NRA doesn't like Australia's Gun Stats

[DDWW]

Yes and yes. Of course you could never prove that ALL banned weapons were handed in, but that's hardly relevant.

So in the USA, take all the guns to be ban, millions, times the retail value at time of confiscation and what, just add the cost to the existing $17 trillion debt we have now? Plus the cost of all the logistics.......

Plus all the local Sheriffs who will not enforce this ban and all the people who will resist..

Never happen.

DDWW

 

[Ranb]

You probably do know this, but I'll mention it anyway, the USA is the only country where public safety has been largely ignored.

If you are singling out what you consider lax controls on firearms, then this is not enough to reasonably claim that public safety in the USA is largely ignored.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I've been searching for what passes as a right in Australia and it is hard to pin down. I did manage to find this Wikipedia article. Although I am loath to quote Wikipedia, it was interesting to say the least, even if it does appear to be tongue in cheek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed is a constitutional principle of English law — an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen. The converse principle — everything which is not allowed is forbidden — applies to public authorities, whose actions are limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law.[1]

The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden"[2] — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed".[3] While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullum_crimen,_nulla_poena_sine_praevia_lege_poenali

However, some legal scholars criticize this, because generally, in the legal systems of Continental Europe where the maxim was first developed, "penal law" was taken to mean statutory penal law, so as to create a guarantee to the individual, considered as a fundamental right, that he would not be prosecuted for an action or omission that was not considered a crime according to the statutes passed by the legislators in force at the time of the action or omission, and that only those penalties that were in place when the infringement took place would be applied.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

No. Substitute "recreational drugs" for "guns" and you'll see the absurdity of your suggestion. The lack of legislation for something does not make possesion or use of it a "right."

You mean drugs like caffeine, alcohol and nicotine?

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.

Ranb

 

[Information Analyst]

You mean drugs like caffeine, alcohol and nicotine?

Don't be obtuse. Most people are perfectly aware what the term "recreational drugs" means.

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.

Then you're continuing to confuse legality - or rather lack of legality - with "rights."

 

[Ladewig]

So in the USA, take all the guns to be ban, millions, times the retail value at time of confiscation and what, just add the cost to the existing $17 trillion debt we have now? Plus the cost of all the logistics.......

Plus all the local Sheriffs who will not enforce this ban and all the people who will resist..

Never happen.

DDWW

I think I have to agree with you. While I am happy for Australia, what worked there isn't going to work in the U.S.

In round numbers, if there are 300,000,000 firearms in the possession of civilians, how would one even come up with an estimate of the fair market value of those guns.

.....
ETA: I wonder how many U.S. jobs are related to the gun industry.

 

[Ladewig]

That being said, i`d also like to point out that we cant assume Australian numbers would rival our numbers even if we did exactly like Australia did, simply because we are not Australia, geographically, nor of the makeup of the people and the groups we have here..

Plus, differences in mental health care access and attitudes towards mental health care. And a host of other differences.

Alcohol is not guns....but

The analogy is inherently flawed. Guns can be used to prevent gun crimes - alcohol use cannot be used to prevent alcohol use.

 

[Nessie]

If you are singling out what you consider lax controls on firearms, then this is not enough to reasonably claim that public safety in the USA is largely ignored.

Ranb

I say it is. Hence the number of instances of unsecured firearms being used not by the guns owner to shoot another. That is a classic example of safety last over other considerations such as the desire to have a gun about you for self defence.

Only the USA has places where it is not illegal to have guns lying around unsecured and you can shoot in self defence without having to consider other means of self defence.

 

[Polaris]

I say it is. Hence the number of instances of unsecured firearms being used not by the guns owner to shoot another. That is a classic example of safety last over other considerations such as the desire to have a gun about you for self defence.

Only the USA has places where it is not illegal to have guns lying around unsecured and you can shoot in self defence without having to consider other means of self defence.

It will be argued - rightly, IMHO - that there's no good reason to give someone threatening your life a better chance to do so when a more effective means to prevent it is at your disposal.

 

[Nessie]

It will be argued - rightly, IMHO - that there's no good reason to give someone threatening your life a better chance to do so when a more effective means to prevent it is at your disposal.

The USA has taken it too far and too many people armed with a hammer see everyone as a nail. Hence I have always argued for a permit system and compulsory training.

 

[GlennB]

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.

I posted on this point upthread, though it's easy to miss.

Technically you're quite correct, but in the context of these debates a "right" than occurs because there is no specific law against it is different from a "Right" that's specifically spelled out in a Constitution.

The former is a just a default condition that's easy to change, the latter is deliberately protected and is typically harder to change.

Otherwise, why bother with the USA's Constitutional Amendments?

Queen Victoria reputedly took tincture of cannabis for period pains or childbirth pains, or something. She had the freedom (the right) to do this because the drug wasn't outlawed at the time. There was nothing about Britain's Constitution that protected that freedom, and it was easily changed.

 

[Polaris]

The USA has taken it too far and too many people armed with a hammer see everyone as a nail. Hence I have always argued for a permit system and compulsory training.

While I'd have no problem with either of those, I think that's more suited to prevent accidental shootings rather than the effectiveness of means of self-defense, especially when the aggressor has no reservations by definition.

Queen Victoria reputedly took tincture of cannabis for period pains or childbirth pains, or something. She had the freedom (the right) to do this because the drug wasn't outlawed at the time. There was nothing about Britain's Constitution that protected that freedom, and it was easily changed.

I still wouldn't want to be the Bobby who had to serve the fine (or whatever Scotland Yard does) to the Queen for smoking a doobie.

 

[CORed]

I read in posts above that there have been no mass shootings since 1996? But that bolt-action rifles are legal to those who pass the screening?...in Australia.
I am not a hunter nor follow deer hunting weaponry and cant recall if say most 30.30`s or 30.06`s are single load or pick up a shell from a cartridge.
But regardless, its interesting that not a sole went into a place of employment or school and used one of these to take out a boss or teacher and then try to kill a few more? None?
Arent many of at least our US mass murder/ attempt types willing to die or plan to die during their attack anyway?
So why any concern that they are not say armed with better armament?, when they figure they are going to die or commit suicide anyway?
This leads me to wonder then if the Australian rate went down more because of the screening process, and or the numbers of bolt-action rifles they even allow?
That, along with a substantially lower population.

Most bolt action hunting rifles feed shells from a magazine. which typically holds 10 rounds or less (though there is no physical reason a higher capacity magazine couldn't be used). As long as there are shells in the magazine, working the bolt is all that is required to feed another round. Single shot bolt action rifles do exist.

A semi-auto allows a higher rate of fire than a bolt action, but a bolt action rifle is still a formidable weapon. A mass shooter could still kill a lot of people with a bolt action. There are also lever action and pump action weapons. Pump action (used more on shotguns than rifles) can approach semi-automatics in rate of fire.

 

[Polaris]

Most bolt action hunting rifles feed shells from a magazine. which typically holds 10 rounds or less (though there is no physical reason a higher capacity magazine couldn't be used). As long as there are shells in the magazine, working the bolt is all that is required to feed another round. Single shot bolt action rifles do exist.

A semi-auto allows a higher rate of fire than a bolt action, but a bolt action rifle is still a formidable weapon. A mass shooter could still kill a lot of people with a bolt action. There are also lever action and pump action weapons. Pump action (used more on shotguns than rifles) can approach semi-automatics in rate of fire.

Could and did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

 

[Ranb]

Otherwise, why bother with the USA's Constitutional Amendments?

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?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Don't be obtuse. Most people are perfectly aware what the term "recreational drugs" means.

I'm perfectly aware that recreational drugs are those used non-medically for a person's enjoyment. Better that you be more precise before handing out insults.

Ranb

 

[Iamme]

Most bolt action hunting rifles feed shells from a magazine. which typically holds 10 rounds or less (though there is no physical reason a higher capacity magazine couldn't be used). As long as there are shells in the magazine, working the bolt is all that is required to feed another round. Single shot bolt action rifles do exist.

A semi-auto allows a higher rate of fire than a bolt action, but a bolt action rifle is still a formidable weapon. A mass shooter could still kill a lot of people with a bolt action. There are also lever action and pump action weapons. Pump action (used more on shotguns than rifles) can approach semi-automatics in rate of fire.

Thank you.
Now......are THESE type of bolt action rifles allowed in Australia. No sense i say more, until i have that answer.

 

[jimbob]

Most bolt action hunting rifles feed shells from a magazine. which typically holds 10 rounds or less (though there is no physical reason a higher capacity magazine couldn't be used). As long as there are shells in the magazine, working the bolt is all that is required to feed another round. Single shot bolt action rifles do exist.

A semi-auto allows a higher rate of fire than a bolt action, but a bolt action rifle is still a formidable weapon. A mass shooter could still kill a lot of people with a bolt action. There are also lever action and pump action weapons. Pump action (used more on shotguns than rifles) can approach semi-automatics in rate of fire.

I once read a book discussing the battle of Mons, which suggested doctrine that a well-trained soldier with the SMLE (eg in the troops of the BEF) could hold off 300 people.

 

[Polaris]

I once read a book discussing the battle of Mons, which suggested doctrine that a well-trained soldier with the SMLE (eg in the troops of the BEF) could hold off 300 people.

The story is probably apocryphal, but it's been said that the Germans across the canal found the BEF fire so accurate that they thought every solder was equipped with a Maxim gun.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

So in the USA, take all the guns to be ban, millions, times the retail value at time of confiscation and what, just add the cost to the existing $17 trillion debt we have now? Plus the cost of all the logistics.......

Plus all the local Sheriffs who will not enforce this ban and all the people who will resist..

Never happen.

DDWW

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!