NRA

[Tero]

My understanding was that this amendment was to enshrine the rights of individual citizens to arm themselves against government tyranny.

You may insist that a bunch of dirt-farmers with guns can't fight a big gov't army, but when I saw your chosen image, it showed me that you don't take any of it seriously.

Then what it all this silly talk of militias? You don't need a well organized militia to overthrow governments, more of a big lynch mob. Guilliotines would be handy.

[Cunt]

My understanding was that this amendment was to enshrine the rights of individual citizens to arm themselves against government tyranny.

You may insist that a bunch of dirt-farmers with guns can't fight a big gov't army, but when I saw your chosen image, it showed me that you don't take any of it seriously.

Then what it all this silly talk of militias? You don't need a well organized militia to overthrow governments, more of a big lynch mob. Guilliotines would be handy.

Or whatever the Vietnamese used...

[Hermit]

Just disarm yourself, and don't worry. You will be protected by your President.

No president here. No revolution. No civil war. No killing heads of government. Less than a quarter of the murder rate in the US. Best of all, I can walk the streets without ever wondering if the person walking toward me is "carrying". In this country police generally need not worry either. That's why the US cops kill somewhere between 800 an 1000 people a year. On a pro rata basis that is 13 times the rate Australian police do likewise. I kind of understand the difference. I seem to recall that around 400 cops are killed on the job every year, more often than not by people who do carry.

As for state based well regulated militias, national guards or whatever, I do appreciate the underlying purpose. Very noble, that. Trouble is, they have a history of coming out on the side of federal government, against "we, the people".

I don't think you do appreciate it, as your description is off a bit.

It isn't FOR a well-regulated militia, but for individuals.

Strange twist. Yes, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And the reason for that is? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary" So it is for a well regulated militia. If there were no need for that there'd be no need for an uninfringed right for people to bear arms.

As to Australia, I would guess it is like Canada, in that there are lots of guns around...

In Australia that would be 25 privately owned firearms per 100 people. No semi automatics, pump action or concealable ones among them to speak of. They cannot be carried openly in public, and when not used for hunting or shooting competitions they must be stored in secure lockers. Ammunition for them must be stored in separate, secure lockers. You can be pretty certain that next to nobody walks around with a ready to shoot firearm.

I'm always suspicious of the stats offered by gun control proponents, not least because they are often surrounded by armed guards while they pontificate...

I have never seen a gun control proponent pontificate while surrounded by armed guards, but then I don't live in the US.

I think it is hilarious that the Oscars are guarded by guns, while your schools are guarded by signs indicating a gun-free zone.

The Australian equivalent of the Oscars is definitely not guarded by guns. There's no need. And we have no need for signs indicating that our schools are gun-free zones either.

[Cunt]

Strange twist.

No, it's a very common misunderstanding between two points of view.

On one side, some interpret it to mean that a militia can have guns, on the other, they interpret it to mean individuals can have guns.

You can insist that your way is the right way all day long, I'm just asking you to understand where other people may disagree, because of this difference.

Maybe a comedian can explain it better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

In Australia that would be 25 privately owned firearms per 100 people. No semi automatics, pump action or concealable ones among them to speak of. They cannot be carried openly in public, and when not used for hunting or shooting competitions they must be stored in secure lockers. Ammunition for them must be stored in separate, secure lockers. You can be pretty certain that next to nobody walks around with a ready to shoot firearm.

You sound like a city fellow.

I have lived in both city, and remote, rural environments. Same country, very different experience of guns.

The Australian equivalent of the Oscars is definitely not guarded by guns. There's no need. And we have no need for signs indicating that our schools are gun-free zones either.

Australia IS guarded by guns. Or do the police just use billy clubs and harsh namecalling?

There IS a need, everywhere. How it is managed changes from place to place, but let me ask you this - do you think your personal view on carrying a gun for protection would change based on living in the following areas -
Grise Fjord, Canada
Detroit ghetto, US

It's worth appreciating that different environments demand different approaches.

[pErvinalia]

No, theres some other simple modification you can do. If Seth was here he'd explain it.

Does a xirl like you believe that only your President and his team should have access to guns?

I think it is hilarious that the Oscars are guarded by guns, while your schools are guarded by signs indicating a gun-free zone.

What does any of that have to do with the quote of mine you were responding to? Was it just another opportunity for you to throw in one of your childish insults?

Oh and Hermit and I are Australians. Not Americans. And ironically you sound more like an American than a Canadian.

[Hermit]

Strange twist.

No, it's a very common misunderstanding between two points of view.

On one side, some interpret it to mean that a militia can have guns, on the other, they interpret it to mean individuals can have guns.

You can insist that your way is the right way all day long, I'm just asking you to understand where other people may disagree, because of this difference.

Maybe a comedian can explain it better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

I can only repeat: If there were no need for that there'd be no need for an uninfringed right for people to bear arms. The rationale behind, or perhaps I should say the entire justification for the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is the perceived necessity of well regulated militia. (It made sense in the late 19th century when the US was about to become the first democratic (well, sort of democratic. Slaves, women and men without real property were not envisaged to be franchised) nation and nobody could tell how robust the democratic mindset of the lawmakers and heads of government might be. The militias were also meant to be the only military forces available to the USA.) You, and the comedians just keep insisting on ignoring that point.


Yes, I may insist on a lot of things. Food and shelter come to mind. Right now I am not insisting on either. I am more inclined to discuss issues, and yes, I have changed my mind on some of them, guns being an example. After the 1996 buyback scheme that took 20% of privately owned firearms out of circulation in under twelve months, gun banners were crowing about the fact that murder by firearm had been reduced by 70 or 80% (depending on who was talking). Sure enough, the figures published by the Australian Bureau of statistics backed that up, so I was in favour of a total gun ban.

Then I had a closer look. What about the murder rate overall? Turned out there was a hardly discernable drop, most definitely not one that could be remotely seen as commensurate with the reduced number of privately owned firearms. People just utilised other weapons to achieve the same result. The total number of deaths as well as the percentage of them that were achieved with knives in particular spiked immediately. Similarly, fewer people topped themselves with guns, but the use of ropes and drugs rocketed. Both murder and suicide rates were dropping before the buyback scheme. Afterwards they kept dropping at a slightly faster rate. My advocacy of gun bans ceased.

So, why am I in favour of gun control? What about "more guns, less crime", "an armed society is a polite society", "if gins are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" and all that? Well I looked at that too, and it is bullshit. I revisit the stats occasionally to see if things have changed, but so far they have not. Just last month I pasted state by state murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates per 100,000 inhabitants into a spreadsheet and matched them with state by state gun ownership rates. Unfortunately, the data for the former were gathered in 2015 and the ones for the latter in 2013, but I don't think the time difference would have caused any significant distortions in the relation to the two sets. If you can do better, feel free to provide the sources.

Then I created a chart to illustrate the data and let the spreadsheet's algorithm add a trendline. Here's the result:

US_gun_ownership_and_murder_rates_by_state.jpg (32 KiB) Viewed 3402 times

In Australia that would be 25 privately owned firearms per 100 people. No semi automatics, pump action or concealable ones among them to speak of. They cannot be carried openly in public, and when not used for hunting or shooting competitions they must be stored in secure lockers. Ammunition for them must be stored in separate, secure lockers. You can be pretty certain that next to nobody walks around with a ready to shoot firearm.

You sound like a city fellow.

I have lived in both city, and remote, rural environments. Same country, very different experience of guns.

Nice to see you are cured from presuming that I live in the US. Unfortunately that does not prevent you from entertaining more presumptions. For the past 13 years I have lived in a small town. The nearest city is 400 kilometres from my home. The nearest shooting range is literally within earshot. I can hear the members of the well patronised rifle club banging away every weekend and on quite a few workdays. I have also lived in a more remote area for over a year. There I could tell exactly who was driving past my abode without looking out the window. George and Christine lived three kilometres east of me. Their Landrover's motor gave them away every time. Another nine or so kilometres further on lived another couple whose name I cannot remember now, but the sound of their ute was equally distinctive. The nearest shop was 25 kilometres away, part of a cluster of buildings that included a farm supply business and, thankfully, a pub. If I needed to buy anything other than food or alcohol I'd have to drive another 75 kilometres. The fun bit between home and the nearest shop was shooting rabbits. I could easily get eight or ten with my .22 Sportco bolt action, provided it was not a windy day, which made the bunnies all jumpy. City, small town or remote area made no difference to my feeling more or less likely to be shot or otherwise killed. It may well be that murder rates in rural North America are significantly lower than in its cities. If the same applies to Australia I don't know. What I do know is that Australia has quarter the gun ownership rate compared to the US. Also a quarter of the murder rate. This might be a coincidence, but whether it is or not, you have yet to provide evidence that more guns equals less crime.

The Australian equivalent of the Oscars is definitely not guarded by guns. There's no need. And we have no need for signs indicating that our schools are gun-free zones either.

Australia IS guarded by guns. Or do the police just use billy clubs and harsh namecalling?

We're talking about privately owned firearms, right? Here in Australia every single shot fired by a police officer gets into the media, even when nobody is actually hit. In the US only the more controversial shootings of the 800 - 1000 occasioning death by the police get a mention.

There IS a need, everywhere. How it is managed changes from place to place, but let me ask you this - do you think your personal view on carrying a gun for protection would change based on living in the following areas -
Grise Fjord, Canada
Detroit ghetto, US

It's worth appreciating that different environments demand different approaches.

No. There is not a need everywhere to be armed. Not in Australia. I never heard of Grise Fjord, Canada. As far as Detroit ghetto, US is concerned, I am told that most murders occur among gangs. Nice argument for effective gun control. The Australian equivalent used to be the streets surrounding Sydney's Kings Cross, especially the seedier ends of Darlinghurst and Elizabeth Bay. That's were most of the drug dealers, and heroin addicts congregated. Chances of getting mugged there were excellent if you wandered around on your own, but the threat would be getting punched, maybe hit with a spanner, piece of wood or whatever, not a fucking firearm.

[pErvinalia]

American!

[JimC]

Hermit's posts pretty well nailed it, as far as the Oz gun situation goes. Some heavy bikie gangs and criminals (the 2 are very overlapping sets here) kill other criminals with illegal guns, but meh...

[Hermit]

Some heavy bikie gangs and criminals (the 2 are very overlapping sets here) kill other criminals with illegal guns, but meh...

That turf war in your fair city had the cops mighty pleased, though they could not of course admit to it. 36 top level crims topped each other starting between 1998 and 2008 or thereabouts. On a couple of occasions innocent bystanders were endangered, but luckily none were injured or killed.

When two bikie gangs decided to have a shootout in the car park of a Sydney pub in 1983, the result was horrendous. Six bikies finished up dead. That's not the horrendous part. One bystander was also killed and 28 others injured. That was.

[Brian Peacock]

...if only those bystanders had been armed....

[Hermit]

...if only those bystanders had been armed....

Yeah. It's a popular pub. On a Saturday there'd have been around 200 patrons. There's nothing 19 Comancheros and 34 Bandidos, armed or not, could have done when faced with 200 ice cold sharpshooters aiming their Glocks at them. All our weekend drinkers are specially trained to handle surprise shootouts with military precision and efficiency. The alcohol enhances their effectiveness.

[JimC]

Some heavy bikie gangs and criminals (the 2 are very overlapping sets here) kill other criminals with illegal guns, but meh...

That turf war in your fair city had the cops mighty pleased, though they could not of course admit to it. 36 top level crims topped each other starting between 1998 and 2008 or thereabouts. On a couple of occasions innocent bystanders were endangered, but luckily none were injured or killed.

When two bikie gangs decided to have a shootout in the car park of a Sydney pub in 1983, the result was horrendous. Six bikies finished up dead. That's not the horrendous part. One bystander was also killed and 28 others injured. That was.

Melbourne criminals are highly ethical, and very concerned about innocent bystanders...

[Scot Dutchy]

Our police are armed. In 2016 and 2017 the were two deaths in each resulting from police shooting. If a police agent undoes the strap holding his weapon he has to make a full report. In 2016 there were 81 people killed by firearms. The majority were the result of underworld liquidations and bikers wars.

The bikers gangs have now been disbanded and all properties (including bikes confiscated and they were rich). Mr Big (Hollender) is standing trial at the present moment for ordering five liquidations. We have not had one terrorist shooting.

I never feel afraid here and I have been in some strange places that maybe I should not have visited but nothing happened. I could not live in a society where you did not know if someone is 'carrying'. Just the thought alone.

[Hermit]

I could not live in a society where you did not know if someone is 'carrying'.

"If I had a gun I would shoot you dead!" She did not have a gun, and if she had she may not have used it. Nevertheless, the possibility of being killed in the US on account of road rage caused by a near miss is more real than here. For example, two men have died after shooting each other following a road-rage fuelled argument in Michigan and One man shot dead, two people injured during a road rage incident in Phoenix. If you google for shooting deaths triggered by road rages you'll find plenty more. Almost all reports originate somewhere in the US. Thank fuck I don't need to worry about some fuckwit pointing a gun at me, then pulling the trigger because of some perceived driving error in Australia. The roads are dangerous enough without adding firearms into the equation.

So, what next? I expect the usual suspects will now pull out their copy of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime and quote the numbers he made up concerning defensive gun use. Funny how DGU is simply redundant in so many countries because when there are so few guns around you have very few situations where you'd need one to defend yourself with.

[Scot Dutchy]

I could not live in a society where you did not know if someone is 'carrying'.

"If I had a gun I would shoot you dead!" She did not have a gun, and if she had she may not have used it. Nevertheless, the possibility of being killed in the US on account of road rage caused by a near miss is more real than here. For example, two men have died after shooting each other following a road-rage fuelled argument in Michigan and One man shot dead, two people injured during a road rage incident in Phoenix. If you google for shooting deaths triggered by road rages you'll find plenty more. Almost all reports originate somewhere in the US. Thank fuck I don't need to worry about some fuckwit pointing a gun at me, then pulling the trigger because of some perceived driving error in Australia. The roads are dangerous enough without adding firearms into the equation.

So, what next? I expect the usual suspects will now pull out their copy of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime and quote the numbers he made up concerning defensive gun use. Funny how DGU is simply redundant in so many countries because when there are so few guns around you have very few situations where you'd need one to defend yourself with.

There are hunting weapons but very very strictly controlled with the same idea that weapon an ammunition are stored separately in independent safes not in the same room or space. The police department that deals with gun licences has the right to check them any time without an appointment.

Target rifles are not allowed outside the rifle club only with a special once occasion licence. I have travelled through most of Europe but never once have been threatened.