• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mass shooting at Bondi Beach

arthwollipot said:
Who said anything about that?
Click to expand...
Lionking, rjh01, and Andy_Ross:

lionking said:
We just need to strengthen our laws to restrict gun ownership further. People who say “but I need a big, powerful, rapid fire gun for hunting/my gun club/killer kangaroos” can then be told “bad luck mate”.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
It was reported the father was in a gun club. This is one way of getting a weapon, probably the easiest. Hopefully this loophole will be plugged.
Click to expand...

rjh01 said:
Agreed. But I doubt it would be changed. About the only reason a person should have a gun is because it is job requirement. Changing other things, like having to be an Australian would not have prevented what happened. The son was born in Australia.
Click to expand...

Andy_Ross said:
Yes

And I say that as someone that was a keen shooter and member of two clubs.

Looking at it kow I don't see sny need for firearm ownership just for leisure.

All the most deadly gun attacks in the UK have been by people with legally owned guns.
I don't even see a need for firearms ownership by farmers and gamekeepers in the UK.

Also, there's a reason shotguns aren't classed as firearms in the UK and ownership laws are different. ( you don't have to show a need snd issuing a certificate can only be opposed by the police if they can show a good reason)

It's because the landed gentry and millionaire businessmen snd city types want them to go shooting wildlife. That should be outlawed as well.
Click to expand...

Note that Andy's "yes" in that last quote was a direct reply to my suggestion that abolishing gun clubs was the solution. I accurately summed up the gun club abolition convo from the previous page, and you didn't even notice that convo was going on.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Note that Andy's "yes" in that last quote was a direct reply to my suggestion that abolishing gun clubs was the solution. I accurately summed up the gun club abolition convo from the previous page, and you didn't even notice that convo was going on.
Click to expand...
I read every one of those posts, and none of them until yours called for the abolition of gun clubs. Just tightening up the regulations around them.
 
arthwollipot said:
I read every one of those posts, and none of them until yours called for the abolition of gun clubs. Just tightening up the regulations around them.
Click to expand...
Lionking's post was a little ambiguous, sure, but rjh and Andy clarified it pretty well. Rjh says the only reason for having a gun is a job that requires one. No gun clubs. And then Andy comes along and confirms that abolition is what's being discussed, and that he's in favor of it.

If you have a problem with the idea, take it up with them. Don't come at me for accurately summarizing their position.
 
rjh01 said:
The gunmens' assets should be seized and given to the victims of their crimes. Also their bodies should be seized, cremated, and the ashes scattered at sea. I know one of them is still alive. That does not matter. This process can wait until he is dead.
This measure will do at least as much as the proposed gun control measures to deter future mass murders.
Click to expand...

I think medical treatment, a fair trial, a whole life sentence in which he is protected from harm from fellow inmates and given all necessary treatment to ensure he lives a full life, when old age catches up with him and he lays on his deathbed barely able to remember the world outside the four walls of his cell, whisper that all his meals have contained pork and alcohol and that the arrow pointing to Mecca had been turned 180°.
 
theprestige said:
Lionking's post was a little ambiguous, sure, but rjh and Andy clarified it pretty well. Rjh says the only reason for having a gun is a job that requires one. No gun clubs. And then Andy comes along and confirms that abolition is what's being discussed, and that he's in favor of it.

If you have a problem with the idea, take it up with them. Don't come at me for accurately summarizing their position.
Click to expand...
Gun clubs could still exist to help train people to use guns properly. Then to keep them well trained.
 
rjh01 said:
Gun clubs could still exist to help train people to use guns properly. Then to keep them well trained.
Click to expand...
What I would prefer is that, yes, you can own a firearm by being a member of a gun club, but your gun and all your ammunition can never leave the range. It must remain locked up in a secure facility at the range.

For reference, in New Zealand, gun ranges and clubs are required by law to have robust secure storage for any firearms to allow owners to keep their guns on the premises. I have guns, and I had them when I still had kids in the house. It was great having a place to keep them knowing there was no chance of the kids getting their hands on them (a home gun safe only remains safe so long as your curious 12 year old doesn't find out where you keep the key)

It would not be much of a step to make it compulsory if your sole reason for owning a gun is through club membership.
 
theprestige said:
I'm inclined to agree in principle. However, I haven't yet come up with (or seen) a coherent argument for how a person can be trusted with one gun, but can't be trusted with two or three guns on the same basis of trustworthiness. It just seems like a really weird and arbitrary place to draw a line around your comfort zone.
Click to expand...
Why?
theprestige said:
Yeah, well there are a lot of jurisdictions with weird, contradictory, counter-productive, or
just pants-on-head retarded rules.
Click to expand...
The rules may seem "pants on head retarded" to you, but here in Japan they stemmed from the Supreme Command of the Allied Forces (SCAP) who were the occupying forces of Japan after World War Two.

Initially, ALL firearm ownership for regular law-abiding citizens in Japan was completely forbidden.

Over time, some very small exceptions were granted for those deemed to need them: police, hunters, etc.... but each and every firearm had to be separately registered with the authorities, and each and every registration needs to be justified individually.

These rules under SCAP later became in some way the basis for gun (and sword) ownership laws of Japan now.

The idea that a single instance of gun ownership opened the floodgates for as many guns as you wanted to have was not accepted, probably partly because of the fear of either far-right imperialist groups getting hold of them or far-left groups such as the Red Army Faction.
theprestige said:
If I told you there were tons of jurisdictions that don't put any limits at all on the number of guns you can own, you wouldn't suddenly decide I have a point about trusting people with more than one gun.
So don't do me the discourtesy of pretending your appeal to popularity has any merit here.
Click to expand...
There are some countries whose gun ownership laws have a basis in history. In fact, that is true of the US also, given that the 2nd Amendment was derived via state constitutions from the English Bill of Rights.

But other countries will use their own histories as a basis for gun regulation, which is eminently sensible.
theprestige said:
"... or just pants-on-head retarded rules."
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you took the time to think about why certain countries have their own rules, you might realize they are not actually pants-on-head-retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom