CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[2aguy]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

No...your assertion is completely wrong.....

3/29/16 Australian gun crime problem, reason article...

Australia’s Gun 'Buyback' Created a Violent Firearms Black Market. Why Should the U.S. Do the Same?

Just days ago, Australia's Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and Michael Keenan, Minister for Justice, held a joint press conference to announce "We don't tolerate gun smuggling in Australia and we know Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs are engaged in it. We have been keen to send the strongest possible message from Canberra that we're not going to tolerate people smuggling in guns or smuggling in gun parts. You'd appreciate that even one smuggled gun can do an enormous amount of damage."

When politicians announce that they don't tolerate something, it's a fair bet that the something is completely out of hand.

"Police admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals," the Adelaide Advertiser concededa few years ago. "Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms - including fully automatic weapons."

More recently, the country's The New Daily gained access to "previously unpublished data for firearms offences" and reporteda surge in crime "including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period."

"Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country's underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade," the report added. "[T]he national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns."

Much as the Mafia and other organized criminal outfits rose to power, wealth, and prominence by supplying illegal liquor during Prohibition in the United States, outlaw motorcycle gangs in Australia appear to be building international connections and making money by supplying guns to willing buyers.

3/17/16


Eight shootings in one week

THIS could be the worst month for gun violence in Victoria since 2014, with eight shootings in the first 10 days of March including one man being killed.

The spate of shootings across the state has led to a specific taskforce from Victoria Police to focus on the increase of incidents.

The worst month for gun violence since 2014 was October last year, when there were 12 shootings, including one fatality.

Fairfax Media reports March is on track to beat the number of shootings last October, making it the worst month for shootings since at least 2014.

The latest shooting was last night, when the driver of a black Audi fired at another car with a handgun.

Victoria Police say a Mazda was stopped at a Sunshine West intersection when the Audi pulled up beside it.

The two men in the Audi then drew their guns and the driver fired into the rear passenger side of the Mazda

Scary trend in Australian gun crime

MONDAY’S siege in Sydney that saw three people shot and three held hostage before the gunman turned the firearm on himself was a terrifying reminder of the Lindt cafe crisis just over a year ago.

It comes as another man was shot dead in Victoria at close range last night, three days after a man was killed in a suspected shooting at a Melbourne motel and four days after a man was shot dead at a property in Ipswich, Queensland, with police called just after 2am.

Last month, a man accused of a shooting in Canberra allegedly boasted to police that the victim would be dead if he had pulled the trigger, because he had significant experience with firearms, despite not having a licence.

There were 207 firearms deaths in Australia in 2013, a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 people, higher than in 19 other countries, including the UK, Bolivia and Zimbabwe.

While we often shake our heads in horror at America’s problems with gun crime, it’s clear we are far from immune from the deadly influence of firearms.

-----------

In New South Wales, weapons offences have risen 8.7 per cent per year over the past five years, to 11,471 in the year to September 2015. The New Daily reported in November that incidents involving firearms rose 83 per cent in NSW from 2005-6 to 2014-5. Charges for possession and trafficking of guns in South Australia saw a 49 per cent rise over four years.



------------



Victoria is similarly affected, with a 52 per cent increase in firearms offences to 3645 between 2009-10 and 2014-15. In Tasmania, there was a 26 per cent increase in firearm-related offences between December 2012 and 2015.

Victoria police chief Steve Fontana this week expressed fears about the rapid increase in shootings in the past eight months. The state’s Crime Statistics Agency Chief Statistician Fiona Dowsley said in December: “Weapons and explosives offences and drug use and possession offences have again seen statistically significant increases this quarter.”

 

[2aguy]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

And just like the United States...the places in Australia with the most legally owned guns are the safest....

No Cookies | NT News

THE NT has one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership in Australia but the lowest rate of firearm-related crime, police have said.

The gun control debate has resurfaced on the back of the Sydney Lindt cafe siege.

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm went as far as to declare Australia was a “nation of victims”.

He implied the siege might not have happened were people allowed to carry concealed weapons.

NT Police said there were 57,804 firearms lawfully registered in the NT at December 9, last year.

The figures include firearms in police control and those registered to government agencies including NT Corrections and Parks and Wildlife.

Acting Senior Sergeant Bruce Payne said more than 13,000 Territorians hold shooters’ licences – mostly for sport.

“The NT has one of the highest rates of firearm owners in Australia – second only to Tasmania,” he said.


“But the rate of firearm crime is the lowest.”

 

[2aguy]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

And again, you are wrong...


Australia reloads as gun amnesties fail to cut arms



Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.

A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.

Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.

 

[2aguy]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

Come on man, there is no reason to lie. If that dirt bag could have walked into a sportings goods store and bought a full auto, he would have. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

This is why you are going to end up losing this argument 2A, you argue emotion , rather than facts, I mean so does the left, but they going to outnumber you and out bullshit you if you don't start being honest.

Why do you think military rifles are not fully auto and are select fire 3 round bursts?

Because a full auto shoulder fired rifle is less than practical for any use. They are wildly inaccurate and even experienced shooters have a hard time keeping the muzzle on target and they run through ammo like grease through a goose

And more likely to malfunction.......

 

[Fair&Balanced]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

 

[GaryDog]

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

And again, you are wrong...


Australia reloads as gun amnesties fail to cut arms



Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.

A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.

Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.

Yea, you might wanna check the date on your article and compare it to mine.

 

[2aguy]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

When I was just leaving the Guard, they stopped the fully auto version of the M-16 for the 3 round burst...why....because fully automatic weapons are innaccurate, waste ammo and don't hit what they are aimed at......

fully auto weapons are a waste...

 

[2aguy]

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

And again, you are wrong...


Australia reloads as gun amnesties fail to cut arms



Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.

A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.

Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.

Yea, you might wanna check the date on your article and compare it to mine.

You mean march of this year ...?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

When I was just leaving the Guard, they stopped the fully auto version of the M-16 for the 3 round burst...why....because fully automatic weapons are innaccurate, waste ammo and don't hit what they are aimed at......

fully auto weapons are a waste...

Wrong, the fully auto version of the M16 was discontinued because it was determined that there were better alternatives to a fully automatic M16. The military didn't stop using automatic weapons LOL

 

[2aguy]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

The very first line of your link is a lie........it says they have not had one mass shooting since the confiscation...and that is a lie......

Also......I have listed the number of shootings in Australia that would be mass public shootings if the shooter had killed 3 people....the new obama standard for mass public shootings, it used to be 4....

not one of these shootings was stopped because of Australia's gun control laws. If the shooter had made the choice to keep shooting, or had been more accurate in his shooting they would have been mass public shootings....

Name one gun control law in Australia that prevented these shootings from being mass shootings...

Dumb luck is not gun control....

Okay....I have isolated shooting incidents in Australia that could just as easily have turned into mass shooting events....and yes, I know, you are going to move the goal posts and change the results.......in your post you qouted a study that showed no mass shootings in Australia after the ban..and that is obviously not true...look below.....and the only thing that kept some of these shootings from being mass shootings is pure dumb luck...

So no, the gun confiscation in Austrulia did not stop mass shootings....dumb luck did.....since all of these shooters had no trouble getting guns.....right?


Tell me.....how is anything other than luck that kept these from being mass shootings...since the shooter obviously was able to get a gun and shoot people in gun free Australia...right?

March 2016....




Man found shot in Port Arthur

Port Arthur Police are investigating a shooting at Dewalt and W. 14th Street. Police got the call at about 10:45 p.m. Thursday. When they arrived on the scene they found a 29-year-old man laying outside a car that was riddled with bullets. The man had a gunshot wound to the leg and was taken to Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth in Beaumont. His injuries are not life-threatening.
Police say they believe the gun used was some sort of an assault rifle. There is no word on any suspects at this time.

----------------------
4/29/16....

---------------------
Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in the Brisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

• 16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

• 3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

• 26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.

• • 21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.

• 18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]

• 28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.

• 28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]

• 23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[citation needed]

• 8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[citation needed]
• 9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[citation needed]

• 7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[citation needed

• 15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]

• 27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder – the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

• 10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.
• 
  
• 2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.

Here is a neater list.....

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.
• 
  
  
• 3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria at La Trobe university in Melbourne, Victoria, armed with a 38-calibre revolver handgun and opened fire, killing cafeteria manager Leon Capraro and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

21st century[edit]
2000s[edit]

• 13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[62][63]
• 
  
  
• 16 July 2001 – Peter James Knight, an anti-abortion activist, walked into an abortion clinic in East Melbourne armed with a rifle. Knight shot dead security guard Stephen Gordon Rogers and was later overpowered by staff in the abortion clinic. After his arrest, Knight was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison.

• 26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
• 
  
• 14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
• 
  
• 21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.

• 25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families. Twenty-four-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom. Up to 100 shots were fired into the house by four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
• 
  
  
• 18 February 2006 – Cardross Hit and Run – Thomas Graham Towle crashed his car at high speed into a group of 13 teenagers, killing six and injuring seven near the town ofCardross, Victoria.[73]
• 
  
• 18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[75]

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

Come on man, there is no reason to lie. If that dirt bag could have walked into a sportings goods store and bought a full auto, he would have. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

This is why you are going to end up losing this argument 2A, you argue emotion , rather than facts, I mean so does the left, but they going to outnumber you and out bullshit you if you don't start being honest.

Why do you think military rifles are not fully auto and are select fire 3 round bursts?

Because a full auto shoulder fired rifle is less than practical for any use. They are wildly inaccurate and even experienced shooters have a hard time keeping the muzzle on target and they run through ammo like grease through a goose

and NONE of that matters to a person who's ONLY goal is too kill as many people as quickly as possible.

It is illogical to argue that a fully automatic weapon can't kill more people faster than a semi automatic can.

 

[2aguy]

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

And again, you are wrong...


Australia reloads as gun amnesties fail to cut arms



Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.

A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.

Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

Here....this is a more targeted list of public shootings....tell me which Australian gun control laws kept them from becoming mass public shootings...

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.

• 25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in the Brisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

• 16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

• 3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

• 13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[60][61]

• 26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
• • 14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
  • 21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.
  • 25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families, 24-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom, up to 100 shots were fired into the house from four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
  • 26 July 2004 – Security guard Karen Brown shot dead armed robber William Aquilina in a Sydney carpark after he violently bashed her and stole the hotel's takings. Brown was charged with murder but acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.[66][67]

• 18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]

• 10 April 2010 – Rajesh Osborne shot and killed his three children, 12 year-old Asia, 10-year-old Jarius and 7-year-old Grace before killing himself in Roxburgh, Victoria.[citation needed]

• 28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.
• 1

• 29 January 2012 – Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead whilst Vincenzo survived the fourth attempt on his life.[79]

• 28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]

• 23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[citation needed]

• 15 December 2012 – Aaron Carlino murdered drug dealer Stephen Cookson in his East Perth home by shooting him twice in the head and then he cut up and dismembered his body. He buried his arms legs and torso in the backyard of his house and he wrapped his head in a plastic bag and dumped it on Rottnest Island. The head of Cookson was later found washed up on Rottnest Island by an 11-year-old girl. Carlino was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[citation needed]
• 8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[citation needed]
• 29 July 2013 – Two bikie gang associates, Vasko Boskovski and Bassil Hijazi were shot dead in two separate shooting incidents minutes apart in South West Sydney. The previous week Bassil Hijazi had survived a previous attempt against his life after he was shot inside his car.[citation needed]

• 9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[citation needed]

• 22 October 2014 – Wedderburn shootings – Ian Jamieson shot dead Peter Lockhart, Peter's wife Mary and Mary's son Greg Holmes on two farm properties in Wedderburn, Victoria over a property dispute. Jamieson surrendered to police after a three-and-a-half hour siege.[citation needed]
• 7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[citation needed]

• 12 November 2014 – Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce a married couple who were drug dealers are found shot dead in a car on a highway in the town of Moama, New South Wales.[86]

• 15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]

• 27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder – the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

• 10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.
• 2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.

 

[2aguy]

Where in my post did you get that......?


No....they don't want fully automatic because our criminals prefer something they can easily conceal.....fully automatic weapons don't fit that bill.......European criminals....they like fully automatic weapons.....so the use them......

come on man, OBVIOUSLY such laws stop at least some criminals from obtaining the weapons of their choice. Do you REALLY not believe Mateen would have chosen a fully automatic M4 over the semi automatic weapon he used if he could have? Just as an example.

And if he wanted it he could have gotten it........no gun law would have stopped him...he was trained...he knew fully auto fire is stupid and picked a semi auto rifle......again...nothing would have stopped him if he wanted that gun....

Come on man, there is no reason to lie. If that dirt bag could have walked into a sportings goods store and bought a full auto, he would have. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

This is why you are going to end up losing this argument 2A, you argue emotion , rather than facts, I mean so does the left, but they going to outnumber you and out bullshit you if you don't start being honest.

Why do you think military rifles are not fully auto and are select fire 3 round bursts?

Because a full auto shoulder fired rifle is less than practical for any use. They are wildly inaccurate and even experienced shooters have a hard time keeping the muzzle on target and they run through ammo like grease through a goose

and NONE of that matters to a person who's ONLY goal is too kill as many people as quickly as possible.

It is illogical to argue that a fully automatic weapon can't kill more people faster than a semi automatic can.

Yeah...it is...if you know what you are doing.......

 

[320 Years of History]

It's requiring one to obtain permission from government,and to prove that one meets government's arbitrary requirements,as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. It allows government to presume someone guilty,and on that basis, to deny that person a right, until that person proves himself innocent.

It makes a mockery of the principles on which our Constitution and our legal system are based; and puts government in the role of our master, rather than our servant.

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

While I'm totally against any type of weapon ban or magazine limits I don't want anyone with a criminal record to have a weapon. So if I want to buy a gun from a friend it's no big deal to me to meet him at a nearby gun shop and have a dealer involved in the loop.

Oh, my...you've proposed a proactive regulation that aims to reduced the possibility that folks who have no business getting a gun can get a gun.

Though I don't right now have an opinion about your suggestion, that it's a creative idea that addresses the matter at hand is a good thing. Concur with it or not, it's at least something positive and that can be built upon and/or used to inspire even better approaches. Innovative solution ideas are what I asked for in the OP. TY for providing one.

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

Red:
??? This doesn't look especially hard to conceal. I'm sure "baby mama's" purse size or the room under the seat of any car has nothing to do with what gun any would be criminal uses.

​

Neither does this:

​

Weight 2.84 kg (6.26 pounds) empty without suppressor
Length

269 mm (10.7 inches) with stock removed
295 mm (11.6 inches) with stock retracted
548 mm (1 foot 9.6 inches) with stock extended
545 mm (1 foot 9.45 inches) with stock retracted w/suppressor
798 mm (2 feet 7.4 inches) with stock extended with suppressor​

Barrel length 146 mm (4.49 inches)​

I don't know much about purses, but I know the ones the women in my life whom I know well enough to know what purses they typically carry have ample room inside to easily carry one, the other or either of the guns depicted above.

I don't have measures for these, but I don't need them. I know they can at least hold that machine pistol and at least a couple cartridges.

As I wrote, I'm not purse expert, but I know there's no shortage of them that can hold one or the other of those guns.

I would like to be incredulous XXXX - Mod Edit -- long flame attacking a poster. 320 Years of History

 

[2aguy]

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

While I'm totally against any type of weapon ban or magazine limits I don't want anyone with a criminal record to have a weapon. So if I want to buy a gun from a friend it's no big deal to me to meet him at a nearby gun shop and have a dealer involved in the loop.

Oh, my...you've proposed a proactive regulation that aims to reduced the possibility that folks who have no business getting a gun can get a gun.

Though I don't right now have an opinion about your suggestion, that it's a creative idea that addresses the matter at hand is a good thing. Concur with it or not, it's at least something positive and that can be built upon and/or used to inspire even better approaches. Innovative solution ideas are what I asked for in the OP. TY for providing one.

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

Red:
??? This doesn't look especially hard to conceal. I'm sure "baby mama's" purse size or the room under the seat of any car has nothing to do with what gun any would be criminal uses.

​

Neither does this:

​

Weight 2.84 kg (6.26 pounds) empty without suppressor
Length

269 mm (10.7 inches) with stock removed
295 mm (11.6 inches) with stock retracted
548 mm (1 foot 9.6 inches) with stock extended
545 mm (1 foot 9.45 inches) with stock retracted w/suppressor
798 mm (2 feet 7.4 inches) with stock extended with suppressor​

Barrel length 146 mm (4.49 inches)​

I don't know much about purses, but I know the ones the women in my life whom I know well enough to know what purses they typically carry have ample room inside to easily carry one, the other or either of the guns depicted above.

I don't have measures for these, but I don't need them. I know they can at least hold that machine pistol and at least a couple cartridges.

As I wrote, I'm not purse expert, but I know there's no shortage of them that can hold one or the other of those guns.

I would like to be incredulous that you deigned to sit there and, presumably with a straight face, write that preposterous, unfounded, irrational, silly sh*t that is of value only for confirming to the world the reprobate intellectual constipation with which you revel in oblivious contentment. However, I'm can conceive of it because, alas, you did write that foolishness.

Compared to a pistol..it is...especially if you are stopped by police......any one of those does not fit easily under a car seat...and if they see a baby momma with a big purse......they are searching it.....

 

[2aguy]

And converting a Glock to fully automatic is not necessary.......and it wastes ammo and misses ........so no...they don't prefer fully automatic weapons

1) for size considerations.

2) converting glocks is unecessary,

3) they don't need it to kill the 15 year old rival.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

What part is wrong? the 7%?

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Though he'd acquired them illegally, Bryant used guns at Port Arthur that were lawful in Tasmania at the time. Howard argued there was no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons — and under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996.

That is not a very large number of people. So is it your supposition that all murder was committed by people with guns?

The murder rate dropped in Australia from 354 in 1996 to 282 in 2007

but in some of those intervening years it stayed the same or was even higher

So tell me how can you say the murder rate would have gone up if the ban hadn't taken place or that the murder rate like ours would have declined whether or not the gun ban went into effect at all?

As I said our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and has been declining since the 1990s with no Aussie style gun bans and confiscation

 

[Skull Pilot]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

I just told you that your average soldier is not issued a fully automatic rifle.

Fully auto guns are only practical with some sort of vehicle mount and they are used for wide spread suppression and cover fire not for accuracy

 

[2aguy]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

I just told you that your average soldier is not issued a fully automatic rifle.

Fully auto guns are only practical with some sort of vehicle mount and they are used for wide spread suppression and cover fire not for accuracy

Thanks......I served in the Guard, and they switched out.....

 

[320 Years of History]

A preventive measure will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

There will certainly be some whom such a measure won't stop. There will be others whom it will deter effectively. I have no illusory expectation that any law will inhibit every criminal. My goal, what I think must be the national goal, is to stop enough of the "wrong" people from getting a gun so that the quantity of gun deaths and injuries is reduced, ideally, but not necessarily, by a material figure and rate.

Of course, with the will and means at their command, nobody, criminal or not, will be effectively dissuaded and interdicted in their acting in any given way. It's the extent of one's commitment to acting "thusly" that drives the extent to which one will go to achieve their end(s). That said, laws can be tailored to impose a sufficiently high degree of risk that ever larger quantities of individuals become increasingly reticent to incur that risk. We use laws in two main ways: to inspire behavior and to discourage behavior. Both approaches are basically Pavlovian in nature, that which is why they generally work if they are well designed; moreover, all laws, lawmakers and governments assume the people subject to enacted law will apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis (maybe qualitative, maybe quantitative, maybe a combination of each) in deciding whether to pursue a given course of action.

Two examples of laws that proactively drive the behavior and intentions of many, perhaps most, people:

• We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.
• We have in place a law -- mortgage interest deduction -- that tacitly encourages home ownership. Does everyone buy a home? Clearly no, but most folks prefer doing so to renting. (I don't cotton to the existence of the mortgage interest deduction, but not liking its extancy doesn't make me oblivious to the fact that it motivates behavior and desire.)

It's worth noting that of the two examples cited, one is a direct discouragement and the other is an indirect encouragement. Laws also can be structured to indirectly discourage behavior and directly encourage it.

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

Red:
Out of curiosity and a desire to know the facts, how much does such a permit cost? Who must have a permit to own/sell/buy fully automatic weapons? Seller? Buyer? Both seller and buyer?

It's plain to me that the laws of supply and demand -- in this case, supply fixed and demand having no known limit -- have driven the price of fully automatic weapons well above that of roughly comparable non-fully automatic weapons.


Blue:
"Hoops" of varying natures -- regulations, prices, registration requirements, etc. --- seem, by your remarks, as though they are an effective way to reduce the quantity of criminals, would be criminals and other miscreants from purchasing any gun seeing as "hoops" have that effect with fully automatic guns.