Yes we need our guns for our own protection.

Not just for protection from the natural born killers, but most importantly, we need protection from the self-righteous - always have had.

There are good arguments for and against guns, but if you look at the all the murders by kids in the US, who act impulsively and slaughter peers and family and then live to regret it for the rest of their lives - is it worth it?

It would be good to be able to protect ourselves with a small handgun, but if it got into the wrong hands, or we were overwhelmed by a strong unarmed attacker - it could result in regrettable consequences.

mantra wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 10:23pm:


They are already in the wrong hands. Also you should not own one for self defence (or any reason) if you do not learn to use it with automatic properness and confidence.

You should also never pull a gun unless you are 100% prepared to use it and have been trained to abandon the stupidity of things like warning shots or shooting to injure.

IMO one of the best home defence weapons is a short barrelled 12 gauge shotgun known as a Coach Gun. (Something the coach driver's offsider would carry hence the expression "Riding shotgun") Anyway 12G side-by-side at close range it visually intimidating, easy to hit what you aim at, and even with mild loads that will not penetrate most house walls and should hopefully prove fatal for the intruder. Heavy loads such as SSG's or buckshot will penetrate most modern household inner walls

Dead intruders don't sue. Of course if someone is found guilty of being illegally/uninvited in your home they SHOULD automatically lose all access to the civil courts. And the home owner should recieve a " I helped clean up Australia and survived" Tshirt

Ultimately, it should be shoot first and ask questions later. Questions like, "Would you like me to pray with you?", "Do you see a light?", & of course "Could you give Elvis a message for me?"

There is a town in the southern states of the USA where a Bilaw says that every home should have a firearm. Apparently burglaries are very very rare.

Yadda wrote on Apr 8^th, 2009 at 10:56am:


That is just Grand.

General Cosgrove actually didnt say that, it's an old internet rumour that has used various personages as the author of it for a long time. Look on Snopes if you don't believe me.

There is a huge pressure from the state though for the people to be told, and actually believe that they are safer unarmed than armed. Ridiculous, and they firmly, truly actually believe it. Orwell would be pleased that his predictions came through so accurately. Remember the slogans they had? PEACE THROUGH WAR and the like. We could have one "BEING UNARMED IS BEING ARMED" and people would wholeheartedly agree.

I begin to despair at how easily the general populace is manipulated and fooled. Textbook was the pretext behind the Iraq invasion.

I don't have a problem with pump action shotguns being bought back but while we wait for that never to happen there is the option of the lever action shotgun. I'll stick with the double barrel though. I've seen guys fire two shots, break the action and reload and fire two more shots in under 5 seconds. Short barrels mean a wider pattern at short range.

Personally, I'm a fairly low profile, law abiding person that neither seeks or makes trouble with anyone nor associates with trouble makers so have no expectation of crowds of intruders endangering my family. However the one or two that make the life-shortening mistake of posing even a potential threat to my family will have picked the wrong house.

I don't have a problem with people being licensed to own firearms. And I believe that licenses should be graded as they are now and that weapons be registered to a certain individual. I just think that many of the restrictions go too far, or in the case of not being allowed to own pistols over .40 caliber just stupid.

I think penalties for violent crime and intimidation should be increased across the board and penalties for firearms related crime should be ridiculously high. (I'm not talking here of a bloke heading to the range and has left his license on the table, maybe a fine but not a criminal activity).

It is hard to expect the public to grow up about the issue of firearms and yet when there is a suggestion of an extra tax on grog, (beats guns hands down for deaths and misery) there is overwelming public outcry. The public bought the pollies BS hook, line and sinker. What surprised me though is the police support for it all and the general ire directed at shooters during the buy back. Shooters are generally right of centre in their politics and very supportive of strong law and order issues and a strong justice system. Traditionally they have strongly support our police and armed forces.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 9^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:


My family has owned guns in this country for 211 years. Lot's of guns. Nobody was injured, shot, maimed killed, many families had 10 or more kids. A pack of matches is dangerous in the hands of an idiot. Are you an idiot? Then perhaps you cannot be trusted with a gun, or a pack of matches. I am not an idiot, so I can be trusted with a gun.

Quote:


I could post reports, but, no one reads any of the articles, posts, UN reports, stats or anything else I post - so why bother.

Quote:


I know what he means. The state has conditioned you to believe that you are the children in its society, and naughty children dont get guns, they'll just hurt themselves. Whereas the adults, the enforcers of the state, can ALWAYS be trusted with their guns, who of course in their hands pose no danger to anyone and are magically safe - unlikes the dangerous, nasty, evil weapons which would be very very bad in the hands of civilians.

Quote:


That's exactly what the state would like you to believe, and I am sure they are glad you believe it. Once people knew that the state is only a collection of people, and people should be responsible for their own safety.

Quote:


Say there is 1 guy, just 1 guy. And he lives with his wife, and kids. A person breaks into the house. The father is unarmed. He is killed, his wife is raped in front of the kids. The kids die. The wife dies. If the husband had a gun, the perp dies or runs and everyone lives.

Doesn't happen you say? Would you like some real life examples posted here?

For society, his death, and that of his family means nothing. It is better that nobody has guns and this family dies, than it is for the family to be armed and them to live. For the public the family is 'Only ONE example, and hardly proves an argument....'

But what if that one family is you, and that wife is yours, and those kids are yours? Then the statistics do not mean very much, and society's RIGHT to disarm you doesnt mean very much either. Every man should have the ability to deal with the threat posed by an intruder. At the moment, no man has that ability, which is a crime of a far greater magnitude.