Gun Control Question

[seldear]

As I understand it, Australia has relatively strict gun control laws. I'm not sure exactly what those laws are, never having required the use of a firearm. (Any of the Aussies know?)

US Constitution's Second Amendment? Gun registration?

And where do you stand on the matter of "the right to bear arms" and why? Would love to hear from all sides of the fence and the pond.

Comments

[angelsasha.livejournal.com]

Guns are for killing. That's what they were designed and built for. If you have no need to kill, you have no need for a gun. By which I mean "you need to not have a gun" (subtly different to "you do not need to have a gun").

If you are a police officer or a member of the armed forces, you may need a gun for your work. So your work provides you with one. That's fine.

If you are a farmer you might need a gun to protect your livestock or crops. So you buy one and register it through strictly controlled channels. That's fine.

The only reason I could think that someone would own a gun and not need it for killing is people who shoot for sport (target practise). I'd never want to shoot a gun for sport, but I guess I don't have an issue with people shooting target practise if they want to. So you buy and register one through strictly controlled channels and you keep it at a gun club, not in your home. That's fine.

There is no other reason that springs to mind for which anyone should ever be allowed to have a gun.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

I also find myself wondering a little about the cultural divide between the Brits/Aussies and the Americans in this angle.

Most of the Americans that have answered below are for gun ownership that isn't necessarily linked to work (police, farmer) or sport (hunting, target practise).

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

The only reason I could think that someone would own a gun and not need it for killing is people who shoot for sport (target practise).

What about self-defense?

[saramund.livejournal.com]

I think, personally, that that argument becomes cyclical. I've got a gun cause he does. He has one cause I do... etc etc.

Neighbour #1 (me, for instance) gets one for self-defence - cause you never know!

The guy next door (neighbour #2) goes and gets one soon after, cause we're having a bit of a squabble over the fence colour/height - and because I've got a gun, I may just use it and therfore he needs one for self-defence against me.

The guy next door to him gets one now, cause what if something happens, and he (neighbour #3) gets in the middle of Neighbour #2 and my squabble?

Neighbour #4 thinks, hell - I'm not letting all these guys have guns and not be able to protect myself... and goes and gets a gun.

So if I didn't get a gun, then the other three, potentially, wouldn't have as well.

Okay -this is in the perfect world where gangs don't exist and drive-bys by idiots don't happen. BUT without guns, there would be no need for guns. AND you've got more chance, coming up against a guy with a bat, than you do a guy with a sub-machine gun.

Our country, after the Port Arthur massacre (35 dead), banned all sub and fully automated weapons - owned by an individual. We still have pistols/hand guns available to the general mass - and even then I'm personally not happy with that, as I personally see the only reason for a gun is to seriously injure and/or kill someone - and why do we need to have that ease-of-injury available to all people?

It is interesting, as Sel said, to see the different views on gun-control from across the ponds, however.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about getting a gun because your neighbors are annoying and they have guns. We had the most irritating people in life living next door and I'm sure the dad owned a gun and I never thought twice about it. I'm talking about being prepared to defend yourself, your family and your property in case of armed robbery, home invasion, assault, and psychopaths like this Cho guy.

BUT without guns, there would be no need for guns.

But there's always going to be guns. Always. That's the world.

Like they say... if all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[angelsasha.livejournal.com]

I can see the argument for wanting one for self-defense, but personally I don't agree with it. There's a decent chance you could get it turned on yourself, isn't there? It also seems to me (and I'm not an expert by any means!) that allowing people to have a gun for self defense must make it harder to prevent people from gettings guns under the pretence of self-defence but with the intention to use them for crime. That's my tuppence, anyway.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

There are stories every single day of people who have used their personal firearms to stop a crime.

Again, there is no "allowing people to have a gun" in this country, unless you're in a place like DC where they see a gun and pee their pants. 2nd Amendment. Unless you do something to prove you should not be able to own one, you pretty much get to. That's both the pro and con of an open society.