Contact Us
18-04-2007, 12:49am
Hi Team. Fair comments made by all.
I was interviewed in my office so I had to keep it down to a whisper because there are doctors and other clinicians working around me...
I was basically interviewed for 30-40 minutes, and, as expected, they filtered what was said and used 15 seconds of it, some out of context.
I talked about illegal guns VS registered recreational gun use.
I talked about felonies being committed by unregistered guns.
I talked about psychological care available and how our police and mental health system can help.
I clearly told them I believed people kill people... some use guns, most use knives, some use drugs, cars, bikes, etc...
I clearly told them guns are not to blame!
All that seemed to be projected was that I think we should get rid of guns. That's not what I said though!
My words were:
"If we remove the guns [in my previous sentence I was talking about illegal guns - but they left that out], we remove some of the danger, definitely". I never suggested that cars or bikes don't kill, or that legal guns don't kill. The story on film actually mentioned "illegal guns".
Having said that, I also know (not an unejumacated guess) that serious felonies are committed mostly with illegal guns, but registered guns also make up part of that statistic, although it is a small part.
So in summary, yeh Max, I said, "if you took guns out...".
You suggest, "If you took all "ILLEGAL" guns out of circulation, you may experience fewer gun crimes and gun deaths.". Well said Max. If you had seen my complete interview, that IS what I said. I still think taking all guns away would remove some of the danger, but it may increase danger generally because the "bad guys" would still get them, and we wouldn't have them to defend ourselves! Being like the UK, I think, would be ridiculous.
m8ee, I agree with you mostly. You say, "I know many, many people who own guns, I have grown up with them. I have never met anybody who has been shot, or has shot anybody else outside of a war situation", and I'm sure that's true, but in my work, unfortunately, the opposite is true. Mind you, I'm in prisons assessing violent people most of the time! Not an example of people that are reflective of most of our mates we grew up with (I hope)!
Taking police out of action because they are "to blame" is silly too though. May as well take your brakes off the Busa because you ran into the back of a car once! They are still useful mostly, even if they don't always do the job!
(and they keep the Krispy Kream shops busy which is good for the economy 
)
Thanks for your feedback. It is tragic when stuff like this happens. Knee-jerk reactions by government, like with semi-automatic weapons after Port Arthur IS NOT the solution, I believe.
Paying psychologists more money to do more work on prevention is far better!!!
I was interviewed in my office so I had to keep it down to a whisper because there are doctors and other clinicians working around me...
I was basically interviewed for 30-40 minutes, and, as expected, they filtered what was said and used 15 seconds of it, some out of context.
I talked about illegal guns VS registered recreational gun use.
I talked about felonies being committed by unregistered guns.
I talked about psychological care available and how our police and mental health system can help.
I clearly told them I believed people kill people... some use guns, most use knives, some use drugs, cars, bikes, etc...
I clearly told them guns are not to blame!
All that seemed to be projected was that I think we should get rid of guns. That's not what I said though!
My words were:
"If we remove the guns [in my previous sentence I was talking about illegal guns - but they left that out], we remove some of the danger, definitely". I never suggested that cars or bikes don't kill, or that legal guns don't kill. The story on film actually mentioned "illegal guns".
Having said that, I also know (not an unejumacated guess) that serious felonies are committed mostly with illegal guns, but registered guns also make up part of that statistic, although it is a small part.
So in summary, yeh Max, I said, "if you took guns out...".
You suggest, "If you took all "ILLEGAL" guns out of circulation, you may experience fewer gun crimes and gun deaths.". Well said Max. If you had seen my complete interview, that IS what I said. I still think taking all guns away would remove some of the danger, but it may increase danger generally because the "bad guys" would still get them, and we wouldn't have them to defend ourselves! Being like the UK, I think, would be ridiculous.
m8ee, I agree with you mostly. You say, "I know many, many people who own guns, I have grown up with them. I have never met anybody who has been shot, or has shot anybody else outside of a war situation", and I'm sure that's true, but in my work, unfortunately, the opposite is true. Mind you, I'm in prisons assessing violent people most of the time! Not an example of people that are reflective of most of our mates we grew up with (I hope)!
Taking police out of action because they are "to blame" is silly too though. May as well take your brakes off the Busa because you ran into the back of a car once! They are still useful mostly, even if they don't always do the job!
(and they keep the Krispy Kream shops busy which is good for the economy )Thanks for your feedback. It is tragic when stuff like this happens. Knee-jerk reactions by government, like with semi-automatic weapons after Port Arthur IS NOT the solution, I believe.
Paying psychologists more money to do more work on prevention is far better!!!