the fact that the gun was in the home at all, let alone apparently readily available for one of them to use, is unforgivable.  It's also totally different than an adult in this situation.  Without the gun in the house, this tragedy more than likely wouldn't have happened.  I'll take those odds any day of the week if and when I have children of my own, thank you very much.

Me too, Matt.

So a recreational shooter not only needs to be licensed and a member of a registered shooting club, they can't own a concealable handgun or an automatic or semi automatic. The gun also needs to be stored in a manner similar to Al has outlined - that is the gun must not be loaded, it must be stored in a lockable container, and the ammunition stored separately in another lockable container.

Close, but I could buy a handgun.  BTW - Who goes around to all the registered owners and makes sure they store them poroperly?

Clearly you're not interested in a logical discussion Ted, so I'll leave you be to waffle on about things you clearly either can't comprehend or don't want to think through.

Not true, but I guess I could say the same thing.

So guns are ok, but not hand guns and (semi) automatic weapons?

Are there any anti-gun folk here who are actually against all guns?

Brad, maybe?

Seems odd to say we are against guns, unless you are one of these guys and store it this way, but since we are the only ones who can do that, no one else should have them.

My favorite, and I know how it sounds coming from me, but you have to listen to it yourself, is Americans shouldn't have guns, but Australian recreational shooters should.

Guns will always exist. We can't uninvent them. We can however greatly restrict who owns them - it should NOT be an automatic right. The predominant argument by the pro-gun lobby in the US is that citizens have an inalienable right to own (and even carry) guns, including concealed weapons, and use them for self defense at their discretion.

This is a world away from effectively banning guns for most people and only allocating them in a highly controlled fashion to those who prove genuine need or can demonstrate a use for the weapon beyond self defense.

Of course as you mentioned earlier Ted, in reality this is just a plot by foreigners to deprive Americans of their guns so we can undermine you and eventually bring down your way of life....

Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 29 July 2010 at 11:29pm

Of course as you mentioned earlier Ted, in reality this is just a plot by foreigners to deprive Americans of their guns so we can undermine you and eventually bring down your way of life....

That was a joke.  This is reality:

http://www.thegunsmiths.com.au/

Looks like you have a lot of work to do...

QUOTE: People who under certain circumstances may be able to obtain this type of licence are for example Professional Shooters and some primary producers who can show genuine reason or need .

QUOTE: sporting / target pistol shooters are required to shoot a minimum of 6 times per year in there main/1st calibre or class. if you shoot another class with the same calibre firearm or a 2nd or 3rd calibre of pistol you will be required to shoot a minimum of 4 times per year per class/calibre. most clubs will want you to shoot a minimum of 12 times per year anyway. Security for prohibited revolvers and semi automatic pistols of less than the above mention lengths for greater magazine capacities than 10 and also higher calibre than .38 of an inch , at the moment up to around .40 cal is the limit. obviously this requires the appropriate training and licensing as well as high security storage facilities.

I know I'm wasting my time writing this as you obviously seem incapable of basic comprehension, but there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between these strict conditions and requirements, and what the NRA in the US is lobbying for (and successfully getting in some areas), which is ordinary citizens carrying around handguns.

"which is ordinary citizens carrying around handguns. "

In church, no less.

I'm serious, if the founding fathers had known that was how this amendment was going to be read, they'd have spent more time on it or left it out altogether.

Bars are bad enough, but church? Not a religious man, but even I know just how wrong that is and how wrong it would seem to people 200 years ago.

Are there any anti-gun folk here who are actually against all guns?

Brad, maybe?

Seems odd to say we are against guns, unless you are one of these guys and store it this way, but since we are the only ones who can do that, no one else should have them.

************

Why is it odd? I have stated before that I don't favor an all out ban on all guns. But no one needs to own an assault weapon of any kind. I also don't believe that any private citizen should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun.

But we live in a world where they can. In a restaurant, in a national park, hell, just like Knut said, in church!

Maybe many of us on the gun control side wouldn't be so hardcore about it , if so many on your side didn't fight so hard to own any type and carry anywhere, any gun they want.

When you interpret an entire amendment of the Constitution and leave out the entire first part of it, and still not one of you has explained why you don't think the part about a well-regulated militia isn't important, then I have to wonder what your thinking.