Gun laws do they work

[ColinEssex]

Just to clarify.

Imagine a main through road with side streets. You are driving along the main road, you would think you had right of way - no stop signs or lights. A car approaches to join your main road from your right, you had to stop to let him out, how weird is that?

It takes time to get used to suddenly having a car barrel out from your right expecting you to stop.

Col

 

[ChrisO]

Col.

For the very reasons you have given, that regulation has been changed but I don’t know which year it was changed. (I think at least 35 years ago.)

Since you lived at Maroubra for a while you may be referring to Anzac Parade which was a particularly bad example of where that regulation was totally inappropriate.

Around that time another bad example was Victoria Road. Someone, in their infinite wisdom, deemed Victoria Road to be a Priority Road. The problem was that although they let the people know they forgot to gazette the regulation and so it did not pass into law.

Drivers assumed they had “Right of Way” but legally they didn’t. I brought this point up in the mid seventies with a guest speaker at a Rotary meeting. He assured me that all cross intersections on Victoria Road were controlled by traffic lights. When I pointed out to him that during a power failure all of those intersections reverted back to the “Give Way to the Right” regulation he didn’t know what to say. He turned to his offsider, I assume his technical advisor, and he just shook his head in agreement.

These days I don’t even think the term “Priority Road” exists in the documentation.

Chris.

 

[Steve R.]

Since this thread is still jugging along. Obama has been pushing for gun control in the US. Recently he announced that his administration will be supplying military aid to the rebels in Syria.

So Obama asserts that gun control is necessary in the US to reduce deaths caused by guns, yet the Obama administration will now be supplying guns to Syrian citizens so that they can commit violent acts with guns to continue the killings over there. And of course, there was "Fast and Furious" where the Obama administration "released" guns to Mexican criminals. Gun control laws do not work, when the government itself is manipulating the "playing field".

 

[RainLover]

Since this thread is still jugging along. Obama has been pushing for gun control in the US. Recently he announced that his administration will be supplying military aid to the rebels in Syria.

So Obama asserts that gun control is necessary in the US to reduce deaths caused by guns, yet the Obama administration will now be supplying guns to Syrian citizens so that they can commit violent acts with guns to continue the killings over there. And of course, there was "Fast and Furious" where the Obama administration "released" guns to Mexican criminals. Gun control laws do not work, when the government itself is manipulating the "playing field".

Steve

Can you spell out in simple English the point of your argument. Are you saying that because Obama wants the people of Syria to have the ability to defend themselves then American's should have the ability to kill their own people. Not an aggressor just someone who happens to meet you at the front of your house.

You cried for years when 3,000 odd people were killed on Sep 11 but you don't care about the 5,000 plus who have been killed in the US by guns since then.

Good Hunting.

 

[Steve R.]

Can you spell out in simple English the point of your argument. Are you saying that because Obama wants the people of Syria to have the ability to defend themselves then American's should have the ability to kill their own people. Not an aggressor just someone who happens to meet you at the front of your house.

No. What I am trying to say is that the Obama administration asserts that gun control in the US is necessary to reduce gun violence, yet the Obama administration is distributing guns to others which has the effect of increasing gun violence. If the Obama administration is really opposed to gun violence, they should not be distributing guns to others.

... because Obama wants the people of Syria to have the ability to defend themselves ...

Actually, based on reading the US "news", we don't really know who the good-guys are in Syria. Furthermore, doesn't Assad have a right to defend his administration against rebels? Furthermore, the US by sending arms into Syria is interfering with Syrian sovereignty, which is illegal. For all we know the rebels, should they win, could be far worse than Assad.

 

[Dick7Access]

No. What I am trying to say is that the Obama administration asserts that gun control in the US is necessary to reduce gun violence, yet the Obama administration is distributing guns to others which has the effect of increasing gun violence. If the Obama administration is really opposed to gun violence, they should not be distributing guns to others.

Actually, based on reading the US "news", we don't really know who the good-guys are in Syria. Furthermore, doesn't Assad have a right to defend his administration against rebels? Furthermore, the US by sending arms into Syria is interfering with Syrian sovereignty, which is illegal. For all we know the rebels, should they win, could be far worse than Assad.

Well Said!

 

[RainLover]

Steve R

That reply is a articulated much better.

The part that is scary is that the Rebels could win and be worse.

Thanks for your time.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Steve

Can you spell out in simple English the point of your argument. Are you saying that because Obama wants the people of Syria to have the ability to defend themselves then American's should have the ability to kill their own people. Not an aggressor just someone who happens to meet you at the front of your house.

You cried for years when 3,000 odd people were killed on Sep 11 but you don't care about the 5,000 plus who have been killed in the US by guns since then.

Good Hunting.

Where did you get 5000 from. Last I heard it was 12,000 a year murdered, witha futher 18000 shooting themslves a year. More American killed in peacetime in US with guns than all their war dead put togther.
http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1268154

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

No. What I am trying to say is that the Obama administration asserts that gun control in the US is necessary to reduce gun violence, yet the Obama administration is distributing guns to others which has the effect of increasing gun violence. If the Obama administration is really opposed to gun violence, they should not be distributing guns to others.

I agree with the fact we maybe cant tell who the good guys are - but

I find it interesting that you see war torn homs and internal "peaceful" US as the same thing.

Either the US has real problems , you really should get out more. OR your just using deceipt.

 

[RainLover]

Where did you get 5000 from. Last I heard it was 12,000 a year murdered, witha futher 18000 shooting themslves a year. More American killed in peacetime in US with guns than all their war dead put togther.
http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1268154

Perhaps the figure is higher but that is mostly made up from Pome tourists and they really don't rate a mention.

 

[Steve R.]

I find it interesting that you see war torn homs and internal "peaceful" US as the same thing.

No, the focus of my comments concerns the disingenuous rhetoric of the Obama administration. On one-hand the administration seeks to limit the rights of US citizens to posses guns. On the other-hand the Obama administration exports guns to citizens in other nations.

 

[spikepl]

In the US citizens have other means of expression than guns. In Syria apparently not. So your argument is not valid.

Unfortunately US has a long history of supporting tinpot dictators for short-term gains or for the holy grail of international diplomacy , "stability", and Americans are often surprised that largely the entire rest of the world hates their guts. Eg., do remember that the Western powers engineered the fall of Iranian government and supported the subsequent dictatorship run by the shah. The Iranians got fed up, brought Khomeini to power, and as usual the revolution ate its children. So what did the Western powers do? They bet on Saddam. Until they did not like him anymore. This pattern has been repeated by the US all over the world.

In the case of Syria, the administration faces difficult choices. The "rebels" are a motley crew, with the mad islamic element presumably quite prominent. But Syria's rulers do not seem to hold back in any way, and so US, as vociferous supporter of democracy and opponent of genocide, feels compelled to be seen acting (so long as no ground troops are involved).

 

[Steve R.]

In the US citizens have other means of expression than guns. In Syria apparently not. So your argument is not valid.

The issue is the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, not that "US citizens have other means of expression". The Obama administration contends that gun rights have to be curtailed to reduce (gun) violence. While promoting this supposed moral avocation to reduce (gun) violence, the Obama administration has distributed guns to Mexican drug traffickers and now proposes to send guns to Syrian rebels.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

The issue is the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, not that "US citizens have other means of expression". The Obama administration contends that gun rights have to be curtailed to reduce (gun) violence. While promoting this supposed moral avocation to reduce (gun) violence, the Obama administration has distributed guns to Mexican drug traffickers and now proposes to send guns to Syrian rebels.

Your still pretending the situations are the same.

 

[radikal5]

This will forever be an ongoing argument...meanwhile criminals are saying oh hell yeah, get rid of the guns
I definitely do not think that everyone needs to have a gun..that's just ridiculous. but i do think those that are legally able and capable of owning a gun should have one. I don't mind a wait period because I'm in no hurry to shoot anyone. Thorough background checks SHOULD be implemented, that's NOT an infringement on the 2nd amendment...

what's crazy is that the cities with the toughest laws/bans have some of the highest crime rates...if i'm a criminal, i'm going to be where i know the pickings are easy...DC is a great example...as well as Chicago...

 

[RainLover]

what's crazy is that the cities with the toughest laws/bans have some of the highest crime rates...if i'm a criminal, i'm going to be where i know the pickings are easy...DC is a great example...as well as Chicago...

I don't have any idea of the stats so I need to rely on you guys. However based upon the previous statement then it is reasonable to assume that those Cities with the most relaxed laws have the lowest crime rates. Naturally we need to look at cities of a similar type.

Of course you then need to look at Race, Employment, Religion, Age etc and then combinations of those types. And on it goes.

 

[Brianwarnock]

One of the reasons that this thread will rumble on is that people discuss different issues, mainly caused by the fact that gun supporters equate gun control with the abolishion of gun ownership.

What I don't understand is why anybody feels the need for an arsenal of automatic or semi automatic assault weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Brian

 

[RainLover]

Brian

If you had of keep atune with this thread you would know very well that you need the weapons you just described incase someone walked past your RV at 2:30 in the Morning.

Did you know that all these Gun owners are born with two heads. One of them gets chopped off at birth. The rejected heads are used to swell the membership of the American National Rifle Association.

Hope that this helps with your understanding.

 

[radikal5]

One of the reasons that this thread will rumble on is that people discuss different issues, mainly caused by the fact that gun supporters equate gun control with the abolishion of gun ownership.

What I don't understand is why anybody feels the need for an arsenal of automatic or semi automatic assault weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Brian

that's kinda like asking the question of why would anyone need a car that goes above the legal speed limit...
seriously though...as a gun owner, i have no qualms with the background checks and the limitations on magazines... i have rifles and handguns and you're right, i don't really see a need for the "arsenals" i see posted online...i mean you can only shoot one at a time...
but in the same aspect, why own more than one of anything then...you can only use one at a time...

for some, guns are like alcohol...they give the user that "quick courage" they wouldn't otherwise have...which is a bit sad...these are the ones that don't need a weapon.
but living outside of the district (DC) where all things are pretty much equal, (race, religion, etc) the "undesireables" are seemingly more affluent because normal citizens are not able to protect themselves. no, not gun down everyone that they encounter, but there needs to be some sort of deterent...even a "click clack" of an empty shotgun does wonders for the deterent of a criminal in the home...

 

[Dick7Access]

This will forever be an ongoing argument...meanwhile criminals are saying oh hell yeah, get rid of the guns
I definitely do not think that everyone needs to have a gun..that's just ridiculous. but i do think those that are legally able and capable of owning a gun should have one. I don't mind a wait period because I'm in no hurry to shoot anyone. Thorough background checks SHOULD be implemented, that's NOT an infringement on the 2nd amendment...

what's crazy is that the cities with the toughest laws/bans have some of the highest crime rates...if i'm a criminal, i'm going to be where i know the pickings are easy...DC is a great example...as well as Chicago...

Amen well said!