Catholic Online Forum

I pointed out that absent a police state collecting all the guns in the country, including coming into his home and looking into every nook and cranny...

The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.

The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.

Prime Minister John Howard, then newly elected, immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.

While surveys showed up to 85% of Australians supported gun control, hundreds of thousands of farmers and sporting shooters strongly opposed the new laws, calling them a 'knee-jerk' reaction by the Government and pointing out the lack of discussion of the issues.

The government planned a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, on the advice of his security team, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. This was perceived as a deeply offensive act by the shooters, and their outrage was interpreted by many of the media and the public to show that ordinary shooters were dangerous and contemptible.

Concern was raised within the coalition government that fringe groups such as the "Ausi Freedom Scouts", the Australian League of Rights and the Citizen Initiated Referendum Party, were exploiting voter anger to gain support. The rhetoric of such groups supported violence against "tyranny", but there was no instance of any violent political act or any credible threat of violence. The Government and media used these small right wing groups and support from fringe Christian groups and the U.S. National Rifle Association to fan moral outrage against the large number of Australians who opposed the new gun laws. The decimation of membership in the National Party in Queensland, the subsequent rise of One Nation and the loss of over a million coalition votes in the 1998 federal election have been claimed to be, in part, consequences of the marginalisation of these voters.

Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership. A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997. The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

A knife-wielding man has slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country.

I floated the idea a while back of banning the sale, importation, or manufacture of additional firearms with a capacity over two or three rounds. In the short term, it would have almost no impact. In 50 years, we would find that guns with very high capacities would be increasingly difficult to find, and could limit much of the damage done in many situations.

It would permit sportsmen to continue to hunt, as most hunting is done with very low capacity firearms anyway.
It would permit people to carry self-defense weapons to protect them from most assaults (multi-assailant assaults are rare).

I'm not sure I really favor the idea, but I'm thinking about it again.

I don't believe that this would be a possible solution or would solve the problem. Perpetrators could bring more than one weapon with them.

Recalling the Revolution, I always had the feeling that part of the point of having an armed citizenry was to provide protection from/as a deterrent to an overbearing government.

How does your plan fit into that, Jeff?

Gunfights are not won by the person with more bullets.

Not sure why "gunfights" is being introduced other than that's how many innocent victims get shot. If you are not adept at hitting what you aim at, then more bullets would certainly improve your odds especially if you were wielding an automatic weapon.

"Please expand on your comment about "more than one weapon" that a perpetrator would bring with them."

_________________
Jeff Stevens

if you want gun control, what do you envision and what evidence do you have that it would have prevented this crime?

Of course, I'm not sure anyone here is in favor of gun control. So, call your friends and ask them. No one will answer this question

If gun capacities were limited then a perp could bring several and therefore defeat the capacity idea.

Val,



Your question is legitimate. Aside from my participation in the Southeast Asian War games Invitational (Vietnam), the most dangerous thing I have ever fired a gun at was a clay pigeon. Yet I carry with me most everywhere I go a Pistol that I am licensed to carry.

I am (more accurately was) a competitive shooter. I have shot Pistol, Rifle and Shotgun at various shooting venues over the years. As I am older, and my reflexes are slower and my eyesight isn't what it once was the competitive edge isn't what it used to be. I still shoot, but just for fun these days and to maybe introduce someone to the sport.

So no I do not wish to see Gun Control, I see no need for it.

Let's look at today's shooting. It is illegal under federal law to carry a firearm on to any school property, unless you are a Law Enforcement Officer. It is illegal to shoot and kill people. He was let into a "Secure" environment because someone recognized him....I see nothing there that that an additional law would have prevented the shooting. If I see any fault it was the fault of the gun's owner who it was reported was the mother, she knew he had mental problems, why wasn't the guns locked up?

Connecticut according to the Brady Gun Control Report Card 2011 ranked 5th toughest gun control in the US behind California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York so how much more gun control would have prevented this terrible shooting?

Look at Chicago, Washington DC and New York city, toughest gun laws in the nation, highest crime rates as well. Gun Control simply does not work.

Can the government come and get all the guns? I suppose they could try, doubt they succeed.

One reason Japan did not invade us during WWII was their intimidation at our citizens and countrymen having their own weapons. They did take into consideration that 200 million extra guns aimed at them was a formidable deterre

It would permit people to carry self-defense weapons to protect them from most assaults (multi-assailant assaults are rare).

The US Citizenry would lose vs the US Army.

And if the Army is on the side of the Citizens, there'd be no need for armed citizens.

Jeff, Rose is correct the 2nd Amendment is an outgrowth of the Revolution, so we would never be subjugated by a tyrannical King again...somewhere in the Federalist papers it's all talked out.

Jeff, Rose is correct the 2nd Amendment is an outgrowth of the Revolution, so we would never be subjugated by a tyrannical King again...somewhere in the Federalist papers it's all talked out.

Jeff,



Hmmm...about 6-8 months ago I was pumping gas, as these days I walk with a cane since I took a bad fall and hurt my hip, I guess I looked like a soft target. Two cretins who were hanging out by the filling station decided to do something, they split up and slowly came at me from different directions. I lifted my shirt, placed my hand on my pistol and asked, "Who's first?" They decided to go sit back down, I finished pumping gas.

BTW, That is why I mentioned to you on FB, that I didn't see how prevented crimes could be quantified.

If your gun held only three rounds, it would have been a similarly effective deterrent, I think.

But two million citizens armed with high powered rifles vs an army of 100,000 plus tanks, bombs, fighter jets, long-range cannon, etc would quickly lose that contest.

I disagree. Handguns are not the most accurate of weapons. So if you have three bullets and two perps, you might get one but never both, with five rounds you have a very good chance of taking out both. As many criminal attacks include 3-5 perpetrators, a larger magazine is a good idea.

Deterrent is best if the criminals have reason to fear that the potential victim is armed and accurate with enough bullets to render their attackers dead.

I think those of you espousing some armed conflict between law-abiding armed citizens and the US armed forces are going over the edge of reason, just as the anti-gun nuts want you to do because it makes their argument stronger. Connecticut has the fifth-toughest gun laws in the nation and clearly proves laws can only do so much, they cannot protect us against every crazy who gets his hands on a weapon.

I don't hear much discussion about the constant diet of violence our youth experience on TV and through computer games, they are literally brain-washed into a violent mentality. We think nothing of slaughtering millions of innocent, unborn children and even demand the "right" then wonder why there seems to be so little respect of life! I would tone down, curtail those media and address abortion before I went after the 2nd Amendment rights of the country.

I'm not espousing such a conflict, although I'm grateful that such an event occurred back in the late 18th century. I'm espousing the view that ifthe US government became oppressive, or if the US is taken over by a hostile government, I hope that citizens would have the means to protect itself from that government.

I know we don't want to picture such a thing in the US. I don't, either. But why would we think that the US is above having that sort of thing happen?

I'm sure the Romans believed such a thing was unthinkable in their beautiful empire, either, yet it didn't keep the Goths or the Huns away forever.

I know we don't want to picture such a thing in the US. I don't, either. But why would we think that the US is above having that sort of thing happen?

I'm sure the Romans believed such a thing was unthinkable in their beautiful empire, either, yet it didn't keep the Goths or the Huns away forever.

Without any knowledge on my part I would be very surprised if somewhere in the vast files of secret government documents there isn't folders to Invade New York, Pittsburgh etc. Military Planners plan for every conceivable circumstance.

It would have been much worse if they had gone unprepared and lost those lives, only to have to go back with even more men later.

It has been reported here that he was the son of one of the teachers. He was seen on CCTV and then buzzed through the door.

The U.S. has a problem with its culture.

David,

Yes, it seems very confused. Now it seems his mother was not a teacher there, that he shot her in her home then went to the school, that it was forced entry. So what's his connection with the school?

The U.S. does not have a problem with guns. The U.S. has a problem with its culture.

Dennis,



On which point, a number of US politicians are now suggesting (in the wake of Newtown) there needs to be better "targeting of people with mental health problems". "Targetting"? I don't like the sound of that at all.

The winds of change blew through the dream factories of make-believe, tore at its crinoline tatters.... The hedonists, the homosexuals, the hemophilic bleeding hearts, the God-haters, the quick-buck artists who substituted shock for talent, all cried: "Shake 'em! Rattle 'em! God is dead. Long live pleasure! Nudity? Yea! Wife-swapping? Yea! Liberate the world from prudery. Emancipate our films from morality!".... Kill for thrill. Shock! Shock! To hell with the good in man, Dredge up his evil – shock! Shock!