HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Aussies Had a Gun Mas...

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:01 AM

 

The Aussies Had a Gun Massacre Problem. THEY FIXED IT! WHY CAN'T WE?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.


That fact is like, just fucking WOW!

181 replies, 14467 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 181 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Aussies Had a Gun Massacre Problem. THEY FIXED IT! WHY CAN'T WE? (Original post)
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 OP
ann--- Dec 2012 #1
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #2
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #97
6502 Dec 2012 #168
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #3
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #4
pangaia Dec 2012 #31
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #118
Daemonaquila Dec 2012 #50
PoliticalBiker Dec 2012 #54
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #99
freshwest Dec 2012 #128
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #159
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #6
PoliticalBiker Dec 2012 #60
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #78
atreides1 Dec 2012 #77
Livluvgrow Dec 2012 #155
murphyj87 Dec 2012 #179
leeroysphitz Dec 2012 #5
baldguy Dec 2012 #8
RC Dec 2012 #21
hifiguy Dec 2012 #110
Pryderi Dec 2012 #7
leveymg Dec 2012 #10
jonesgirl Dec 2012 #41
Plucketeer Dec 2012 #76
pop topcan Dec 2012 #151
jonesgirl Dec 2012 #181
MrModerate Dec 2012 #55
DissidentVoice Dec 2012 #107
MrModerate Dec 2012 #132
DissidentVoice Dec 2012 #166
MrModerate Dec 2012 #174
DissidentVoice Dec 2012 #176
Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #167
MrModerate Dec 2012 #175
DissidentVoice Dec 2012 #177
frylock Dec 2012 #126
DissidentVoice Dec 2012 #178
gcomeau Dec 2012 #130
the devil Dec 2012 #145
murphyj87 Dec 2012 #169
Renew Deal Dec 2012 #9
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #26
Wednesdays Dec 2012 #29
krispos42 Dec 2012 #40
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #43
ragemage Dec 2012 #42
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #137
Thav Dec 2012 #52
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #53
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #86
Nevernose Dec 2012 #100
MrModerate Dec 2012 #58
Recursion Dec 2012 #74
Renew Deal Dec 2012 #91
SheilaT Dec 2012 #115
valerief Dec 2012 #11
A HERETIC I AM Dec 2012 #12
leveymg Dec 2012 #13
marions ghost Dec 2012 #45
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #89
marions ghost Dec 2012 #93
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #102
Festivito Dec 2012 #136
Firebrand Gary Dec 2012 #14
pop topcan Dec 2012 #152
kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #15
ReRe Dec 2012 #16
horsedoc Dec 2012 #17
UndahCovah Dec 2012 #34
marions ghost Dec 2012 #95
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #109
UndahCovah Dec 2012 #142
marions ghost Dec 2012 #147
pop topcan Dec 2012 #154
aandegoons Dec 2012 #18
LisaLynne Dec 2012 #19
99Forever Dec 2012 #20
marions ghost Dec 2012 #22
Recursion Dec 2012 #32
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #36
Recursion Dec 2012 #39
marions ghost Dec 2012 #46
Recursion Dec 2012 #49
marions ghost Dec 2012 #56
Recursion Dec 2012 #59
marions ghost Dec 2012 #64
Recursion Dec 2012 #67
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #81
Recursion Dec 2012 #83
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #125
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #80
Recursion Dec 2012 #87
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #146
progressoid Dec 2012 #47
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #23
eShirl Dec 2012 #24
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #131
ananda Dec 2012 #25
harun Dec 2012 #27
Ford_Prefect Dec 2012 #28
Recursion Dec 2012 #30
ProSense Dec 2012 #61
Recursion Dec 2012 #63
ProSense Dec 2012 #69
Recursion Dec 2012 #72
ProSense Dec 2012 #75
Recursion Dec 2012 #79
ProSense Dec 2012 #84
Recursion Dec 2012 #88
ProSense Dec 2012 #92
hack89 Dec 2012 #82
ProSense Dec 2012 #85
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #33
Demeter Dec 2012 #35
Demeter Dec 2012 #37
krispos42 Dec 2012 #38
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #44
NewJeffCT Dec 2012 #62
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #73
ieoeja Dec 2012 #112
Indydem Dec 2012 #98
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #119
Indydem Dec 2012 #120
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #123
jonesgirl Dec 2012 #48
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #149
jonesgirl Dec 2012 #180
LynneSin Dec 2012 #51
Indydem Dec 2012 #103
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #163
ProSense Dec 2012 #57
Recursion Dec 2012 #65
ProSense Dec 2012 #66
Recursion Dec 2012 #68
ProSense Dec 2012 #71
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #70
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #90
librechik Dec 2012 #94
indepat Dec 2012 #96
neffernin Dec 2012 #101
ProSense Dec 2012 #105
neffernin Dec 2012 #160
Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #165
santamargarita Dec 2012 #104
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #106
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #127
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #134
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #135
AZ Progressive Dec 2012 #108
HeiressofBickworth Dec 2012 #111
shireen Dec 2012 #113
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #114
solara Dec 2012 #116
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #117
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #121
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2012 #122
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #124
KamaAina Dec 2012 #129
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #133
samsingh Dec 2012 #138
Festivito Dec 2012 #139
AZ Progressive Dec 2012 #144
Festivito Dec 2012 #171
gcomeau Dec 2012 #150
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #157
Festivito Dec 2012 #172
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #140
840high Dec 2012 #141
treestar Dec 2012 #143
UTUSN Dec 2012 #148
Hoyt Dec 2012 #153
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #173
leftlibdem420 Dec 2012 #156
Isoldeblue Dec 2012 #158
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #161
Cleita Dec 2012 #162
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #164
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #170

Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)


Response to ann--- (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:14 AM

2. If you're right, the entire country is doomed

 

I'm not much on religion, but I do believe in something approximating a soul. If we let business as usual continue, we'll have lost our national one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:10 PM

97. yes we CAN and yes we WILL nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:05 AM

168. This time we WILL.

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:15 AM

3. Because the the lobbiest, namely the NRA, will not allow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:19 AM

4. The NRA Has Gone Silent

 

They know they're taking on water: Let's add 10,000 gallons to the sinking ship, shall we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:16 AM

31. Good idea.

An old aphorism--When your enemy is sinking, throw him an anchor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:31 PM

118. Carville!

IIRC, "If your opponent is drowning, toss the bastard an anvil!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:47 AM

50. There's much more to fix than can be fixed by gun control, but -

we can NOT have a real conversation about it until the NRA is a stinking memory. This may be a unique opportunity to sink them, before they figure out a strategy to misdirect and come up on top again in political circles and in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:03 AM

54. Most Definately

While I own guns and want to keep that right, I despise the NRA
We could have made meaningful changes long ago had it not been for the NRA.
Even though I do own guns, I am completely open to reasonable restrictions and have been for a long time.
The NRA must change its tune. I would be much happier if they just went away... permanently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:11 PM

99. I say smoke them out of their holes

they don't thrive in the light.

Their days of power are numbered and it's not a big number.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:21 PM

128. Their pals in the conspiracy world and Rush and Beck haven't though - neither has ALEC.

There needs to be a pushback in every state legislature on the loosening of gun control. Look at Michigan - after going after voters, women, children, public workers, schools and the Commons in general and most notably unions - they are passing more liberalization of CCW. Not stopping the war on any of the others, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:18 PM

159. The NRA will be back, they are just waiting until people cool down over this incident

and it fades away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:24 AM

6. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014339712

 

"onehandle" is exactly right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:18 AM

60. I was watching...

... one of the weekend shows, I don't remember which one, but one of the guests said the NRA didn't have the power the media and many people said it did. And he wasn't challenged on that! I couldn't believe it.
When NRA membership cards are allowed as legal ID to vote in some states, when legislators are coersed by NRA *grading* threats, when gun restrictions are repealed with the ONLY advocate of repeal is the NRA, when background checks are required for hand guns but NOT long guns because of the NRA, the statement saying the power of the NRA is limited, it patently false.
While I believe in the 2nd amendment, with reasonable restrictions like any other part of the Constitution already has, THAT organization should be disbanded by order of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalBiker (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:43 AM

78. Michael Bloomberg

 

On Meet The Press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:40 AM

77. The NRA is a front

For the gun makers and the GOP/Tea Party...they've gone silent for the moment, but it won't stop the money flowing to politicians...you can be silent and still keep that going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:10 PM

155. heck

many here at DU would not allow it. So many folks here have their fingers in their ears going lalalalalalala as we speak

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:38 PM

179. NRA and the insane American gun fetish




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:22 AM

5. We are a nation of privileged children who want all the toys but non of the responsibilities.

It's time for the gun fetishists to realize that their holy, god given right to plink bud light cans off of a fence with their glocks and ar-15s isn't worth 20 murdered kindergarteners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:29 AM

8. +1000

They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian govt control that goes with it. The result is an armed terrorist mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:45 AM

21. Bingo! Their macho deficiency, propped up with their multiple weapons.

 

Why else the use of military knock-offs for hunting, when there are perfectly good standard rifles designed for hunting.
It is a sickness. We are starting to recognize psychopathy as a problem, why not gun nutterey also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:04 PM

110. You nailed it in one well-crafted sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:27 AM

7. Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:49 AM

10. Guns are already regulated. Just extend the same rules from automatic to semi-auto firearms.

There's no real substantive difference between the two types as far as 2A is concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:26 AM

41. Why do you cherish that Amendment so much, when all the other Amendments have been

Amended lots of times? I heard a judge tell a defendant that our Constitution was written for the men hundreds of years ago, and not for today's people...therefore he wouldn't allow him to use We the People as an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonesgirl (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:40 AM

76. For ME....

..I can't understand why part of the 2nd amendment - THE FIRST FOUR WORDS OF THAT AMENDMENT - " A well regulated militia" are hardly EVER mentioned by those who claim said amendment for their own!

What the HELL is regulated - or even passes as a "militia" about those who cling to the personal arsenals? I would like these Rambos to give a detailed explanation of how it is they're gun lust is "regulated". Show me how you're regulated. Show me the enforcing authority for said regulations! Show me how it is they regulate you on a daily basis. We're talking tools EXPLICITLY designed to cause cessation of life in a living being. So explain to me how death tools should be less regulated than your toaster, your pool or your table saw or your automobile. Just how DO the words "regulated" and "militia" figure into your 2nd amendment sheild?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonesgirl (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:03 PM

151. The pro-slavery people welcome your comment.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #151)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

181. I don't understand your comment Pop Topcan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:08 AM

55. No. Australian law is based heavily on English law . . .

And is in fact a member of the Commonwealth, i.e., a formal part of the UK's empire. (Bet you thought that had disappeared entirely, didn't you?)

Which means it's a body of law rather than a foundation document with narrow authorship, and a heavy dose of common law open to broad interpretation by government and the legal system.

But mostly, attitudes toward guns are cultural. Many of my Aussie friends like guns; but I don't know any who love them. Almost nobody's manhood is wrapped up in owning them, and very few Aussies of my acquaintance are so scared of their own shadows that they can't go out of the house without one.

But young Aussies tend to get into fights much more often than young Americans. And when they do, they tend to use their fists. Or the nearest potentially dangerous object (beer glasses are popular, and in fact have given rise to the term "glassing," meaning to throw same in someone's face). But they almost never use guns, and don't care to.

Aussies also like Americans on the whole, but think we're nuts about guns.

They're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:43 PM

107. Close but not exactly

Australia is a Commonwealth Realm, like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados and the UK itself, rather than a colony like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda. The Realms (also called Dominions) recognise the Queen as their Head of State but are entirely independent and self-governing.

Australia has had its own Constitution since 1901, Canada since 1982, New Zealand since 1986.

That said, the laws in all those countries are heavily based on British precedent and tradition.

Our independence came by revolution; theirs came by evolution.

I live near the Canadian border. I still see signs of Olde Brittania there; the Crown on police vehicles, the "EIIR" cypher on some public buildings, the Union Jack in the cantons of the Ontario and Manitoba flags, and "Royal" here and there (Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Mounted Police).

Australia held a referendum in 1999 to ditch the Monarchy, but it was unsuccessful.

I don't know about Jamaica, Barbados, etc., but the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have much, much lower rates of violent crime than we do.

Compare the two cities of Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario...separated by the mile-wide Detroit River, but truly two worlds apart in attitudes toward crime and guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #107)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:16 PM

132. Define "exactly" . . .

I live in Australia (have for years) and I'd say that my description of it as "a part of the empire" is essentially true. And the Constitution signed in 1901 is not the only document that makes up Australia's "Constitution." Several other documents collectively make it up.

Otherwise, we're in agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:19 AM

166. Empire v. Commonwealth

OK, when I speak, I speak as an ardent Anglophile/Australophile/Canadaphile/Kiwiphile (those terms sound creepy, eh?).

First, the Empire hasn't really existed as such since the 1931 Statute of Westminster, when the Dominions were granted self-government; that's when the term "British Commonwealth" came into use. In the Second World War, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa declared war independently of the UK. Canada did so a week after the UK.

Second, decolonisation was rapid after the Second World War. I would put Indian independence as a Republic within the Commonwealth as a tipping point. Much of the Empire in Africa became independent.

Third, South Africa, one of the "charter Dominions," became a Republic outside the Commonwealth in 1961 because of their odious Apartheid policy.

The Commonwealth is a valuable "family of nations" today, even if a lot of people in Britain itself (younger ones mostly) don't even know what it is. A British friend of mine was surprised to see the Queen's image on Canadian currency, and this was back in the '90s.

There is still an Empire: the Falkland Islands, Bermuda, Gibraltar, etc. They are different to the Commonwealth Realms as they are largely ruled from London.

I would put Australia's status as similar to Canada (Quebec aside) and New Zealand as being "children" of the Empire and "grown-ups" in the Commonwealth.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #166)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:56 AM

174. Commonwealth was heir to the empire. The rump of empire. The evolution of empire.

Not disagreeing, per se, but you seem to be calling for a higher standard of historical precision than I was offering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #174)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:41 PM

176. Not intentional

Sorry about that. As a history addict, I tend to get really nitpicky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 AM

167. The Commonwealth and the Empire are two different things...

Australia was part of the British Empire (a Dominion), which disintergrated after WWII and decolonisation of a lot of the Empire. What remained became the Commonwealth, which to the best of my knowledge has no benefits for its members other than the following:

1. The PM gets their pic taken in funny clothes with the Queen at CHOGM.
2. Live and work in other parts of the Commonwealth for a year or so if yr under 30.
3. Get to attend the Commonwealth Games and be trounced by Australia at every sport there is.


btw, have you read our Constitution? Shit, it's dull!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:59 AM

175. Your Item 2 is very, very, very important to young Australians of my acquaintance.

With regard to Item 3, The All Blacks regularly clean Australia's clock in Rugby Sevens and Aussie cricket is in a bit of a slump just at present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:51 PM

177. Membership does have its benefits...

As stated, I live near the Canadian border.

Canadians (Quebec excepted) tend to view the Queen and Commonwealth as one major distinction between them and the United States.

I worked at a college here in the U.S. and one of our students was from Zimbabwe when they copped the boot from the C'wealth because of Robert Mugabe's dictatorship. A very bright, very sweet young woman, who was planning to attend university in Canada for her Master's degree under a Commonwealth student plan. She said, "now I can't do that, since I'm not a Commonwealth citizen anymore!" She was cheesed-off no end and I don't blame her as she had loads of potential to go a long way in life. We had another student from Canada who went to New Zealand for her Master's degree under a similar plan.

Commonwealth citizens can generally serve in one another's armed forces. I remember reading about a Canadian helicopter pilot who put in 20 years' service, retired, moved to Australia, joined the Royal Australian Navy at the rank of Lieutenant-Commander and, as far as I know, is still serving in the RAN as a helicopter pilot there. When the Royal New Zealand Air Force disbanded its fighter units some RNZAF pilots ended up in the RAAF, RAF and RCAF.

However, I do know of Canadians who are angry that EU nationals get precedence ahead of them for UK immigration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:18 PM

126. does australia maintain "a well regulated militia?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:11 AM

178. They do.

The Australian Army Reserve:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/Reserve/

The Royal Australian Air Force Reserve:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/Reserve/

The Royal Australian Navy Reserve:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/navy/Reserve/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:51 PM

130. Know why they call it an *amendment*?

Because the fucking Constitution can be AMENDED. Don't blather on about the fact that it exists, give a good reason it *should*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:37 PM

145. There's another document that should be read...

It says something along the lines of "thou shalt not kill"...and it's been around longer than the Constitution. It might be an outdated concept, but it makes a lot more sense than "I gotta get me more of them AR-15 rifles before Obama takes 'em away!"

By the way, I'm a atheist, and I still think that line in the Bible makes more sense than the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:46 AM

169. No advanced nation...

No advanced nation has a so called "right" to bear arms. That shows how far from the mainstream of 21st century thinking the thinking of Americans is. No wonder the Backward States of America is considered vastly inferior to our nations in every way that counts for anything.

Your nation will continue to be the Backward States of America in the minds of those of us outside the Backward States until the so called "right" to bear arms is repealed and replaced with a real right, the universal right to access to health care regardless of income.

45,000 Americans die each year because they are unable to get the health care they need in the Backward States.
20,000 Americans die each year because there is a so called "right" to bear arms.
Repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with a right to health care would save the lives of 65,000 Americans each year who now die because of the misplaced values of the Backward States of America and it's brain dead citizens.

It's a wonder that brain dead Americans don't have tanks, bazookas, and nuclear weapons in their houses, since these are "arms", and supposedly something they have a so called "right" to as well.

Just as a point of reference, 50 to 60 Canadians are murdered with guns each year, in the area of 1 a week nationwide (and Canadian kids play as many violent video games as American kids), whereas 10,500 Americans are murdered with guns each year, over 200 each week, or 200 times as many as there are in Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:36 AM

9. A ban plus buy back would be powerful

Without a buy back, these weapons will be lying around. That's a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:55 AM

26. A buy-back might work, but boy will it be expensive.

 

My gun collection is worth at least $15,000.

If you figure an average value of $400 per firearm, with an estimated 300,000,000 firearms, the buyback program would cost 120,000,000,000.

That's 120 billion just for the gun purchases, ignoring overhead.

By way of comparison, the entire budget for NASA is only about $18 billion a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:09 AM

29. Let's ask the parents of those dead kids how much they're worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:26 AM

40. So you have no problem with the Pentagon and DHS budget?

How much is a dead child worth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:28 AM

43. I'm not saying it's not worth it, just pointing out the cost.

 

You are probably looking at half the value of the TARP bailout.

And there will be no financial payback of the money like there was with TARP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:28 AM

42. We piss that away on the military every year...and then some.


So by your logic it is too expensive so be prepared oh you a gonna pay for it...seriously do you think all guns will be turned in? of course not. If this saves even one child/one person it is worth the cost.

And we spend way more then that on military every year. How about we take some of that entitlement and cut it? Yeah I know a pipe dream never gonna happen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ragemage (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:23 PM

137. We piss that much away every year on greenskeeping on military golf courses!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:53 AM

52. Yes, that would be expensive

However, that money just doesn't disappear. You're putting 120 billion into the hands of people who are most likely to spend it. Let's say my state got 5 billion of those dollars, and that went into buying goods and services. The state has a 6% sales tax, so they'd stand to gain 300 million. That'd go to pay for a lot of services, which also generate more activity.

Spending generates economic activity, not investment. Buying back guns would generate a lot of economic activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:02 AM

53. Take it out of the Defense budget. Plenty of waste there, to cover a buyback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:54 AM

86. No argument here.

 

Stop all the bullshit wars while we are at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:13 PM

100. And would save more American lives

Than most military spending boondoggles ever did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:15 AM

58. And just the medical costs of gunshot wounds . . .

Are estimated at 2-10 billion a year, even before you add in nonmedical insurance costs and productivity losses.

When you consider all the knock-on costs, it's a program that would pay for itself in about a decade.

And continue paying dividends pretty much forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:34 AM

74. Sounds like about how much stimulus we need

I'm in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:03 PM

91. We're not talking about every weapon

Just the ones that are banned.

And then we can sell them to third world war lords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:06 PM

115. How many trillions of dollars have

been spent on useless wars lately?

The money is there. The will isn't yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:50 AM

11. Of course, the U.S. can do the same. Legislators make waaaaaay too much money off

the weapons industry to give a shit, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:51 AM

12. Australia is a country with a population.....

Roughly equal to the LA/San Diego metroplex, on a continent about the size of the lower 48.

Might have been a different result if there were 360 million Aussies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:54 AM

13. Why? Most Aussies live in cities and suburbs, just like here. What's the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:32 AM

45. Australia is the most urbanized country in the world

--ie. more of the 23 million population lives in the larger cities than anywhere else.

So it really is comparable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:11 AM

89. Absolutely

 

You and leyveymg are correct: There is no substantive difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:34 PM

93. Thank you for your post

Australia is a good example of a country comparable to America that is setting the pace on this.

If Americans could go to Australia they would know there is something different about the place. Less fear, less distrust, less anger, less defensiveness.

As someone said in this thread, the Aussies still have a representative Democracy that responds to the people. America is beholden to arms manufacturers, war profiteers, Big Oil, fat cat self-serving corporates, and the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:26 PM

102. You're Most Welcome

 

And consider this: Australia was founded as a penal colony for British criminals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:54 PM

136. True, but we got the Puritans!

So, we're about even.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:55 AM

14. There are people that would donate BILLIONS to the Gov for the buyback program...

Bloomberg, Gates, Buffett... are names that come to mind. I'd bet on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:04 PM

152. If they're willing to spend that kind of money they don't need the government...just a few dozen

 

free ads on Craigslist. Offer $5K for every handgun, they'll have more than they can melt down.
\

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:03 AM

15. The UK got rid of most guns after another School Shootong, 16 children 1 Adult..........

 

I remember this one, the entire nation had HAD IT!

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom.

Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including media-driven public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.


WIKI LINK:

I had been pro gun & do not process any, this is it.

So Australia & England cared enough about people to protect them, when will we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:15 AM

16. I heard a BBC interview

about this last night. Impressive results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:26 AM

17. Ban assault rifles and semi-automatics....

You can have your hunting rifle, shotgun and revolver for "home defense", ban the rest!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to horsedoc (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:19 AM

34. You just can't do that!

 

Don't you gun grabbers realize, if the government is allowed to just ban things willy-nilly....The republicans take comtrol in 4, 6, 8 years, as the process always goes, what will THEY want to ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UndahCovah (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

95. Call the whambulaaance

somebody's gonna "grab" our automatic weapons.

The govt that cares bans all kinds of things and behaviors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:00 PM

109. LOL!

 

Great riposte, mg!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:53 PM

142. The point is, when the gop takes control

 

As it eventually will (the circle goes on), what will they decide to ban?

You cannot just ban things, especially things related to the bill of rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UndahCovah (Reply #142)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:00 PM

147. Of course you can ban things

...things that the majority of people feel are detrimental to a civilized society.

You can't live in fear of the GOP. And you can't be so in awe of the constitution that you use it for an excuse to continue the carnage of innocent people. I don't think that was the founding fathers intention.

Time to act on this if ever there was a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to horsedoc (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:05 PM

154. You don't really know anything about guns, do you?

 

Pity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:27 AM

18. Because we have a very corrupt government.

The mighty dollar runs our government they don't even hide it anymore. They only need votes so they can get to the dollar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:29 AM

19. Thanks for posting this.

This is the sort of information we need, IMHO. Let's talk about what does or has worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:31 AM

20. Blows holes in all of the NRA gun psycho babbling points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:46 AM

22. And in general the rates of death by gun In Australia is dropping

Australia's gun laws = effective by these statistics:

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is:

2010: 1.0417
2009: 1.02
2008: 1.05
2007: 1.91
2006: 1.10
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

The rate of gun deaths per 100K is one/fiftieth the rate in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:16 AM

32. It's also dropping in the US

At about the same rate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:20 AM

36. Their massacre rate dropped to ZERO after the ban

How's ours doing?

You gunsters are running out of ammo, no pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:23 AM

39. Their massacre rate was much lower than ours before the ban, too

And, anyways, the argument in the OP was that the homicide rate went down after Australia restricted access to firearms, so I think it's very apropos to point out that our homicide rate also went down, by pretty much the same amount, after we didn't restrict access to firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:36 AM

46. America's death by gun is currently 50 X Australia's

why is it so hard for you to admit that in Australia, they are doing it RIGHT? People who gotta have a gun have em there. It's not a hardship. What are you protecting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:43 AM

49. I wouldn't oppose an attempt at what Australia did

I'm expressing skepticism that the rate of legal firearm ownership has much effect on the rate of use of guns in crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:10 AM

56. What do you think of this paper?:

http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html#navDiv=6

"Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides"

"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership."

Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

Previous research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime has been impeded by a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No. 7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.

In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim's death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:16 AM

59. I agree fewer guns mean fewer homicides. I do not believe legal restrictions mean fewer guns

At least not in the US. For that matter, the firearm ownership rate in Australia seems to be pretty much what it was before: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

That's the step where we disagree, I think. The effect of fewer guns is clearly going to be fewer homicides; what I don't think is that there's a way to actually reduce the number of guns through legislation. I've lived in DC for 15 years. We've had a near-total ban on gun ownership most of that time, and significantly more guns per capita than NYC for all of that time. Sort of like the rate of alcohol consumption seems to have actually gone up during Prohibition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:22 AM

64. Your example of DC

really can't compare to Australia. Virginia's gun laws are very lax. DC has easy access.

It needs to be a national policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:26 AM

67. But from what I'm seeing, the rate of firearms ownership didn't go down in Australia, either

There were 3 million firearms among 17 million people in 1996, and there are 3.5 million firearms among 22 million people today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:46 AM

81. When on Nov 7 the gun nuts were threatening to move Down Under,

the Aussies posted that guns there are limited to single-shot, IIRC. Can you see the difference be tween that and the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:50 AM

83. Totally. I would love to get rid of semi-automatic weapons.

I don't think bans will do that here, but I would love to see it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:50 PM

125. Game. Set. Match.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:44 AM

80. Uh, no

anyways, the argument in the OP was that the homicide rate went down after Australia restricted access to firearms


Please read the subject line of the OP, more slowly this time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #80)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:54 AM

87. The argument is that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996, which is untrue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

I ignored that part mostly because it's completely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:54 PM

146. 2 fatalities? That's a mass shooting?



I guess Australia had to lower the bar.

An one two-fatality shooting in 16 Years?

Any U.S. city would be lucky to only have that happen less than once a month.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:40 AM

47. All murders are down but the percentage commited by firearms stays pretty constant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:50 AM

23. Freedom is dangerous without common sense.

We seem to have a lot of one, but lack enough of the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:51 AM

24. And they didn't have to ban video games and movies?

Imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:53 PM

131. No, but they may've had to curb RW hate radio--if, in fact, there

even was any in Oz. Then again, Rupert Murdock was Australian originally, so maybe they have it, but on a much lesser scale than in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:52 AM

25. The one simple answer: phobias and racism.

Actually, the for-profit corporatism plays into the phobias and racism to sell guns and buy politicians.

Sometimes a huge tragedy can change things. We can only hope this is the one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:58 AM

27. Not only would this never happen within the Corporate Republic, it would never even

be brought to a vote by either house of Congress.

Just say'n.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:06 AM

28. Just imagine how much lower it would be without Lord Rupert and his minions pushing the hate button?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:16 AM

30. We got the same decrease in homicides by firearms, without getting rid of the firearms

homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006

That happened here, too. And we still have the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:19 AM

61. Interestingly,

"homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006"

...the assault weapons ban was in effect for most of that period: 1994 to 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:21 AM

63. Assault weapons are so rarely used in crimes that they don't even show up in the stats

We've had a sharp decrease in homicides consistently for the past 20 years, while gun laws have been all over the map

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:28 AM

69. So you're for assault weapons?

"We've had a sharp decrease in homicides consistently for the past 20 years, while gun laws have been all over the map"

In light of the Sandy Hook massacre, this is your argument? What's your point: that gun laws don't need to be addressed?

Manchin: Time For Gun Control ‘Action’ After CT Shooting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022009172

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:32 AM

72. I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. I bet you would too, if you learned what it actually did

For example, the rifle used by the shooter in CT wasn't an assault weapon (it would have been if it had had a bayonet lug).

I think a lot of people think the assault weapons ban banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. It didn't. Maybe doing that would be a good thing (I personally doubt legally banning them would actually get rid of them, but I wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it). But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:36 AM

75. Are you

"I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. "

...against this:

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Are you against that?

"I think a lot of people think the assault weapons ban banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. It didn't. Maybe doing that would be a good thing (I personally doubt legally banning them would actually get rid of them, but I wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it). But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law."

OK, you hated the 1994 law, but pointed to a potential solution, which you say you "wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it."

So why exactly are you adamantly finding excuses to object to the point in the OP, and to addressing the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #75)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:43 AM

79. As I've said repeatedly, for two reasons

1) Since we got the exact same decrease in gun crimes as Australia did, without actually getting rid of guns like Australia tried to, I think it's silly to credit Australia's gun control with the crime decrease

2) Australia's gun ownership rate hasn't gone down, as I've pointed out several times

Would I support that? Possibly. We could certainly use the stimulus, and as someone pointed out upthread we're talking about a few hundred billion dollars. The phrase "genuine reason" worries me a bit; as long as it's statutory rather than the whim of a possibly racist or sexist sheriff, I could buy into it. I'd rather see private sales regulated than prohibited (require a background check and publicly recorded), but I'd also rather see drugs and prostitution regulated than prohibited, so I'm pretty far off the mainstream there, I guess. Private sales will continue whether they're legal or not, and I'd rather have them off the black market and kept track of as much as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

84. You keep making

"1) Since we got the exact same decrease in gun crimes as Australia did, without actually getting rid of guns like Australia tried to, I think it's silly to credit Australia's gun control with the crime decrease"

...this point. From the OP:

"In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

That is not "the exact same decrease."

The US:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html


"2) Australia's gun ownership rate hasn't gone down, as I've pointed out several times "

That's even more reason to support similar action. As for the rest, you could simply have stated your opposition to the actions in the OP without the stretch of those two points.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:57 AM

88. Well, first off, there has been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996

At Monash University

Secondly, as horrible as mass shootings are, they are such a small part of murder that they don't even appear in statistics. That's how we can have an increasing number of mass shootings in the context of a murder rate that's been cut in half.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:24 PM

92. Again,

"Well, first off, there has been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996

At Monash University"

...you're trying to trivialize the seriousness of the situation in this country. Here is the list of Australian mass murders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders#Mass_deaths

How many have there been since 1996? Since 2002?

Here's what we're dealing with in this country:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:47 AM

82. You do know that Connecticut has a strict AWB?

that gun was legal in Connecticut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #82)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:53 AM

85. Clearly it needs to be improved. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:17 AM

33. They still have representative democracy in Australia

Here, not so much. Our government is run by a few media conglomerates and corporations, who care not a bit for the will of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:20 AM

35. Our government is too corrupt

We cannot believe that it would respect our civil rights. Not any more. Not in the face of multiple violations that nothing, not courts, not reason, nothing, can stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:21 AM

37. The problem is mental illness and lack of treatment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:23 AM

38. "by gun", "by gun"

Overall homicide rate is flat, overall suicide rate is flat.

"...homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides..."




If gun-related homicides can plunge by 59% and the homicide rate stays essentially flat, then gun-related homicides must have been only a tiny fraction of homicides to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:31 AM

44. Because we've got the damn 2nd Amendment--that anachronistic relic

from another age, when guns were tools for survival on the newly opening frontier.

There is no longer any reason to retain this archaic throwback to another age.

The 2nd has been egregiously misinterpreted and misapplied, allowing mad people to murder with impunity by using modern weapons designed for mass destruction...

Any other sane country would have struck it down long ago. But, a significant and influential share of the US population are deranged extremists who force the rest of the nation to deal with their obsessions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:20 AM

62. slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the original Constitution as well

if I recall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:33 AM

73. Yes, they were. That unfortunate clause was subsequently struck down,

and rightly so. As should be the 2nd Amendment.

We no longer have reason to fear a British invasion and the frontier closed around 120 years ago. We now have a professional "well regulated standing militia" to ensure our mutual defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:19 PM

112. And they still are.


Not that it matters since there are no legal slaves anymore.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:10 PM

98. You live in an urban area - great.

Tens of millions of Americans still live in rural areas where nuisance animals that destroy property and kill animals wander free. People still live where the nearest authorities are 15, 20, 30 minutes away.

You believe, because you live where guns are not needed, that all of us live there too.

Your world view is exceptionally narrow, and that is why you cannot understand those of us who own forearms for perfectly legitimate and necessary reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:41 PM

119. Please, spare us the nauseating image of your

noble-savage, righteously-rural self blowing away those pesky local raccoons by bump firing your Bushmaster...

Now here's a novel idea: how about revising the 2nd to proscribe weapons of mass destruction (such as those AK-built-for-at least-47-mass-murders)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #119)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:49 PM

120. AK-47 and all fully automatic rifles are already highly regulated - nearly illegal.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:32 PM

123. But, their kissing cousins, the AK-ad-nauseum semi-automatics

(so obscenely easy to 'upgrade) are insanely accessible to almost anybody.

The '47' was followed by a sarcasm tag in case you missed it--it was a 'jeu de mot' to mean '47' mass murders.

I do know more than many non-gun grabbers what I'm talking about, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:41 AM

48. Question:

How can we agree to take away guns in America when we supply other countries with guns (Syria)?? How can we agree to take away guns when other countries hate us so much, and they send their "sleepers" here, ready to pounce any second on the innocent people?? How are we to protect ourself? Taking away guns is not the answer. Maybe limit the amount of ammunition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonesgirl (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:36 PM

149. I doubt you'll get much of an answer if any

Uncomfortable questions like that tend to get ignored.

And welcome to DU, BTW.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #149)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:51 PM

180. Uncomfortable questions?? Too tough??

Well, should I word it eloquently? Sorry, but it can't be done...the time is now to help change. Those babies and teachers didn't have a choice,,,we do, and we must, and we will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:53 AM

51. It's just 3 letters to explain why we can't - NRA

Those assholes are getting filthy rich over the sales of guns in our country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:27 PM

103. Wait, WHO is getting filty rich?

I am confused? Are you talking about the NRA members, or leadership, or who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #103)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:52 AM

163. a little deliberately obtuse are we? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:15 AM

57. Because

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

...one of the NRA talking points is that the above can't work, and NRA shills use the 2nd Amendment as a crutch for their flawed logic.

I posted this yesterday to crickets: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022004704

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:23 AM

65. The buyback hasn't seemed to change Australia's firearms ownership rate

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

Same as it was 20 years ago, if I'm doing that math right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:25 AM

66. The point is the policy worked to reduce the violence.

What exactly is the point of trying to argue about ownership?

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Are you against that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:27 AM

68. Except our violence rate went down too, by the same amount (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

71. Your argument is

"Except our violence rate went down too, by the same amount"

...is quite lame.

"In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

The US:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

70. Because "everyone knows" that gun control doesn't work

Despite it working really, really well in Oz and several American states.

And "everyone knows" that proposing gun control will lose elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:17 AM

90. Because we are the CAN'T DO IT country

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The USA can't accomplish anything anymore.....

Protect the Pentagon with 45 minutes notice? Can't Do It

High Speed Rail? Can't Do It

Fix our Infrastructure? Can't Do It

Repeal the Second Amendment? Can't Do It

Put banker-thieves in prison? Can't Do It

Win a War? Can't Do It

America's days of accomplishing ANYTHING are simply behind it........
sad but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

94. because Americans are fucking crazy, unlike Aussies.

I can't believe I said that, but it's true. Aussies are world famous for their crazed stunts and attitudes. Yet they have universal healthcare, universal suffrage, very strict recycling laws and exquisitely representational democracy--everyone required by law to vote.

We can't do that because our democracy sucks and we are ruled by crazy greedy totalitarian religious zealots from hell, determined to punish anyone not exactly like they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:10 PM

96. Why can't we? Simply 'cause too many pols and other Americans view the right to pack

weapons of mass murder on our hips trumps all others' right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:23 PM

101. Please update rhat the facts are wrong on this article

I'd hate to see us spread and support misinformation. Since that time there has been mass shootings in Australia. Kinda defeats the whole argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neffernin (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:38 PM

105. No, the facts aren't wrong.

"Since that time there has been mass shootings in Australia."

There has been one shooting, with a handgun. Here is the list of Australian mass murders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders#Mass_deaths

Given the title of the piece ("After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since"), how many mass shooting similar to the 1996 incident has there been since that time? Since 2002?

There was also specific action taken after the 2002 incident, which is still a decade ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting#Gun_ownership_laws

Here's what we're dealing with in this country:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/death-in-connecticut.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:35 PM

160. Hrm, not how i understood it

Kind of like semantics Imo. People died from being shot by guns, I could care less what kinds or in what fashion. Any action like this is sickening and something has needed to be done for years. There is very rarely a reason to taken life and no reason to take so many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neffernin (Reply #160)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:08 AM

165. There's been no massacres since the gun reform happened in Australia...

In the years leading up to Port Arthur, there was a spate of massacres. Since then, nothing. And do you know why? Because the decision was made to try to minimise the occurence of massacres carried out with assault weapons by introducing strict gun control laws. One incident with a handgun at Monash Uni does not mean it's been a failure.

America needs to follow the lead of Australia. It worked for us, though we don't have the same sort of utter lunatics who worship guns as they do in the US, and when the NRA tried to get involved and fight against the new laws, people here saw them for the RW extremists they were....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:30 PM

104. They don't have election stealing, right wing...

assholes that are clinically insane to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:40 PM

106. Switzerland...

I hear they're pretty good as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LP2K12 (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

127. What do you think the Swiss example proves?

genuinely curious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #127)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:40 PM

134. I believe...

The Swiss "got it right" when it comes to the militia portion of our amendment. You want to call it a right? Fine, be prepared to be called into service.

The neutral country has a tradition of a gun in every closet, and ranks amongst the highest levels of gun ownership in the world — with estimate of as many as 4.5 million guns in a country of just 7.9 million people (few countries have more guns per capita — the US and Yemen are two).

However, gun related crime is remarkably low, with only 24 gun murders in 2009 — 0.3 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 2007 figures in the US of 4.2 per 100,000 people, according to Time Magazine.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12#ixzz2FM6qti2R


I think if we tied gun ownership to military/police service as they do, it would help. It's not a cure all to the situation. These thoughts are just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LP2K12 (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:43 PM

135. I am Swiss (double citizen living there) and I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:54 PM

108. We let Industry control our Government

The NRA is simply a front group for the Arms Industry. We let industries and the religion of money control our Government. We let industry fund Right Wing think tanks and the right wing talking heads spew tons of propaganda (as well as an enabling media) that destroy any chance of having a meaningful discussion on important issues. The Australians, they didn't. They have a functional government. We have a dysfunctional government that can hardly solve problems anymore as a result of Industries and their propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:17 PM

111. My sister in Australia

was married to an Aussie who was a competitive shooter. She told me that the gun laws there are very strict and are strictly enforced. Two examples I remember: he had to show proof of having a locked closet (including the type of locks) for his guns. If he had been involved in ANY type of violence, either in the home or elsewhere, his guns would be permanently confiscated and he would not be allowed to have any others. Even these two regulations are far too onerous for NRA and would never be adopted in the US although they would go a long way to prevent unnecessary deaths by guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:27 PM

113. why did "self defense" not count?

Anybody know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:02 PM

114. Because both our politicians and voters are COWARDS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:08 PM

116. Excellent! Thank you for posting this!

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:19 PM

117. Because they have a parliament?

not the f'ed up lobby-owned monstrosity we have?

Their system allows for a "vote of no confidence", and a snap-election, so if members mess up, they can be dealt with rapidly..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:52 PM

121. "There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since" = false.

 

Monash University shooting, 2002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:24 PM

122. Because the right wingers are quick to come back with nonsensical BS excuses for gun worship

And many people applaud the BS like trained seals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:34 PM

124. K n R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:48 PM

129. So did the Brits.

The year after Dunblane (Scottish for "Newtown"), the UK banned high-capacity clips.

Number of mass school shootings since: Nought (0).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:29 PM

133. Easy answer. Apathy and stupidity. Approx 68% of eligible voters either didnt bother to vote

or voted for dipshit Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:24 PM

138. because the NRA and their repug cronies love guns more than children

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:26 PM

139. The last line is F*ing -- FALSE. NOT TRUE. BALDERDASH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders#Mass_deaths

It works against us to spread easily disproven statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #139)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:30 PM

144. Still, only one shooting in 15+ years

Not to mention still that dramatic drop in gun homicides and suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:41 AM

171. "...hasn’t been a single one..." I can't use that line.

And the prior ten year statement doesn't appear accurate either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #139)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:01 PM

150. A single "mass" shooting with *TWO* fatalities in over 15 years.

Yeah, makes a huge difference to the point being made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #150)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:22 PM

157. In Australia - that's a "mass shooting"

In America it's Friday night in any big city.

Note that after this shooting, Australia pass some additional restrictions and has now gone ten years with zero - even with the bar for "Mass" lowered down to "Anything more than one fatality".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #150)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:46 AM

172. That's not the line I was fed in the OP.

I use that and I lose credibility for months or years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:28 PM

140. It took 12 days to pass the law

ZERO mass shootings after 13 before...

Wow, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:49 PM

141. After every tragedy we

say pretty words - action does not follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:18 PM

143. Seems to be a sensible and sane country

Which the US apparently is not. The healthcare issue also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:27 PM

148. Kicking to the top, for my Aussie/Vietnam n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:05 PM

153. Aussies are tough folks, and they bit the bullet. Our gun "enthusiasts" don't have the guts to try


anything better, as long as they have theirs . . . . . . more and more guns in more places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #153)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:38 AM

173. Overcompensation

 

For you know very well what "shortcoming."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:12 PM

156. It's time to lead, Mr. President.

 

If even a right-wing peon like John Howard can do it, there's no reason to believe that you can't and that your compatriots can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:38 PM

158. I'm sure many said there would never be health care reform here....

I have faith that the NRA will be defeated and that sane gun reform will take place.

I don't have a problem with having a handgun for protection or a rifle for hunting. But there is no need for civilians to own assault weapons and high volume ammo cartridges shooting 10 or more rounds a second. And we must have serious background checks with a waiting period for anyone buying a gun. No more selling of any kind of guns or ammo on-line or at gun shows! Add high fines and prison terms for those selling guns illegally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:38 PM

161. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:23 AM

162. Because most American gun nuts aren't as smart as their average kangaroo. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:00 AM

164. knr for sanity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:24 AM

170. To Be Cynical - Because NRA Supporters And Gun Apologists Would Rather Die Supporting

The 2nd Amendment and the NRA.

Look around in the DU Gun forum for proof.

Guns are more important than children.

The 2nd Amendment is more sacred than life.

What has America become when these facts are self evident?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread