian population in this country, I hardly see them starting a war against them.

We don't have the right to carry M16's, or whatever, because we have no need for them.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

If guns were legalised the first thing I would do is go out and buy one because gun crime would go up really fast and I would want to protect myself.

 

[Korn]

If guns were legalised the first thing I would do is go out and buy one because gun crime would go up really fast and I would want to protect myself.

Gun crime would go up, ha. why would that be.
Lets think about, are you more or less inclined to rob someone who has a gun?
Are you more likely or less likely to try and commit armed robbery, when everyone has a gun (you could be killed if u try it)
Do u realise that legal guns can be traced back to the owner, so whatever you do u that is not legal or dangerous, can be traced back to you?

 

[Korn]

By civilian you mean ordinary folk, not prominent businessmen, lawyers, politicians, etc.

Yeah, i know that isnt the classical definition of a citizen, but i thought it best used in this case. A lawyer engaged in criminal law could be a target for obvious reasons, a politician for political reasons or terrorism.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Well most criminals aren't assasins. Most house invaders are dumb arses just wanting stuff and are not professional killers. Though they still may kill the occupants of the house, that is not their primary objective

 

[Korn]

Well most criminals aren't assasins. Most house invaders are dumb arses just wanting stuff and are not professional killers. Though they still may kill the occupants of the house, that is not their primary objective

I was talking about assassins in regards to Komaticom's statement at the top of the page

 

[Enlightened_One]

I was talking about assassins in regards to Komaticom's statement at the top of the page

And I was talking about in general since this thread was becoming forcused on assassins etc and the whole point of the thread being gun laws and the fact being that any house breaker, however dumb but armed can kill and maybe having a weapon might provide some protection. And not all gun toting criminals are assassins and the like. In fact most aren't.

I wasn't actually referring to you're post Korn but the thread in general.

 

[2sense]

That's a touchy issue. I reckon Australia's stance on weapons is pretty good. If it ain't broke why fix it?

 

[Danoz The Great]

Hi,

Just wondering, who want to legalise weapons in australia?
Just for self defense just incase some multicultural civil war breaks out in australia...I.e. azn populations rise without end and stupid country rednecks want to kill em all. Azns fight back, and australia becomes america where everyone has the right to carry M60s.

Um, no. I don't like that at all.

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so.

If not, you'd get on great with tattoodguy .... you two are definately on the same wavelength if you're being serious here.

 

[BrenKHS]

Tatooed Guy:
You make absolutely no sense. You don't seem to have the ability to differentiate between local and international issues. Why do you randomly go off on tangents about Iraq when this is clearly a home issue ?

Who do we have to protect ourselves from ? If people don't have guns then you won't need to protect yourself from them, my cricket bat comes in handy if an intruder comes in the house.

In regards to those "stupid" laws.
The only time people would fire at a house would be during a drive-by, and Im sure there is intent for hitting someone within the house/building.

And if the criminals know there isn't anybody in the house. They should go to jail for 14 years for being such an idiot. Who the hell would shoot at a house ????

People stealing guns is a big problem too because then we cannot identify who owns the gun who killed someone. Ivan Milat was caught because he had a gun licence (from memory) and was identified.

Lets think about, are you more or less inclined to rob someone who has a gun?

If both people have a gun it will simply be whoever can pull their gun out the fastest. Same problem with more ease to kill people.

Legalising guns simply makes it too easy to kill people. Why would we want to do that ?

I reckon Australia's stance on weapons is pretty good. If it ain't broke why fix it?

Amen.

 

[Korn]

Tatooed Guy:
You make absolutely no sense. You don't seem to have the ability to differentiate between local and international issues. Why do you randomly go off on tangents about Iraq when this is clearly a home issue ?

Who do we have to protect ourselves from ? If people don't have guns then you won't need to protect yourself from them, my cricket bat comes in handy if an intruder comes in the house.

In regards to those "stupid" laws.
The only time people would fire at a house would be during a drive-by, and Im sure there is intent for hitting someone within the house/building.

And if the criminals know there isn't anybody in the house. They should go to jail for 14 years for being such an idiot. Who the hell would shoot at a house ????

People stealing guns is a big problem too because then we cannot identify who owns the gun who killed someone. Ivan Milat was caught because he had a gun licence (from memory) and was identified.



If both people have a gun it will simply be whoever can pull their gun out the fastest. Same problem with more ease to kill people.

Legalising guns simply makes it too easy to kill people. Why would we want to do that ?



Amen.

Most murders and gun crime are committed by unregistered guns in the hands of unlicenced shooters, therefore the guns were obtained illegally, and say its a handgun over the calibre of .38 or barrel is shorter than 4 inches, the only way they would have got the gun is from a cop, military supplies or illegal imports

 

[llamalope]

yep...... they nicked it or bought it on the black markets.......a sorry state of affairs