Gun discussion

[Charles Vane]

Less violent neighbourhood does not mean the threat will never present itself.

I'd rather be prepared for an event that never comes to pass, then be i'll prepared for one that does..

[Redish]

A lot of people wouldn't be alive today, if they didn't have a firearm in their home for self defense.

Interesting statement. Would love to see actual stats on this compared to the stats on those people hurt with stolen firearms.

In this country people live where the jobs are which means living in larger urban areas so moving away is not an always an option. Social inequality is a huge problem and access to a firearm often provides the means to take what isn't rightfully yours. During home invasions, which often occur in affluent as well as middle class areas its the firearms they target first.

Just remember, the element of surprise is in the hands of the perpetrator. They are not going hang around so you can get your firearm from the safe, it needs to be available at that very moment which may never happen. They also don't care who they hurt, you do (or so one hopes). As a law abiding citizen you have to make a calculated decision with every single shot you fire in less than a second. Any mistake you make, in a highly stressful situation, could land you in prison. When it comes to self defense the answer is not in owning a gun but rather in being vigilant and not making yourself a target.The risk of owning a firearm is just not worth it.

[Mack]

A lot of people wouldn't be alive today, if they didn't have a firearm in their home for self defense.

with stolen firearms. !!!!!

This is the most important part of your statement...
Tell me if they are willing to steal them to commit criminal offenses, why would they not steal them still, from where they are legal?..

Or even buy them from others that dont care what the law says... or the fellas that know how to make them.

The lawful people arnt the ones doing these acts wjy should thier guns be takin from them..

This is real life, not a computer game where you say no guns then bam theres no guns.. so any gun ban would just make the lawful people more vulnerable to the people that are willing to commit these crimes

[Kangaroo]

A lot of people wouldn't be alive today, if they didn't have a firearm in their home for self defense.

with stolen firearms. !!!!!

This is the most important part of your statement...
Tell me if they are willing to steal them to commit criminal offenses, why would they not steal them still, from where they are legal?..

Or even buy them from others that dont care what the law says... or the fellas that know how to make them.

The lawful people arnt the ones doing these acts wjy should thier guns be takin from them..

This is real life, not a computer game where you say no guns then bam theres no guns.. so any gun ban would just make the lawful people more vulnerable to the people that are willing to commit these crimes

Completely the opposite of the real life example in Australia.
Banned guns = Zero massacres

[PFH]

Their geographical location helps with that...

[Meliva]

Their geographical location helps with that...

The Australians are probably too busy fighting off all the deadly things they live with to fight eachother What with all the venomous spiders, snakes, platypuses with their venom claw, Australia is just filled with deadly things. Heard its a lovely country though wouldn't mind visiting it.

[DezNutz]

This is real life, not a computer game where you say no guns then bam theres no guns.. so any gun ban would just make the lawful people more vulnerable to the people that are willing to commit these crimes

Completely the opposite of the real life example in Australia.
Banned guns = Zero massacres

Your argument falls apart when you look at countries like France, which has nearly identical gun laws as Australia. Also Guns aren't banned in Australia or France. They are highly restricted to specific circumstances, such as hunting and require special licenses that are time limited.

[Stan Rogers]

This is real life, not a computer game where you say no guns then bam theres no guns.. so any gun ban would just make the lawful people more vulnerable to the people that are willing to commit these crimes

Completely the opposite of the real life example in Australia.
Banned guns = Zero massacres

Your argument falls apart when you look at countries like France, which has nearly identical gun laws as Australia. Also Guns aren't banned in Australia or France. They are highly restricted to specific circumstances, such as hunting and require special licenses that are time limited.

I beg to differ but, I don't see Kangaroo's argument falling apart in any way considering he specifically mentioned Australia,not France and their rate of gun massacres. I can't get my head around what Australia's geographical location has to do with it as PFH stated.
If I look at the statistics of gun deaths, what it tells me it is you that have no argument in defending the position that guns save lives in a domestic environment.
The more nutters that get their hands on a gun, the higher numbers of gun deaths.

[Mack]

The Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 was a massacre in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. It occurred mainly at the historic Port Arthur former prison colony,[1] a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia.[2] It was the deadliest mass shooting in Australian history, and amongst the most notable in history


Just sayin

[Mack]

Mack: This is real life, not a computer game where you say no guns then bam theres no guns.. so any gun ban would just make the lawful people more vulnerable to the people that are willing to commit these crimes

Completely the opposite of the real life example in Australia.
Banned guns = Zero massacres

Your argument falls apart when you look at countries like France, which has nearly identical gun laws as Australia. Also Guns aren't banned in Australia or France. They are highly restricted to specific circumstances, such as hunting and require special licenses that are time limited.

I beg to differ but, I don't see Kangaroo's argument falling apart in any way considering he specifically mentioned Australia,not France and their rate of gun massacres. I can't get my head around what Australia's geographical location has to do with it as PFH stated.
If I look at the statistics of gun deaths, what it tells me it is you that have no argument in defending the position that guns save lives in a domestic environment.
The more nutters that get their hands on a gun, the higher numbers of gun deaths.

They would grab a hammer insted