Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

onelongsong · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

It doesn't threaten me, it mystifies me. We really don't have the gun culture here in Australia that you appear to have there in the US.

I say if you need guns in the course of your day to day activities then fine, by all means own a gun. Own several for all I care. But I would question if there is any possible way that you can perform the tasks you do that require a gun in any other way? AND the only reason I ask this question is because over and over again it would appear that guns have been used by some very sick puppies to perpertrate violence against others. And that is because they have had access to them. Many violent interludes between people may have had a very different outcome if guns were not made available to the perpertrator. Do I think that ALL gun owners are irresponsible and not to be trusted with guns? NO. But as shown here in Australia, the whole world does not collapse if guns are not available to the general population other than for agreed purposes. And for that reason I'm glad that they banned automatic weapons here in Australia. I NEVER want to wake up again to the news that some psycho with an automatic weapon is chasing down little girls to shoot them and their mother in full sight and thoroughly enjoying himself as he does it. AND onelongsong, that's not having a go at gun owners at all. I am well aware that in the particular incident of which I speak that we also need to spend a shitload of cash making sure that services are available to the mentally ill and unstable. But I do believe that if you restrict access, then you also restrict the potential for disaster. And I'm just wondering, CAN you do what you need to without an automatic weapon? Before there was automatic weapons what was the procedure? Just curious really.

first; criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns. the FBI has an entire room of confiscated home-made guns. i can make a gun from every day products bought from a hardware store. i've made my own gunpowder from charcole; sulfur and nitrate.
i don't nor have i ever used an automatic weapon. i've never had to shoot twice at anything. my family holds some of the world records for exhibition shooting. my 64 yr old aunt holds the national record for skeet shooting.
the fact still remains that criminals prefer unarmed victims. in towns where guns were banned (morton grove IL for example) crime jumped. criminals will gladly travel to areas where they know they are safe to committ their crimes.

historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.
now; if you keep up with world news; england has banned guns yet there is still gun violence. same with canada. all these laws do is remove guns from the people you'd want to have them. that's the honest responsable people.

any country you can smuggle drugs into has guns available to criminals. drug smugglers bring guns with them. i don't have time to do the research but tomorrow i'll try to find the stats for oz. i'm sure violent crimes didn't stop when guns were banned. in fact i'll bet it went up.

now personally; i'd prefer an arrow or knife if i chose to kill someone. the victim would bleed out before help could arrive. a bullet carterizes the wound and therefore you need to hit a vital organ or an artery.

onelongsong · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

I agree. I would certainly do everything in my power to live if someone was trying to kill me and if that meant the death of my attacker so be it. Better him than me if it had to get down to that.
But gee, I don't know onelongsong, even should that happen and I should actually kill someone, even in those circumstances, while I would be glad that I lived, I don't know that having actually killed someone else is something that would ever feel right to me. Even in extenuating circumstances. I would always know that some one somewhere would grieve the loss and suffer the pain of my actions.

and i agree there; but i've been held at gunpoint; i know people that were raped; and people who've had someone break into their homes and robbed them at gunpoint. none of them; not even me; has ever really gotten over it. i'd rather live with the fact that i killed someone trying to rape my daughter then live with the fact i did nothing about it.

catefrances · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.

acts of terrorism are not comparable.

Jeanie · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

and i agree there; but i've been held at gunpoint; i know people that were raped; and people who've had someone break into their homes and robbed them at gunpoint. none of them; not even me; has ever really gotten over it. i'd rather live with the fact that i killed someone trying to rape my daughter then live with the fact i did nothing about it.

Ok, well I've never been held at gunpoint, but I have had the things waved in my face and pointed at me by idiots that shouldn't have been allowed near them on more than one occassion. Registered gun owners on all occassions.
One of them even shot at me. Well in my general direction. And proceeded to drop a shotgun which then went off quite close to me. Not something I'd care to participate in again. :(

I can say that I am eternally grateful that the asshole that raped me, did not have a gun. I'm quite sure I wouldn't be here now if he did, and I'm also exceptionally grateful that my deadshit ex boyfriend was only able to attack me with his fists and his trusty hammer because I spent a great deal of time wondering how I would survive even that, and I was pretty sure I was about to make the front page of the papers even then. Had he had a gun, I most definately would have. The fact that he didn't have a gun most surely saved my life. Because although in both of these cases the acts of violence perpertrated against me were both oportunistic and showed poor impulse control by the inflicter the ability to fire a gun in a time of such rage against another human being could really only ever result in the death or serious maiming of that human being. Me. And I saw how handy he was with his hammer and unable to control himself. I shudder to think what would have happened with a gun. BUT I'm also grateful that I didn't have a gun. Because I'm not sure that I wouldn't have fired the damn thing and killed either of the fuckers. AND I know I don't want to live with that. All the ramifications of that. And the fact that I did nothing to either of them in the aftermath is really not that difficult to live with. Some days yes, but it passes. I feel much better knowing that the best revenge is to live well. And that is the path I chose. To not allow my whole life to be dictated by those incidents in particular. What happens to those two particular assholes is of no consequence to me. They'll have to live with their actions. Having said that, I have been in situations where I have defended a friend, a parent and even a stranger from being attacked violently, and I can only say that in the absence of weapons, I used the best options available to me. My physical presence, my communication skills and when all else failed my physicality and my voice. Making a lot of noise and drawing attention can be really helpful here in Australia. People do help each other out most of the time. On all occassions we all managed to get away without inflicting death. Severe emotional trauma, post traumatic stress and some pretty horrific injuries but we all lived to fight another day. Well after the courtcase anyway.

I can't presume to judge your experience onelongsong. You do what you have to in the situation you find yourself in. And I'm really sorry that you found yourself in the situation that you did. I really think that what we have here is the difference between two cultures. One that has guns as a constitutional right and one that doesn't. Every view point from there will be different because our experience is different. I choose not to live with guns and do so quite happily. You choose to live with guns and appear to do so quite happily. Nobody is wrong here. Just different.

Scubascott · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Well I don't know lucy, there's been a fair bit of howling from the other side too. I would have like to have heard about it from both sides of the debate.
Some nice, calm, informative points of view from both sides.

I can't see the point to automatic weapons myself but there has been some talk about prairie dogs or something. I mean I think it's obvious that you don't need automatic weapons as a lay person but I'd really like to hear from gun owners and the NRA in particular about why it's so important that people be allowed to own them in America.

This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.

Jeanie · March 2007

Scubascott wrote:

This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.

I guess because many Americans in general feel under attack. So coming from that view point it's hard for them to have this discussion without feeling that it's an attack on their constitutional freedoms. Which maybe it is. For them. I guess from our point of view it isn't. Right? We'd just like to know why right?

jeffbr · March 2007

Scubascott wrote:

This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.

Who here has advocated for the possession of automatic weapons?

lucylespian · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

Who here has advocated for the possession of automatic weapons?

I think the thread started talking about "assault weapons", which we all take to be autimatic or at least semi-automatic.

Jeanie · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

first; criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns. the FBI has an entire room of confiscated home-made guns. i can make a gun from every day products bought from a hardware store. i've made my own gunpowder from charcole; sulfur and nitrate.

Ok OLS, this one was a wee bit longer so required some more thought.

First up here's a link to wiki (everyone's personal favorite

Well mine anyway and that' all that matters imo!!

) that has some really good info about guns in Oz and the why and wherefore including crime rates.

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

And interestingly it does say that there's been an increase in illegal gun ownership but an overall drop in gun crime. So the crims are just procurring them somehow and waving them around I suspect. Well except here in Melbourne where they are shooting each other! But that's a whole other thread that probably wouldn't interest too many on an International level anyway!

But it's been playing out like a soap opera here!
So I guess it's not my expectation that we will ever completely get rid of guns and why would we want to? Clearly they do serve several purposes.
And I see no reason for responsible gun owners to continue to own guns.

onelongsong wrote:

i don't nor have i ever used an automatic weapon. i've never had to shoot twice at anything. my family holds some of the world records for exhibition shooting. my 64 yr old aunt holds the national record for skeet shooting.

So important questions, because it relates to the topic of the thread.
Why don't you personally own an automatic weapon? Is that a preference or have you never had a use for them? And what are they used for in terms of hunting? As I'm assuming that would be the purpose you would want one for if you wanted one. And if you don't own one because you are able to hunt successfully with out one, why then do you think that other people would want to have them? I'm really just curious to hear your thoughts on this.

And sharp shooting and skeet shooting have always been something that I've appreciated the skill of and enjoyed watching. So that's pretty cool that your family holds records in exhibition shooting. It's quite the skill.

onelongsong wrote:

the fact still remains that criminals prefer unarmed victims. in towns where guns were banned (morton grove IL for example) crime jumped. criminals will gladly travel to areas where they know they are safe to committ their crimes.

Really wouldn't know about this. Didn't seem to be a major influx of crime here after the buy back. Although I would probably concede that there appears to have been an increase in stabbings and knife related crimes. Although there has been some education and investigation going on into this trend. So who knows what the outcome will be.

onelongsong wrote:

historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.

The sole reason for the banning of semi automatic weapons here in Australia and the whole buy back scheme, hinged intirely on the Port Arthur Massacre as far as I am aware. And seeing as how it was one of the most violent episodes with a one of the largest loses of life, I really can't say that I think that the outcome with regard to semi automatics was a bad one. And the most important point to remember about Martin Bryant is that he is mentally unwell and should never have had weapons made available to him in the first place. But then he should never have been walking the streets. Long before the massacre he showed some fairly obvious signs that he needed intense psychiatric care. So one has to question how is a person like that able to purchase weapons? And I guess seing as how he did manage to procur them, what can we do to make sure that such a thing NEVER happens again? As we have a much smaller population here the incidence of bombing or acts of terrorism are miniscule by comparison to the USA. Although no less significant. We have lost lives in bombing incidents both in the country and as acts of terrorism outside the country. Case in point the Bali Bombings of 2002 and 2005. Also the Hilton Bombing of 1978 which was politically motivated and the Russell Street Bombing of 1986 which was underworld related. All of these acts of violence are truly hideous and should be abhored and denounced for the evil that they are. Having said that. They really have no connection to the topic of the thread which is about automatic weapons.

onelongsong wrote:

now; if you keep up with world news; england has banned guns yet there is still gun violence. same with canada. all these laws do is remove guns from the people you'd want to have them. that's the honest responsable people.
any country you can smuggle drugs into has guns available to criminals. drug smugglers bring guns with them. i don't have time to do the research but tomorrow i'll try to find the stats for oz. i'm sure violent crimes didn't stop when guns were banned. in fact i'll bet it went up.

Wouldn't know about that coz I try very hard not to watch the news. It's usually always bad and it serves no purpose to me to see the suffering of others. Anyway, I think you'll find the stats you want in the link I posted. And I guess that as I agree that responsible gun owners should still be allowed to keep their guns, then the issue then is why are we not doing more to stop the sale and importation of illegal weapons? AND I guess that then brings me to the question of demand. Do you think it's possible that because there is such a demand for guns in the US that this is keeping very powerful gun manufacturers in business and therefore flooding the market with more guns than anyone could successful utilize in a lifetime? So while I agree that guns should be available to responsible gun owners, do you think that the acceptance of this as a right as per you constitution supports the over saturation of the market which in turn supports the black market, which would obviously then put the guns into the hands of those whom we do not want to have them? If the market is there for legal gun owners does this not then support the opportunity for more illegal gun owners simple because it allows for oversaturation? I'm just asking the question.
AND quite apart from that, why would there need to be so many semi automatic or assault rifles made anyway? Surely a limit to their manufacture could be brought into place? Just some ideas banging around in my head.

onelongsong wrote:

now personally; i'd prefer an arrow or knife if i chose to kill someone. the victim would bleed out before help could arrive. a bullet carterizes the wound and therefore you need to hit a vital organ or an artery.

Well if you really want to get into killing then as a woman, historically I can't go past poisoning. We seem to have a thing for it.

And I've always been fascinated by Oleander Tea.:D But then I really can't see me going to all the trouble of taking somebody out anyway. I can't conceive of anything that someone could do to me that would illicit the urge to plan and carry out a murder. So the only circumstances in which I could invisage me killing another human being is a) if the person was a deadly threat to me or a loved one and I had no other choice or b) I killed them by accident or misadventure or possibly c) if a loved one asked me to end their suffering possibly I could be swayed to assist.

Ultimately I would really just like to stick to the topic at hand which is what happened to this guy that spoke out about assault weapons? I'd like to know your thoughts on them. If anyone has a valid use that the general population would require them for. And why people seem so worried about banning them. I'm just really curious to hear. Truly.

jeffbr · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

I think the thread started talking about "assault weapons", which we all take to be autimatic or at least semi-automatic.

HUGE difference between the two. If by "we" you mean people who don't understand firearms, then I can see the confusion.

jeffbr · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Ultimately I would really just like to stick to the topic at hand which is what happened to this guy that spoke out about assault weapons? I'd like to know your thoughts on them.

I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.

Jeanie wrote:

If anyone has a valid use that the general population would require them for. And why people seem so worried about banning them. I'm just really curious to hear. Truly.

[/quote]

This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.

Jeanie · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

HUGE difference between the two. If by "we" you mean people who don't understand firearms, then I can see the confusion.

So what are the differences jeff? Because I'm confused.

Jeanie · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.

This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.

Cool. Thanks jeff!

I'll go have a squizz now.

jeffbr · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

So what are the differences jeff? Because I'm confused.

A semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired, the shell ejected, and a new one chambered automatically. It means you don't have to "cock" the gun each time. A large percentage of shotguns are semi-automatic. A large percentage of handguns are semi-automatic (basically anything that isn't single-shot or revolver). A number of rifles are semi-automatic. Depending upon how they look, and what capacity of magazine they have, they may be labeled an "assault weapon" for some reason.

An automatic weapon will fire multiple shots by continuing to depress the trigger. They are very rare in this country, and it takes a special permit to obtain one (the permit is extensive and costly, and the firearms are prohibitively costly). Sometimes these are called full-auto, fully automatic, or machine guns. They are generally used by the military.

The firearms referenced in the original post was about semi-automatic rifles and had nothing to do with automatic firearms.

Jeanie · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

A semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired, the shell ejected, and a new one chambered automatically. It means you don't have to "cock" the gun each time. A large percentage of shotguns are semi-automatic. A large percentage of handguns are semi-automatic (basically anything that isn't single-shot or revolver). A number of rifles are semi-automatic. Depending upon how they look, and what capacity of magazine they have, they may be labeled an "assault weapon" for some reason.

An automatic weapon will fire multiple shots by continuing to depress the trigger. They are very rare in this country, and it takes a special permit to obtain one (the permit is extensive and costly, and the firearms are prohibitively costly). Sometimes these are called full-auto, fully automatic, or machine guns. They are generally used by the military.

The firearms referenced in the original post was about semi-automatic rifles and had nothing to do with automatic firearms.

Ok, so the gun that I fired, the .22 would be considered a semi-automatic then? I think yes. Judging by your description that is what happened when I pulled the trigger. And this is the gun that onelongsong is indicating in post #35 is used in the extermination of prairie dogs? So besides the prairie dogs this gun would have uses in a rural setting for the extermination of pests? And if that is the case then couldn't the licence and ownership of these guns be conditional on the address and occupation of the owner?

I am glad that you clarified the difference for me. Thank you. Makes a lot more sense now.

Jeanie · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.

Ah, thanks for reminding me. It's been a long thread.

Yeah, I agree, that his comments were probably ill advised in that he had a better opportunity available to him to make change by working within the organization. The outcome of his comments is understandable.

jeffbr wrote:

This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.

Yep that makes sense. Knew I'd read about prairie dogs somewhere!

Yeah, I suspect that kind of weapon would be very useful in a farming environment. I think we have special laws allowing farmers to own them here for the purpose of eradication.

Scubascott · March 2007

jeffbr wrote:

Who here has advocated for the possession of automatic weapons?

My mistake. I didn't check the original post. I thought it was talking about automatics, not semi-automatics. My argument is still the same, that nobody needs to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, but since we already agreed not to bang on about it, I won't start again now.

lucylespian · March 2007

Hey Jeans, big day for you on this thread, I've been following with a degree of interest. I think your personal experiences, and how you dealt with them give you a lot of cred here.

The reasonable arguments about sensible use of irearms in a rural environment are not really relevant to the overall gun debate though are they ?? As you have noted, we manage here in Oz without guns in general communities, while having strict but workable laws about not just gun ownership, but also storage, to enable legit sport shooters and rural users to access firearms safely.
Extrapolating beyond that environment and use though is a different story.
My take is that the US has really left it too late to eradicate guns as there are too many, and their use and possession is too deply entrenched into teh national psyche.
Sad really !!

Jeanie · March 2007

Scubascott wrote:

My mistake. I didn't check the original post. I thought it was talking about automatics, not semi-automatics. My argument is still the same, that nobody needs to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, but since we already agreed not to bang on about it, I won't start again now.

Hiya scott, so you're saying not necessary for hunting, but you don't mean for farming do you?

Jeanie · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Hey Jeans, big day for you on this thread, I've been following with a degree of interest. I think your personal experiences, and how you dealt with them give you a lot of cred here.

The reasonable arguments about sensible use of irearms in a rural environment are not really relevant to the overall gun debate though are they ?? As you have noted, we manage here in Oz without guns in general communities, while having strict but workable laws about not just gun ownership, but also storage, to enable legit sport shooters and rural users to access firearms safely.
Extrapolating beyond that environment and use though is a different story.
My take is that the US has really left it too late to eradicate guns as there are too many, and their use and possession is too deply entrenched into teh national psyche.
Sad really !!

Ta love.

Not that I wanted to air dirty laundry but it seemed pertinent to the personal issues that onelongsong put forth. And it's interesting to see that everybody has a different take on what is pretty much some common experiences. Interesting how we would behave differently. And I guess seeing how he would respond, well I can understand that.
Particularly given the differences in culture between Oz and the US. I wonder though if we really are that different? I mean I know people here who are avid hunters, that have always had guns. And I agree that they should have the right to have them. I am constantly musing about what would happen if the US did manage to somehow introduce stricter controls and it makes me laugh to think what kind of furore a national buy back similar to the one we had here would create there!!

Can you imagine it?

Boy, it created a big enough furore here and most of us supported it! Istill hold out hope that the Americans will find ways to improve and streamline their gun laws and ownership and manufacture. I know it's entrenched but I have heard some really heartening things here on this thread. Quite reasonable comments from both sides of the debate. So that makes me optimistic about the future both here and in the US. And lets face it Luce, who have thunk that we would see the kinds of reforms and education that we have seen with regard to smoking. I mean big tobacco is pretty much on it's knees on the mat at the moment. And I bet that's something we never thought we'd see 20 years ago!!

Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

Comments

Categories