The link below is to the final part of a multi-part piece done by Jon Oliver and The Daily Show. It turns out Australia and the US are a lot more similar than one might think except Australians as a whole are apparently less crazy and less selfish. And Australian politicians actually care more about their society then their own careers.
Thursday April 25, 2013 Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath John Oliver learns it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar.
Tuesday April 23, 2013 Gun Control & Political Suicide John Oliver vows that never again will a political career end in a senseless act of meaningful legislation.
And the first piece in this three part series can be viewed at the link below. Funny and salient stuff.
Thursday April 18, 2013 Gun Control Whoop-de-doo Following the Senate's defeat of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, John Oliver tests the theory that government-mandated gun control doesn't work.
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
russia bans civilian guns, yet has had plenty of mass murders in schools, .
they have seen events much worse then in america, one notable event, saw over 150 dead, in a country that bans civilian guns
how is this possible when guns are banned in russia?
how is making a law forcing non crimnalsto not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?
why do people assume a crook willing to break the laws against murder/theft/him owning a gun with a record/ect will follow a law that says he double plus cannot own guns?
easysauce wrote: canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
russia bans civilian guns, yet has had plenty of mass murders in schools, .
they have seen events much worse then in america, one notable event, saw over 150 dead, in a country that bans civilian guns
how is this possible when guns are banned in russia?
how is making a law forcing non crimnalsto not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?
why do people assume a crook willing to break the laws against murder/theft/him owning a gun with a record/ect will follow a law that says he double plus cannot own guns?
Canada still has a lot less gun than the US (and pretty much any developed country does) also isn't comparing the US to Russia a bit dishonest wouldn't it be better to compare it to more similar nations like the UK, France, Canada, Australia, etc.
canada may have less total # of guns, but we have more the 30% of our population owning guns (more if you take into account pre registration guns)
comparing russia to US is NOT dishonest, why that is a lie in your mind I do not know, you can say its not applicable in your opinion, but its not dishonest.
if banning guns is the solution to "the problem",
why is "the problem" still in countries that have banned guns?
comparing russia to us is perfectly fair,
both are large, populous super powers, both have had plenty of foreign polocy shenanigans,
both have terror acts/shootings/ect and russia has had it worse,
one bans civilian guns, one doesnt.
using two countries that you consider "non dishonest comparisons"
and the links to wiki that you provided shows:
United States 88.8 guns per 100 people
Canada 30.8 guns per 100 people
the US has a gun death rate of 10.20
and canada has a gun death rate of 2.13
why is it that a country with 1/3 of the guns the US has, only has 1/5 the gun related deaths? OFC according to the wiki article you linked, which includes all gun deaths, suicides accidents ect
why do countries with far fewer guns then canada, have far more gun deaths?
the same question, re russia and the us, is very valid.
my point still very much stands:
if banning guns is the solution to "the problem",
why is "the problem" still in countries that have banned guns?
The US has well over 30% of the population owning guns though, so you can't really compare us. We have 88 guns per 100 people. Canada only has 30.8 per 100.
Canada also doesn't have to deal with as much organized crime.
But yes, its true that banning guns is not a solution to the problem. its like just giving a person who had their arm cut off morphine and no other treatment.
Guns are merely objects of violence, they are not the cause. A gun does not make its owner more likely to commit a violent crime. A psychopath with a knife is more likely to commit a crime than a sane person with a gun.
The real cause is both organized crime and the lack of being able to identify people with mental problems.
Background checks can help, but only if they are implemented in this fashion.
1) We have a national database of known felons and mentally unstable people.
2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.
That is a sensible background check.
Also, this should be accompanied by a universal repeal of all gun bans and restrictions. Our guns are meant to be a check on government power, any restrictions of specific guns violates the second amendment.
Im hard pressed to find something with 88% ownership to compare the states too.
my only thought is to compare the states to itself,
where in cities like chicago, where the gun laws are very very restrictive,
they have one of the worse gun crime problems.
and yes... it is 100% the fault of gangs and organized crime, they can pass all the laws they want, but the fact is they have a crime problem, not a gun problem.
then you have other places in the states that make gun ownership "mandatory" and have very little gun crime
I 100% agree, the database of people proven not trustworthy with guns (ie convicted crooks, those diagnosed through due process with mental issues that disqualify, ect)
is the way to go, its cheaper, more effective then a list of people who ARE allowed to own guns, and its not on the slippery slope to encroaching on the 2nd amendmant.
Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the
Cheesecat wrote: Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the
Cheesecat wrote: Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the
US is).
russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,
and not more corrupt then the states, you just hear more about how corrupt other countries are, because your own media isnt going to tell you how corrupt your country is.
or you just have not been paying attention to things in america like LIBOR, bear stearns, all the ponzi schemes, senate seats being sold, and so on so forth.
I would be quicker to place the US as a 2nd world country then to place russia as a 3rd world one.
as it stands, both are super powers, both are 1st world, both are corrupt, more or less
both experiance the fallout from this crime/corruption
yet the states can do all this and still live up to the ideals that the government is for the people, by the people, of the people
IE the government does not have more rights then its citizens, even with regards to gun ownership.
even if we do assume the pretense that russia is more corrupt, why is that?
could it be that a government that does not fear its people, will be more corrupt then one that does?
russia can do whatever it wants to its people, and they have no way to fight back, so that could lead to this corruption you are talking about.
In america, the politicians at least know that the public has teeth to bite with if they get pushed to far.
easysauce wrote: russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,
1) Not really. What constitutes 'Russia' has undergone radical changes over the last 200 years , and the government has change several times, while the US has been stable. If you are just going by landmass they are the same age, as the continents were both around going before the countries. Just assuming that because something is on the other side of the pond means it is older is pretty silly.
He also didn't say it was a 3rd world country, he stated that under certain measures it would be classified as a a developing country.
Cheesecat wrote: Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the
US is).
russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,
and not more corrupt then the states, you just hear more about how corrupt other countries are, because your own media isnt going to tell you how corrupt your country is.
or you just have not been paying attention to things in america like LIBOR, bear stearns, all the ponzi schemes, senate seats being sold, and so on so forth.
I would be quicker to place the US as a 2nd world country then to place russia as a 3rd world one.
as it stands, both are super powers, both are 1st world, both are corrupt, more or less
both experiance the fallout from this crime/corruption
yet the states can do all this and still live up to the ideals that the government is for the people, by the people, of the people
IE the government does not have more rights then its citizens, even with regards to gun ownership.
even if we do assume the pretense that russia is more corrupt, why is that?
could it be that a government that does not fear its people, will be more corrupt then one that does?
russia can do whatever it wants to its people, and they have no way to fight back, so that could lead to this corruption you are talking about.
In america, the politicians at least know that the public has teeth to bite with if they get pushed to far.
Being a superpower doesn't mean you're a developed country and the 3 world theory is more relevant to Cold War politics and has more to do with which countries were with the USSR, the US or neutral.
Cheesecat wrote: Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the
US is).
russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,
and not more corrupt then the states, you just hear more about how corrupt other countries are, because your own media isnt going to tell you how corrupt your country is.
Two things:
1) Cheese is from Canada (as far as I know), "his own media" is different from that of the US, and so would have no bias in regards to Russia vs. The US by your logic.
2) Please Please Please Please Please Please Please stop pressing enter every time you write a comma; a comma is not a full stop, it does not mean you have to start a new paragraph and at the moment I'm less likely to agree with your posts purely because you keep on starting new paragraphs when they're unnecessary.
easysauce wrote: canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
You know some darned paranoid Australians then! As a Kiwi I have many close friend sin Australia, and they have no such fears in the slightest.
how is making a law forcing non crimnals to not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?
Um, I'm fairly sure that Australians can still own guns. They have just limited types of guns and ammunition and elaborate background checks. Why do gun nuts always think we want there to be no guns anywhere? You can have guns. We just want less of the bullet hoses that kill so many so quickly.
I think it's safe to say there's something wrong with the US when it comes to gun politics and culture if they need to compare their stats to politically unstable/corrupt developing countries in order to look OK.
I have never once in my life feared I would be under the threat of house invasion by criminals if I didn't have a gun.
contrary to believe criminals getting guns illegally tends to be really hard as they tend to cost a lot to buy, maintain and hide without being caught.
People in Australia can still buy guns legally but you need to have a license and be able to give a good reason to why you want/need one. Military weaponry i.e automatic/semi auto weapons tend to be restricted to occupational or military use only.
I admit that some states are bit more lenient with guns laws while some are extremely strict such as Tasmania not allowing people to even own paintball guns due to the port Arthur massacre for example.
But as a nation most people here don't feel their lives are threatened for not having access to some guns.
I can say i don't mind guns much, but having access to military grade weaponry isn't going to make things safer for people.
I would feel less safe if anyone could get their hands on a military rifle with a large ammo capacity and able to fire more then 600 rounds per minute.
But that is how I feel as a Australian.
Many people I know who are also Australian will agree with me.
Yeah, that 'many australians that I know fear for their lives because of daylight house invasions' thing...not so sure. Never come across anyone scared of that, and I actually live here (and I'm living in a pretty dodgy part of brisbane to be honest, and even then there is no worry of this)
2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.
I'd like to point out that this is exactly the system we have now for the purchase of firearms. The only thing missing from your proposal is the mental illness. There's a problem with adding mental illness to the database, in that what kinds/ severity of mental illness would prohibit a firearm purchase? Diagnosed/ confirmed by how many doctors? Is treatment enough to allow an exception? Is putting somebody on the "too wacko to own a gun" list a violation of privacy? The term 'illness' indicates a potential cure; how long does one stay on this list, or is it permanent?
2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.
I'd like to point out that this is exactly the system we have now for the purchase of firearms. The only thing missing from your proposal is the mental illness. There's a problem with adding mental illness to the database, in that what kinds/ severity of mental illness would prohibit a firearm purchase? Diagnosed/ confirmed by how many doctors? Is treatment enough to allow an exception? Is putting somebody on the "too wacko to own a gun" list a violation of privacy? The term 'illness' indicates a potential cure; how long does one stay on this list, or is it permanent?
Search YouTube for "gangstalking" and you'll very quickly understand the concern of not including mental illness on the list of reasons to exclude firearm ownership.
easysauce wrote: all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
HI THERE! I'm Michael, i'm an Australian citizen by birth.
Right now that you know me.
I live in what's considered a rough neighbourhood. Granted it's probably fairly safe by American standards. I have never, NEVER felt unsafe in my neighbourhood. Not once. I have never feared getting jumped late at night and i don't know anyone who has been. I don't think i'm worse off for not being able to get a gun. I have no need of a gun. I have no use for gun. I would also like to see some evidence of these broad daylight home invasions and how they are something we fear. I also take personal offence at the remark about not being able to defend the house i live in. Now i don't know any form of martial arts, i don't box, hell im not even that good of a fighter. But to imply i can't defend myself, my parents or my brother without the need of a firearm is downright insulting. You try to break into my house and/or threaten a member of my family and i'll tear your fething face off with my bare hands. Better yet i'll cave your miscreant skull in with the ball peen hammer stashed next to the bookcase in the hallway or i'll gouge out your eyes with the needle nose pliers sitting on my bench. Or you know what, i might not do anything. I might just sit back and let the two Staffordshire Bull Terriers we own rip your bloody throat out.
And to make such a crass sweaping generalisation as "no aussie can defend their homes" because we don't have guns is... disgusting, not to put to finer point on it.
So please, do yourself a favour. Don't talk about things you have no clue about.
So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?
What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?
From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.
Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.
Grey Templar wrote:So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?
What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?
From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.
Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.
Probably the same thing he'll do if a very large wave sweeps up a shark and washes it right through his window. Improvise, because planning for the one-in-a-million (likely longer odds, actually) is ridiculous.
That is, it's a highly unlikely concern because the criminals have an exceedingly difficult time obtaining firearms.
While the criminals may have firearms, there aren't home invasions in broad daylight that we all live in quaking fear of because we don't have guns, was I think the point several Australians have tried to make.
And I nearly typed 'funs' instead of guns. That would have been funny.
Even regular home invasions aren't a common worry. I'm living a half suburb away (sort of, it's really poorly defined down here, we have 3 suburbs on the one street for instance, 2 in the same building complex) from where there was some rioting a few months ago, it's generally considered a pretty dodgy suburb by brisbane's standards.
Yet there is no fear from anyone we know in the area of any kind of home invasions. Sure, your license plate can get stolen, or if you leave your bike unattended it can get nicked, but even in this bad area the likelihood of those more serious crimes isn't near high enough to be a worry, let alone a major worry.
Ok this resource is a bit old (late 90s), but it's the first one I could find, I think it's from South Australia.
I wouldn't dispute you have a lower crime rate, but I'd say its because you have little organized crime to be worried about. You don't have the drug cartels thoroughly entrenched in your society, nor do you border a country that's basically a warzone for said cartels. Plus you don't have massive amounts of immigration.
Your lower crime rate isn't related to having less guns around.
Grey Templar wrote:I wouldn't dispute you have a lower crime rate, but I'd say its because you have little organized crime to be worried about. You don't have the drug cartels thoroughly entrenched in your society, nor do you border a country that's basically a warzone for said cartels. Plus you don't have massive amounts of immigration.
Your lower crime rate isn't related to having less guns around.
Are you seriously implying that immigrants are responsible for crime?
I wasn't saying that it was because of a lack of guns, I was just trying to make it clear about just how much of a worry, even in a bad area, we have about gun violence.
To be honest I'd kind of like to get myself a rifle, make better friends with some family friends who own property out west and help them deal with pest problems, I find that shooting is quite relaxing, but it's just a bit expensive for me at the moment. And I'll probably be moving house soonish (in a year or two) so I'll wait till I'm somewhere more permanent to get a safe et al. installed
Grey Templar wrote:So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?
What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?
From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.
Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.
I can't even respond to this properly because anything i say you'll just reply with "Guns guns guns guns guns" in an attempt to shut me down and then you'll assume you've won the argument because of it. So don't take my lack of reply as meaning your right. Because you're not.
azazel the cat wrote:Probably the same thing he'll do if a very large wave sweeps up a shark and washes it right through his window. Improvise, because planning for the one-in-a-million (likely longer odds, actually) is ridiculous.
That is, it's a highly unlikely concern because the criminals have an exceedingly difficult time obtaining firearms.
The only thing to do when a shark comes through your window is to put a lead on it and take it for a walk. They calm right down after a good walk.
I'm not sure whether cims have easy access to guns. They might, they might not. I really couldn't say to be truthful. I'm not loosing any sleep over it though.
Grey Templar wrote:Not inherently, but some of them will be criminals. Criminals that wouldn't be here unless they immigrated here.
Then why did you specify "immigrants"? If only some of them will be criminals, then how are immigrants any dfferent from natural-born citizens, some of whom will also become criminals?
I think you singled out immigrants in order to imply that they are responsible for crime. That's really not cool.
Grey Templar wrote:Not giving an answer is conceding the argument. We were having a nice discussion. Please answer.
That's not actually how debate works. You are incorrectly assuming that you can just retort with something completely assinine and have it be considered a valid response.
I asked him a question, not an unreasonable one either, the least he could do is answer.
And I certainly didn't intend to imply that immigrants as a group are criminals. Just that they are a source of incoming criminals, a source that the US has more of than Australia. Sorry if I offended anyone.
At times I find these thread highly amusing. Its just the US grew up in a gun culture compar to those that haven't. The US grew up on muscle cars compare to other conutries that haven't. The US grew up on Playboy and Hustler while rest of the world that were able to get them were mostly 2-3 issues behind. US grew up on perservative in our food and Europe doesn't....our ketchup packets are free though instead of another 10 euro cents a pack....I grew up rebuilding whatever transmission hanging off a tree branch and not worry about EPA goons getting me....Germany EPA goons are....well...Gestapo scarey. I blame the world current teen issues on the US MTV...yep I went there...Our MTV....wanna be gangbangers....hip hopster...rappers...alternative music grps that seem ass backwards...like the one that say we stole gay rights?. Your culture...Our culture...this head banging ways of ours is not going to stop..Politics is the gorilla in the box. The gorilla only comes out when something huge needs to be done....ten yrs later the Gorilla peeks out the box ans goes back to sleep..the first Assualt Weapon Ban that happen and never continue
2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.
I'd like to point out that this is exactly the system we have now for the purchase of firearms. The only thing missing from your proposal is the mental illness. There's a problem with adding mental illness to the database, in that what kinds/ severity of mental illness would prohibit a firearm purchase? Diagnosed/ confirmed by how many doctors? Is treatment enough to allow an exception? Is putting somebody on the "too wacko to own a gun" list a violation of privacy? The term 'illness' indicates a potential cure; how long does one stay on this list, or is it permanent?
Search YouTube for "gangstalking" and you'll very quickly understand the concern of not including mental illness on the list of reasons to exclude firearm ownership.
Oh, I completely agree that mental illness might be a valid reason to deny legal firearm ownership. I say might because unlike the other reasons ( felony, domestic violence conviction) it's not a binary qualifier; the methodology for denying a person(s) one of our fundamental rights should be as rigorous and foolproof as we can make it. IMHO we need scientists and psychologists to give us an impartial opinion on whether or not a national mental health database like the one needed is actually viable. It may be that mental illness cannot be quantified well enough to establish one.
I liken it to this: If one can lose one's right to bear arms for committing a felony, is it enough to preemptively remove that right from a person convicted of a misdemeanor, simply because that demographic is more likely to commit a felony? If not, can we justly do the same to those of poor mental health? Or is there a better method of predicting which mental disease sufferers are likely to commit atrocities, than there is to predict which misdemeanor criminals will become felons?
Jihadin wrote: At times I find these thread highly amusing. Its just the US grew up in a gun culture compar to those that haven't. The US grew up on muscle cars compare to other conutries that haven't. The US grew up on Playboy and Hustler while rest of the world that were able to get them were mostly 2-3 issues behind. US grew up on perservative in our food and Europe doesn't....our ketchup packets are free though instead of another 10 euro cents a pack....I grew up rebuilding whatever transmission hanging off a tree branch and not worry about EPA goons getting me....Germany EPA goons are....well...Gestapo scarey. I blame the world current teen issues on the US MTV...yep I went there...Our MTV....wanna be gangbangers....hip hopster...rappers...alternative music grps that seem ass backwards...like the one that say we stole gay rights?. Your culture...Our culture...this head banging ways of ours is not going to stop..Politics is the gorilla in the box. The gorilla only comes out when something huge needs to be done....ten yrs later the Gorilla peeks out the box ans goes back to sleep..the first Assualt Weapon Ban that happen and never continue
Ok well you discouted the dogs immediately that was your first mistake. The dogs have a home terf advantage. How many burgerlers/home invaders are gonna want to go up against a pissed of dog? Let alone 2 pissed of dogs? Do you even know whether there are dogs in that house?
As a burgerler lets assume you staked out the house before hand and you know for a fact there is at least 1 dog, quite probably 2. Well at least you know to expect them. So do you choose to pick the lock on the door or do you jimmy a window and get in that way? If you try to pick to lock on the door then you're gonna make some noise which will almost certainly alert the dogs to your presence and your location and they will be waiting for you. If you go in through the window you might get lucky and it might be a window that opens without much if any noise. But now you don't know where the dog/s are going to be. One might be snoozing under the very window you're attempting to get through. It might also blend in well with the couch or the carpet and you don't notice it until it's latched onto your leg. What then? Do you punch it in the face? No that might just piss it off even more. So instead you shoot it. Yes the dog is dead but now you have a nasty leg wound that needs medical attention and you can't readily carry any loot. But what about the possible second dog? Well while you've been dealing with his mate he's snuck up on and is now in the process of maiming you further. You could shoot him too no doubt. Then it's a simple matter of limping away and hoping no one heard gunshots or notices you limping with blood streaming down your leg. You'll be well gone by the time those owners get home and find their animals dead and possesions missing.
Or what about a home invasion. You kick in the door and start waving your gun around. You have "X" amount of people to deal with. Everyone of them a wild card. You're not gonna know what any of these people are gonna do at any given second. Then there's the family dog. Another even wilder card to deal with. You could point your gun at someone so they don't do anything stupid but this would leave you wide open for the dog. You could take a kid as a hostage to ensure no one makes a move on you. But again, the dog is the wild card and now you've layed a hand on one of his masters so as far the dogs concerned you're more then fair game. Maybe you notice the dog coming at you and you have time to turn and shoot it. Well now you've given someone the window they need to rush you and beat you to the ground. What now?
Now that we have the dogs out of the way lets deal with the inhabitents of the house. While you're shooting my dog/s you haven't realised that i'm home. So i grab the closest, heaviest thing to me and then go and smash your head in while you're reloading your gun. Because i highly doubt that you are calm enough and accurate enough to only fire a single shot to dispatch my pet/s. Better hope thats a semi-auto with a large you're using because I reckon that was 5 or 6 i heard and i'd hate to catch you in the middle of reloading your revolver. It's also highly probable that now you are slightly shaken from your dog ordeal. You ain't gonna notice me coming up behind you.
easysauce wrote: all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
wat.
That is easily the most bizarre thing I've read all month. Broad daylight home invasions? Crooks running around with guns terrorising the defenseless populace?
It's like some alternate dimension dystopian Australia.
That is easily the most bizarre thing I've read all month. Broad daylight home invasions? Crooks running around with guns terrorising the defenseless populace?
It's like some alternate dimension dystopian Australia.
You mean Mad Max isn't a realistic depiction of Australia?
Snrub wrote: Ok well you discouted the dogs immediately that was your first mistake. The dogs have a home terf advantage. How many burgerlers/home invaders are gonna want to go up against a pissed of dog? Let alone 2 pissed of dogs? Do you even know whether there are dogs in that house?
As a burgerler lets assume you staked out the house before hand and you know for a fact there is at least 1 dog, quite probably 2. Well at least you know to expect them. So do you choose to pick the lock on the door or do you jimmy a window and get in that way? If you try to pick to lock on the door then you're gonna make some noise which will almost certainly alert the dogs to your presence and your location and they will be waiting for you. If you go in through the window you might get lucky and it might be a window that opens without much if any noise. But now you don't know where the dog/s are going to be. One might be snoozing under the very window you're attempting to get through. It might also blend in well with the couch or the carpet and you don't notice it until it's latched onto your leg. What then? Do you punch it in the face? No that might just piss it off even more. So instead you shoot it. Yes the dog is dead but now you have a nasty leg wound that needs medical attention and you can't readily carry any loot. But what about the possible second dog? Well while you've been dealing with his mate he's snuck up on and is now in the process of maiming you further. You could shoot him too no doubt. Then it's a simple matter of limping away and hoping no one heard gunshots or notices you limping with blood streaming down your leg. You'll be well gone by the time those owners get home and find their animals dead and possesions missing.
Or what about a home invasion. You kick in the door and start waving your gun around. You have "X" amount of people to deal with. Everyone of them a wild card. You're not gonna know what any of these people are gonna do at any given second. Then there's the family dog. Another even wilder card to deal with. You could point your gun at someone so they don't do anything stupid but this would leave you wide open for the dog. You could take a kid as a hostage to ensure no one makes a move on you. But again, the dog is the wild card and now you've layed a hand on one of his masters so as far the dogs concerned you're more then fair game. Maybe you notice the dog coming at you and you have time to turn and shoot it. Well now you've given someone the window they need to rush you and beat you to the ground. What now?
Now that we have the dogs out of the way lets deal with the inhabitents of the house. While you're shooting my dog/s you haven't realised that i'm home. So i grab the closest, heaviest thing to me and then go and smash your head in while you're reloading your gun. Because i highly doubt that you are calm enough and accurate enough to only fire a single shot to dispatch my pet/s. Better hope thats a semi-auto with a large you're using because I reckon that was 5 or 6 i heard and i'd hate to catch you in the middle of reloading your revolver. It's also highly probable that now you are slightly shaken from your dog ordeal. You ain't gonna notice me coming up behind you.
Ok, I'm satisfied.
Although you are slightly underestimating the time it takes to turn and shoot something or even reload. It can be done way faster than someone can react to the opening. Even a revolver can be reloaded quickly.
to be fair, all the aussies I know were also right pissed off that the government made them give up their guns, IE their property, and the sports/protection it was used for.
the only two I knew I knew through shooting sports, so while you two may enjoy the situation, not all austrailians do.
OBS non owners still dont care about guns they never owned being taken. Really, they dont even know the real facts about guns, and have very little experience with them, beyond being scared when the talking heads on tv tell them how scary and evil guns and gun owners are.
if you dont feel you should at least have a plan B just in case some idiot drunk/druggie has a knife or a gun and targets you, then that is your choice, I have 0 problems with you making that choice for yourself, its big boy rules.
Its when you make that choice for OTHER people that its a problem, some people are old, and cannot swing a hammer and beat back multiple, let alone, a single attacker with ninja skills like you.
People not in tip top physical condition can defend themselves from a much stronger attacker, so that even an old lady is able to defend herself against a much physically stronger assailant.
you doom them to a hammer by forcing that choice on them, when thats not what they need.
and yes, home invasions did go up,
cited: home invasions went up 20% go to 1:39, other gun crime was up too
Grey Templar wrote: So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?
What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?
From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.
Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.
Most of the civilised world lives in the same state of helplessness and fear, yet somehow everyone carries on their lives without serious problems and gun related crime is very low.
We are democracies. If people wanted guns, we would vote for laws to make them more freely available.
We are left with these contradictions:
1. According to Americans, you can go around most of the USA without worrying about guns and crime, yet Americans are so worried about gun crime they need guns for defence.
2. Guns defend you against gun crime, yet gun crime is far higher in the USA than in Canada, the UK, Italy, Japan, etc where people don't have loads of guns.
3. It is in most countries easier than Americans think to get a legal gun, you just have to go through a licence process, but most people don't bother because they don't feel a need. The reason why Americans do feel a need is not because US citizens are inherently more violent.
IMO the reason why so many Americans are keen on guns is that it is part of the US cultural identity.
To be fair, it is absolutely reasonable and democratic to decide to keep guns for cultural reasons.
2 problems I have with that vid is England and whales maybe using definitions for violent crime that are different from the FBI's US stats and that crime has been going on a downward trend in pretty much all the developed nations (as far as I'm aware) not just the US. But the issue is that the
US has much higher gun violence than other countries not that it's crime is plummeting like the rest of the developed world, other than that the idea that the number of large metropolitan areas is effecting crime is interesting theory and might be viable. But then if you go compare countries
like Australia and Canada which have fewer large metropolitan areas than the UK but more lax gun laws, Australia and Canada do still have a bigger amount of gun violence so I don't know how far you can really take this metropolitan theory. And yes I understand his vid is about violent
crime in general and not just gun violence, but It's a lot harder to make a comparison of you go through all the types of violence especially if every country has different definitions for them and also gun violence tends to be the deadliest and have a higher kill-count than other types of violence.
easysauce wrote:if you dont feel you should at least have a plan B just in case some idiot drunk/druggie has a knife or a gun and targets you, then that is your choice, I have 0 problems with you making that choice for yourself, its big boy rules.
Its when you make that choice for OTHER people that its a problem
then do you also think that hand grenades and meth should be freely available? Or should we make that choice for OTHER people, too?
You see, like meth and hand grenades, the presence of firearms in a community affects the entire community. Therefor, it is perfectly reasonable to make decisions for everyone. That's what being part of a community is. You know, big boy rules. We built society on them.
FFS, you pro-gun Americans (or any other country), just cant seem to get this around your head. WE are not terrified of home invasions (or other potentially lethal situations), and a majority of us DO NOT feel the need to be armed with guns.
I have not EVER seen or heard a gun on the streets. I have never felt unsafe to the point where i feel the need to arm myself with a gun. I do not know anyone who feels differently to me in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter.
Guns aren't a way of life for us, and I hope it stays this way.
if a free society, you get to make your own choice about security, and I get to make mine.
freedom comes with responsibility, if you cant handle that thats your choice.
the comment about meth and grenades is so silly... you think that the meth heads in your neighborhood will stop doing it because its illegal?
you think because its illegal that it goes away magically?
you think that telling law abiding people to give up their guns, will somehow convince crooks to also give up their guns (or grenades as you put it)
can I now ban you from having gas/fireworks/bleach/fertilizer in your house because you could be making a bomb with it?
heck your house could burn down and catch the whole neighborhood.
same with your sports car, you dont NEED to go over 65mph, so cars that do go faster should be illegal, so that less people die in car crashes.
because as you say, it affects everyone, so no individual choice there.
same with fatty foods, smoking, and drinking. all those are bad for you, and therefore bad for society.
drinking leads to drunk drivers that run over my kids, so the only way to prevent drunk drivers, is to ban liquor, and ban cars.
you can ban everything, and its still going to come right up to your front door, because the people who follow the ban are not the problem.
not to mention its a serious detriment to anyone who isnt a self proclaimed "ninja" who can beat off multiple assailants with a hammer.
people with no conditions that normally bar responsible gun use, have a right to have a gun in case they need it.
those are the ONLY people who lose access to guns in a ban. The people that actually use them legitimately.
plenty of people have been in situations where guns have saved their lives, without firing a shot, thousands and thousands every year in the states.
but hey, if you think that you should trade freedoms and responsibility for dependance on the state, then go for it.
just stop trying to trade MY independence/freedom/responsibility
stop pretending that crooks see a gun ban and turn in their guns.
drugs were banned long ago, and it didnt stop crooks from having/using them.
murder is illegal, yet crooks still do it.
feel lucky you have never been in a situation where you needed to defend yourself, instead of crippling others ability to do so.
according to the Department of Justice’s 2007 Uniformed Crime Report, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30 percent lower homicide rate, as well as a 46 percent lower robbery rate. Four shootings by permit holders continues to be a tiny minority in gun crimes statistics.
but im sure youll just say those stats from the DoJ dont matter,
just like your aussie policemen, sports shooters, and the govenment officials in the video i linked dont matter.
if a free society, you get to make your own choice about security, and I get to make mine.
freedom comes with responsibility, if you cant handle that thats your choice.
the comment about meth and grenades is so silly... you think that the meth heads in your neighborhood will stop doing it because its illegal?
you think because its illegal that it goes away magically?
you think that telling law abiding people to give up their guns, will somehow convince crooks to also give up their guns (or grenades as you put it)
can I now ban you from having gas/fireworks/bleach/fertilizer in your house because you could be making a bomb with it?
heck your house could burn down and catch the whole neighborhood.
same with your sports car, you dont NEED to go over 65mph, so cars that do go faster should be illegal, so that less people die in car crashes.
because as you say, it affects everyone, so no individual choice there.
same with fatty foods, smoking, and drinking. all those are bad for you, and therefore bad for society.
drinking leads to drunk drivers that run over my kids, so the only way to prevent drunk drivers, is to ban liquor, and ban cars.
you can ban everything, and its still going to come right up to your front door, because the people who follow the ban are not the problem.
not to mention its a serious detriment to anyone who isnt a self proclaimed "ninja" who can beat off multiple assailants with a hammer.
people with no conditions that normally bar responsible gun use, have a right to have a gun in case they need it.
those are the ONLY people who lose access to guns in a ban. The people that actually use them legitimately.
plenty of people have been in situations where guns have saved their lives, without firing a shot, thousands and thousands every year in the states.
but hey, if you think that you should trade freedoms and responsibility for dependance on the state, then go for it.
just stop trying to trade MY independence/freedom/responsibility
stop pretending that crooks see a gun ban and turn in their guns.
drugs were banned long ago, and it didnt stop crooks from having/using them.
murder is illegal, yet crooks still do it.
feel lucky you have never been in a situation where you needed to defend yourself, instead of crippling others ability to do so.
according to the Department of Justice’s 2007 Uniformed Crime Report, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30 percent lower homicide rate, as well as a 46 percent lower robbery rate. Four shootings by permit holders continues to be a tiny minority in gun crimes statistics.
but im sure youll just say those stats from the DoJ dont matter,
just like your aussie policemen, sports shooters, and the govenment officials in the video i linked dont matter.
Your poem sucks.
Beyond that, however: laws against theft don't seem to prevent criminals from stealing, yet we still have laws against theft.
motyak wrote: Sure, maybe down in campbeltown (a really crappy area near sydney) they may have a bit more of that, or maybe in melbourne where there is a bit of organised crime (I think? I'm not sure though, it definitely isn't as bad as other countries though) home invasions might happen a bit more often, but that is just pure speculation on my part.
Excuse me. Maybe ask someone from Campbelltown before making that kind of bs up?
Like any other major population center, it's got its good suburbs and bad suburbs. I live in one of the dodgy suburbs around Campbelltown, and it's actually got a very low crime rate. My brother lived in one of the dodgyest suburbs, and never had problems (and walked the streets at night with his kids just fine). I used to live about 3 streets away from where the Rosemeadow riots happened, and incidentally, walked through that suburb at 3am looking for a McDonalds. To be fair, I did feel like I was going to get knifed when I did that.
So yes, there's good suburbs and bad subrubs, just like anywhere else.
easysauce wrote: but hey, if you think that you should trade freedoms and responsibility for dependance on the state, then go for it.
just stop trying to trade MY independence/freedom/responsibility
stop pretending that crooks see a gun ban and turn in their guns.
drugs were banned long ago, and it didnt stop crooks from having/using them.
murder is illegal, yet crooks still do it.
feel lucky you have never been in a situation where you needed to defend yourself, instead of crippling others ability to do so.
For frick's sake! None of the evil big-government loving gun-fearing personal-liberty-restricting villains that you're arguing against are saying they should be banned! The "worst" thing that I have seen was arguing on restrictions of sale. Not taking them from people. Making it harder to get them if you shouldn't have them (in cases of mental illness for example). I repeat, not taking them away.
Also, again, please please please please please stop pressing enter at the end of every tiny sentence you write. Please. Pretty Please?
It makes it a pain in the arse to read, and just irritates those reading it.
Also, again, please please please please please stop pressing enter at the end of every tiny sentence you write. Please. Pretty Please?
It makes it a pain in the arse to read, and just irritates those reading it.
Yes, please.
And my addition:
Also, again, please please please please please start pressing shift at the beginning of every tiny sentence you write. Please. Pretty Please?
It makes it a pain in the arse to read, and just irritates those reading it.
easysauce wrote: all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
All the Aussies I know either didn't own guns in the first place, or still have them due to being farmers with a legitimate reason to use them.
Broad daylight home invasions are still comparatively rare. Nobody I knows particularly worries about them, and most Australians are every bit as capable of 'defending their homes' as they ever were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?
In that rare event, he would take what he can find, and leave. And then I would have a talk to the police, and lodge an insurance claim.
Which, to my mind, is a much better outcome than a member of my family winding up injured or dead becuase I thought it would be a good idea to start a firefight in my living room.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: OBS non owners still dont care about guns they never owned being taken. Really, they dont even know the real facts about guns, and have very little experience with them, beyond being scared when the talking heads on tv tell them how scary and evil guns and gun owners are.
I don't own a gun. I have never owned a gun.
I'm also ex-army, and so know plenty about guns, but thanks for the generalisation. I'm not scared of guns. I just see no particular reason for most people to own one.
if you dont feel you should at least have a plan B just in case some idiot drunk/druggie has a knife or a gun and targets you, then that is your choice,
I have a plan B. It's to not get into a fight with an armed idiot unless I can be certain of winning without someone I care about being hurt. Escalation is rarely a good solution.
Its when you make that choice for OTHER people that its a problem, some people are old, and cannot swing a hammer and beat back multiple, let alone, a single attacker with ninja skills like you.
But they're presumably spry enough to backflip into their hallway and grab their gun before the crazed, pistol-toting home-invader can bring his weapon to bear?
Grey Templar wrote:I wouldn't dispute you have a lower crime rate, but I'd say its because you have little organized crime to be worried about. You don't have the drug cartels thoroughly entrenched in your society, nor do you border a country that's basically a warzone for said cartels. Plus you don't have massive amounts of immigration.
Your lower crime rate isn't related to having less guns around.
Are you seriously implying that immigrants are responsible for crime?
Two of them were last week...
Yes. Immigrants are responsible for crime, like derp any other population. However, the immigrants are brought here by organized criminal networks - aka cartels.
That is easily the most bizarre thing I've read all month. Broad daylight home invasions? Crooks running around with guns terrorising the defenseless populace?
It's like some alternate dimension dystopian Australia.
You mean Mad Max isn't a realistic depiction of Australia?
No that has to be right. Its the only thing that explains the killer crocs, killer drop bears, and spiders the size of VWs. WHATS GOING ON OVER THERE?!?!?!??!
yellowfever wrote: I find it amusing that some posters are claiming to live in dodgey areas and yet don't have to worry about anything. Doesn't sound very dodgey to me.
Just because a suburb might be a dodgy area dosen't mean theres things to be unduly worried about. Plenty of drug dealers/users in my area but they don't hassle you though (unless you owe them money) and plenty of them are nice enough blokes it's just they have a less then savoury past time. Within the last decade there was an outlaw motorcycle clubhouse a few streets from my house. Again, not the nicest group of characters but they didn't go around raping and murdering willy nilly. You just didn't want to mess with them or loiter around their club house.
Grey Templar wrote:I wouldn't dispute you have a lower crime rate, but I'd say its because you have little organized crime to be worried about. You don't have the drug cartels thoroughly entrenched in your society, nor do you border a country that's basically a warzone for said cartels. Plus you don't have massive amounts of immigration.
Your lower crime rate isn't related to having less guns around.
Are you seriously implying that immigrants are responsible for crime?
Two of them were last week...
Yes. Immigrants are responsible for crime, like derp any other population. However, the immigrants are brought here by organized criminal networks - aka cartels.
In 2011, DHS deported "1,119 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,848 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence."
Now, while it's up to debate on whether or not illegal immigrants have a higher crime rate then other sections of society, that is more then 87,000 people who shouldn't have been in our country, but were, and were committing crimes. And that is just people who were caught and deported.
I think it is disingenuous to pretend the question was as to whether or not immigrants commit crimes, which removes the context of the question. It is quite obvious that the question was in response to a statement that could be read as immigrants being almost solely responsible for crime, and the statement questioned the premise.
Funny how these conversations drift into other topics like illegal immigrants and we all get to hear the right wing muppets spout their illogical and immoral drivel.
In NZ the police don't even carry guns, and we are neither at the mercy of our government nor hordes of armed criminals.
Ahtman wrote: I think it is disingenuous to pretend the question was as to whether or not immigrants commit crimes, which removes the context of the question. It is quite obvious that the question was in response to a statement that could be read as immigrants being almost solely responsible for crime, and the statement questioned the premise.
He didn't infer it was solely. He layed out a number of factors, and that was one of them.
In 2011 there was an estimated 1.2 million violent crimes. A segment of our population that makes up .3% of the population accounted for a significant portion of that.
I'd say that falls in line with exactly what he is saying. An issue that Canada doesn't deal with like we do, causes a lot of crime, so of course their numbers are going to be differant.
Ahtman wrote: I think it is disingenuous to pretend the question was as to whether or not immigrants commit crimes, which removes the context of the question. It is quite obvious that the question was in response to a statement that could be read as immigrants being almost solely responsible for crime, and the statement questioned the premise.
Well thats not accurate. As the immortal bard once said: immigrant families don't cause crime. Immigrants named Luca Bratzi cause crime! Especially for da fishes!
yellowfever wrote: I find it amusing that some posters are claiming to live in dodgey areas and yet don't have to worry about anything. Doesn't sound very dodgey to me.
Just because a suburb might be a dodgy area dosen't mean theres things to be unduly worried about. Plenty of drug dealers/users in my area but they don't hassle you though (unless you owe them money) and plenty of them are nice enough blokes it's just they have a less then savoury past time. Within the last decade there was an outlaw motorcycle clubhouse a few streets from my house. Again, not the nicest group of characters but they didn't go around raping and murdering willy nilly. You just didn't want to mess with them or loiter around their club house.
I think he was making the point that our definitions of "dodgy" might be a little different. It sounds like we're operating from a "high violent crime, potentially gang-controlled," definition, whereas you guys seem to have more of a, "Wait, there's not a communal oregano garden?" one.
I think those posts weren't trying to say that we have bad problems, but instead the exact opposite. I think the majority of Aussies so far have posted to refute Easy's (and others) assertion that we live in fear of massive crime and that our lack of guns means we are doomed
motyak wrote: I think those posts weren't trying to say that we have bad problems, but instead the exact opposite. I think the majority of Aussies so far have posted to refute Easy's (and others) assertion that we live in fear of massive crime and that our lack of guns means we are doomed
Don't you guys just live in constant fear of the wildlife?
I walk through forests with mountain lions, wolves, and bears, with little apprehension, but Australia scarys the ever living gak outta me.
Knowing some of the stuff that lives there, I can understand why things like violent biker gangs, and mass murderer's don't do much to unsettle you guys.
I get what you mean djones. I think it is the poison. A deadly animal is a deadly animal, but if all it has yo do is bite you once and you are done, regardless if your mate gets it iff you a second later (assuming a remote part of aus here/the jungle)
Seaward wrote: I think he was making the point that our definitions of "dodgy" might be a little different. It sounds like we're operating from a "high violent crime, potentially gang-controlled," definition, whereas you guys seem to have more of a, "Wait, there's not a communal oregano garden?" one.
You know thats probably a fair assessment of the situation.
Frazzled wrote:In their defense you can't have many drive bys when everyone's looking up, watching for the telltale signs of a pending drop bear attack.
We don't have drive bys, we have drop ins. Swift and brutal attacks. Truely terrifying to behold.
djones520 wrote:Don't you guys just live in constant fear of the wildlife?
I walk through forests with mountain lions, wolves, and bears, with little apprehension, but Australia scarys the ever living gak outta me.
Knowing some of the stuff that lives there, I can understand why things like violent biker gangs, and mass murderer's don't do much to unsettle you guys.
When you live near a creek and things such as this and this are a not uncommon occurance in your backyard wheres the point in being worried about a whackdoo with a weapon.
yellowfever wrote: I find it amusing that some posters are claiming to live in dodgey areas and yet don't have to worry about anything. Doesn't sound very dodgey to me.
All Australian men are experts with a cricket bat.
We don't have drive bys, we have drop ins. Swift and brutal attacks. Truely terrifying to behold.
Sounds like when the inlaws come over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you live near a creek and things such as this and this are a not uncommon occurance in your backyard wheres the point in being worried about a whackdoo with a weapon.
Ratshot, or alternatively a real pissed off wiener dog will do ya. Rodney is the Red Baron of snake killing, like a mongoose but with a far worse disposition. Me I typically scream like a little girl and then go on a rampage with a shovel (while still screaming like a little girl).
MarsNZ wrote: Funny how these conversations drift into other topics like illegal immigrants and we all get to hear the right wing muppets spout their illogical and immoral drivel.
In NZ the police don't even carry guns, and we are neither at the mercy of our government nor hordes of armed criminals.
Yes, but when 3/4ths of your population are also rugby players, that kinda lends to a non-need for firearms, well it should, but I guess that depends on your proportions of Backs to Forwards
Frazzled wrote:Well thats not accurate. As the immortal bard once said: immigrant families don't cause crime. Immigrants named Luca Bratzi cause crime! Especially for da fishes!
I can only assume then that either you haven't actually seen The Godfather, or else took the "Luca Brazi sleeps with the fishes" line way, waaaay out of context.
Frazzled wrote:Well thats not accurate. As the immortal bard once said: immigrant families don't cause crime. Immigrants named Luca Bratzi cause crime! Especially for da fishes!
I can only assume then that either you haven't actually seen The Godfather, or else took the "Luca Brazi sleeps with the fishes" line way, waaaay out of context.
Hey if you're a little fish, swimming around, and all of a sudden had a 250lb guy landing on top of you, you'd consider that a crime too!
When you live near a creek and things such as this and this are a not uncommon occurance in your backyard wheres the point in being worried about a whackdoo with a weapon.
Ratshot, or alternatively a real pissed off wiener dog will do ya. Rodney is the Red Baron of snake killing, like a mongoose but with a far worse disposition. Me I typically scream like a little girl and then go on a rampage with a shovel (while still screaming like a little girl).
The mental image of that just made me lose it. At work.
motyak wrote: I think those posts weren't trying to say that we have bad problems, but instead the exact opposite. I think the majority of Aussies so far have posted to refute Easy's (and others) assertion that we live in fear of massive crime and that our lack of guns means we are doomed
Gun control doesn't work
You are just blind to the problems then, all your sources, news, and information are lies and more lies written by people that hate your freedoms.
We're all lucky that Oliver escaped with his life, did you /see/ those people?
requiring registration is racist against the illiterate, you shouldn't have to know how to read or write to own firearms. Its totally okay to require it to vote though.
did I miss any?
Short of moving to Australia, maybe we can at least get some change in Congress here in the US.
Media Matters for America
Even though there was clearly widespread support for universal background checks, the Beltway media went out of their way to downplay the "intensity" of that support.
According to the conventional wisdom in Washington, politicians could vote against the background checks and not fear consequences on election day.
But recent polls show that the conventional wisdom was wrong: politicians who voted against the amendment saw their poll numbers drop.
A series of new polls indicate that the media was wrong to suggest that legislators who oppose strengthening guns laws would not pay a political price for their actions.
Following the Senate's failure to pass stronger gun laws earlier this month, political reporters suggested that Senate opponents of those laws had been wisely reacting to the political environment. According to those reporters, Democrats "got gun control polling wrong" because while surveys indicated that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported reforms like expanding the background check system to cover more gun sales, they may not feel as passionately about the issue as their opponents and thus for politicians: "Voting against gun control measures may well carry less negative political consequence than voting for them -- even though the poll numbers suggest the opposite is true."
Contrary to this theory, several polls conducted since the gun votes earlier this month indicate that more voters are likely to oppose senators who voted against stronger gun laws than they are to support them:
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who voted against expanding background checks after telling (suggest adding link here) a survivor of the Tucson shooting that he supported them, is now "one of the most unpopular Senators in the country," according to a poll released April 29 by Public Policy Polling (PPP). This survey finds that "52% of voters say they're less likely to support Flake in a future election because of this vote [on guns], compared to only 19% who say they're more likely to."
Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D), both of whom opposed the legislation, have seen declines in their approval since PPP last polled the state in February. According to PPP, "39% of voters say they're less likely to vote for each of Begich and Murkowski in their next elections based on this vote [on guns], while only 22% and 26% say they're more likely to vote for Begich and Murkowski respectively because of this."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who opposed the legislation, has seen a net drop of 18 points since PPP polled his approval rating in October. According to the April poll, "36% of voters in the state say they're less likely to support Portman in a future election because of this vote [on guns] to only 19% who consider it to be a reason to support him."
Background check legislation opponent Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) has seen a "more modest decline" in his approval rating, but according to PPP, "46% say they're less likely to support Heller the next time he's up for reelection compared to only 25% who are more likely to because of this vote [on guns]."
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), another opponent of the legislation, has seen her approval drop a net 15 points since PPP's October poll, with the firm finding that "50% of voters in the state say Ayotte's 'no' vote [on guns] will make them less likely to support her in a future election, compared to just 23% who consider it to be a positive."
Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
Decent idea, although the bolded part is not really enforceable plus its already illegal to sell guns to criminals.
Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
Pointless. It would have done nothing.
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Again, pointless. There are already tons of larger magazines out there, they can be reused indefinitely, and limiting a shooter to 10 rounds really won't prevent him from killing people anyway. he'll just carry more Mags, and reloading is not a slow procedure.
Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
More pointlessness.
Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
Not a bad idea, but it really won't reduce gun violence.
Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
Ok, more officers. That's ok.
Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Whatever.
Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
Again, whats the point?
Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
Good idea.
Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
Violent Deaths, not just gun violence.
Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
Good idea.
Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
Good idea.
It was a bill with some good ideas in it, but it also had some things that unduly restricted second amendment rights while not addressing the issue at hand.
Congress needs to put more bare bones bills through. Pass a bill just about the background checks, nothing else, and then we can talk. But tack all this extra stuff on and I will not agree to it.
Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
Yeah, unless the gun was made before 1909(IIRC) its still a modern firearm and restricted as such.
So the gun would have to be well over 100 years old to not be restricted by automatic firearm restrictions. And I don't think there are too many of those floating around.
Frazzled wrote: Antque M60s are covered under other legislation related to automatic firearms.
derpy derpy.
incorrect, at least if they are firing, if they aren't they are no longer covered under that so there's a separate antique.statute, thingy.
for it to qualify as an antique and not a firearm IIRC you have to have the receiver cut into 3 parts, which takes three whole hours of welding and grinding to get firing again, and it might blow up if you're a bad welder.
It was originally for wwii people but as the m4 platform is getting up there things are getting dicey as to if the antique rules should actually exist anymore.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, unless the gun was made before 1909(IIRC) its still a modern firearm and restricted as such.
So the gun would have to be well over 100 years old to not be restricted by automatic firearm restrictions. And I don't think there are too many of those floating around.
The Vickers turned 100 last year.
However, I don't think the restriction is lifted for firearms that are 100+ years old; I believe it's lifted for firearms prior to 1900.
Yeah, its a certain date. Not a total age. couldn't remember the exact date.
And nobody is going to be lugging a Vickers around to massacre people with. It requires a minimum of 2 people to fire it, and more to carry the thing and its ammo.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, its a certain date. Not a total age. couldn't remember the exact date.
And nobody is going to be lugging a Vickers around to massacre people with. It requires a minimum of 2 people to fire it, and more to carry the thing and its ammo.
One to fire, one to feed. And I never said anyone would use a Vickers for such.
As GT put up a decent enough breakdown I will refrain from repeating the information... I will point out though, that IMHO if the bill had been ONLY on background checks, then it probably would have passed... Although, outside of gun shows, I don't see how it would effect really anything.
I also have not heard of anyone buying a firearm at a gun show and then using it to commit a major crime with it... Basically everyone that I know who goes to a gun show would be able to buy the same firearm within a few minutes of going into a normal dealer... so it really wouldn't have any real impact.
Again, legislating against those who are currently legal won't affect the violence in the country, plain and simple.
all you guys need to do is have a national list of people the people who are ALREADY not allowed to have guns, then you can just phone in, see if they are on the list, if they are, no sale and you might want to alert someone.
if they are not on the list, sell away, this way no info is shared with the government to make a registry, but we still have a way to weed out people already prohibited from ownership.
this way you are also legislating against the crooks by making a list of them, instead of innocent people.
I doubt many would say private sellers having to make a phone call to confirm someones not on the "do not sell" list would argue it infringes on their rights, as they wouldnt even have to give their name, just the buyers. But maybe it would in some way I have missed.
keeping in mind the list would only consist those already prohibited under current law,
Grey Templar wrote:Except that would be an intrusion of privacy. We also have the whole "Innocent till proven Guilty" thingy.
You are sane till proven crazy.
that's an overly simplistic way of looking at is, as being declared NCRMD (Canada) or not guilty by reaosn of insanity (US) can only be determined at a trial, after psychiatric evaluation. This begs the act of committing a crime beforehand, and thus is totally useless for the purpose of prevention.
No, I think I'd like to have people with a history of mental illness be eliminated from the okay-to-have-guns pool, thank you. And as such, I think it necessary and not at alla violation of privacy to require people to grant the investigating body access to medical records in order to determine such (and it's not a privacy invasion because you are consenting to it; or you can always just not buy guns).
The point is that any potential freedoms lost by having you checked out (and nothing more) is s miniscule tradeoff for not allowing schizphrenics to easily obtain them.
Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.
If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.
This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.
Grey Templar wrote:Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.
If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.
This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.
You're concerned about the invasion of privacy that a federal gun registry and universal background check would constitute; but you suggest making everyone with a diagnosed mental disorder be put into a registry.
You really are the epitome of the "less freedoms only for things I don't like" kind of conservative, aren't you?
Grey Templar wrote:Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.
If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.
This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.
You're concerned about the invasion of privacy that a federal gun registry and universal background check would constitute; but you suggest making everyone with a diagnosed mental disorder be put into a registry.
You really are the epitome of the "less freedoms only for things I don't like" kind of conservative, aren't you?
A registry that GT is suggesting is no where near as invasive as what you are wanting.... I mean, a registry of persons with mental health issues needs only be a name associated with "mental health" it doesn't have to say (I'll use Frazzled as an example here): "Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"... By not knowing WHAT someone has, this allows them to come off the list much, much easier once care has rendered them (if possible) fit again. By keeping things generic... as in a simple "mental health" or "criminal record" listing, you are in pretty much no way violating the US's HIPAA laws and regs.
Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
Decent idea, although the bolded part is not really enforceable plus its already illegal to sell guns to criminals.
What a ground breaking development. I didn't realize that it was illegal to sell guns to criminals.
Now if only there was a way to require people to check to make sure they are not selling to criminals...
Because its already illegal to sell to criminals, and that it is pretty much impossible to enforce unless its after the fact, you will find the same problem with requiring background checks.
I, as a private citizen, can't sell a gun to a criminal, but nobody is going to catch me unless the guy I sell to gets caught with the gun and they trace it to me.
Similarly, if this bill had passed, I can't sell to someone unless I do a background check, but as above nobody will catch me unless the guy gets caught with the gun and it gets traced to me. And they can prove the person I sold to would have failed the background check at the time I made the sale.
Its an unenforceable law that does nothing to cut down on crimes committed. It only adds charges if the person is caught doing something else, at which point the crime we are allegedly trying to preemptively stop has already been committed.
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
We should never have a registry of guns, because just like Hitler they will use that registry to round up all the guns (never mind that never happened).
We should however have a registry of all people with mental illnesses, because Hitler never ever used that kind of information in deciding to round anybody up.
easysauce wrote: why its not ok to make a registry of people not allowed to own guns is beyond me,
For those who think that owning a gun is the only thing keeping hordes of criminals from invading their homes, I could see how having their personal details on a list of people not allowed to own a gun might not seem like a great thing...
"Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"...
to which Rodney and Tbone contribute to......you know how one minded he is on the Weiner Legion.
I notice only a few individuals on here seperate the problem from the whole. While most considers the whole as the problem.
TBone has moved from barking at the wall to barking at the washing machine. Me, myself, and I all think its hilarious as hell. Now what was this about schizophrenia again?
And just because something has or hasn't happened doesn't mean it can or cannot happen in the future.
Thus, I prefer to play it safe and not have a registry of gun owners who are simply exercising their constitutional rights and instead have one of confirmed criminals and people who due to their mental state are a threat to society.
Target the people who need to have their constitutional rights restricted, not those who don't need them restricted.
What if we had a national registry of religious affiliation? Or of Free Speech use? Or of voting?
Simply monitoring a person exercising a constitutional right is wrong. Thus we have the loophole of restricting the constitutional rights of people who would be a threat to other citizens if they had that right as well.
We limit the rights of criminals and the insane, while also ensuring we don't unduly or wrongly apply that label. Its an important responsibility and burden.
The biggest problem is where do you draw the line on mental problems to restrict their second amendment rights? I don't know so I'll leave that to professionals.
Its easier with criminals as we have defined crimes.
Grey Templar wrote:Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.
If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.
This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.
You're concerned about the invasion of privacy that a federal gun registry and universal background check would constitute; but you suggest making everyone with a diagnosed mental disorder be put into a registry.
You really are the epitome of the "less freedoms only for things I don't like" kind of conservative, aren't you?
A registry that GT is suggesting is no where near as invasive as what you are wanting.... I mean, a registry of persons with mental health issues needs only be a name associated with "mental health" it doesn't have to say (I'll use Frazzled as an example here): "Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"... By not knowing WHAT someone has, this allows them to come off the list much, much easier once care has rendered them (if possible) fit again. By keeping things generic... as in a simple "mental health" or "criminal record" listing, you are in pretty much no way violating the US's HIPAA laws and regs.
"Now Mr, uh, Ensis Ferrae, I see that your name popped up as being on this mental health list. I'm afraid that we will be unable to offer you that employment opportunity we discussed earlier. Heh, well, good luck, and I sure hope it's just ADHD and not depression or anything dangerous! Heh, heh..."
d-usa wrote:Here is what cracks me up:
We should never have a registry of guns, because just like Hitler they will use that registry to round up all the guns (never mind that never happened).
We should however have a registry of all people with mental illnesses, because Hitler never ever used that kind of information in deciding to round anybody up.
Damn you for beating me to this low-hanging fruit.
Grey Templar wrote:Canada used their registry to round guns up IIRC.
It's been well-established in the other threat that the registry did not result in anyone's firearms being confiscated, to which even my ardent opponent agreed.
azazel the cat wrote: It's been well-established in the other threat that the registry did not result in anyone's firearms being confiscated, to which even my ardent opponent agreed.
From a CNN/ORC poll taken in early April, found on this exhaustive page:
"If the federal government does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the government would use that information to take guns away from people who own them?"
Yes: 66%
No: 32%
Unsure: 2%
Two-thirds of the country thinks our government will act differently than Canada's.
azazel the cat wrote: It's been well-established in the other threat that the registry did not result in anyone's firearms being confiscated, to which even my ardent opponent agreed.
From a CNN/ORC poll taken in early April, found on this exhaustive page:
"If the federal government does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the government would use that information to take guns away from people who own them?"
Yes: 66%
No: 32%
Unsure: 2%
Two-thirds of the country thinks our government will act differently than Canada's.
Two thirds of your country believes angels are real; that doesn't make it so.
Okay, so apparently this is the "Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath" thread. Reading the last page or so of posts I was starting to think I was somewhere else. This is probably an appropriate place to ask this question!
So, a lot of the time people in these threads seem to be talking about defending their homes from people coming into them. As an Australian, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm wondering if this is a culture clash. See, my understanding here is that if someone is breaking into my home, it's probably because they want to steal my stuff. As people generally don't like being caught or arrested, they tend to do this when they believe nobody is around (and part of protecting your home is avoiding the appearance of it being uninhabited).
So the only time I'm likely* to run into these people is when they break into my home believing that I'm not there and it turns out that I am. In those cases, the overwhelming majority of the time I'd expect them to instantly flee, because they don't want to get caught.
There are a couple of what seem like pertinent points here to me:
1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)
So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.
azazel the cat wrote: Two thirds of your country believes angels are real; that doesn't make it so.
I'm not sure that pithily dismissing the opinion of the majority is a wise tack to take for a guy who's been rending his garments over the fact that the majority wanted universal background checks yet failed to get them.
Believe they would announce it first on rounding up illegal weapons....or we get enough warning from the political and judicial battle that would occur from the news media. Actually think quite a few states senators and reps are getting a reality slap due to weapon manufactor companies are starting to move. Even the accesories(sp) companies like Magpul are going to weapon friendly states. Rick Perry pounce on that oppurtunity forTX. I done the same. I also though before I start throwing new laws into the mix I find whats breaking or holding back the old laws and remedy those first before adding another layer on. Knee Jerk Reaction and the "Attitude of "NOW NOW NOW" is epic fail in the making or was shown lately. Besides it depends on how you look at it. You already filed and numbered when you turn 18 by the gov't....unless you don't go to the post offce and register lol but that bites you big time later on in life
The HIPAA Law and releasing mental illness info is serious crap. Only way I can think of around it is a seperate Branch in FBI dealing strictly with that on a ISOLATED terminal. and what.....say Top Secret clearence can only access from an approve list of personnel. Would have to involve the S.C. input into creating and maintaining that info. Like GTN system (Global Tracking Network) only individuals that can work it are the ones thats been authorized by a Col or higher....which on the civilian side of the house be a GS14 or District Director....an idea what GTN is...with your last 4 SSN and full name....I can go back as far as ten yeurs and track your movement CONUS and OCONUS.....all of you to me is nothing but....cargo in transit or awaiting transit hehe BTW this is info already on the internet. You just can't access it.
edit
Hivefleetplastic
1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)
So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.
We in the US grew up with the 2nd amendment. I'm not going to stand on a soup box and preach why you should have a weapon. Nor will I preach why you shouldn't have/own a weapon. I will though preach and I pretty base line on my view. Its your responsibility. ITS A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY. Your weapon and how you maintain positive control of your weapon is totally in your lane. You as a mature adult know the difference between right and wrong....I'm going to hold here. Being I live and worked in two different worlds. What I do in combat to eliminate a threat to me and mine is not something I would do in the civilian world.
Jihadin wrote: We in the US grew up with the 2nd amendment. I'm not going to stand on a soup box and preach why you should have a weapon. Nor will I preach why you shouldn't have/own a weapon. I will though preach and I pretty base line on my view. Its your responsibility. ITS A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY. Your weapon and how you maintain positive control of your weapon is totally in your lane. You as a mature adult know the difference between right and wrong....I'm going to hold here. Being I live and worked in two different worlds. What I do in combat to eliminate a threat to me and mine is not something I would do in the civilian world.
Ahtman wrote: Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
I'd like to add
Just because your paranoid,
don't mean there not out to get you (unless you own a gun, because owning a gun stops you being a victim of crime. You know it makes sense, I'm Sam Kekovich)
On a less wacky note, people who talk about getting guns for protection in Australia are idiots. By the time you get one out of your gun safe and loaded the criminals will have already been and gone. There seems to be this strange belief that having a gun stops you being a victim of crime , if someone gets the jump on you having a gun in a concealed holster really doesn't help you much, however i suppose it would stop you being a victim of knife crime or erm...fist crime.
If you can't see the connection between easily available guns and violent crime I have to wonder about you. Guns give people a non-immediate (as in not directly stabbing ect) way to kill people. having more guns around allows criminals to gain more untraceable weapons through smuggling, dodgy sales practices and stealing (just look at all the peoples minis who get stolen because someone thinks the case holds a pistol).
Put it this way, my country has feth all guns , we also have feth all gun crime ( and most of that seems to be between organised crime elements) , we also have feth all fear about being a victim of gun crime.
You can keep your 2nd amendment and live in your fear-ridden society.
Enjoy.
I'd also like to add people in these gun debates (me included) always talk about criminals like they are a totally seperate species. It's a ridiculous concept.
One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.
What's your question about cultural context? We have a lot more armed criminals than it sounds like you guys have, thus our chances of running into one are better. Most people won't. Most people's houses will never catch on fire, either, but that doesn't make the rope ladder on the third floor a foolish, unnecessary precaution.
We also subscribe to the notion that once someone shows intent to harm, you're well within your rights to defend yourself.
azazel the cat wrote: Two thirds of your country believes angels are real; that doesn't make it so.
I'm not sure that pithily dismissing the opinion of the majority is a wise tack to take for a guy who's been rending his garments over the fact that the majority wanted universal background checks yet failed to get them.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't believe I've ever made an appeal to the majority on this issue, nor brought up the idea that lots of people are in favour of background checks, as it's never been pertinent to my argument. I've been arguing only from my own soapbox.
azazel the cat wrote: I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't believe I've ever made an appeal to the majority on this issue, nor brought up the idea that lots of people are in favour of background checks, as it's never been pertinent to my argument. I've been arguing only from my own soapbox.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.
quoted for truth . I came back and amended my post to say something similar and saw you had written it with much more style.
do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.
quoted for truth . I came back and amended my post to say something similar and saw you had written it with much more style.
do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?
Statistics have strongly implied as much. (but not proven, because that's not how stats work)
Bullockist wrote: do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?
We have more guns than cars in this country, and we have a feth of a lot of cars. I have no doubt the fact that there is nearly one gun per person in the US has a lot to do with the fact that there's more gun crime.
But I also think you can't get toothpaste back in the tube.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.
What's your question about cultural context? We have a lot more armed criminals than it sounds like you guys have, thus our chances of running into one are better. Most people won't. Most people's houses will never catch on fire, either, but that doesn't make the rope ladder on the third floor a foolish, unnecessary precaution.
We also subscribe to the notion that once someone shows intent to harm, you're well within your rights to defend yourself.
It was this post where I sort of ran through my thought process (which I think is pretty typical of an Australian in this case) on why I might find someone in my home and the likely outcome of that encounter. It was borne of the notion I keep seeing in these threads of a "home invader" and the need to defend oneself from them. I feel like it'd be helpful to look at that notion in more depth, because a lot of the arguments in these threads seem to be built on it.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It was this post where I sort of ran through my thought process (which I think is pretty typical of an Australian in this case) on why I might find someone in my home and the likely outcome of that encounter. It was borne of the notion I keep seeing in these threads of a "home invader" and the need to defend oneself from them. I feel like it'd be helpful to look at that notion in more depth, because a lot of the arguments in these threads seem to be built on it.
Yeah. Well, like I said, there's a greater chance a home invader here will be armed.
It's not just home invasions, though. We have the right to carry guns over here when we go out and about as well.
What's "home invader" actually mean? I don't know if this is an unfair characterisation, but it comes across as a deliberately charged term to me compared to something like "burglar."
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: What's "home invader" actually mean? I don't know if this is an unfair characterisation, but it comes across as a deliberately charged term to me compared to something like "burglar."
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: What's "home invader" actually mean? I don't know if this is an unfair characterisation, but it comes across as a deliberately charged term to me compared to something like "burglar."
Interesting case. The wikipedia article on it is pretty light on the detail of the crime itself, though. Specifically, it doesn't talk at all about the motives of the attackers or how the situation ended. It also doesn't provide any information on why the court came to that decision. Heck, it doesn't even say if the perpetrators of that crime used firearms themselves. It does refer to one of them using a knife.
I tried looking up more information on the case, but pretty much all of the results seem to be articles about how that court case means you're all going to die and need to get a gun before it's too late because the police won't help you. It looks like perhaps the decision is based on trying to avoid a situation where a police officer has a reason to try not to help someone because doing so might open them up to liability - or, alternatively, a situation where the police are liable for not having enough resources available at a particular time to respond to all emergencies.
Its just that, in Australia, 'Home Invasion' is very, very far down on the list of crimes I worry about occurring.
A home invasion requires me to be at home. What kind of stupid burglar robs me while I'm at home, and not while I'm at work?
If I do get robbed while I'm at home, it is highly unlikely that I'd be able to get to a firearm even if I owned one - it would be in a safe childproof place, which means if I'm in the living, dining, kitchen or bathroom I can't actually get to my gun.
I don't understand why people are opposed to having a registry of guns. Your car needs to be registered to you, and registration needs to change if you sell it. Are you afraid that the government is going to come round up your cars?
A few weeks back, my neighbour's house was broken into (IN BROAD DAYLIGHT - 11am). The miscreant was confronted by myself and a neighbour from across the road. WE had no guns, knives or anything else that could be construed as a weapon.
We just challenged him and he dropped his booty (two sets of car keys and an ipod ) and bolted.
I've seen him around the street a few times since. There's a house down the road known to the narcs for dealing - but they have no actual proof nor enough "probable cause" to effect any arrests.
The three of us (myself, and the two neighbours) are also on good terms with the local OMC (Nomads). Seems this miscreant was also known for attempting to trespass on their turf.
Discussions were made with the occupants of the suspicious house down the road between those occupants and the OMC. I believe an agreement was reached vis-a-vis the burglary of dwellings by their customers (in this street) and the not-entirely-unexpected natural consequences (sudden and spontaneous gas leak and explosion of their dwelling) of this.
The street now has an aura of "this house might be protected by bikers. How lucky do you feel?" and is much quieter.
Grey Templar wrote: Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Interesting case. The wikipedia article on it is pretty light on the detail of the crime itself, though. Specifically, it doesn't talk at all about the motives of the attackers or how the situation ended. It also doesn't provide any information on why the court came to that decision. Heck, it doesn't even say if the perpetrators of that crime used firearms themselves. It does refer to one of them using a knife.
I tried looking up more information on the case, but pretty much all of the results seem to be articles about how that court case means you're all going to die and need to get a gun before it's too late because the police won't help you. It looks like perhaps the decision is based on trying to avoid a situation where a police officer has a reason to try not to help someone because doing so might open them up to liability - or, alternatively, a situation where the police are liable for not having enough resources available at a particular time to respond to all emergencies.
Does the detail actually matter, though? The motive's pretty irrelevant, as is the weapon used.
The "police don't have a duty to protect you" stuff is pretty irrelevant to the cultural question at hand, but yeah, it's taken from the standpoint that you can't sue the government if the cops fail to keep you from harm. Either way, that situation - armed intruders - isn't the norm in America, but it's also not unthinkable. Goes back to the fire escape analogy from earlier.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Okay, so apparently this is the "Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath" thread. Reading the last page or so of posts I was starting to think I was somewhere else. This is probably an appropriate place to ask this question!
So, a lot of the time people in these threads seem to be talking about defending their homes from people coming into them. As an Australian, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm wondering if this is a culture clash. See, my understanding here is that if someone is breaking into my home, it's probably because they want to steal my stuff. As people generally don't like being caught or arrested, they tend to do this when they believe nobody is around (and part of protecting your home is avoiding the appearance of it being uninhabited).
So the only time I'm likely* to run into these people is when they break into my home believing that I'm not there and it turns out that I am. In those cases, the overwhelming majority of the time I'd expect them to instantly flee, because they don't want to get caught.
There are a couple of what seem like pertinent points here to me:
1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)
So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.
To point number 3: Not everywhere (that I know of) in the US has on their books laws known as "Castle Laws" meaning that even if a d-bag is fleeing my home, so long as he/she is on the property they are fair game for being shot, provided they were not wanted (ie, violating Private Property signs, successfully or attempting to break in, etc.)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: To point number 3: Not everywhere (that I know of) in the US has on their books laws known as "Castle Laws" meaning that even if a d-bag is fleeing my home, so long as he/she is on the property they are fair game for being shot, provided they were not wanted (ie, violating Private Property signs, successfully or attempting to break in, etc.)
Not how it works in Australia, From the queensland police website.
In Queensland, you have the right to physically defend yourself with reasonable force, provided the force is authorised, justified or excused by law.
The law does not allow you to carry anything that can be described as an offensive weapon. E.g. mace or spray dyes, or items that have been specially adapted, such as a sharpened comb, or knife carried for the purpose of self defence.
Owning a gun does not give you the right to fire at another human being no mater the situation.
@Madcat, I completely understand that not everywhere has a form of "Castle Law"
At the same time, it seems rather odd that in Australia people aren't allowed to carry even mace or pepper spray!? I mean, how else are we supposed to flavor our food, or defend against pissed off wallabies (the animals, not necessarily the rugby players)?
djones520 wrote:Your not allowed to carry knives in Australia?
Nope. Not without a valid reason at least.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:@Madcat, I completely understand that not everywhere has a form of "Castle Law"
At the same time, it seems rather odd that in Australia people aren't allowed to carry even mace or pepper spray!? I mean, how else are we supposed to flavor our food, or defend against pissed off wallabies (the animals, not necessarily the rugby players)?
Again no real reason to carry mace or pepper spray. Our streets (well Melbournes at least, can't speak for other cities) are well patrolled with police. You are more likely to get glassed at 1am outside a pub then you are to get stabbed.
Grey Templar wrote: Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.
So whats all the fuss about from the people claiming there are gunshow loopholes?
Grey Templar wrote: Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.
So whats all the fuss about from the people claiming there are gunshow loopholes?
Most people ape the talking points but are ignorant. The fuss is that someone like myself (not a licensed dealer) can go to a gun show and sell a weapon I own to another citizen and not have to do a back ground check. Just as I can sell one now to a buddy outside of a gun show or give one to my son for Christmas without the need for a back ground check.
Most (but I am not going to come close to saying all because I just don't know) gun shows will not rent a vendor table to anyone selling firearms who is not a licensed dealer. They do so for liability reasons.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Okay, so apparently this is the "Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath" thread. Reading the last page or so of posts I was starting to think I was somewhere else. This is probably an appropriate place to ask this question!
So, a lot of the time people in these threads seem to be talking about defending their homes from people coming into them. As an Australian, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm wondering if this is a culture clash. See, my understanding here is that if someone is breaking into my home, it's probably because they want to steal my stuff. As people generally don't like being caught or arrested, they tend to do this when they believe nobody is around (and part of protecting your home is avoiding the appearance of it being uninhabited).
So the only time I'm likely* to run into these people is when they break into my home believing that I'm not there and it turns out that I am. In those cases, the overwhelming majority of the time I'd expect them to instantly flee, because they don't want to get caught.
There are a couple of what seem like pertinent points here to me:
1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)
So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.
Your summary sounds, to me, very much like the common Australian mindset, and stands in stark contrast the very strange post made by that one guy on the first page, claiming that all the Australians he knew wanted guns to defend themselves (either that claim wasn't entirely true, or the fellow in question somehow managed to stumble upon the tiny pocket of Australians who believed what best suited his own political views).
It also isn't a particularly Australian thing, so much as its a 'not American' thing. Most of the developed world has little interest in firearms to protect themselves in their homes. And ultimately, looking at the numbers its hard to see that belief coming from anything cultural, more that it comes from the plain and simple that there are very few break and enters that end violently, and even fewer that ended with lethal force (either to the homeowner or the invader).
Instead, what we're really looking at is a very strange justification that's snuck it's way in to the American political dialogue, as an attempt to justify gun ownership.
Grey Templar wrote: Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.
So whats all the fuss about from the people claiming there are gunshow loopholes?
Most people ape the talking points but are ignorant. The fuss is that someone like myself (not a licensed dealer) can go to a gun show and sell a weapon I own to another citizen and not have to do a back ground check. Just as I can sell one now to a buddy outside of a gun show or give one to my son for Christmas without the need for a back ground check.
Most (but I am not going to come close to saying all because I just don't know) gun shows will not rent a vendor table to anyone selling firearms who is not a licensed dealer. They do so for liability reasons.
So you have background checks on people buying guns, but those people can just turn around and sell them to anyone without any sort of check? Sounds pretty useless to me. If background checks are going to be of use, they'd have to be used on all gun transfers as well as new purchases. Just seems like you have very patchy laws, and a half baked law is often as bad as no law.
Meanwhile, I understand that there aren't many states that have storage laws about guns, like most states here in Australia have, which combined with the far greater numbers of firearms means stolen weapons being used in crimes is a far more significant problem in America. These two together are probably why criminals find it far easier to get firearms in America, and so why they're far more likely to be used in violent crime, which ironically is probably why there's a much greater prevalence of firearms around for defense, in unsecured places... it's a catch 22 really.
So you have background checks on people buying guns, but those people can just turn around and sell them to anyone without any sort of check? Sounds pretty useless to me. If background checks are going to be of use, they'd have to be used on all gun transfers as well as new purchases. Just seems like you have very patchy laws, and a half baked law is often as bad as no law.
Except that would be considered straw purchasing and with the hordes of ATF agents at every gun show would lead to arrests right away, and if done outside the gun show is still illegal, so no new law is really needed. Anyone who was going to break the current law will probably not be intimidated by a new law. And without being able to quantify the problem for me, and show me a bunch of cases where guns legally purchased without a background check were then used by the legal owner to commit crimes you are not going to convince me we need new laws and bureaucracy which both increase the cost of gun ownership and infringe on freedoms.
wiki def wrote:Straw purchases are most often associated with firearms, where a person used another person (their agent) to purchase a firearm for them, and then transfer that firearm to them. Straw purchases can be illegal in the United States when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership.(Sales made by a dealer at a gun show, or any location away from his licensed premises are covered by all Federal laws) If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the purchaser must indicate the intended recipient on the transaction record. Straw purchases of used guns are not illegal if the transaction takes place from one individual to another ( no dealer involved), unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser
d-usa wrote: So no new laws unless we can prove that guns sold to strawmen were used in crimes later on.
And how do you plan on anybody proving that?
How about read what I actually wrote:
and show me a bunch of cases where guns legally purchased without a background check were then used by the legal owner to commit crimes you are not going to convince me we need new laws and bureaucracy which both increase the cost of gun ownership and infringe on freedoms.
bottom line is, what you call 'universal back ground checks' would only be universal for legal gun owners anyway, and the majority of gun sales already go through checks. Adding cost and bureaucracy without a real gain is silly. Enforcing current laws consistently would go much further than creating new ones. Seeing as how straw purchases are ALREADY ILLEGAL I am not sure how a new law changes that....
d-usa wrote: So no new laws unless we can prove that guns sold to strawmen were used in crimes later on.
And how do you plan on anybody proving that?
How about read what I actually wrote:
and show me a bunch of cases where guns legally purchased without a background check were then used by the legal owner to commit crimes you are not going to convince me we need new laws and bureaucracy which both increase the cost of gun ownership and infringe on freedoms.
bottom line is, what you call 'universal back ground checks' would only be universal for legal gun owners anyway, and the majority of gun sales already go through checks. Adding cost and bureaucracy without a real gain is silly. Enforcing current laws consistently would go much further than creating new ones. Seeing as how straw purchases are ALREADY ILLEGAL I am not sure how a new law changes that....
How about making sales illegal without a background check, and hold the seller responsible if a gun is sold without one? Seems pretty common sense. From what I've seen, while Straw purchases might be illegal, it's kind of hard to prove (you have to prove the intent of the puchase was to give it to someone, whereas just selling a gun after buying it for any other reason is fine). Just get them to have to see a licensed dealer to make the private sale, and if your weapon turns up having been sold to someone else (and not reported stolen), make them ineligible to buy new guns.
But that's just my thoughts on the matter. I think the difference between Australians and Americans on the matter is that for Americans is an ideological, rather than a rational, argument, and that's also why I doubt anything serious will ever be done about gun control over there.
ChocolateGork wrote: I would like it if i could carry SOME kind of protection in Australia. We cant carry anything for the purpose of self defense.
Maybe one of the reasons we have a Rape rate that is almost 4x that of america (although there is a long list of possibly contributing factors)
Two points.
First, don't always believe comparitive data between countries, because it can be quite misleading. I know our Assault rate, often trotted out by the pro-gun people in the US, is always reported as far higher than that of the US, BUT when you actually look at why, you find out that it's because we have a much much broader definition of Assault that the US does (they only count assault causing bodily harm, we include assault that didn't cause bodily harm and threatened violence), and I'd very much assume the same is true of the 'rape' statistics. Stats for sexual assault can also be strongly skewed by reporting rate, which is very variable. Solid data points, such as murder rates and car thefts show us generally doing as well or better than the US, and I would bet strongly that in actual, comparative rates, we're equal.
Secondly, the vast majority of rapes/sexual assault are committed by people who know the victim, or are things like date-rapes where the victim wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves. Rape rates alone would not tell you jack about the effectiveness of gun's on safety, unless you only counted violent rapes by strangers and where they could have been defended against, which would probably be a very small number of cases, comparatively.
ChocolateGork wrote: I would like it if i could carry SOME kind of protection in Australia. We cant carry anything for the purpose of self defense.
Maybe one of the reasons we have a Rape rate that is almost 4x that of america (although there is a long list of possibly contributing factors)
Don't always believe comparitive data between countries, because it can be quite misleading. I know our Assault rate, often trotted out by the pro-gun people in the US, is always reported as far higher than that of the US, BUT when you actually look at why, you find out that it's because we have a much much broader definition of Assault that the US does (they only count assault causing bodily harm, we include assault that didn't cause bodily harm and threatened violence), and I'd very much assume the same is true of the 'rape' statistics. Solid data points, such as murder rates and car thefts show us generally doing as well or better than the US
Understanding that your definition of assault is much more broad, surely 'rape' can only be defined in very limited terms? Certainly if you had said "sexual assault" instead of rape, then you could very well be correct, but I highly doubt that rape statistics can be defined very differently, regardless what country it is reporting from.
The definition of rape under the Criminal Law Consolidation (Rape and Sexual Offences) Amendment Act 2008 is:
A person who has sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that other person:
a.Knowing that that other person does not consent to sexual intercourse with him/her
b.Being recklessly indifferent as to whether that other person consents to sexual intercourse with him/her
c.Continues with sexual intercourse when consent is withdrawn
Shall (whether or not physical resistance is offered by that other person) be guilty of rape
Australian definition. Seems pretty similar to our own.
ChocolateGork wrote: I would like it if i could carry SOME kind of protection in Australia. We cant carry anything for the purpose of self defense.
Maybe one of the reasons we have a Rape rate that is almost 4x that of america (although there is a long list of possibly contributing factors)
Don't always believe comparitive data between countries, because it can be quite misleading. I know our Assault rate, often trotted out by the pro-gun people in the US, is always reported as far higher than that of the US, BUT when you actually look at why, you find out that it's because we have a much much broader definition of Assault that the US does (they only count assault causing bodily harm, we include assault that didn't cause bodily harm and threatened violence), and I'd very much assume the same is true of the 'rape' statistics. Solid data points, such as murder rates and car thefts show us generally doing as well or better than the US
Understanding that your definition of assault is much more broad, surely 'rape' can only be defined in very limited terms? Certainly if you had said "sexual assault" instead of rape, then you could very well be correct, but I highly doubt that rape statistics can be defined very differently, regardless what country it is reporting from.
That's what I mean, it's probably referring to Sexual Assault, or some other nebulous comparison.
Best I can find is Australian statistics reporting that "one in six adult women in Australia had experienced sexual assault since the age of 15 years" (~16%) and from the CDC "Nearly one in five women (~18%)...had reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives".
Rape statistics are very nebulous. The ones you listed are those that try to guess the total number, to include unreported rapes.
According to the UN who've compiled reported statistics, Australia has 79.5 reported per 100,000 citizens. The US had 27.3. Great Britain was 28.8 (England and Wales).
djones520 wrote: Rape statistics are very nebulous. The ones you listed are those that try to guess the total number, to include unreported rapes.
According to the UN who've compiled reported statistics, Australia has 79.5 reported per 100,000 citizens. The US had 27.3. Great Britain was 28.8 (England and Wales).
The reported numbers are very variable depending on how reporting is done, and reporting rate by victims. Surveys of the population are a much better way to get a decent read of actual rape occurring, which is why it's cited by the CDC. For instance, it seems Australia only has statistics available for "sexual assault", rather than "Rapes", which might explain a significant difference in the reported numbers.
But, as mentioned before, all this is meaningless as rapes are usually commited by people known to the victim, or in date-rapes or situations where they can't be defended against, making it a useless statistic for determining the effectiveness of guns as protective devices. All the other statistics tell us that having large numbers of guns in a country doesn't make it any safer.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31,672 people died by guns in 2010 (the most recent year for which U.S. figures are available), a staggering number that is orders of magnitude higher than that of comparable Western democracies. What can we do about it? National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre believes he knows: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” If La Pierre means professionally trained police and military who routinely practice shooting at ranges, this observation would at least be partially true. If he means armed private citizens with little to no training, he could not be more wrong.
Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” Pistol owners’ fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for selfdefense. I harbored this belief for the 20 years I owned a Ruger .357 Magnum with hollow-point bullets designed to shred the body of anyone who dared to break into my home, but when I learned about these statistics, I got rid of the gun.
More insights can be found in a 2013 book from Johns Hopkins University Press entitled Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, both professors in health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another.
For example, of the 1,082 women and 267 men killed in 2010 by their intimate partners, 54 percent were by guns. Over the past quarter of a century, guns were involved in greater number of intimate partner homicides than all other causes combined. When a woman is murdered, it is most likely by her intimate partner with a gun. Regardless of what really caused Olympic track star Oscar Pistorius to shoot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp (whether he mistook her for an intruder or he snapped in a lover’s quarrel), her death is only the latest such headline. Recall, too, the fate of Nancy Lanza, killed by her own gun in her own home in Connecticut by her son, Adam Lanza, before he went to Sandy Hook Elementary School to murder some two dozen children and adults. As an alternative to arming women against violent men, legislation can help: data show that in states that prohibit gun ownership by men who have received a domestic violence restraining order, gun-caused homicides of intimate female partners were reduced by 25 percent.
Another myth to fall to the facts is that gun-control laws disarm good people and leave the crooks with weapons. Not so, say the Johns Hopkins authors: “Strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers—defined as having a state law that required state or local licensing of retail firearm sellers, mandatory record keeping by those sellers, law enforcement access to records for inspection, regular inspections of gun dealers, and mandated reporting of theft of loss of firearms—was associated with 64 percent less diversion of guns to criminals by in-state gun dealers.” Finally, before we concede civilization and arm everyone to the teeth pace the NRA, consider the primary cause of the centurieslong decline of violence as documented by Steven Pinker in his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature: the rule of law by states that turned over settlement of disputes to judicial courts and curtailed private self-help justice through legitimate use of force by police and military trained in the proper use of weapons.
d-usa wrote: So no new laws unless we can prove that guns sold to strawmen were used in crimes later on.
And how do you plan on anybody proving that?
How about read what I actually wrote:
and show me a bunch of cases where guns legally purchased without a background check were then used by the legal owner to commit crimes you are not going to convince me we need new laws and bureaucracy which both increase the cost of gun ownership and infringe on freedoms.
bottom line is, what you call 'universal back ground checks' would only be universal for legal gun owners anyway, and the majority of gun sales already go through checks. Adding cost and bureaucracy without a real gain is silly. Enforcing current laws consistently would go much further than creating new ones. Seeing as how straw purchases are ALREADY ILLEGAL I am not sure how a new law changes that....
How about making sales illegal without a background check, and hold the seller responsible if a gun is sold without one? Seems pretty common sense. From what I've seen, while Straw purchases might be illegal, it's kind of hard to prove (you have to prove the intent of the puchase was to give it to someone, whereas just selling a gun after buying it for any other reason is fine). Just get them to have to see a licensed dealer to make the private sale, and if your weapon turns up having been sold to someone else (and not reported stolen), make them ineligible to buy new guns.
But that's just my thoughts on the matter. I think the difference between Australians and Americans on the matter is that for Americans is an ideological, rather than a rational, argument, and that's also why I doubt anything serious will ever be done about gun control over there.
Except you have a problem.
Right now, people make straw purchases for criminals. Even though its illegal. They do it because there is almost no chance they'll get caught, and only if the gun is traced from the criminal back to them. and then it has to be proven they knew they were selling to a criminal. Almost impossible.
The same applies to making private citizens have to make a background check before selling. There is no way of enforcing it. Nobody will get caught unless the gun is traced back to the original seller, you can establish proof that the person either knew they were selling to a criminal, and they would have failed a background check at the time of the sale.
Its an entirely pointless measure that only catches the crime after it has happened, and will do nothing to stop gun crimes.
Grey Templar wrote: Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.
Thank you, I swear to the goddess I'm going to kick someone in the taint if people keep propagating the gun show loophole BS or that stupid 40% number.
Hhhmmmmm I have to see when the next gun show is around here. If I can find a cheaper M4 (dammit I'm use to calling it an M4 and not a AR15) I more then likely get it for the wife. Other then that I do know she looking for a decent price 40m....she has small cute hands...so we be in the market for a hand weapon....maybe two if I can find a 1911....
Grey Templar wrote: I thought the AR15 and the M4 were both derivatives of the M16. the M4 being a carbine version of the M16.
The AR-15 is a derivative of the AR-10. Armalite tried to sell the AR-10 to the Army, but they didn't bite. So they made the AR-15, and again the Army didn't want it, but the Air Force did. So Armalite made the military version of the AR-15 and called it the M-16. The M-16 went through several versions before the need of a "close in" weapon prompted the design of the M-4 in the mid to late 90's.
Grey Templar wrote: Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.
In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.
Thank you, I swear to the goddess I'm going to kick someone in the taint if people keep propagating the gun show loophole BS or that stupid 40% number.
What a stupid argument. You two are acting so smug and you don't even realize you're not even talking about the right thing.
THIS IS THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE: as per the Firearm Owners Protection Act, licensed vendors are required to perform background checks, both in their shops and at gun shows. However, people who are not vendors -who allegedly only sell firearms on occasion- are not subject to this restriction. Thus, a private citizen who does not possess a Federal Firearms License is allowed to sell firearms withouth running a background check, and can very easily show up to a gun show with a duffel bag full of firearms and sell them to anyone, without running a background check.
So tell me, KalashnikovMarine: what part about the above is BS?
Guys who are selling in that level of bulk are IN BUSINESS and are violating federal law. Also at every gun show I've been to, unless you had a valid C&R permit, you had to be an FFL to get a table selling firearms. Obviously that's different in some areas but again, there's no gunshow loophole, ATF should actually try enforcing the law instead of burning innocent people alive and bothering legitimate businesses that do follow the law. Or you know, making sure the cartels have all the weapons they need courtesy of the U.S. Federal government.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also considering that documentary is from Michael Bloomberg, it's got about as much credibility as Michael Moore, but 1/3 the body fat!
1/8th of the body fat...
Back to OP: Is there a good source (FBI "like" ) on crime statistics in Australia? (not wiki please).
I dunno Bloomie was looking kinda chunky there for awhile. That's my theory behind the soda pop ban. Bloomberg decided that if he had to diet NYC was going to suffer with him.
easysauce wrote: canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
russia bans civilian guns, yet has had plenty of mass murders in schools, .
they have seen events much worse then in america, one notable event, saw over 150 dead, in a country that bans civilian guns
how is this possible when guns are banned in russia?
how is making a law forcing non crimnalsto not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?
why do people assume a crook willing to break the laws against murder/theft/him owning a gun with a record/ect will follow a law that says he double plus cannot own guns?
I'm and aussie and 99% of the austrailian stuff in the is complete Male cow waste. We are not living in fear because we know that most criminal don't have guns and the ones doing robbery are not the one with guns. So don't even try to make the argument about there are still bad guys with guns, so the goo guys need them to, the bad don't have then and the good guys are the police.
This is why i'm worried about this guy in america that has made a 3d printable gun, now in Australia could possible can get fully auto-matic weaponry. All this is going to lead to the bad now having guns. I'm not saying the guns are bad, they are a tool to be used and they can be fun to use for E.G. hunting etc. but for hunting you do not need a fully auto assault weapons with 300+ rounds.
That is my opinion Dakka, take it as you like
- ironhandstralen
Guns can't be 3-D printed. You can print plastic components of guns, none of which are actually the important parts that take the stress of firing.
Plus 3-D printers are hellishly expensive. It might be cheaper to actually acquire a legal full auto weapon than print a functioning gun(assuming you buy a metal printer)
Actually if you check the other thread GT, Defense Distributed has made a fully plastic *except one nail for the firing pin) rim fire zip gun. It's a long way off from a full auto weapon though.
azazel the cat wrote: I admit I'm kinda surprised how someone has been able to 3D-print a chamber that can withstand the force of firing a bullet.
He is using a short .22 (not even .22LR). No reason to suspect the chamber or barrel hold up to very many of even those rounds either. Looking at the pictures posted in the other thread he printed off multiple barrels (which also seem to serve as the chamber) and I bet he did that for a reason. They obviously also broke the trigger at some point, which really attests to the durability of the thing.
Between that type of round and that gun, I wouldn't expect it to be useful unless you put it right up to someone's eye socket.
Of course, if you end up being the poor guy with a .22 short rattling around inside your skull you probably will not care it was fired from that thing vice a 'real' gun.
Really the only advantage I see to this thing is that the components don't LOOK like hand gun components and are not metal (except the firing pin) so you could feasibly take one broken down onto an airplane....
Grey Templar wrote:I imagine it has to be replaced on a regular basis. Seems like a high maintenance weapon for little practical gain.
Practical gains (as imagined by very bad people): -wanna walk up and put a round in the back of someone's head? Untraceable firearm!
-wanna take a firearm onto an airplane? It's all plastic, except for the firing pin!
-cant legally buy a gun and got some nasty prison tats on your face, such that even private sellers at gun shows don't sell to you? Buy a printer!
Even a firing pin will show up on an airport scanner.
And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?
And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?
They won't be $8000 forever. And a firing pin could pretty easily be gotten through airport security in a cell phone's battery compartment.
True, but then he has to reassemble the gun after he's on the plane.
And what about bullets? Can't hide very many of those in a cell phone.
Yeah, they'll get cheaper eventually but with the internet you are not going to prevent people from getting their hands on the blueprints. We can't stop people from pirating music, what chance do we have of stopping them from getting a 3-D blueprint?
And similarly you can't prevent anyone from buying a 3-D printer.
Grey Templar wrote: True, but then he has to reassemble the gun after he's on the plane.
And what about bullets? Can't hide very many of those in a cell phone.
Yeah, they'll get cheaper eventually but with the internet you are not going to prevent people from getting their hands on the blueprints. We can't stop people from pirating music, what chance do we have of stopping them from getting a 3-D blueprint?
And similarly you can't prevent anyone from buying a 3-D printer.
Oh, bullets are easy. Your body has a built-in smuggling compartment that will comfortably seat several.
Look, I'm not saying there's anything that can be done about any of this, simply that to pretend it won't make things easier for criminally-inclined individuals in the long run is unrealistic. I fully agree that we have as much chance of stopping that from happening as we do stopping Avatar from getting pirated.
Grey Templar wrote:I imagine it has to be replaced on a regular basis. Seems like a high maintenance weapon for little practical gain.
Practical gains (as imagined by very bad people): -wanna walk up and put a round in the back of someone's head? Untraceable firearm!
-wanna take a firearm onto an airplane? It's all plastic, except for the firing pin!
-cant legally buy a gun and got some nasty prison tats on your face, such that even private sellers at gun shows don't sell to you? Buy a printer!
I suspect it will be traceable for a variety of reasons. The specific design is traceable, and it won't be hard to trace who had downloaded it. The plastics used by the printer will be traceable to manufacturer and probably point of sale much like they can do with an ink cartridge or toner cartridge now. Won't be easy, but I would not underestimate the FBIs investigatory capability.
And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?
They won't be $8000 forever. And a firing pin could pretty easily be gotten through airport security in a cell phone's battery compartment.
Dude all you need is the clip on a pen. Its not hard. Its also not that effective.
And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?
Come on. You really think TSA employees are gonna recognize that as a firing pin?
A criminal buddy isn't gonna get him a gun that potentially gets onto an airplane...
Grey Templar wrote:Even a firing pin will show up on an airport scanner.
And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?
I suspect you have a very specific criminal element in mind when you say "criminal". So if I'm right, le tme put this in terms that even you might be willing to consider:
One guy buys a printer for $8k and then prints his own untraceable guns, being sold for $500 each (a bargain). He'll have his money back inside of a weekend (assuming actual production time isn't insanely high)
Grey Templar wrote: True, but then he has to reassemble the gun after he's on the plane.
And what about bullets? Can't hide very many of those in a cell phone.
Yeah, they'll get cheaper eventually but with the internet you are not going to prevent people from getting their hands on the blueprints. We can't stop people from pirating music, what chance do we have of stopping them from getting a 3-D blueprint?
And similarly you can't prevent anyone from buying a 3-D printer.
Now there's the problem. Hide the bullets in a pen Gorky Park style.
And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?
Come on. You really think TSA employees are gonna recognize that as a firing pin?
A criminal buddy isn't gonna get him a gun that potentially gets onto an airplane...
No, but they'll see a sharp metal object. They go rabid over just about everything.
CptJake wrote:I suspect it will be traceable for a variety of reasons. The specific design is traceable, and it won't be hard to trace who had downloaded it. The plastics used by the printer will be traceable to manufacturer and probably point of sale much like they can do with an ink cartridge or toner cartridge now. Won't be easy, but I would not underestimate the FBIs investigatory capability.
As it stands it is impossible to trace an ink cartridge due to how generic and commercialized they are -the exact reason tracing these plastics would be a nightmare. This, of course, does not even touch on the idea that these guns can easily be printed without rifling (you don't need accuracy when you put the barrel to someone's head). Even more technical than that (and this I'm not certain of yet due to the plastics used) there's a good chance that if there was any rifling, the heat would alter it such that it made tracing a bullet's striations impossible.
And of course, that doesn't even get into the idea of using cartridges, though I suspect that will require leaps and bounds in structural advancement first...
EDIT: GT, do you know what a firing pin actually looks like?
CptJake wrote:I suspect it will be traceable for a variety of reasons. The specific design is traceable, and it won't be hard to trace who had downloaded it. The plastics used by the printer will be traceable to manufacturer and probably point of sale much like they can do with an ink cartridge or toner cartridge now. Won't be easy, but I would not underestimate the FBIs investigatory capability.
As it stands it is impossible to trace an ink cartridge due to how generic and commercialized they are -the exact reason tracing these plastics would be a nightmare. This, of course, does not even touch on the idea that these guns can easily be printed without rifling (you don't need accuracy when you put the barrel to someone's head). Even more technical than that (and this I'm not certain of yet due to the plastics used) there's a good chance that if there was any rifling, the heat would alter it such that it made tracing a bullet's striations impossible.
And of course, that doesn't even get into the idea of using cartridges, though I suspect that will require leaps and bounds in structural advancement first...
EDIT: GT, do you know what a firing pin actually looks like?
Looks like that was the real reason for Shirley Sherrod's firing.
