In Osmington, an area south of Perth in Western Australia, three adults and four children were found dead. When police arived at the rural property by the Margaret river Friday morning they were horrified to find a family of seven dead due to gunshots. A witness who lives nearby the scene said she had heard gunshots at 4am that morning but thought that they were of no significance. A family friend identified the suspects as Peter and Cynda Miles, their daughter, Katrina and Katrina's four children. Two firearms were found at the scene of the crime. This act shocked many as Australia is one of the most strict anti-gun countries in the world. This restriction came after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which was when a gunman opened fire on a cafe in Tasmania which killed 35 and injured many others. Soon after, newly elected prime minister John Howard, enacted the National Firearms Agreement, this banned the possession of semiautomatic firearms and pump-action shotguns. in addition if you did want a weapon an applicant has to wait 28 days from the time they obtain a permit to the time they buy the weapon. All these Jurisdictions were to make sure another mass shooting did not happen. But as of this morning it did not stop a family from murder.
Do you think banning guns will reduce mass shootings? Why or why not?
I think that if someone wanted to commit a mass shooting I think he/she would find a way to do just that either with or without the law to regulate how they obtain the tools to do so. Although it would hinder the process of finding a firearm as it would be in underground trading.
Do you think one mass shooting is enough to act on gun control? Why or why not?
I think it can bring the topic of gun debate into the spotlight and many might think it as a danger to their lives. So based on one event many would most likely act on gun control out of fear. I however think this was a single event and considering Australia's clean record until now I see no need to intereact with regulations or laws.
Have a nice summer everyone! :D
Replies
I belive it would reduce mass shootings because of the rareity of firearms but the shooters would just turn to more blades and knifes instead; if a person wants to kill they will find a way. a single mass shooting should never be enough to change the rules but if they persist the issue should be addresed.
The statistics show that the more people that conceal carry the less crime that happens as a result. People really need to consider buying themselves a gun to protect themselves from the crazy people in this world otherwise they are gonna be a victim.
Banning guns will not reduce mass shootings because if people are so desparate to get their hands on a gun they will break the laws to do so anyway. The more people who conceal carry around the safer we will all be as a country. People without guns have no way to defend themselves otherwise. No, mass shootings happen all the time and they would be lowered if people would defend themselves more.
No. I don't think a killing of 7 should make us have gun control all the second. I agree that we need to make sure who we know is owning guns but no more. Taking our guns takes our freedom and ways to fight back against greater powers.
Banning guns is not going to stop bad people. The gang people that have guns don't have them legally. Most of those bad people, the people that do the shootings, have the guns illegally. They aren't registered.
1) I don't think it will decrease mass shooting because of someone wanted to kill people they are going to find a way.
2) I don't think there is a need to act on gun control with one mass shooting. It is the first time it has happened.
The laws have a toss-up chance of helping, but under laws there should be ways to be able to conceal and carry guns. Only after a background and phyche test however, should conceal and carry permits be given, but they shouldn't be so hard to get that no one has one.
I don't think it will decrease mass shooting because of someone wanted to kill people they are going to find a way regardless of wehter or not it breaks the law. I don't think there is a need to act on gun control with one mass shooting. It is the first time it has happened.
The only thing anti-gun laws do is make sure that the public is unarmed and defenseless, which opens up opportunities for shooters to kill without resistance. It invites these people to come in and challenge the law further.
I don't think it will reduce them because the people that commit these shootings find ways to do it no matter the restrictions. They will find ways to get their guns and shoot, the only thing anti-gun laws do is make sure that the public is unarmed and defenseless.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next