Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Farab, Dec 12, 2008.

  1. Came across this article, very interesting and thought provoking.
    I know the article is British, but easily applicable anywhere else, I would have thought.


  2. Interesting, I can see both sides of the arguement, but probably think no guns is for the better.

    Imagine if everyone was strapped, down at the pub, and there was an altercation - could turn into a gun fight pretty damn quick.

    On the other hand, who would want to fight if you knew the other person had a gun.

    In theory it could work, but there are two many dumbasses in the world for that to ever work.
  3. "If each of us carried a gun....."

    there'd be fewer of us.
  4. There would be no more road rage, but the road toll would rise dramatically.
  5. Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

    The Darwin awards would be hard fought.
  6. As much as I believe we have a right to defend ourselves, more guns may not be the answer.
  7. As ex-infantry I know very well that guns can be carried safely...

    So long as they are in the hands of the right people.

    The difficulty presented by re-arming our society is the question of who we can trust.

    Someone with no recent criminal history would have to be a given. I would suggest no drink related incidents as well. Pubs would probably have to go back to the good old days of having people hand in their guns for safekeeping, although that wouldn't stop people from 'taking it outside'.

    I have often wondered about a 'Justice of the Peace' type scheme where people who fill certain offices within society and / or pass certain personal checks (and undergo certain training...) are permitted to carry concealed weapons. Just putting in the back of the bad guys minds that the guy behind the counter *might* be packing... or maybe the guy just pulling up out the front... or maybe the guy who lives next door and hears the scream... Would be a kind of deterent.

    Oh, and if you put a minimum age of say 30 years you would dramatically cut the likelihood of a person who is legally packing getting wrapped up in some stupid drunken incident. Alot of people who are idiots at 23 become quite responsible by 30 once lifes realities of wife and kids and mortgage hit home. (I say this as a 26 year old, so save the 'wowser' comments. :grin: )

    I used to ride the tram every day and we went past some graffiti that was there for years. "Guns don't kill people. People do."
  8. I can't believe that this is being seriously debated. We live in one of the safest societies in the world. We've never had a civil war. We've never had rioters killed in the streets. We've had one random bombing. I could go on.

    The Police can't handle the level of crime that's going on now, and that's just with people using knives and baseball bats; they don't need the complication of every man and his dog carrying a weapon as well.

    Still, psychologists and psychiatrists woudl make a killing, treating the guilt and trauma of people who used their guns to defend themselves and took someone else's life....
  9. Not such a bad thing imo. The world's biggest problem is overpopulation. Do the world a favour and buy a gun or two... heck, make it a high powered, rapid fire automatic.
  10. "An armed society is a polite society."

    "Fear and resist those who would disarm you... especially the government."

    I have not failed to notice that all the recent 'tragic shootings' of large numbers of people in the USA, have occurred in places where people are not allowed or do not normally carry their firearms: schools, university campus, shopping centres.
    There is a pattern of cowardly behaviour combined with mental illness, from the gunmen. Just look at the end result: sucide in most instances. Unwilling to face the consequences of their actions.

    We have traded in our guns [well, not me personally, but the last generation] when promised safety in return - but that can not be guaranteed, and certainly hasn't been the net result, entirely.
    Sure, we haven't had another Port Arthur massacre, but instead we have overtaxed drinks, curfews, bar & pub 'lockdowns' to prevent 'alcohol-fuelled violence'.

    The argument that guns can give bad decisions bigger consequences, is certainly very valid - and obviously, no such increase in ownership of firearms in Australia could happen without a good training and licensing system.

    I used to be of the view that we were better off with as few guns as possible in society... I really did. I would debate the fark out of it with stupid Americans and redneck Aussies.
    However, we place ourselves in a position of helplessness when things turn violent.
    We rely on the police and they are not always there, competent, or helpful.

    Fear is marketed to us from the television and radio every day.
    With each new terrorist attack, we support actions that reduce and remove freedoms and liberties we used to have and enjoy.

    I support a relaxing of Australia's firearm laws.
    Not because I trust people to always use them totally correctly, but because I do not trust the government.
  11. +1000

    Can't think of a potentially worse feeling that that, especially not being able to protect your loved ones. A few months ago a couple were randomly attacked by bucnh of young men whilst walking home early evening in a very upmarket suburb in Auckland. They where beaten with baseball bats within an inch of their lives (how neither of them got killed is a miracle)

    You can have the best, elite police force and swat team in the world, the fact is, they can't be there the moment the chips are down.
  12. Nah, bullshit.

    I love guns. Got gazillions of them and crates upon crates of ammunition.

    You cannot compare Australian firearms ownership to that in America. Two completely different social, economic and cultural factors at play for there to be any kind of correlation between the two.

    In America, I'd carry a small .38 Special revolver loaded with some hot rounds. But in Australia... just my manly good looks and charm get me by :grin: . I don't want to have to carry a gat around.
  13. How many of you have lived in a first world country with an armed (right to carry) populance? Did you encounter murder and mayhem every 5 minutes?
    Did you feel safer or not, or no different?
  14. There's something to be said about the potential for armed civilians to be in a position to stop situations like terrorist hostage taking and so on from occurring. Simply arming the population is enough to make a criminal question the value in making an attempt to commit a violent crime if he suspects his intended victims are armed.


    How many people in reality, faced with an armed attacker are going to have the courage to put their life in greater danger by drawing a weapon, firing it and then dealing with the effect of having shot someone? Owning a weapon, shooting at targets - and even at animals - is a whole different situation to drawing a weapon to stave off an attack, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger. What percentage of people, all bravado aside, are going to have the wherewithal to do it? Its not a shoot-em-up on the Xbox any more, its deliberately putting your own life in greater danger and placing faith that you'll get a shot off first - and actually hit the target - before it hits you. Even those trained for this find it difficult. Some police or army folks having had to draw their weapon and fire it at someone for the first time never completely recover. And some of them freeze and find they can't do it when the situation comes up.

    And then there is the issues raised by easy access to firearms. I've lived in the US, in an area where guns are a way of life. I know personally of people where a simple argument has resulted in death due to heat of the moment access to a firearm, which might otherwise have resulted in bruises or broken bones and no loss of life. Suicide becomes that much easier and whilst those that really want to do it may well do it anyway without access to a firearm, those that are really crying out for attention, in a moment pull a trigger and have no recourse because they're dead. Someone who cuts their wrists, takes some pills can - and sometimes do - change their mind when they are faced with the reality of their imminent death and call an ambulance after they've done it. Imagine the next act of roadrage you are faced with when you split to the front of traffic and the enraged tradie you've just passed in traffic pulls out his gun and shoots you.

    In the news today, I see a 15 year old armed with a knife was shot and killed by the police in Northcote. He had been seen slashing boxes in a supermarket with the knives and acting erratically. If he'd had a gun, perhaps he'd have taken out some people? Perhaps he'd have taken some shots at the police he was threatening and advancing on and some of them would be wounded or dead.

    Re-arming a population not used to the culture of guns would be far too risky. We've got too used to being able to threaten and intimidate and escalate to violence with little worry about risk to our lives. Give your testosterone fuelled hothead used to being able to throw around his weight access to guns? Next time he's out in his foolly sik dunnydore or out on the turps we're going to have to worry about him now pulling out a handgun.

    Do we want to see an increase in drive by shootings, accidental death of children playing with daddy's gun they found, suicide, domestic violence escalating to death and all the other things that increase with an increased availability of firearms? I know I don't.
  15. Edit: oops... hit the trigger - I mean button - before I meant to! :p

    Agree entirely Hornet. The extreme likelihood of escalation is obvious.
    Do we need any other proof than the murder rate between the two countries?
  16. Not to be pedantic, but the debate is not about RE-arming the Australian populace, but ARMING. Australian citizens, farmers aside, have never been armed......
  17. yes but you would also have the knowlege of how it feels when some numpty j00b points one in your general direction. (and you dont even have chicks in the grunts)

    judgeing by the alarming situations i have seen supposedly intelegent supposedly "trained" people place themselves and often me in with firearms.

    I would not want the public to have access to them.

    "but we could have training and screening and and and"
    Bullshit. look at the people who get drivers licences.

    We dont need more guns FFS.
    We just need to stop prosecuting the cops that use theirs in the course of their duty.

    theese days a cop almost has to die to have the signed permission to open fire on some drugged up teenager who is armed and trying to kill them.

    now they are strung up by the media and will be getting counceling for months :roll:

    Snap out of it people
  18. Not to be pedantic? lol But, dear sir, you are saying that for the sole purpose of being pedantic!

    Sorry Paul but in that you're wrong. Different states have had different regulations over history and whilst from the time Australia was settled, regulation has existed more or less in some form for guns, it was certainly possible to buy and own guns without restriction in many places, without a licence. Yes, even in urban areas for people who weren't farmers...
  19. I am :grin:

    Although thinking about it - being "armed" and having an "arm" or a "firearm" are two completely seperate things. I guess I have 17 guns, but I'm not armed, if you know what I mean.

  20. ...searches internet for picture of man with no arms with ak-47 slung over shoulder