Dumb arses and guns...

[Mk 1]

Interesting debate.

I've seen the pro gun lobby put forward the argument that guns don't kill people - people kill people.

If that is indeed what you believe, why can you not go down to the local hardware store and buy some Comp B or det cord and blasting caps? They are extremely useful for felling trees (and used by a suitably trained person arguably safer than a chainsaw), also useful for removing rocks in an excavation etc. Why have these been banned form sale to the general public?

How about a beehive charge? Sure, as a large shaped charge it could probably blow a hole through the front of the presidential limousine and clean out through the back, but it would make putting fencing holes in rocky ground dead easy (so should be sold next to the post hole shovels by that reasoning alongside the quick set cement).

Grenades are very effective fishing implements too (seen that done), why can I not pull into my local fishing store and pick up a 6 pack of M26's along with my ice and landing net?

If we were to take this argument to ridiculous extreme why can you not buy a vial of VX, Sarin or Anthrax? There must be some use for these products in mass extermination of pest animals?

Why have authorities worldwide argued that these items not be for sale at the local supermarket/hardware store? Because they are too damn dangerous, and you cannot plan on everybody being rational and right thinking all the time (let alone the true crazies).

I am ex infantry in the Australian Regular Army (marksman qualified), grew up with fireams all through my youth, went hunting regularly for pig, roos and rabbits (my old man had around 30-40 guns), and do not by any means hate firearms. The thought of thermobaric munitions being used on a battlefield gives me a chubby - but I cannot for the life of me see any scenario bar a professional animal culler needing anything more than a lever or bolt action weapon - and anything more than 8-10 rounds in a magazine.

Some of the arguments being put forward here are frankly disturbing - the number of people killed because a kid found the weapon in the top drawer and shot his/her brother are legion (no i don't have stats to back this up but I'm sure its more than 1 - and 1 is too many). I am very close to someone who nearly blew his brother in half- killing him - fooling around with the 'snake gun' (for those non Australians, many rural properties had an old shotgun near the back door in case a venomous snake decided that it preferred your home to the bush). Many gun supporters will point out the the reason the own a weapon is for self defence - and that their kids could never get to it because it is locked in a gun safe with a key or combination required to get access located in the shed/garage/basement/workshop/home office. The irony is that I'm not sure too many home invaders are sporting enough to send a letter or text message 10 minutes before arriving so the owner can unlock the gun safe, load the weapon and get all of their loved ones safely away so they don't get hit in any crossfire.

For a weapon to be truly useful in self defence it needs to be close - quite a few soldiers in combat zones are killed by UD's simply because living with loaded firearms around is dangerous and that's highly trained military personnel - let alone some numby with a Glock. It was drummed into us on the 6 week master coaches course at the infantry school that the most dangerous weapons to your own troops in the inventory were the hand grenade, anti-armour weapons (particularly those with a Back Blast Danger Area) and perversely the pistol. The problem with pistols is they tend to get waved around like flyswats and can be hard to clear jams and cycle the actions for those who are not strong enough (some women) - then you see barrels pointed around everywhere. If it happens on the range, you can bet it will happen at home.

sarcasm on/ I find it unbelievable that the best idea to settle the issue of a mentally disturbed madman arriving with multiple semi-automatic firearms at schools is to have armed guards. To protect you should have overmatch, so that would mean an LSW such as a Minimi or similar. To cover all possible entries and contingencies (toilet breaks meal breaks etc) a couple of armed guards - properly trained armed guards would needed. Cost anybody? Nope I cannot see anything wrong with having a gunfight in a corridor with a belt fed weapon with kids the other side of thin wooden walls either..../sarcasm off.

This argument that the second amendment was there so that the people could overthrow the government is bunkum nowadays too. Back when that amendment was written up there was a chance that the people (who would actually have some firearm skills) could take on the army such as it was back then. Given the size of the US military since WWII there is no way any civilians would be able to take on their own government and hope to win. The most effective weapon today against the government is the media and the internet - far more damaging and effective than small arms.

Face it America, its not a solution to the problem (there will always be crazies that manage to get hold of weapons, a car, a knife or poisons etc) but at least it will hopefully limit the damage that could be done if you banned semi-automatics, and limited magazine capacities. That seems to most of the rest of the world the logical thing to do - you don't need to ban all firearms just the semi-autos and large magazines (and I'd probably throw in pistols too and any revolver with more than 6 shots in the cylinder).