'MURICA

[TheWiggman]

It's all to be taken in context I believe. The Middle East would look at the western culture and consider our attitude towards alcohol to be abhorrent. It costs our system billions in health, takes lives every year on the road, breaks up relationships etc. but it's part of our culture and we accept it. Granted, the government and society in general have taken steps in recent times to lessen its effect.
Most Aussies though consider having alcohol available to the general public 100% fine (plus you can't walk into a school and take down a student body with a slab of VBs).

The more trigger-happy Yanks wouldn't consider handing a 9 year old an Uzi at a shooting range to be an issue. This probably happens at shooting ranges across the country every single day. I consider an Uzi to be a completely unnecessary firearm to be owned by a civillian full stop, but if I'd grown up shooting with them I'd probably wonder what all the fuss is about.
One life could have been saved here if full automatics weren't legal, yes, but I don't think that's a reasonable argument to ban them. Zero people have died in this country at shooting ranges. Numerous people have died playing rugby league (I recall 3 in one weekend back in the '90s), but we shouldn't ban that. The real issue is what purpose these types of guns serves and at what cost. Purpose is fun at ranges, cost is the occasional mass shooting with more lives taken than if a bolt action or similar was used. Absolutely not worth the cost.

Seeing some of the videos of fanatical NRA members (selective presentation by the media mind you), you'd have to wonder how the country will ever address the issue with any sort of vigour. While many people still believe that a legitimate reason to own a firearm is self defence, there's little hope.

 

[philmud]

One life could have been saved here if full automatics weren't legal, yes, but I don't think that's a reasonable argument to ban them.

Yes, one life here, three over there, two over there and eight over there. And how many at Sandy Hook? I'm sorry, but the above statement is the least logical thing I expect to read all day & it's only 8:20. American civilians lose their lives routinely in incidents that could be at the very least dramatically reduced if they had reasonable restrictions on firearms. We are not talking about people taking calculated risks (by choosing to play contact sports on the weekend), we are talking about little kids trying to attend primary school. To rationalise deaths like theirs as collateral damage for civil freedoms is really ******* cold.

I'm another who grew up shooting, and I also think the post Port Arthur gun laws over-reached in some respects (my uncle's semi-automatic .22 was not especially fearsome). BUT it is a fact that Martin Bryant carried out his attack with legally acquired weapons that he would now be unable to purchase. That prick chased two little girls around a tree so he could shoot them. I'm in favour of gun laws that significantly reduce the likelihood of that happening again.

I think comparisons between our rights to own firearms and those in the US are illogical. Gun culture in the US is essentially predicated on the right to "bear arms", potential against other people. Ours is predicated on the privelege of being able to use firearms for recreational hunting and pest control.

 

[TheWiggman]

I think you're making a straw man of the argument, I never considered this to be collateral. People die falling off balconies, crashing in cars, being electrocuted - we can't ban everything that causes a death on the very fact that it causes a death. Like I said later, balance the need with the risk. No need for Uzis, deaths have resulted. They shouldn't be out there.

 

[booargy]

They say they kick to the left. Looks like it may be right.

 

[philmud]

I don't think I was making a straw man. My point is that guns are designed to kill, and Uzis are designed to kill people. Most "risky" undertakings like standing on balconies and playing rugby have a different purpose. To conflate guns with these things doesn't hold.

 

[GalBrew]

An Uzi is an anti-personnel weapon, like all subs and assault rifles. In my opinion that allows the journalist to use the glib 'trained to kill' line. If it was a hunting rifle or shotgun then perhaps we are grasping at straws, but an Uzi has one function.....to kill people at close quarters in enclosed environments.

 

[pedleyr]

I think you're making a straw man of the argument, I never considered this to be collateral. People die falling off balconies, crashing in cars, being electrocuted - we can't ban everything that causes a death on the very fact that it causes a death. Like I said later, balance the need with the risk. No need for Uzis, deaths have resulted. They shouldn't be out there.

Comparing legality of automatic weapons, whose sole purpose and sole design goal was to kill or maim, with people falling off balconies or driving powerful cars is truly mind boggling.

Automatic weapons exist to kill or maim. They should be illegal, there is no reason for a private citizen to have one. Full stop, I cannot even see the other side of the argument, much as I try to. Non automatic weapons I'll accept are a different proposition.

This isn't me telling America or Americans what to do, they can give 50 calibre machine guns to their newborns for all I care, it's not my business, it's just me saying that whatever justification they give for it is crap, unless that justification is we want to be able to kill people more effectively.

Edit - actually taking 10 more seconds to read your comment, I think that you weren't defending the weapons that are a clear case on my view.

 

[TheWiggman]

I understand the points. I find it hard to articulate what I'm trying to say without sounding like I'm defending a nation of cowboys.

Not sure if you've shot before GalBrew but training someone to kill and training someone to use something that's designed to kill are different. That sentence might sound like total crap but holding a rifle and pulling the trigger is one thing. Pointing it at something with the intent to kill is something else entirely. A 9 year old girl wouldn't discern between the functions of the different firearms available to her at the range. Again though, this doesn't make it acceptable, it means she is not a trained killer like the article implies.

I think my first post was about murky waters wit this topic. I find with shooting it's like you have to take a stance with a loaded question: are you pro gun, or anti gun? As if to imply you are either pro killing or anti killing, because guns are designed to kill. The concept is broader than that, but it always seems to fall back on that logic. pedleyr's edit is a good example of how easy it is to misconstrue based on a perceived viewpoint. We all (myself included) see things through our own filter and the Yanks will certainly see things differently to us. Each culture is different. I'm happy to argue that this girl (and many thousands before her no doubt) never should have handled the Uzi and she never should have had access to it. There'd be plenty who'd struggle to see my point of view, but I'm not saying it's because they're idiots, I'm saying it's because their culture is different.

Where's the emoticon for a smiley digging himself into a hole? Bah this one will do :beerdrink:

Edit: Talking too much crap. Apologies. The birthday beers are talking tonight!

 

[GalBrew]

Yeah I have shot a few times, a variety of weapons and to be honest I did not find the experience rewarding (although a necessary experience I think). I agree that a 9 year old shooting and Uzi is not training her to kill people, but they were training a 9 year old to use a device that's sole purpose is to kill people.....so I think the implications are obvious.

Don't get me wrong I think that firearms are a required tool. Just not the ones designed to kill multiple people as quickly as possible.

 

[philmud]

It's your birthday Wiggman? Happy Birthday! Where's the smiley for firing a firearm into the air in celebration!

 

[booargy]

You stand behind the person firing.

 

[booargy]

Happy birthday
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c6_1408972671

 

[Blind Dog]

You stand behind the person firing.

Unless he's firing at a tank. Then you just run

 

[pedleyr]

I understand the points. I find it hard to articulate what I'm trying to say without sounding like I'm defending a nation of cowboys.

Not sure if you've shot before GalBrew but training someone to kill and training someone to use something that's designed to kill are different. That sentence might sound like total crap but holding a rifle and pulling the trigger is one thing. Pointing it at something with the intent to kill is something else entirely. A 9 year old girl wouldn't discern between the functions of the different firearms available to her at the range. Again though, this doesn't make it acceptable, it means she is not a trained killer like the article implies.

I think my first post was about murky waters wit this topic. I find with shooting it's like you have to take a stance with a loaded question: are you pro gun, or anti gun? As if to imply you are either pro killing or anti killing, because guns are designed to kill. The concept is broader than that, but it always seems to fall back on that logic. pedleyr's edit is a good example of how easy it is to misconstrue based on a perceived viewpoint. We all (myself included) see things through our own filter and the Yanks will certainly see things differently to us. Each culture is different. I'm happy to argue that this girl (and many thousands before her no doubt) never should have handled the Uzi and she never should have had access to it. There'd be plenty who'd struggle to see my point of view, but I'm not saying it's because they're idiots, I'm saying it's because their culture is different.

Where's the emoticon for a smiley digging himself into a hole? Bah this one will do :beerdrink:

Edit: Talking too much crap. Apologies. The birthday beers are talking tonight!

I'm with you right up to the part that seems to effectively be "culture difference therefore all good". No. Not all good.

Their cultural background may mean that they don't see an issue with this but doing so requires them to either embrace the fact that this cultural trait amounts to the promotion of more efficient killing of other humans OR lie about that (either to themselves or to the world) and pretend that it's about liberty, stopping the government over stepping, self defence or some other completely contrived ********.

Happy birthday mate, have a couple for me.

 

[philmud]

You stand behind the person firing.

Yes, you do. But the person firing is always responsible for where their rounds go. That's partly why nine year olds shouldn't handle an Uzi.

 

[Blind Dog]

wiggman

Too much effort to quote your posts, but there is a huge difference between a sports weapon designed for hunting / sport and an Uzi. If you want to teach your kid how to hunt game, that's fine, but the NRA and their ilk blather on about the right to bear arms. For protection. And that means guns as weapons. They have one intention only, and that is to kill. Get away from the rural States and gun ownership has little to do with hunting and everything to do with so called protection.

For what it's worth I agree with most of what you've said. The issue is that you seem to be defending a fathers right to hand an Uzi to his 9 year old and that's just such an abhorrent notion that my instinctive reaction is to call you very rude names. But then I read your post again and refrained

But seriously? Handing your kid an Uzi? With ammunition? I honestly reckon there should be an IQ test before you're allowed to have kids

Anyway, happy birthday!

 

[Blind Dog]

Yes, you do. But the person firing is always responsible for where their rounds go. That's partly why nine year olds shouldn't handle an Uzi.

Used to help out running clay pigeon shoots when I was younger. Loads of fun, but seriously sphincter puckering when some pissed banker turned round and challenged your call of 'miss' after discharging only 1 barrel. Trick us to stand close enough that as he turns you can take hold of his weapon

That sounds so wrong

 

[philmud]

"This is my rifle, this is my gun. This one's for fighting, this one's for fun."

 

[Blind Dog]

'I keep hearing this [bleep] thing that guns don't kill people but people kill people. If that's the case why do we give people guns when we send them to war? Why not just send the people?'

Ozzy Osbourne. Genius

 

[manticle]

Forgetting the gun culture argument for a minute, it sounds like the instructor was careless. You don't show someone how to operate a forklift, stand in front of it facing away then wonder why you have 4 foot of thick steel in your small intestine.
As for gun control- this indicates my general perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3WMx1blONU&app=desktop