Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on October 30, 2002, 03:49:19 PM
-
There are some really smart people on this board. Some really smart gun advocates on this board. I have a question that would seem to me to be hard to answer if I understand the fundamental right to guns issue.
Was not the Washington gunman, as an armed citizen of the US, exercising his constitutional right to oppose the government with violence?
If he perceives the US government as tyrannical, is not it his obligation as a citizen to oppose that government?
The same must be true of the columbine killings. Feeling bullied and powerless those boys had the constitutional right to resort to firearms to strike back at their oppressors.
After the fact the courts decide if the use of the gunmen’s judgment was impaired as to whether they were being oppressed or not. But the right to guns is enshrined in the US constitution specifically to allow the above two events to take place.
-
The answer to your question in this troll is no. The murderer in Washington was not in conflict with the government. He was a cowardly killer. Nothing more.
There is no constitutional right to commit murder.
-
How do you construe murdering unarmed civilians that have no ties to the government as "oppose the government with violence"?
As Mav said, it's just a case of serial murder.
-
pongo , your OS is corupted and is giving out false data, reformat and reinstall then call us back
-
Do you mean the right to the 10 million bucks he was asking for?
-
I asked you a question in another post, never mind do not even bother to answer. I could care less.
Man you are just sad.
-
What if he shot only federal government empoyees and representitives?
-
since the 2nd amendmant as it applies to revolution is based mostly on locke you would do well to read what locke had to say on the subject of revolution. Sabre posted a link to a paper that quotes lockes 5 reasons for revolution. I do not believe that the gunman qualifies as a revolutio by lock's or the seconds defenition... but read it and then come back and tell us what you think.
lazs
-
wow lots of hostility.
So the distinction then is you think he was not acting against the goverment. But if he had been. It would be in keeping with the intention of the founding fathers?
Shooting civilains is a time honered tactic in waging war..the concept of the innocence of the victims is irrelivent if he percieves himself to be at war with the goverment. Such actions have been perpetrated in terrorist and guerrilla actions since the invention of the gun.
I dont know if its a troll. I am a gun owner and after reading about the Zebra murders (which ironically led to gun control) I could see that I would want to be an armed white man in the Bay area at that time.
-
pongo... no hostility. You asked a question and I gave you an answer and a means to research it yourself. You should have read it by now and formed your own opinion.
lazs
-
This is the dumbest statement about US gun rights that I have ever heard. Is all of Canada like that?
-
Thanks laz our posts over lapped and I never saw yours before my second post,
why dumb GH?
Are not gun rights entrenched to allow individuals the freedom to use guns for thier purposes. I never said the acts were not illegal I said they were the types of things that the gun rights are there to allow.
You want as sociaty were if need be the goverment can be attacked by the poplulation. This guy decided there was need.
I know your opinion on canadians. Its oft stated. We hear ya GH.
And we are working on all your points...honest
-
Not as silly as it sounds if you ask me. I know little of your Consitution but isnt that the gist of its meaning?
I assume statutory laws take precedence over the consitution.
Now a good arguement would be should you boys with the big hats in the states have guns at all in your homes?
We in Aussie once had your mentality for all things shiny that go bang. Imho, we were lucky and caught ourselves early before the gun lobby took control of the country as it seemingly has in yours.
Now our people up in the north share your NRA mentality and prove difficult to convince when it comes to firearms, however since we did the buy back scheme and retrieved thousands of them, it appears that a swing of 86% of the country now wants tougher guns laws not leniancy.
I should also state that the excuse of self/home protection imho is a load of goat crap and a weak excuse at the best of times.
I myself had up until the buy back scheme, 6 weapons in the house, including a 1912 sniper rifle and a 50 round drum magazine Russian PPS. I understand why you think you need them and I also understand why you will fail in understanding, why you dont.
Flame on :)
-
Here is the link Lazs refers to. Read it carefully, Pongo, and I believe you will understand why the US founding fathers felt it necessary to include the right to be armed as one of our fundamental rights under the constitution. It's not a light read, but well worth it...if you're question was a serious one. Spook, I suggest you read it as well.
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html
Oh, and Spook, all written laws in the US must be judged against the Constitution, not the other way around. All laws derive there power, if you will, from the Constitution, and must not contradict it. You may have meant what we call "common law," which is an entirely different animal. Regardless, the Constitution is the overarching document from which all other laws must not contradict.
-
In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect.
The bozo responsible for this "paper" lost me right here. Firearms are for killing. Nothing more, nothing less. Under threat of a firearm you will not be pointing yours at his gun hand or his leg to stop him. You will be lucky to get a chance to aim at anything but the big body he presents to you. You will shoot to kill despite whatever you say afterwards.
Defence against Firearms is a pro-active commitment. You guys are so hell bent on excusing your behaviour with an ancient document that allows no room for social progression in your society. Be proud of your constitution and what it means to you. But you can hardly cry about the state of affairs in your country with all the badguys, gangs and looney gun owners, if you arent prepared to adapt and accept that the constitution whilst probably valid in many respects cannot possibly hold true for all contingencies that now exist in your society. Essentially, your problems wont change until you yourself change.
The Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church takes the point a step further, stating that women have a Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the rapist's life. "Is the Robber My Brother?"
I'm reading this without the benefit of being familiar with Laz's post. I hope he isnt advocating the fool who wrote this or its content. I could go on quoting but this paper should be hanging in a roll in the little room of the house and hence I wont bore you taking it apart any longer.
Im not knocking Americans. Australia thought as you did. I thought as you did. Regretably and not without some shoving did I give up my weapons. I was wrong.
As a Police Officer who has faced firearm offenders. Used his own (Havent shot anyone yet thankfully) and faces these bozo's that terrorise both our societies, I can honestly say, the best thing that happened to this country was the Gun Control buy back scheme.
2 things make it harder for you guys.
1. Firearms are big business over there. There are a powerful Political entity and one many seem to fear.
2. People like the fool who wrote that paper like to use paranioa fear and behavioural distortion to reinforce their arguement. Luckily for us, those who chose to do it here didnt weild the power that exists in some of your people over there.
Appreciate the link tho. It was a good laugh, albeit a little scary :)
Thank you for clearing up the statute vs Constituational power Sabre. Admittedly my knowledge of it is very poor. I have a rather large belt buckle in a drawer here somewhere with a Grizzly carrying belts of ammo across his shoulders and armed with 2 M16's. It reads...
"I reserve the right to keep and arm bears."
Thats about as close as I get :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What if he shot only federal government empoyees and representitives?
Yeah! Great idea! If ya wanna oppose the government shoot a postman. Let em see what it's like. I try to shoot one a week.....
ok, ok, bad joke.....
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/626629.jpg)
-
Consititution does not guarantee a right to oppose government with violence. It guarantees a right to be armed and also forbids government from oppressing people. There is a provision in Constitution for its own amendment by due process but not for violent overthrow of itself.
If government becomes oppressive contrary to the constitution or an individual(s) tries to overthrow a constitutional government - obviously Constitution becomes irrelevant at this point and the matter is settled by violence.
In that case what the constitution guaranteed (before it become irrelevant) was that any willing person could have a say in the outcome of the violent struggle through owning a gun.
miko
-
spook... you didn't read the part I was refering to.
violent crimes are up 40% in australia since the confiscation. I don't envy you one bit. The new laws have not stopped armed violence.
sabre is correct and you... are australian.
lazs
-
Hey...spook and I agree on something...that link was the biggest pile of roadkill I have read in a while.
Get some historical perspective on why the Constitution says what it does for heavens sake...it was written just after the War of Independance, in a time when political turmoil and the need to protect one's self was the norm.
-
curval... what part is roadkill? It seemed pretty straight forward to me. He explained what the founders felt was a just cause for revolution and why. What is outdated about that?
If you are saying that tyranny does not exist in the world today and can never exist again then I would agree that the constitution is "outdated" ... we are a new breed of human I would guess you are saying... What about that free speech thing too? That was written by those subhumans. Perhaps it is outdated too?
lazs
-
Why should you deny me the right to own a firearm based on what some whackos have done? I own 3 shotguns. My dad has a couple. My stepfather has about 6 or so shotguns and rifles. All are older than me (except for one of my dad's that he bought when the old 12 gauge became unreliable) and some are older than my parents. None of them have ever been fired in anger or at another human in any circumstance. They've been pointed at many a dove, quail and other woodland creatures. As far as I know, every creature that was killed by those weapons were consumed for food. The weapons have also been used to shoot at many a clay pigeon and hell, even hit a few of them. I was taught how to use those firearms responsibly from a young age. I was taught not to fool around with them. They are not for home defense, though I think they'd scare the hell outta people (kinda hard when the only loads you have are fine grain bird shot.) The only way I'd ever level one of those guns at a human was in self defense. I have other ways of dealing with my anger and aggression towards people (and get this, it ain't violence of any sort.)
so you tell me why I can't own those weapons. Don't tell me why other people shouldn't have guns, you tell me why -I- shouldn't have those weapons.
-
Nicely written, Spook, however every source I can find seems to agree that crime is up in Australia since the ban.
For those truly interested, there's a detailed discussion of claims and counter claims by Ron Owen, President, Firearm Owners Of Australia here:
Australia's Gun Laws: The Definitive Statistics (http://www.sas-aim.org/news/australia.htm)
It's a long but interesting read.
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures) "Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98
John Lott had some stats in a Wall Street Journal Opinion Article that seem relevant:
Gun Control Misfires in Europe (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105002026)
In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that despite the ban, "the underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all."
Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
And both Britain and Australia have been thought to be ideal places for gun control because they are surrounded by water, making gun smuggling relatively difficult. By contrast smuggling is much easier on the Continent or within the U.S.
Some nice graphs and perhaps better objective stats here:
RESULTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN GUN "BUYBACK" & NEW GUN LAWS
(http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html)
(From the Graph Summaries)
The ban/buyback had no perceptible impact on assault rates, neither increasing assault nor decreasing it.
Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.
The homicide rates provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad.
As seen in Figure 5, the murder rate had no definite trend from '93 through 2000....So the plots of murder and gun murder rates tell us basically nothing about changes possibly caused by the ban/buyback.
*********
So, all in all, what I see from the "Australian Experiment" is another example of the "military mentality". That is, if ONE guy screws up, everyone must be punished. The punishment doesn't have to achieve anything other than being a punishment.
From what I'm reading some Aussie crime categories have definitely gone up and others have either stayed about the same or show no "trend" either way.
So, all that has been accomplished is that those who used guns lawfully have been punished by removing their ability to enjoy their gun-related hobbies. But these people, of course, were never the problem anyway.
The criminals, the folks who always were the problem, don't seem to have been inhibited very much, if at all.
So what was the point of the experiment? Just another "feelgood" social solution that has no real effect?
Particularly in view of what guns were actually turned in as delineated by Robert Owen? (ie: How many murders with bolt-action Enfields did you guys have before and after?)
-
Don't ya just hate Facts and Data, Spook? ;)
Malcolm also offers a revealing comparison of the experience in England experience with that in the modern United States. Today Americans own some 200 million guns and have seen eight consecutive years of declining violence, while the English--prohibited from carrying weapons and limited in their right to self-defense have suffered a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime.
"Guns and Violence, The English Experience"
Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALGUN.html
Ever read the book Fahrenheit 451?
Fahrenheit 451," Ray Bradbury's famous novel of a totalitarian future where books are burned is being acted out in England. But instead of destroying books, authorities seek out and destroy guns owned by citizens in defiance of the national ban.
Those who remember Bradbury's book know the way that subtle alterations of terminology and a slow erosion of common sense can pervert an entire society to the point that it destroys itself in the quest for perfection. In this case, the perfection they seek is a society without violence, but like all utopian experiments this one, too, is doomed to failure.
A chilling article appeared recently in the Sun describing how several ordinary, middle-class men were arrested for keeping guns hidden in their homes in violation of the ban. The article was loaded with propaganda terms reminiscent of Bradbury's imagination. Two retired teachers were called "gun-mad," "gun obsessives" and "gun nuts." Other arrestees were an engineer and fireman. A photo of Dunblane murderer Thomas Hamilton, labeled "monster," was included to further vilify and stereotype the violators.
It is fascinating to read the growing flood of news reports in the British press about the exploding rate of violent crime in the UK, especially gun crime. Many stories about gun crimes mention the harsh gun laws enacted after the "Dunblane Massacre" in 1996. The reporters seem perplexed at the failure of these laws to reduce crime, but never seem to make the connection that would occur to most Americans.
Scholars Joseph Olsen and David Kopel pointed out a few years ago the uncanny relationship between the enactment of English gun laws and subsequent increases in crime. Even a small child could look at the 100-year graph showing the crime rate vs. gun laws and see the tragic conclusion.
A new book by respected history professor Joyce Lee Malcom explains how twin attacks on gun rights and self-defense rights have made England into the most crime-ridden country in the developed world.
The strictest gun laws on the planet have effectively disarmed law-abiding citizens, allowing criminals to run amok with illegally owned guns, knives and even fake guns. Instead of a gun-free society, they have created a situation where guns are more useful and valuable to criminals than ever before. A thriving black market imports guns from Eastern Europe and distributes makeshift guns produced by local craftsmen out to make a quick pound.
'In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is King'
Criminals are now certain that citizens have no effective means to resist an armed attack. The gun-armed criminal is thus a king free to rape and plunder at will.
At least Britain deserves credit for thoroughness. In contrast with American practice, where the rich and famous are effectively exempt from gun laws, English gun controls are so tight that even celebrities are unarmed, leading to many reports of celebrity mansion burglaries and street assaults.
Attempts to counter this avalanche of crime with more police are hampered by limited budgets and a liberal criminal justice system. Thousands of video surveillance cameras have sprouted everywhere, reducing privacy but failing to provide the desired protection.
Laws against self-defense have sent to jail Englishmen who would have been hailed as crime-fighting heroes in America. Years of expenditures and sacrifice have simply created the world's safest working conditions for criminals.
Instead of repealing the counterproductive laws, English politicians prefer to pile on more laws outlawing knives, air guns and toys. Their utter faith in government and their complete ignorance of human nature is stunning.
Americans have good reason to point at our English cousins and laugh as they laughed at us during the era of alcohol prohibition, but I suggest we thank them for conducting one of the great social experiments of our time. By showing the counterproductive nature of gun control, they are teaching us a powerful lesson. We can only hope they see the light before their society is too badly damaged.
Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, http://www.dsgl.org. E-mail the author at rkba2000@yahoo.com.
References
"Gun-Mad Teachers Arrested"
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/...04,00.html
"All the Way Down the Slippery Slope"
Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html
Gun crime stories from the UK:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/en...765622.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english...police.stm
-
Spook: I’m surprised and disappointed that you have so casually dismissed, even denigrated, the article, “OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL.” You have taken two lines and posted them out of context, then insulted the author, in what would appear an attempt to distort the whole point of the article. I’m not exactly sure what point you were trying to make with the quote about the Methodist church’s position on self-defense. I get the impression it was meant to make people discount the article without reading it in its entirety. You’d do well, Spook, designing political campaign adds here in the US.
Again I urge people to read this article and judge for themselves. The paper is well thought out, well researched, and puts the whole gun control debate in a perspective often ignored deliberately by those who wish to cast all who support the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution as extremists. It contains some very startling data, both historical and statistical, regarding the link to gun control and the rise of societal chaos and tyranny. It also discusses logically and thoughtfully the issue of the right of self-defense, presenting both sides of the issue (hence the Methodist church statement, which was meant to show one pole of that issue).
As far as that “ancient document that allows no room for social progression in your society,” your self-admitted ignorance of our constitutional government is in evidence in your comments. The Founding Fathers did indeed make provisions for social changes, by allowing for a process to amend the Constitution (which has been done on a number of occasions in it’s several hundred-year existence). They also made it a difficult process, to insure that any changes would not be made in the name of some transient notion, in the heat of passion, so to speak. The proposition the author makes in the aforementioned article is that changes in society, as attested to by the 170-some odd million people killed in genocides in the last century (perpetuated in spite of, and in some case by, duly elected governments of so called civilized societies), not only do not invalidate the right of the citizen to bear arms, but in fact reinforce the need to protect and preserve that right. The right of self-defense, both from “bad people” in society and from tyranny, is as relevant today as it was 200 hundred years ago, perhaps even more so.
Someone mentioned earlier that the argument that goes, “cars kill more people than guns in America,” is not a good analogy. I disagree. It is certainly not an exact analogy; however, the parallels are in the area of “cost versus benefit.” Allowing people to drive cars has a societal cost, in the form of accidental deaths, negligent homicides/manslaughter, and first and second-degree vehicular homicides. We accept this cost without thinking about it because the benefits are tangible and overwhelming. An armed citizenry also has a societal cost in that a small number of citizens will, through negligence or malice, harm others with those guns. The benefits are more potential than tangible (unless you have prevented harm to yourself because you had a gun with you at the right time), but must be given weight nonetheless. England, Australia, and some other countries/societies have decided (sometimes in accordance with the popular will of their own people, sometimes in spite of it) the benefits were outweighed by the cost. Sometimes those governments did so in the premeditated furtherance of tyranny and genocide, such as in Nazi Germany in the mid to late 30’s, and many third world nations more recently (remember Ede Amein?).
Regarding self-defense, I am not a physically imposing person. If someone brakes into my home or confronts me on the street, I am not willing to bet my life, or the life of my loved ones or even my neighbor’s, that a cop will be there at the instant I need him/her. In the end, the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than the right to self-defense, either from tyranny or random brutality.
Still waiting for Pongo's take on the article, btw.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Hey...spook and I agree on something...that link was the biggest pile of roadkill I have read in a while.
Get some historical perspective on why the Constitution says what it does for heavens sake...it was written just after the War of Independance, in a time when political turmoil and the need to protect one's self was the norm.
And the world was soooo much safer at that time than now? The las century has seen more genocide than any other. Political turmoil and the need to protect one's self has not deminshed since that time.
The constitution was indeed written at a time of war and political turmoil...almost as bad as today's. Because of that, the framers of the constitution had a keen understanding of human nature. Modern "civilized" societies forget that society itself is a vaneer at worst, a falible bulwark at best, against that human nature.
-
I knew that if I asked that question here I would get some real meat to think on.
Thanks guys.
that british thing is scarry. Has the economy tanked in the same time to sway the numbers? The European Union certainly had come into effect during that time. Has that effected the crime rate.
Were not bobbys gunless for most of our lives? They were in the movies...
-
pongo... i seen bobbies with subguns when i was over there.
australia... well... even if the lowest estimate of crime increase is taken.... gun violence has increased since the confiscation of law abiding citizens personal property and means of defense by govenment forces. so.... we can live with a little extra crime..... no big deal..... less freedom and recreation and the bbanning of hobbies... maybe we can live with that but...
The payoff has to be a big one.. What is the tradeoff in this case for all these negative features? Why the payoff is.... Now the government knows its sujects are unarmed and helpless... That has had some interesting consequences in the past eh?
sabre has p[osted the link to the article in question. I suggest that everyone read it and form their own opinion. It is, as he says, well researched and documented and well thought out. I would also suggest that everyone read john lotts book "more guns less crime"
I would be willing to read any book that an anti gun guy here feels makes their case for more gun control in america. All the ones I have read have been widely discredited for being dishonest. It seems to me that if you can't make a case against firearms without lieing then you don't have a case... I do not accept how you "feel" about it as being fact.
lazs
-
I thought it was dumb because you appeared to state that a pair of serial killers randomly murdering 10 innocent unrelated civilians is somehow part of the US constitution's second amendment rights. Yes I think that's how I might see that as a dumb statement....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I thought it was dumb because you appeared to state that a pair of serial killers randomly murdering 10 innocent unrelated civilians is somehow part of the US constitution's second amendment rights. Yes I think that's how I might see that as a dumb statement....
And the Chetchens..did they look at the list of people in the theater to make sure the list was ok for thier purposes..or were the people in the theater in effect random..
You shouldnt huck the word dumb arround..its a sticky word.
-
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?
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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?
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
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"?)
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.
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)
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.
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.
-
Dear Toad (sounds like im writing a chapter of wind in the willows)
Im not slamming America or Americans. Converting the lot of you into a peaceful race of beings not unlike the Star Trek happy world is beyond poor old me.
Im simply stating it as I see it. The Gun Buy Back system as ive stated many times above does not solve it all. It is a step in the right direction. Yes, Criminals will still get guns. Gun Control simply makes it harder for them for them to do so.
Joe Citizen who really wants a gun could also get one on false pretences but the system makes it harder for him to do so.
Your neighbour could make his own. I've a loverly book here to tell him how to do it. But he will think twice before doing so.
You can have a gun or not have a gun but if someone wants a piece of you in the middle of the night, he's gonna get that piece whether your armed or not. Contrary to the movies, Assassins and Killers dont make appointments or shoot you at 10 paces whilst daring you to draw.
In your society, you allow these people to have these weapons. In my society we do whatevers possible to keep them from getting them.
I dont agree with those bleeding from the eyes about self protection. In no BS terms, that arguement holds about as much water as glass tumbler with both ends removed.
While your polishing your gun, so is the other guy. Who meets who in the encounter is relevant only to the Courts and the Coroner.
To Change things in this Country was a long and involved process that met fierce resistance. To Change things in yours would be tantamount to Civil War.
Would the Washington Sniper have been stopped by National Gun Laws? Maybe. Who knows. Perhaps he would have used an alternative method. Who knows what goes on in the mind of a killer. Would it have made it harder for him to achieve his goal in the method he employed? Yes, I think so.
The bottom line is this.
If someone wants to kill you, your dead. It wont matter if your wrapped within the cocoon of a Sherman Tank. Your guns wont matter unless your in a shootout at the OK Corral and up against the dumbest of killers.
Take away the nations right to bear arms in the fashion that you do and you cease to make it so damn easy for the badguys to do the same.
Its neither easy nor perfect. But im willing to bet its a damn sight better than what you have now.
Put your murder rate per Capita against ours.
An interesting link lies here. It draws interesting references between Australia, the US and Great Britain. I wont bore you with quotes. If your interested, have a read.
http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/liberties/12.htm
The Crime rates you seem hell bent on pushing as an issue you will find are not in regards to Homicide. You boys hold the title belt there.
-
Spook, I believe you believe the buy-back produced a net improvement in your society. While you have failed to convince me of that, I respect your right to believe that, as I respect your opinion as a police officer. However, two of your statements seem particularly incongruous to me.
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.
I like quotes, by the way. Less chance of me misinterpreting the speaker. So, fire arms offenses are up since the buy-back. Your claim that they are due to "The economy, cost of living, welfare supported numbers, drug availability, drought, fire devastation, the list goes on" is based on what? Statistics? The assumption, impossible to prove, is that it would be much worse if the buy-back had not occured. Evidence in my country seems to point to the opposite.
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.
So knives are more dangerous than guns? How does this relate to the increase in fire arm offenses you mention above?
Finally, you fail to address seriously the idea that an armed citizenry is a deterent to tyranny. It's all well to say, "It can't happen here." I like to think it can't happen in the USA, either. The difference is, my own believe is supported in my own mind by twin pillers. The first is that our government's checks and balances provide a degree of protection against that. The second piller is that my own goverment understands that the people have the means to resist any efforts to scrap the constitution.
I am not a gun-toting, male-ego-driven, fear-mongering John Wayne type. Neither are most responsible gun owners in this country. I respectfully submit that it is you, not I, that have fallen for Hollywood's distorted view of life in America. You see, I live here, and understand my own society. That's because I am my society, or at least a microcosm of it. Not the fringe, mind you...more the mainstream.
By the way, I do not now own a gun (though I've got a nasty-sharp sabre I keep close at hand;)). By I will defend the right of law-abiding citizens to own them if they want to, just as I defend the right of those same citizens to disagree with me. I dedicated the last 20 years of my life to defending those rights, as an Air Force officer. I will continue to defend it by making sure no b*st*rd of a politician tries to undermine those rights, by use of my franchise to vote.
-
Getting late here, so I'll keep this short.
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
In your society, you allow these people to have these weapons. In my society we do whatevers possible to keep them from getting them.
[/b]
Not exactly. There are some checks and attempts here to restrict firearm purchases.
However, in YOUR society you simply banned most guns and confiscated the "illegal" ones.
Your solution denies everyone a gun in the hope of preventing the "bad apples" from getting firearms.
Our solution attempts to separate the "bad apples" at the time of purchase and deny THEM the gun.
As you point out neither system is perfect. Criminals still have access to guns in both societies. And, IMO, your stats (even the ones in your link) don't show that you're system is any better than ours, really.
Would the Washington Sniper have been stopped by National Gun Laws? Maybe. Who knows.
[/b]
Exactly. Maybe. Maybe not. Australia is willing to restrict/deny the lawful use of guns by everyone in the off chance it would have stopped one guy.
Since we're swapping articles (I did read yours. btw. Some of the "Australianese" was hard to decipher.) Here's another way to look at the DC incident.
]Relative risks and snipers, or, how I learned to stop worrying and live my life (http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2002/10/16.html)
"So you are only slightly more likely to be shot by the sniper than hit by lightning. You are twice as likely to be hit by a car while walking down the street than being shot by the sniper. You are more than ten times as likely to trip and fall at home than being shot by the sniper. You are 35 times more likely to die in a car crash while driving than being shot by the sniper.
When you go out of the house, do you worry about dying from driving, being hit by a car, tripping over and falling to your death, or being hit by lightning?"
And that's with a known threat in just one metropolitan area.
Do you restrict all the good things that lawful use of firearms brings to so many people on this remote chance?
Or do you go after the criminals instead?
I don't worry about this stuff. The odds are simply too remote.
BTW, you seem to shrug off the restrictions and denials of the opportunity to use firearms lawfully that you've forced on your citizenry.
As I mentioned, one guy screws up, the entire population gets the hammer. I'm not in favor of that.
You folks have chosen that course. The result? (From your link)
"between 1989 and 1998, the homicide rate (which includes both murder and manslaughter) as measured by the National Homicide Monitoring Program remained relatively stable, fluctuating between 1.7 and 2.0 per 100 000 population (around 300 homicides in total each year)"
So basically, NOTHING has changed in the homicide/manslaughter totals. Still ~300 a year before and after the ban.
Yet MUCH has changed in the lives of the everyday common Australian citizen that used to use guns lawfully. And none of it made his life any more pleasurable or convenient.
Again, your gain for restricting the lawful citizen was...... NOTHING.
You probably need more restrictions or something. ;)
-
Im finding it hard to understand your justifications Toad.
For example.
Your quote a crime rate that hasnt changed before or after the Ban. Surely that tells you something? Crime doesnt go down. It only ever goes up. It can fluctuate but the economy creates desperate people and nobody in the lower class pay bracket seems to be getting richer these days. Instead of allowing the crime rate to increase, it keeps it at bay at a stable level. If we were talking about Drink Drivers we would all be applauding that result. Seems like a big winner to me.
You state Our solution attempts to separate the "bad apples" at the time of purchase and deny THEM the gun.
I go back to my original statements that your average jo smo is more likely to be the one attempting to kill you. Serial Killers are by and large a rare breed in most societies. Burglars burgle, Rapists rape, Drunks assault, killers kill. Now every now and again one os going to deviate and by foresight of consequence, accident or deliberation move into the genre of Murder but on the whole, they tend to stick to their Methods of Operandi.
Again, its not about restricting the lawful citizen. Its about restricting everyone. A lawful citizen is only lawful until engaged in criminal activity. Who here knows good people who have come to grief with the law? I do. Perhaps not to the extent of Murder but its not outside the realm of possibility either. Many lawful citizens commit Murder. You cant stop them in your society before they commit the offence. In ours, there is a design to try and do just that. Which is essentially my point in this debate.
Sabre, I still see firearms raising their ugly heads in jobs that I attend today despite the buy back scheme. Firearms are used by ethnic gangs in heavily populated areas. By drunken farmers in disputes and domestic and Armed Robbery incidents. There are other groups and incidents also. We havent got them all by a long shot.
The Buy Back scheme will not wipe out Firearm offences. If the criminals and Gun owners, all said, "Hell yes, lets do this" then that would be possible :D . You and I know, tho that, that is a pipe dream.
10-15 years ago, people used to fight in bars with their fists. Apart from serious assaults, you were likely to fracture a cheekbone and maybe suffer concussion. Nowadays, its knives and guns. Particularly in the Cities. Sydney is a classic example.
Asian crime gangs. Lebonese Crime Gangs introduced the knife culture. Like all threats, when faced with one you respond with something bigger. Guns became more frequent. Hence the need to gain control.
Now crime stats are a wonderful thing to interpret but rarely are they on the money. Example. If a job is reported as a Burglary, it goes on the system as a Burglary. The job may not be in fact a Burglary at all, but a Theft. 9 times out of 10, the Police Officer wont be bothered changing it as all thats important to them is the investigation and prosecution of the offender/s. The Stats will report the job as a Burglary because thats what it went down on the system as, despite it never being or resembling one.
Many gun incidents are the same. I cant count the number of jobs ive attended over the years where someone has been sighted with a gun in the suburbs only to find out its a kid with a toy or someone carrying a broom etc. The Stats still report it as a gun job.
Murders/Homocides are a little different. Everyone dots the i's and crosses the t's with them. Police Officers are unlikely not to change the status of a job if its incorrect because the big ones always bring scrutiny from all corners.
Now I may have incorrectly tried to explain this earlier on...
Anyone with a Legitimate purpose for owning a gun, ie; farmers, sporting shooters, occupational needs etc can still buy a gun in this country. Theres still plenty of the buggers about. They simply cant buy any gun they want without giving good reason and showing due cause.
I cant find arguement with that, even to use the US citizens need or desire to own a gun for home defence other than to say, its a bloody sensible idea. Show due cause and lawful excuse and you get one. Otherwise you dont. Pretty basic methodology.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Im finding it hard to understand your justifications Toad.
[/b]
Don't worry, that's a mutual problem here.
Your quote a crime rate that hasnt changed before or after the Ban. Surely that tells you something? Crime doesnt go down. It only ever goes up.
[/b]
Sorry, Spook. You're just plain wrong. Crime rates in the US have been dropping across the board over the last 10-15 years. It's just this last year that has seen a small upward spike. This is pretty well documented in our media if you care to look. Or from your own posted link, if you wish:
The United States has the highest homicide rate of 6.8 per 100 000 population. The US rate has been declining since 1994
Declining without using a gun buy back or ban; declining (for whatever combination of reasons) using just OUR system of restricting some buyers.
How could this be possible without a gun ban, eh? Obviously, there's a whole lot more to it than just the guns.
Further, your Australian crime rates had been dropping as well prior to Port Arthur. Again I quote from YOUR link:
In 1995-96 the proportion of homicides committed with a firearm was 21 per cent, a figure much lower than that which prevailed twenty years ago (the proportion then was around 40 per cent). The proportion has continued at that rate ever since. Thus, the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides
So, let's look at it.
US crime rates declined with NO buy-back/ban.
Australian crimes rates WERE declining up until Port Arthur and the ban but have STAYED THE SAME (unlike the US which continued to decline slightly) ever since the buy-back/ban.
So what did you folks accomplish with your ban?
Nothing that I can see documented. You made a nice "feelgood" move that had essentially no effect except to put your lawful hunters and shooters through a lot of pointless, unnecessary BS.
Spook: Again, its not about restricting the lawful citizen. Its about restricting everyone. A lawful citizen is only lawful until engaged in criminal activity.
[/b]
Jeez, that last line chillingly reminds me of the "guilty until proven innocent" approach that our Founders were obviously so against. Our whole jurisprudence system is based on the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty.
It's not "if engaged in criminal activity" it's "until".
If that' the atttude of Australian government.. whew. I'm REALLY glad I live here in the US now!
And perhaps that's the big difference. I think we're (US) focused on allowing people rights until and IF they prove themselves unworthy of exercising those rights.
Some governments, notably England and Australia, have taken the view that no one is worthy of exercising some rights.
Spook: Anyone with a Legitimate purpose for owning a gun, ie; farmers, sporting shooters, occupational needs etc can still buy a gun in this country.
[/b]
If I read your gun rights as clipped and posted above, that's simply a bit of misdirection. Your government decides "legitimate purpose" and even describes the firearms that can be used. Pump shotguns prohibited? That's the mainstay of the US hunter; inexpensive and extremely reliable. It's most certainly a legitimate gun for hunting. Yet it's prohibited in you country. I'd view that as a typical government overreaction.
And while you're citizens can buy a gun, they're very restricted on how/when they can use it, how/when they can store it, how much ammunition they can have on hand, etc.? are they not?
In short, Australia, like England, has made it cumbersome and difficult to own and use whatever firearms have been left as "available" to the citizenry.
And again, to what end? Previously declining crime rates in both of those countries have either stabilized or increased. No gain for all the BS.
Spook: Show due cause and lawful excuse and you get one. Otherwise you dont. Pretty basic methodology.
One that doesn't work, apparently. We've had declining rates without any bans.
You've had declining rates until the ban and then they stabilized.
And that's from YOUR link.
Bottom line is this and you can't get around it:
, the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides
[/b]
In fact, none of the scientists/stats can show that the post-Port Arthur gun laws had anything at all to do with declining rates since we, the worst of the worst, had declining rates WITHOUT any "post-Port Arthur (type) gun laws".
So, simply put, your buy back did NOTHING. And that's why I'm biased against that solution. It hasn't worked for you.
It's simply a "feelgood" measure by any objective assessment of the data.
And that's where we differ. I'm sure you don't agree.
I wonder what would have happened to Australia's crime rate had all that money, time and effort been poured into the police force instead of searching for and buying up some old farmer's bolt-action Enfield. I'll wager it would have continued to decline rather than stabilized.
-
So are you guys going to outlaw knives too Spook? Sounds like you need to. Not all of them of course, you could apply for a knife license, such as a professional chef.