NRA doesn't like Australia's Gun Stats

[Shiner]

It looks like since Port Arthur arson has been the method of choice for mass killers in Australia - 3 separate incidents in which 10 or more have died. Time to ban matches and lighters!

I think you'll find that in those cases we reacted by tightening laws on fire sprinkler systems and construction. Some policies in nursing homes have changed too.
We don't just ban things, we try really hard to fix them. In the case of guns, that meant restricting access to only those who can prove both a need and some competency. Crazy, eh?

If Australians felt strongly about some selfish right to arm themselves to the teeth, then we have political parties that should be polling a hell of a lot better in elections. Go figure.

 

[Nessie]

The UK has had four mass shootings, Hungerford (1987), Monkseaton (1989), Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010).

Monkseaton was with a shotgun, Cumbria with a shotgun and rifle, yet neither of those weapons were subjected to ownership restrictions like automatic weapons and handguns were after Hungerford and Dunblane.

Restricting weapons use is not really the issue. The big change in the UK was the introduction of further background checks, reducing the period between checks from 10 to 5 years and ensuring better security for guns. Monkseaton, the least well known of the shootings was by a man with mental health issues who got hold of his fathers shotgun and shot 15 people, killing one.

I am sure that all of the evidence discussed in all of these gun threads points to one conclusion. You can as many guns of what ever type in a society, what is important is to keep guns away from the people most likely to misuse them, such as criminals, nuts, angry people and youths.

So, to see if there is another reason why Australia's mass shooting rate has dropped to nothing, what, if anything has changed regards background checks and security?

 

[a_unique_person]

When did firearm possession there cease to be a right and become a privilege?

Ranb

It was never a right.

 

[Nessie]

It was never a right.

So Americans have no right to life, as that is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Amendments.

 

[casebro]

Maybe you are right Nessie. The only federal laws against murder deal with actions on federal property or people employed by the fed.

 

[Ranb]

It was never a right.

So what about before laws were passed prohibiting possession of certain firearms?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

So Americans have no right to life, as that is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Amendments.

Yes it is; 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ranb

 

[lionking]

So what about before laws were passed prohibiting possession of certain firearms?

Ranb

Er, there were no laws prohibiting firearms.

Australia has a Constitution which virtually nobody has read or could outline any of its provisions. We do have referenda very occasionally which as a rule don't get passed. We have no Bill of Rights. The thought of an inalienable right to bear arms is just laughable to us. The vast majority is very comfortable indeed with this state of affairs.

Oh, and we no longer have mass gun killings.

 

[Damien Evans]

When did firearm possession there cease to be a right and become a privilege?

Ranb

Your question does not make sense. There can be no date for something that never happened.

 

[Ranb]

Your question does not make sense. There can be no date for something that never happened.

So you are claiming that a right cannot exist unless it was granted by some legal authority?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

The thought of an inalienable right to bear arms is just laughable to us....

Are there any inalienable rights there?

Ranb

 

[lionking]

Are there any inalienable rights there?

Ranb

As I said, we don't have a Bill of Rights. We have the rule of law, which has worked well for civilised countries for centuries.

I suppose you will now tell me how much danger we are in.....

 

[Giz]

As I said, we don't have a Bill of Rights. We have the rule of law, which has worked well for civilised countries for centuries.

I suppose you will now tell me how much danger we are in.....

Your legal system isn't descended from the English Bill of Rights?

 

[a_unique_person]

So you are claiming that a right cannot exist unless it was granted by some legal authority?

Ranb

A right is a social construct. It is only as real as we make it. It can't exist outside of a society.

 

[Ranb]

Oh, and we no longer have mass gun killings.

I suppose you will now tell me how much danger we are in.....

No thanks.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder; why? In case you didn't notice I have not disagreed with anything in the OP. I am also not a fan of the NRA by any stretch of the imagination.

Ranb

 

[lionking]

No thanks.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder; why? In case you didn't notice I have not disagreed with anything in the OP. I am also not a fan of the NRA by any stretch of the imagination.

Ranb

Apologies. You have been antagonistic to my views in the past, and I over-reacted to your posts in this thread.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

So you are claiming that a right cannot exist unless it was granted by some legal authority?

Yes.

 

[Shiner]

So you are claiming that a right cannot exist unless it was granted by some legal authority?

Ranb

You mean like a legal right, right?

Your 'right to bear arms' is granted by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. A legal document.

What rights do you consider to be not granted or at least covered by some legal authority?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

True, Australia simply doesn't have a large enough population to get a proper sample size for such a rare event.

Oh for pity's sake, what a pitiful argument.

Are you going by total population or diluting the stats by the square miles of empty lands on the continent?

 

[theprestige]

Yes.

Serious question: What about dictatorships?