Civilian Gun ownership?

Question

Laws in Australia now make it almost impossible to own a gun ,even a Bow and arrow is illeagal unless you are a member of a registered club .
American Television gives you the impression that every house wife is carrying a 38 in her hand bag .
Is thier a meduim .
Does a government act wisely when it disarms the civilian population?
Or is leaving honest people with no defence against criminals who will find a gun despite any law that maybe in place.

Answer 1

Since Australia's gun ban, crime in Australia has increased.

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

Answer 2

I guess that it depends on who you ask. Even in America there is a strong anti-gun lobby. I'm dubious about that because their legal argument seems to imply that they think that the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment should be limited to 18th century militias.

My own outlook is based on the proposition that the first thing a tyrant does when he is securing power is to disarm the populace. Is this unwise from the pov of the government? Probably not. Is it unwise from the perspective of the people? Very likely.

In less "revolutionary" terms, I suppose that the answer to that question depends greatly on one's attitude toward the proper role of the government in dealing with crime. If one takes the attitude that only the government has any right to deal with crime, to the exclusion of the right of the individual to defend himself, then I suppose that banning firearms would make some sense. If one takes the attitude that the individual has the right to defend himself and his family from deadly attack or the threat posed by, say, a home invader, then it makes far less sense.

While the argument in favor of disarmament involves a basic fear of a bunch of armed yahoos taking the law into their own hands, I tend to think that, on balance, a government that disarms it's population makes the criminal invincible at the point where it matters most to the law abiding individual, and is very likely to increase crime. In other words, the likely outcome of Australia's gun ban is going to be the creation of a victim population.

Answer 3

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
--Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.

A government could be said to be acting wisely in disarming the civilian population. A selfish motive to insure the tyranny of the government. However, an armed citizenry is most wise in ensuring that government operates in the interests of the people, having a lower crime and is typically in the best interests of the society as a whole.
In America, there have been several attempts to disarm the population, directly in violation of our Constitution which reserves the people's rights to be armed. This has recently been clarified in the court decision that declared the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional.

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia, (Case No. 04-7041), (decided March 9, 2007)

Answer 4

In my personal opinion as a U.S. Citizen and as a police officer is that is very unwise for a government to disarm it's citizenry. This leaves the law-abiding citizen vulnerable to a violent criminal. I do not have room to write a full response to this in this forum. Volumes of books have been published on this subject.

No, not every person in the U.S. is armed. Some states and cities makes it nearly impossible for a citizen to own a firearm despite the U.S. Constitutional Amendment that guarantees this right. Coincidentally, some of these cities and states have the highest crime rate in America. As the crime rate rises, so do the restrictions on firearm ownership; which only escalates the crime rate even further. For some reason, some politicians fail to see the connection.

Answer 5

In the US, the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Some had tried to say that was people in the army, or people in the police.

One of our courts recently upheld that it is the right of every individual.

Some people, like me, wish every woman could carry a .38 in her hand bag, or not, as she saw fit. And every guy a .45 in the waistband of his pants. I think we'd see less crime, as criminals are cowards who will not attack someone they think might fight back.

A government that disarms the people deprives them of a tool of self-defense, and must take on a greater role in protecting them. I would favor total civilian disarmament if the government would provide each citizen with an armed bodyguard. Cheaper just to let us carry our own!

Answer 6

Its never worked. There's still handgun violence in England which has all but banned all firearms. There's still gun violence in Canada. The worst part about it is that criminals don't give up their guns so it leaves the rest of the people unarmed and helpless. Let's face it, its stupid to assume that outlawing firearms will stop violence. In England, those who have no firearms, simply use knives. That's why stabbing deaths are stratospheric over there right now.

Answer 7

There is one big problem with gun control...it doesn't work. Laws are relevant only to law-abiding citizens, therefore all the laws in the world won't get the criminals to give up their guns. Not EVERYBODY here has a gun, but most states allow concealed carry if you obtain a permit. I live in Oklahoma, and have had a permit for 9 years. I always have my gun with me, but I have never (thank God) had to use it.

Answer 8

It's so ironic that Ozzie shooters are at the mercy of idiotic restrictions and regulations even though they are among the most law-abiding citizens in our country (you have to have an exemplary record to get a shooter's licence).
Some NUT looses his mind at Port Arthur and the government reaction is to punish those LEAST responsible.
Why is it that STUPID people are the ones that make the rules!?

Answer 9

They may of taken away our freedoom to overthrow them with the national guard because we have no control over them anymore cus we arnt a federation of states but they day they touch my guns you know what im going to say to the police?,"you can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands".thats why guns shouldnt be registered.goverment can show up and take em away.and dont tell me its un-constutional cus theres alot of stuff there that isnt being followed.

Answer 10

Civilians should always have the right to protect themselves. Crimanals have guns and even if guns are banned crimanals can access guns in illegal ways (one of the handy loopholes being a crimanal affords you). Any responsible Govt. needs to allow for gun ownership among it's populace.