Obama cites Australia’s gun confiscation program as example for US

originally posted by: Kryties


No mass murders in Australia since the gun ban, by guns OR knives. FACT.

But there have been several mass murders since then, using different methods.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

Time to ban fire

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: macman

Are you going to answer the question or not?

Nope, not because I don't have an answer but because of the ridiculous way you tried to put words into my mouth and literally made things up in an attempt to make your point.

I refuse to be a part of that trolling behaviour.

A few comments form an associate down under:

Firstly hello,
there has been a fair amount of coverage in australian domestic media about the situation in the USA and that wasn't gun control a great thing etc. Watching it I was dissapointed in the rehashing within our own society of a number of myths, distortions or outright lies put out by certain individuals. As a community we have come to expect this sort of treatment in australia but recently I have seen some of these australian myths creep into american media reports by individuals who have an ideological biased against guns. Searching around the web I have found relatively little to argue the alternative side to these views and thought I would provide some perspective on guns in australia for those that are not aware of the non-gun control position within the australian population. i have attached a link to a site which contains an article by a pro gun federal parliamentarian (same as congressman) for another perspective.

www.onlineopinion.com.au...

I will now go through the general gun myths that are brought up by the antis (anti-gun) periodically in australia.

* There were no gun massacres after 1996 port Arthur
This is a clever half truth, there were no massacres however there were two attempted massacres with the sum total of one person killed and one person injured these massacres were stopped as the potential victims either rushed the gun man on mass (in one case) or in the second case were one individual was a martial artist and was able to disable the gunman long enough for other people present to restrain the shooter. The second part of this statement that is flawed is that it only refers to 'gun' massacres it dosen't talk about all the non gun massacres specifically the use of delibertly lit fires which were lit in such a way to trap the occupents of the building inside with the clear intent of significantly lowering their chances of rescue (and thus survival).

* the use of the word massacre in the australian context
massacres as understood by most people in the general population refer to attacks by individual or individuals on a group of unsuspecting lawabiding civilians (who are usually not armed) going about their lawful business (i believe this is a fair definition if you disagree please state reasons) however antis also count incidents where one criminal group with guns lay in wait for another criminal gang who were carrying guns as well as in which the only dead individuals that resulted from from such gun fight were criminals. By using this metric one can inflate the number of 'massacres' as well as increase the number of people killed in them.

*guns used in port arthur 1996 were legally bought
This is an uncertain one way or the other indeed there is evidence to suggest that two of the firearms used were sourced illegally one was sold by a gun shop/pawn broker (has never been really established which) while the other was listed as being destroyed 2 years previously by Tasmania police. There is also a large amount of confusion about what firearms were used, how many (general consensus is no less than 3 nor more than 5). In any case it is impossible to say one way or the other whether they were legally bought or not.

*less guns means less gun crime (in aus context)
Incorrect statement on a number of levels, we have more guns then ever (legally owned), gun related crime is lower true but it the important part is that it hasn't differed from the trend prior to the buybacks

*Gun buy back in 1996 reset the clock and allowed us to move towards a gun free society (and there were unicorns and lollipops too)
60-66% of all semi-automatic long guns were not handed in (some politicians say 40% were not handed in but this doesn't take it account the number of guns imported compared to the number destroyed rather it refers to all guns including double barrels, bolts actions which were also surrendered at the time). Just after the buy back we imported more guns than were destroyed. As a side note alot of people with these unregistered semi-automatics actually have gun licences and obey all the regulations except that when they come to get inspected they will (literally) put their semi-autos in the roof.

*gun suicides are lower = success for control
the first part of this statement is a fact gun suicides are lower however they were on a downward trend before the gun buybacks. Secondly what about hangings which have seen little change in overall rates. In 1996 as well there was implementation of a new suicide awareness and treatment campaign the first in australias history that was targeted at men, statistically speaking men are more likely to commit suicide using a firearm than women therefore one cannot discount the impact that this could have had (i have no evidence to suggest that it was an effective campaign but it is an interesting fact to note)

*criminals get guns by stealing from gun owners
In the australian context this is just a plain lie but it is a lie often repeated, most guns that criminals use are manufactured illegally (they have made some pretty good full auto mac-10s), illegally imported and or stealing/buying them from police and military sources (this includes when foriegn militaries come in on ships, in one case in early 2000 they traded 10 1911 for a tasmanian devil guns were never recovered tasmanian devil was tracked down). The most disturbing case was when criminals got their hands on some surface to air missiles fortunately they didn't do anything with them but it could have gotten very messy.

Continued:



*criminals get guns by stealing from gun owners
In the australian context this is just a plain lie but it is a lie often repeated, most guns that criminals use are manufactured illegally (they have made some pretty good full auto mac-10s), illegally imported and or stealing/buying them from police and military sources (this includes when foriegn militaries come in on ships, in one case in early 2000 they traded 10 1911 for a tasmanian devil guns were never recovered tasmanian devil was tracked down). The most disturbing case was when criminals got their hands on some surface to air missiles fortunately they didn't do anything with them but it could have gotten very messy.

*Gun registration makes us safer as we know where the guns are
To outline the system in theory registration is a secure data base that can be searched but not read (i.e. you can search a name but you cannot read the list) in order to allow police to gather information (registration also includes where you keep your guns in my state nsw you need to ask permission if you want to have your guns off your land for longer than three days). Each state police holds its own registry there is no federal registary but they are cross searchable (i.e. nsw can search victorias database and vice versa). If enacted in theory dosent this guarentee privacy and ensure community safety? No, in fact the opposite occurs, for example the nsw police force published a full list of each and every gun owner, their name, address, and details of how many and what guns you have on there internal web server which is accessible by a wide variety of people (it took a year to a year and half to get them to take it off) unsuprisingly there was a spike in gun thefts that year (and more calls for control), the favorite tactic was to wait till you got home from work and then demand access (noting all guns must be stored in a locked safe unloaded and with no ammunition in that safe [as a side note a single round in your safe = mandatory confiscation and being charged with a criminal offence])

*Crime is lower and we have less police therefore gun control = reduced crime
This is a less common one but it arises from time to time but has less to do with guns and more to do with police corruption. Between 1995-1997 an anti-corruption task force was set up that uncovered widespread corruption in the police forces throughout australia at both state and federal levels it was that bad and common that they had to restrict it to only those with very serious actions such as murder, human trafficking, drug traffic

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Name how many mass murders have happened in Australia due to a knife or knives?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is none.

So only deaths by mass murder are worthy of note and prevention?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Name how many mass murders have happened in Australia due to a knife or knives?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is none.

So only deaths by mass murder are worthy of note and prevention?

Yep.
You only suffer and die a bloody death if you are part of a group plan.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

So only deaths by mass murder are worthy of note and prevention?

Yet another poster putting words into my mouth that I didn't say, nor even allude to.

Poor form.

a reply to: Kryties

A direct question.

Do you care about all murders, or just murders by firearms?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

A direct question.

Do you care about all murders, or just murders by firearms?

It's a bloody stupid question mate, one that tries to paint me as some kind of monster who couldn't give a damn about people dying - which is a clear trolling tactic that is designed only to insult the other poster rather than talk about the topic.

Read this next section VERY CAREFULLY:

Of course I care about ALL murders. That is the ONE AND ONLY TIME I am going to cave in to your trolling and respond to it. Please stop using ridiculous arguments and putting words into my mouth that I never even remotely said, nor even alluded too, in order to further your own point-of-view.

Clear?

originally posted by: LrdRedhawk

“ We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’

We are not doing, I MEAN, we do not want to see that again....

Hmm.. Hey Obama, Slip of the tongue?
I hope not..

Australian gun laws maybe work for Australia..
They would not work here.
Thanks.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Kryties

Australia is not the same as the US. First the population is MUCH smaller. The US has several states with a larger populous than the entire country. We also have a lot of area, a lot of rural area. The controls that were put in place down unda there simply will not work.

Different experiment, different parameters, different set of controls, equates to a different outcome.

Since this thread is sliding along today, I figured I'd quote myself.

How can a reasonable person try to compare the gun control measures in Australia to the gun control problem is the USA?

originally posted by: Kryties


Of course I care about ALL murders.

So when will decry the use of fire for those last 3 mass murders?

originally posted by: Kryties
Of course I care about ALL murders.

Which I was certain that you did. How should Australia handle the violent upswing of knife-murders? What regulations should be placed on that weapon to help curtail homicides?

My only comment about the gun laws here in in Australia is this...its bloody hard to get hand guns ( only for club use or pastroralist's ) and very easy to loose that privilege be damned if I would ever do anything stupid enough so as to be put on the "never to own a firearm" list again.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc

So only deaths by mass murder are worthy of note and prevention?

Yet another poster putting words into my mouth that I didn't say, nor even allude to.

Poor form.

Well know, that is certainly the implication of what you said. He asked a reasonable question, to whit, murders with knives is on the rise what about knife control. You replied that knives don't make mass murders as if that had anything to do with the situation. I know why...you felt uncomfortable about the premise and tried to change the paradigm, but the switch was a bit disingenuous.

If you didn't want the direction of the conversation to head that way, why make the comment in the first place?

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

A direct question.

Do you care about all murders, or just murders by firearms?

It's a bloody stupid question mate, one that tries to paint me as some kind of monster who couldn't give a damn about people dying - which is a clear trolling tactic that is designed only to insult the other poster rather than talk about the topic.

Read this next section VERY CAREFULLY:

Of course I care about ALL murders. That is the ONE AND ONLY TIME I am going to cave in to your trolling and respond to it. Please stop using ridiculous arguments and putting words into my mouth that I never even remotely said, nor even alluded too, in order to further your own point-of-view.

Clear?

But then why did you even bring up mass murders? Certainly it wasn't an expedient way to make an emotionally based point was it?

OK, this thread needs something and here it is:



Stick to the topic and refrain from personal posts.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

But then why did you even bring up mass murders? Certainly it wasn't an expedient way to make an emotionally based point was it?

Umm, maybe because the gun confiscation that is referred to in the title of this thread occurred because of a mass murder? I was speaking COMPLETELY on topic ffs!

Was that a serious question? No really...