Comments on: Guns don’t kill people, and people don’t do it as much.

By: Graham Bell

Graham Bell — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:00:18 +0000

Arjay:
Having a well-armed population is a fairly good idea – but without the discipline and training to go with it, it is fairly useless.
My own preference is to hell with what employers want and reintroduce UNIVERSAL compulsory National Service [this time, 6 months maximum full time followed by 6 years of fortnightly parades in a local ADF Reserve unit] together with weapons held in local secure armories and ammunition held in local secure magazines. This in addition to regular ADF units directly involved in national defence.
The counter-trade of overproduced wool for unwanted low-grade but very dangerous semiautomatic assault rifles was the second stupidest thing ever done in this field. Every ratbag and gun-nut in the country used them to deforestate Australia every weekend.
The stupidest was Howard’s reaction to the Port Arthur Massacre. They took family heirlooms off old granddaddies but declined to control ultra-violent videos and computer games – the very things that had been implicated in setting off so many previous gun massacres by madmen. There was no sense whatsoever in harrassing people on the land who had a legitimate use for firearms – and yes, a FAL/SLR [7.62mm NATO] will definitely sort out a mob of pigs destroying a grain crop – whilst allowing criminals and political loonies plenty of time to stash away all the illegal weapons they wanted.

By: Arjay

Arjay — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:59:10 +0000

There are always positives and negatives with any control.I’ve heard it said that the US will never be successfully invaded because the general pop are so well armed but they also have a very high homicide rate since a gun is far easier than a knife.A knife is far more personal and difficult to execute.
John Howard has successfully disarmed the harmless in our pop while the crims take no heed.
If Australia was invaded in a surprise attack with jumbo loads of Chinese or Indians, would the US send in troops or begin a nuclear war to save a mere pop of 21 million?Not likely.
At least a well armed pop would put up some resistance so the pollies would have time for negotiations on some sort of level footing.With an over night faite accompli,there would be nothing to bargain with.
A Japanese invasion of Aust would have seen many here murdered and inturned.We would still be second class citizens today and have more empathy with Tibet.
I think at the very least we should have a well trained pop of reserves who know how to shoot a weapon and the Govt have these weapons available at strategic sites,if there is such an emergency.
With such an enormous continent,minute pop,rich with resources and energy,we are a prime target for invasion.The power of the US is on the wane,and China has yet to hit it’s straps.We are virtually alone in the Southern Hemisphere.For every one of us there are 65 Chinese,50 Indians and 20 Indonesians.
We in our apathy assume too much,and no,it is not paranoia,just calculated common sense.A bit of military discipline for everyone,would not go astray either.

By: fehowarth

fehowarth — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:49:45 +0000

You can still kill a greater number of people with a gun than you can with a lump of wood.
Guns only kill in the hands of a murderer. A gun gives them the ability to slaughter all around them.