|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/04/06 - 10:10 Post subject: Just an observation...about banning firearms.
Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous
Dr. Miguel Faria
Monday, June 26, 2000
In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners.
In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.
It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked, and the government reacted quickly.
Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find individual freedom abhorrent. Consider the politics: There are three major parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party) and the ultra-left (Australian Democratic Party) – this last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues, land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.
As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22-caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.
At a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated.
Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban.
With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.
Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned.
Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and Canada, is not recognized in Australia, Like Americans, Australians loved and possessed firearms – that is, until the ban. Freedom has been extinguished. A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen here!
Dr. Miguel A. Faria Jr. is a physician and editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
The United States has been invaded twice. Once by the UK and once by the combined forces of the UK and Canada. With all due respect, please forgive me if I don't consider the opinions of the UK or any of it's current or former holdings to hold any credence in this matter. I am not so sure nations with no right to self-defense should be offerning any opinion on firearms issues. The first thing Adolph did when he came to power was to disarm the public...and we all know where that ended up..
Disarmed public = Police State.
I am all for rigid firearms registration, and to a degree even limitations on specific types of firearms, but never a ban on ownership.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 10:16 Post subject:
did violent crime go way down in Florida when they passed concealed carry?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 17:14 Post subject:
It's a difficult topic. Whether you think the 2nd Amendment has been wildly misinterpreted (b/c we're not in need of that "well-regulated militia" since we already have a military force in place) or not, after so much time, this interpretation is here to stay. So people feel they have a right to bear arms. Any kind of regulation is some infringement, but I think the majority of NRA members would have no trouble with vigilant registration and/or random checks of licensing. THat has almost nothing to do with who commits crimes with guns.
It's no good to say "commit a crime with a gun and you're in for 5 long years" b/c even if you believe in some sort of deterral effect (I don't) a crime first has to be committed. It's no good to sue b/c the criminal never has any money. If you try to sue the mftr., it's a product liability issue and it could be that the gun worked just fine.
So it makes me think that the only place to tinker with the system is in the distribution--gun shows, K-Mart, etc. And place the heaviest burden there. But if it were that easy, we'd have done it.
I think the rhetoric of "guns don't kill people" is beside the point. For every homicide, if there weren't a gun around, a person likely would still be alive. Yes, you can be killed by knives and beer bottles and cars, but it's just not anywhere near as common.
Also, this vigilant registration doesn't even touch what happens when a kid picks up Daddy's (or Mommy's) gun and points it at his friend and blows his head off. What's the right remedy there?
Thanks, G, for starting this thoughtful thread.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 19:18 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | It's a difficult topic. Whether you think the 2nd Amendment has been wildly misinterpreted (b/c we're not in need of that "well-regulated militia" since we already have a military force in place) or not, after so much time, this interpretation is here to stay. So people feel they have a right to bear arms. Any kind of regulation is some infringement, but I think the majority of NRA members would have no trouble with vigilant registration and/or random checks of licensing. THat has almost nothing to do with who commits crimes with guns.
It's no good to say "commit a crime with a gun and you're in for 5 long years" b/c even if you believe in some sort of deterral effect (I don't) a crime first has to be committed. It's no good to sue b/c the criminal never has any money. If you try to sue the mftr., it's a product liability issue and it could be that the gun worked just fine.
So it makes me think that the only place to tinker with the system is in the distribution--gun shows, K-Mart, etc. And place the heaviest burden there. But if it were that easy, we'd have done it.
I think the rhetoric of "guns don't kill people" is beside the point. For every homicide, if there weren't a gun around, a person likely would still be alive. Yes, you can be killed by knives and beer bottles and cars, but it's just not anywhere near as common.
Also, this vigilant registration doesn't even touch what happens when a kid picks up Daddy's (or Mommy's) gun and points it at his friend and blows his head off. What's the right remedy there?
Thanks, G, for starting this thoughtful thread. |
[i]
Bolded item no. 1 - you would be wrong on that count.
Bolded item no. 2 - there are 11ty billion stolen guns out there, a person intent on committing a crime is not going to purchase a gun thru legal channels that can be traced.
Violent gun crime could be reduced to a nearly negligible amount by the elimination of the illegal drug trade. Gangsta violence is where it's at. Do I have a solution for that at this moment - no. That is another topic.
The right remedy for eliminating the kid blowing his buddies head off accidently is education plain and simple. Thorough education beginning at a young age. NRA sponsors a program called Eddie Eagle that provides such education where the parents can't. Most anti's don't even want to think about the education part of it though, especially if it involves the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 07:23 Post subject:
I don't have a problem with persons having weapons for hunting and/or personal protection without a license or any other controls. At the same time I do think weapons such as uzi's and automatic weapons used in many crimes should be tightly controlled.
Kennessaw, Georgia used to have a city law that each homeowner must have a gun in their house for protection. House breakins were non-existent. Due to political pressure that law is no longer valid - I'm not even sure its on the books and it probably wasn't enforceable in the first place. But the perception that an intruder might be shot protected the city's private citizens very well. Intruder's found somewhere else to go.
More than one store clerk has been able to prevent severe body injury or death to themselves by shooting robbers. Of course, they were fired by the convenience store since they are not supposed to have weapons but at least they are alive today.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 07:32 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | I don't have a problem with persons having weapons for hunting and/or personal protection without a license or any other controls. At the same time I do think weapons such as uzi's and automatic weapons used in many crimes should be tightly controlled.
Kennessaw, Georgia used to have a city law that each homeowner must have a gun in their house for protection. House breakins were non-existent. Due to political pressure that law is no longer valid - I'm not even sure its on the books and it probably wasn't enforceable in the first place. But the perception that an intruder might be shot protected the city's private citizens very well. Intruder's found somewhere else to go.
More than one store clerk has been able to prevent severe body injury or death to themselves by shooting robbers. Of course, they were fired by the convenience store since they are not supposed to have weapons but at least they are alive today. |
GRR, for the record, true automatic weapons are tightly controlled and require extensive licensing and background checks. Automatic weapons are actually rarely used in crime. The media has confused automatic weapons with semi-auto's and pretty much use the two terms as one.
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 08:46 Post subject:
| robp wrote: | | GRR, for the record, true automatic weapons are tightly controlled and require extensive licensing and background checks. Automatic weapons are actually rarely used in crime. The media has confused automatic weapons with semi-auto's and pretty much use the two terms as one. |
Let me elaborate for GRR and G3..just in case it's not clear.
Semi-Auto - You must pull the trigger for each individual shot.
Full-Auto - You pull the trigger and it keeps firing until empty, or you release the trigger, whichever comes first.
Semi-Auto - Available on the streets from illegal arms dealers. Almost all semi-auto's used in crimes are stolen or brought in to the country illegaly. Very rare to be used in a crime by a licenced owner.
Full-Auto - Very hard and expensive to get on the streets. Rigid Federal Controls. Very expensive and difficult to get a licence. Almost NEVER used in crimes.
So if you ban firearms, who is punished? The LEGAL gun owners. The criminals will still get their guns the same way. Death by firearm will still continue on...then who will the media blame?
Howbout we stop the cause? The high percentage of gun deaths are drug related. How come on one is putting the effort in curbing illegal drug manufature, distribution and use? I will tell you why, because it is media driven and easier to attack the legal gun owners. It is easy to blame guns, rather than the idiots who illegaly purchase and use them.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 09:27 Post subject:
Question. Realz.
What's the "semi-" in a semi-automatic that separates it from a manual(?) firearm?
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 09:54 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | Question. Realz.
What's the "semi-" in a semi-automatic that separates it from a manual(?) firearm? |
A semi-automatic reloads the chamber and "cocks" the gun making it ready to fire on it's own. One pull of the trigger fires the bullet, ejects the spent shell, jacks a new bullet into the chamber and leaves the guy in a position to fire with another pull of the trigger.
A manual fire weapon, such as a pump shotgun, requires manual manipulation of a cocking device such as a pump or bolt to eject the spent shell and reload a new round into the chamber.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 11:38 Post subject:
Good points all and thanks for the info. Up until recently, I had never held a gun. I've now held one. Never shot one. Had no idea, for example, that the numbers had to do with size of bullets.
OK, so we want to protect people who have legal guns, although they could commit illegal crimes with them but you're saying for the most part they don't. And hunters.
And a big part of the illegal gun problem and its associated crime is drug-related. Got it. And legalization of drugs probably isn't the answer b/c only some drugs, like marijuana, are soft enough that it wouldn't violate public policy to legalize them. (I realize not everyone agrees with marijuana being harmless. But on a scale with heroin and cocaine, it is.) Are bigger crimes committed for drugs with bigger street value? If so, would cocaine be the biggest crime-producer?
I think the War on Drugs got bogged down with marijuana and crowded prisons with potheads, which served no one. I don't know that there's been much serious policy work on illegal drugs since the Reagan Administration. Anyone know?
I do wonder why someone needs so many guns. They always act like it's b/c it's a valuable collection. Whenever there's some hostage situation like the other day in Amish country, the guy always has a bunch of guns with him. How do we/Should we protect against that? Is there a value to having so many, other than personal liberty? Is there a value to enforcing a limit per person?
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 11:54 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | Good points all and thanks for the info. Up until recently, I had never held a gun. I've now held one. Never shot one. Had no idea, for example, that the numbers had to do with size of bullets.
OK, so we want to protect people who have legal guns, although they could commit illegal crimes with them but you're saying for the most part they don't. And hunters.
And a big part of the illegal gun problem and its associated crime is drug-related. Got it. And legalization of drugs probably isn't the answer b/c only some drugs, like marijuana, are soft enough that it wouldn't violate public policy to legalize them. (I realize not everyone agrees with marijuana being harmless. But on a scale with heroin and cocaine, it is.) Are bigger crimes committed for drugs with bigger street value? If so, would cocaine be the biggest crime-producer?
I think the War on Drugs got bogged down with marijuana and crowded prisons with potheads, which served no one. I don't know that there's been much serious policy work on illegal drugs since the Reagan Administration. Anyone know?
I do wonder why someone needs so many guns. They always act like it's b/c it's a valuable collection. Whenever there's some hostage situation like the other day in Amish country, the guy always has a bunch of guns with him. How do we/Should we protect against that? Is there a value to having so many, other than personal liberty? Is there a value to enforcing a limit per person? |
W/O providing any accurate links to back me up, I would venture to say that cocaine is the number one problem drug in this country followed closely by meth. Both lead to an incredible amount of crime - by users desperate for the money for another fix and by the dealers (gangs) that distribute and sell the stuff.
I've not heard much on active illegal drug work in recent years from either Clinton or Bush's administration.
A guy such as the one in Lancaster, Pa. probably took a number of guns with him because he intended on fighting to the death and assumed he wouldn't be having the time to reload during a gun battle. As far as legal gun ownership goes - there are reasons to own multiple firearms. Target shooters plink and compete in different categories during organized shoots. Hunters use a variety of different types and calibers of guns depending on the terrain and type of game they are pursuing. Collectors are just that and may have a wide variety of different types of firearms or may focus on just a couple of types but collect the many different brands/calibers/special issues of those types. I don't see a real value to enforcing a limit on personal gun ownership - one person can pretty much only fire one gun at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
Phar lap
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 1006
Location: A flawed Utopia
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/09/06 - 01:35 Post subject: Re: Just an observation...about banning firearms.
| RangerG wrote: | Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous
Dr. Miguel Faria
Monday, June 26, 2000
In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners.
In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.
It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked, and the government reacted quickly.
Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find individual freedom abhorrent. Consider the politics: There are three major parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party) and the ultra-left (Australian Democratic Party) – this last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues, land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.
As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22-caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.
At a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated.
Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban.
With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.
Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned.
Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and Canada, is not recognized in Australia, Like Americans, Australians loved and possessed firearms – that is, until the ban. Freedom has been extinguished. A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen here!
Dr. Miguel A. Faria Jr. is a physician and editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
The United States has been invaded twice. Once by the UK and once by the combined forces of the UK and Canada. With all due respect, please forgive me if I don't consider the opinions of the UK or any of it's current or former holdings to hold any credence in this matter. I am not so sure nations with no right to self-defense should be offerning any opinion on firearms issues. The first thing Adolph did when he came to power was to disarm the public...and we all know where that ended up..
Disarmed public = Police State.
I am all for rigid firearms registration, and to a degree even limitations on specific types of firearms, but never a ban on ownership. |
Is your purpose in posting this rubbish to discuss control in Australia ?
NOTE: we have gun CONTROL not a gun BAN..
..NO UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
Besides a lot of misinformation and half truths the good doctor couldn't even get the "ban" part of the title right. It was the Liberals (the conservatives) not Labour (the socialists) that brought in the Gun Control act., but do you really want me to go on and pick the eyes out of the rest this rubbish ?
I don't know whether to laugh or to feel insulted by this article and frankly I expected better of you.
Unless you have a glass navel it's hard to make an"observation" if your head is stuck up your @rse Ranger.
I've told you before, I am not anti gun I have owned guns and may even have fired off as many rounds as you. I have also been at the other end and have had to clean up the mess and seen the misery that guns have caused
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/09/06 - 19:37 Post subject: Re: Just an observation...about banning firearms.
| Phar lap wrote: | Is your purpose in posting this rubbish to discuss control in Australia ?
NOTE: we have gun CONTROL not a gun BAN..
..NO UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
Besides a lot of misinformation and half truths the good doctor couldn't even get the "ban" part of the title right. It was the Liberals (the conservatives) not Labour (the socialists) that brought in the Gun Control act., but do you really want me to go on and pick the eyes out of the rest this rubbish ?
I don't know whether to laugh or to feel insulted by this article and frankly I expected better of you.
Unless you have a glass navel it's hard to make an"observation" if your head is stuck up your @rse Ranger.
I've told you before, I am not anti gun I have owned guns and may even have fired off as many rounds as you. I have also been at the other end and have had to clean up the mess and seen the misery that guns have caused |
So your response is not to rebut with your own data, but to launch into a personal attack? Well, well...how very nice. So much for polite discourse.
BTW there are many more reports of the same vein by various individuals. It appears there is no shortage of comments on the Australian firearms err..."control" as you chose to frame it.
I was illustrating that you can support most any position with more or less "factual data" from the internet.
I expected better than a personal attack, regardless if you disagree with my opinion or not.
I do not think we have anything further to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/09/06 - 20:08 Post subject:
enough with this thread
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
