'Toughest gun laws in Australia' to be introduced in WA after shooting at Perth school

I don't see your link. (Maybe still a little sleepy, today?)

And how could you be "unable to locate" my post to you? Just look under your alerts. But here is a link, in case you want to finish it.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-where-their-mouth-is.610764/#post-1074233176

 

Not only that but if their myth about “needing a gun to defend yourself” was true then we should have more people dead and we don’t

 

Your opinion is noted. There's not a lot of gunborne protection for politicians here anyway. The premiere of Victoria just has a couple of guys in a car nearby.

 

That's the common excuse that the disarmed citizens who are happy with having been disarmed, tend to give as an answer.

So let's say you are an average citizen and you have been targeted and your life is in danger.... What do you do then? Do you clutch your cell phone and pray for the best?

Because that's all those who rule over you will allow you.

At the end of the day do you think your life and the life of your family and friends is less important than theirs?

Because that's exactly what they're telling you by taking your ability to defend yourself but retaining the same for themselves.

It really should piss you off but I guess it's like what I heard before....

 

Yeah, they pull out anecdotes but it's overall gun statistics that create the accurate picture. That's the proof of the pudding

 

Why would the average citizen be targeted? Again you talking about specific anecdotes. Look at the overall statistics.

 

And use them in a mass shooting?

 

But but but! According to many the only stats you should ever believe were those published by John Lott and the NRA

 

How many average citizens are shot every year in the US?

 

All my guns are for personal protection.
I've never been to Australia, but I worked side-by-side with Aussie Soldiers in Iraq. This thread reinforces the opinion of Aussies I gained in Iraq.

 

Indeed. Both of those weapons could be used in in a mass shooting. Our laws aim to decrease the likelihood of a mass shooting not prevent it altogether. It's not as though guns are banned outright. Not at all.

 

I thought we just sent special ops to Iraq?

 

Could be the COVID effect - nearly every country saw a crime rise in 2022. But truth is our baseline is so low that even a couple of homicides above the baseline translates into significant percentage rise.

 

80% English, Australian, Irish and Scottish. Another 8.4% European. What a meltingpot you enjoy.

• "English (33%)
• Australian (29.9%)[N 1]
• Irish (9.5%)
• Scottish (8.6%)
• Chinese (5.5%)
• Italian (4.4%)
• German (4%)
• Indian (3.1%)
• Aboriginal (2.9%)[N 2]
• Greek (1.7%)
• Filipino (1.6%)
• Dutch (1.5%)
• Vietnamese (1.3%)
• Lebanese (1%)

At the 2021 census, 3.2% of the Australian population identified as being Indigenous — Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia

 

Our politicians don’t have quite the amount of armed security yours have - and since we have only ever had one politician assassinated then the government is not going to change that.

 

You're right. How many rich people and politicians are shot to death every year? How many average persons?

 

You tell me. Better make it pro rata though.

 

I prefer to use the census reports
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/p...ties/cultural-diversity-census/latest-release

We have shifting demographics

 

Here they are.

 

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to try to make us safer?

 

If it's dangerous enough to need more gun control its dangerous enough to have a gun to protect yourself.

Every single state in the US allows concealed carry for self defense, even the blue ones.

 

I was a contractor in Iraq 2003-2004 and again in 2005. For a large portion of that time we had about 450,000 troops and about 450,000 contractors in Iraq.

 

And look at your homicide rate compared to ours


https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

But to be more specific

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons

 

LOL-- no ignoring of the Second Amendment is needed, to allow gun regulations-- Scalia, himself, said so, in I believe the Heller decision.

<Google Snip>
Cause
Why did columbia v heller happen

The District of Columbia had one of the strictest gun laws in the country. It included a ban on virtually all handguns. Furthermore, long guns had to be kept unloaded, and disassembled or trigger-locked. Richard Heller believed the law made it impossible for him to defend himself in his home.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org › dist...
District of Columbia v. Heller (200 - Bill of Rights Institute
<End Snip>

So, having background checks, would not make it "impossible for (anyone) to defend himself in his home." Nor would safe storage laws. Nor would Red Flag laws. Nor would registration or licensing requirements. Nor, would liability insurance requirements. Nor, even would the banning of "assault weapons."

As you know, the Court rules on specific cases, not on overarching applications of laws, in all theoretical circumstances.

 

And you also don't have the same amount of criminals trying to victimize you as you go about your daily business in your life.

But I know what you're going to say next....

 

I believe you thought wrong. Ever heard of desert Storm ?