Melbourne Man Killed in Oklahoma: What in God's Name is The World Coming To? (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The interesting thing in this debate is that the number of murders in the US has actually dropped significantly in the last decade to historic lows. You would never get that impression from the media.



http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

The crime rate in Canada ha declined similat to that of the US. And it's because of thee aging of Baby Boomers out of the youth and young adult age brackets most likely to commit violence.

Terry
 
Plus Steven Pinker ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker

......wrote a book on levels of violence declining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

It's interesting how few people seem to realize that the crime rate is declining. And violent crimes have been declining at unprecedented rates. Most people seem to believe just the opposite that things are getting worse. It might be a product of the non-stop news cycle which thrives on reports about violent crimes. Ironically, people are more fearful now than I can ever remember even though they are much safer than in the past. I've heard a number of theories from welfare reform, elimination of lead paint, and effects of legalizing abortion (i.e. the option to abort has resulted in many potential criminals not being born many of whom would be coming of age at about the time this trend began) to explain this trend.

On the gun control debate, these numbers suggest that the wide-spread availability of guns doesn't make much impact on the murder rate. More guns in circulation has not automatically equated to more murders and therefore other factors are more important to that issue. I do think, however, that there are guns being sold that no one can honestly justify needing which have the potential to cause more harm than good. And the legal principle is well established that the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable limitation. For example, you can't own a bazooka or fully-automated machine gun. The only real question in that debate is where to draw that line. Not whether it is permissible to do so.
 
A senseless waste of that man's life. 3 teens were bored, took a life. Now they will be even more bored in prison !
 
US gun laws are an internal matter and non-Americans should respect that.
Americans should also accept that the rest of the world has a slightly different view on the issue and respect that.
It does however get harder and harder for the rest of the world to muster up a bit of obligatory grief and sympathy when next mass shooting incident happens.
That is all fine but the rest of the world also needs to remember that gun control does not in and of itself prevent gun crime. It just raises the entry barrier by some factor from zero to infinity depending on the circumstances. Are the opportunities for guns to fall into the wrong hands too high in this country, probably. Would any of the proposals suggested to date, including many of those adopted in other countries, have prevented this tragedy or the last mass shooting; really not possible to say. So maybe the obligatory grief is still in order, just as it was for Northern Ireland.
 
I just think some of the responses in this thread and similar ones in the past have unfortunately lead me to my statement.
 
Andy is a Vietnam Vet.

Brad

So was my Dad 3 tours with the SASR he didn't need a fully automatic weapon at home...................^&confuse

I don't thik its gun control but what sort of weapon you own.
Being EX military myself i don't see why someone needs a assault rifle at home,a MG or anything semi/fully automatic.
 
Or when the ALIENS attack,i forgot about that threat....................^&grin
 
So was my Dad 3 tours with the SASR he didn't need a fully automatic weapon at home...................^&confuse

I don't thik its gun control but what sort of weapon you own.
Being EX military myself i don't see why someone needs a assault rifle at home,a MG or anything semi/fully automatic.
Swiss soldiers take theirs home.

Needs are often a matter of perception. In the case of this man a pistol on a belt probably would not have saved him as the deadly assault was executed from behind. However many of the most brutal and barbaric assaults take place right inside peoples' homes where they imagine themselves as safe and secure.

If you have a single psycho or a few mental degenerates force or try to force their way in you want something that is effective and easy to use. It just so happens that a semi-auto magazine fed rifle or carbine fits that ticket best. The light handy small bore. 223/5.56mm also are easily mastered by women and people of smaller stature.
 
Last edited:
Swiss soldiers take theirs home.

Needs are often a matter of perception. In the case of this man a pistol on a belt probably would not have saved him as the deadly assault was executed from behind. However many of the most brutal and barbaric assaults take place right inside peoples's homes where they imagine themselves as safe and secure.

If you have a single psycho or a few mental degenerates force or try to force their way in you want something that is effective and easy to use. It just so happens that a semi-auto magazine fed rifle or carbine fits that ticket best. The light handy small bore. 223/5.56mm also are easily mastered by women and people of smaller stature.

Mate they are soldiers,i don't wanna get in a arguement im just don't understand the need for a Military style weapon in the home.
Is the US that bad that that actully happens to the average Joe blow in the suburbs,sounds more like a zombie movie??
 
So was my Dad 3 tours with the SASR he didn't need a fully automatic weapon at home...................^&confuse

I don't thik its gun control but what sort of weapon you own.
Being EX military myself i don't see why someone needs a assault rifle at home,a MG or anything semi/fully automatic.

Wayne:

I am just curious (not trying to argue, as i said before i own many firearms, i am a member of the NRA but i do not subscribe to all of the pro-gun beliefs often shared by many gun owners), why is it that you think people should not be allowed to own semi-auto rifles? I own a few rifles that function as a semi-automatic, with calibers ranging from .22 to 7.62 and are simply classified as 'rifles'. I also own rifles that are semi-automatic, range in caliber from .22 to 7.62 and are classified as "assault rifles'. Both types function the exact same way, have the exact same calibers, create an equal rate of fire, have equal magazine capacities and have equal FPS capabilities. Aesthetically they might look different but beyond the name and looks they are equals.

Are you saying that people should only be allowed to own bolt action type rifles and revolvers?

-Jason
 
Gents, forum rules prohibit political conversation. We've been patient in allowing people to express dismay at these sad events, but this thread has become a conversation about gun control, which is definitely a hot button issue. If we let the thread run its course, we will finish with the 'You're an idiot,' 'No, you're the idiot' posts.

As they say, nobody ever changed their views of gun control by reading a forum post.

So, with that, I'm shutting the thread down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top