Australia whats up with this?

Isn't someone claiming to need a firearm to defend themselves doing the exact same thing?

What you're suggesting seems to be that every individual's situation is individually assessed to determing the best course of action for their specific circumstances rather than dealing with societal issues at a societal level...
How big (and expensive) do you want the government to be if you expect them to address each citizen individually?

Let me get this straight... handguns are used in crime more frequently than any other form of firearm, and you're surprised that the Australian government has questions when you want to import what is reputed to be the most powerful handgun in the world, just so you can put holes in paper?

And this has resulted in a society where you have less chance of being robbed or murdered, which means you have less need to carry one "for self defense".

I'm sure that you're a special and unique individual. Unfortunately, laws have to be written that apply to everyone equally.
Whereas you might not use your "concealed handgun for self defense purposes" to threaten or harm others, you know that others will - and the gun sellers will use this as proof that more people need to be equally armed in order to defend themselves... and the more paranoid people get, the faster they will be to draw their weapons "in self defense"... which will result in more firearm-related violence/deaths... which will increase the marketting opportunities for gun sellers... etc.
That's the spiral that creates "gun culture". It's weak-minded people allowing themselves to be manipulated by fear.

All I'm seeing is more whining about how societal solutions shouldn't affect individuals within that society...

I'm believe your alleged education illustrates you should have the mental capacity to comprehend that you have no obligation to read something that wasn't addressed to you.

 

Seems that's all you did in post #217...

Try writing something worth reading.

 

I understand your point and you do a good job explaining yourself. However, I believe that the only logical purpose of such a law would be to decrease homicides, or mass homicides, in general. I cannot fathom those that passed this law saying, "Our goal is to only decrease "firearm-related mass murders" which have occurred, on average, once per decade here in Australia. We don't care if mass murders continue to occur by other methods." That would be ludicrous.

Moreover, New Zealand has not had any "firearm-related" mass murders since 1996, and they did not pass any similar gun control law as Australia did. Thus, how can anyone, who is honest with themselves, claim success when a similar country experienced the same lack of "firearm-related mass murders" without passing a similar law?

And, as a man of science, I must say that this theory has essentially been debunked, given the multiple mass murders since this strict gun control law was enacted. If this theory was true, then we would have seen a significant decrease in your overall mass murder rate, which (like your murder rate), has not changed in a statistically significant way.

You continue to act as if death via gunfire is somehow different than death by any other means. The fact that mass murders have continued in spite of this law being enacted proves to me that Australian murderers intent on committing mass murder have not been hindered in the least by this law.

But it must be about mass murder in general and not only "firearm-related mass murder" (which I feel is a ridiculous term). You cannot separate firearm-related murder from all other types of murder: There only difference between a firearm-related murder and any other type of murder is the object used in the killing, which is a trivial point UNLESS such an object is so powerful that by removing this object from the populace it would make committing mass murder much more difficult to the point where the number of overall mass murders decrease in a significant fashion. However, the facts have proven that in spite of your gun laws, mass murderers are still committing mass murder, so these semi-automatic weapons must not be as evil and powerful as many wrongly believe.

That's my point exactly.

That would be a logical fallacy. It would be extremely myopic to the point of dishonesty to only talk about about firearm-related mass murder while ignoring all other forms of mass murder.

 

Ask the question "does this activity coerce others" rather than "does this activity lead to dire results". Burning a Qur'an might result in a lot of deaths, but that's irrelevant - I am doing nothing wrong by burning a Qur'an, the blame goes to those doing the killing, not I. Similarly, firearms being legal will likely lead to gun deaths - however, I'm not responsible for the crimes of others. Just as I am not coercing anyone by burning a Qur'an, I am not coercing anyone by carrying a weapon for self defense and target shooting.

I expect the government to charge Bikies individually based on their crimes: murder, rape, assault, etc - not label them all based on an increased likelihood of committing crime and collectively punish them. Similarly, I expect them to punish gun owners when they use guns coercively, rather than punishing them all, including those who have done nothing wrong - by taking away our property and restricting civil liberties.

This seems like a tempting point if you know nothing about firearms. You'd have to be a monumental idiot to choose a Smith and Wesson 500 over a .357, which is much more easily available. It makes no sense to restrict high caliber handguns that are exclusively used for peaceful recreation purposes.

It being the most powerful handgun is less than irrelevant, it's undesirable. It's significantly more difficult to hide, it alerts everyone around you when you fire it, and it has far too much recoil to be used effectively in most criminal situations. It makes no sense whatsoever for it to be any more restricted than a lower caliber handgun.

To be fair, we have higher rates of rape, and a rather high home invasion rate. In the situations where we are assaulted, we have no recourse other than to do whatever they say until they leave and we can call the police. We have no self defense, we have after the fact policing.

Just last month a man tried to break into our house. Luckily we were up at the time and were able to scare him away, but things could have easily gone pear shaped.

Show that someone has coercive intent before taking away their property and treating them like criminals.

" I'm doing nothing wrong by carrying a concealed handgun for self defense purposes." - this applies to everyone. Anyone who is carrying a concealed handgun for self defense purposes is doing nothing wrong.

Additionally, we do have a way of enforcing laws selectively - permits. The two options aren't "handing out AR15s in the streets" and "making all guns illegal" - you can enact a reasonable licensing system where competent, law-abiding citizens can pass firearm theory, practical, self defense and storage courses and be able to carry a firearm for self defense.

Make the licensing more stringent than police training for all I care.

*See above*

Nah thanks, I'll comment on what I like.

 

Sure. That sounds very fair.

There already exists plenty of legislation prohibiting the misuse of firearms and motor vehicles.

 

Don't you think it might be a bit difficult to measure the deterrent effect of the law? I think it is. That's why statements about the alleged ineffectivness of the law are simply opinions and without a little bit of evidence to back the up opinions cannot morph into arguments.


Prisons bulging at the seams are evidence of something, but I'm not sure if it's about the deterrent effect of the law. It's probably got more to do with the effectiveness of law enforcement in catching criminals and the cj system in prosecuting them and the courts in banging people up rather than using diversionary tactics and a few other causes.


Laws that restrict your freedom or rights do so for everyone in society so take heart, you're not the only one who is suffering.


Of course criminals don't obey firearms control laws, they're criminals after all.

 

I'm not trying to install any government. Nor am I living in a society without rights. I'm not concerned with germs and kids (but I don't like the anti-vaccination crowd).


Homicide by firearms is indeed the focus, not homicide by other means.

 

Last point first. If the thread is going to be about mass murder then so be it.


Now, the point about the legislation that the Howard government persuaded the states and territories to pass was political. The federal government felt it had to "do something". The states and territories felt the same way. It didn't matter that Tasmania, the state which saw the Port Arthur killings, had pretty slack, by Australian standards, firearms laws. Everyone had to be subjected to the same federal policy and frankly it was easy for the Howard government to put it to the states and territories because everyone was so shocked by what happened at Port Arthur.


Indeed the focus was on firearms and mass murder, not on other forms of mass murder.


After 9/11 our states and territories began tightening up on the use of prilled ammonia (which you are probably aware is a fertiliser) that can be used as an explosive. For years we had tonnes of the stuff on farms, in factories, in the opal fields (mixed with diesel and a detonator it's a cheap explosive which is very effective) and as far as I know no-one had committed mass murder with the stuff. But in the wake of 9/11 the government felt it had to do something and theorised that all that prilled ammonia laying about the place was too tempting for would-be terrorists so they persuaded the states and territories to tighten up the laws regulating its sale and use.


If we are unfortunate enough to experience mass murders in the future you can bet whatever the means are that the govt will go to town on regulating it. Govts are lke that, they have to be seen to react, to do something.


Back to firearms. I need to make the point that - in general at least - mass murders are not committed by what we might call career criminals. Career criminals, as I think we may agree, don't care about laws which restrict the types of firearms that can be lawfully owned, but those crooks tend not to go out and use full or semi-autos to randomly kill large numbers of people (St Valentine's Day Massacre type events are not random). No, those tend to be the actions of people who are mentally ill. It's a broad-blanket approach to react - and it was very much a reaction - by bringing in laws to remove or significantly reduce the numbers of semi-autos (for example) in lawful hands. I suppose the theory is that if they're not lawfully available then they will mainly be in the hands of crooks and not available to be lawfully possessed and therefore likely to be used by someone having a really bad day.


Most states and territories had pretty good firearms control laws in place in 1996 when Bryant murdered those people at Port Arthur and environs. Tasmania didn't. The Howard government over-reaction was to force all jurisdictions to tighten up beyond what was necessary. I do think the response can be criticised but let's be accurate about the base for criticism. And let's be accurate about what the response was trying to achieve - a reduced chance of mass murder by mentally unwell persons who are able to procure semi-auto long weapons (even pump-action shotguns were banned). On that basis it would appear the approach worked.

 

Agreed - and it depends on jurisdiction so I won't try to make comparisons about efficacy. But my point is that some form of legislation should exist to prohibit misuse of both. Balancing the interests involved is what we expect our legislators to do. Me I want them to legislate only so far as it assists public safety without transgressing too far on individual interests. But I do expect them to legislate.

 

I understand that the passing of this legislation was political, but if what you are saying is true (that the politicians only cared about mass murder via firearms and not overall mass murder), then those politicians are immensely incompetent. Like I said before, I cannot even imagine a group of politicians getting together and stating, "Our goal is to only decrease "firearm-related mass murders," but we really don't care if mass murders continue to occur by other methods at the same rate as before this law is passed."

True. However, even with all of the panic after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and especially after 9/11, our government never confiscated the legally-purchased items of civilians nor did it try to curtail a natural right that was further defended by the Bill of Rights.

I know, and this is unfortunate. Sometimes the best thing to do is to think something through logically rather than quickly create a massive law that involves the confiscation of legally purchased items from law-abiding citizens. Governments and those involved in government often have a difficult time thinking things through logically, which is why we get some of the absurd laws that we have.

I agree with 100% of everything that you explained above. The main concern that I continue to reiterate is that, using the objective data, the 1996 gun control law was not successful in curbing mass murder. If these firearms that were confiscated and eliminated from circulation were truly so incredibly dangerous, as the government believed, then we would have seen a signficant decrease in mass murder, which is not the case.

Let me conclude by making an analogy. Let's say the parents of a toddler find that their toddler is escaping from its crib about 3 times per week on average. Thinking that the most obvious way a toddler can escape out of a crib is climbing over the rails, the parents devise a way that essentially eliminates the possibility of the child climbing over the rails. However, during the following week, the parents find that the toddler is still escaping from the crib 3 times (using a different method of escape that the parents did not initially think of). So despite preventing the toddler from climbing over the rails, the parents did not prevent their toddler from escaping the crib overnight. Thus, in all honesty, can these parents claim that their approach was successful?

 

you have no Bill of Rights in Oz. You have compliance with the ruling party. Permissions through the government is not the same as Rights.

 

Completely wrong.

 

Agreed!!

 

Why? Do we ask this in relation to traffic laws? A drunk driver, or a person speeding, or a person driving without a license... they don't coerce others... right?

...unless you utilize that weapon to commit a robbery or some other criminal act.

Right, so don't try to prevent crimes from occurring, just punish those that commit them...
Like the old expression says "a ounce of cure is worth a pound of prevention." right?

I agree that the fact that a .357 is much more easily available makes it more likely to be used in crimes... That's kind of the point here.

The average person performing an armed hold-up is after cash. That's the end game. A gun in this instance is simply a tool to scare people into compliance. Whether that gun would be ideal in a prolonged firefight is irrelevant. A large calibre weapon that makes a lot of noise is likely to get faster compliance, which allows the theif to get the cash and get out faster (before police respond).
In fact, I can't think of a "violent crime" other than premeditated murder in which a gun isn't used primarily for intimidation. Can you?

Why make the most suitable tool readily available to criminals? After all, if your purpose is self-defense, wouldn't the same recoil issue you mentioned make it less effective than alternatives?

Seriously? You're using an unreferenced assertion by a company that sells security systems as a valid unbiased source in relation to home invasions?

I already provided an example back in post #206 of why comparing crime in one country to another is flawed...

The same applies to "rape" statistics:
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/rapemain

The Australian crimes this is compared to are "sexual assaults", and are much broader in scope.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/sheets/rs1/

And how would being assaulted by people with guns help that situation?

And things in this single anecdotal example couldn't have "gone pear shaped" if everyone involved had a firearm?

Are you treated like a criminal by having controls (licensing, registration, insurance, etc) around the purchase of a vehicle?

That would be a form of gun control that I've previously indicated I support.

Ok, since it's something you want to discuss, let's take another look...

So, this post raises a few "interesting" points:
- Statistics is a powerful weapon.
- Statistics is better than Kevlar.
- Statistics won't get a person into heaven.
- Statistics will not save your life.
- When your number is up, it's up. "so why bother"

In short, this work of a mental giant asserts that statistics are powerful and useful while being weak and useless, with a little hint of religion and redneck "charm" thrown in... In what way did this serve any purpose, make any point, or contribute to the thread?

 

I know, you have the right to have a Barbie and drink beer and chase sharks at the beach.....
what about those public birthday parties
What about those slingshots
what about those hunting bows
you cannot "own" guns, they are distributed through government permissions
what about having the Right to defend your home as you see fit
what about protections form illegal search and seizure (warrantless)
where is your Bill of Rights

 

I'm very happy if the sharks stay off the beach and in the water


As long as an individual complies with the legislation passed by the particular parliament (we have a legislative assembly or parliament for every state and territory as well as the federal one - overgoverned in that sense, yes) then they can get a firearm. They can't legally buy certain firearms true, but they can purchase firearms, so say they are "distributed through government permissions" is wrong.


The law of self-defence comes from English common law and it does vary slightly across the jurisdictions. In my own state the law of self-defence allows for reasonable force, not unreasonable force, someone going out hunting for a trespasser with a firearm and who kills them would be in a world of trouble. And the law here also allows a jury to use the subjective interpretation to be applied to the actions of an individual in defending themselves or others rather than the more onerous objective standard.


Search and seizure differs across the jurisdictions. In my state it is true that police have some very broad powers of search and seizure and they use them. But there are safeguards in place in both policy and in the law which protect against abuse. We also have strong, statutory civilian oversight which is a good balance. Here police officers are also legally responsible for their own actions and are sued for same, the employer (dept) does not pick up the tab. Warrantless search and seizure does happen but only in extreme circumstances and at the peril to the police officer of being personallly sued. Search and seizure - with or without warrant - is always subject to the discretion of the court in the admission of evidence and courts here are careful not to encourage warrantless search by automatic admission of evidence.


One state, Victoria, has a Bill of Rights. Other jurisdictions use the English common law and the English constitution as it existed before the particular state constitution was established (albeit contemporary judgements in jurisdictions which also use English common law are considered persuasive). The English bill of rights, the one I'm thinking of particularly is the one of 1688, has been influential in shaping the application of constitutional and other law in all jurisdictions. Not having a written bill of rights does not automatically mean there are no rights. That's a common misconception.

 

By that logic, Americans are cannot "own" cars, they are distributed through government permissions. What about having the right to travel and move freely as you see fit...?

 

Dang, as I dig deeper it's not looking so go for the down under crowd.
http://www.worldpublicunion.org/201...n-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

The video at the end speaks volumes about how everyday Australians feel. I had no idea. Thank god I live in the USA

 

Is this true?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/

Much more in the article but one has to believe stories from down under are being censored....eh?

 

c'mon, now...you don't the media is really controlled do you? Then why is it so many aussies are complaining about our advertising showing up there?

 

I gave them the benefit of the doubt but now.....I wonder

 

We're a cheerfully xenophobic lot. We don't mind seeing American products advertised on tv (for example) and we'll happily go out and buy them, but you try and use American ads with American actors and American accents selling American products in an American show on Australian tv and we get all huffy!

 

no different than aussie actors showing up on my TV screen........ so, let's trade off, take your people back home and send ours back......

 

Huffy spitty and nasty!!

The BEST response would be "bloody Yanks!"

 

"the daily caller"? Could you get a more obscure site and opinion??

Bias much??