It"s on!!

[artme]

Seen the rants by the Gun lobby in the US??:C:C

We here will never understand!!:no::no:

[jimbur]

"Gun Appreciation Day". Says it all.:C

[Bushmiller]

Seen the rants by the Gun lobby in the US??:C:C

We here will never understand!!:no::no:


Seconds out.....round two :D.

Actually, no I haven't seen them, but I can well imagine and I'll have a look tonight. I did hear that the NRA were a little unhappy with the otcome of their meeting with the Obama's representative. Came out saying it was more about restricting guns than making school children safe.

I think their idea of safety is upscaling rather than limiting. I get the impression that given a carte blanche they would have one of these at the front gate of every school for all the good it would do :( .

249446

Regards
Paul

[Avery]

I heard one shout something like " if you try an take way our guns, it will all start up again , just like 1776"

I guess he wasn't big on history...



No we will never understand it. it is just all too weird.

[_fly_]

I heard one shout something like " if you try an take way our guns, it will all start up again , just like 1776"

I guess he wasn't big on history...



No we will never understand it. it is just all too weird.

That was the looney that is trying to get piers morgan deported with 100,000 votes.
And he was on Piers morgan again.
Complete mental case the lot of them.

Got no objection to hunters having them, and farmers having for pests and needing to put an animal down.
People who like to go to a range and target shoot.

All fine, but why someone needs to keep 12 in the house or carry one on them has got problems.
And they usually seem to be southern rednecks as well.

[Avery]

All fine, but why someone needs to keep 12 in the house or carry one on them has got problems.
And they usually seem to be southern rednecks as well.[/QUOTE]



I am regularly in contact with a lady I know in Wisconsin. She is almost 70, her husband over 80. They both sleep with a loaded Smith&Wesson revolver in their bedside tables.

Why?

If anyone breaks in , I'll let them have it.

Do you get breakins very often where you live?

No, it is a very peaceful area.

Do you know any of your neighbours that has suffered a break in?

No. We have lived here for 30 years, i can't recall any problems.

Have you ever fired the weapons?

No,but the guy in the shop showed us how.


etc. etc. etc.

Otherwise she is a very smart and lovely lady. Oh, and all her neighbours are similarly equipped.



I know a farmer that lives near Hastings, Nebraska.He has a very large property, mostly corn and other vegetable crops but also some livestock. One would of course expect him to have a number of rifles, shotguns and perhaps handguns available to him, and he does. But he ALWAYS carries a concealed pistol, a Glock I think. Why concealed? because "he doesn't want the bad guys to know he has it."



We will never understand.

[jimbur]

It's all a mistake in interpretation. Just had this sent to me by email.
249466

[chambezio]

I have got a mate up the road who is a "Gun Nut", but that is too harsh a description for him. He has a collection of pistols and rifles. He is passionate about his hobby. He is an active weekly attendee of the pistol club and loads his own ammunition. He regularly goes further out west to shoot goats, pigs and kangaroos on private property where the farmer invites him on to the place.
When you visit his place there is no sign of any weapons on show and he will only let you see them at his invitation.
He dispatched a black snake for us here 3 years ago because it was too close to the house for safety sake.
There are, I know, a lot of blokes who should not have any access to a firearm because they are just not "adult" enough for them

My wife read me an Email some one had sent her. It was about an old woman who was pulled up by the police for some thing and when they looked in her bag they found a large loaded pistol. The police asked her what she was afraid of she answered "With that gun with me.....nothing!!!"
Its a very touchy issue that has been coming to a head for a long time and it won't be finalised soon.

[_fly_]

It's all a mistake in interpretation. Just had this sent to me by email.
249466

Thats why they need the guns, to shoot the bears to get the arms..

[corbs]

It's all a mistake in interpretation. Just had this sent to me by email.
249466

Bear arms don't kill people, people with bear arms kill people :rolleyes:

[pmcgee]

I heard one shout something like " if you try an take way our guns, it will all start up again , just like 1776"
I guess he wasn't big on history...
.


He wants to fight the British????

:rolleyes:

(1776 in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_in_the_United_States))

[damian]

It's all well and good to have a go at professional lobbyists and fringe nutters who are very good at making fools of themselves, but the essence of the argument is rational.

To achieve any solution to ANY problem you first have to define the problem and what you hope to achieve, then formulate a rational course of action, measure the results rinse and repeat.

That's not what happens.

"concerned citizens" hop on a soap box, politicians attempt a popular expedient action hopefully not costing too much, the people set to suffer launch a counter campaign. Media fan the flames because a punch up raises ratings and helps advertising revenue.

In this case what do you hope to achieve ? Protect students ? Easy, train and arm the teachers. Pass alaw that garantees them immunity from prosecution if they shoot an armed intruder.

It is well demonstrated that the best way to stop gun crime is to forcibly arm everyone.

But that leads to more accidental shootings and potentially crimes of passion.

A lot of people don't realise that gun laws vary across the USA. In fact there is a clear correlation worldwide between stricter gun laws and higher rates of gun crime. Obviously gun laws don't CAUSE gun crime, what happens is in jurisdictions where gun crime is more common stricter gun laws are the usual response.

All these issues go the same way, from anti speeding campains to global waming. It always gets hijacked by "do gooders" wanting to feel good about themselves by persecuting someone else, and interest groups with an agenda to prosecute. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[Bushmiller]

It is well demonstrated that the best way to stop gun crime is to forcibly arm everyone.

But that leads to more accidental shootings and potentially crimes of passion.

I think these two statements are contradictory and in any event neccessarily lead to increased shooting events.

Obviously gun laws don't CAUSE gun crime, what happens is in jurisdictions where gun crime is more common stricter gun laws are the usual response.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. The UK is a prime example. Relatively strict gun laws. Even the cops used to have difficulty obtaining a gun for their duties. Gun crime was really low, but I concede that it has increased (as it has almost everywhere): Still way below the type of circumstances we see in the US.

All these issues go the same way, from anti speeding campains to global waming. It always gets hijacked by "do gooders" wanting to feel good about themselves by persecuting someone else, and interest groups with an agenda to prosecute. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I have said elsewhere that you just cannot accept statements, particularly in the media, at face value. It seems everybody has an agenda. Some hidden and some overt and I agree that oportunists are right there in the thick of things attempting to capture their share.

Some facts remain incontrovertable: America is experiencing a wave of mass killings by mentally disturbed people of innocent children. These same mentally disturbed people have easy access to guns courtesy of lax guns laws and inefffective background checking. The results are tragic and should arguably lead to a change in regulations.

That is not happening and even worse looks like it never will because of an entrenched mentality.

The civilised world is outraged (on America's behalf as they do not appear to have a conscience of their own) and despairs at behaviour that is starting to approach that of emergent countries dominated be ruthless, predatory, unconsionable warlords.




Regards
Paul

[artme]

Interesting news item last night said there are now as many guns in Australia as there were at the time of Port Arthur,
but the number of gun deaths had halved in that period.

Wonder if it was raw figures or on a per capita basis?

Either way I think it says a lot for tight gun control.

[Vernonv]

Either way I think it says a lot for tight gun control.I think that may be somewhat of a simplistic and probably incorrect assumption. Firearm deaths were on the decrease before gun control and any effect gun control had on deaths is dubious at best.

Lots of things have an impact on gun deaths, not the least being a stronger focus on mental health support - because in reality rational people don't generally go around killing themselves or others.

[robbygard]

Interesting news item las night said there are now as many guns in Australia as there were at the time of Port Arthur,
but the number of gun deaths had halved in that period.

Wonder if it was raw figures or on a per capita basis?

Either way I think it says a lot for tight gun control.


i had a quick (not very detailed) look at that when i heard the same thing ... i believe it is raw figures ... the other thing in the study (not widely reported) was that the guns were not replacment guns, that none were the semi-automatic or automatic weapons that were part of the gun amnesty

regards david

[damian]

Interesting news item las night said there are now as many guns in Australia as there were at the time of Port Arthur,
but the number of gun deaths had halved in that period.

Wonder if it was raw figures or on a per capita basis?

Either way I think it says a lot for tight gun control.

The chap making those claims is a well known gun control advocate. You can make the numbers dance if you want to.

I have seen reasonable estimates that there were about 30 million guns in australia at the time of the buyback. I know for a fact that many of the 1 million guns destroyed were unsafe rubbish and people took the opportunity to get paid to dump it. A lot of beautiful and signifigant historic pieces went into the furnace, or the staffs "unofficial" collections also.

Does anyone here actually believe we have less deliberate criminal gun use now than 15 years ago ? If so I invite you to visit western sydney and the gold coast.

Bushmiller (Paul)

I think these two statements are contradictory and in any event necessarily lead to increased shooting events.

I distinguish between deliberate gun crime and accidental or spontaneous incorrect use of firearms. The circumstances are different and trying to address both with the same action is like trying to stop bushfires and floods with one course of action.

The chap in the school massacre was not a gun owner. When he tried to buy guns he was denied. So far as that the system worked. He obtained his guns by stealing them from his mother. That part didn't work. Bryant supposedly did the same thing. Obtained guns from others.

We and the USA have laws addressing illegal possession use import of firearms. There is no point passing new laws because current laws are not enforced. This happens a lot because politicians love to look like they are doing something and legislation is cheaper than policing.

It's been said often enough, but I suppose it has to be repeated. When I was young everyone had guns. No one misused them, except criminals. We almost certainly have fewer guns in society now and they are much harder to get, yet we seem to have more gun crime and spontaneous misuse.

Howards gun laws were effective in mycase. They made owning my 13 lb .22 single shot target rifle so onerous I sold it and quit my sport. That BSA was literally far more dangerous as a club than it ever could be as a rifle, but I was clearly a danger to society and had to be disarmed. The recurve bow I now own, which requires no license, is obviously much less hazardous.


It may astound some people but gun owners have families friends and a sense of self preservation. Some are a tad off the wall just like any group in society, but the very great majority want a safe society as much as anyone. They (we) bristle when we hear nonsense being proposed that we know won't work but will make our lives harder.

But as I say conciliation and rational action don't win ratings nor elections.

I see the IPCC are busy finalizing their next work of fiction in Tasmania this week. Must be a full moon...

[AlexS]

I've stayed out of this, because very little that gets posted on this topic changes anyones mind. However, I heard Andrew Neil being interviewed and his analysis makes a lot of sense - something that can't often be said about a former politician.
We all have our positions, so here's mine. I used to do a lot of shooting from the time I was a kid - hunting - and in the army, but have done hardly any since I got out, because I have other things to do. I have nothing against sporting shooting, and have happily made a stock for a target shooter's rifle. However, I also have a fear of guns in the community that can be a reservoir for criminal use, ie guns that may be easily stolen. I've previously done an internet search for figures that would justify either a stronger or laxer gun control position, and have found neither - or both. There almost seems to be a deliberate hiding of meaningful figures. However, it seems this study has had access to better & more recent data than previously available.

The salient points of the interview as I recall them are as follows:

The buy-back has saved about 200 lives a year. However, the greatest reduction has not been homicides but suicides, followed by spouse homicides.
Although the number of firearms in the community is now about the same as before the buy-back, the number per head of population is about the same as immediately after the population.
The firearms that are in the community are in fewer hands, with many owners licensed to have several guns. Unlike the situation before the buy-back, these owners are subject to testing, police checks and are required to keep the guns in secure storage.
Most of the owners now have a reason (farming, sporting etc.) for owning the guns, unlike in the past when they were one that was perhaps inherited, never used and available to be stolen in a household robbery.

I've posted a link to his paper below. I haven't read it yet, and it may not stand up to scrutiny, but as I said, he seemed to make sense.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

[artme]

A most thoughtful post Alex and a very interesting paper.

What arise from this, to my mind at least, is that accessibility to firearms provides an easy way to commit either a homicide
or a suicide.

To commit homicide or suicide by other means than using a firearm requires planning and a degree of courage. This gives time
for thought and may well lead to people reversing the initial impulse or decision.

There is no second chance once the trigger is pulled.

[Vernonv]

The buy-back has saved about 200 lives a year.While I'm sure this is factually correct when taken in isolation, it's a "half truth" as a whole. Yes maybe 200 less people committed suicide or killed a spouse with a gun, but the actual numbers of suicides and homicides did not really change significantly (from it's already decreasing trend) ... they just used a different "tool".

[Vernonv]

What arise from this, to my mind at least, is that accessibility to firearms provides an easy way to commit either a homicide
or a suicide. Regardless of the method used, exactly how "easy" do you think it would be to kill yourself or someone else. It's not something a normal rational human beings would just "do". If it's an impulsive act then it's usually done with something close at hand, not something locked away in a safe (normally with the bolt and ammo stored in a separately locked safe/compartment).


To commit homicide or suicide by other means than using a firearm requires planning and a degree of courage.It would be quicker for a person to pick up a knife, wine bottle, a car, etc and commit a murder than it would to get a firearm and do it.

[artme]

Vernov, I think the attraction of a gun for homicide is that you don't need to get up "close and personal"to commit the act.
Also the victim has little, if any time to react.

As for suicide, a gun is quick and painless.

Just my thoughts.

[Vernonv]

Vernov, I think the attraction of a gun for homicide is that you don't need to get up "close and personal"to commit the act.
Also the victim has little, if any time to react.True assuming you are calm and lucid and a decent shot. I would argue that if impulsive, you are not thinking rationally and will grab whatever is at hand, or possibly just use your bare hands. If premeditated then regardless of the "weapon" used the chances are the victim will be taken by surprise (because the killer has planned the attack) and the chances of survival are low.


As for suicide, a gun is quick and painless.I'm not sure that is top of mind for someone planning to end their own life. Like I mentioned, suicide rates did not drastically change after the buy back, they simply found other ways to do it.

[AlexS]

While I'm sure this is factually correct when taken in isolation, it's a "half truth" as a whole. Yes maybe 200 less people committed suicide or killed a spouse with a gun, but the actual numbers of suicides and homicides did not really change significantly (from it's already decreasing trend) ... they just used a different "tool".
Vernon, this is incorrect, according to Leigh. He specifically stated that gun deaths were not replaced by other methods.

[Vernonv]

Vernon, this is incorrect, according to Leigh. He specifically stated that gun deaths were not replaced by other methods.Fair enough Alex, but according to what I have read/researched on the subject, that (substitution of method) is exactly what happened. I guess the "truth" in regard to gun control is very clouded.

[Vernonv]

Alex, below is an interesting quote from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia) (highlighting by me):


Responding to Neill and Leigh, The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_Shooters_Association_of_Australia) replied [53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-53) that suicide by firearm has been decreasing steadily since the mid-1980s, but suicide by other methods such as hanging has not followed the same trend; that important assumptions of the work were not mentioned in media reports; that 93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss; and recommended the work of Lee and Suardi, who reviewed almost 90 years of ABS data when making their conclusions, while Leigh and Neill chose to analyse only two five-year periods on either side of the 1996 buy-back.

The page also references quite a few other studies that indicate the gun laws had little or no effect on the established murder and suicide trends.

[Sebastiaan56]

This is a little off topic but I will post it anyway as this gun debate seems to resonate here. A short history of the famous Second Amendment and the need for guns. It was never intended that everyone should be able to carry a gun for whatever reason they liked but so that organised militias would keep the slaves in check. The whole debate makes a lot more sense to me now. The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery)

More importantly there has been another school shooting, this time in St Louis, right near where my sister and her family are. Ihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/st-louis-business-school-shooting_n_2481733.html (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/16/1342881/indiana-man-arrested-after-threatening-to-shoot-up-elementary-school/?mobile=nc)

[Poppa]

I find this whole topic very interesting. When I was young guns were common in most households. I grew up in suburban Qld, and my mother and father were both sporting shooters. My father had a couple of rifles handed down from his family. My grandmother used to keep a shottie in her wardrobe. I occasionally got to shoot a rifle at a range or when we were out in the bush. Since then I've shot a firearm on one occasion, when I went clay target shooting as a team building exercise in the UK - which was great fun and I can see the attraction of it as a sport.

The events in the US are tragic, and I think their gun laws are just plain nuts. I think the NRA is now dominated by loonies unfortunately.

I've recently decided to take up pistol shooting as a hobby, so I've joined a club and gone through the quite difficult (compared to the US) process of getting a provisional licence. This allows me to shoot on one night a week at the club that I've joined, and only with the clubs guns for the first 6 months. I cannot legally buy a handgun during those first 6 months. I must also attend 12 sessions of safety training during that 6 month period, and every shooting session that I have during the first 6 months must be supervised. During the second 6 months, I am permitted to buy 2 pistols only, and must abide by the strict requirements to store them safely (and those requirements are very strict).

I don't have a problem with any of that - I think the safety requirements are an extremely good idea, and I support them completely. I do not ever want to be in the situation where a firearm that I own is responsible for causing anyone harm, least of all a member of my family.

After the first 12 months, provided I fulfil the requirements of my provisional licence, I can obtain an unrestricted licence, and then I am legally permitted to buy any number of pistols, provided I regularly use them in competitions (which means I need to have them for a reason rather than just to keep them in my nightstand!). I doubt that I will ever own lots of guns, but I am interested in learning about them and learning how to handle them safely and shoot accurately. I think I will find it an absorbing and fascinating pasttime.

I do not understand how any private citizen can justify owning an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon. That the US gun laws allow people to own such weapons is ludicrous IMHO...

[Bushmiller]

Thoughtful post Bob.

Possibly one aspect none of us consider when we are talking irrational and/or ill-considered gun behaviour is that we are for the most part approaching the subject from a rational and reasoned position.

The perpetrators of atrocities and suicide victims to take couple of the at risk categories we have identified in previous posts do not behave in the same way as us. There is a component in their psychological make up that is badly damaged or even missing compared to the accepted norm.

Regards
Paul

[corbs]

I thought the Australian gun restrictions were in response to a number of mass shootings culminating in Port Arthur. A discussion about suicide rates only clouds the waters because we're talking about automatic and semi automatic weapons.

The only relevant question is - Did the rate of mass shootings drop after the introduction of tighter gun controls? If the answer is yes then they worked.

[AlexS]

The only relevant question is - Did the rate of mass shootings drop after the introduction of tighter gun controls? If the answer is yes then they worked. In the 20 years up to Port Arthur, there were 13 mass shootings (defined as 5 or more deaths.) Since then (1996) there have been none.

[Vernonv]

I thought the Australian gun restrictions were in response to a number of mass shootings culminating in Port Arthur. A discussion about suicide rates only clouds the waters because we're talking about automatic and semi automatic weapons.
Trouble is the laws and restrictions reach much further than just auto and semi auto weapons. They affect every type of firearm and every firearm user.

So why shouldn't we look at the overall impacts of the laws? When you do you see there is a case to remove some of the more overly restrictive sections of the laws as they don't benefit society, cause frustration to users and wastes a huge amount of public money.

[Grumpy John]

As for suicide, a gun is quick and painless.



Not if you miss.
My wife (who is a disability support worker) had a client who tried to suicide with a hand gun and didn't quite pull it off. He is now blind and has a sever acquired brain injury. He will need the services of a support worker for the rest of his life, he's only 35 years old.

[corbs]

Trouble is the laws and restrictions reach much further than just auto and semi auto weapons. They affect every type of firearm and every firearm user.

So why shouldn't we look at the overall impacts of the laws? When you do you see there is a case to remove some of the more overly restrictive sections of the laws as they don't benefit society, cause frustration to users and wastes a huge amount of public money.

Which laws would you relax if given the opportunity? I personally don't understand how a BB gun can be in the same category as a rim fire rifle but outside that I don't really see many issues with what we currently have. I don't see any justification for automatic, semi automatic or pistols outside of law enforcement/military/security but I'm willing to be swayed by a sound argument.

I think Australia is now at the polar opposite to the US with regard to gun laws. Anyone suggesting relaxing gun laws here would probably be treated with similar contempt to those proposing stricter laws in the States.

[Vernonv]

I see benefits to the licensing of shooters and the safe storage requirements, however the whole "permit to acquire" and long arm registration provide no tangible benefits.

Canada last year removed their longarm registration requirements from law as they found that the system did nothing ... it was never use to solve a crime and yet cost millions of wasted dollars a year to maintain.

[Vernonv]

Oh and one other thing I think they need to do is increase the penalties for firearms offenses.

We need to stop penalising law abiding users and start cracking down on criminals.

[Bushmiller]

There was an interesting interview on 7.30 with Leigh Sales tonight. She interviewed Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America.

Rather than me comment, what do you think? I would however say two things. Firstly that I am indebted to him for making me realise that an assault rifle is a defence weapon. Secondly, people with the surname Pratt should be most careful what they say...........

For those of you that missed the interview, the transcript is below. Not a long one:

7.30 - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3671766.htm)

Regards
Paul

[johnc]

I was very unimpressed with Pratt, he danced with the truth and applied all the spin he could, I also was indebted it would seem you can't use an assault weapon for anything but defence. trouble is to many probably believe just that.

America is like here, before the gun buyback suicide made up roughly half the gun deaths, they have about 15 deaths per hundred thousand we have about 2.5 I think (correct me if I'm wrong on the last one). The statistics really do need careful analysis and i doubt anyone here has either the depth of information or the resources to do that properly. However there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives. the real problem is vested interests are to willing to distort figures.

I was a keen shooter before the buyback and although peeved at the loss of a couple of firearms I came to the view it was for the best. the blokes with the bolt action guns were more careful shots than the mug with a 10 shot magazine and tended to have cleaner kills and a bit safer to be around. I think getting rid of the semi auto was a good thing.


The salient point is that if there is a gun in a USA household you are more likely to shoot yourself or your spouse than ever defend your property. in other words gun ownership doesn't protect it costs. Countries with high levels of gun ownership have higher levels of gun crime. Don't make the mistake of using the Swiss as an example, those of military age may have a military weapon at home but they can't have the ammunition.

[Vernonv]

However there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives.I would love to know what you base that on John, as the majority of the research I have read contradicts that.

[jimbur]

His apologia for assault rifles as being defence weapons depicts some bloody awful actualities in a so-called civilised society. Is their democracy only held together by the private possession of such weapons?

[johnc]

I would love to know what you base that on John, as the majority of the research I have read contradicts that.

I don't think it does, but then it depends which way you look at the figures. Firearm deaths had been trending down before Port Arthur, however since then there have been no massacres and the rate per hundred thousand has reduced. Raw numbers should be considered against population growth.

How much signifigance do you place on a downward trend as you would have to think the reduction would have been likely to stabilise at some point, also spouse deaths showed a reduction and the suicide rate from firearms does appear to have reduced. There are a number of conflicting statistics you can find proponents that will say there has been a 50% reduction in deaths on one hand and no change at the other extreme. I am firmly of the view that the Howard changes resulted in less deaths I am also aware that if you go looking you can find internet references that in some cases don't agree and others that do. It is difficult to filter out the distorters of the truth and the mistaken it would be nice if someone with full access to reliable statistics could provide something more acceptable to all.

[Vernonv]

The bulk of firearm deaths have always been due to suicides (hence why suicides get focused on when talking about the effects of the gun buyback) and if you look at the trend in firearm suicide deaths, there has been a constant downward trend that started before the buyback and has continued since. Here is a simple graph from the Australian Institute of Criminology (which was appointed by Howard to monitor the effects of the buyback).

250137
You can see that even over this relatively short period that suicides have fallen at a fairly consistent rate, and that doesn't take into account the INCREASE in suicides by other methods that occurred after the buyback. The buy back seems to have done nothing to alter the trend.

Sorry, but those figures, just as a simple example, prove that statements like "there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives" are not fact based.

[johnc]

In 1996 the year of Port Arthur there were 516 firearm deaths accross Australia, this equated to 2.82 deaths per 100,000, in 2010 the raw number had reduced to 236 or 1.06 deaths per 100,000. The number had been far worse in 1979 at 4.71 per 100,000 or 685 deaths. There was certainly a downward trend occuring but the pace of the downward trend doubles after the buyback. There will be other factors which impact such as attitudes in society, tighter licencing, the way we store weapons and so on. There will be a number of factors that account for the drop in deaths but there is no doubt that the impact of the buy back including the way our view of firearms changed in the wake of Port Arthur plus the removal of rapid fire weapons have all contributed to a fall in deaths.

There is no evidence to support the view that people find other ways to murder, quite the opposite. The impact on suicide is different, other methods of despatch such as hanging show an increase but the increase doesn't fully offset the reduction in those who haven't put a gun to thier head. Firearms deaths do not require much planning the extra time taken to get the rope etc means the victim has had time to reconsider. It also reduced the number of spousal murders for much the same reason.

The graph in the previous post ends in 2001 it is worth pointing out that in 2001 firearms deaths sat at 326 or 1.68 per hundred thousand, there has been a 50% decline in that rate since then. The buyback would have had it's largest impact immediately following its introduction, so what explains the current levels. It has to be a combination of attitude and availability as well as policing of at risk gun owners. I don't pretend this is a simple situation but equally the buy back and a raft of other changes over the last couple of decades have made Australia a much safer place to live.

[Vernonv]

There is no evidence to support the view that people find other ways to murder, quite the opposite.Here is a quote from some research done in 2010 by Melbourne Uni's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I highlighted the relevant section for you.


Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

The truth is out there if you wish to look.

[Sturdee]

So why shouldn't we look at the overall impacts of the laws? When you do you see there is a case to remove some of the more overly restrictive sections of the laws as they don't benefit society, cause frustration to users and wastes a huge amount of public money.

Just an observation.

So far the following posts on Australian gun laws have not convinced me that there should be any relaxation of our laws, in fact it has convinced me that we should get even tougher on gun owners and users.

If that frustrates some users so be it, if they don't like it then emigrate to the USA where they can have all the guns they desire.


Peter.

[johnc]

Here is a quote from some research done in 2010 by Melbourne Uni's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I highlighted the relevant section for you.



The truth is out there if you wish to look.

OK then, if it wasn't the NFA that produced a substantial reduction in deaths then what was it? I'm not being obstinate but I can't see other major factors that account for the decline nor can I find anything that has anything concrete that provides alternatives that can discount the existence of the NFA. I'm with Sturdee there is something about the way we view firearms in this country and something about our cultural attitudes that is working. I would hate to see us water down anything to do with the current regulations and it wouldn't bother me if they were tightened.

[A Duke]

Has anybody asked a successful suicide why he done what he done with what he done it?


"Lies Damn lies and statistics"
Statistics prove what the person paying the researchers want them to show or they don't see the light of day.

I don't know if I am getting older and wiser or just more cynical.
Regards

[Vernonv]

OK then, if it wasn't the NFA that produced a substantial reduction in deaths then what was it?There wasn't a "substantial reduction in deaths" and as already mentioned there also wasn't any huge shift in the total number of suicides.

John, I know you truly believe that the buy back had some huge impact on deaths and general public safety, but the bulk of the research doesn't support that notion.

[johnc]

There wasn't a "substantial reduction in deaths" and as already mentioned there also wasn't any huge shift in the total number of suicides.

John, I know you truly believe that the buy back had some huge impact on deaths and general public safety, but the bulk of the research doesn't support that notion.

We'll agree to disagree I guess, one thing we can agree on though is that in Australia something positive has happened in terms of both firearm deaths and the murder rates in general and that is a very good thing for our society hopefully the trend will continue for some time to come.

[Vernonv]

We'll agree to disagree I guess,Yes I guess we will.


... one thing we can agree on though is that in Australia something positive has happened in terms of both firearm deaths and the murder rates in general and that is a very good thing for our society hopefully the trend will continue for some time to come.Yes it is a good thing.

[corbs]

The bulk of firearm deaths have always been due to suicides ...

Discussing suicide deaths is irrelevant in this conversation. Someone who wants to kill themselves is going to do it regardless of what's available. Criminals generally shoot criminals so they are also irrelevant.

Mass shootings are what's important here because we're talking about innocent deaths in large numbers. I go back to my question which was answered before. There have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996. This can only be attributed to one thing and that's the gun restrictions.

I feel I should also add that I grew up around guns on the farm and have spent the last 19 years in the Navy. I don't have an issue with them but I do have an issue with people introducing irrelevant information to a discussion. Vernon, please don't see this as a go at yourself because it isn't. I'm referring to the American pro gun debate which is pushing that all of their guns are at risk which clearly isn't the case. The only weapons which are being discussed are their so called assault weapons. Personally I would simplify the discussion and make it automatic and semi automatic weapons and remove the term assault from the discussion altogether.

[Vernonv]

Discussing suicide deaths is irrelevant in this conversation.The conversation turned/deviated a few pages back to the effectiveness of Australian gun laws and you can't get the true picture of how effective they are/aren't without taking into account suicides.

If "this conversation" has specific limits then maybe everyone needs to know what they are.

EDIT: I hasten to add that I did not raise the Australian gun laws in this thread. I did however attempt to correct statements I believe to be incorrect/inaccurate.

[FenceFurniture]

It is well demonstrated that the best way to stop gun crime is to forcibly arm everyone.

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

[A Duke]

"Criminals generally shoot criminals so they are also irrelevant."
This is the attitude I can not get my head around to me it is as nutty as saying we all should be running around with automatic assault rifles at the ready.
They (the crims.) need to be disarmed as other people get caught in the cross fire, and they shoot up the wrong house etc.
Anyway I will leave it at that, I can not under stand it And it has been put forward by a few posters in a couple of threads.
:?May be some one has been doing some brain washing.:?:?:wink:
Regards

[johnc]

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

You are quite right, there is no evidence to support the view that arming everyone will stop violence, there is a lot of information that points to the opposite. The prevalence of guns in the community has a strong correlation to gun deaths. The most obvious is the reference back to Switzerland where men of military age usually have a firearm at home. What is often overlooked is that before 2007 they only had 50 rounds of ammunition and that was checked and had to be accounted for. Since 2007 they are no longer able to have ammunition and there have been unsuccessful efforts to remove the firearm as well. Also not reported is that while the murder rate is very low the suicide and family deaths from these guns lifts that rate to above some other countries.

All the same let's see this "evidence" and if it's produced let's hope it is from a reliable and independant source and not picked from the jaundiced rantings or spin of some NRA style ratbag.

[A Duke]

This should give both sides some thing to mull on

"Accidental gunfire at three gun shows around the United States on Saturday left five injured, authorities said.

Three people were injured in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the state fairgrounds, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long said a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

Long said the shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged.

In Indiana, police said a 54-year-old Indianapolis man was injured when he accidentally shot himself while leaving a gun show.

State Police said Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds. Loaded personal weapons are not allowed inside the show.

Cozee was hospitalized for treatment. Police say the shooting was accidental and no charges will be filed.

Meanwhile, authorities in Ohio said a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

Police Chief Pat Berarducci said it appears the bullet struck the floor and the man was wounded in the arm and leg. Berarducci said the man was taken by helicopter to a Cleveland hospital. His condition was not immediately known."

No comment.

[jimbur]

Should be the safest place there is Hugh according to the NRA.:D

[damian]

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.

I typed out along post the other day then lost it on this stupid stupid laptop. I still don't have my desktop back so I'm keeping this short-ish :) Please be patient with the spelling mistakes, this machine is painful to use.

There are some great thoughtful posts above and some pretty silly ones.

Pops: I had friends in the 80's that shot pistols and those regulations you mention sound familiar. I am prepared to believe the regs are stricter now but owning a pistol was always difficult.

I never advocated free gun access nor necessarily loosening the rules we have. My point all along is that we should take a rational approach and test the results.

Statements like "joe blogs doesn't need an assault rifle" are total BS. It's really easy to damage someone you don't know. As I've said before we used to be a community based society, now we are an anonymous society and with that seems to have come an enthusiasm to mount the indignant soap box and persecute strangers because you perceptive them as a threat/sinner/whatever.

Joe Bloggs doesn't need his assault rifle ? Well you don't need your car. Cars kill far more people than guns throughout the western world. They create pollution and cost a bomb in infrastructure. I say we should ban them.

How many of you are finding excuses to save your precious private transport ? Oh I'm sure you have the arguments ready...but the bottom line is banning the gun doesn't hurt you, but banning the car does. This is the essence. I am not for a moment suggesting we shouldn't ban the gun, my point is we should be mindful and respectful of the damage it does to other australian citizens who have committed no crime.

I think it is absurd to seek new laws because the ones we have aren't enforced. Legislation is cheap, enforcement isn't. Legislation lets the politician look like they are doing something and appeases the transient indignation of the vocal groups, but proper policing of the laws costs money and earns no votes. This is the essence of the "law abiding gun owner" argument.

One of the great absurdities of Howards gun laws was banning semi auto .22's but allowing semi auto pistols. I know people who literally sawed off the butts of their .22's and registered them as pistols, then added clip on butts. Absurd.

All government action hurts someone. It is done for the greater good, but it should be done with that harm in mind and good rational thought put into the plan and it's impact tested rationally and honestly after the fact.

Alcohol prohibition in the US was enacted by do gooders with the same simple arguments this debate attracts. People went broke, people died. Much evil was done. It is possible that if the implementation was more reasonable and less fanatical/idealogical it might have been a good thing. Instead extremists hijacked the process and ruined the result. There are extremists on both sides of this, and much obfuscation. My point was is and always will be that we should approach this honestly and rationally.

We don't live in a perfect world but that doesn't mean we can't strive for one.

[Grumpy John]

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.



Which places were these Damian, and is it still mandatory to carry a gun in public?

[Big Shed]

I am aware of one place, Kennesaw-Georgia (http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/19/where-gun-ownership-is-mandato), where it is mandatory for every head of a household to own and maintain a gun and ammo therefore, but I am not aware of a place where it is compulsory to carry a gun.

I would be intersted to find out more Damian.

[Big Shed]

Here is another, Virgin-Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin,_Utah), still not compulsory to carry it though.:no:

Spring City-Utah (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/utah-town-considers-making-gun-ownership-mandatory/question-3446553/) is considering a mandatory gun ownership law.

[damian]

From memory one was in Texas. I'm sorry but my access is so bad just now I'm not prepared to go look. I know that's a cop out and I apologize. You have no idea how many corrections I have to make even to this little post.

[Grumpy John]

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.




Here is another, Virgin-Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin,_Utah), still not compulsory to carry it though.:no:

Spring City-Utah (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/utah-town-considers-making-gun-ownership-mandatory/question-3446553/) is considering a mandatory gun ownership law.




Mandatory gun ownership, totally different to mandatory carrying of guns, which is what Damian asserted.


This thread has drifted so far from the OP it's a joke. Originally it was about the US gun lobby's reaction to proposed new gun laws and that's where it should stay. Australians attitudes toward guns are so different than those in the US that it's almost as if we're on a different planet. We can have a civilised debate on gun control, obviously the Americans can't. I've even invited American forum members to join the debate http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/gets-worse-re-shooting-connecticut-163605/, but they can't even discuss it here.

As far as John Howard's gun buyback scheme is concerned it wasn't initiated as a result of gun suicides, gun crime or gun violence in general. It was initiated in response to the Port Arthur massacre, and there hasn't been another gun massacre in Australia since. End of story.

[Big Shed]

Mandatory gun ownership, totally different to mandatory carrying of guns, which is what Damian asserted.


Totally agree GJ, that assertion by Damian, not backed up by fact, came totally out of left field.

I agree with you that this thread has run its' course and it may be time to close it.

[Grumpy John]

Totally agree GJ, that assertion by Damian, not backed up by fact, came totally out of left field.

I agree with you that this thread has run its' course and it may be time to close it.

I'm not saying that it should be closed, I don't agree with closing threads unless things are turning nasty. I'd just like it to get back on track.

[jimbur]

The report on the 'accidents' at the gun shows seems to indicate an ambivalent attitude on the part of the gun lobby. Seemingly it was against the rules to carry a loaded gun!

[Vernonv]

As far as John Howard's gun buyback scheme is concerned it wasn't initiated as a result of gun suicides, gun crime or gun violence in general. It was initiated in response to the Port Arthur massacre, and there hasn't been another gun massacre in Australia since. End of story.
But it did nothing to affect suicide rates or gun crime, and that it what a lot of people also attribute to these laws. If it was only about massacres then why do we have all these laws that restrict non auto and non assault firearms ... end of story.

[Sebastiaan56]

I find it fascinating that there is so much conflation between the Australian and US situations in this thread. That fact that we have so many opinions about a country we dont live in and so little agreement about our own situation. A heady muesli of opinion informed by international media. More fascinating than the subject sometimes. :rolleyes:

[FenceFurniture]

But it did nothing to affect suicide rates or gun crime, and that it what a lot of people also attribute to these laws. If it was only about massacres then why do we have all these laws that restrict non auto and non assault firearms ... end of story.

Because any gun is dangerous, and surely the less proliferation the better. The vast majority of people in Oz neither need nor want a gun. Those that do require a gun can get one (or two as ozhunter explained in the other thread), but justifiably, they have to jump through a few hoops and then wait for 28 days before acquistion. It then has to be stored and transported under strict conditions, and subject to "random" inspections.

I've said it before, but our current laws seem to be about right. I feel safe enough. If, as somebody suggested, a law was passed so that everybody in the USA had to be armed and carrying then I would not feel at all safe in the USA and I think it highly unlikely that i would ever go there.

Vernon, I'm a bit confused about your platform: are you saying that our laws are too restrictive or that there should be no changes in the USA? Or both, or something else?

[Vernonv]

Vernon, I'm a bit confused about your platform: are you saying that our laws are too restrictive or that there should be no changes in the USA? Or both, or something else?Well it's obvious to me that the US system doesn't seem to work, but other than that I don't really have any strong opinions on it or how to fix it. That is something they need to sort out.

I do however have strong opinions on the Australian system and am more than willing to have a rational discussion about them, as I feel a lot of non-shooters (and probably shooters as well) don't really have a full understanding of the Australian situation ... most of what people "understand" seems to be driven by the media.

As I have said before there are tangible benefits to the current laws - licensing of shooters (the police checks and safety training required) and the safe storage requirements (a no brainer really, but it's good that it's "law"). On the flip side there is also a huge waste of police resources and public money in the "permit to acquire" and longarm registration part of the laws. These provide no tangible benefit to society and in my opinion should be scrapped.

[FenceFurniture]

Fair enough.

I have a sick feeling that the USA won't be able to improve the situation all that much because the horse has already bolted.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about wasted Police resources (in particular) - any govt department you care to name has waste. The one the gets me the most is spending the rest of their various budget allocations (on anything) at the end of the year simply so that they can get the same allocation for the next year.

Re our gun laws - is there something that you are missing out on as a result?

EDIT: there's already been a remarkablt civilised debate on our laws in previous thread.

[Sturdee]

there is also a huge waste of police resources and public money in the "permit to acquire" and longarm registration part of the laws. These provide no tangible benefit to society and in my opinion should be scrapped.

In that case increase the fees for the permits, licences and inspections to such an extent that it becomes a source of revenue to the country. All other permits and licences are revenue raising related, eg driving licences.

Then it provides a tangible benefit to society of increased revenue and it is no longer a drain on resources. IMO gun owners are getting it too cheaply.:((


Peter.

[Vernonv]

In regard to the wasted resources and public funds, I personally don't think it should be ignored where ever or whenever it occurs. Once it starts getting ignored, it just start to become standard practice and a lot harder stamp out.


Re our gun laws - is there something that you are missing out on as a result?It's not so much that as it is the pure frustration of the process. Now if the process was there for the ultimate benefit of society, then that's fine, but it doesn't.

[Vernonv]

In that case increase the fees for the permits, licences and inspections to such an extent that it becomes a source of revenue to the country.But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.

What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:

[johnc]

But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.

What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:


I would concur, there is no point taxing for the sake of it. Many firearms are owned by farmers and often used for little more than putting down the odd animal including possibly also the odd neighbours dog that has trangressed. The storage and licencing rules are a good thing, fees should be affordable if you wish to have proper compliance. I sign a lot of firearm renewals most are your standard legitimate owner but every now and again you come across someone who surprises you and you would think has no need for a firearm. At least we have a system that minimises those who should not be in possession of a gun and tries to ensure it is mainly those with a legitimate purpose that own a gun.

[Sturdee]

But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.

What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:

Increased resources through higher taxation and fees and the same public safety sounds like a much better win-win to me. :2tsup: :2tsup:

Might have to send an email to my MP and suggest this.


Peter.

[FenceFurniture]

Here we go again (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-21/us-teen-held-in-shooting-of-five-people/4473638). Only five dead this time. Multiple weapons including a military style assault rifle.

[Vernonv]

Well Governments are always looking for new and imaginative ways to tax people.

Let's just hope your local member gives your suggestion all the care and consideration it obviously deserves.

[Sturdee]

Well Governments are always looking for new and imaginative ways to tax people.

Let's just hope your local member gives your suggestion all the care and consideration it obviously deserves.

He probably would as at the time he was the Minister in the Howard's government in charge of implementing the gun laws and still is a front bencher in the federal parliament.

His state ofsider, and protege, is a Minister in the Victorian government.


Peter.

[Vernonv]

Well then, you better get a typ'n ...

[AlexS]

I think you may draw your own conclusions from these figures. The report that they come from, by economists Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill, shows that the buy back has saved about 200 lives a year.
250685250686

[Vernonv]

Alex,
They are interesting graphs. Here is my take (cause I know you want to know what I think about it :) ).
Suicides : Firearm suicides have been on a fairly consistent downward trend since before the gun laws were introduced.
Homicides : Pretty much the same for homicides, except for the blip in 96 caused by the Port Arthur massacre.

When looking at the graphs also keep in mind the different Y axis scales used ... but it sure makes the figures look even more impressive. :)

The issue I have with Leigh's "200 lives a year saved" is that he derived this number from 10 years worth of figures (plus see my comments below about bias). The work of Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi used roughly 90 years worth of data. Here is the final paragraph from one of their papers
Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

I have to admit that there is some research that I feel is highly likely to be biased - that of Leigh's (because of the span of the data used and the fact he is a federal politician), that of Chapman (he was founder of some gun control organisation even before 96) and that of McPhedran and Baker (because they are both linked to shooters organisations).

[Vernonv]

I was just doing a little more reading on Leigh's paper in which he claims that 200 lives are saved per year. It's interesting how this statement has been latched onto and is being used somewhat out of context. Here is what his report actually says (highlighting is mine):


For a firearm withdrawal equivalent to Australia’s buyback, using quite conservative point estimates, our estimates suggest that over 200 firearm deaths per year—mostly suicides—would be averted in a population roughly the size of Australia’s.
... This estimate is very sensitive to the assumptions, however, and in particular the assumption of no method substitution.

Not exactly what happened in the real world, is it.

[FenceFurniture]

From Wiki:
"Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-14) opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles."

Whichever way you look at it, there have been no mass killings since 1996. Maybe the changes were not all required, maybe it's tougher than required, but so far it's mission accomplished.

I think the buyback cost $500mill which was apparently raised by a 0.2% increase in the Medicare Levy, and of course we'll never know how many lives have been saved in potential mass killings that haven't happened. If the above is correct, then there was no cost to the Govt, and all taxpayers contributed about $100 each (based on a taxable income of $50,000) spread over 12 months (not sure how long the increase was in place for).

Given the fact that no mass killings have occurred since, I for one am glad to have shelled out $100 ($2/week).

Vernon, the changes to our laws were never going to please everyone, but they were done with the best of intentions, and to the best of the Govt's ability. Axe grinding (or bullet packing) on that topic is surely for a different thread, when you consider the OP - it's about the USA/NRA.

[Vernonv]

Vernon, the changes to our laws were never going to please everyone, but they were done with the best of intentions, and to the best of the Govt's ability.I don't disagree at all. I just think that laws need to be reviewed periodically to ensure they are doing their intended job efficiently and adjusted accordingly. We should always continue to strive to make things better and more efficient, not just accept the status quo.


Axe grinding (or bullet packing) on that topic is surely for a different thread, when you consider the OP - it's about the USA/NRA.I agree with this also ... for my part in this I have tried (and possibly failed) to limit my posts to responding to others, rather than raising new issues.

[corbs]

I'm getting dizzy going around in the same circle over and over again... time to unsubscribe from this thread.

[Bushmiller]

Before Corbs disappears down to the back shed, may I sumarise from the threads posted?

1. Far too many interested parties have their own agenda and pursue this to the exclusion of general safety and that of innocent children in particular. Too many want to cut the baby in half, which goes to show their humanity.

2. In Australia the gun buyback seems to have worked, but this may just be coincidence as it is quite apparent that the statistics, as usual, can be manipulated to suit the story of almost anybody. Part of the problem is that the situation is dynamic and many other factors are involved such as safety awareness, security of weapons storage, background checks, cooling off periods etc..

3. In Australia there have been no further incidences of mass murder since Port Arthur (so far).

4. Fear-Mongering is at it's right royal best on issues such as this.

5. The American situation is vastly different to Australia.

6. The Americans have chosen to fall back on their second amendment but have either through ignorance or in some instances calculated mis-quotation forgotten the original and rather insidious reasoning behind the right to bear arms.

7. The lobbying, and consequent political clout, of vested interests in the US is mind blowing compared to the situation in Australia.

8. When the Americans look at comparative situations around the world, instead of asking where they are going wrong, they say they are America, we don't want to be Australia (for example).

9. Most of America thinks that this is how life is and should be as the people are fundamentally insular ( as opposed to it's government which wants to stick it's interfering nose fair up every anus in the world, particularly if it thinks it has oil or some other economic benefit.) Ask an American man in the street where he thinks Australia is if you want some funny answers.

10. Maybe we should let the US get on with their own affairs and make bloody sure they don't get any more influence here in Oz (Airbases etc.. Don't tell me....I'm too late?)

Along with corbs, retiring from the thread :wink:.

Regards
Paul

[RETIRED]

Closing remarks folks? This thread will be closed tomorrow night.

Thank you for no hysterical outbursts.

[A Duke]

Closing remarks folks? This thread will be closed tomorrow night.

Thank you for no hysterical outbursts.It has been an interesting thread. I have my own opinions that do not fit in with either side, may be because I come from a different back ground or you guys Aus and US have had it too easy.
(No offence meant)
Regards

[AlexS]

I think Bushmiller's summary is pretty spot on. Everyones interpretation of the statistics is clouded because accurate statistics just aren't available. I'm sure they have been collected, so you have to wonder whose agenda it suits not to have them available.
Whatever works or doesn't work here, we can't apply it to America. Completely different country, different circumstances, different people.

[jimbur]

Ah well! Off to cultivate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.:wink:

[RETIRED]

I generally keep out of these debates so that I can be unbiased with looking at them from an Admin point of view but I received this in an email.

The really sad part of this is that a lot of people will believe it.

Some things make me mad.


[email protected]

Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview:

...They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.

And then they have her parents interviewed. It shows that they're all actors. It never really happened, because the guy that was supposedly her dad, is shown in the video where he's to the side and he's laughing and joking with other people and then he's called up in front of the camera. He's off to the left. Then he's called to the center, to the focus of the camera to be interviewed and to give his speech about Sandy Hook and about his daughter. And he goes from on the side from laughing and joking with everybody, he comes up to the center and ... he takes the joking, smiling face off and you can see him physically trying to force his face to look sad and then he starts talking about how his daughter's been killed. They're actors. There were no bodies.

It was a made for TV drama to try to ram through the gun control laws, because they want to kill the American people and they can't kill armed people. That's why Hitler disarmed the Germans, it's why Stalin disarmed the Russians, it's why chairman Mao disarmed the Chinese and they killed between them something like 120 million of their own people. And that's what they want to do in America and they can't do it because the people have the Second Amendment and they have guns. So they have to do all of this, and they'll keep doing it. There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions of guns.

***

This message has no links to help it get through spam blockers. If you are interested in the subjects being discussed, please search the Web for more information.

[Bushmiller]

Bu**er

If I hadn't retired from the thread I'd be able to comment on that type of drivel. Unfortunately therefore I won't be able to relate the following story.

A few years back I worked with a young Chinese guy, who at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre, was at University in China.

I asked him what he thought about tanks being driven over protesting civilians (they were protesting before being driven over and probably even more so as the grousers crushed skin and bone).

He replied that they were just told categorically that nobody had been killed.

Like your email, "spin" at it's most evil best :((.

Regards
Paul

[jimbur]

It's terrifying. Someone has to sit down and make up that bilge.

[RETIRED]

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.