Where do you sign up for this gun allowance?

How much do you get?

Are there any strings attached to it?

Guns on my list to spend the allowance on:

Winchester 94

Smith & Wesson .38 M&P Special

This is a somewhat fallacious argument - a rise in gun related deaths is nothing to be proud of... you're comparing disease, public health issues, self inflicted harm, accidents, etc with a deaths statistic related to instruments which are specifically designed to kill other people.

Some of those 40,000 will be accidents, some murders, some suicides. How many of those were shot by Police? So just lumping them together doesn't mean a lot or prove anything either way. All you're really saying here in effect is that because e.g. over 600,000 die from heart disease each year, it's just "OK" for that 40,000 to die from firearms...

Pot... meet kettle. Guns are not just designed to kill people any more than all gun deaths are murder. Guns are tools of protection and there are people who need protection like those who carry or store valuables or live in high crime areas. There are also still some people who live in rural areas who need to protect themselves, their property and livestock from pests and predators. Others like to hunt and some actually need to hunt to supplement their food supply since 150-600 pounds of essentially free meat each year is quite a savings where high-paying jobs are not the norm. Additionally while it feels like Mutually Assured Destruction is a form of real madness, I think we all have to admit it has worked for both nations and individuals so far reasonably well.

Actually I think what he is alluding to is that Heart Disease is at least 15 times as important as gun deaths if we are really looking to save as many people as possible yet that is not reflected by the proportion of pressure to legislate in the respective areas. Since there are several lesser areas that are also well in excess of deaths where firearms are a component, it should be respectively lower on the list for legislation but it is not. Why do you suppose this is so? Also, as just one example, do you imagine that anyone will ever press to regulate refined sugar, corn syrup, food additives or Big Pharma to reduce stroke and diabetes deaths?

The article says two thirds are suicides. The mass murders tend to be more exciting (and hence get more coverage) though.

Heart disease, cancer, and smoking disproportionally kill older people, and everyone has to die of something, so it doesn't really make sense to compare these numbers directly. Like, if we got some magic self-driving tech that reduced deaths by car accident to 0, deaths from heart disease, cancer, etc would go up due to more people making it into old age. But saving those people from dying in car accidents would still clearly be a good thing.

Wasn't there a push to regulate sugary drinks a couple of years ago? I don't think it got very far though.

That phrase perhaps has a different meaning / connotations over here - it's usually an accusation of hypocrisy (if you've read Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote you may understand the origin and meaning of the phrase). In English it was often rendered as something like "the pot calling the kettle black" or the "pot calling the kettle 'burnt arse'" - it's now considered rather antiquated and something akin to "the mote and the beam". I don't consider my stance in any way hypocritical and I'm not approaching this topic with any sense of self righteousness.

If you think otherwise, you should perhaps point it out clearly without resorting to leading with dismissive one line put downs.
We clearly have very different ideas of "tools of protection" - but that's understandable and I accept there are very big cultural differences and history. I should make it clear that I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun, I just find the gun lobby excuses to be tired and agenda driven. No one in this thread has really addressed my point on the outdated nature of the 2nd amendment - it's simply invoked again and again by lobbyists, as to why citizens with free access to firearms is a good idea. If we want a public health comparison, think of smoking or alcohol - the gun advocates enjoy their guns, they're ok with the risk and the inevitable innocent deaths, it's just a trade off. The 2nd amendment bluster is just propaganda.

As do I, cynwulf. It does trouble me that it's easier to purchase a handgun in most of the US, than it is a car. But to further split a hair, I *DO* think it is important that citizens are able to have access to weapons if they choose. The caveat there is that they need a COMPREHENSIVE background check, that prevents guns from being sold to those who aren't mentally fit. And you shouldn't be able to purchase one from an individual, without going through that same set of checks. To go back to the car analogy, if you stole a car and sold it to me anonymously and I get caught...*I* do jail time for having a stolen vehicle. But a guy at a gun show sells a pistol and the purchaser is a loon? The seller walks off having done NOTHING illegal. Which, to me, is wrong. Again, I do own several weapons, and I am in no way advocating a ban, but to have some common sense applied to getting such a weapon.
I think it is an important thing, but I think the first part is ignored, due to a lot of the NRA crap that some folks believe. The very first words are "A well regulated militia..", yet when you mention something common sense (like registering the gun? Background checks?), you're yelled down because you're 'trying to take away the guns'. Banning outright isn't the way to go. Again, my car has to be registered, and re-registered state-to-state if I move. My weapons? Nope.

Accountability is. Uncle Fred left his guns laying around unlocked, with handy ammo, and his nephew got them and shot someone? Then Uncle Fred needs to go to prison too. The guy selling 30 of the same pistol to someone isn't an idiot...they probably know they're going to be resold out of the trunk of their car, to whoever has $$$. And those folks buy out of the car-trunk, because they can't get one legally. They commit a crime? That gun dealer needs to serve time too.

All of that, particularly background checks would be basic requirements here in Oz TB0ne. It amazes me how in your country not even basic things like that are required, it just doesn't make sense to me personally.

Good luck convincing the NRA to support that one...

In the UK, to own a rifle or shotgun you need a firearms or shotgun certificate. This also means showing you have a permit to shoot on some land / at a club and facilities to safely and securely store firearms. You also give permission for the police to contact your doctor / access your medical records. The onus is on you, to prove you actually need firearms and the police can refuse.

I agree that the background / mental health checks and weapons seemingly being sold on with little to no regulation / accountability are two of the biggest concerns when it comes to firearms.

One of the often stated reasons for firearms ownership - "self defence" is null and void if an irresponsible individual leaves it lying around unsecured to be picked up by a burglar. If the firearm is properly secured and locked away - and robbers enter a property, the "self defence" argument falls down again, because the responsible gun owner's weapon is locked away and cannot be accessed quickly and easily for "self defence"...

What I am saying is that the weapon for hunting, for sport for recreational purposes is far removed the "self defence" idea. I wonder what proportion of such incidents - i.e. a shot "intruder" have been "friendly fire" incidents? Or is that percentage worth it for the gun lobby, by virtue of being a small statistic?

Very much not a bad policy.
Yep..that's what I was saying as well. The irresponsible folks need to be held accountable.
I'm positive there are several. Not sure if such things are kept track of, though. But this goes back to folks having weapons without training to go with them. Putting holes in paper at the range is one thing....having 4 gallons of adrenaline in you while you may (or MIGHT be) under fire, and having to control a weapon is another.

cynwulf, the US has similar laws. One major difference though, in the USA we have the right to protect ourselves with firearms that is protected by the US Constitution, it is not a privilege it is a right and that right can only be denied if someone is a felon or mentally ill (which rules out most politicians, maybe thats why they are anti gun). Funny, they all have armed private security or armed government security ie: secret service, body guards etc... Ref (its a few years old): https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...03/guncard.pdf

Keep in mind, since you mentioned the UK, there was a time that only aristocracy and "gentlemen" could own firearms in the UK. Also keep in mind that in the US, it was our firearms that allowed the colonists to revolt against the UK and protect their land and freedom from an oppressive government. "Untrained citizenry" versus the Royal Navy and Military, that's the real reason governments fear armed citizens!

The very wise Thomas Jefferson said it best: "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Ref: https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...ious-quotation

Factual not fallacious, good try though. Gun related deaths is actually decreasing after a peak a few years ago. If you take into account suicide by gun, suicide by cop etc... then the numbers are even lower. Now, consider the high concentration of those gun related deaths in urban areas with high gang member concentrations and reality becomes even more clear, again 99.999% of the guns are not used in crimes which roughly correlates to 99.999% of gun owners being lawful citizens. Pretty damn good numbers actually. Its also interesting if you examine the cities with the most gun related crimes are also liberal, progressive cities with the strictest gun laws! Example, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles etc... Gangs, glorifying criminal lifestyles, strict gun laws, high unemployment, poor education, broken families, high taxation etc..., these are the areas to address and areas of concern.

When I changed address I had to make an appointment with the local police station for an inspection of my gun safe. Just like for my car if I moved interstate (although the car inspection in this case wouldn't be by the police).

And I still don't think of my rifle as a "weapon" (even though it CAN be so used, again just like my car, my claw hammer or even the pencil in front of me now).

The one downside of Australian gun registration legislation is that it forces me to support financially an organisation which is in ever present danger of becoming like the NRA.

Since the police force are a government agency and would prefer they were armed but the citizenry not, that sounds like "the fox guarding the henhouse" to me. I don't have any problem whatsoever with an objective citizen reviewed test for mental health and clean record, but I decide if I have a need or not. The Presumption of Innocence is an ancient cornerstone of Liberty and Justice, at the very least once it is established there is no evidence to the contrary. As long as I can show that I have no proclivity to commit a crime, and that mere possession threatens no one, it is nobody's business but my own.

There is a large gap between "lying around unsecured" and "locked away". I have lived in areas where gun racks in pickup trucks were common as were gun cabinets and racks above the fireplace, etc. Never once did I ever even wonder if my, my family's, or my neighbors' safety was compromised by any in the community because they were always kept out of the reach of children, unless actively supervised by a responsible adult, often had trigger locks, always had the "safety" engaged and I never even heard of an accidental home shooting. It was like that largely because children grew up with guns around and were taught early and with extreme gravity that guns are serious business just like "not running with scissors" only moreso. There also was extremely little crime of any kind and I frankly can't recall a single case of burglary or home invasion among several counties over decades.

Nobody in their right mind was motivated (stupid enough) to break into a home where the occupants were inside and awake. A pistol in a nightstand with a trigger lock is ready to defend in mere seconds. I see your argument as speculation at best and "straw dog" at worst. I don't know you well enough to decide which is more likely... possibly a little of both.

I get the impression that you may support the idea that if even some really small number, possibly even just one, case of a stopped intruder was (for whatever reason I can't imagine) was actually as you put it "friendly fire" that this should be sufficient to outlaw firearms. This is simply not realistic. No solution is perfect. All are package deals and hopefully we objectively weigh the Pros and the Cons to see if the Cost/Benefit supports a given solution or agenda. One of the reasons I think that ChuangTzu posted a list of vastly greater numbers of deaths by various means is that most if not all civilizations accept such dire consequences because driving automobiles is necessary for modern society, doctors and pharmacists may make mistakes but we all assume modern medicine saves far more than it damages or kills. Those areas are apparently almost above reproach.

Our safety is never guaranteed no matter how much we might like to think it is. All we can do is objectively weigh the odds and I submit that if you have never lived within a community where essentially everybody is armed and guns are visible almost every day, then you can't truly be objective. You have no frame of reference, only imagination. Since I have lived in such communities as well as communities where firearms are most definitely the exception rather than the rule and almost never visible, I can be slightly more objective but even my experinces are only anecdotal. Perhaps others have lived in both types of communities and had very different experiences but that's exactly the value of objectivity and real Free Speech. Outlaw firearms (or any contraband) and some numbers of people will hide them and never talk about them and/or lie. I think things are better out in the open. In the US Prohibition not only did not stop alcoholism, it made it worse and paved the way for interstate organized crime. There was no such thing until contraband was created. Consider that in our Cost/Benefit analysis!

Here's an interesting article how owning guns can be decided by certain laws & rules, especially towards the poor.

Judge rules ban on gun ownership in East St. Louis housing is unconstitutional
https://www.bnd.com/news/local/artic...ainstage_card3

If we go to East St. Louis I hope somebody has a gun...

I used to work for a landscaper who had a contract with the Army Corp. of Engineers to do all their property along a stretch of the Mississippi. They dropped me off in a parking lot in East Alton, IL. (just a few miles North of East St. Louis) by the river to leave for another job and said on average one body was found there a week. They weren't kidding.

It started to get dark and they hadn't come back yet. I was alone in a parking lot. sitting on the trailer loaded with a big mower and people were driving through so I got a chainsaw at the ready in case I had to defend myself.


That's no different than where I live. They can't keep you from having a firearm if you're legal to own one. I don't normally suspect people of carrying a pistol but know there are several in the building. The Pest Control guy that comes in once a month to do all the apartments packs a .380 in his pocket.