• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NRA doesn't like Australia's Gun Stats

marplots said:
No, you are right. I actually have no idea what pulls the "I will kill a bunch of people" switch. I do seem to remember that in the US, some of the mass shooters had looked into previous mass shootings though. Maybe there is an element of contagion?
Click to expand...

I think there is a copyist aspect. And I gathered that is what you were trying to get at, even as I picked at your word choice.

I can't imagine how the magnitude of the crime would make it less contagious. It seems the spectacular the response the more likely there will be copyist. I think maybe that is what I was trying to get across with my response: the more awful the crime, the more likely it will appeal to someone.
 
Ranb said:
I believe that lack of legislation even without constitutional or other legal protection means I have a right to do anything not prohibited by law.
Click to expand...

I think what others are noting is that the word right is used differently in the Us for different topics.

When the FDA takes away your right to supplements with ephedra it is not subject to the same scrutiny as it would be if it wanted to take away your right to buy a rifle or your right to support a politician.

While you once had the ability to buy ephedra based supplements in the US you never had a right in the sense that you had a right to bear arms or a right to free speech. Those rights are particularly enumerated constitutional rights, not simply the lack of prohibition.

I don't think you want to argue that the second amendment is no more than a lack of regulation.
 
I understand the difference. But a right is still a right even if it is not zealously protected in one form or another.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Seomtimes I wonder why bother too. The second amendment has been rendered much less meaningful since 1934. The right to keep and bear arms is no longer a right exercised by the law abiding and the "mentally fit". The right is taxed/licensed and in some cases a person has to obtain permission from the government to purchase some types of firearms. How much can a right be restricted before it is no longer a right and merely a privilege?
Click to expand...

And there I'd totally agree. When a 'fan of the 2A' (for want of a better term) speaks of the absolute constitutional right to bear arms, many in the opposite camp point out that US gun rights are regulated left, right and centre - from a National level right down to workplace level.

There is no longer a Right to bear arms in the USA. It's a mirage of meaningless words. US gun rights are a bunch of laws cobbled together, from place to place and time to time, and there's no good reason why they shouldn't change.
 
Ranb said:
I understand the difference. But a right is still a right even if it is not zealously protected in one form or another.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Australia has always had gun restrictions. Laws, if you prefer.
I haven't found an on-line source, yet, but have read that in 1796 governor Hunter ruled that all firearms be registered. In 1802 another governor ruled that no house (other than military and officials) would be allowed to hold more than one musket.

Gun legislation has always been part of Australian law, from a long time before we were even known as Australia. Kind of important for a penal colony.
 
GlennB said:
There is no longer a Right to bear arms in the USA. It's a mirage of meaningless words. US gun rights are a bunch of laws cobbled together, from place to place and time to time, and there's no good reason why they shouldn't change.
Click to expand...
Until the law is changed the government needs to respect the law instead of emasculating it bit by bit. The feds get away with ignoring the Constitution, but if someone like me decides to use it to defend their actions (like making a firearm without paying the tax) it can put them in prison.

Ranb
 
Polaris---i read that entire lengthy, very descript mass shooting at the University Texas. Wow.
For those that havent read it...it reads like a book you cant put down. Unreal. He was nailing some people 1500 feet away! And a few who thought they were hiding even got shot to death from his sniper point high atop the tower.
Very chilling.
20 minutes went by with him picking people off, right and left, at random, before any help arrived.
Very creepy to think at anytime you could be picked off like ducks at a shooting gallery.
 
Iamme said:
Polaris---i read that entire lengthy, very descript mass shooting at the University Texas. Wow.
For those that havent read it...it reads like a book you cant put down. Unreal. He was nailing some people 1500 feet away! And a few who thought they were hiding even got shot to death from his sniper point high atop the tower.
Very chilling.
20 minutes went by with him picking people off, right and left, at random, before any help arrived.
Very creepy to think at anytime you could be picked off like ducks at a shooting gallery.
Click to expand...

This is why I get amazed when people honestly believe banning a firearm based on cosmetic features, or the way in which it is reloaded actually makes people safer. I have 4 firearms at the moment. Three are bolt action rifles, one is a pump action shotgun (which would be illegal in Australia...).

Three of the rifles are capable of hitting, consistently, a 10 cent piece at ranges of greater than 100 metres. Imagine the trouble THAT could cause if I were a crazed gunman.

Two of them are capable of hitting that ten cent piece out to about 300 metres consistently.

One of them was used to heart-shoot a deer at 430-ish metres (measured at the time with a range finder).

Here in NZ, we've just had a law change (again) tinkering with firearms availablity based on appearance. If a .223 centrefire rifle has a "military style" pistol grip, it is an E category restricted firearm. If it has a slightly modified version of the same thing, it is available to anyone with a gun licence.

Incidentally, this change was pushed through by our elected officials and the local police force, *despite* extensive evidence and submissions from the licenced firearms owning community (and there are about 300,000 of us here, owning about 1,000,000 guns). Basically, the evidence supplied prior to the review counted for nothing.

As for butt-hurt gun owners... it's worth remembering that we are pretty much the *only* segment of society that receive police checks before we can even buy the tools required to pursue our sporting or hobby interests. We are, demonstrably, the most law abiding segment of the community....
 
Did you see where the last victim died some 35 years later and ruled a homicide because of that day?
 
BTMO said:
This is why I get amazed when people honestly believe banning a firearm based on cosmetic features, or the way in which it is reloaded actually makes people safer. I have 4 firearms at the moment. Three are bolt action rifles, one is a pump action shotgun (which would be illegal in Australia...).

Three of the rifles are capable of hitting, consistently, a 10 cent piece at ranges of greater than 100 metres. Imagine the trouble THAT could cause if I were a crazed gunman.

Two of them are capable of hitting that ten cent piece out to about 300 metres consistently.

One of them was used to heart-shoot a deer at 430-ish metres (measured at the time with a range finder).

Here in NZ, we've just had a law change (again) tinkering with firearms availablity based on appearance. If a .223 centrefire rifle has a "military style" pistol grip, it is an E category restricted firearm. If it has a slightly modified version of the same thing, it is available to anyone with a gun licence.

Incidentally, this change was pushed through by our elected officials and the local police force, *despite* extensive evidence and submissions from the licenced firearms owning community (and there are about 300,000 of us here, owning about 1,000,000 guns). Basically, the evidence supplied prior to the review counted for nothing.

As for butt-hurt gun owners... it's worth remembering that we are pretty much the *only* segment of society that receive police checks before we can even buy the tools required to pursue our sporting or hobby interests. We are, demonstrably, the most law abiding segment of the community....
Click to expand...

It's inconsistent logic as well. In the 'assault weapon' thread people argued that banning pistol grips made sense because they 'are useful for killing people easier' and increase accuracy. It was thus not cosmetic. Semi-automatic guns were likewise targeted because they make it easier to kill.

Accuracy does make it easier to kill. What is one of the biggest accuracy gaps? Between auto loaders and the usually much more accurate bolt-action. So pistol grips are bad because they increase accuracy, but bolt actions are good because they increase accuracy.

A friend of mine is all for banning all 'military features' like slings. I know some people malign knowing 'too much' about guns, but when talking governmental action accuracy is again of value and ignorance is not. It's disheartening that so many who would never criticize such rigor on other subjects accept ignorance on weapons.
 
tyr_13 said:
It's inconsistent logic as well. In the 'assault weapon' thread people argued that banning pistol grips made sense because they 'are useful for killing people easier' and increase accuracy. It was thus not cosmetic. Semi-automatic guns were likewise targeted because they make it easier to kill.

Accuracy does make it easier to kill. What is one of the biggest accuracy gaps? Between auto loaders and the usually much more accurate bolt-action. So pistol grips are bad because they increase accuracy, but bolt actions are good because they increase accuracy.

A friend of mine is all for banning all 'military features' like slings. I know some people malign knowing 'too much' about guns, but when talking governmental action accuracy is again of value and ignorance is not. It's disheartening that so many who would never criticize such rigor on other subjects accept ignorance on weapons.
Click to expand...

We had a court case here the last time the police tried to change the law, basically by fiat ("WE interpret the current legislation to mean..."). A police armourer attempted to demonstrate, in court, that a pistol grip made it possible to use a semi auto firearm single handedly. This was the core of the case against the owners of such firearms. A representative of the pistol-grip firearm owning public then picked up a non-pistol grip firearm - and showed that it was even *easier* to aim a rifle without a military style pistol grip one handed.

The reason is pretty simple - you basically hold a rifle from above, unless you have gorilla-like arms. They don't balance or hold well single handed. Not if you are planning on aiming them....

The police were aggreived that they ultimately lost the case... so spent shed-loads of public money getting their minister to make a law change. And the law change made about as much sense as the original law did.
 
Sceptic-PK said:
So what? When did I or anyone here say that a buy back arrangement would be suitable for the US? Keep erecting that straw, champ!
Click to expand...

You never said that.

However the subject of the thread is whether the U.S. should or could follow Australia's lead and expect similar results. The question, itself, is not straw. It points out a huge difference between the countries that would make an Australian-modeled ban impractical to implement in the U.S.

..........

Also, were all the banned guns turned in?
I thought I saw a source that estimates the number of illegal guns in the tens of thousands.
I understand that without an actual citation my recollections have ZERO weight in a JREF argument. That's why I am asking a question instead of asserting a claim.
 
Ladewig said:
However the subject of the thread is whether the U.S. should or could follow Australia's lead and expect similar results. The question, itself, is not straw. It points out a huge difference between the countries that would make an Australian-modeled ban impractical to implement in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I guess that would depend on whether anyone was proposing the buy back form part of an American firearms ban. We had to offer a buy back because of a clause in our constitution about fair restitution if the Commonwealth seized private property.

Ladewig said:
Also, were all the banned guns turned in?
Click to expand...

Well, I would suggest that "of course not", simply because I think it naive to think otherwise. Of course, any weapons now on the banned list can and are seized, so it's not just a case of the buy back functioning in isolation.

Ladewig said:
I thought I saw a source that estimates the number of illegal guns in the tens of thousands.
I understand that without an actual citation my recollections have ZERO weight in a JREF argument. That's why I am asking a question instead of asserting a claim.
Click to expand...


It's possible. For obvious reasons it's difficult to estimate the number of illegal weapons. That said, just because there are those that break the law doesn't in and of itself imply the law(s) shouldn't exist.
 
BTMO said:
This is why I get amazed when people honestly believe banning a firearm based on cosmetic features, or the way in which it is reloaded actually makes people safer. I have 4 firearms at the moment. Three are bolt action rifles, one is a pump action shotgun (which would be illegal in Australia...).

Three of the rifles are capable of hitting, consistently, a 10 cent piece at ranges of greater than 100 metres. Imagine the trouble THAT could cause if I were a crazed gunman.

Two of them are capable of hitting that ten cent piece out to about 300 metres consistently.

One of them was used to heart-shoot a deer at 430-ish metres (measured at the time with a range finder).

Here in NZ, we've just had a law change (again) tinkering with firearms availablity based on appearance. If a .223 centrefire rifle has a "military style" pistol grip, it is an E category restricted firearm. If it has a slightly modified version of the same thing, it is available to anyone with a gun licence.

Incidentally, this change was pushed through by our elected officials and the local police force, *despite* extensive evidence and submissions from the licenced firearms owning community (and there are about 300,000 of us here, owning about 1,000,000 guns). Basically, the evidence supplied prior to the review counted for nothing.

As for butt-hurt gun owners... it's worth remembering that we are pretty much the *only* segment of society that receive police checks before we can even buy the tools required to pursue our sporting or hobby interests. We are, demonstrably, the most law abiding segment of the community....
Click to expand...
Laws on cosmetic features always strike me as being particularly silly, and thankfully it's not a road the UK has ever gone down. Even though semi-auto rifles are banned, straight-pull conversions aren't, so if someone wants to own and shoot an L1A1/FN FAL on that basis (as if my wife would let me...!), they can.
 
Information Analyst said:
That sentiment seems fine, apart from the number of cases where the person shot was not "threatening" at all.
Click to expand...

And this is why I support training and mental health screenings. One of my ex-g/f's dad's neighbors was known to step out on his porch with a very big revolver visibly in hand when someone made a wrong turn down his driveway (in rural Missouri it's easy to do) - in broad daylight. That's the kind of guy who shoots a car accident victim on his porch at night without even seeing them.

At any rate, if there's no threat and someone still shoots, that's not self-defense and should be addressed with a charge of manslaughter, at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom