Author Topic: The gun rights puzzle  (Read 861 times)

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2002, 04:28:46 PM »
Gentlemen,

I did read the entire article Sabre as I was concerned that I was missing something relevant and interpreting it badly. I dont agree with it in its entirety or purpose.  The wonderful thing about Academics is that they utilise statistics and crime trends to make a thesis without the Laymans perspective which is in Crime terms, the very foundation of their report.  Not to say that the Layman knows more than the Academic.  Its simply perspective.
Its all well and good to know something is happening and to tell us all about it. Its another to know why.

An example are the weekly diatribe of Crime stats that I purge to the troops at the start of Parade.  Burglarys up x%, Sexual Assault, Common Assault, Car theft etc etc.

We learn that a particular model of car is being targetted by the peanuts. We learn that which ever peanut wants that car is now very active in a particular area and the stats have blown out because of 1 or 2 individuals hard at work. We know that it isnt joyriders cause the cars arent being found burnt out or abandoned anywhere.

What it doesnt tell us is who and why.

We as Police Officers working the same ground for near 15 years know who it is.  We know that Heroin is scarce cause we grabbed the dealers a week or so ago and the price has jumped through the roof.  Now we know that "Joe Bloggs" the junkie who likes Model X brand car is knocking them off and getting rid of them. Now we have a Chop shop to find.  We dont have any Chop artists so we're dealing with a blow in looking to make a market.
We know our Hammer addicted car stealing peanut will lead us to him. We know the Crims are getting desperate. We know that Burglaries will be on the rise.  Hence we adapt our Pro-Active response accordingly. Pull in the druggies and make them squeal.
Nail the druggies to get the Chop Shop Crew. Keep the Burgs down.  3 birds with 1 stone and all due to local knowledge and the use of Stats as a tool

Cause Stats are just that.  They contain no answers.

Now we talk increase in weapon offences. (Speaking about Australia now tho the same relates to the US)

Yes, we still have firearm offences.  The Buyback scheme will not ever completely wipe them out from the illegitimate or threat paranoid buyer.  It reduces them.

In countries such as yours and mine to ask for anything else is a ludicrous proposal.  Both countries relied on firearms as part of their beginnings. Firearms in both are intregal to the nations farming and grazing lands and up until recently in both countries, firearms were as common as the family car.

Why are firearm offences up?  The reasons are to numerous and involved to state here. But it has nothing to do with the failure of the Buy back scheme.  Socio-economic and behavioural changes in the population contains the answers.

The economy, cost of living, welfare supported numbers, drug availability, drought, fire devastation, the list goes on.

I was a Police Officer before the buy back scheme for many years and im still on after the buy back scheme many years on.  I still face firearm offenders today. Still end up in Seige situations. Still wander in Domestics where firearms raise their ugly heads and Still deal with Druggies bearing bullets and gun.

It is more dangerous these days then it was before the buyback scheme.  Why?  Knives is why.  Knives replaced the firearms as the common un-supported Crim sought to regain an element for control.  Its more dangerous for me because I have to get up close to them. Even then its not knives im concerned about but fits (syringes).  

Firearms are not the issue they once were with the ordinary everyday hoodlum.  The smack puppy who cant afford a new pair of shoes is unlikely to have one.  He's the guy who is going to break into your house.  Not the organised druggie or bikee.  They still have guns but mainly for blowing themselves away.    Crime stats are up for Armed holdups, tho knives take the winning stats here, not guns.  Tho guns are still evident, hence they show on the stats.  Home invasions are still on the rise.  These are drug based, sexual or revenge motivated. Burglars generally want to thieve from you, not confront you. Even those armed generally run for their lives upon being found.  There are always exception but thats the general rule.

No professor told me either.

The lesson boys and girls is that I stand by my convictions as one who isnt there waiting for something to happen but as one who is there doing it.  Use Stats as the tool they are. Dismiss the Bullsh*t with actual knowledge and realise that they serve the purpose they were made for and bugger all else.

The Buy Back scheme works.

In your country before you deal with the Firearms you have to deal with ill informed masculinity, Power trippers using fear and paranoia to influence the population and patriotism that inspires every swinging d*ck in the country into believing that he personally can hold back the British hordes should they dare cross their shores again :)

Unfortunately for you, firearms are ingrained in your Country as a status symbol in the way of American Apple Pie and the Flag hanging from every rooftop.

God help the poor Political b*stard who trys to get you to change your ways. :)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 04:36:54 PM by SC-Sp00k »

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2002, 04:37:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
I admit I was out in the wilds during most of it but did the DC Sniper team announce somewhere that they were attempting to overthrow the government?


Its a central point of my question but it isnt fact.
Lets just assume that he was acting against the goverment. He certainly wasnt acting against a particular demographic and his only real consideration in target selection was how safe it was for him to shoot and get away.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2002, 04:45:44 PM »
Well, you've got me thoroughly confused Spook.

You spend 90% of your post telling me the criminals still have access to guns and you know this from being on the street.

Then you tell me the buy-back works.

So, was the point of the buy-back to disarm the citizens that were not criminals?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2002, 04:50:48 PM »
Pongo, so it's like a guy going into a liquor store and announcing "This is a robbery; I need the money to start an overthrow of the Federal Government!"

... and "poof" instantly he isn't a robber but instead is a Constitutionally protected "Freedom Fighter"?

I'll refer you to Sabre's posts. Check them out.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2002, 05:00:14 PM »
I dont think I quoted 90% still had guns. Only a stupid man would state that no Criminals had guns. Some do. Stolen from Magazines both military and government. Brought into the Country illegally and stolen from houses of those who keep theirs for defence.  Yes, even the seperated bolts, mags and ammo.

Organised Crime will always have weapons. Its in their interests to do so. Organised Crime however isnt going to be banging on your door in the middle of the night wanting to come in and screw the puppy.

We can still buy weapons in this country. I can go out now and buy semi auto weapons IF I meet stringent conditions.

Its about Control.

It doesnt work 100% of the time but then what does?

You do the best you can.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2002, 05:08:58 PM »
I said you spent 90% of your post telling me criminals still had weapons.

Not 90% of the criminals.

But, you seem to have confirmed my evaluation with the second reply anyway. By your own admission, the criminals still have access to firearms and their access to same doesn't seem too inhibited.

It would appear that you agree that you won't ever disarm the criminals.

So, what you have really achieved, in my mind anyway,  is the disarmament of the the average law-abiding citizen. Which never was a problem anyway.

You've successfully made it very difficult and a basic pain in the arse for those that enjoy shooting sports to lawfully engage in their hobby.

But criminals, due to their total disregard for the law, haven't really suffered to any great degree.

Once again it's the old "military solution". Punish everyone for the error of one individual. It doesn't matter that the punishment actually has no effect on the true problem, merely that all are punished.

I'm glad you're pleased with your system and absolutely overjoyed that we still have ours, thanks.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2002, 05:11:14 PM »
spook , how many criminals turned in their guns in your buy back program??
maybe you should try a knife buy back program, then a base ball bat buy back and a club buy back and a nail clipper buy back etc

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2002, 05:12:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Once again it's the old "military solution". Punish everyone for the error of one individual. It doesn't matter that the punishment actually has no effect on the true problem, merely that all are punished.
 


Sounds just like the drug war to me...
sand

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2002, 06:35:52 PM »
I stand corrected Toad. My mistake.

And here in is our problem..(actually yours :) )

Fear.

Of course the Criminals still have guns. Of course Saddam still has Biological warfare capability and Snakes still bite us in long grass. Somethings never change. Somethings never will.

The only way to remove Weapons such as Firearms  completely from the Criminal element is to improvise a Military state under Martial Law and get yourself a Dictator.  Unlikely to happen here or in the US methinks.

The point is....

The average Criminal will have their access to firearms greatly diminished.  The average Criminal is the one you fear coming into your home.  Their ability to get hold of such weapons drys up and allows law enforcement the ability to contain and identify sources much more readily.  It isnt going to stop them all. Nor have I made that claim.  What it will do is reduce them.

Joe Blow, citizen of the year is more likely to be the one who blows your head off.  An employment dispute.  Teachers allowing bullying to the point of meltdown. The girlfriends ex-boyfriend who doesnt want to live any longer now that shes gone.  The Wife in a jealous rage over the 17 year old blond bimbo employed as the house maid.

These are the people more likely to kill you.  These are the people you want to have guns to defend themselves with.

Was the Washington Sniper a Burglar or a respected ex-member of the US Military complete with all the disciplines that such a role entails in person.   Was the kid with him an Ax murdering, house invading field before the shootings?  Of course not.  They were the people you want to have a gun in their hand cause your constitution tells you they have a right to protect themselves against those who would seek to do them harm.

Next ask yourself, who got hurt.  Where were their weapons when they needed them most.  None of them were gun owners?

Quote
Once again it's the old "military solution". Punish everyone for the error of one individual. It doesn't matter that the punishment actually has no effect on the true problem, merely that all are punished.


Nice try but no cig..........M14.

The buy back scheme is about weapon reduction. Nowhere in its fibre exists the method, want or need for "Punishment".

Punishment is the excuse of one in fear. Reasoning a rationality by fear to achieve a purpose of self acceptance.

Not only are you afraid by what others tell you, you seem willing to scare yourself in order to perpetuate the lie.

Denying all the freedom (Dare I use that word with you guys and not have to explain its meaning in this content) to buy firearms willy nilly like they were grapefruit at the markets denies ALL including the Criminals that freedom.

Your lower class scumbag will find it harder to get them than you will for conditions will be imposed upon him drying up his sources.

Who are any of you to determine who is safe with a firearm and who is not?  Do you know your neighbour that well?  Do you know if he/she has a firearm and what it is?  Do you know what ammo they use?

If they blat one off in the middle of the night, will it go through their plaster walls, out the window and into your own killing your child in their sleep?

Every single person reading this thread is capable of killing another human being. By accident or design. I dont care what they say. All you need is the right trigger.  We are by nature and instinct killers.  Thats why we are the dominant species. We kill better than anything else.

Buy Back is "Harm Minimisation"  Not the be all and end all of solving Firearm related Crime.

But if you dont make a conscious decision to support it. Neither will anyone else.  And if you can retain your firearm. So can the person seeking to do you harm.  

Most of you have never been in the situation where you need to use a weapon in defence. Hollywood, Story books and your own imagination makes you the John Wayne, Wyatt Earp and Yosamite Sam wannabees with a smoking gun in your hand and the badguy dead at your feet with your family hugging you at the knees telling you how brave you are.

Well boys, the badguys win their share of them to. That means the goodguys are the one of the floor waiting the chalk outline.
Pray your not one of them.

Also, for the sporting shooters paranoid due to some of Hestons NRA BS.  Legitimate Sporting shooters in this country have the same rights they had before the Buy Back scheme.  They dont have fully autos no more without a special licence but then again, any sporting shooter with a fully auto in their hands, isnt really a sporting shooter.  Just a gun nut on a Yippee shoot pretending its sport.

John. Those that didnt had them seized. A Criminal record means instant denial.  Those that hid them, lost them when we entered their homes for breaches of the law regardless of what it was.
Being involved in a domestic dispute, Good Citizens and bad means loss of all firearms by automatic and instant seizure.
Sure some hide them. But they lose them, the moment we know they have them.

You should also be aware that we have knife restrictions as well. Anyone caught with one in a public place without proper excuse, ie occupation, has it seized and them charged with the appropriate offence.

Should we get a series of Nail clipper deaths, I imagine we'll do something about that to.  For now you are free to do you toes as often as you please.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 06:45:34 PM by SC-Sp00k »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2002, 07:11:08 PM »
spook... you live on an island that has no 3rd world country on it's border... your buy back program did nothing but increase crime or... crime increased dramaticly in spite of it.. include firearms crime.... you have suceeded in disarming the law abiding.. I don't really care that is up to you burt keep your nose out of our bussiness.

In our country it is part of our constitution to have the right to keep and bear firearms...  no offense but we don't goive a toejam what you think about that.  

in our country it has been proven that guns prevent crime.  the more guns the less crime.   There is no possible, sensible reason other than gun 'accidents" for us to give up our guns.   Gun accidents are a small part of our accidental fatalities and not really a concern to me even tho I am glad to see that they are going down every year.

I believe that an armed society is a deterent to tyranny... we have all seen reason to believe that the oppossite is true so again....

of what possible use is it to disarm the law abiding in the U.S.?
lazs

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #40 on: October 31, 2002, 07:24:54 PM »
it's a good thing that Australians have been disarmed , for they are a bunch of gun nut crazed killers that shoot their neighbors at the drop of a hat , well what can you expect from people who are desended from convicts.

i wonder if the USA can send it's convicts to Australia, hey you got any room down there?

Offline bounder

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 720
      • http://www.332viking.com
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2002, 07:30:51 PM »
no point John. It would just compound things.

See, we banished our religious nuts to the US and the convicts to Australia. Now, we don't need guns to defend ourselves anymore.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2002, 07:41:34 PM »
bounder , what about the 2 bobbies that were killed by a gang armed with clubs and knives, did they NEED guns to defend themselves?   i guess not

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2002, 08:20:39 PM »
Its almost sad LOL...almost.

My dear American friends. I start with Laz. (I hate quoting so ill run off the bat)

Laz

We have 7 million screaming Indonesian Muslim extremists on our doorstep who have been a constant threat to this country since the early 80's.  We know what its like to have strange neighbours.  Particularly in these current disturbing times.  I trust them about as far as I can throw them.

You have every right not to give a sh*t what I think about your constitution as your feelings on it only amplify my own. As I stated earlier, thankfully, its your problem, not mine.

Your Armed Country vs Tyranny theory is understood but not agreed upon. Imho (you dont give a sh*t so I take the presumption I can state it anyway) your armed state is your Tyranny.  The Aggressor is within.

John

Our prisons are already full of ex-parte American no hopers.  Please keep the riff raff over your side of the pond. I dont allow that fact to cloud my judgement of the American People. Whatever their views on Gun ownership may be.

Our history and yours...Which is worse.  I neither need explain or expound upon that now do I.  I'll take ours thanks :)

If the Brits weren't such completely an*l bast*ards back then over someone knocking off a loaf of bread or having a private moment with a sheep in a quiet corner of a back paddock, I probably wouldnt have a country now would I?  No doubt id have been born in the States and have to peer out the curtains at night behind locked doors with a .410 in my hands, locked and loaded as I protect my daughters from roving gangs of sperm laden young lads and the odd shifty looking Burglar looking for my TV set.

Did the 2 Bobbys need Firearms?  Yes imho. I couldnt imagine doing this job without them.  Policing no matter where you are in the world is essentially the same in a lot of aspects.  Often exciting, always dangerous. You dont get military awards and accolades or the love of the people.  Why do they do it at all. Particularly when the very people you are employed to protect are their own worst enemy.

The British population and Police are a completely novel animal. Their methods of Operation are probably beyond American and Australian understanding. What they do works for them.  Understandably as they dont have the Firearms problem that the states suffers from.

Something to be learnt in that eh?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 08:34:39 PM by SC-Sp00k »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
The gun rights puzzle
« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2002, 10:36:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
The average Criminal will have their access to firearms greatly diminished..... It isnt going to stop them all. Nor have I made that claim.  What it will do is reduce them.
[/b]

Your problem here is that your own Australian government data shows that this hasn't happened. The various crime rates have either stayed essentially the same or increased.


Quote
Was the Washington Sniper a Burglar or a respected ex-member of the US Military complete with all the disciplines that such a role entails in person.   .....Next ask yourself, who got hurt.  Where were their weapons when they needed them most.  None of them were gun owners?
[/b]

Surely you are not suggesting that Australian/English type "bans" would have prevented this?

Even you admit criminals intent on crime can get guns in Australia.

So what would have been different? The victims in the US weren't armed and were shot from ambush without a chance to defend themselves.

Australians would most certainly not be armed and would have died just as easily when shot from ambush.

What difference would your laws have made? Can they 100% prevent an "normal" military vet (who later turns out to be an obviously deranged sicko) from getting a scoped rifle and shooting people from ambush in heavily populated areas? (Note that most of the incidents were single shot, too. Guns your ban "allows"?)


Quote
The buy back scheme is about weapon reduction. Nowhere in its fibre exists the method, want or need for "Punishment".

Not only are you afraid by what others tell you, you seem willing to scare yourself in order to perpetuate the lie.

Denying all the freedom denies ALL including the Criminals that freedom.
[/b]

1. It may have reduced weapons but it obviously hasn't prevented the criminal element from obtaining and using weapons at all. Your Australian stats show that.

2. I'm not afraid of anything. I don't view my firearms as anything more than recreational equipment. Home defense is handled mainly by the Labradors. The only "lie" I see is that confiscation of firearms reduces crime. Hasn't been true yet in England or Australia. In fact, the indication is that things get worse. So who's perpetuating the lie here Spook?

3. "Denying all" hasn't had much effect on the criminal element. You've said it. The "official" stats in both England and Australia say it. The main achievement has been to disarm those who are not the threat.

Quote
Who are any of you to determine who is safe with a firearm and who is not?
[/b]

Are you suggesting that federal government can do this better than state and local authorities? I think that's EXACTLY the sentiment our founders opposed. Understand that the 2nd does NOT restrict the ability of the individual states to regulate firearms. (See New Jersey gun law/cases for an example)

 
Quote
Buy Back is "Harm Minimisation"  Not the be all and end all of solving Firearm related Crime.
[/b]

Well, it apparently hasn't minimised much of anything in the "harm" department. Not in Australia or England.


Quote
 Legitimate Sporting shooters in this country have the same rights they had before the Buy Back scheme.
[/b]

"The following classes of persons are identified as having a genuine reason for owning a firearm:

persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers and their licensed employees;

security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes;

sporting shooters using lawful firearms who have valid membership of an approved club;

recreational shooters/hunters who produce written proof of permission from the owner of public or private land to shoot upon that land;

bona fide collectors of firearms;

persons who have other limited purposes authorised by legislation or Ministerial approval in writing, e.g. firearms used in film production. "



"CATEGORY C - prohibited except for occupational purposes & on certain conditions to members of clubs affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association (ACTA)

Self-loading rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds

Self-loading shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds

Pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds



After firing, a mechanism under the barrel is pumped backwards and forwards once, using the non-trigger hand. This ejects the spent round and loads a fresh one into the firing chamber. The gun is now ready for firing again.


 



CATEGORY D - prohibited except for official purposes


Self loading centrefire rifles.
Many of these are military or quasi-military firearms of enormous destructive power.
Self-loading shotguns and pump-action shotguns with a capacity of more than five rounds.

Self loading rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds

See earlier definitions of self-loading, centrefire and rimfire.


 

CATEGORY H - (restricted)

All handguns, including air pistols.

Pistols and revolvers comprise this category. They are mainly used by sporting shooters for target shooting; security personnel who escort money or valuables; and firearms collectors. "


Sounds to me like a lot of the rights of "Legitimate Shooters" have been either eliminated or severly restricted. Pump shotguns Prohibited? That's the same rights they had before the ban?

And who, to mirror your question, is the Nation to decide who should shoot a pump gun while out hunting ducks? Particularly on one's own land. Seems to me the Nation has other more important business to mind.

We won't agree. I'm glad you like your system. I'm glad I like my system.

I really like Tom Jefferson. I'm thankful he was perhaps the most important "framer".

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

I'd hate living under a "nanny" government. I prefer to do my own decision making and risk assessment, thanks.

I recently hunted through part of Canada. I was on a 4-lane divided highway with a speed limit of 100 KPH. OK, whatever. I then got on to a Provincial Highway that was merely what we'd call a 2 lane gravel "County Road" in Kansas. The speed limit was still 100 KPH. Riiiiiight.  There's government common sense at work for you. Too slow on the 4-lane and too fast on the poorly maintained gravel.

Some folks need a nanny. I'm willing to take a chance without one.

Just me, I guess. I like living in the US.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 11:03:43 PM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!