Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not quite sure how you missed my earlier reply to you but I'll repost it -
Calm down.
Gun control does not mean BAN ALL GUNS.
Gun control is merely taking steps to properly regulate and licence guns, to ensure they don't get into the wrong hands.
In Australia, you must prove a reason to have a gun.
This means that farmers, sports shooters, collectors and hunters STILL HAVE THEIR GUNS.
Gun control is about taking them out of school bags, from under beds, from wardrobes around the country, stopping lunatics like Lanza being able to get his hands on them and possibly more importantly, the ammunition, which at the moment can be bought by the trailer load by any of the freaks who seem to populate Walmart.
You can post all the hysterical and paranoid rhetoric you want, but the fact remains that Australia had 16 gun massacres in the 20 years before Port Arthur, and ZERO in the 16 years since the buy back.
Don't be so quick to tout Australia's horn... Something like facts might get in the way.
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. 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.
Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.
The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year.
The rate of kidnapping remained between three and four per 100,000 per year from 1996 to 2007.
The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.
If guns bans were effective why would the USA not show increases in violent crime of murder rates and Australia would? Particularly when we consider the fact that the USA has always been more violent?
ITime for a lesson for our foreign friends and less educated citizens...
Lesson 1:
The United States of America is NOT a democracy!!!!!!!
We are a Republic...
This is the difference...
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure" democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.
Even if a majority want to remove a right, like keeping and bearing arms, they CANNOT do so and the federal government, in the form of SCOTUS, must stop them.
Lesson 2:
There are only two methods for changing an amendment.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states to ratify it.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken.
The last amendment, the 27th, was proposed in 1789 but was not ratified by the last required state until 1992.
Every amendment that has succeeded has been mostly due to a severe constitutional crisis concerning rights.
Lesson 3:
The constitution absolutely does NOT grant rights. It limits the government. Remove the constitution and the rights remain. All rights, whether in the constitution or not, are considered unalienable and cannot be taken away by the federal or state governments.
It was only designed to check the governments powers, not the citizen's.
Lesson 4:
Rights are not privileges. The government can't take them. You, however, can waive them in certain instances.
**************
The point of these lessons is that no matter what anyone on this forum says, the 2nd amendment is NOT going anywhere.
Why?
1) There is no way any amendment will get 2/3s vote and no way 38 states would agree. Nor will a constitution convention ever be called. This has been tried and failed multiple times.
2) The constitution, through the amendments, recognizes the right to have and bear arms as an unalienable right. The constitution only enumerated 3 but dies not preclude any others.
The 9th amendment specifically states that just because a right is not listed in the constitution does not mean it does not exist. Removing the amendment does not remove the right.
The 10th amendment specifically states that any right not granted specifically to the federal government by the constitution falls to the States or people. The govt can't ban guns because the constitution does not grant that right.
Not only does removing the 2nd amendment mean nothing because the right still exists per the 9th, the federal government does not have the right to infringe on it because of the 10th.
Removing the 2nd amendment would require the agreement of the people, the states and the removal of the 9th and 10th amendments. Its NEVER going to happen...
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the federal government cannot ban weapons. The original National Firearms Act of 1934 was gutted by SCOTUS. You can to this day buy machine guns and silencers and suppressors, etc.
Even the Assault Weapons Ban was a farce. Assault weapons weren't banned. The production of NEW assault weapons was banned. Citizens could still get the weapons legally.
All this said, cries for banning are stupid because the state and federal government can't remove these weapons. They can only prevent the future manufacture or import of said weapons.
But no one paid attention in Government class so here we are...
Last edited by AnonymouseX; 12-29-2012 at 06:49 PM..
You do realise "amendment" means "alteration" don't you?
Whatever was amended 200 years ago can be amended straight back out again.
Take a look at Australia's example. Our NFA was put in place in 1996.
Hunters, farmers, collectors, and sports shooters still have their guns so what you are claiming is ridiculous...especially in a democracy where people have the right to vote.
You are all so proud and boastful of your democracy, to the point you try to force it on other countries, yet bash the chit out of it when popular changes are made that upset the minority.
You aren't very familiar with American history are you?
It is incredibly, incredibly difficult to get an amendment passed, much less passing an amendment that repeals an original one. It is so difficult that this line of discussion is a non starter.
Why stop at the 2nd amendment though? Why not just trash the entire thing? It's not like we could ever possibly think to simply address the problem. It's not like governments have ever turned on their citizens.
You cannot stop predators by creating an easier environment for them. Every country that instituted restrictive gun laws saw an increase in violent crime. Every. Single. One. We see this in the USA as well. In spite of national crime rates declining, D.C. saw a dramatic increase in violent and total crime. Hmm...
Change is good. Passing laws in spite of common sense and statistical research is not. Politicians would have us believe that they care about the children and that is why they want these laws, and that, this time it will work. They promise it will.
If politicians actually cared about children they would address the gangs, drugs and crime that plague poor black neighborhoods. Most of the gun crime in the USA is between gang members. If you are a kid growing up in these neighborhoods you can either be a victim or look for protection. The cops can't protect you, your parents can't protect you if they can't protect themselves, so you look towards the gang or become a victim.
America hasn't been able to stop drugs or cartels from establishing themselves in Chicago. So, why would this be any different?
The more restrictive the gun law and lower rates of gun ownership were the higher the Brady grade was.
The higher the Brady grade and lower gun ownershipwere the higher the crime rates were. Why don't criminals follow the law!!!
This appears to correlate with what we see in Australia.
Don't be so quick to tout Australia's horn... Something like facts might get in the way.
Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.
The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year.
The rate of kidnapping remained between three and four per 100,000 per year from 1996 to 2007.
The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.
You are using stats for non-gun violence. Sorry....these don't count.
Perhaps you could use some current statistics instead of quoting something that is 5 years out of date.
How's these apples -
People with guns in their homes are almost twice as likely to be killed by guns as people who do not keep them at home...
People who are shot are substantially more likely to die than people injured with nongun weapons,
It found that most of the victims, over 56 percent, knew their assailants.
Can she actually make heads or tails out of facts? We'll see, son't we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope
Why aren't all the backyard Rambos commenting on THIS?^^^
No... Why don't you watch the videos I provided? The alarming increase in various forms of violence in Australia is staggering, post NFA.
As well, we do not operate as you do, as has been well pointed out. No, you cannot just amend our Constitution willy-nilly, thankfully, lest all the leftie "We Know Best!" types would get in there and twiddle everything endlessly.
Being fair and balanced, this is not unlike the desire of the right-wing Christian funda-loons who would enforce some wacked YEC-Creationist non-evolution nonsense, in spite of all the evidence (as you so delightfully do here as regards Aussie stats and facts). In other words, meddling is not limited only to lefties, I'll admit, but when it comes to gun laws, you folks truly take the cake. Here: a special hat for you!
So... what specifically would you, MsAnnT, do as a heartfelt apology and sacrifice to the literal millions of law-abiding gun owners, when, post ban, another wack-a-loon goes all psychotic and murders a few dozen kids or church goers or mall shoppers with, say, a Molotov cocktail (you do know what they are, yes? No? OK:" here:
Q: How, exactly, do you propose to stop creative inventiveness in destructive device design, coupled with a killer's desires, in it's tracks?
Oh. I see! With an Aussie style law banning the ownership of hi-cap mags or "assault rifles"? When, in Australia, England and Canada it's had ZERO effect, or in fact creating increased violence through other means.
(In Canada for example, the gun violence rates have increased compared to good old American Seattle, where any legally authorized person after an extensive FBI background check, can posses and carry. All of this increase is courtesy of rapidly growing Asian drug gang operations, esp. in good old Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto. Full-auto gunfire rattling through the streets, unchecked by the overworked RCMP.)
Oooopppsss. Best hide those stats, eh, MsAnnT? We don't want to derail your one-track mindset!
Next Q: when are you going to admit that, on further thought, your idea of gun registry and a "needs based" acquisition process is irrational and driven by gut-level emotionalism rather than hard facts? Just curious.
Finally, remember: our gun ownership is not subject to trivial legislation of the "We Gotz Tah do SUMTHIN'!" variety. Is that how you run your country? On whims and hunches?
I'm not even reading this whole 22 pages and will undoubtedly say something someone has already said, but whatever.....
The NRA does not speak for all gun owners.
If TheEarthBeneathMe hasn't already answered this, I would like to know why the rights of law-abiding people should be affected because of the actions of a few evil people.
You are quick to offer the solution of banning firearms but have no clue what would come of such an action. The tired cliche of "if you outlaw guns...." may be cliche, but can you deny the substance of the statement without tired rhetoric and invalid arguments?
If you can come up with a solution that does not involve all owners of certain arm being entered into the NFA or some registry, we might listen. But, until the anti crowd gets their propaganda machine out of high gear, most firearm owners aren't even going to sit down at the table with you to discuss the price of tea in China, much less your version of gun control.
A former head of Australia's anti-gun coalition says US president Barack Obama should use his status as a two-term president to push gun reforms through Congress. There are growing calls for action on gun control after the slaughter of 20 young children and six of their teachers at a Connecticut school on Friday. As the US once again struggles with the issue of gun control, the success of John Howard's 1996 laws banning semi-automatic weapons in Australia has been raised in the American debate. The New York Times has referred to Australia's gun laws as a "road map" for the US, saying that "in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect." Former Australian deputy prime minister Tim Fischer says he is not surprised the Australian example is being cited, saying time has shown that the strong national laws were justified. But he says the US politicians he has spoken to "can't get their minds" around the banning of assault weapons, or even uniform licensing laws. "I am making very little progress... as they just could not get their mind around the simplicity of having a harmonised shooter's licence scheme and weapon registration scheme," he said. "It is sad that the death toll from guns is horrific in the USA because there are so many millions of guns with so little cross-checking, character checking.
"A ban on assault weapons have been allowed to largely expire through a lack of willpower to stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the nonsense too often spoken by the NRA."
PS> check out the photo. Those guns were surrendered, voluntarily. Thousands upon thousands of them. Australians were so sickened by Port Arthur, but you Americans are harder (dumber?) than us, 20 dead babies and their teachers haven't hardly made a dent in your national psyche.
My own FIL, a gun owner of long standing, took the view "they aren't taking my guns" until the old boys at the barbershop told him how many thousands of dollars they made through the buy back (it was very, very generous).
You couldn't get him down the police station fast enough when he found out he could make lots of $$$ for his old crappy guns.
You guys overpaid for shotguns and hunting rifles and people took the offer for it? Wow that is hard to imagine. I would sell my shotgun to someone for 4x then take the cash and buy another one and pocket the rest.
Australia never had a gun violence problem and you reacted to a statistical anomaly (tragedy) with an emotional response and not a rational one.
Hold him down while I brand him, and all the rest of of you: SING!
BTW, what does "harmonized" mean here?
I believe they have or are using that moniker in Canada as well. So... in Australia, do all the cowering gun owners have to sing a nice ditty song in three part harmony, as part of their new-age registration and forehead tattooing?
PS> check out the photo. Those guns were surrendered, voluntarily. Thousands upon thousands of them. Australians were so sickened by Port Arthur, but you Americans are harder (dumber?) than us, 20 dead babies and their teachers haven't hardly made a dent in your national psyche.
My own FIL, a gun owner of long standing, took the view "they aren't taking my guns" until the old boys at the barbershop told him how many thousands of dollars they made through the buy back (it was very, very generous).
You couldn't get him down the police station fast enough when he found out he could make lots of $$$ for his old crappy guns.
How many of those guns were old and non-functional? As you said, your FIL turned in his "old crappy" guns. How many turned in ones in top condition?
And how many of them were stolen for the sole purpose of the buy-back scheme? Most gun buy-back programs become a fence operation for thugs to unload stolen guns for cash.
How many of those guns were old and non-functional? As you said, your FIL turned in his "old crappy" guns. How many turned in ones in top condition?
And how many of them were stolen for the sole purpose of the buy-back scheme? Most gun buy-back programs become a fence operation for thugs to unload stolen guns for cash.
Do you have any proof of that claim?
As for "how many were functional", pretty much all of them. 700,000 of them to be exact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can she actually make heads or tails out of facts? We'll see, son't we?
