The Stupids Want To Move To Daveland

[poptones]

IF people are so afraid of their own government and feel the need to defend themselves against it, then perhaps the very same people should consider to nip the problem at the bud and ensure no fascist moron gets elected into power in the first place.

You've missed the point entirely. We're not afraid of our government. Sure, individuals all have their own fears and burdens, but as a society we're not afraid. We don't need to be. Suspicious yes. On the guard at all times. But we know (third time now i mention it and no one dare comment) there will not be oppression like in some "civilized" countries.

Yes, we have a lot of prisoners. We're also a very young nation. And, unlike some, we don't round up college students and make them work in factories until they get so exhausted and crazy from the stress they hurl themselves out of windows.

[Monkeh]

I know nothing about your local laws.
But it seems that you are upset because you can't (easily?) shoot a certain type of weapon?

'A certain type' meaning 'most firearms', yes.

I can own and shoot a Lee-Enfield No.4 Mark 1. I cannot own and shoot an M1 Garand. The difference? You can empty the magazine of a Garand very rapidly and very ineffectually. As a weapon, they're essentially equal in capability in capable hands, the semi-automatic fire of a full calibre rifle like the Garand is of little or no utility in killing, only suppressing (and if you've never seen a trained rifleman rapid-fire an Enfield, well, it's something to see). As a firearm, they're very different in operation and shooting, and of historical (but not in the legally defined sense of rarity) value.

Please cite references and stats to show your shooting sport is dying off

I'm not digging up numbers right now, but once again: My family lost a business due to the extreme difficulties in supporting it and the lack of shooters due to the poor laws introduced by successive clueless governments.

and provide a convincing argument why this matters to your general population.

Jobs and a healthy community? Not that the general population here has any say if they were able to form an opinion of the subject for themselves. Which they aren't, because that requires actual knowledge of it other than 'guns kill people'.

And also please explain why you can't have the same level of fun with the (many I'm sure) weapons that are available to you.

And that is where discussing the subject with non-shooters runs into a brick wall. Let's see.. I don't get the opportunity to practice competitive pistol shooting at all. That's pretty much an immediate killer of that side of things. Nor do I get to experience the vast majority of semi-automatic or automatic firearms, which hold major interest for me.

I'm sure people ask you why you have so many power supplies, oscilloscopes, and multimeters. Most of them won't understand why you have so many multimeters (honestly, far more than you actually _need_, we all know that). Nor would they understand why I enjoy different types of firearms, it's outside their experience. Explaining it is not easy, is it?

[EEVblog]

You've missed the point entirely. We're not afraid of our government. Sure, individuals all have their own fears and burdens, but as a society we're not afraid. We don't need to be. Suspicious yes. On the guard at all times. But we know (third time now i mention it and no one dare comment) there will not be oppression like in some "civilized" countries.

Name one modern western democratic nation that "oppresses" it's people.

Should be bring up the fact that the US is now fast becoming a police state in many areas? 

Dave.

[EEVblog]

I'm sure people ask you why you have so many power supplies, oscilloscopes, and multimeters. Most of them won't understand why you have so many multimeters (honestly, far more than you actually _need_, we all know that). Nor would they understand why I enjoy different types of firearms, it's outside their experience. Explaining it is not easy, is it?

It's very easy to explain, just as it is for you.
I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy watching the Professional Russian shoot shit up on Youtube, and the Mythbusters shooting shit on TV, I like paintball, I have an interest in all forms of military hardware. Although I don't shoot guns, I get it.
The issue I'm asking you to explain is entirely different though.
I am asking why it matters to the good of the general population why you should be allowed to own all these types of mechanised killing machines for your personal amusement, when it a demonstrable fact that these types of weapons (and arguably guns of any type in general) can lead to a culture of guns and greater deaths et.al.
It sounds like you might be getting a raw deal, but I am an advocate of tough gun control laws, and I do think it's for the greater good of the entire community and that communities future. And if that inadvertently results in you not being ale to shoot the guns you want, well, sorry, but that's too bad. That's a real bummer, I feel for you.
Have you tried paintball?
Or maybe the part time army reserves? They let you shoot lots of big dangerous toys.

EDIT: I just read something that even your olympian pistol shooters had to go outside the country to train. Thats stupid, and sucks.
At the very least they should let you own the gun and keep it under lock and key a the pistol club. Go for your life at the pistol range.

Dave.

[Write_to_Smokegenerator]

Seriously? You can't change human nature.

I'll ask again: how many think a Tiananmen could happen in the US? There are patriots in this country today who own tank killers.

"Yeah your stand against the tank holding a can of gas is a beautiful picture, we sure can relate to your spirit but too bad your country has no real freedom and no means of acquiring it because you can't own the tools of liberty."

"Oh, so BTW, here's a tank killer for you.... "

"What's that? No need for the gas because now there's no more tank and no more tank driving soldier of an army standing against its own citizens? SEE? NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE TELLING YOU?"

Wow......
If it is to gain freedom, there are other ways to acquire your freedom from dictators/invaders:

One thing is sure with an armed militia it it sure possible to gain freedom. for example Afghanistan and the soviet troops, hell that gave the soviet Union the death stroke. More recent look at Libya where the rebells could get rid of their dictator.
BUT there are quite good examples of other ways to get rid of other invaders/ dictators

Lets start with an older example (not that old)
India was a territory of the British Empire and they could gain their sovereign through violence free demonstrations
There was the fall of the  the iron curtain ("Berliner Mauer")the violence free demonstrations of the east germans led to the union of east and west germany.
more recent the events in Tunisia which weren't all violence free but the demonstrants didn't need to rely on an arsenal of guns to gain their goal (get rid of their president)


Of course I did simplify the events (obviously it would require more than 3 sentences to describe this complex topic but I think good enough to make my point clear).

So it is clear that there are ways to get residence without guns, so I think it is pointless to have guns at home for this purpose to defend your freedom,

cheers.

[Monkeh]

I'm sure people ask you why you have so many power supplies, oscilloscopes, and multimeters. Most of them won't understand why you have so many multimeters (honestly, far more than you actually _need_, we all know that). Nor would they understand why I enjoy different types of firearms, it's outside their experience. Explaining it is not easy, is it?

It's very easy to explain, just as it is for you.
I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy watching the Professional Russian shoot shit up on Youtube, and the Mythbusters shooting shit on TV, I like paintball, I have an interest in all forms of military hardware. Although I don't shoot guns, I get it.

Apparently not. I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of shooting you enjoy watching (which has nothing to do with doing it), you don't get what I enjoy. Paintball has nothing to do with competition shooting, nor any of the other interests I have in firearms.

It sounds like you might be getting a raw deal, but I am an advocate of tough gun control laws, and I do think it's for the greater good of the entire community and that communities future.

So am I, and so do I. I just disagree with the methods and restrictions on type. It's not an argument easily seen from the non-shooting side, as the lethality of firearms is not something a non-shooter actually knows a lot about.

I would be perfectly happy to never be allowed a handgun in my house. I would be quite content to only use one under supervision at a secured range, where it has no effect on the community (other than providing the aforementioned jobs and community!). Same goes for semi-automatic rifles. As for fully-automatic ones, that is a rather different kettle of fish perhaps best served by a secure collection rather than private ownership.

Have you tried paintball?
Or maybe the part time army reserves? They let you shoot lots of big dangerous toys.

And again, neither have any relevance to my interest in firearms.

Well, okay, I would like to get to shoot a Javelin. I already know how to work one..

[Monkeh]

EDIT: I just read something that even your olympian pistol shooters had to go outside the country to train. Thats stupid, and sucks.

What Olympian pistol shooters? We didn't have any, they can't practice their sport. They haven't been able to since the actions of two governments in 1997. Pistol shooting is dead and buried in this country.

We only had seven competitors in six events this year. We used to dominate the shooting sports (they ORIGINATED here, and we used to do 1000yd rifle events) in the Olympics, now we can barely scratch together some competitors. We got 21 medals including 6 golds in the 1908 Olympics. This year, we got 1. But it was a gold.

[EEVblog]

Apparently not. I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of shooting you enjoy watching (which has nothing to do with doing it), you don't get what I enjoy.

You have a passion for something, I understand passion.

So am I, and so do I. I just disagree with the methods and restrictions on type. It's not an argument easily seen from the non-shooting side, as the lethality of firearms is not something a non-shooter actually knows a lot about.

I would be perfectly happy to never be allowed a handgun in my house. I would be quite content to only use one under supervision at a secured range, where it has no effect on the community (other than providing the aforementioned jobs and community!). Same goes for semi-automatic rifles. As for fully-automatic ones, that is a rather different kettle of fish perhaps best served by a secure collection rather than private ownership.

Then we are in complete agreement.
It sucks if you can't go and shoot (any type of) guns at a secure range. Any laws that prevent that are just stupid.

Dave.

[Monkeh]

Apparently not. I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of shooting you enjoy watching (which has nothing to do with doing it), you don't get what I enjoy.

You have a passion for something, I understand passion.

So am I, and so do I. I just disagree with the methods and restrictions on type. It's not an argument easily seen from the non-shooting side, as the lethality of firearms is not something a non-shooter actually knows a lot about.

I would be perfectly happy to never be allowed a handgun in my house. I would be quite content to only use one under supervision at a secured range, where it has no effect on the community (other than providing the aforementioned jobs and community!). Same goes for semi-automatic rifles. As for fully-automatic ones, that is a rather different kettle of fish perhaps best served by a secure collection rather than private ownership.

Then we are in complete agreement.
It sucks if you can't go and shoot (any type of) guns at a secure range. Any laws that prevent that are just stupid.

Dave.

As for home storage and non-range use (hunting, vermin control, shooting on own property, etc), those are things which should be decided on a case-by-case basis, imo. By the police, and involving a psychological evaluation. Access to significantly powerful firearms outside of a controlled setting (or at the very least their ammunition, although I would strongly oppose handguns stored at home even without ammunition) needs to be carefully controlled.

But broad bans on ownership of particular types of firearm are stupid. Including Australia's laws, imo, although they're better than ours. Also, you have restrictions on suppressors, which makes little sense (they're to protect your ears, not make you silent but deadly).

[firewalker]

US is in their infancy (with other countries). US will learn. The hard way.

Alexander.

[EEVblog]

As for home storage and non-range use (hunting, vermin control, shooting on own property, etc), those are things which should be decided on a case-by-case basis, imo. By the police, and involing a psychological evaluation. Access to significantly powerful firearms outside of a controlled setting (or at the very least their ammunition, although I would strongly oppose handguns stored at home even without ammunition) needs to be carefully controlled.

I agree, and I don't think our laws go far enough. You should not be allowed to own and keep a firearm of any sort at home unless you have a legitimate need, like a farmer for example.
If you want to play with guns, go to a secure gun club/shooting range and have a ball. Any gun laws should not affect these places.

Dave.

[marmad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Did you actually just quote American wikipedia as a source for undisputable fact about gun control statistics? You talk about sheep?

And aren't you the same guy who claimed a few posts back that gun control doesn't work because guns are easily available to criminals in Canada - but forgot to mention the tiny fact that Canada happens to have a massive, virtually open border with the Western country where guns are most easily obtainable?

This whole discussion is so silly for anyone with comprehension skills. The USA is such a painful example of what happens when you don't have adequate gun control that nothing else needs to be said about it.

[EEVblog]

Some of you people are all sheep. I guess sheep are big business in Australia. Canada has one of the highest home gun ownership rates per capita in the world but violence by guns is comparable to Australia.

If you want to point to Wiki, we can do that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

10.27/100,000 for America
4.78/100,000 for Canada
2.94/100,000 for Australia

If you don't count suicides, it is:
4.14/100,000 for America
0.76/100,000 for Canada
0.44/100,000 for Australia

So your rate is over 70% higher than ours, congratulations.

And Canada seems to have the 5th highest accidental gun related child death rate in the world, congratulations again:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/child-enfant-eng.htm

In firearm-related deaths among children aged 0 to 14 years, Canada had the fifth highest rate, behind the United States, Finland, Northern Ireland and Israel, respectively.
The rate of firearm-related child deaths in Canada was .4 per 100,000 population, one quarter the U.S. rate of 1.6.
According to separate statistics provided by the Centers for Disease Control, 43% of child firearm deaths in Canada were unintentional, 17% were homicide, 35% were suicide, and 4% were undetermined.
Approximately 9% of all child homicides in Canada were committed with a firearm, and 24% of all suicides involved a firearm.

+ http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/youth-and-firearms
+ some old stats for Oz http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument

But yes, you are right that it's generally how violent a societies culture is, + other lifestyle factors, that is why the US is much higher than Canada.

My view is that the less guns the better.

And there is no point dwelling on the past stats etc, each society needs to progress and decide about the future. The options are:
1) Change the laws to reduce the number of guns in society
2) Keep the status-quo
3)Change the laws to increase the number of guns in society and/or make it easier to own or carry one etc.

#1 seems the most logical choice to me, and the stats seems to back it up. Less guns ownership = less gun deaths, more or less. It just makes sense, I simply can't see how this option could be a bad thing for the general population and society? The less guns in society, the less there are for criminals to steal etc, Therefore the prices of illegal guns goes up and they get harder to get, less regular crooks can afford one, the less the crooks think they need one, and so on it goes.

#3 seems to be the stupid delusional option only considered by those like the US with such an ingrained gun culture, that they think it's the best way out of their mess. (e.g. lets have everyone conceal carry so the criminals think twice, or every person in that batman movie theatre could have taken out the guy in full body protection  )

Encouraging and/or allowing people to own firearms for protection is simply contributing to a violet mindset within the society. It doesn't make sense.
Neither does more guns in society in any form (apart from aforementioned secure clubs/ranges) .

Dave.

[yrrapt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Did you actually just quote American wikipedia as a source for undisputable fact about gun control statistics? You talk about sheep?

And aren't you the same guy who claimed a few posts back that gun control doesn't work because guns are easily available to criminals in Canada - but forgot to mention the tiny fact that Canada happens to have a massive, virtually open border with the Western country where guns are most easily obtainable?

This whole discussion is so silly for anyone with comprehension skills. The USA is such a painful example of what happens when you don't have adequate gun control that nothing else needs to be said about it.

The wikepidea page has independent sources. Gun control doesn’t work. The point is gun violence has been going down for decades before stricter controls came in.

Here is a link to stats.can you can review all data since it was collected relating to violent crime and guns.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

I posted the Wiki page because it offered a summary. If you have a source you feel is unbiased feel free to post it.

Gun control doesn’t work we still have a large amount of guns in the population. These aren’t the guns doing the crimes though it is illegally owned guns. So yea my point is it doesn’t work. You can read all the stats you want violent crime was on the decline for decades and it started before stricter regulations with guns were brought in. So its not the laws that are responsible for the decline its something else.

Assuming that your argument that crimes are committed with illegal guns is correct, and there is certainly validity to it.  Where do these illegal guns come from? A criminal makes a wish and they appear?

According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html most illegal guns come from:

- Straw purchases at legitimate shops
- Corrupt gun dealers
- Thefts from legally licensed owners

So remove the legal distribution of guns and voila, remove illegal acquisition of guns for criminal.

Tom

[8086]

You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back. It's not the responsible gun owners that cause a problem, but sometimes its the people around them, and it can be the people you least expect. At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen. But the fact is, if it does happen, once it's done, it's done. And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?

Probably about the same as you would feel if you stepped outside your lab and your teen daughter decided to stick her finger in a HV outlet to end it all.

A teen here recently committed suicide because she was bullied, she hung herself. I guess all rope should be confiscated.

Have you figured out you can say the same thing about a lot of things. There are favourite places in the world where people commit suicide (bridges, forests and waterways) governments try all sorts of things to stop them but yet it continues.

Maybe you should give up your cellphone there are a lot of deaths from distracted drivers. This would require you to sacrifice for the greater good. Lets see how sincere you are. Remember now even if you never text and drive some teen may borrow/steal your phone and text and drive and wipe-out a whole family. Then how would you feel?

Electricity has many uses and was not designed for killing.
Rope has many uses and was not designed for killing.
Bridges allow people to move across obstacles, and were not designed for killing.
Cellphones are very useful and were not designed for killing.
Have you figured out that your point is invalid?

Your phone theft/text-drive accident analogy is ridiculous. I wouldn't feel bad that I owned a useful item, not lethal in itself, not designed to kill. I wouldn't feel bad that someone got hold of said item. And I would feel bad about the accident, sure, but that's a result of their stupidity, which isn't what I was talking about before. Plus, the chances of them wiping out a whole family? I don't know, but it seems like the chance of survival from a road accident is much better than from a bullet in the head.

What does it mean that you knew someone that did this? It means your brain is not fully functional, if you continue to believe that it is a good thing for guns to be freely available and commonplace.

My brain is quite functional, and not once have I said I think firearms should be freely available and commonplace. You are merely automatically placing me in the 'raving pro-gun lunatic' band because I happen to shoot.

As a matter of fact, I believe there should be tighter restrictions on air weapons. I don't, however, believe that those of us rational, responsible, and skilled enough to own and operate firearms should be unable to access the firearms we desire for reasonable use.

You can go and buy a stupidly powerful car, drive it like an idiot, and kill someone. People do that every day. But I can't go buy an AS50 and place holes in a piece of paper from 1500m away in a safe, controlled manner.

I know, next time someone drives into a bus and kills a load of children on their way to a field trip, we'll ban all cars except Kei cars.

In a controlled environment I don't have a problem with guns. Just like I don't have a problem with fast cars on a race track. But cars have uses beyond killing, and whatever you say, guns do not. You can use them for target practice, but for what, so you can get a better shot when you're hunting something, to kill it? Even if you have no intention of doing such a thing, there's no other reason to have the skills in the real world - unless you're a farmer or similar, then I can see the point, but I'm not talking about farmers anyway.

And if you're afraid enough of naighbours/the government to think you need a gun for protection, well maybe you're not cut out for the world we live in, or need some psychological help. (Not aimed at you personally)

[marmad]

Here is a link to stats.can you can review all data since it was collected relating to violent crime and guns.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

Your understanding of statistics is extremely narrow - and you're ignoring my previous point. Gun availability in Canada (for criminals) is DIRECTLY related to the United States - you can't divorce Canada's success/non-success with gun control from this fact. It's no coincidence that gun control laws enacted in the US (what few there have been) have a direct and obvious effect on homicide deaths and gun crime in Canada.

[AntiProtonBoy]

At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.

Put simply, nobody cares that much about gun ownership here. Nobody misses out on anything, nor do they feel their freedom is inhibited in anyway as a result. If you want to play with guns? Of course you can. Get a license and have fun at the shooting range.

A guns sole purpose is not for killing human beings it’s for hunting, recreation and sports. Granted it can be used for killing people but so can fertilizer (Timothy McVeigh) baseball bats , golf clubs, hockey sticks, hands…..

As for what guns were designed for, let us not delude ourselves. They are weapons, designed by humans to kill humans (and animals). Particularly hand guns. You may justify alternate uses, such as sport, or whatever, ultimately they are designed to take a life.

[marmad]

You must be illiterate gun violence has been on the decline for decades no matter what statistic you read. The decline started before stricter regulation came into effect. So naturally a person with any intelligence would question whether or not the laws are the source of the decline or other forces in society.

I may be illiterate - but you are most certainly obtuse. Compare when these gun control laws were enacted in the US with charts of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. It doesn't take a math whiz to work out the correlation:
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)

[G7PSK]

At the end of the day it is not the guns but the mentality of the people owning them. In some parts of the world just about every house in the country has at least one fully automatic rifle in it, country's such as Switzerland. But they have a very low gun crime rate they also have a very low general crime rate so this has to say something about the people and society.

The claim by the gun lobby that owning guns protects them from an evil intent government is total bullshit, what ever guns the citizen has the government will always have bigger better and more plus heavy artillery, tanks and aircraft.

I am a gun owner and used to own pistols and be a registered range officer.

[rolycat]

It's refreshing that on this forum U.S. gun culture isn't being defended by a bunch of dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation.

I'm confident that despite our differences our friends in the US are intelligent caring guys who we'd probably quite like if we met them socially. 

[marmad]

At the end of the day it is not the guns but the mentality of the people owning them. In some parts of the world just about every house in the country has at least one fully automatic rifle in it, country's such as Switzerland. But they have a very low gun crime rate they also have a very low general crime rate so this has to say something about the people and society.

While there is truth to this statement, it doesn't alter the fact that gun ownership in the US is almost double the next closest country - and at least triple any of the EME (Established Market Economy) nations (except Switzerland - which has that long tradition of 'armed neutrality').

It seems to me this issue boils down to the following:

What happens when you have very little gun control in an EME nation? Lucky for us, we have a test case: the USA - which leads the EME countries in:

Highest homicide rate by a factor of 2 (by a factor of >5 to most of the other EMEs).
Most dangerous inner cities.
Most dangerous police force.
Most imprisoned citizens in the history of mankind.

Now if all those things seem a good trade-off to you for the 'freedom' to indiscriminately purchase guns, well, there's nothing more to be said. To me it seems too high a price to pay.

[Uncle Vernon]

You should not be allowed to own and keep a firearm of any sort at home unless you have a legitimate need

Given our current dysfunctional and corrupt government it could be reasonably argued that every Australian citizen indeed has a legitimate need for firearms. But thankfully enough of the born here stupid people will have caught on by a 2013 election to avoid Australia needing to follow another US bred political tradition.

[perfect_disturbance]

Inspired  by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove  to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas.  Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[vk6zgo]

Gun violence in Australia was on a steady decline before the buyback and it seems to be maintaining the same trajectory “down” regardless of what laws some self serving politician tries to pass.

Australian States,in general, have had strict gun laws for many years.
In Western Australia,they had a "gun amnesty" period when I was a kid in the 1950s,where people could bring in unlicensed firearms,& either license them,or have them disposed of.

In the same state,at least from the 1960s.if you wanted to own & register a Rifle,you needed to have a certificate from a Property owner giving you permission to shoot on his property.
Of course,if you were a member of a target shooting association,they normally have their own shooting range,so that was covered.

Kangaroo shooting was a popular pastime among some folks.
The country people knew what they were doing,& would go out with a bolt action 0.22" rifle,bag a couple of 'roos & take them home to eat.

Idiots from the city would load up their cars with grog & firearms,"go bush" & shoot up roadside signs & the like,whilst driving drunk.
It never occurred to them that they were shooting into peoples farms,endangering their livestock,& families.
All completely illegal,but they got away with it if the farmer didn't catch them,or they didn't drive into a tree.

This sort of behaviour made farmers very reluctant to let people shoot on their properties,so gun ownership started to drop off in WA & other States with similar laws.

At least in WA,illegal firearms were fairly rare,& most gun injuries & deaths were from legal rifles.
Except among serious Sporting Shooters,gun ownership fell away,with an accompanying decrease in firearm injuries.
Queensland stood out among the States with quite easy going gun laws.

Around the early 1990s,there were reports that gun fanciers in that State were acquiring  large numbers of modern
semi-automatic weapons,including comments from various senior Law Enforcement people.

Ultimately,though,the "buyback" was precipitated by a mass shooting in Tasmania,& gun laws around Australia were tightened up at the same time.

Guns in Australia were traditionally regarded as "tools" to shoot game animals for food,protect stock from predators, for
competitive shooting,& for war,& never gained the mystique they enjoy in the USA.

Gun fanciers in North America,for reasons of their own,tend to misrepresent the difference in strictness before & after the "buyback".
We did not go from a USA type system to a "No guns at all".
An already fairly strictly regulated system was tightened up a bit.

Looking back to the nonsense the OP was laughing about,the young lady had probably read one of the "reports" generated by some right wing halfwit in the USA which have been variously accredited to both our current PM,the two previous ones & the PM of France!

[G7PSK]

I seem to have been misinterpreted, I was not advocating the indiscriminate ownership of guns I was trying to point out that what is going on in the US is down to the mentality of many US citizens.

Lest not forget that the US constitution was drawn up by what the modern day US government would class as a bunch of terrorists. 

And by what at the time was seen as a gang of criminals by many nations except the french who had hoped that stirring up trouble in the Americas would cause the British to loose the war in Europe or at least pull out in order to attend to matters in the Americas.