Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[JoeyB]

Not yet. We will.

[Strongbow]

The reason it bothers me Joey is that it demonstrates that there are gun lobbyist who will not only try anything to stop rational debate but also any attempt to legislate or as in this case re-legislate assault weapons.   The petition actually says that "Senator Dianne Feinstein is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment"  when in fact all she would be doing is to reinstate an expired assault weapons ban.     Ken

No one can answer this for me: what IS a so-called assault weapon? The 1994 law defined such a weapon by largely cosmetic characteristics... The configuration of the grip.... Whether or not it had a bayonet lug (wtf!? When is the last time some got bayoneted in this country?), colleague/foldable stock.... All completely unrelated to the actual function of the weapon, and simply made the rifle either less comfortable to use, or less useful to genuine collectors. What these folks REALLY want to go after is any semi-auto rifle that can fit an external magazine. They are reluctant to do so, because they know that definition encompasses a LOT of guns used by hunters and competitive shooters. The "large capacity magazine" argument is also a red herring. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines in existence. Unless you make possession of such things illegal (instantly turning tens of millions of Americans into felons), they aren't going anywhere. And guess what? The only people who would turn them in, probably without compensation for their sometimes large investments, are the people least likely to use them in a crime. A criminal, who already illegally owns the weapon, isn't going to turn in his 19 round Glock mag.

[Strongbow]

I've got a small problem with the other article that was posted. Does John Lott really think that mentally ill people go to Movie Theaters and Schools because they perceive the risk to be less or because there will be lots of people about and therefore maximum damage? If they are mentally ill then doesn't that imply they aren't thinking that clearly?

Not necessarily. Mentally I'll doesn't imply the complete inability to reason. Someone who is paranoid or schizophrenic may be perfectly capable of complex reasoning.

[kbh]

 The "large capacity magazine" argument is also a red herring. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines in existence. Unless you make possession of such things illegal (instantly turning tens of millions of Americans into felons), they aren't going anywhere. And guess what? The only people who would turn them in, probably without compensation for their sometimes large investments, are the people least likely to use them in a crime. A criminal, who already illegally owns the weapon, isn't going to turn in his 19 round Glock mag.

 

The true read herring in this whole argument is that the NRA, the gun lobby and it's sympathists consistantly hammer on the point of the government coming in and taking our weapons. There has never been any talk from anyone about the confiscation of existing weapons.

 

If you're going to continue this thread forever can we just keep to reality and drop the NRA talking points about the government taking (confiscating) our weapons. Let's try to keep it somewhere close to the truth.

[lloyd]

The true read herring in this whole argument is that the NRA, the gun lobby and it's sympathists consistantly hammer on the point of the government coming in and taking our weapons. There has never been any talk from anyone about the confiscation of existing weapons.

 

Really? 

 

"Cuomo ignited a backlash from gun owners in a radio interview last month when he talked about tightening the state’s assault-rifle ban and even suggested, “Confiscation could be an option.”'

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/stop_the_madness_8uEfHQr6X8Az5hYqwNa5yH

 

Wrong you are.

[ldegeneve]

He has since backed out on that. See his latest presser.

Not that it would make a difference to you guys anyway.

I'm fairly convinced that gun lovers are as attached to their penises as they are to their guns, and guns as a whole.

Makes sense anyway. Which is why we get people saying that we should by all means have the right to mount 50cals on pickups.

[lloyd]

He has since backed out on that. See his latest presser.

 

 

He would confiscate them all if he thought he could. His ultimate goal has not changed. Just the timing of it.

[ldegeneve]

Thank you for backing up my latest point.

[rrari1]

No one can answer this for me: what IS a so-called assault weapon? The 1994 law defined such a weapon by largely cosmetic characteristics... The configuration of the grip.... Whether or not it had a bayonet lug (wtf!? When is the last time some got bayoneted in this country?), colleague/foldable stock.... All completely unrelated to the actual function of the weapon, and simply made the rifle either less comfortable to use, or less useful to genuine collectors. What these folks REALLY want to go after is any semi-auto rifle that can fit an external magazine. They are reluctant to do so, because they know that definition encompasses a LOT of guns used by hunters and competitive shooters. The "large capacity magazine" argument is also a red herring. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines in existence. Unless you make possession of such things illegal (instantly turning tens of millions of Americans into felons), they aren't going anywhere. And guess what? The only people who would turn them in, probably without compensation for their sometimes large investments, are the people least likely to use them in a crime. A criminal, who already illegally owns the weapon, isn't going to turn in his 19 round Glock mag.

I think speed of fire would probably be the best way of describing an assault weapon.  

 

Guns like the AR 15 are not precision rifles used by hunters, they are too bulky for home defence, they are designed for firing multiple shots in a fast and fairly indiscriminate way.  Thus they are great weapons for armies or school shooters, they are not really great weapons for most of the purposes their owners or sellers claim they are being bought/sold for.

 

From a recent Slate magazine article on the topic  http://slate.me/SrhPaE

 

Look down the list [of massacres] and you’ll see gun after gun after gun. But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing. High-capacity magazines are another common factor. All these patterns converge on a common lesson: Speed kills. Madness pulls the trigger, but the rate of fire drives the body count.

[kbh]

Really? 

 

"Cuomo ignited a backlash from gun owners in a radio interview last month when he talked about tightening the state’s assault-rifle ban and even suggested, “Confiscation could be an option.”'

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/stop_the_madness_8uEfHQr6X8Az5hYqwNa5yH

 

Wrong you are.

I was actually speaking of the previous 7 pages of this thread. I don't believe I heard that from anyone here on the side of more control over assault rifles. That argument is about as vacuous as calling marijuana a "gateway drug" leading to crack.

 

Obviously you could find one person somewhere to back up any point. No one in the current administration has spoken a single workd about confiscation that I know of. Maybe you could enlighten me.

 

And to the poster that said earlir that it's just as easy to reload 3 times with a 10 round clip as it is to shoot 30. Well, it turns out that when Gabby Giffords was shot and the 9 year kid also died, the shooter was disarmed when he tried to re load his weapon after shooting 33 rounds. Seems like a lot of damage and possibly a life could have been saved if he only had a 10 round magazine.

[lloyd]

I think speed of fire would probably be the best way of describing an assault weapon.  

 

Guns like the AR 15 are not precision rifles used by hunters, they are too bulky for home defence, they are designed for firing multiple shots in a fast and fairly indiscriminate way.  Thus they are great weapons for armies or school shooters, they are not really great weapons for most of the purposes their owners or sellers claim they are being bought/sold for.

 

From a recent Slate magazine article on the topic  http://slate.me/SrhPaE

 

Look down the list [of massacres] and you’ll see gun after gun after gun. But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing. High-capacity magazines are another common factor. All these patterns converge on a common lesson: Speed kills. Madness pulls the trigger, but the rate of fire drives the body count.

 

AR15s have a place for home defense. They are nice to have after a hurricane. The Koreans loved theirs during the LA riots.

 

The worst school killing in US history was from bombs. A gallon of gas killed 87 people in the Happy Land dance hall. Or was it the nut killed 87 with a gallon of gas? Mcvay used a car bomb. The 911 nuts used planes. People will find away.

[Nanuq]

One comment I'd add regarding home defense,  if you're using a powerful gun you MUST pay attention to what's down range.  This includes the bedroom beside you, the basement below you, the neighbor's house, his neighbor's house, the house across the street, etc.  Your round can easily penetrate two houses away if you aim recklessly.

 

I use a 12 gauge for this very reason.  The first couple rounds are light shot so they have good stopping power and almost no penetrating power.  Even though there are no houses near my home.  The last 4 rounds are heavy slugs.  Knowing this, I still pay close attention where the barrel is aimed.

 

In all the gun safety training I've given, the words "gun control" mean "use both hands, and watch down range."

[JoeyB]

No one can answer this for me: what IS a so-called assault weapon? The 1994 law defined such a weapon by largely cosmetic characteristics... The configuration of the grip.... Whether or not it had a bayonet lug (wtf!? When is the last time some got bayoneted in this country?), colleague/foldable stock.... All completely unrelated to the actual function of the weapon, and simply made the rifle either less comfortable to use, or less useful to genuine collectors. What these folks REALLY want to go after is any semi-auto rifle that can fit an external magazine. They are reluctant to do so, because they know that definition encompasses a LOT of guns used by hunters and competitive shooters. The "large capacity magazine" argument is also a red herring. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines in existence. Unless you make possession of such things illegal (instantly turning tens of millions of Americans into felons), they aren't going anywhere. And guess what? The only people who would turn them in, probably without compensation for their sometimes large investments, are the people least likely to use them in a crime. A criminal, who already illegally owns the weapon, isn't going to turn in his 19 round Glock mag.

It was answered for you in 1994. The "cosmetic characteristics" that you call them are just the general description of assault weapons in the opening statement of the law. The law then is specific by name and model number which assault weapons were banned.

 

An assault weapon is a weapon that has some or all the features of a military assault weapon, and can be converted to a full automatic military weapon. Once converted to full automatic a different law is applied, The National Firearms Act of 1934. 

 

People are bayoneted quite often. Usually in training. Folding stocks, like sawed-off shotguns, are made to conceal weapons. 

 

Some may want to go after ALL firearms. So what? They are not going to outlaw a semi-automatic hunting rifle with an external magazine. That is more gas poured on the flames of fear peddling, and does no good in solving the issue. 

 

And YES, if they were to simply re-enact the law from 1994 there would be countless people made into "criminals" by that stroke of a pen. But do you think it would be a felony to have a banana clip, or a misdemeanor? To what degree would the punishment be? Blanket statements like that are just like knee-jerk reactions giving us knee-jerk results. We need intelligent results.

[lloyd]

 Blanket statements like that are just like knee-jerk reactions giving us knee-jerk results. We need intelligent results.

 

That is what the media and politicians are counting on. 

 

 

 

Here are the facts.

 

 

U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year

 

 

Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, the FBI said on Monday.

 

The report of all crimes reported to police nationwide showed slightly more than 1.2 million violent incidents nationwide, while property crimes hit a nine-year low.

Compared with 2010, the new figures show violent crime down 3.8 percent overall. Property crime was down 0.5 percent.

Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent

 

Despite the positive trend, crime remains a serious problem in many urban pockets riddled with gangs, drugs, and poverty.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index.html

 

With record gun sales, our crime rate is the lowest since 1964

 

We must address the people side of the equation. Why do they do it and how can it be prevented?

[JoeyB]

The true read herring in this whole argument is that the NRA, the gun lobby and it's sympathists consistantly hammer on the point of the government coming in and taking our weapons. There has never been any talk from anyone about the confiscation of existing weapons.

 

If you're going to continue this thread forever can we just keep to reality and drop the NRA talking points about the government taking (confiscating) our weapons. Let's try to keep it somewhere close to the truth.

The 'problem' with the NRA is their attempt to 'blackmail' members of congress by threatening the congressman's job with big money opposition in the next election. It is no coincidence that Grover Norquist sits on the NRA board. He is the one who 'blackmails' congress the same way making them sign a 'pledge' against any tax increases. The Republican/conservatives in congress are the target in both instances, and they have the majority in the House of Representatives. 

[JoeyB]

That is what the media and politicians are counting on. 

The media are counting on having something to talk about so that people will tune in and sponsors pay.

 

Republican/conservative Politicians would like for it all to just go away. 

 

Democrats would like to force their opposition to look stupid and lose their next election. 

 

Extremists on both sides want everything from repeal of the 2nd Amendment in full to wide open enforcement of the 2nd Amendment. 

 

We pretty much know all that. Based on our history the answer will be somewhere in the middle. 

[maxman]

Update and 911 call on mother who protected herself and children from a home Invasion.

 

 

 

[ldegeneve]

*Sigh* I hope that my futile replies will at least convince our dear readers that Americans are not as misinformed.

 

AR15s have a place for home defense. They are nice to have after a hurricane. The Koreans loved theirs during the LA riots.

 

 

Sure they did. Now imagine the rioters having guns too. Or are we going to be selective about who buys guns?  Doesn't make sense does it?

 

The worst school killing in US history was from bombs. A gallon of gas killed 87 people in the Happy Land dance hall. Or was it the nut killed 87 with a gallon of gas? Mcvay used a car bomb. The 911 nuts used planes. People will find away.

 

People will find a way, sure. But guns make it a heckuva lot easier. Imagine if that guy in China who stabbed 22 kids had exercised his due freedom and had a gun. 

 

Besides, the argument doesn't hold logic as a whole. People will find ways to do heroin, and meth. Well, I guess we should abandon drug laws then. People will find ways to sneak through the border. Well, so much for tightening immigration control.

 

 

 

That is what the media and politicians are counting on. 

 

 

 

Here are the facts.

 

 

U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year

[...]

With record gun sales, our crime rate is the lowest since 1964

 

We must address the people side of the equation. Why do they do it and how can it be prevented?

 

This argument doesn't work either. It ignores that what other factors could be in the equation. 

 

Here, I'll give y'all an example. Obesity rates have gun up too, and crime has gone down. I interpret this to mean that people are less hungry, therefore happier, therefore less likely to commit crime. 

 

Makes sense right? Those are the facts.

 

Bottom line, you can't just connect two facts and make it seem like one caused the other.

[kbh]

Update and 911 call on mother who protected herself and children from a home Invasion.

 

That's pretty amazing that he was shot 5 times in the head and neck and still drove away. She was obviously well trained and a damn good shot. That's also the proper use of a weapon for home defense and I don't think anyone here would disagree.

 

Now, can you also justify George Zimmerman chasing down and killing Travon Martin!

[Nanuq]

You cannot arbitrarily connect two facts and extrapolate causation.  But categorically-related facts are more likely to work.

 

It is also true that it's unhelpful to relate crime rates between countries.  We each have our own problems.  From another site:

 

 

PER CAPITA ROBBERIES

Spain: 12.3265 per 1,000 people
Mexico: 2.02555 per 1,000 people
Portugal: 1.6237 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
Poland: 1.38838 per 1,000 people
United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people


PER CAPITA BURGLARIES

Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
#3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
#5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
#8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people



PER CAPITA ASSAULTS

United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
#7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
#8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
#10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
#11 Finland: 5.32644 per 1,000 people


PER CAPITA CAR THEFTS

Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
#2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
#3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
#4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
#5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
#6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
#7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
#8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people



PER CAPITA RAPES

Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
#5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people



PER CAPITA SUICIDE AGE 15-24

New Zealand: 26.7 per 100,000 people
#2 Finland: 22.8 per 100,000 people
#3 Switzerland: 17.9 per 100,000 people
#4 Canada: 15 per 100,000 people
#5 Austria: 15 per 100,000 people
#6 Australia: 14.6 per 100,000 people
#7 United States: 13.7 per 100,000 people
 

[JoeyB]

 Obesity rates have gun up too, and crime has gone down. I interpret this to mean that people are less hungry, therefore happier, therefore less likely to commit crime. 

I interpret that to mean that obesity lowers the number of purse snatchers, 2nd story men, certainly any museum burglaries where they have those laser sensors, compact car heists, breaking and entering through windows or heating/AC ducts...  

[rrari1]

On a slightly off topic point, I have to say how impressed I am with the way the forum members are conducting themselves in this discussion. I think many people are quite passionate about their point of view, but there has been no name calling, or other bad behaviours typical of Internet discussions. Just well reasoned debate from both sides. It is nice to be a member of such a group.

[freddy333]

Sorry Freddy the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Ken

 

'The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.' -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

 

'The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.' --James Madison, The Federalist Papers

 

The Federalist Papers (& personal writings of the framers of the US Constitution), which were written, separately, by the framers in an effort to 'sell' the Constitution to Congress & the country, are rife with similar comments, which support Madison's original premise.

 

 

'Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.' -- Hubert H. Humphrey

 

Democrat Senator (& later Vice President) Humphrey mirrored Madison's (& the framers') original intentions.

 

 

'The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ...' -- James Madison

 

Above is Madison's original statement to Congress, which was the basis for the 2nd Amendment. In this context, I think his (& the 2nd Amendment's) intent is clear.

 

 

'The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.' -- Adolph Hitler

 

Not to belabor this, but 'being necessary to the security of a free state' is the key to understanding the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' was intended to give citizens the right to protect themselves from the government, not other citizens, as is often (incorrectly) stated. And, further, that this right 'not be infringed' was intended to allow the 'the people' access to whatever arms are needed to defend themselves from the government.

 

It seems to me that the only area that is open to reasonable debate is the definition of 'free'.

[jacob what the hell man]

This is what keeping guns in your house leads too, This is the reality that is your countries love of deadly weapons. Guns are what you cherrish over the safety of your friends and loved ones. By the way, almost all of these happened in the last couple of weeks. Take your second amendment and put it where it belongs - in your history books (which by the way need updating)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340430

http://www.krem.com/home/Court-documents-Its-my-fault-said-man-accused-in-deadly-accidental-shooting-185344291.html

http://www.ci.medford.or.us/News.asp?NewsID=4125

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/dec/22/teen-killed-accidental-shooting-ar-2880659/

http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-hampton-teen-shoots-himself-0104,0,3639233.story

http://www.wcax.com/story/20478565/police-richford-man-died-from-accidental-shooting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50358306/ns/local_news-anchorage_ak/

This links to several

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/accidental-shooting

 

Finally! It took 3 pages for someone to illustrate the bottom line:

 

A gun owner is more likely to take his own life or the life of a family member, than he is to defend his home and property by killing a bad guy with his firearm.

 

By the way everyone likes to hail Switzerland as this haven of non-violence, but they too have a serious suicide problem with the very weapons from military service that are stored in the home.

 

The 2^nd ammendment is archaic and is no more relevant today than Martin Luther's The Ninety-Five Theses. America is still trying to function based on 18^th century principles of government. When America starts helping its citizens with education, health, and general well-being, crime and social unrest will all but disappear. Today America is The Land of the Fear, instead of Free. People live in fear of starvation, unemployment, bad health, homelessness, encarceration, etc. and they are being made to believe that it's not those social problems, but that their constitutional rights are being eroded.

 

P.S. I am a Canadian, living in a social welfare province, and I own 2 pistols and a sub-machine gun because I like guns.

[freddy333]

The 2^nd ammendment is archaic and is no more relevant today than Martin Luther's The Ninety-Five Theses.

 

This hackneyed argument is silly & unwarranted. If the majority of people feel this way, then simply amend the Constitution to bring it up-to-date (the Constitution includes instructions for amending it).