How can anyone believe in gun control?

[Rucker61]

You got nuthin'

There has literally not been one report that has even ventured to claim that Australia has gotten it wrong.

Worst claim is that the affect has been "neutral" and they have been discredited.

Sell crazy elsewhere, my friend

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

Australia Model -- Obama's Proposal | National Review

 

[Serenity]

why do you keep trying to impose the idiocy of Australian bed wetting in reaction to one nut case onto our country. IN the USA, the Anti gun movement is unmatched in mendacity and fraud, by any other political movement. blatant lies and complete ignorance are what characterizes the US Bannerrhoid movement.

They are exactly the same in Australia only Australians are not bright enough to realise what is going on. They don't have any rights there and are happy for the nanny state to look after them as they did right from the beginning.

Charming little insults. "Not bright enough and bed wetting" :roll:

I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself here. How many times have I stated that there is no comparison between our two Countries and it is dishonest to even attempt to equate the two? Clearly that would indicate that I believe using Australia's gun laws as a comparison is disingenuous in US gun control discussions. I strongly disagree with both sides of the debate going down that line. I don't for one minute (nor have I ever here), suggested that what works for Australia/Australians in relation to gun control will ever work for those in the US. We don't have a gun culture here, there is no comparison.

I live here and work here. I know my Country better than you ever will. We do not have a gun culture here. We are not the same as the USA when it comes to guns. We rarely talk about guns. The everyday person doesn't care that they don't have guns. That doesn't make us bed wetters or not bright enough.

What part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend and why do you insist on trying to draw parallels? It is incredibly dishonest to even attempt to draw any comparisons. I've mentioned before that I've been a paramedic for ten years, the last 5 as a critical care paramedic and I live and work in one of the largest Regional areas in Australia. In that time I can count on one hand how many firearm related incidents I have attended. Two of them were suicides. You do the math and leave my Country and her citizens out of your crap.

 

[Crimefree]

You got nuthin'

This is what is known as an unevidenced assertion. It is totally useless and a waste of key strokes. I suppose it could be called sour grapes as well.

There has literally not been one report that has even ventured to claim that Australia has gotten it wrong.

There can be no debate that the buyback caused a massive increase of crime directly after the buyback. That is irrefutable. Now do explain why this working gun control took 8 eight years to cause a decrease. How did it work to cause this decrease? What is the working mechanism so it can be repeated elsewhere?

Worst claim is that the affect has been "neutral" and they have been discredited.

Oh! I'm holding back a trump card ready for your next excursion into the twilight zone.

Sell crazy elsewhere, my friend

Now that would be the prerogative of gun control trying to claim disarming the victims of crime will make them safer.

 

[Serenity]

what credibility does a foreigner who supported the cowardly actions of his government, have talking about our rights and our constitution? zero

About as much credibility as you have when you attempt to equate Australia and the US when it comes to the gun control debate whilst making your snarly little remarks about my country and her people.

Both sides of the debate do this and they need to stop. It's incredibly dishonest. There is no comparison.

 

[Rucker61]

What part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend and why do you insist on trying to draw parallels? It is incredibly dishonest to even attempt to draw any comparisons. I've mentioned before that I've been a paramedic for ten years, the last 5 as a critical care paramedic and I live and work in one of the largest Regional areas in Australia. In that time I can count on one hand how many firearm related incidents I have attended. Two of them were suicides. You do the math and leave my Country and her citizens out of your crap.

It isn't the pro-gun side who keeps bringing up Australia. We know that cross-country comparisons aren't valid. Culture, history, geography, demographics, and Constitutional protections all differ between the US and Australia. What we object to are the falsehoods perpetuated by the anti-gun side, and we take repeated pains to point out that the data from the Australian government doesn't support the claims.

 

[Tomjas]

With the majority of its ground and air forces sent to Africa, and an undersized navy, Australia should be thank the US that the Japanese never got any closer than Port Moresby.

You guys were toast without us and that is why MacArthur chose only the elite of the elite from Australia and NZ - look it up

Same thing has happened from Vietnam onwards and that is why Trump is bending over in front of us

 

[Crimefree]

Charming little insults. "Not bright enough and bed wetting" :roll:

I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself here. How many times have I stated that there is no comparison between our two Countries and it is dishonest to even attempt to equate the two? Clearly that would indicate that I believe using Australia's gun laws as a comparison is disingenuous in US gun control discussions. I strongly disagree with both sides of the debate going down that line. I don't for one minute (nor have I ever here), suggested that what works for Australia/Australians in relation to gun control will ever work for those in the US. We don't have a gun culture here, there is no comparison.

I live here and work here. I know my Country better than you ever will. We do not have a gun culture here. We are not the same as the USA when it comes to guns. We rarely talk about guns. The everyday person doesn't care that they don't have guns. That doesn't make us bed wetters or not bright enough.

What part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend and why do you insist on trying to draw parallels? It is incredibly dishonest to even attempt to draw any comparisons. I've mentioned before that I've been a paramedic for ten years, the last 5 as a critical care paramedic and I live and work in one of the largest Regional areas in Australia. In that time I can count on one hand how many firearm related incidents I have attended. Two of them were suicides. You do the math and leave my Country and her citizens out of your crap.

I have long ago given up trying to convince those who cannot be convinced that there is absolutely nothing to be obtained from cross country comparisons. Any and all of these can be refuted simply by asking these clueless clowns to explain why Japan and Switzerland have low crime rates. They cannot and will never admit they cannot because the answer would mean guns play no part in crime levels.

The comparison has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with a physical impossibility. So it appears you do not know why either. I'm always willing to learn from anyone who can tell me how guns cause an increase of crime or in anyway have a direct impact on levels of crime. As far as I can see only magic explains that.

You have my sympathy. Unfortunately a denizen of your country is a magic believer not as enlightened as you are. Perhaps you could explain to him the error of his claims.

 

[Serenity]

It isn't the pro-gun side who keeps bringing up Australia. We know that cross-country comparisons aren't valid. Culture, history, geography, demographics, and Constitutional protections all differ between the US and Australia. What we object to are the falsehoods perpetuated by the anti-gun side, and we take repeated pains to point out that the data from the Australian government doesn't support the claims.

I can see that happening at times and I condemn that which is pretty obvious from my posts above. That doesn't give anyone the automatic right to belittle my Country and her citizens with the "bed wetting" and not "bright enough comments" though does it?

 

[Rucker61]

You guys were toast without us and that is why MacArthur chose only the elite of the elite from Australia and NZ - look it up

Same thing has happened from Vietnam onwards and that is why Trump is bending over in front of us

Do you live in the same reality as the rest of the world? There's a truism in war, amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Australia's primary purpose in WWII was as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Pacific. To believe that the US would have lost the war without the Australians is absurd. What we would have lost is Australia.

 

[Rucker61]

I can see that happening at times and I condemn that which is pretty obvious from my posts above. That doesn't give anyone the automatic right to belittle my Country and her citizens with the "bed wetting" and not "bright enough comments" though does it?

It's an emotional subject t. Sometimes a broad brush gets used.

 

[Henrin]

They believe it lowers gun violence. I'm not going to get into the validity of that claim nor should anyone else because it is entirely irrelevant if it does or not. The main focus of the rebuttal should simply be that taking away or limiting peoples access to guns or ammo simply because guns are sometimes misused is invalid. Everything can be misused by people, but that alone doesn't validate any sort of efforts at a ban or a limitation.

 

[Crimefree]

It isn't the pro-gun side who keeps bringing up Australia. We know that cross-country comparisons aren't valid. Culture, history, geography, demographics, and Constitutional protections all differ between the US and Australia. What we object to are the falsehoods perpetuated by the anti-gun side, and we take repeated pains to point out that the data from the Australian government doesn't support the claims.

Well all those claims of culture, conditions, status, wealth, trade, economics...... having some influence go right out the window when one asks how do guns influence crime? More correctly how do levels of firearm ownership change the rate of crime? We know for instance the weather influences crops and the mechanism by which any aspect of the weather impacts on crops. What do we know about guns? Nothing, absolutely nothing because we never ask the right questions of those who claim guns cause crime to explain how guns cause crime.

So who knows how guns cause crime?

Every gun control advocate must know or what the heck are they doing lying to people and pretending they do?

 

[Crimefree]

I can see that happening at times and I condemn that which is pretty obvious from my posts above. That doesn't give anyone the automatic right to belittle my Country and her citizens with the "bed wetting" and not "bright enough comments" though does it?

TD IN the USA, the Anti gun movement is unmatched in mendacity and fraud, by any other political movement. blatant lies and complete ignorance are what characterizes the US Bannerrhoid movement.

You will get no argument from me on that. They don't teach fighting for your rights or how to win a propaganda war in school. None of them seems bright enough to learn.

You are most welcome to refute that without the foot stomping.

You are using my comment out of context and you know as well as I or you should it was a reference to the Australian firearm organisations who collectively could not organise a pissup in a brewery. The British could not either and hopefully the US organisations will see the light or they can kiss their rights goodbye. I understand why because gun control is a propaganda war and trying to win by conventional means is like taking a pea shooter to a gun fight. However it does not take more than a few minutes of research to see that gun control is a propaganda movement no different to the inquisition and crusades from which the name propaganda is derived. It is a very well organised, financed and well run global war effecting most countries in the world.

 

[Serenity]

Contrary to a couple of the comments in this thread, Australia has been and still remains the USA's most loyal ally.

I wonder how many people are aware that Australia is the only country to have served alongside the United States in every major conflict since WWII.

Probably should go without saying that I'm not a fan of the military insults flying around in this thread either. Likely wasting my time trying to reason on that too so I'll leave you good folks to it.

 

[ataraxia]

Re: open carry at all future GOP meetings/conventions:

when you liberals start interpreting the clear words of the second amendment the same way you can find rights to "healthcare" abortion, gay sex etc in the Bill of rights maybe we will do what you claim we should

You need to show some leadership and practice what you preach.

The "clear words of the second amendment" are that you need to have arms to serve in a "well regulated militia". I don't see any well regulated militia being formed by the gun nuts. So why don't you also show some leadership on interpreting the FULL text of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: open carry at all future GOP meetings/conventions:



You need to show some leadership and practice what you preach.

The "clear words of the second amendment" are that you need to have arms to serve in a "well regulated militia". I don't see any well regulated militia being formed by the gun nuts. So why don't you also show some leadership on interpreting the FULL text of the 2nd amendment.

Yes, you need to have arms to serve in a militia, and Congress was enumerated the power to regulate that militia. "Gun nuts" aren't forming militia because they aren't allowed to. The current US law addressing militia makeup is 10 USC 311:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

There is not and has never been a requirement to be in a militia to have the right to own a firearm. Likewise, since 1903, at least, there is no requirement to own a firearm to be in the militia.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: open carry at all future GOP meetings/conventions:



You need to show some leadership and practice what you preach.

The "clear words of the second amendment" are that you need to have arms to serve in a "well regulated militia". I don't see any well regulated militia being formed by the gun nuts. So why don't you also show some leadership on interpreting the FULL text of the 2nd amendment.

that's so stupid its funny. what was the natural right that the second amendment was intended to guarantee?

 

[TurtleDude]

About as much credibility as you have when you attempt to equate Australia and the US when it comes to the gun control debate whilst making your snarly little remarks about my country and her people.

Both sides of the debate do this and they need to stop. It's incredibly dishonest. There is no comparison.

As you have said, Australia has no relevance to the USA-I never bring that country up. but any country that bans the ability of its citizens to own the same firearms the country issues to civilian cops is one that I will look down upon

 

[TurtleDude]

Charming little insults. "Not bright enough and bed wetting" :roll:

I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself here. How many times have I stated that there is no comparison between our two Countries and it is dishonest to even attempt to equate the two? Clearly that would indicate that I believe using Australia's gun laws as a comparison is disingenuous in US gun control discussions. I strongly disagree with both sides of the debate going down that line. I don't for one minute (nor have I ever here), suggested that what works for Australia/Australians in relation to gun control will ever work for those in the US. We don't have a gun culture here, there is no comparison.

I live here and work here. I know my Country better than you ever will. We do not have a gun culture here. We are not the same as the USA when it comes to guns. We rarely talk about guns. The everyday person doesn't care that they don't have guns. That doesn't make us bed wetters or not bright enough.

What part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend and why do you insist on trying to draw parallels? It is incredibly dishonest to even attempt to draw any comparisons. I've mentioned before that I've been a paramedic for ten years, the last 5 as a critical care paramedic and I live and work in one of the largest Regional areas in Australia. In that time I can count on one hand how many firearm related incidents I have attended. Two of them were suicides. You do the math and leave my Country and her citizens out of your crap.

why don't you criticize anti gun hysterics from your country who whine about OUR rights and talk about YOUR government's move being so good that we need to do it here? I never bring Australia up until someone else-usually a BM member-does

 

[Lord of Planar]

that's so stupid its funny. what was the natural right that the second amendment was intended to guarantee?

Defense.

 

[jimbo]

Gee, you don't think somebody whose already proven that they can't abide by the rules of society is suddenly going to miraculously develop sound judgment and not be a horrific asshole if they get their hands on a firearm?

Unless you live someplace where saber-tooth tigers are a going concern, you simply don't need, say, a M249 SAW or a .50 machine gun. Or an RPG.

Collateral damage is also a thing, and nothing spreads that faster than some asshole with a machine gun blazing away trying to play hero.

You do realize exactly how many assholes with legally owned machine guns have been involved in crimes using machine guns in the past 70 years, do you not?

Once you complete your research on that, you might want to check the Constitution and look up the need to own clause.

Horrific assholes get their hands on firearms every day. Whether they are legal or not. It's easier, faster, and and cheaper to buy a gun from the street corner pimp, drug. firearms dealer on my way to a show than it is to purchase once I am there.

Maybe we should ban horrific assholes.

 

[ataraxia]

that's so stupid its funny. what was the natural right that the second amendment was intended to guarantee?

I dunno. Nukes? Chemical and biological weapons? All it says is arms. The idea that this necessarily means were a footsoldier carries seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. Besides, modern foot soldiers can carry some very interesting stuff these days.

To me, it goes to show how much technology has put a space between the intentions and purposes of the Second Amendment and what is possible now. The intent was that people could own A pistol or a musket if they wanted to. I would be OK with people owning their own musket now. But a semi automatic assault weapon with high-capacity magazine clips? I am not confident which way the founding fathers would have gone on this new technology. Maybe they would've been OK with full auto.

All I am saying is that the new technology has changed the game in a fundamental way. Trying to blindly and unthinkingly impose an 18th-century law on the modern world is not without its perils. There needs to be some degree of thought and judgment that goes into this. Insisting on a fundamentalist interpretation seems to me a bit dangerous- because the world is such a different place, and the technology has so fundamentally change the game.

 

[Rucker61]

I dunno. Nukes? Chemical and biological weapons? All it says is arms. The idea that this necessarily means were a footsoldier carries seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. Besides, modern foot soldiers can carry some very interesting stuff these days.

To me, it goes to show how much technology has put a space between the intentions and purposes of the Second Amendment and what is possible now. The intent was that people could own A pistol or a musket if they wanted to. I would be OK with people owning their own musket now. But a semi automatic assault weapon with high-capacity magazine clips? I am not confident which way the founding fathers would have gone on this new technology. Maybe they would've been OK with full auto.

All I am saying is that the new technology has changed the game in a fundamental way. Trying to blindly and unthinkingly impose an 18th-century law on the modern world is not without its perils. There needs to be some degree of thought and judgment that goes into this. Insisting on a fundamentalist interpretation seems to me a bit dangerous- because the world is such a different place, and the technology has so fundamentally change the game.

Yes, technology has changed. However, Caetano v Massachusetts put the technology issue to bed; otherwise, electronic communications wouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment and electronic data storage wouldn't be protected by the 4th Amendment.

There were multiple multi-shot firearms in existence at ratification: Puckle gun, superposed musket, Girandoni rifle, pepper box pistol, to name a few.

 

[TurtleDude]

I dunno. Nukes? Chemical and biological weapons? All it says is arms. The idea that this necessarily means were a footsoldier carries seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. Besides, modern foot soldiers can carry some very interesting stuff these days.

To me, it goes to show how much technology has put a space between the intentions and purposes of the Second Amendment and what is possible now. The intent was that people could own A pistol or a musket if they wanted to. I would be OK with people owning their own musket now. But a semi automatic assault weapon with high-capacity magazine clips? I am not confident which way the founding fathers would have gone on this new technology. Maybe they would've been OK with full auto.

All I am saying is that the new technology has changed the game in a fundamental way. Trying to blindly and unthinkingly impose an 18th-century law on the modern world is not without its perils. There needs to be some degree of thought and judgment that goes into this. Insisting on a fundamentalist interpretation seems to me a bit dangerous- because the world is such a different place, and the technology has so fundamentally change the game.

you demonstrate you have no clue what the founders intended. They knew about multiple shot weapons. If I see a 20 round a minute weapon I can easily envision a 200 or 2000 round a minute weapon. the fact is-the constitution was not properly interpreted when FDR just pretended that the commerce clause gave the federal government gun control power that not only ignored the second amendment but raped the tenth amendment. The proper thing would have been to pass an amendment rather than the complete dishonest excrement that -we need this power therefore our judges will say we have the power.

Liberals hate the fact that gun rights advocates tend not to vote for liberals. Liberals dreamed up gun control in modern times to pretend they really aren't soft on mainly black street criminals. Gun control allowed Democrats to pretend they were doing something about crime without upsetting their black constituency which often saw any attempt to crack down on violent crime as an attack on blacks.

 

[TurtleDude]

You do realize exactly how many assholes with legally owned machine guns have been involved in crimes using machine guns in the past 70 years, do you not?

Once you complete your research on that, you might want to check the Constitution and look up the need to own clause.

Horrific assholes get their hands on firearms every day. Whether they are legal or not. It's easier, faster, and and cheaper to buy a gun from the street corner pimp, drug. firearms dealer on my way to a show than it is to purchase once I am there.

Maybe we should ban horrific assholes.

allowing good people to be armed tends to be the best way of ridding ourselves of horrific assholes. Fight rectalitis-shoot back