quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Name a country with "sensible" laws that doesn't restrict the vast majority of it's people from owning firearms.

As you have been repeatedly advised Bama, any Australian who wants a firearms license can get one, provided:

* They are of sound character;
* They have a bona fide reason for wanting to own a firearm.

It ought to be crystal clear from the above that the vast majority of Australians can get a firearm is they so choose..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

What's crystal clear from your link is that the "vast majority of Australians" don't stand a chance of getting a firearms license.

Australia has very tight restrictions on some items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as New Zealand. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to licence. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most.

K.

You are utterly wrong.

Any one who wants to get a firearm can get one provided they pass the character test and have a legitimate reason for obtaining a firearm. The restrictions are focussed on banning certain classes of weapons not making gun ownership per se highly restricted. For instance, it is impossible to get a license for a machine gun. Any one who satisfies the above-mentioned criteria can get a licence for non-automatic rifles or shotguns,or handguns for target shooting.

According to wiki: "As of 2015 about 815,000 people had a gun licence in Australia and there were around 3.5 to 5.5 million Registered Firearms in Australia (pop c22 million). Most people own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, security work, and target shooting." That's about 3-4% of the population. These numbers prove that gun licences/ownership is not highly restricted.

Any one confused by the claims and counter claims here can check the matter out for themselves here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

...

Finally I tried "sensible countries", whose first result (at least for me) asserts Switzerland is the most sensible. Per your helpful link, I read about Switzerland's firearm laws. Interestingly, the Swiss seem to require males aged 20-30 to enroll in weapons training and undergo mandatory yearly training on how to handle a rifle, mostly the Sig Sauer SG550 which fires 5.56mm ammunition, much like an AR15. Perhaps the Swiss are the most sensible: I'd fully support an SG550 in every home!

EDIT: I also searched for "civilized countries", whose first result led me to this list of civilized countries. Norway is apparently the most civilized, perhaps due to allowing anyone to purchase a suppressor (aka silencer), something I would also support. In the US, suppressors/silencers fall under the National Firearms Act and require a $200 tax stamp.

In summary, an SG550 in every home and silencers without a $200 stamp. I could really get behind this "sensible gun law" initiative.

EDIT 2: The 420,000 SG550 rifles in private Swiss homes are fully automatic. This gets better and better!

I have explained a few times that what seems to be some people's wet dream about the Swiss and their gun is quite the opposite - when you know a few more relevant details. I did on other gun threads here, and give another short version again ...

A) the Swiss Army is a militia army - every Swiss man (and volunteering woman) is a Swiss soldier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

B) The gun they (usually) store at home is Swiss Army property, not their own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

C) It is a crime under military jurisdiction if an army weapon is used for whatever non-military use. This begins when it is carried outside safe storage with no military order to do so. Any abuse of a Swiss army gun for a crime (beginning for example with threatening your wife in a domestic quarrel with it) is considered a serious aggravation and will add a few years in jail to any court sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

D) (After one mass shooting occured with a military gun involved,) the "Taschenmunition" for servicemen was suspended. The ammonition for the Swiss army gun is since then stored in military armories. One is not allowed to acquire and/or possess ammonition for this gun and store ammonition together with it.

E) This leaves the following what a Swiss soldier is permitted to do with his/her gun when not in military service: Safeguarding, cleaning and maintenance - no carrying, no shooting unless called to duties (happens annually).

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

F) Switzerland has 2 gun laws: one for civilian weapons, one for army weapons - you ll find that the Swiss gun laws for civilian weapons match those of the neighbouring countries; the one for army weapons is a military law as restrictive as these usually are.


See further:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer_Armee

I would have linked the English version but it does not contain the relevant passage "Persönliche Schusswaffe" (personal weapon).


Interesting for American readers may be though how a country with a militia army for more than 7 centuries regulates its militia army - maybe rather well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Pick one. Any one.

And OK...so what's YOUR theory on sales doubling since Obama took office?

Hell, even Bama is on board with that one.

As you are unable or unwilling to cite a country and/or law, lets discuss Mexico, where civilian ownership of firearms is illegal. Please explain how the firearms laws in Mexico have curbed firearm-related deaths.

I don't have a theory on why sales have doubled during Obama's administration.

The massacres and gun deaths in Mexico are primarily drug related and 70% of the guns come from the US, while a few come from other central American countries. Wiki

BTW your site refers to the importation or entering Mexico with guns, not Mexican citizens. Mexicans throughout history, have had gun rights very similar to the US but after several modifications and finally in 1971, Article 10 of the present Constitution was reformed to limit the right to keep arms within the home only." So Mexican citizens can own guns. Wiki

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
...
Look, the argument is superfluous. You site only one company. I suspect car sales will increase in 2015 while Volkswagens will go down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Furthermore, stock price as a whole in your case may reflect a decrease in sale revenue, stock price more appropriately and almost always reflect a drop in profits. It is actually possible that in the case of just one co., that sales of guns only (they sell other products) may have gone up via a decrease in price or because of new options as you also site, yet enjoyed a smaller margin of profit which may have caused the stock to go down. These things happen often as a result of wall street 'expectations.'

One glaring and somewhat ridiculous example of this is when a few years a ago, IBM enjoyed a record quarterly profit of some $3.3 billion and the stock price went down because that $3.3 billion although a record, didn't meet wall street expectations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It may be of interest to note that, according to this University of Chicago analysis, ' Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972-2014', the % of US households owing a gun is at or near historical lows, and has been trending down for last few decades.

"The household ownership of firearms has declined in recent decades. Table 1 (left side) shows that the
31.0% of households reported having a firearm in 2014, essentially tying with 2010 for the lowest level of
gun ownership in the last 40-some years. This is a decline of about 17 percentage points from the peak
ownership years in 1977-1980. Similarly, Table 1 (right side) indicates that in 2010 and 2014 about 32%
of adults lived households having firearms. This was a decline almost 19 percentage points from an
average of 51.2% in 1976-1982. Based on an earlier analysis of those who refused to say whether or not
there was a firearm in their household,1 the refusers were reallocated as probably living in a household
with a firearm or not living in such a household. This allocation indicates that just under 35% of adults
lived in a household with a firearm in both 2014 and 2010. This represents a decline of over 16
percentage point from the peak average of 51.1% in 1976-1982.
Table 2 shows that in 2014 22.4% of adults personally owned a firearm. This is up slightly from a record
low of 20.6% in 2010. There has been little change from 2006 to 2014. Personal ownership in 2014 is
down 8.1 percentage points from a high of 30.5% in 1985.
One of the main reasons for the decline in household firearm ownership is the decrease in the popularity
of hunting (Table 3). In 2014, only 15.4% of adults lived in households in which they, their spouse, or
both were hunters. This is the lowest level of hunters since the highest level of 31.6% adults being hunters
or married to a hunter in 1977.2

This decline, which is virtually across the board, is in marked contrast to sales, which are at all time records. The numbers of hunters appears to have halved and US crime rates are falling, which would suggest sales are concentrated on declining numbers of current gun owners are making multiple purchases of weapons.

If the demand from hunters is declining sharply and the need for personal protection appears to be diminishing, one wonders what is propelling existing gun owners to purchase more weapons and fuel the records in sales ......

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

The assertion was the restriction of firearms through laws would curb firearm deaths; the cause of deaths outside of their relation to firearms is irrelevant. If you'd like to discuss the cause of firearm-related deaths in the US we'd want to eliminate suicides (roughly 3/4) and gang/drug violence (around 80%). Let's do the math: 33,636 firearm deaths minus the 21,175 suicide deaths leaves 12,461, minus 80% for gang violence and we end up with 2,492.2 firearm related deaths.

And yes, I was incorrect in stating civilian ownership of firearms is illegal. From your link: Under this clause, citizens are entitled to keep firearms of the type and calibers permitted by law for their security and defense within their home only. Every weapon must be registered with the federal government. While federal law does not set a limit, in legal practice, citizens are only allowed to keep a total of 10 registered firearms (nine long guns, one handgun) per household.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

The assertion was the restriction of firearms through laws would curb firearm deaths; the cause of deaths outside of their relation to firearms is irrelevant. If you'd like to discuss the cause of firearm-related deaths in the US we'd want to eliminate suicides (roughly 3/4) and gang/drug violence (around 80%). Let's do the math: 33,636 firearm deaths minus the 21,175 suicide deaths leaves 12,461, minus 80% for gang violence and we end up with 2,492.2 firearm related deaths.

And yes, I was incorrect in stating civilian ownership of firearms is illegal. From your link: Under this clause, citizens are entitled to keep firearms of the type and calibers permitted by law for their security and defense within their home only. Every weapon must be registered with the federal government. While federal law does not set a limit, in legal practice, citizens are only allowed to keep a total of 10 registered firearms (nine long guns, one handgun) per household.

First of all, I want to know why the hell would you "eliminate" drug and gang related violence from body count? Or do the fact that many killed in a drive by have no affiliation with the gangs in question matter?

Even the federal government does not do that in thier figures, nor does the CDC.

One more point I will add, whoever supplied these statistics were inflating the numbers, since the last year that there is any accurate data was 2011 and then after eliminating accidents and suicides, according to the DOJ, the total number of people killed in the US in criminal acts using a gun came to just over 8000. ( 8,583 to be exact.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I have a total of 17 firearms in my home, and if you want to count the total I own, the number hits 28, the balance on loan to a museum to keep my home owners insurance premiums at a reasonable amount.

The semi autos are for the nights I go hog hunting, including one very big caliber one that I got after hitting a large feral boar with a .308 who seemed to think it was a flea bite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And since the 2nd amendment has not been rewritten as to set a limit on how many guns one can legally own, any jackass lawmaker who decides to pass a law to that effect is in for a fight on constitutional grounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Now to really scare the shit out of you folks, last Friday, I submitted the paper work so that I can purchase two NFA weapons, I decided I wanted a BAR, the wonderful Browning Automatic Rifle, and a 1919 browning belt fed machine gun with a BAR stock.

Hell, if I had the money I would purchase a GE mini gun. I think it would be fun to go to the range once every six months and fire a weapon that can put out 6000 rounds a minute. (Besides, firing a gun that, according to an interview, made Kari Byron of mythbusters orgasm must be a treat.)

quote:


Now to really scare the shit out of you folks, last Friday, I submitted the paper work so that I can purchase two NFA weapons, I decided I wanted a BAR, the wonderful Browning Automatic Rifle, and a 1919 browning belt fed machine gun with a BAR stock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Now to really scare the shit out of you folks, last Friday, I submitted the paper work so that I can purchase two NFA weapons, I decided I wanted a BAR, the wonderful Browning Automatic Rifle, and a 1919 browning belt fed machine gun with a BAR stock.

Bloody hell JLF, haven't you ever thought you could use the money from selling all those guns to buy a big red sports car instead?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If I gave a flying fuck about what the Europeans thought about the fact that guns are allowed to be owned by citizens, I might give this a second thought.

Now, looking at Europe, I see a continent where there is one centralized government that is basically replacing national governments, leaning heavily toward a socialist system where people's freedoms are lost to benefit the whole.

Add to that the simple fact that Putin has gotten very nationalistic and belligerent, should the Russians move west, the same Europeans who are telling us what is wrong with our country will be screaming for us to save their ass.

Not to mention, while screaming at the US about guns, they are turning refugees away like lepers, I say, clean up your own back yard and problems we will deal with ours in our way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If I gave a flying fuck about what the Europeans thought about the fact that guns are allowed to be owned by citizens, I might give this a second thought.

Now, looking at Europe, I see a continent where there is one centralized government that is basically replacing national governments, leaning heavily toward a socialist system where people's freedoms are lost to benefit the whole.

Add to that the simple fact that Putin has gotten very nationalistic and belligerent, should the Russians move west, the same Europeans who are telling us what is wrong with our country will be screaming for us to save their ass.

Not to mention, while screaming at the US about guns, they are turning refugees away like lepers, I say, clean up your own back yard and problems we will deal with ours in our way.

Get a fucking grip and do some reading on European politics. The whole place is moving to the right.

Your crass remarks on migrants being turned away like lepers are also false.

Finally, yep blame EU politics for some other shit that hasnt a jot to do with US gun deaths if you wish, but sticking your head in the sand and screaming "second amendment" wont halt the killings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Thank you for your very full and comprehensive response to my query, JLF. :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

You got shootings at schools. After the first one you should have DEMANDED armed guards at the schools.

The opposition to that one has always perplexed me. We have armed guards at banks. Is our money more important to us than the lives of our children?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Maybe you should actually read your link. And while we're on that, did you notice that your government doesn't have Constitutional authority over firearms? The Australian Constitution reserves that power to the States, and there was no national referendum to amend the Constitution. Is that your idea of "sensible"? Violating your own Constitution? Well kewl for you. But we'll do things the right way, if we do them, thank you very much all the same.

K.

quote:

Are you familiar with the Russian or European boar?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Are you familiar with the Russian or European boar?

not intimately. Actually, thinking about it, I know that there are wild boar running around the Forest of Dean, about fifty miles north of where I live. I've heard that they can be pretty aggressive.