Gun control in Australia...a MUST read!

WildHawg · 04-02-2003, 05:18 PM

Brought over from the hunting board for your consideration. Thanks Myles.

Topic: Gun Control in Australia

Myles
Steelhead
Member # 2177

posted 03-25-2003 10:31 AM

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia

The Truth About Banning Firearms

Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from ?Down Under?. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess
their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are
guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental
effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns
in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

from Oregon Bow hunters site http://www.oregonbowhunters.com/legislative_report.htm
--------------------
Old fisherman never die, they just smell like it.

The Fishing Geek · 04-02-2003, 05:29 PM

Very misleading.

blackdog · 04-02-2003, 05:47 PM

Please inform us with your far reaching knowledge, Geek.

Stratocaster · 04-02-2003, 05:48 PM

Misleading in what way? Just curious.

Silver Hilton · 04-02-2003, 06:22 PM

Geek, there a couple of good, peer reviewed studies out in the US that contradict the common gun control advocate wisdom. One of them is "Point Blank - Guns and Violence in America". The other is "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns", by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School.

These authors didn't come to the arena with a bias. One of them actually came to the fray seeking to prove that gun ownership was a cause of crime. He had the intellectual strength to admit that the data proved his hypothesis incorrect, that gun ownership, and specifically, the carrying of firearms, was statistcially correlated to reduced crime.

We have high levels of crime in the US, but there are other factors which are much more highly linked than the presense of firearms. Not least among them, our TV and media.

See boys, told yuh I wasn't uh libural.

[ 04-02-2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

DanS · 04-02-2003, 06:33 PM

Check the links for some recent info........

http://www.aic.gov.au/

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/f...002/part1.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/f...02/tab01a.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/latest.html

[ 04-02-2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: DanS ]

Kruechief · 04-02-2003, 06:38 PM

Does it really matter what he thinks is "misleading"?

It is still a good post.

Krue

The Fishing Geek · 04-02-2003, 06:43 PM

What? You need me to do the hard work for you? Don't bother checking it out, just believe it because Crocodile Dundee told you it was true.

Quote:

Originally posted by WildHawg:
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from ?Down Under?. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

Let's start of by understanding that prior to the gun buyback program in 1997, Australia already had very restrictive laws regarding who could own firearms. They had NO constitutional right to bear arms. Basically only folks who needed them for their jobs, gun club members, collectors, and hunters could have them. The guns that were restricted were mostly semi-automatic and pump-action guns, and even then a gun owner with a legitimate reason could petition to own one of the banned guns.

I don't have the time to dissect this whole thing, so let's just look at the homicide mentions:

Quote:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

That number up there says a lot, but is also missing a lot. That percentage is an absolute number, and not a homicide rate. Absolute percentages don't take into account population increases. Also, the percentage says nothing about whether guns were involved in the crimes. So, let's look at the real stats as provided here

<ul type="square">[*]1996 Homicides: 304[*]1997 Homicides: 298[*]1998 Homicides: 297[*]1999 Homicides: 327[/list]
Cool. That's a start. Now let's look at how many of those homicides were by firearm:
<ul type="square">[*]1996 Homicides: 111[*]1997 Homicides: 67[*]1998 Homicides: 68[*]1999 Homicides: 64[/list]
Okay, that 3.2% increase meant one more person. Is one more person in this sense, statistically, anything more than a blip on the radar? How about 1996? That's a lot of firearm fatalities for only a few more total homicides. And look at 1999. Thirty more homicides than 1998, but four FEWER with firearms.

Quote:

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

Actually in the state of Victoria (population 4.5 million at the time) firearm homicides went from 7 to 19, so for a population that size it's again not much more than a blip on the radar. What the person above doesn't mention is that in 1993 and 1994 there were similar firearm homicide rates, and 1995 they were HIGHER. Oh, and after 1997 the homicide rates in Victoria were lower in 1998 and 1999.

Oh, and one tidbit on the "dramatic increase in...assaults on the elderly". In 1997 there were 1662 assaults on the elderly. In 1998...1663. Admittedly they went up to 1793 in 1999, but I've already shown that blips in statistical radar happen all the time. It's TRENDS that are even marginally more substancial.

In short, don't believe it just because someone sent it to you in email, or you saw it on the Internet. If you want to believe it blindly because it panders to your beliefs, then that's your fault for not digging deeper.

Stratocaster · 04-02-2003, 06:45 PM

Also, do not forget England. The crime rate there is rampant, particularly home invasions,due in part because they know homeowners are unharmed.Geek, the sudden rise in crime was armed robbery not homicide. Oh and Silver Hilton you can be intelligent and be a liberal at the same time. :grin:

[ 04-02-2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

DanS · 04-02-2003, 07:00 PM

I suppose you could all go to the AIC website and get ALL the statistics and commentary you want on about every crime statistic the Australian government keeps........but then you'd have to stop bickering for a second and find out yourself.

The Fishing Geek · 04-02-2003, 07:02 PM

DanS:

The Truth Is Out There...

DanS · 04-02-2003, 07:13 PM

IF you're willing to look.

Fshklr · 04-02-2003, 07:19 PM

Quote:

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.
[/QB]

Would this be because the info doesn't support the true facts.
Geek..."The truth is out there"..I love it [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Kruechief · 04-02-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Oh, and one tidbit on the "dramatic increase in...assaults on the elderly". In 1997 there were 1662 assaults on the elderly. In 1998...1663. Admittedly they went up to 1793 in 1999, but I've already shown that blips in statistical radar happen all the time. It's TRENDS that are even marginally more substancial.

130 more grandmas assaulted... big deal.

Krue

The Fishing Geek · 04-02-2003, 07:40 PM

Trends, Krue. Trends. Statistical blips in either direction are meaningless.

Playing the sympathy card is silly and irresponsible.

Kruechief · 04-02-2003, 07:48 PM

I used to use analytical logic but when in Rome...

Quote:

Playing the sympathy card is silly and irresponsible.

No it's not, you are [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] :tongue:

Krue

The Fishing Geek · 04-02-2003, 07:54 PM

Here. This is what I found for assaults in general. Unfortunately I haven't found anything for the elderly, but I think that looking at assaults overall tell an accurate tale:

click here

Now go to page 20 and look at figure 14. That, dear Kruechief, is a TREND. It goes from 1995 to 2001, and you will see that it has been trending up the whole time. As the gun buyback happened in 1997, you will see that there wasn't much of a change from the previous 2 years that didn't also happen in the years afterwards.

Trends, Krue. Trends.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

Big Dog · 04-03-2003, 08:41 AM

■The rate of assault has increased steadily from
563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per
100,000 people in 2001.
■In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per
100,000 people�the highest recorded since 1995.
■The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000
people, which is higher than any previous year.

By the link you provided these figures come from it. It does not sound like taking what firearms they were allowed did anyone any favors.

GEEK

Quote:

Also, the percentage says nothing about whether guns were involved in the crimes.

If you were an intruder with a knife instead of a gun and you broke into someone�s house and they meet you with a 357, would you still complete the crime?
I THINK NOT.

The right to bare arms is a big deal. We need to KEEP OUR HANDGUNS AND RIFELS.

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 09:40 AM

<ul type="square">[*]The numbers of assaults have been TRENDING up since prior to the gun ban, so there is no marked change after the gun ban.[*]The numbers of robberies (both armed and unarmed) stayed pretty level from 1997 forward, spiking in 2001. Look at the TREND prior to that 2001 blip. Heck, armed robberies went DOWN after going up slightly in 1998, only to go back up in 2001 as mentioned previously.[*]The TREND in sexual assaults since 1995 has remained pretty constant, except for a spike in 2001.[/list]
There does seem to be a spike in violent crime in Australia in 2001; however, as I am not an expert in that country I cannot tell you what the reasons might be. I can tell you that the TRENDS from a period of several years show that the gun ban did little to affect crime statistics either positively or negatively.

Honestly Big Dog, why did you pull those numbers out? If the numbers have been TRENDING upwards for ten years, of COURSE they will be higher in 2001 than any previous year. What needs to be looked for in this case is whether the TREND goes up or down significantly due to the firearm ban (and not significantly affected by other causes, like a rise in unemployment). From what I've seen in the link above, that TREND has not changed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not entirely anti-gun. I just don't like seeing a situation misrepresented like this.

[ 04-03-2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

Stratocaster · 04-03-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

I'm not entirely anti-gun.

Just partially? That could possibly skew your interpretation maybe?

[ 04-03-2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

Thumper · 04-03-2003, 03:22 PM

Well, one thing is clear. Disarming the population sure as heck didn't cause violent crime to decrease.

Stratocaster · 04-03-2003, 03:31 PM

That depends if your partly anti-gun and what numbers you choose to believe. Im armed and have never been a victim. I feel for the poor soul that attempts to victimize me.Too bad the Aussies and Brits cant feel the same. For we live in a republic, the rule of law and are not subjects like the Aussies and Brits, but are citizens protected by our Constitution.

[ 04-03-2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

STGRule · 04-03-2003, 03:43 PM

fisherdan:

Quote:

That depends if your partly anti-gun and what numbers you choose to believe.

I am not anti-gun, actually quite pro-gun with a very few exceptions. I understand and concur with Geek's analysis. Apparently his beliefs did not color his analysis.

Quote:

Im armed and have never been a victim. I feel for the poor soul that attempts to victimize me. Too bad the Aussies and Brits cant feel the same.

I am not armed and have never been a victim. I'm guessing that the Aussies and Brits probably think about it the same way I do. With a little forethought my chances of becoming a victum are pretty low so I don't even think about it for the most part. I'm a fairly happy person without being armed. I'm guessing they are too.

[ 04-03-2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

Stratocaster · 04-03-2003, 03:53 PM

All im saying is that im glad to be protected by the Constitution and not be subject to the whims of a knee-jerk monarchy, nothing more nothing less. Banning all firearms will not make a safer society, on the contrary, the criminals will not abide by the ban, therefore they will continue to use banned weapons as a tool of their trade.Being armed or unarmed does not decide my happiness but may decide my safety may it ever become jeopodized. I carry a spare tire for the same reason, but i probably will never use it, just glad its there in case i do.

[ 04-03-2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 04:56 PM

We're not talking about banning all guns here, Dan. They only banned semi-automatics and pump-actions. Previously their gun control laws were still pretty strict, though. However, if you can prove need to the government you can have a gun.

I'm not saying that this is the direction that we should go. I'm just pointing out that the original spam mail was worded in such a way so that you would get a different impression than what was really happening.

feisty's wife · 04-04-2003, 01:17 AM

Mr Geek, Respectfully., you crack me up...one of trhe very first things Adolf Hitler did was to ban private ownership of guns, always a no-no. I thank God for the toys I have, the knowledge and the willingness to PROTECT MY FAMILY...try doing that with a stick. GUND...The Great Equalizer.

Silver Hilton · 04-11-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
We're not talking about banning all guns here, Dan. They only banned semi-automatics and pump-actions. Previously their gun control laws were still pretty strict, though. However, if you can prove need to the government you can have a gun.

Geek,
first, banning autos and pumps is just stupid. If I'm going to kill you. I need a single shot. Period. The whole idea of banning types of guns is logically flawed. It is basically an incremental strategy by the banners to gradually reduce, through inflaming the emotions of the uneducated, gun ownership as a whole.

Last I checked, Israel and Swizterland basically required all adult males to have a military firearm in the house. Which is to say, a semi automatic assault rifle. I happen to own one of those as well as about a dozen other semi automatic weapons. Did you feel at risk when you were with me? Those two countries have very low incidences of gun crime, despite high levels of gun ownership.

Of course not. It's not the weapon, it's the person, and the behavior that they are taught. The US is a violent place, because we teach our kids, through a variety of means, that violence is an acceptable means for resolving conflict. It's no wonder that road rage is an american phenomenon.

The real point is in your statement "if you can prove a need".

The essense of freedom is not having to justify yourself. Why should I have to "prove a need"? Why can't I be presumed to be law abiding? I wouldn't object to a mandatory firearms safety course, but as far as I'm concerned, the whole point of the US is supposed to be about absense of prior restraint. Firearms control is about prior restraint. It's about assuming the worst about people, about prohibiting access because some one of us might abuse the priviledge.

So, I can't agree with that.

[ 04-11-2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

The Fishing Geek · 04-11-2003, 09:02 PM

So then to extend your theory a bit, should anyone be able to buy as much TNT as they want, without showing a need to the powers that be? Should we assume that person who needs 2 tons in stick form is law abiding?

04-11-2003, 09:08 PM

Tovex, TNT isn't available. If I behave myself with it YES I should be able to buy it.

Stratocaster · 04-11-2003, 09:33 PM

You Oregonians are fortunate to be able to own full-auto firearms, we in Washington cannot legaly do so, even if you can prove it to the powers that be.

I could not agree more with Silver Hilton.

STGRule · 04-11-2003, 10:16 PM

SH: Had thought I'd changed my mind and wrote it all out as to why I had. Stopped and re-read and realized I really hadn't. While you have a very convincing argument, I just remembered the SWAT team across the street for the crazy guy. I know not everybody across the street is the crazy guy, I just can't get past that yet. And he didn't have an automatic weapon. My intellect is slowly winning, but it was still a scary thing and it will be awhile until I get past it. Then I will tell you that you are right. Maybe.

Straydog · 04-12-2003, 07:37 AM

SH,

I agree. We are a violent nation teaching our kids that violence solves problems. Look at the world scene. Look at the swat teams in overkill. Look at TV and videos and read the reactions, even Geeks, to the sexual harrasment that took place at Krue's school. The first thing most said is that they would basically beat the snot out of the perps. Not discounting the urge and need to protect our kids, just pointing out the most common method of dealing with it.

I hate to burst anyones bubble but, kicking the snot out of or shooting someone, does not undo the misdeed and does not take away the reality of having to deal with the original victim and helping them work through the healing.

Weapons and violence should be used as protective mechanisms. When we start using them for 'pay backs', we are doing everyone, including ourselves, a disjustice.

Before I have to read about being a liberal democrat and having these opinions as a consequence, know that I hold these opinons from learned life experiences and am a moderate Republican.

Growing up the fat kid and bullying your way through elementary and jr. high gives one a unique perspective. I learned fairly early that due to my size, I could 'pound' most of kids in school near my age. When called "fatso" all day long I would generally get enough and kick the snot out of the name caller. About the age of 13 I realized that I still hurt from being fat and teased about it, I hurt from using my fists as weapons and I hurt because fewer and fewer people wanted anything to do with me............... Thank goodness I learned, albeit the hard way.

Having said that and to get back on topic, I am betting many folks in Iraq had wished they had guns, and the type that shoot fast and often, when Sadam's henchmen came to take their families to be killed or their women to be *****.

[ 04-12-2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Silver Hilton · 04-12-2003, 07:53 AM

Actually, Geek, any farmer can get dynamite for blwoing stumps. Not TNT, but dynamite. And Timothy McVeigh just used Ammonium Nitrate fertilzer. You make a great little bomb from a firecracker and a tuna can filled with gasoline. Your argument seems emotionally interesting, but I don't think it holds water logically.

There is a safety of the community argument that is valid for explosives that is not valid for firearms. Explosives are dangerous to store, because accidental events, such as fires or collisions, can set them off and cause significant harm.

Firearms, on the other hand, just sit there. Even ammunition, if burned in a house fire, generally does not explode. So the storage risk is generally less for firearms than for the gas one stores for lawnmowers.

Therefore, the entire argument for restricting access to firearms has to be about preventing someone from using them in a prohibited way, through the prior restriant of prohibiting the gun. This logically has to be based on one of two theories: either the gun causes you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise do, or people as a group are violent enough that they cannot on average, be trusted with guns.

The first argument is clearly flawed. I could drop pistols around your living room like easter eggs and call you a bait fisherman, and of course you wouldn't shoot me. The gun isn't going to change your behavior.

The second argument is the philospohically messy area of gun rights. Clearly there are individuals in society that are violent. There are more that get drunk and violent. The question is, considering that relatively minor portion of our society, is it desirable for us to restrict the priviledges of others?

Then, you add the statistical evidence that such restrictions tend to negatively correlate with increased safety, and the argument gets pretty weak.

The arguments for banning guns are emotionally appealing, but they are intellectually weak.

Stratocaster · 04-12-2003, 09:30 AM

Quote:

The arguments for banning guns are emotionally appealing, but they are intellectually weak.

[ 04-12-2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

04-12-2003, 10:15 AM

SH,
Thank you. All 10 amendments to the constitution are equally important.

Silver Hilton · 04-12-2003, 10:52 AM

Now, just to stir the pot, for you who are in favor of allowing responsible people to own guns, all those arguments are equally valid for allowing responsible adults to own, grow and smoke pot. We prohibit recreational drugs because they might cause someone to do something bad, in spite of overwhelming evidence that they don't. The tactics of drug prohibitionists have been remarkably similar to those of gun prohibitionists over the years, using emotional arguments that are in contradiction to the facts. There is considerable, even overwhelming evidence that drug prohibition, not drug use, is responsible for the crime levels we see today. And, like the right to carry laws, increasingly, law enforcement and judiciary officials are calling for a change in direction.

So, if you support firearms rights, logically, you should support the repeal of marijuana prohibition.

It's all about personal freedom. Are you consistent?

04-12-2003, 01:40 PM

SH!!!!,
Twice in one day :shocked: ? I have to reevaluate my thinking

Make it legal, control the distribution, and TAX IT

so my other taxes can be reduced. It is the highest dollar crop in California, Oregon and Washington.

Quote:

It's all about personal freedom

And lower taxes :grin:

[ 04-12-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Silver Hilton · 04-12-2003, 04:13 PM

Don't tell anyone, Keta. They'll be thinking it's Armageddon.

04-12-2003, 07:37 PM

Don't ask, Don't tell

Stratocaster · 04-12-2003, 11:51 PM

Personally i think alcohol is alot more detrimental than is marijauna. Although i do not smoke marijauna or any drug for that matter i have no problem in legalizing it. Regulate it like alcohol and apply the same laws, such as driving under the influence and the sales of it.

BonkBonkBonk · 04-12-2003, 11:57 PM

take a look at california, NJ and DC crime rates too....

Sea Nymph · 04-13-2003, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
So then to extend your theory a bit, should anyone be able to buy as much TNT as they want, without showing a need to the powers that be? Should we assume that person who needs 2 tons in stick form is law abiding?

The same question could be asked about cars, alcohol, tobacco, knives, baseball bats.. etc..

Anyway, I don't think just anyone can buy guns. Certain criminal records, mental conditions and age requirements prevent some people from legally buying firearms. They can still get a car though....

SN

Straydog · 04-13-2003, 07:29 AM

Yes, they can get a car, however they have to pass a competency test before legally driving it.

Careful of your comaparisons unless you are ready to admit gun buyers need to show competency, too.

Silver Hilton · 04-13-2003, 07:51 AM

I would actually support a competency test for a firearms license, especially for the concealed carry permit. While I like the "shall issue" concealed carry laws, I think they should be accompanied with a written test or at least a booklet for the laws about when it is legal to either use or threaten the use of deadly force.

It should have basic questions about how far bullets travel, what bullets will go through, when is it legal to brandish your gun, where is it legal to shoot. Kinda like hunter safety training for hunting for bad guys.

The Fishing Geek · 04-13-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sea Nymph:
The same question could be asked about cars, alcohol, tobacco, knives, baseball bats.. etc..

Anyway, I don't think just anyone can buy guns. Certain criminal records, mental conditions and age requirements prevent some people from legally buying firearms. They can still get a car though....

SN

Do they require folks at gun shows who sell guns to do those background checks?

04-13-2003, 08:30 AM

Geek,

Quote:

Do they require folks at gun shows who sell guns to do those background checks?

Yes if the seller is a FFL holder.

SH,
I see we are back to disagreeing again :grin:

Quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND BEAR ARMS , shall not be infringed.

Straydog · 04-13-2003, 08:33 AM

I don't disagree SH.

Straydog · 04-13-2003, 08:35 AM

Keta,

How would a comptetency test for concealed carry infringe on one's right to own a firearm as described under the second ammendment?

You are right about licensened dealers having to do background checks at gun shows. This really creates an unlevel playing field for licensed dealers. A guy gets turned down on NIC's check and licensed dealer looses sale. Same guy goes to next table and buys his gun from an unlicensed dealer......a bogus law.

[ 04-13-2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

04-13-2003, 09:06 AM

Who establishes what competency is? Jannet Reno or Sarra Brady?

If it's legal to own a firearm it should be legal to carry it whenever and wherever you want.

Silver Hilton · 04-13-2003, 09:14 AM

And that is the reason that I like the idea of a competency test in theory, but will resist one in practice. The idea of registration and testing is logical, but the anti-gunners have demonstrated time and again that they will use reasonable ideas to reach an unreasonable goal.

Their stated strategy of a slice of bread at a time is why gun owners resist all regulation. The antis have shown that they will lie and cheat to obtain their objective, so they have created the situation where the logical action of gun owners is to resist any regulation.

If they could be counted on to be honorable, compromise would be possible.

Straydog · 04-13-2003, 09:27 AM

Keta,

But given it is illegal to carry concealed without a permit, what should the consequence be if one is caught carrying concealed without a permit?

[ 04-13-2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

04-13-2003, 09:55 AM

SD,
I value my freedom and will not test it. You're welcome to if you want. The requirement of having to get permision to "BEAR ARMS" is wrong.

Oregon law still allows you to carry concealed if you are "going to or returning from hunting or fishing trip� Klamath County Sheriff Red Burton (my Grandfathers good friend) pointed this out to me over 25 years ago. For many years I carried a .22 revolver under my waiders when I was trapping.

SH,
You're starting to do it again :shocked: . Two days in a row

I have to think this over :smile:

Quote:

If they could be counted on to be honorable, compromise would be possible

Not a chance. you can't compromise on our "Rights" :depressed:

[ 04-13-2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Thumper · 04-13-2003, 10:09 AM

Oregon law now requires a background check for transactions between unlicensed individuals at gun shows. We had a couple of tables of guns and had to run those checks for each sale last week.

Straydog · 04-13-2003, 10:33 AM

Keta,

I agree, it is a fine line we must be aware of.
On the other hand, I gotta tell you there are a whole lot of people that own and buy guns that are absolutley clueless.

I can't tell you how many times I have been if front of the muzzles of loaded guns in stores or how many people I have seen purchase guns that didn't even understand the basic workings of the weapon. It has been enough to make me be very selective about where I hunt when I do.

Thumper,

I wasn't aware that the law had changed in that manner.

04-13-2003, 10:40 AM

SD,
Too many years of protecting the week. Darwinism has been subverted.

It also has allot to do with the way Hollywood behaves with guns.

The Fishing Geek · 04-13-2003, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thumper:
Oregon law now requires a background check for transactions between unlicensed individuals at gun shows. We had a couple of tables of guns and had to run those checks for each sale last week.

However, private party sales through classified ads go unchecked, right?

Fish-n-Fever · 04-13-2003, 11:18 PM

"This year will go down in history.For the first time,a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer,our police more efficient,and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler,1935 [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

Let's hope not.
Ron

04-13-2003, 11:31 PM

IGNORANCE