|
Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/31/2013 1:05:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I agree that reasonable measures to secure firearms should be required, but my only concern with that was how "reasonable" was defined.
Finally...!
And just what is *your* version of "reasonable measures"? jlf1961 says gun safes. Even our overbearing gun reforms didn't go to that extent. IE, steel cabinet with lockable 3 point latch, permanently fixed to the dwelling (bolts, screws etc). And for bolt actions, the bolt must be secured separately. If the mechanism is not readily detachable, then any ammo must be secured separately.
Fair dinkum, there are times when discussing with you is less fun than getting teeth pulled without anaesthetic...! lol
quote:
Your last comment about suicide is chilling, to me. It seems as if you are glossing over the loss of life not being reduced at the expense of reducing the suicide rate due to guns. As far as I'm concerned, the suicide rate overall is a much larger issue than the means by which the suicide is accomplished.
I'm not glossing over anything. If you wanna start a suicide topic, I'll probably contribute. Or if you wanna start a "glossing over loss of life" topic, start with how pro-gunners posting here are practically incapable of making any reference to the 20 little kids and 28 overall slaughtered at Newtown.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the topic be guns....
quote:
Do any average citizens in Australia legally own semi-automatics? If so, then you don't have a blanket ban on Semi's.
Lol, been wondering when/if someone was gonna pick up that point. Technically, an "average citizen" can have access to full autos, IF he happens to be a soldier, sailor, airman etc. Or member of the Police TRG (like your SWAT). Hell, they're even manufactured here. But we are talking about "tools of the trade", agreed?
Re semi autos, I said I *think* licensed professional shooters can acquire them for their work - I don't know for a fact. But average Jo Citizen can't just declare themselves a professional shooter and apply.
Post Port Arthur, it's hard enough to get a licence just to own a lousy air rifle. For a professional shooter, you not only hafta clear the usual checks but have to provide proof of employment in that role (registered business) and evidence (receipts, tax invoices etc) of business being conducted etc. There's a higher level of safe storage required and they're subject to random Police checks. And judging from a rabbit shoot at the local cemetery, you have to signpost the perimeter of any property you're shooting on etc....
Yeah, it's possible, but I wouldn't consider the hoops you have to skip through as being Jo Average possible. And frankly, all the shit you have to go through before even chambering a round - you've really gotta want it as well as be up for it....
quote:
Pre-Port Arthur, you'd go shooting for what reason?
Me personally? Food is what I buy at the supermarket. I grew up with shooting, I like to shoot and I have a particular loathing for feral pests, esp cats (I have bird aviaries). So it's a 1 + 1 = 2 convenience.
quote:
Our main problem isn't the prevalence of guns. It's our consumptive lifestyles that leads people to do things illegally to get what they want, but can't get through legal means. We solve that shit, and an awful lot of these stats will drop precipitously.
That shit? Means and opportunity? Me, I think this is typical pro-gun side-stepping of issues. It won't work; it makes no sense; we need to fix that, first blah blah. It's embarrassing - a justification for never doing anything about anything if it intereferes with selfish agendas.
Focus.
|
|
|
|
