This American father is redefining what it means to be a 'responsible gun owner'

[Sousuke 1,214]

No one suggested we duplicate Australian law. Obviously much of that law would not work here.

However people should also not ignore firearms statistics from Australia because there several years worth now. Mass shootings have decreased. Firearms related homicides have decreased. Firearms related suicides have decreased. Homicides by other means have not increased. Home invasions have not increased. Armed criminals have not taken over Australia.

Many of the statistics from countries like Australia contradict the oft repeated rhetoric we hear in America.

No one suggested within this thread,I agree, however there were some stereotypical comments made about gun owners in general which I was addressing.

Generally, I agree with regarding Australian statistics (with the exception that there was a small spike for about 4-5 years afterwards in some crimes).

One statistic I would draw attention to is that non conformance was high. Only about 1/3 of the firearms were surrendered at a cost of 300 million.

[TBoneTX 46,276]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the opinions on the last couple of pages, everyone's thoughts have been very well-reasoned. Kudos and thanks.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

[Dakine10 5,452]

Nuclear reactor violence doesn't exist either, but they still won't let me build one in my back yard.

The picture is nice (sort of), the words form a catchy sentence, but the rationale doesn't hold up. Technically no inanimate object is violent or capable of any other emotion. An objects "personality" has no bearing on the legality of ownership.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

Nuclear reactor violence doesn't exist either, but they still won't let me build one in my back yard.

The picture is nice (sort of), the words form a catchy sentence, but the rationale doesn't hold up. Technically no inanimate object is violent or capable of any other emotion. An objects "personality" has no bearing on the legality of ownership.

most can't afford to build a nuke reactor anyways.....

the point being made is that it's the person, not the object, that is guilty.

yet there are some who think banning the object is the solution.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Banning the object, guns for the purpose of this discussion, need not be the suggested solution that many here apparently feel is being suggested. The gun owner in the OP voluntarily chose to rid himself of his gun. I don't think that others following suit would be such a bad thing.

[Dakine10 5,452]

most can't afford to build a nuke reactor anyways.....

the point being made is that it's the person, not the object, that is guilty.

yet there are some who think banning the object is the solution.

No inanimate objects are guilty. Butter knifes, chainsaws, or plastic explosives or McDonald's french fries.

The logic of centering the argument around the objects innocence or guilt falls apart quickly. Like any red herring, It sounds right if you don't really want to think about it, but it's ultimately irrelevant.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

No inanimate objects are guilty. Butter knifes, chainsaws, or plastic explosives or McDonald's french fries.

The logic of centering the argument around the objects innocence or guilt falls apart quickly. Like any red herring, It sounds right if you don't really want to think about it, but it's ultimately irrelevant.

yet magazine restrictions, banning firearms because of some so called feature (it has a shoulder thing that goes up) is

supposed to be the solution.

the solution is people based, not object based.

[Sousuke 1,214]

No inanimate objects are guilty. Butter knifes, chainsaws, or plastic explosives or McDonald's french fries.

The logic of centering the argument around the objects innocence or guilt falls apart quickly. Like any red herring, It sounds right if you don't really want to think about it, but it's ultimately irrelevant.

Well I would argue a nuclear reactor is red herring as well. After all, its not really an inanimate object. Left alone without anyone operating it, problems will occur.

[Dakine10 5,452]

yet magazine restrictions, banning firearms because of some so called feature (it has a shoulder thing that goes up) is

supposed to be the solution.

the solution is people based, not object based.

Agreed. That makes a better argument than the picture.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Well I would argue a nuclear reactor is red herring as well. After all, its not really an inanimate object. Left alone without anyone operating it, problems will occur.

Technically a nuclear reactor is inanimate. Of course it requires an operator and maintenance. You can substitute an other inanimate object if you want.

The point being we don't regulate things based on the object having a personality or being evil. Most regulated devices or substances are based on how potentially dangerous they are in the hands of people.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Technically a nuclear reactor is inanimate. Of course it requires an operator and maintenance. You can substitute an other inanimate object if you want.

The point being we don't regulate things based on the object having a personality or being evil. Most regulated devices or substances are based on how potentially dangerous they are in the hands of people.

I'm actually having trouble thinking of things a US citizen can't buy. Most people reference tanks, but you can own a tank. Its generally cost that prohibits private ownership of certain items.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Sousuke

[Dakine10 5,452]

I'm actually having trouble thinking of things a US citizen can't buy. Most people reference tanks, but you can own a tank. Its generally cost that prohibits private ownership of certain items.

Haggis is banned in the US

I'm thinking more along the lines of regulated items though. I'm not sure who actually brought up banning things.The potential danger is something they consider when regulating certain things. Like haggis.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Haggis is banned in the US

I'm thinking more along the lines of regulated items though. I'm not sure who actually brought up banning things.The potential danger is something they consider when regulating certain things. Like haggis.

Seriously? Was it a BSE or hoof and mouth disease reason?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Seriously? Was it a BSE or hoof and mouth disease reason?

Haggis bomb