"Even in GB where the citizens don't carry guns the airports are patrolled by Machine gun carrying officers"

 

Just to clarify. No they aren't, not routinely. I've seen them at LHR on one occasion when we passed through during a heightened alert, and maybe they are around hidden away somewhere if needed, but provincial airports don't have them. Our cops aren't armed, but there are armed response units on call for any situation where they might be needed. Also their 'machine' guns are fixed for semi-auto only, I've been given to understand.

"Even in GB where the citizens don't carry guns the airports are patrolled by Machine gun carrying officers"

 

Just to clarify. No they aren't, not routinely. I've seen them at LHR on one occasion when we passed through during a heightened alert, and maybe they are around hidden away somewhere if needed, but provincial airports don't have them. Our cops aren't armed, but there are armed response units on call for any situation where they might be needed. Also their 'machine' guns are fixed for semi-auto only, I've been given to understand.

Funny, have 30+ stamps in my passport from LHR since 9/11 and don't remember ever NOT seeing armed officers with machine guns as I walk out after collecting my luggage and head to the Heathrow Express in any of those trips... Maybe it is just my welcoming party

 

As for semi-auto vs full auto in most instances Semi is more accurate than full spray fire. Most people have no clue what the difference is but after firing full and semi-autos i would prefer the burst of a semi any day. Not many things take more than a 3 burst shot to take down unless you are a terrible shot so they are equally deadly and the whole semi v full for me is a pointless argument.

That's true, but acts of violence before were usually to gain something, like fighting over resources / money, food, etc, when nowadays there are these acts of total madness committed by people with serious mental problems.

 

Definitely the nature of violence has changed in western world. For example here in Finland between years 1800-2000 zero cases of some mentally diseased young people going into random killing spree in school, now then between 2000-2010 we had two of those and at least two or three smaller cases.

 

Personally I believe the cause for this to be in modern day culture centered around capitalism and its infinite seek for profit. Things all the way from education to actual working life are becoming more complicated, people are mentally pushed harder and harder in their jobs, traditional communities and family structure are gone and children grow all wrong when their parents and people around them have no time to support them.

 

I agree with this point of view and it is sadly met with much skepticism in our modern world. I was reading an article the other day outlining a study that was attempting to determine which nations have, in general, the most satisfied populace. The results are very interesting - not one Western nation made it into the top 3 as I recall. The number 1 place went to a poverty-stricken nation where most here probably would never expect to find any happy people. If I can find the article again I'll link it here.

I've been through LHR many a time and only seldom see armed officers, perhaps 20% of the time.

 

If it's any help, our airport police in Ireland don't carry any guns what so ever, and if needed, armed officers from the Garda National Emergency Response Unit (Kind of similar to SWAT in the States), will come to the airport and see what the trouble is. Worked for us for the last 70 years, but again, we're a different country, with a different mind set and different customs.

 

So that's just there as an example of a place that doesn't need armed guards, but not as proof that armed guards aren't needed or don't also work.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Some facts from an Australian study with regards to gun control:

 

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent).

 

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

 

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban existed -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

 

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

 

 

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/...rticle_ID=17847

 

 

Regards.

Some facts from an Australian study with regards to gun control:

 

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent).

 

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

 

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban existed -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

 

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

 

 

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/...rticle_ID=17847

 

 

Regards.

 

Yet another example of slanting the interpretation of figures to support a certain point of view.

 

http://www.snopes.co...ics/ausguns.asp

Some facts from an Australian study with regards to gun control:

 

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent).

 

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

 

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban existed -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

 

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

 

 

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/...rticle_ID=17847

 

 

Regards.

 

Ha, sounds like some fairly ridiculous use of figures. Doesn 't reflect the consensus in Australia whatsoever. Go look on CNN for the article where a well respected academic from ANU discusses this issue. Summary: gun homicide is 30 - 30! - times more common in the US than Australia.

 

His best point is that gun control is a public health issue, like smoking, speeding or seatbelt use. Policy change can definitely decrease the death rate.

 

The question really is - to what extent do we want to sacrifice our individual freedoms for better public health outcomes? If i lived in the US i think i'd be classified as a libetarian - which is why i'm personally conflicted on this issue.

 

 

For the USA to point fingers at Australia for Gun Laws is a reminiscent tactic used to point the finger at Canadian Health Care to protest Obamacare. To be honest, neither argument is correct as each country has to do what is best for themselves.

 

Australia does what is best for Australia

Canada does what is best for Canada

USA should do what is best for the USA as well.

 

Governing any country is no easy task :huh:

This thread seams so be winding down......I will add this at this point....When I get down in my life, I listen to this man right here:

 

 

I know Trent Reznor wrote it but Johnny Cash made it work and he has many other songs as well

 

Cheers

One of my favorite songs. Or covers I guess.

And the colored girls go

Doo do doo, doo do doo, doo do doo

 

- Lou Reed

If ever there was a reason to lock a thread, that last quote was it.

If ever there was a reason to lock a thread, that last quote was it.

you realize it is a line from a song right... And one that just got stuck in my head for the day no less, Thanks Matt!

Legendary Australian singer Paul Kelly even named his band after that line.

Lou Reed wrote that back in 1972. That term may be acceptable in Australia today, but I wouldn't want to try singing that while walking down that street in the States among African Americans.