Xpost: Austrailian gun control...

[beevul]

Yes, Virginia, we CAN do something about gun violence.

Australia Proved Gun Control Reduces Mass Shootings, Homicides, Suicides

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/26/gun-control-mass-shootings_n_8043364.html

Every time this (a mass shooting) happens in America, the two sides of the gun control debate resume arguing. Inevitably, the powerful gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), largely wins with its argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

But earlier this week, a study by the American Sociological Association came out debunking the NRA's contention. It reported that the U.S. — which has nearly half the world's civilian-owned guns — is also home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shootings despite making up only five per cent of the world's population.

"That is not a coincidence," wrote study author Adam Lankford. "My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nation’s civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters.
====
In the decade after the (Australian) gun control law was passed, gun homicides fell by 59 per cent and firearm-related suicides fell by 65 per cent. There was no related increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.

Comment by the OP over there on that 'piece':

Gunners will say that the suicide rate has gone up using other methods. They're wrong and there's no other way to put it. They are wrong.

Violent crime has not gone up either.

There is no excuse to not emulate Australia. They still have guns, they still protect themselves in the Out Back, they still hunt, they still compete in marksmanship and they still collect antiques.

They just don't die at the rate Americans do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629657

This seems like a good time to point out that Australia engaged in gun confiscation.

I think the confiscationists do not understand, that whether government payed for the firearms they confiscated or not, that they indeed compelled otherwise law abiding people to give up guns against their will.

Playing games calling it a buyback ignores the truth of the matter.

What say you all?

[Duckhunter935]

1. The question I have is

How many mass shootings in the previous ten or so years before this and how many after? How many weapons were in private hands prior to and what are in private hands now. It is still legal to own firearms in Australia as far as I know.

[SwissTony]

2. Very good questions

I refer you to the John Oliver 3 piece report for the first part of your questions.

&index=2&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

It is still legal to own weapons in Australia, but the type of weapons is very restricted. I don't that anyone can get a gun. At the time the law came in, I doubt that I could have got a gun. I didn't have a reason except "I wanted one."

[Duckhunter935]

3. I have a bad connection

I will re watch it later as I think I have seen it. It is usually very good but one sided and edited. I am looking for actual statistics and will search when I have a better internet connection.

Thanks😀

[SwissTony]

4. Fair enough.

It's a comedy show (albeit little black comedy at times) and not an encyclopedia.

But the main message: before gun control - far too many mass shootings. After - what are you talking about?

[Hangingon]

7. When you find the actual numbers , please share

I would be interested in the answers to your questions

[sarisataka]

29. Oh yeah?

Well whoop-de-f******-do. (Although I am reminded to travel to OZ and hang out on a beach )

I do believe sarcasm and humor are better to change attitudes than demonization so I appreciate JO's approach more than what we typically see from gun control proponents.

I do not fully agree with his cut and paste solution- and don't thnk he is actually advocating such. The U.S. has a crime problem interrelated to gun issues which I believe is greater than what Australia had in 1996. That is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.

Even so, it does not prohibit better gun control along with attacking other crime contributing factors. Unfortunately the issue is so polarized between the few that demand "all" and those that refuse to accept "any" no one can hear the majority who want "some".

[ileus]

5. Do they still allow CC, and AR type firearms and magazines.

If so, then it may be okay. As long as there's still a fundamental right to self defense with firearms.


Otherwise just say no to regressive ban type schemes...

[SwissTony]

6. Oh, boy. "a fundamental right to self defense with firearms"

Actually, we don't wory about self defence with firearms because we're not actually likely to be attacked by someone with a gun. We've got gun control.

[gejohnston]

8. but you had gun control before

IIRC, every state had some licensing scheme and some states had registration. You don't have to be attacked with a gun to be able to use it in self defense. In the US disparity of force is a reason. An example is multiple attackers or smaller person, weaker person defending against larger or healthier attacker, something like grandma in a walker vs a 20 something meth head (extreme examples, you get the picture).
BTW, the AFP has on idea how many illegal guns there are, and you do know about the biker gangs making their own machine guns, right?
I read about a scandal in Queensland that some of the guns turned in were sold on the black market by some of the cops.

While you haven't had mass shootings, you have had many mass murders by other means. Does that matter? IIRC, New Zealand had the same rash during the same time frame, but did nothing and had the same results. My question is, isn't it really a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[SwissTony]

13. We had gun control, but John Howard tightened things up.

I still can't believe I'm saying this but i do: "Thank you, Prime Minister".

And yeah, we've had mass murders since then Even what I'd call a mass shooting.

Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

So, our record is not perfect.

And we've had a couple of horrendous fire attacks. And knife attacks. Don't other countries have them?

[gejohnston]

24. the fact that Howard

used an undemocratic means, blackmailing the states to adopt the NFA, spent millions of your dollars to confiscate registered guns from licensed gun owners only to find some of them sold on the black market by cops with no tangible benefit at all, I have to question people's judgement. BTW, why did it take six hours for police to respond to the Port Authur shooter? Did they determine where he got the guns, since he didn't have a license and one of them was stolen from a police evidence room? Were police officials in Tasmania held accountable for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty? If not, why not?

Tell me, was there a real debate, or did the government and government owned media, like ABC, simply fill the airwaves with bullshit while the gun owners, or the SSAA for that mater, were shut out? Did the very people who would be the only ones affected have any voice in this debate? If not, what does that say about Australian democracy?

So you are saying mass murder is no big deal unless the killer uses a gun? That's one of the reasons why I don't like culture warriors be they anti gun or anti abortion religious fundamentalists.

[SwissTony]

26. it was undemocratic in that he didn't put the question to a formal referendum.

But i didn't hear one Australian (except for a few gun "nuts&quot who didn't approve of the measures. John Howard was a Liberal prime minister. Our Liberals are our right wing party. Rob Borbidge was the Premier of Queensland. He was a member of the National Party. The National party is to the right of the liberals, often by some way. he and his party supported Howard's measures.

Even the gun nuts saw the sense of Howard's measures.

Watch JO's videos.

Yeah, Howard spent millions on the gun retrieval. You know why? Because we wanted it. Australians turned in thousands of weapons because we were sickened with what happened at Port Arthur.

Number of Australians who thought this was not money well spent? To the best of my knowledge, a non-negative integer less than 1.

Did some guns get onto the illegal market? Very probably. How many? No evidence that it was a lot. If you disagree, please provide.

Were police procedures followed as they should have been? I don't know. Are police procedures followed exactly as protocol dictates in Chicago...New York...London...Tokyo...? I guess not always, unfortunately. Yep, things could have and may have gone wrong.

Argue all you like, mate but we've only had one mass shooting since 1996.

And your comment about me somehow devaluing mass killings because guns weren't involved is simply disgusting.

[gejohnston]

28. because you wanted it or you were manipulated to wanting it

Were those gun owners supporting NFA speaking for themselves, or were they simply actors?
My understanding is that gun owners were simply shut out of the debate. Ever read the book Manufactured Consent? IIRC, it was written by Nome Chomsky.

I'm sorry, police officials in Tasmania should have lost their jobs. Poor response time to mass murder is not acceptable.

There is a logical fallacy US gun control activists use often, post hoc ergo propter hoc along with appeal to emotion. True, there hasn't been a mass shooting since then. Using that logic, the fact that our murder and violent crime rate has been dropping over the past 20+ years means that the states liberalizing concealed carry permitting and increased gun sales is sound public safety policy.

As for where on the left/right scale these politicians fall, doesn't have anything to do with guns. It is about culture war and authoritarianism. In the US, it is less of a left/right issue as it is a cultural issue. One of our most right wing presidents, Richard Nixon, wanted to ban handguns. Argue all you want against or liberal gun laws, but violent crime has been dropping.

And your comment about me somehow devaluing mass killings because guns weren't involved is simply disgusting.

Nothing personal, but when American gun control activists say something like "gun suicide dropped" while ignoring the fact that suicide rate did not, that is the first thought that comes to mind.

[gejohnston]

30. Post Script

I really don't care what JO says. He is a comedian, nothing more. I don't let comedians, pundits, or politicians tell me what to think. I look at the cold empirical data. Chances are you wouldn't have had another if Howard did nothing.

[Logical]

31. FFS, do you really claim that knife and gun are the same in a mass murder? Which would you....

rather be the subject of. Most sane people would choose the knife. But maybe you are not sane.

[gejohnston]

32. The worst is arson.

But no, dead is dead. The guy in California that stabbed three people to death and shot another three still murdered six people. The idea that being shot to death is worse than being stabbed to death is absurd.

[Logical]

33. Worst? No, but much easier. Wow, you are not a deep thinker I assume. nt

[gejohnston]

34. I was thinking more in

Terms of pain. Deep thinking? At least I do think. One logical fallacy after another. Ironic isn't it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. 2 things

1. That's not possible here.
2. Control is both a myth and the antithesis of freedom.

As a side note, I'd worry about a 100 lb woman trying to defend herself from a 220 lb man with anything less than a firearm.

[SwissTony]

15. I'm sorry to say I probably agree with point 1.

Australia probably has an NRA. If it does, I've never heard of it and I can't tell you it's leader's name. The NRA seems to have so much power in the US. An organization of 3 million pretty much dictating to a country of 320 million? (adjust figures where necessary)

"Control is both a myth" - well it is if you don't try it. I'll cocede that it will be extremely difficult in the US (never even been to the US, so can only view from afar).

"antithesis of freedom" - yeah? Do you know anyone who's a member of a well regulated militia? And why is it that Brits and Aussies don't feel "unfree" because we can't have a gun (we can, if we have a really good reason).

And the 100 lb woman v 220 lb man? Check out the Aussie bikini babes who obviously feel the need for guns. And, of course, she's a responsible gun owner - she keeps her guns in a safe.

[beevul]

19. About that...

Do you know anyone who's a member of a well regulated militia?

Amendment 2 restricts only government, and authorizes nothing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. A few more things

The NRA: they don't speak for me nor I for them. Other than Ted of loaded pants fame, I can't say much about the leadership of the ILA division. Ted is just a cartoon character and I see no real use in discussing these various persons or what views they may hold. I'm not a member nor a contributor. I don't read their site. I searched it once and failed to find what I was looking for.

"Control is both a myth": The idea behind law, criminology and justice is basically 2 fold. The law sets an example of correct behavior, gives folks something to live up to. It's neither inflexible in it's application nor is it capricious. The law also provides a means to punish those who fail to adequately conform. Here's the key, a system of laws must essentially respect the rights and liberties of the members of the society it governs. The whole point is that those individuals will support the law and the government out of their interest in their own just treatment under the law. Law does not equal control. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are millions of people in prison in the US. Everyone of them was accused of breaking the law and everyone of them was convicted. Doesn't sound like control to me. As far as 'not trying' is concerned, the various states and federal government here have passed in excess of 20,000 laws relating to guns. I'd say they're trying. The point here is that the term "gun control" is a grand misconception. We don't have 'speed control' on the highway other than whatever limit drivers choose to place on themselves. Many folks have taken the term literally and defend such laws based upon the expectation that those laws will effect reduced rates of assault, injury and death. In reality what is required is much more. Society here needs to mature and evolve into a less violent one. Various campaigns for child safety and safe storage in general would help, probably more than any new law.

The US is changing and growing and its people with it. The US, compared to the UK and most of Europe, is a more violent and more murderous place. The UK murder rate for 2013 is less than 1 per 100,000, 9.8 per million according to what I've found. The 2013 US murder rate is 4.7 per 100,000, almost 5 times higher. An interesting fact here: in the US there is a higher rate of murders not involving guns than the overall (guns included) murder rate for the UK. The UK has evolved as culture for centuries at least as far back as the Magna Carta. The US is somewhat younger and, IMHO, in some ways, less civilized. We still have no universal health care thanks to one of our biggest lobbies, the insurance industry. We have little in terms of mental health support/care unless you're rich enough to buy your own.

"antithesis of freedom": So 'Do you know anyone who's a member of a well regulated militia?' According to our most recent Militia Act, every adult in the country (up to a certain age that I can't remember right now) so yes, I do. And 'why is it that Brits and Aussies don't feel "unfree"' I don't know that they do or don't feel free. In fact, I haven't least idea how they feel and neither do I care a bit in regards to the relevance of that to this discussion. People tend to grow where they're planted, so to speak.

But the fact is that in English the idea of 'control' is, in most senses regarding personal behavior, the opposite of 'freedom'. Check the dictionary on that. Here in the US many folks also have a good reason for owning a gun, it's a right.

I have not much understanding for any relevance of the Aussie bikini babes/gun owners with gun safes.

Will new gun control laws mean anything regarding violence, assault and murder? Pick one out and we can discuss it.
Welcome to the group and have a great day.

[ileus]

10. people only attack with firearms and in equal numbers and strength?

Thanks anyway...just isn't worth the risk. I like my life...

[SwissTony]

16. Sorry, mate. i don't know what you're saying here. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. He's saying -

So long as attackers don't outnumber the victim, are stronger than the victim, are more physically able and/or are illegally armed the victim would have no cause to be armed. That celebrating gun control relies on assuming none of those conditions occur -- but if they do occur it then means those celebrating are making sacrificial offerings of the innocent.

[Starboard Tack]

55. He's saying "Paranoia rules!"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. Are you saying all confrontations favor or are equal to the capabilities of the victim?

Or are you saying confrontations just don't happen?

[Starboard Tack]

57. Of course confrontations happen

It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in. If we live in a climate of fear to the point where we feel it necessary to be armed day and night, and we choose to accept this as part of the grim reality of living in America, then I see it as a failed society. And that is really sad.
The rest of the world does not share the American dream of being able to carry guns everywhere. We don't see it as having been stripped of a right. In fact, we think that those who carry without a helluva good reason should be locked up for a while. Shootings in the UK, Australia and Europe are extremely rare compared to the US.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. "It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in."

So you think robbers, murderers, stalkers, rapists, home invaders, violent racists and homophobes should be left unopposed until the police finish their coffee and donuts and arrive on scene?

[Starboard Tack]

59. No, but I think the fear of them should be dealt with in the appropriate way

If you live in fear of being attacked by those on your list, then a gun is not going to solve your problems. In fact, it is more likely to enhance them. There is help out there for those suffering from all kinds of phobia.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. People make all sort of preparations for all sorts unfortunate events.

Seat belts, insurance, immunizations, etc. None of that involves fear.

Criminals exist. By their nature they prey upon those they believe they can overpower. They actively work to overcome passive defenses such as locked doors. Acknowledging this fact and preparing for it with the means most likely to protect the would-be victim is not irrational.

The fact that 80+ million gun owners use their guns defensively tens, if not hundreds of thousands of times each year resulting in fewer than 250 fatalities speaks, I think, to the point that they are not driven by emotion as much as they are simply wanting to defend themselves as effectively as possible.

You, on the other hand, seem to have an emotional, irrational fixation for labeling normal, ethical behavior that you cannot understand as "fear." People are not morally obligated to coddle your irrational emotions at the expense of their personal safety.

[Starboard Tack]

61. I have no emotional response to guns, rational or irrational.

That is your fantasy. I have zero objection to people defending their homes with firearms. My only issue is with the irrational behavior of those who feel a need to carry those guns around in public. Period.
That includes civilians, be they criminals or not, and LE not involved in special operations or on special duty that calls for them to be armed.
Nobody should be walking around with a gun without a damned good reason.
Got it now?
That's how the rest of the industrialized world operates and the results can be seen in the statistics. The folk who want to carry everywhere are pushing the envelope, which will eventually burst, and when it does the changes will probably so draconian that normal law abiding gun owners who sensibly secure their firearms at home and transport them safely to ranges and meets, or to hunt, will suffer for the actions of those who are only happy if they can carry their guns to the marketplace. The thought that being armed during a visit to Walmart or a bar or restaurant or church is going to make the world a safer, or in any way better place is absurd.
Is it possible that you do not see this as a sign of a failed society? Is that the kind of world you are happy in, where every Tom, Dick and Harriet who feels like it can walk around with a loaded firearm. If so, that doesn't sound anything like freedom to me, but rather a sense of resignation that we live in a world that is so fucked up so we might as well carry guns, just in case.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. It's definitely irrational if you think criminals don't strike in public.

And it's definitely irrational to think innocent people are obligated to be defenseless if/when those criminals to prey on innocent people outside of their homes.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Then we have a very different idea of what is rational.

These are the 2 definitions I would use in this context.

1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:

2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.

You made references earlier to seatbelts and fire extinguishers. Would you carry a fire extinguisher around with you? Would you carry an umbrella if no rain was foredast?
If there was mayhem in the streets, I would have no second thoughts about carrying, but living in fear of the possible, potential, highly unlikely unknown is a tad over the top. Does not fall into either of the above definitions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. What is reasonable about demanding people not defend themselves outside their homes?

If there was mayhem in the streets, I would have no second thoughts about carrying, but living in fear of the possible, potential, highly unlikely unknown is a tad over the top. Does not fall into either of the above definition.

If there's no mayhem, what are you complaining about? You continually complain America is unlike the rest of the world in its practices and here you say we have no mayhem in the streets. So by your own telling people carrying does not create mayhem in the streets.

All your complaint holds is your irrational, unfounded fear of a thing you admit does not exist and yet you demand people live to assuage your irrational fears.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Where did I say you should not defend yourself outside the home?

There are appropriate ways to behave in public. If you believe having folk carrying guns is appropriate, then I wish you good luck. If you think that putting more and more guns on the streets will solve anything, then I think you are sadly mistaken. There are better ways to solve social conflict then guns. Avoidance being the number one. I could give many more before I'd get close to resorting to a firearm. You obviously disagree. And that is OK

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. The problem is --

Controllers make laws that effect the lives of others. If the Controllers kept to themselves as you claim to do in your posts that would be one thing; but they don't. They're aggrandizing, propagandizing busybodies passing laws that don't stop criminals but make criminals and victims of the innocent.

[Starboard Tack]

74. And my point is...

that with the pushing of indiscriminate carry, you feed the "controllers" agenda. Eventually, they will win and everyone will lose because of the few who insist on putting more guns on the street. This is not emotional. It is logical.
The writing is on the wall. If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms, then it will move toward more rational legislation regarding firearm use.

[gejohnston]

77. controllers want prohibition for its own sake

because, quite frankly, they are authoritarian. Win? Not on the quality of their ideas. They will win because of the shill studies and lies put out by an authoritarian and racist billionaire who thinks he has bought his way into heaven, and his Monsanto executive turned plastic farmer.

Basic societal norms? You mean norms compared set by Mexico, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Singapore? Why should the US, or any other country, change their cultures and social norms to match other places? Many of those place, quite frankly, are shitholes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. "If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms..."

Another meaningless statement.

This is nothing more than argumentum ad populum. Other nations may not recognize the RKBA. So? The vast majority of the world also doesn't recognize freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a right to not incriminate one's self, a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

Eventually, they will win and everyone will lose because of the few who insist on putting more guns on the street.

How?

And if recent history is any indication -- every time the Controllers open their mouths there's a surge in gun sale.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Wow, I guess I'm learning something new every day

The vast majority of the world also doesn't recognize freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a right to not incriminate one's self, a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

I guess you don't travel or read much about the rest of the world, or maybe history in general.
I'm not going to get into a discussion about each country, but I was referring to the industrialized democracies. Yes, there are other democracies out there, believe it or not. America did not invent democracy, or freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right not to incriminate oneself or a right to unreasonable search and seizure. That's right, not one of them.

I know you love your great and wonderful country, but when it comes to RKBA the rest of us roll our eyes in bewilderment. Just like Americans roll their eyes when they find out our healthcare is free and excellent, and that we don't execute people. In my world public health trumps the "right", or desire, of certain individuals who want to settle their differences with guns. Call us what you like, but we are OK with it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. I'm aware of the Magna Carta and ancient democracies

We could discuss them over a picnic but I'd need you to present a photo ID before you're allowed the handle the plastic cutlery. You being extra enlightened and all. And do take extra care not to use insulting language or else you might run afoul of your enlightened hate speech laws.

[Starboard Tack]

89. You are "aware" of Magna Carta? Well, say no more.

You've obviously got a handle on the world. And yes, we all eat with plastic forks that have carry licenses attached.
I give up. You win. Enjoy your guns and your hate speech, because being able carry a gun and spew hatred and bigotry is what freedom is all about.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. It's amusing that you can fabricate so many things about what freedom is or isn't and yet

you are incapable of articulating the most basic premise of your argument about WHY it is supposedly wrong to defend one's self with a firearm outside the home.

So far all you've manage to do is splutter and hand wave about "the rest of the world." Yet, the rest of the world has not come running to your aid to help you articulate why it is wrong to defend one's self with a firearm. If the rest of the world would imprison someone for exercising self defense based on nothing more than the manner of self-defense employed the rest of the world is stupid.

Or maybe you'll scurry back to hand waving about "what sort of society do we want." I want a society where victims are not prosecuted for defending themselves for no reason other than the means of self defense employed.

Stupid countries and idiotic societies prosecute the victims while giving the predators in their midst a free pass. I honestly don't care for their irrationality and their unfounded fears of the innocent and their illogical coddling of criminals. It honestly makes me wonder if they're even worth defending with the merest of constabularies seeing as their priorities are backwards and their sympathies misplaced. They're more likely to employ the mechanisms of law to oppress rather than defend.

[Straw Man]

63. Rationality and emotion.

I have no emotional response to guns, rational or irrational.

The tone of your response suggests otherwise. Apparently you do have an emotional response to guns being anywhere other than where you think they belong.

I have zero objection to people defending their homes with firearms. My only issue is with the irrational behavior of those who feel a need to carry those guns around in public.

I am baffled by your insistence that the right to defend oneself ends the moment one steps out of one's home.

That includes civilians, be they criminals or not, and LE not involved in special operations or on special duty that calls for them to be armed.

I'm sure the criminals would be happy to comply with your wish that they disarm.

That's how the rest of the industrialized world operates and the results can be seen in the statistics.

The "rest of the industrialized world" routinely arms its LE. England is an exception. Each country has its own unique set of cultural and economic conditions. Do your statistics account for that?

The folk who want to carry everywhere are pushing the envelope, which will eventually burst, and when it does the changes will probably so draconian that normal law abiding gun owners who sensibly secure their firearms at home and transport them safely to ranges and meets, or to hunt, will suffer for the actions of those who are only happy if they can carry their guns to the marketplace.

I'm sorry -- perhaps I was unaware of a massive surge in killings by legal concealed carriers. Absent such a wave, it would seem that you are describing the scapegoating of the law-abiding for the actions of the criminal and the insane. Can we agree that that wouldn't be fair?

[Starboard Tack]

65. Then let me clarify

The tone of your response suggests otherwise. Apparently you do have an emotional response to guns being anywhere other than where you think they belong.

Wrong! "Suggests" to you perhaps. My response is purely logical. The stats show that where guns are not allowed in public the shootings are a tiny fraction of those in the US. Nothing emotional about it. Pure reasoning.

I am baffled by your insistence that the right to defend oneself ends the moment one steps out of one's home.

You are "baffled" because you assume that I think such nonsense. One always has the right to defend oneself. How one chooses to do that is a whole other question. Do you think that the citizens of the rest of the world don't have a right to defend themselves because of strict laws regarding carry?

I'm sure the criminals would be happy to comply with your wish that they disarm.

Which criminals are you talking about? Remember, I support home defense.

The "rest of the industrialized world" routinely arms its LE. England is an exception. Each country has its own unique set of cultural and economic conditions. Do your statistics account for that?

This is true, though England is not the only country. In general, LE is trusted to take care of problems that require the use of firearms. This is not an issue in Europe. The US is a whole other case. The judicial system plays a major part. Very few criminals resort to using firearms in Europe, because the price they pay in terms of sentencing is too high.

I'm sorry -- perhaps I was unaware of a massive surge in killings by legal concealed carriers. Absent such a wave, it would seem that you are describing the scapegoating of the law-abiding for the actions of the criminal and the insane. Can we agree that that wouldn't be fair?

I never suggested there was a surge in killings by concealed carriers. I am not "scapegoating" anyone. I am not even blaming anyone. I'm making an observation from my POV, which is as valid as you decide.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. "How one chooses to do that is a whole other question."

What does it matter if a violent predator is shot or stabbed or bludgeoned or set aflame or pushed into industrial machinery?

[Starboard Tack]

69. OK I think we're done here

Enjoy your world of violent predators. Stay safe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Explain how there is an ounce of difference about how innocent people

defends themselves from violent predators.

You assert you have a logical, unemotional reason for believing what you believe. Why does the manner of self make such a difference?

[Starboard Tack]

72. It only makes a difference if you care about what kind of society you want to live in

That's all. Think about it. It's your choice.

[gejohnston]

75. personally,

I like the true liberalism that the US was based on. One of the elements of that liberalism is individualism. The kind of society I don't want
where politicians, mostly old money oligarchs, assume the average person is too stupid to make their own decisions so they must be minded, like children, by parent like monarchs and plutocrats and elections are simply choosing which parents, who don't give a fuck about you after election day, but for their own interests and maintaining the social order. Worse is someplace like Mexico where local, state, and national government is in bed with criminal gangs. I certainly don't want in a place like DC where the public safety director says that it is better to be a victim and be injured than defend yourself. Of course, I'm sure he follows that principle himself. Not.
http://forums.officer.com/t176351/
I'm sure he tells his daughter, if he has one. Chances are he either has armed guards for he and his family or they have their own guns, just like Kim Kardashian.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. That's a meaningless statement.

You want a society where a person preyed upon by violent criminals is to be made a criminal over the means of self-defense they employ and you can't even define WHY it should be so you just have this nebulous, subjective emotional need that you think others should live by.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Not at all. I don't give a shit if you all carry guns.

Not my problem. Fortunately, I don't live my life thinking about being preyed upon. Living in such fear of others, that you feel the need to be armed with a gun, doesn't sound like much fun, but if you enjoy it, I wish you well.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. For someone who doesn't care

you sure do go on and on and on about your subjective biases.

[gejohnston]

73. your stats are not only wrong

Wrong! "Suggests" to you perhaps. My response is purely logical. The stats show that where guns are not allowed in public the shootings are a tiny fraction of those in the US. Nothing emotional about it. Pure reasoning.

you are committing a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, while applying them. Your conclusion is not based on reason. Most murders in the US are criminals killing each other, it doesn't matter what the says to them. Now you can come up with bogus claims from Bloomberg or Watts, but the actual statistics from FBI and CDC say something entirely different. You are also assuming that laws actually prevent things. They don't. If that were true, heroin overdoses wouldn't out number murder by firearms, but they did last year.

[Straw Man]

76. Further clarification.

Wrong! "Suggests" to you perhaps. My response is purely logical. The stats show that where guns are not allowed in public the shootings are a tiny fraction of those in the US. Nothing emotional about it. Pure reasoning.

Pure, flawed reasoning because it ignores other all possible causes, as well as overlooking the obvious fact that those who are perpetrating the bulk of the gun violence in the US are already barred from possessing guns at all, much less carrying them in public.

You are "baffled" because you assume that I think such nonsense. One always has the right to defend oneself. How one chooses to do that is a whole other question. Do you think that the citizens of the rest of the world don't have a right to defend themselves because of strict laws regarding carry?

Allow me to clarify: You would restrict the rights of the weak, the infirm, and the elderly to effectively defend themselves against younger, stronger predators outside the home. And yes, I think that citizens of nations that ban the carry of firearms are being denied a fundamental human right.

Which criminals are you talking about? Remember, I support home defense.

The ones that prefer stick-ups to home invasions and couldn't care less about laws regarding public carry -- in fact, would be in favor of any such law that makes it easier and safer for them to ply their criminal trade.

This is true, though England is not the only country. In general, LE is trusted to take care of problems that require the use of firearms. This is not an issue in Europe. The US is a whole other case. The judicial system plays a major part. Very few criminals resort to using firearms in Europe, because the price they pay in terms of sentencing is too high.

What other countries don't routinely arm their regular police? I don't know of any in Europe. If you're calling for higher penalties for criminal use of firearms, I am 100% in agreement. When there are multiple charges, the gun charge is too often plea-bargained away in the US, resulting in the bizarre paradox of career armed criminals with no gun convictions on their sheets.

I am not "scapegoating" anyone. I am not even blaming anyone. I'm making an observation from my POV, which is as valid as you decide.

I didn't say you were. What I said is that you were describing such scapegoating. I find it deplorable: both unjust and ineffective. How about you?

[Starboard Tack]

82. You seem determined to paint me as some kind of controller.

I'm not, unless you consider my advocating self-control as being a controller. I'm just putting in my 2 cents worth. I don't believe in prohibition, in general, but if the vast majority of people choose to ban something that they think is harmful, or not conducive to living healthily in a modern, civilized society, then so be it.

Each society decides for itself, which is their right. And as long as the majority of Americans are comfortable with RKBA, then you will be able to enjoy your guns and even get to use them to shoot each other in the streets and churches and supermarkets.
As Janis sang "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose!"

I am happy to be no longer living in a society where open or concealed carry is an issue. We have more important things to discuss, like the environment and how to best accommodate the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are landing daily on our shores. How to feed and house them, not lie in wait to shoot them as they crawl through the Sonoran desert in search of a better life.

[oneshooter]

83. This is what you, a subject of the crown, want.

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2015/09/10/hand-over-your-guns-says-chief-inspector

[Starboard Tack]

84. Thank you for letting me know what I want

Though I doubt the chief inspector of Shetland speaks for the Crown. As you can see from the comments to your link, freedom of speech is alive and well, to this day, in bonnie Scotland. Couldn't you have found something a little more remote than the Shetlands an archipelago of 100 islands, 16 of them inhabited, and a total population of about 20,000.

And NO! that is not what I want. I don't live in the UK, and have no more interest in living there than in the US. I am happy to abide by whatever laws are in place in the countries where I choose to live. Their legislation on firearms has no bearing on my decision to live somewhere. Hell, I've even lived in Texas and loved it.

[Straw Man]

87. You paint yourself ...

And as long as the majority of Americans are comfortable with RKBA, then you will be able to enjoy your guns and even get to use them to shoot each other in the streets and churches and supermarkets.

I am happy to be no longer living in a society where open or concealed carry is an issue. We have more important things to discuss, like the environment and how to best accommodate the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are landing daily on our shores. How to feed and house them, not lie in wait to shoot them as they crawl through the Sonoran desert in search of a better life.

... as a controller with statements like that.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Right!

[gejohnston]

88. When the countries in Europe, including the UK, started

to pass restrictive gun laws in the first half of the previous century, it didn't have anything to do with a "healthy, modern, civilized society" or any other meaningless descriptions. It was simply preserving the social order. Quite frankly, the governments and the economic and political elites, including peerage, to prevent conscripts returning from the first world war becoming part of an international Communist Conspiracy. You know the red scare.

Chances are, you are in a country that may be more difficult to get a gun legally, but it is still very easy to get one illegally. It isn't like Belgium or France closed the Brussels train station loophole, or will successfully anytime soon.

[Starboard Tack]

91. I could buy a gun tomorrow legally

But I could not carry it without a darned good reason, which makes a lot of sense to people here.

[Straw Man]

92. Several questions.

I could buy a gun tomorrow legally

But I could not carry it without a darned good reason, which makes a lot of sense to people here.

1. In what country do you currently reside?
2. Could you legally buy a handgun?
3. Have you passed any prequalifiers, such as a background check?
4. What would constitute a "darned good reason" that would allow you to carry this gun legally?

[Starboard Tack]

93. Italy

Handguns are legal to own.
I would pass any prequalifiers.
A darned good reason in Italy is as follows

A concealed carry license allows a citizen to carry a handgun for personal defense; this license is usually much harder to obtain than the other two firearm licenses, must be renewed yearly (while the hunting and shooting sports licences are valid for 6 years), and the applicant has to provide a valid reason to carry a concealed gun (e.g. a salesperson of valuable goods such as jewelry). A special carry license is released to private security personnel; this license differs from the standard carry licenses in that it has to be renewed every two years and a lower tax to pay for the release. Open-carry of handguns is not explicitly forbidden by the law, but it is de facto permitted only to on-duty security personnel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Italy#Concealed_carry_license

[gejohnston]

95. you realize many of the laws are hold overs from

El Duce's administration? BTW, why is that one caliber in a pistol prohibited? You can buy 9x17, 9x18, 9x21 yet not the 9x19? Italy isn't the only one like that, which is why you can buy a 9x21 Italy, but you won't find one in a gun shop in the US or Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9721mm

[Starboard Tack]

98. Actually, the laws are pretty new and constantly evolving.

The specific regulations are always somewhat confusing, regardless of country.
To be able to own a gun here is not a difficult process. Easier than getting a driver's license, which requires 2 medical certificates to start the process. One to verify mental state and the other physical. Only one is required for a gun permit.
Gun permits are issued on the basis of purpose; hunting, sport, defense. A hunting permit can also be used for sport shooting. Not vice versa.

[gejohnston]

100. there have been changes,

but the basic framework date back to then, like the ban on a specific round. Norway's ban on the .500 SW is at least half way logical, since they don't allow big game hunting with handguns (and that is what the gun is actually designed for) and the only target competition one could use it fore would be steel silhouette, which was big in the US south west and Mexico where it originated. As a defense gun, only if you are fighting chiropterans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%2B
http://bloodplusanime.wikia.com/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_500

Saya BTW, is also the Japanese word for a sword or knife scabbard.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Lots of things go back to the time of Il Duce

But you're getting technical here. There is no big game hunting in Italy. Hunting guns are restricted to 5 shells, which is a problem, as some guns are designed to accommodate 6. Handgun clips are restricted to 15 rounds. Again, these are details that concern very few gun owners.

[gejohnston]

105. the hunting regulation is common in the States

In Wyoming, it is five rounds if you have a removable box magazine regardless of the action. Tubular magazines, like the lever action I used, they are OK with whatever the gun holds. That is why some ARs made by Remington ship with five round magazines. Federal waterfowl regulation (which Florida game wardens are authorized to enforce, as well as other federal wildlife laws. I'll have to check to see that is true in Wyoming as well. If not, I'll have to lobby to change that.) allow three rounds in the shotgun. Tubular magazines have to have plugs inserted for the hunt.
If I were to take up hunting again, I would buy one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_No._1
I'm too old school. I'm not a Fudd, just a traditionalist who thinks Jim Zumbo had a valid point as far as hunting goes. I also realize many US and Canadians can't afford expensive rifles who hunt for the food and not the trophy who can only afford a Soviet or Chinese surplus SKS.
One thing I definitely agree with the European gun buying public, from my understanding, there is no market for the gaudy clown colors that seem to be showing up on dealers shelves. I detest those.

[Straw Man]

97. Ah, Italy.

Handguns are legal to own.

Can anyone walk into a shop and walk out with one? Even a non-citizen? Are they regulated more tightly than long guns? Can anyone walk into a shop and walk out with a long gun?

I would pass any prequalifiers.

I assume you mean a background check -- so is the background check instant, like the NICS system in the US? And are there no other prequalifiers, such as completion of a safety course, or an interview with police or a judge? You said that you could legally buy a gun tomorrow; are you certain of that?

A darned good reason in Italy is as follows

" ... the applicant has to provide a valid reason to carry a concealed gun (e.g. a salesperson of valuable goods such as jewelry) ..."

This positively reeks of classism. What's the assumption? That those who deal in less valuable goods are thereby safe from violent crime? That assumption is demonstrably false, which leaves us with the conclusion that the system discriminates against the lower economic strata, as if their safety is less important.

I'm reminded of NYC, which puts a dollar amount on the cash a person needs to transport routinely in order to qualify for a CCW. It's hard to spin that as anything other than placing a cash value on human life. Jeweler? Here's your carry permit. Struggling bodega owner? Come back when you're making more money.

The logic of the statute would seemingly qualify any driver of an automobile, which is certainly a "valuable good" that has proven to be attractive to thieves. I wonder if the Italians would consider that to be "darned good reason." Would you?

[Starboard Tack]

101. Not anyone can walk in and buy a gun

What would be the point of any legislation if that were the case. Do you think Italy, or anywhere else wants to become like America regarding guns?

All you need is a medical certificate deeming you sane enough to own a gun, be over 18, and a "nulla osta", which is common in Italy for many things. It basically translates as a permission to proceed with whatever project you have in mind. This permission is given by the appropriate administrative authority. In the case of firearms, that would be the local Questura (police). And unless you are assessed as being a threat, the issuance is automatic.

The rules have nothing to do with classicism, which is pretty funny, when gun ownership in the US is totally class based. Ask any African American who has tried walking around with a gun. Ask any undocumented Latino how easy it is to get a carry permit. Basically, the US criminalizes those who live in the inner city poorer neighborhoods, and arms the white gentry who feel they need protection from the so-called "thugs" who inhabit the inner city.
Nice try there Straw.

[gejohnston]

104. sorry, wrong again

The rules have nothing to do with classicism, which is pretty funny, when gun ownership in the US is totally class based. Ask any undocumented Latino how easy it is to get a carry permit. Basically, the US criminalizes those who live in the inner city poorer neighborhoods, and arms the white gentry who feel they need protection from the so-called "thugs" who inhabit the inner city.

May issue carry is entirely class based. You mean the guy who was SWATed by an anti gun activist in Wal Mart? I don't know if race had anything to do with that. Same with the CCW holder that was tackled to the ground Florida. The probably white southern cops asked the African American CCW holder if he was OK and cuffed the white guy. Where I live, white and kids of color walked to school with their rifles on Rifle Club day with no hassle from the cops or anyone else.

Undocumented Latino get a carry permit? How about undocumented Irish? Nice false comparison there. Under the Gun Control Act, neither can possess a gun because of their immigration status. It has to do with immigration status, not race or economic class. BTW, what is your opinion of the 7th Circuit's ruling that provision of the Gun Control Act is unconstitutional, since the undocumented have 2A rights just like the rest of the BoR?

[Starboard Tack]

106. Anyone living in the country should have equal rights in terms of self defense

Otherwise, you have segregated millions of people as being unworthy. Pure classism. Not to mention all those non violent convicted felons, who are mostly minorities.
Whatever the rules, they should apply to everyone, regardless of immigration status, or race, or criminal record, provided they are sound of mind and have no history of violence or domestic abuse.

Kids going to school to participate in a school program is not the same as
Black Man vs. White Man Open Carrying AR-15 Legally ...

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQ3ywwAGoVChMImK7PxPH2xwIVSVsaCh1YygWQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBKGZnB41_e4&usg=AFQjCNG4SBnUhj-3_7tXhqj00eZ8ptEZbQ&sig2=altKn6ma81hNA6Jc7-Im4w&bvm=bv.102537793,d.bGg

[gejohnston]

108. what evidence do you have race is the reason?

based on that, nothing. Assuming the white cops' motives were racist with only that is, well, racist. If you notice, not only are those different individual cops but they are in different departments in different states. The first one is a city cop somewhere in Michigan the second is is a couple of county cops in Washington. If not racism, what?
one rifle is slung, the other is not.
they are edited from two different YT videos
Are the Washington cops aware that open carry is legal?
Was the second one after a publicized mass murder?
Is that the department's standard policy with "man with a gun calls"?
Have there been past incidents of "cop baiting" in that area?
Neither of us know the answers to those questions. For all either of us knows, the result would be the same if it were two black cops and a white guy. Either way, the black guy got his false arrest payday. That was the goal of both of these clowns.

The white guy, I do know something about. That was more than his first cop baiting exercise, so the Ann Arbor PD probably know of his antics and have been briefed on how to deal with them. Chances are the two cops thought "not this asshole again" when they saw him.

Cop baiting works best if there are no ban, but few people know it is legal, banned with obscure exceptions (see Florida) and cops who don't know the law as well as they should. I frankly have a low opinion of these stunts.

[Starboard Tack]

110. These stunts exemplify the reality.

I'm not supporting either of these idiots, but if you think race has nothing to do with police reaction to guns, then you are either in denial, or just not as smart as you sometimes appear.

[gejohnston]

111. neither

I don't blindly jump to accusing others of racism. Automatically assuming racism is the motive is racist in itself because the cops are being judged by the color of their skin and not any relevant facts. Take Darrin Wilson for example, was accused of being a racist simply because he was white, never mind the fact that Brown was beating the shit out of him and trying to steal his gun.
I didn't say race couldn't have been a factor, I said there are a number of reasons why it likely is not. Not looking at those probabilities while jumping to conclusions shows evidence of poor critical thinking skills, but then after watching Piers Morgan is that even taught or valued in Air Strip One?

[Starboard Tack]

115. Sorry, not familiar with Air Strip One or Piers Morgan

I know his name, but not much about him.
So, do you think race is in any way a factor in the US, when it comes to exercising so-called 2A rights?
Would you feel more or less comfortable, or the same, if you were a black man or latino, walking down Main Street America carrying an AR-15?

[gejohnston]

119. Never read 1984?

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

Piers Morgan used to be editor of the Mirror until the paper published faked photos that falsely accused some British soldiers from Queen's Lancashire Regiment of committing war crimes. When the hoax was exposed he got fired and got a job as an obnoxious, snotty, "American culture sucks" talking head on CNN. When he even lost gun control debates with the likes of Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt he would freak out and scream that they were stupid. He was the greatest fund raiser for the NRA and GOA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm

It isn't "so called" it is a constitutionally protected right based on the founders writings and SCOTUS, even before Heller. I didn't say it wasn't a factor, I said it is less of a factor than other things. It isn't 1955 anymore. I think race is less of an issue than the way people are dressed. Here is an experiment. Have a black guy wearing a polo shirt and kakies and the white guy dressed in a Hells Angels uniform. If the black guy gets hassled more in the same jurisdiction, same cops then you have an argument.

When I go in a gun shop and buy ammo, the black guy gets the same customer service I do. Does racism exist? Yes. There are racists in all colors. But assuming that racism is the motivation without evidence. Is it the only explanation for everything? No. If Mike Brown were white, he would still be dead. If Westely Cook were white, he would have been executed years ago. It works both ways.
It depends on where you are at. Here in Rock Springs WY, no problem. Same with asian.
Anywhere in the SW and Hispanic? No problem.

However judging the cops based on the color of their skin, which you did, and not consider the other relevant information that could have led up to that is in itself racist. Chances are, two black cops would have done the same thing.
The white guy was a well known cop baiter. His earlier videos had him lugging and M1 around.

[Starboard Tack]

120. Yes I read 1984

Don't remember Piers Morgan. Was he a character the guy you are talking about was named after?
I don't read the Mirror or other tabloid rags and I don't watch CNN. Why do you keep bringing up this Piers Morgan character?

I base my views on personal experience, not on what people spout in the popular media.
In the US, I have found that, in general, the bond between cops is stronger than the racial prejudice that still exists. The uniform tends to neutralize any racial differences. When they get in situations, the adrenalin takes over and it becomes "good guys versus bad guys". In these situation, the black cops often become more aggressive against black citizens. See Baltimore.
Citing Wyoming as an example is ludicrous. It has 0.3% of the US population, the least populous state, and one tenth the average black population. Why would there be a race issue?

If you want to discuss racism in America in the context of how people dress (which is racist in itself), then look at the hatred towards Obama, or the recent attack on a black tennis pro in New York.

It rarely works both ways.

[gejohnston]

121. hatred towards Obama has little to do with race

anymore than hatred towards any other POTUS. I don't know how profiling people based on how they are dress is racist, but sounds absurd unless you are saying black computer nerds are oreos or something. Please explain.

As for Baltimore, I'll wait for the real facts to come out during the trial. I don't take media speculation and leaks from the DA's office very seriously, and neither should you.

[Straw Man]

107. You haven't answered ...

... the pertinent questions.

Not anyone can walk in and buy a gun

What would be the point of any legislation if that were the case. Do you think Italy, or anywhere else wants to become like America regarding guns?

Does one have to be a citizen to buy a gun? Does one have to be pre-screened? Does one have to take a training course? If the answer to any of these is "yes," then your assertion that you could "buy a gun tomorrow" is false. And in case you hadn't noticed when you lived here, not anyone can just walk in and buy a gun in the US; you must be of legal age and pass a NICS check.

All you need is a medical certificate deeming you sane enough to own a gun, be over 18, and a "nulla osta", which is common in Italy for many things. It basically translates as a permission to proceed with whatever project you have in mind. This permission is given by the appropriate administrative authority. In the case of firearms, that would be the local Questura (police). And unless you are assessed as being a threat, the issuance is automatic.

Do you currently have this certificate? If not, then you won't be able to get your gun tomorrow.

What would characterize an applicant as a threat? A history of radical political activism, perhaps?

The rules have nothing to do with classicism, which is pretty funny, when gun ownership in the US is totally class based. Ask any African American who has tried walking around with a gun. Ask any undocumented Latino how easy it is to get a carry permit. Basically, the US criminalizes those who live in the inner city poorer neighborhoods, and arms the white gentry who feel they need protection from the so-called "thugs" who inhabit the inner city.

Classicism? No, I never imagined that the Italians would require you to quote Horace in order to get a carry permit.

US gun ownership is class-based in only those pernicious municipalities that practice the discriminatory policy known as "may issue." When LE is given total discretion, prejudice will come into play. I believe that rules should determine issue status, not the whims of cops and other functionaries. I deplore "may issue." How about you?

By the way, the whole "issue issue" concerns concealed handguns only. Long guns can be purchased with only a NICS check everywhere in th US, with a few regressive exceptions: NYC, DC, and Illinois, IIRC. As for African-Americans being hassled for walking around with guns, the culprit there is racial profiling by police, not discrimination in licensing policies. Undocumented Latinos? Is there any nation in the world that would give a weapons permit to a non-citizen who is in the country illegally? You're grasping at straws there, Starboard.

You still haven't addressed the issue of setting a monetary threshold for carry permits. Please explain why you think that is not classism.

[gejohnston]

94. rights should not be up for public debate

I'm a strong believer in strict scrutiny standard being applied to any restriction placed on individuals by the State/Crown/Community. Since none of the predicted dire consequences happened after concealed carry liberalization, there is no compelling State interest to justify may issue or prohibition. In reality the "darn good reason" is having political connections or being rich. See NYC. Before Wyoming became shall issue across the board, it is often described as "may issue". When I read the original statute, I read it as a very restrictive shall issue. The occupations were pharmacists, private investigators, MDs who did house calls, couriers of valuables. While Trump has an NYC permit, his "good reason" is being rich and obnoxious, but could not get one in pre 1994 Wyoming.
Funny thing about Australia, the easiest way to get a CCW there is to open a gun shop.

[Eleanors38]

12. Do you know how many guns have been confiscated from the total in the country?

[SwissTony]

18. I have no information on that subject, but it was a pretty impressive number

But it was the change of attitude that was impressive. There are still lots of guns in Australia, but they are restricted in type. We got rid of some of the nastier ones and put controls in about who could have access to any of them. And Australia accepted it.

Sure, we've got illegal guns. So, does every other country.

[benEzra]

11. Regarding Australia...

Australia's next-door-neighbor, New Zealand, didn't ban guns and has a somewhat lower homicide rate than Australia, no? (0.9/100K vs. 1.1/100K, though Australia's fluctuates in the low to high 1's/100K year to year). If Australia counts homicides the same way the Brits do (on convictions, yes?), then the rate would also be increased slightly if counted as the U.S. counts them, though for all I know Ausstralia counts homicides the same way we do. A number of U.S. states do have homicide rates similar to Australia (Vermont, Utah, New Hampshire, Idaho, Maine, Hawaii are in the same 1.0 to 1.9 murders per 100K that Australia tends to bounce around, and very few other states are as gun-friendly as Vermont); most U.S. murders are concentrated in dysfunctional urban cores with double-digit homicide rates per 100K, which Australia seems to lack. I also note that the overall U.S. suicide rate is slightly lower than that of Australia, despite the very poor state of mental health care in this country, and the fact that Americans work the longest hours with the least time off of any First World nation, last time I checked.

I do note that Australia's homicide rate appears to have remained a lot more constant before and after the ban than the U.S. media likes to acknowledge, with a much later decline that paralleled the decline in many other nations that *didn't* ban guns, including the USA (whose rate has declined 50% since 1991 or so, FWIW).



Australia's gun ban and confiscations went into effect 1995-1996. Note that the overall murder rate didn't move much; looking at the data, it appears Australia's murder rate has always been low, before and after the bans, just as it was in England. And the restrictions are never enough; the Australian gun control lobby, having confiscated all handguns and most rifles/shotguns, is now fighting to ban 1860's style lever-actions and is even going after some bolt-actions now in West Australia. Personally, I think the better takeway from Australia (and Europe in general) is to figure out how they managed to avoid dysfunctional urban cores like Chicago's and Baltimore's, because that is where the overwhelming majority of U.S. gun violence occurs.

Oh, and Australia *has* apparently had mass shootings since the confiscations went down, although they don't get a lot of media play, which is probably a good thing; we'd probably have fewer ourselves if our own media didn't insist on portraying mass shooters as celebrity antiheroes.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561430158.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906200/Farmer-DID-shoot-three-children-wife-years-immense-stress-recovery-brain-injury-murder-suicide-shocked-quiet-community.html

Thing is, Australia didn't have many mass shootings in the decades before Port Arthur, either; they still don't, but they do have them. To claim that they were rampant in the decades prior, and vanished after, is probably misleading.

Also, a lot of people who praise the "Australian model" in the abstract don't realize just how extreme Australia's laws are compared to the rest of the Western world (even England, where Brits can own semiautomatic shotguns with unlimited capacity, never mind continental Europe where handguns and "assault weapons" are legal, or New Zealand), and don't think through the surveillance and police actions that would be required to implement Australia-style confiscations in the United States. You'd be looking at confiscating 140 to 200 million guns and a third of a billion magazines from more than sixty million citizens (outnumbering the police perhaps 100:1), which would make the War On Drugs look like merely a warmup. Of course, what would actually happen in *this* country would be that most law enforcement would simply refuse to enforce such a ban against their fellow citizens, as we saw with the recent magazine ban in Colorado and with the ridiculous new restrictions in New York state. So the effect would be simply to drive the legitimate gun market underground, where it would be less regulated.

The other interesting thing about Prohibition is that it tends to push the market toward trafficking in harder, more profitable goods, just like the Volstead Act pushed alcohol consumption toward distilled liquors instead of beer and wine, and the War on Drugs pushed drug consumption away from cannabis and such and toward cocaine, meth, and heroin. Looks like Prohibition in Australia is starting to move the firearm black market toward more profitable automatic weapons.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

I'll bet he isn't the only one. Submachineguns are conceptually a whole lot simpler to manufacture than closed-bolt semiautos are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175220

Here's the thing: Australia can make whatever laws it wants. I may think those laws are ineffective, counterproductive, or unjust, but I don't have to live there, and I certainly don't frequent Australian political forums trying to get them to legalize UK- or US-legal guns. I *do* have to live in the USA, though, and since the 2ndA is an integral part of the very charter that created my government in the first place (recall that the Bill of Rights was a condition of ratification), it's not going anywhere. Prohibitionists can daydream about confiscating 75% of guns in the USA a la Australia, but it is not going to happen, and pretending otherwise doesn't do their movement any good.

[jimmy the one]

14. your common misconceptions

ezra: ....Prohibitionists can daydream about confiscating 75% of guns in the USA a la Australia,

Where did you get the 75% figure for 'confiscation'? Provide some basis for the figure:
About 650,000 legally owned guns were peacefully seized, then destroyed, as part of the buyback. According to one academic estimate, the buyback took in and destroyed 20 percent of all privately owned guns in Australia. Analysis of import data suggests that Australians haven't purchased nearly enough guns in the past 18 years to make up for the initial decline.

20% of privately held guns would mean more than 80% of all guns in Australia (including govt & military) remained. Your contention back *wards.

ezra: Australia's gun ban and confiscations went into effect 1995-1996.

The gun buyback scheme was from oct 1996 - sept 1997, you're off by a year. Confiscations (if so) occurred as a result of non compliance.

ezra: ... note that Australia's homicide rate appears to have remained a lot more constant before and after the ban than the U.S. media likes to acknowledge,

1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57% compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42%.

ezra: the Australian gun control lobby, having confiscated all handguns and most rifles/shotguns,

Ezra continues in his common misconception re Australian firearm laws:

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. ... This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94&quot long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72&quot for semi-automatic pistols..; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

[jimmy the one]

20. jimmy the wizard of OZ

ezra: New Zealand, didn't ban guns and has a somewhat lower homicide rate than Australia, no? (0.9/100K vs. 1.1/100K,..

Evidently 'no', but not that you're correct, albeit 2014/15 stats might support you. In the event tho, you'd be cherry picking; accd'g to 'gunpolicydotcom':
Overall homicide rates:
NZ: 2012: 1.57 .. 2010: 1.30 .. 2005: 1.70 2000: 1.50 1996: 1.80
OZ: 2012: 1.24 .. 2010: 1.20 .. 2005: 0.98 2000: 1.78 1996: 1.97

Perhaps ezra meant 'firearm homicide rates' which are a little better for him, but still fluctuate:

NZ: 2013: 0.18 - 2012: 0.07 - 2010: 0.20 -2005: 0.20 - 2000: 0.20 - 1996: 0.20
OZ: 2013: N/A -- 2012: 0.18 - 2010: 0.18 - 2005: 0.09 - 2000: 0.30 - 1996: 0.57

Overall gundeath rates, incl'g suicide, accident & homicide (presumably):
NZ: 2010: 1.20 2009: 1.60 2005: 1.30 2000: 1.30 1996: 1.80 1995: 2.20
OZ: 2010: 1.08 2009: 1.06 2005: 1.09 2000: 1.70 1996: 2.84 1995: 2.61
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

same link, gunpolicy: The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive
In New Zealand, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
In New Zealand, civilians are not allowed to possess handguns, military-style semi-automatic weapons or fully automatic firearms without a permit to purchase and a relevant firearm licence endorsement
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in New Zealand are not legally required to establish a genuine reason to possess a standard hunting or sports shooting firearm, but specific reasoning is required for special licence endorsements for pistols, restricted firearms, and Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons, including sports shooting, hunting, and collection. Owning a firearm for self-defence is specifically excluded, and prohibited
An applicant for a firearm licence in New Zealand must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental, medical, addiction and domestic violence

In New Zealand, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a Military-Style Semi Automatic (MSSA) licence endorsement.Each MSSA must be registered to its owner and securely stored when not in use
Regulation of Handguns In New Zealand, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a ‘pistol’ licence endorsement. Each handgun must be registered to its owner and securely stored

Back to Australia/OZ: September 2008 Over the past 10-15 years, although the overall use of firearms in violent crime has declined, handguns have increasingly become the firearm of choice in both Australia and other English-speaking countries. Handguns are often used as a means of protection, particularly among people involved in gangs and the drugs market, and their concealable nature, high firepower and large calibre are often cited as features prompting their acquisition by the criminal community.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/361-380/tandi361.html

Note: while some violent crime might've increased, the decline in firearm related violent crime makes it, well, less violent.

In the last six years, the rate of robbery victimisation has steadily declined from 86 per 100,000 in 2007 to 58 per 100,000 in 2012. Generally, the rate of robbery victimisation has been declining since 2001. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

[jimmy the one]

17. your common misconception, #2

beevul: I think the confiscationists do not understand, that whether government payed for the firearms they confiscated or not, that they indeed compelled otherwise law abiding people to give up guns against their will.

You do realize we live in democracies, yes? or are you arguing that oz is adhering to some sort of tyranny of the majority? How does it work in beevul-land, that over 90% support means law abiding people gave up their guns against their will? a few yes, aka lunatic fringies.

Upwards of 95% of Australians polled after the Port Arthur massacre said they favored more stringent gun laws like these, and mass shootings have not occurred in the continent in the nearly two decades since. http://www.rt.com/usa/165384-obama-australia-gun-law/

pollsters reporting 90–95% public approval for stringent new gun laws.” ... that year, in what came to be known as the National Firearms Agreeme.. http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3635

beevul: Playing games calling it a buyback ignores the truth of the matter.

What is it when you ignore that about 95% of aussies supported the buyback scheme?

beevul: What say you all?

Try to extract your foot from your mouth.

The Prime Minister of Australia was John Howard...a member of Australia's conservative party and a staunch ally of President George W. Bush during the Iraq War. He was favored by gun advocates and the gun lobby in Australia (although not revered)....although that lobby did not have the same abilities as our country's NRA.
But after Port Arthur, the Prime Minister became the stongest possible advocate for sweeping gun control legislation.

[beevul]

21. First things first, James. We have unfinished business, you and I.

Which was it, a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or substandard reading skills that inadvertently led to a misrepresentation of what I actually said?

Or are you above admitting it when you're wrong?

Do we need to plan on that little blurb being right at the top every reply I make to you, so long as it remains unaddressed?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175246

You do realize we live in democracies, yes? or are you arguing that oz is adhering to some sort of tyranny of the majority?

Who 'we' james? The US isn't a democracy, its a representative republic. If we lived in a true democracy, somehow, I don't think you'd be very happy with it.

To my knowledge, Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which isn't quite the same thing as a plain old democracy.

How does it work in beevul-land, that over 90% support means law abiding people gave up their guns against their will? a few yes, aka lunatic fringies.

If government confiscates your guns, and you agree with it, they've still confiscated your guns. The definition of confiscation isn't dependent on whether the targeted populace agrees or not. Were you under the impression that it was?

And unless it was 100 percent minus 1 individual (since I used plural) that agreed with it, my statement stands as correct:

They indeed compelled otherwise law abiding people to give up guns against their will. I'd ask you how many people that has to happen to before it becomes wrong, but you and I both know that you don't see gun confiscation as wrong, regardless of how many agree or disagree within a target population.

I'd ask how that squares with our party platform, but we already know the answer to that. Every last pro-gun regular on DU is closer to the party platform than you are. So spare me the 'lunatic fringe' innuendo, until you have a stronger more stable relationship with a mirror, and your own innuendo ceases to apply to you.

What is it when you ignore that about 95% of aussies supported the buyback scheme?

I don't believe that 95% number to be representative of the truth. And again, the definition of confiscate isn't dependent on whether the target populace agrees or not:

con·fis·cate

take or seize (someone's property) with authority.

Do you see anything there in the definition about it being dependent on whether someone agrees or not? Me either.

The Prime Minister of Australia was John Howard...a member of Australia's conservative party and a staunch ally of President George W. Bush during the Iraq War.

Swell playmate the anti-gun crowd has over there...A staunch ally of the worst, most despised president to ever walk the earth. What a nice feather to keep in their cap.

But after Port Arthur, the Prime Minister became the stongest possible advocate for sweeping gun control legislation.

Leave it to you, to portray things as if port Arthur happened after the Iraq war under *, hoping nobody would notice.

[jimmy the one]

22. Pew's new poll!

beevul: Which was it, a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or substandard reading skills that inadvertently led to a misrepresentation of what I actually said?

No retraction, I said what I wanted; I think 25% to 50% of gun owners would agree with continuing the ban on gun shops in Chicago, esp inner city Chicago, due to risk of break ins, straw sales, Chicagoans opposition, and MORE!

beevul: Do we need to plan on that little blurb being right at the top every reply I make to you, so long as it remains unaddressed?

Go ahead, won't bother me at all. Unleash your wolf.

beevul: I'd ask how that squares with our party platform, but we already know the answer to that. Every last pro-gun regular on DU is closer to the party platform than you are.

You mean the individual rkba? likely split about half & half, but reconcile this:

In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
..............More strict -- Less strict -- Kept as they are -- Unsure/ No answer
7/29 - 8/2/15 52 ...........13 ................... 32 .......................2
Democrats ...... 77 ...........4 .................... 18....................... 1
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Guess what?!! Pew has a new poll which contradicts (countermands?) its last one! (tho I guess they didn't change the wording) Wow a swing of 5% pts, new differential from +6 guns, to +3 gun control, swing of 9! ..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!:

same link: Pew. July 14-20, 2015. N=2,002 adults nationwide.
"What do you think is more important -- to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?"
Protect right to own guns .... Control ownership ... Unsure/ Refused
7/14-20/15 ..... 47 .........................50 .............................3
12/3-7/14 ....... 52 .........................46 .............................3

[beevul]

23. I'll take that as a concession.

No retraction, I said what I wanted

I'll take that as a concession, and indicative that the misrepresentation was deliberate on your part.

As to the rest, I'm not chasing your rabbit.

You are an anti-gun extremist, and every pro-gun regular is closer to the party platform than you are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. The pro-gun regulars also don't defend those who work against Democrats seeking reelection...

...and then deny that they did, indeed, work against Democrats:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175182

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175361

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175378

[beevul]

27. Exactly. N/T

[jimmy the one]

36. gun retrieval, not confiscation

beevul: The US isn't a democracy, its a representative republic.

Well aware; a representative republic which adheres to democratic principle in a microcosm - the majority in the house & senate rules - albeit sometimes a 3:2 or 2:1 senate majority is required (which allows an unintended consequence of the original intent of the filibuster).

beevul: If government confiscates your guns, and you agree with it, they've still confiscated your guns. The definition of confiscation isn't dependent on whether the targeted populace agrees or not.

Use of the word confiscation is really inapplicable in a proper discussion of the aussie buyback. Confiscation isn't really important except in your biased mind trying to mislead by power of suggestion, since you misuse the word in applying it to the aussie buyback. You're aping rightwing websites or blogs which pejoratively misidentify the gun buyback as 'confiscation', trying to make it appear that there were sinister dirty deeds done dirt cheap by the john howard admin, when the buyback was sanctioned supported & approved by the predominance of australians. You make it sound as if govt agents were going house to house to confiscate firearms, when the vast majority of aussies with prohibited firearms 'surrendered' them peacefully & willingly (with some glitch on pre-existing prohibited firearms).

Here an 'actual' australian guest here (being treated like dirt by some) Swiss Tony refers to the aussie gun buyback of 96'97 Yeah, Howard spent millions on the gun retrieval. You know why? Because we wanted it. Australians turned in thousands of weapons because we were sickened with what happened at Port Arthur.

He refers to it as 'gun retrieval', and I think Swiss Tony is better knowledgeable on it than the likes of a rightwing agitator here on DU, trying to twist facts to fit a 2nd Amendment Mythology. Retrieval of prohibited guns. Gun retrieval is what occurred after certain firearms were deemed too dangerous in Australia & then prohibited. Due to the law there was a turn in period where compensation was made, & this was supported by the predominance of australians. Both the prohibited firearms were supported, and the buyback scheme was supported.

The buyback program started in most states on October 1, 1996, and ended on September 30, 1997. More than 640,000 prohibited firearms were surrendered nationwide as part of the buyback program. In addition, it was reported that about 60,000 nonprohibited firearms were voluntarily surrendered without compensation.
According to a telephone poll conducted in 1999 on behalf of the federal government by Gun Control Australia, there were about 3.25 million guns in Australia prior to the 1996–1997 buyback program. One study on the impact of the buyback states that “in terms of the absolute numbers of guns destroyed, Australia’s gun buyback ranks as the largest destruction of civilian firearms in any country over the period 1991–2006.” The buyback was reported to have resulted in the withdrawal of one-fifth of the stock of civilian firearms in the country and substantially reduced the number of households possessing a firearm.

Quick beevul, what is remaining if one fifth is taken away? .... bzzt ... four fifths, or 80% of aussie firearms remained after the buyback (later law removed more firearms, handguns, semi-autos)

In addition to requiring law changes to implement the above resolutions, the agreement provided for the establishment of a twelve-month national amnesty and compensation program, to be accompanied by a public education campaign, after which the jurisdictions would apply “severe penalties” for breaches of the firearms control laws. This resolution was implemented through a national firearms buyback program, which saw the federal Parliament enacting the National Firearms Program Implementation Act 1996 (Cth). The Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 (Cth) was also enacted in relation to providing funding for the compensation to be paid to gun owners who handed in weapons that fell within the prohibited categories. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

[beevul]

37. Says you.

Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Use of the word confiscation is really inapplicable in a proper discussion of the aussie buyback. Confiscation isn't really important except in your biased mind trying to mislead by power of suggestion, since you misuse the word in applying it to the aussie buyback. You're aping rightwing websites or blogs which pejoratively misidentify the gun buyback as 'confiscation', trying to make it appear that there were sinister dirty deeds done dirt cheap by the john howard admin, when the buyback was sanctioned supported & approved by the predominance of australians. You make it sound as if govt agents were going house to house to confiscate firearms, when the vast majority of aussies with prohibited firearms 'surrendered' them peacefully & willingly (with some glitch on pre-existing prohibited firearms).

You either have balls of solid rock, or a complete lack of self awareness, or both.

Now that I'm done laughing hysterically at you...I'll just say that I find it hilarious in a sad sad way to read your quibbling about how inapplicable the word 'confiscation' is, while watching you use the term 'gun buyback' to describe the government confiscating with compensation, guns that never belonged to that government in the first place.



Turn the knob from 'spin cycle' to 'off' please.


Oh, and I have some news for you james:

When a tragedy happens, blaming the people that didn't do it, is a sinister dirty deed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. This is the same person that finds it acceptable to attack Dems seeking reelection:

*Not* during a Democratic primary, mind you-but during a general election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175182

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175361

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175378

[beevul]

41. Yup. It is truly astonishing.

Like I said, balls of solid rock, no self awareness, or oodles of both, which is never a good combination.

[jimmy the one]

42. compensation in the buyback

beevul: You either have balls of solid rock, or a complete lack of self awareness, or both.... I'll just say that I find it hilarious in a sad sad way to read your quibbling....

Beevul again demonstrates his pathetic approach to rebuttal on DU - juvenile ad hominem.

beevul: .. you use the term 'gun buyback' to describe the government confiscating with compensation, guns that never belonged to that government in the first place.

This is a red herring from beevul. 'Gun Buyback' is an appropriate light morphing to describe the aussie govt buying back prohibited guns from gun owners. It differentiates with clarity from 'confiscation' in that confiscation does not generally involve compensation.
Confiscation, as per icon's wiki link: In modern, e.g. English law, the term embraces forfeiture in the case of goods, and escheat in the case of lands, for crime or in default of heirs . Goods may also be confiscated by the state for breaches of statutes relating to customs, excise or explosives. In the United Kingdom a confiscation order is a court order made under part{s} of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requiring a convicted defendant to pay a specified sum of money to the state by a specified date.

Any confiscation was done against scofflaws refusing to turn in their newly prohibited illegal firearms (approved by the populace in general). The gun buyback was not considered confiscation since it was generally done by citizens voluntarily & willingly,returning those newly prohibited firearms for COMPENSATION.

Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury&quot is a legal seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law.

The aussie govt did not transfer those prohibited firearms to the treasury, they destroyed them.
Since aussies generally surrendered newly prohibited firearms willingly for compensation, there was generally no 'seizure of property .. in enforcement of the law', which only occurred when scofflaws did not willingly surrender them.

link in previous post: More than 640,000 prohibited firearms were surrendered nationwide as part of the buyback program. In addition, it was reported that about 60,000 nonprohibited firearms were voluntarily surrendered without compensation.

The national amnesty and buyback scheme, which was introduced in the aftermath of Port Arthur, saw 640,000 firearms surrendered at a cost of $304 million, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s41333.htm

$304 million divided by 640,000 = $475 per firearm, tho admin costs are surely involved somehow, making the compensation per firearm less.

link: The buyback was accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registration of firearms.

Which got solid support from the Australian people.

beevul: Oh, and I have some news for you james: When a tragedy happens, blaming the people that didn't do it, is a sinister dirty deed.

Utterly specious sophomoric reasoning from beevul - to regulate drones, is a sinister dirty deed? What exactly did john howard do to aussie residents when he proffered & enabled his buyback scheme in 1996? They predominantly agreed with him, he would've been held remiss NOT to do something such as he did. He deprived them of nothing as a whole, nothing.

[beevul]

44. The confiscation, you mean.

con·fis·cate

take or seize (someone's property) with authority.


Tapdance all you like. The definition fits, certainly better than 'buyback'.

This is a red herring from beevul.

As per usual, you double down on wrong.

Your whole post is a red herring.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. So if some future president abolished voting but paid each voter $475 you'd be okay with that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Tapdance all you want, it was and is confiscation:

con·fis·ca·tion
ˌkänfəˈskāSH(ə n/
noun
noun: confiscation; plural noun: confiscations

the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure.
"a court ordered the confiscation of her property"
synonyms: seizure, requisition, appropriation, expropriation, sequestration; distraint
"the confiscation of illegal weapons"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation

Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury&quot is a legal seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confiscate

confiscate
adjective con·fis·cate \ˈkän-fə-ˌskāt, kən-ˈfis-kət\
Definition of CONFISCATE
1
: appropriated by the government : forfeited
2
: deprived of property by confiscation

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. You are also using a cheap and obvious appeal to authority

Here an 'actual' australian guest here (being treated like dirt by some) Swiss Tony refers to the aussie gun buyback of 96'97 Yeah, Howard spent millions on the gun retrieval. You know why? Because we wanted it. Australians turned in thousands of weapons because we were sickened with what happened at Port Arthur.

He refers to it as 'gun retrieval', and I think Swiss Tony is better knowledgeable on it than the likes of a rightwing agitator here on DU, trying to twist facts to fit a 2nd Amendment Mythology.

It matters not a whit where a poster is from, their posts are either accurate or not.
Since 'retrieval' means "getting something back", this was not a retrieval, as the
Australian government never owned these guns in the first place.
Swiss Tony's claim is demonstrably inaccurate.

Fail on his part, and an even bigger one on yours for either believing him or trying to
sell it to us if you don't actually believe it yourself

[jimmy the one]

43. go fetch

swiss tony: Howard spent millions on the gun retrieval.

icon: Since 'retrieval' means "getting something back", this was not a retrieval, as the Australian government never owned these guns in the first place.

You & beevul cherry pick nits. There are broader definitions such as 'salvage' and 'remedy' and 'correct':

Retrieve: 3: to get back again : regain
4 a: rescue, salvage b: to return (as a ball that is difficult to reach) successfully
5: restore, revive <his writing retrieves the past>
6: to remedy the evil consequences of (Correct)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retrieve

2. to bring back to a more satisfactory state; revive
3. to extricate from trouble or danger; rescue or save
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/retrieve

Swiss Tony's claim is demonstrably inaccurate.

Yours is. Perhaps he did mean it as to 'get back', but it doesn't negate his argument.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. "bring back to a more satisfactory state" Back to something that did not exist previously...

...to wit, ownership by the Australian government?

I'm sure your ongoing efforts to rewrite the English language will be every bit as
successful as your gun control advocacy has been to date...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Did the owners have the right to decline?

[jimmy the one]

49. confiscatio

nuc uni: Did the owners have the right to decline?

No, after the NFA became law they didn't since it was a new law prohibiting certain firearms, but citizens were given a 12 month grace period to surrender them for compensation. I doubt Caligula or Nero would've done the same if they'd needed roman brass or bronze, I bet they'd've gone confiscatio.
Mind you, aussie gun control after port arthur garnered near 90% support from aussies.
Beevul & Icon are reading too many gun blogs & rightwing websites.

In addition to requiring law changes to implement the above resolutions, the agreement provided for the establishment of a twelve-month national amnesty and compensation program, to be accompanied by a public education campaign, after which the jurisdictions would apply “severe penalties” for breaches of the firearms control laws. This resolution was implemented through a national firearms buyback program, which saw the federal Parliament enacting the National Firearms Program Implementation Act 1996.
The Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 was also enacted in relation to providing funding for the compensation to be paid to gun owners who handed in weapons that fell within the prohibited categories. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

[gejohnston]

50. they offered compensation only because

the Australian Constitution requires it. Confiscations in Canada, New York, California, Venezuela, have not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. If the owners had no choice and the government did not own the property then it was confiscation.

I doubt Caligula or Nero would've done the same if they'd needed roman brass or bronze, I bet they'd've gone confiscatio.

You're citing two of histories worst tyrants as a legal precedent to justify your position?

Mind you, aussie gun control after port arthur garnered near 90% support from aussies.

Lots of Germans agreed with the Final Solution. Lots of racists -- enough to constitute electoral majorities -- supported segregation. majorities in Salem MA supported witch burning. Majorities supported the Iraq war.

What's your point?

[jimmy the one]

54. nero & caligula, tyrants?

nuc uni: You're citing two of histories worst tyrants as a legal precedent to justify your position?

Nero & Caligula you think were amongst the worst tyrants in history? on a plane with pol pot, stalin, hitler, Dracula, Torquemada(?);
Hardly, they were too young (29 & 31 at death) to ever have really reached that distinction; indeed Nero's first 5 years are referred to as 'golden' years. Caligula & Nero just ended up run of the mill incompetent roman emperors who done some good & committed a few atrocities plus the usual gamut of rights & wrongs, not the first not the last. Nero's 'genocide' against Christians is probably overstated.

gaius, 4 yrs as emp: Caligula’s ambitious construction projects, craving for luxury and unrestrained squander resulted in his losing the enormous imperial inheritance left by his predecessor Tiberius, and led to crippling taxes, frenzied price surges and veiled robbery. Moreover, Caligula declared himself a living god .. Caligula’s policies led to numerous tensions and conspiracies, and after four years in power he was assassinated

He was killed by his praetorian guard (presumably a roman tyrant's solid ally); a tyrant back then was generally someone who used military power to ascend to power (military coup), but a tyrant was not always considered evil - some tyrants were considered improvements over the erstwhile regime. I suspect 'veiled robbery' as including 'confiscatio'.

(Nero, ~14 yrs emp): To the Romans, the Christian movement was just another cult—a treasonous cult which already operated in violation of multiple Roman laws. Romans were already suspicious of any religion other than those the state had approved, and they readily accepted the Christians as a threat to the state. The persecutions that followed were cruel, but not without precedent—and they’re more suggestive of canny political maneuvering than genuine insanity. http://listverse.com/2013/04/29/9-reasons-caligula-and-nero-were-saner-than-you-think/

In his first five years as emperor, Nero gained a reputation for political generosity, promoting power-sharing with the Senate and ending closed-door political trials ... His most lasting artistic legacy, though, was his re-creation of Rome following the fire that destroyed most of the city... In the centuries followed his reign, the name Nero would become a byword for debauchery, misrule and anti-Christian persecution.

Re: How many Christians were killed during the Nero's persecution & How many Jews were killed during the Jewish Revolt?
... (low baller): A couple of years ago I took a course in Church history, and our professor, after reviewing various sources put the number of martyrs in the first century at between 3000 and 5000. Total number from the first to the third century is estimated at 100,000. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=141841

(How many Christians killed by nero?): Not vast numbers, probably numbering in the hundreds, or a couple of thousand, Christianity was only 20+ years old, the religion was still based in the middle east, there was no bible yet, a few believers had travelled to Rome to preach and had undoubtedly attracted followings but certainly not in large numbers, Christianity didn't come to the forefront of Roman religious life for another 350+ years and even then only 1/3 of the population were followers, so if after 350 years they had only got 1/3 of the population then their impact after 20 will be seriously small. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101122183604AA8YirF

Nero's praetorian guards abandoned him: The greatest threat to Nero’s reign, however, was the Great Fire, which began on July 64 AD and lasted for six days. Ten of the fourteen districts of the city were destroyed, hundreds died, thousands were left homeless, and looters ravaged the city ... he had to raise taxes to finance the rebuilding of Rome, the city was better in some ways than before: rebuilt residential districts, wider streets, brick buildings, and colonnades at street level to shelter to residents from the sun.
The fire, the conspiracy, the numerous insurrections, and the empty treasury led to Nero’s demise. The Senate declared him an enemy of the public and named Galba as the new emperor. Realizing his days as emperor were over, Nero attempted suicide but failed and needed help to take his own life. http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/nero

[beergood]

99. holy sh..

this is some grade A authoritarian bull.

a post in support of Nero and Caligula?

[jimmy the one]

103. make your argument or rebuttal then

beergood: this is some grade A authoritarian bull. a post in support of Nero and Caligula?

The bull is 'beergoods', he posts no argument. She hasn't defended her position that nero & gaius C were 'tyrants', & your retort posts nothing of substance either, except to falsely imply I was some kind of fan of the both of them. They only gain some kind of 'tyrannical' label due their name recognition, is all (some do regard them as tyrants). Neither was one of the worst tyrants in history, as she described them. You could substitute hundreds of others with similar or worse tyrant records than C & nero.
Make your argument or rebuttal as to why nero & C were indeed tyrants.

nuc uni wrote: You're citing two of histories worst tyrants as a legal precedent to justify your position

what I wrote in previous post: Hardly, they were too young (29 & 31 at death) to ever have really reached that distinction; indeed Nero's first 5 years are referred to as 'golden' years. Caligula & Nero just ended up run of the mill incompetent roman emperors who done some good & committed a few atrocities plus the usual gamut of rights & wrongs, not the first not the last. Nero's 'genocide' against Christians is probably overstated.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. So you cite Nero and Caligula.

Anti-democratic leaders of an imperialist state, incompetent, corrupt, incestuous, murderous,adulterous, self-indulgent, persecuting of minorities.

That they were murdered by their own bodyguard or overthrown by rebellion seems to you to count as virtues in their favor.

The Controllers get weirder and weirder by the day.

[jimmy the one]

112. revise to worst ROMAN dictators in history

nuc uni: Anti-democratic leaders of an imperialist state, incompetent, corrupt, incestuous, murderous, adulterous, self-indulgent, persecuting of minorities.

Take out incestuous, adulterous & self indulgent and you'd get hundreds of roman dictators & consuls & governors to fit the bill emboldened above. Adulterous & self indulgent would apply to a portion as well. Incestuous might be Gaius C alone, dunno.

Gaius and Nero are nowhere near these:
http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/

http://popten.net/2010/05/top-ten-most-evil-dictators-of-all-time-in-order-of-kill-count/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/10/21/the-20th-century-s-deadliest-dictators-photos.html#viewAll

The concept of dictatorship as well as the use of force and systemic persecution of political opponents to stay in power dates back to the ancient Roman civilization, however, it was the modern history dictators who made it virtually a synonym for gross human rights violations and brutality.
http://historylists.org/people/list-of-top-10-most-brutal-dictators-in-modern-history.html

Actually, if you were simply to revise what you wrote I could not argue, I'd agree. Revise to: Caligula and Nero were two of the worst ROMAN tyrants in history.

Commodus, the spoiled son of Aurelius and his wife, Faustina.. emperor Commodus spent the early years of his reign "in a seraglio of 300 beautiful women and as many boys, of every rank and of every province. "Later, adding bloodshed to his round of pleasures, he launched a career in murder,.. Commodus began to dress like the god Hercules, wearing lion skins and carrying a club. Commodus' complete identification with Hercules can be seen as an attempt to solidify his claim as new founder of Rome, which he now called the Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana. This was legitimized by his direct link to Hercules, son of Father Jupiter. He probably took the title of Hercules officially some time before 192. But so too was he prone to cruelty and excessive behaviour.

"Domitian was also notorious for his cruelty. He is supposed to have invented a new method of torture: burning the sexual organs of his victims. Domitian was capable of inviting an erring official to supper.. the next day he was executed.. Like Vespasian, Domitian persecuted Stoic philosophers and Jews. He had all Jews.. tracked down and killed... he encouraged courtiers & subjects to venerate him by addressing him as "Lord & God". His executions of those who failed to pay him honor earned him an early reputation for cruelty.

"Caligula', more properly Gaius (Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus), third Roman emperor.. He has gone down in history, perhaps unfairly, as Rome's most tyrannical emperor; but since we lack Tacitus' account of his short reign, it is impossible to know the truth behind the wilder stories."
For the bulk of the information we are compelled to fall back on Suetonius and Dio Cassius, and we do not possess (as we do for the three other Julio-Claudian Emperors) any of the books which Tacitus wrote on the reign. The lack must be emphasized, for it is very important: ..we can usually rely on Tacitus to control the errors and generalisations of Suetonius and Dio, and so can assess them at their true worth. In spite of this many writers, in dealing with the four years of Gaius, behave as though by some kindly compensation of Nature, once Tacitus is missing Suetonius and Dio automatically become better authorities and their statements more worthy of credence. Such a frame of mind is uncritically optimistic, for it goes clean contrary to all experience of these authors elsewhere. . . J. Balsdon, author of a study of Caligula, is of the opinion that the incest stigma is a complete fabrication in the first place—'mud which in antiquity was thrown at any man who was unusually fond of his sister.' René Lugand argues that, if not actually a gross fabricator, Suetonius was at least guilty of partiality and elaboration. He examines two cases of allegedly outrageous conduct: the propitiation of Caligula by human sacrifices, and secondly his intention to award his horse Incitatus a Consulship. His conclusion is that, even if Suetonius is not exaggerating, as is frequently the case elsewhere, such conduct was not so very monstrous for those times. Suetonius was more of a propagandist than an historian:"
http://www.omnibusol.com/emperors.html

[sarisataka]

113. Speaking of Roman dictators

Say What You Want About Mussolini; At Least The Trains Ran On Time

Well he ruled from Rome, he didn't actually make the trains run on time and I won't defend him by saying "well he wasn't as bad as Hitler'

If you have to argue your position is good because it isn't as bad as some dictators, you should declare bankruptcy and retire from the game.

[jimmy the one]

116. not bankrupt, your post is

sarisataka: Well he ruled from Rome, he didn't actually make the trains run on time and I won't defend him by saying "well he wasn't as bad as Hitler'

I would include that along with substantive reasons why Mussolini was not that bad a tyrant (he tended to protect jewish during the war until hitler later forced him to comply with anti-semitism.)

If you have to argue your position is good because it isn't as bad as some dictators, you should declare bankruptcy and retire from the game.

What has bankruptcy got to do with posting on a msg board?
You post stupid anyway, since that was only one of the arguments I made, the others evidently went past you uncomprehended, or perhaps intentionally ignored to spite.
She is contending gaius & nero are amongst the worst tyrants in history, when that is silly when compared to modern tyrants.

[sarisataka]

118. Words usually have several definitions

for example-

bank·rupt·cy
ˈbaNGkˌrəp(t)sē/Submit
noun
1. the state of being bankrupt.
"many companies were facing bankruptcy"
synonyms: insolvency, liquidation, failure, ruin, financial ruin, collapse, receivership
"many companies were facing bankruptcy"

2. the state of being completely lacking in a particular quality or value.
"the moral bankruptcy of turning away desperate people"

Another word to understand

met·a·phor
ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
noun
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

[jimmy the one]

122. more pathetic

sarisataka: Words usually have several definitions bank·rupt·cy 1. the state of being bankrupt.
synonyms: insolvency, liquidation, failure, ruin, financial ruin, collapse, receivership "many companies were facing bankruptcy"

merriam webster: Full Definition of BANKRUPT 1a : a person who has done any of the acts that by law entitle creditors to have his or her estate administered for their benefit b : a person judicially declared subject to having his or her estate administered under the bankrupt laws for the benefit of creditors c : a person who becomes insolvent
2: a person who is completely lacking in a particular desirable quality or attribute <a moral bankrupt

2. the state of being completely lacking in a particular quality or value. "the moral bankruptcy of turning away desperate people"

Had you intended definition(s) 2 it would've been incumbent upon you to say 'declare moral bankruptcy', to distinguish. Since you didn't it's obvious you are now backpedaling as fast as you can to blow smoke with a red herring.
And comparing gaius caligula & nero to other tyrants is not being 'completely lacking in a particular desirable quality or attribute'.

sari: I won't defend him {mussolini} by saying "well he wasn't as bad as Hitler' ... If you have to argue your position is good because it isn't as bad as some dictators, you should declare bankruptcy and retire from the game.

Readers will recall what nuclear unicorn wrote: You're citing two of histories worst tyrants as a legal precedent to justify your position?

How else does sari suggest comparing the 'worst' of tyrants, if not rating them as to which is more bad than the other?
Go soak your sari head.

[sarisataka]

123. I found the use of the word

bankrupt quite clear, as I am sure 99+% of readers would.

A sari is a South Asian female garment that consists of a drape varying from five to nine yards (4.57 metres to 8.23 metres) in length and two to four feet (60 cm to 1.20 m) in breadth that is typically wrapped around the waist, with one end draped over the shoulder, baring the midriff- since we are being literal.

[beevul]

124. Just...this.

[Straw Man]

125. Bankruptcy.

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)

How else does sari suggest comparing the 'worst' of tyrants, if not rating them as to which is more bad than the other?

The original statement was "two of histories {sic} worst tyrants." (Sorry, Nuclear Unicorn, but that should be "history's.&quot It does not say that these two were the worst; only that they belong to the subset of tyrants that are being classified as "history's worst." That subset is of indeterminate size, but it is certainly more than two, or else the "two of" designation would not have been used.

If you want to split hairs, Jimmy, you're going to need a sharper knife.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. As I said, weirder and weirder.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

117. some of us have too much time on our hands n/t

[beevul]

52. Nothing so melodramatic or biased, james...

Beevul & Icon are reading too many gun blogs & rightwing websites.

Nothing so melodramatic or biased, james, as a right wing website.

Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary, hence your confusion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. "Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary..." No doubt James can also read quite well

Problem is, dictionaries don't say what he'd like them to say...