<< ANGLO CULTURES DIFFERENTIATED ~ MAIN ~ IDENTIFIED LEFTY >>
NOTHING IN THE BULLETIN
Brilliant piece in this week’s Bulletin by Paul Toohey, who is joined in the search for murdered British tourist Peter Falconio by 90-year-old Aboriginal tracker Mickey Nothing:
No one seems to know where Nothing got his name. If he knows, he’s not able to say. He speaks in short bursts of decipherable English but he’s a true bush-bred man, who came to Tennant Creek from the hinterland many decades ago to obtain the most basic of comforts. He mostly speaks his own Alyawarre language but age has had its way with him. Even his own people find him a little hard to interpret.
Also in the Bulletin, Jana Wendt interviews Shane Warne. And John Howard’s anti-gun views—“There are some things about America I admire, there are some things I don’t, and one of the things I don’t admire about America is an almost drooling, slavish love of guns. I think they’re evil”—are corrected by me:
Two things. Firstly, Howard again here demonstrates his uncanny ability to reflect mainstream Australian opinion; most Australians, across the political spectrum, share Howard’s loathing of guns and think the US more than a little weird for so embracing them. Secondly, Howard is entirely wrong.
Get a compound bow- even a target arrow through the sternum takes the wind out of a ner’do well fairly effectively.
That or jump through some hoops with the state plod and get a longarm licence- you can pick up a Ruger lever action 30.06 for about $500, carries 8 + 1 and with practice can be fired as quickly as a semi-auto.
The firearm legislation was drafted by morons who know nothing about weapons.
Habib, it’s not much use having one for self defence if it has to be stored in a safe.
A black market pistol would be a better bet.Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 07 at 08:50 PM • permalinkNEEDLESS DISCLAIMER: The owner and administrator of this blog do not endorse the purchase, possession or use of unlawful firearms.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 07 at 08:51 PM • permalinkHoward and Mo’Hammered in dialogue ...
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 07 at 08:58 PM • permalinkI think they’re evil.
That’s the first truly stupid statement I’ve heard John Howard make (‘course, I don’t get to hear him say all that much). I take my 2nd Amendment rights very seriously, but it’s certainly not due to any “drooling, slavish love of guns”. As a matter of fact, I think I may have to take umbrage at that remark. Yes, I think I will. Take umbrage.
It’s reported that after the fall of the Soviet empire, Gorbachev was asked if the USSR ever had plans to invade the US. He said no, there had been no such plans, that it would be folly for anyone to invade the US. Why? “Because your citizens are armed”, he said.
I recently had cause to be contacted by authorities who asked if I might feel safer with police patrols outside my house or, should the need arise, a brief relocation to somewhere unfindable.
What’s that all about?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 07 at 09:09 PM • permalinkHoward is a conservative, but he’s also proven himself to be a big-government type. Of course he can’t handle the thought of an armed populace.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 03 07 at 09:13 PM • permalinkfor the men, women and children left at home who can only hope harm doesn’t come their way…
Gee, sentences work lots better with words in them…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 07 at 09:20 PM • permalinkBut what is Howard’s position on kirpans, them bein’ religious and all…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 07 at 09:29 PM • permalinkI’m fairly level-headed about most things, but not about Howard’s views on firearms. He turned his back on almost 1 000 000 Australian citizens whose only “crime” was possession of inaminate objects. He encouraged, as he does so well, the media and other Australians to turn against them also, to characterise them as “dangerous”, “rednecks”, “potential murderers”. He spent a billion dollars (or more) of taxpayers’ money to destroy, among other things, heirlooms, rabbit rifles and historical arms. Firearms owners suffer the indignity of having their personal details entered on the national CrimTrac database, along with paedophiles, rapists and drug dealers. Our homes are subject to search without warrant if police even “think” we may be in breach of the conditions under which we are “allowed” to own even an air rifle. “Self defence” is precluded, by legislation, as a reason for ownership of a firearm.
As far as I’m concerned, if Howard was on fire I wouldn’t piss on him to put him out.
(Normal programming will be resumed in a few minutes after this rant dies down.)
I know of a not too distant past when kids were taught to handle and shoot guns safely and accurately. Now instead we have ferals running riot (I mean the animal variety, get in too much trouble shooting the other) and an almost religious bent against guns. Good thing it wasn’t like that a the start of WWII when army recruits were asked to bring their guns in for training as there weren’t enough to go round.
Here is movie to show how it use to be, “Smiley Gets a Gun”. http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/231873
Smiley is given a .22 by the local copper (Chips Rafferty). Oh the good old days.
anagailis, been shot recently? Prior to 1996? Afterwards?
Didn’t think so.
Look both ways when you cross the road, eh?
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 03 07 at 09:50 PM • permalinkThankfully the NZ’ers (who, ironically, also signed up to the National Firearms Agreement in 1996 after Port Arthur but didn’t implement registration and didn’t ban semi-autos) look like they’re still leading the way on sensible laws. They’re even asking others (like sporting shooters; ‘stakeholders’ in modern corporo-wank terminology) what they think about this stuff. Love the slogan from the conference, too.
SSAA Release, Australian Government should follow Kiwi lead on firearm safety initiative.
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 03 07 at 09:56 PM • permalinkThank you for answering, Nic. Now, what the hell did you say?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 07 at 10:04 PM • permalinkwell i like guns and use to own a semi automatic rifle, so yes i think JH was a bit over the top with that remark… i wish he’d try to see things a little more from a broader perspective… but on the other hand i have to say that most people outside the US think that its gun culture has become a bit dysfunctional…. and i would probably agree that that the freedom to own guns thing has been interpreted a bit too literally over there… it gives anti gun lobbies around the world something to point at and scare people with as to “how bad” things might get….
i’m not sure the framers of the US consitution were quite thinking of individuals having an armoury of assault rifles and hand guns and laser scopes whilst living in cities when they framed that second amendment… or of 16 year old gang members able to buy a handgun for as cheap as chips… just like i think they would be fairly surprised at how the first amendment has been interpreted…. as back in those days when it was written, the rights of a person were mostly balanced up by the individuals own sense of decency and responsbility to themselves and others to not be a rude, crude, offensive ass….
so in short i think a bit of a relxation here in Australia wouldn’t go astray, but although whilst travelling in the US a year or two i wouldn’t have minded having the chance to go fire a machine gun to see what it was like, i think its probably a good thing that most of our crims and gangs don’t have access to that sort of hardware…. there is probably a sensible middle ground between the two groups of antagonist who want a free for all or a total ban so they can go back to hugging trees and furry rabbits….
almost drooling, slavish love of guns.
Well, I’m going to agree with Howard on this point but disagree on this
I think they’re evil
because I do not believe that an inanimate object can be evil. The issue of whether evil exists in the world is a thorny enough topic in itself.
I’m not sure what Tim’s point is with this comment
Howard again here demonstrates his uncanny ability to reflect mainstream Australian opinion; most Australians, across the political spectrum, share Howard’s loathing of guns and think the US more than a little weird for so embracing them.
It looks like Tim is implying that Howard’s comment is purely political and not necessarily his own moral opinion.
I agree Tasman.
I grew up in an era that, as a 12-y-o, I plinked at a few tin cans with my uncle’s air rifle, in fact at a church youth camp we each had two shots at hitting a target with a rifle. I’ve also fired a few rounds at a pistol club.I’m not sure I’m allowed to do that any more. In fact I’m not sure I could get a gun licence because I’ve never held one before.
It would be great to target practice with Nicky’s .22 (under the law I don’t think I’m even allowed to touch it).
I’d adore a little snub nosed pistol as long as it was small enough to fit into a sweet little evening purse.
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 03 07 at 10:18 PM • permalinkMost Americans don’t have a slavish love for guns. We do have a slavish love for safety, security, and the right to protect our life, our family, and our property. I guess we’re funny in that way.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 03 07 at 10:30 PM • permalinkSo widely read, The Bulletin. Kerry Packer’s journal of record. Wonder who reads it now the Goanna’s bit the dust? Maybe he arranged with Little Johnnie for taxpayers to keep buying it as a deduction, before he toddled off to cash in his chips.
Continuing crisis is dead right. Those house ads look handsome. Carry on, regardless.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 03 07 at 10:34 PM • permalinkCasanova,
You’re making the same error PM Howard makes - that of failing to distinguish between lawful and unlawful uses/purchases/possession of firearms.
The 1968 Gun Control Act contains the following provisions:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
§ 922. Unlawful acts
...
(X)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun....
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html)
This act has been amended a couple of times in the past (notably by the Brady Law in 1993 implementing the instant check system), but not in a way that changes the parts above.
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has the following as part of a list of ineligible persons (most of which are listed in the Brady Law):
- Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
- Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.(http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60)
It’s therefore probably fair to say that any 16 year old buying a handgun therefore isn’t doing so legally.Why tarnish everyone else because of this person’s crime, or mischaracterise behaviour that is illegal as somehow being indicative of the culture of the entire country?
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 03 07 at 10:37 PM • permalinkI really like this site, thought provoking, but at the same time I cannot help notice everyone just jump on board and agree with basically everything Tim says…
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#children
Have a look all the, ‘teach kids gun safety’ advocates, there is a reason we had the gun buy back scheme, why we can’t just buy a gun willy nilly.
I believe if you have a farm, then yes, have your rifle or shotgun to control pests, absolutely, I agree and understand, but no, you cannot have your small ‘piece’ to carry around, in case you get attacked at night, or keep a gun in your home…just because you think you are a responsible adult, doesn’t give you the right to a gun, and yes it is weird, weird, that in America, I can get a bullet proof vest, an automatic assault rifle, and armour piercing bullets, that is weird, and scary…
here are some choice excerpts, so, go-on, argue blindly against Howard and agree with everything Tim says, but Tim is wrong, guns, well read for yourself…
* Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children’s Defence Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
*The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
*Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
*Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF),
*Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
*The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)so tell me again…the general population and guns…I think I like the fact my neighbours don’t have weapons, thankyou very much John.
aus
whether its legal or illegal for these young people and gangs to be owning guns, the impression that people often get overseas is that the US is awash with firearms… now i don’t know where they all come from, or how they get into the wrong hands??? i dunno if its some states having lax firearm laws which allows them to be trafficked or carried across state borders rather than having a comprehensive national standard???
i dunno if gun companies over there pay lip service to selling their products responsibly (like tobacco companies) and yet find ways to make them available to practically anyone who wants them….. i dunno if its people who go and buy 13 or 14 firearms, obviously more than is required for one person who then onsells them to the highest bidder??? thats what i was referring to when i said i don’t think your average citizen needs 10-12 guns and hand guns etc, especially high powered weapons???
i dunno, but it seems like in the US its as easy to buy a six pack as it is to buy assualt rifles and hand guns over there in some cities??? i’m not sure if this is correct, it may be a bit more difficult… it just seems in the process of having a lax attitude towards restricting gun control, objecting to any sensible attempt to restrict certain types as the first step towards “disarming the citizenry” the firearms manufacturers are pumping em out and more often than not they are finding their ways to the wrong people….
here in oz, while its not impossible to get guns obviously, u can steal them or buy them if u really want them bad enough, i don’t think we have the problem to the same extent simly becoz i don’t think there are the same amount of guns circulating out there in the general public or probably even in the underworld… theres a reason u here our youth gangs going at each other with baseball bats and not uzi’s or kalashnikovs, and i think on balance its just much harder to get them here….
like i said, i would like to own a pistol, i like guns, but i know how to draw a line sometimes between what i would probably like, and what is probably wise for society… i think although its not perfect here, i think we have our gun laws a little closer to what is sensible…
although if someone was calling for their abolition i would come out dead set against it and defend the rights of responsbile citizens to have some guns… its getting the balance is what i’m talking about and i think it falls somewhere between the people on the extremes….
You can pick up a friggin’ rock and kill somebody with it. Guns are merely a more efficient killing machine, which only means that people who own them have a responsibility not to be stupid about handling them. Uniform training, licensing and registration systems should be in place to restrict gun ownership to such people. That said, you’ll never be able to completely kill black markets and theft, so criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns. They just shouldn’t be the only ones who can.
* Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children’s Defence Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
*The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
*Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)Yep, they’d be fair, unbiased sources
peddlingpresenting fair, unbiased information.*Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
If that’s true, brains trust, why aren’t they shut down? And don’t tell me they can’t shut them down, because they damn well can, and have in the past.
*Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
What a crock! Even if it was true, where the hell is the valid link to firearms ownership here?
*The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)
Estimates? Estimates! Based the hell on what? So, 135 000 guns taken into US schools daily—and the daily number of shootings is? How about the daily number of knife fights? Or head stompings? Or youth suicides? Or teenagers dying from medical malpractice?
I think I like the fact my neighbours don’t have weapons, thankyou very much John.
There are approximately 850 000 legal, licensed gunowners in Australia, owning some seven million legal, registered firearms. It is estimated that fewer than 25% of “prohibited” firearms were handed in after 1996, because they were never registered and police have no idea where they are.
Maybe you need to talk to your neighbours again. Who knows, I could be one of them ... and unless you were a close friend, you would never know I own four (registered, legal) of the “evil” killing machines.
Casanova
Suggestion: Find out more about gun ownership in the USA, particularly of “Uzis and Kalashnikovs”. In most places, you can’t walk in and buy one. It’s a myth perpetuated by Hollyweird and those with their own agendum. Compare the gun violence in those parts of the US that virtually ban firearms ownership—like Washington DC—to those where firearms are just another working tool—such as Vermont, which has no firearms laws per se.Also take note of the fact that more of just one type of now prohibited firearm—the SKS—was imported into Australia than the total of all firearms confiscated in the
buystealback. Now tell me there aren’t any guns “circulating” out there. Thirty minutes in just about any pub in metropolitan Australia will get you anything you need. And while the thought of breaking the law like that might make you and me go “gulp!”, there are plenty of others who wouldn’t give a toss.Anything that reduces the chances of my being shot is a good thing.
Posted by anagallisAnagallis — But it doesn’t. Want to increase your chances of getting shot? Move to an American city with ‘strong’ gun control laws. Want to decrease your chances of getting shot?
Move to a city where citizens are allowed to defend themselves.
Don’t buy or sell illegal drugs.
Don’t join a street gang, or live in a community where their presence is tolerated.
Mr. Nick —
* Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children’s Defence Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
The raw numbers these groups like to toss around for the media also don’t reflect the above facts. The vast majority of gun-related deaths among American youth are the result of drug and gang activity. Rudy Giuliani effected an amazing reduction in homicides in New York from over 2,300/yr to less than 600 by the crude and reactionary tactic of locking up gun-using criminals. His more nuanced and progressive successor is too smart for that and homicides are rising again.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 07 at 11:35 PM • permalink#26 BIWOZ: Good call! :-)
#32 Mr Nick:
I really like this site, thought provoking, but at the same time I cannot help notice everyone just jump on board and agree with basically everything Tim says…
That’s not very fair; most of us return to this site because we do actually agree with the views expressed. In this case, I do believe that gun ownership should be relaxed. Always have, and unless I hear something other than the tired arguments and skewed statistics that the anti-gun lobby has trotted out to date, always will.
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 07 at 11:35 PM • permalinkOne other thing:
The bad guys already have guns; it’s part of being a bad guy.
One thing that I think gets overlooked a lot in the gun debate is not the “what if the bad guy has a gun” scenario, but what if the bad guy is built like a brick sh*thouse and I’m built like a freaking sparrow. If, like me, you spend more time working at a desk or in front of a monitor than at the gym or dojo, then you’re fair game. Fights rarely get picked by people who are hopeless/inexperienced at fighting. Guns are the great leveller in the playing field of violence, and making them illegal is just discriminating against the weak and powerless. Speaking as a wuss, I’d like to own a gun without all the stigma, thanks. My $0.02. ;-)
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 07 at 11:37 PM • permalinkI’m in 2 minds about this.
1) we haven’t had a port arthur / Strathfield style massacre since the buy back.
Sure guns are an inanimate object and not in themselves evil, but their a great “evil amplifier”
2) But on the other hand, with the way that the worlds population is changing in favour of “erm ‘passionate’ members of the ‘Prophets Youth League”” I think there is a 50/50 chance that, at some time in my life or my childrens lives, a sweet little snub nosed pistol small enough to fit into a sweet little evening purse.
And given that its a 50 /50 chance its much better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 07 at 11:40 PM • permalinkThe US “gun culture” is a myth. It exists no more so than Australia’s “beer culture”!
There are basically two groups of gun possessors: normal people who own them for legal sporting, collecting, or defensive reasons; and criminals who want them for their criminal activities.
Where we fall short is in the ability to regulate the second group, not the first.
Unfortunately, the second group, by their very nature, tends to ignore societies’ self imposed restrictions. And, putting more restrictions on the first group only indirectly affects the second group.
There are enough gun control laws for normal citizens….they just aren’t observed by the abnormal citizens.
sorry that should read
a sweet little snub nosed pistol small enough to fit into a sweet little evening purse. would come in handyPosted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 07 at 11:41 PM • permalink*Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
Okay, so by that figure, that’s 80 x 365 = 29200 per year, out of a total of about 2.4 million deaths per year (Ref: CDC figures below).
CDC’s figures from 2002 (Check pg 32 of this PDF; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf)
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 762 (0.7% of all accidental deaths)
Intentional Self-Harm (suicide) by discharge of Firearms: 17108 (54% of all suicides)
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearm: 11829 (67% of all homicides)
Discharge of firearms (undetermined intent): 243 (5% all events of undetermined intent)Does anything here stick out to anybody else? The percentage of suicides that are by firearm? The number of assaults? (which are criminal acts)
After 1996, Australia sought to target both these things, but the measures haven’t had much effect, or have had the wrong effect entirely.
In the suicide case, people don’t shoot themselves any more - they hang themselves or poison themselves instead. in exactly the same overall number as before. For us, the lesson ought to be that the approach of targeting the availability of firearms hasn’t solved the underlying problems that lead people to suicide. If you’d like an ABS/AIC reference on this point, let me know.In the assault (homicide) case, Australia’s had a downward trend on this stuff since the late 1970’s, and it hasn’t steepened as a result of the changes in 1996. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Director Don Weatherburn commented along these lines in late 2005 in the Sydney Morning Herald (Oct 29th), much to the dismay of the couple of anti-gun groups in Sydney.
It’d seem apt to mention the slogan from the NZ conference mentioned earlier - ‘solid research, not pious hopes’. I presume misleading figures or figures provided without context are included in this, too, eh Dr Nick?
If I had the time, I’d poke some holes in a few of the other figures.
Homework exercise for someone else: Work out if the 90,000 figure is even close to accurate:
http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_04/pages/0436cm.htm
http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_04/dlinks/0436cm.htm(Homicide accounts for 0.6% of all child mortality, with 10-12000 deaths per year (12,008 in 2002), for 22 years (1979-2001) - do the maths…)
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 03 07 at 11:41 PM • permalinkSigh. Politicians are all much of a muchness, aren’t they?
That being said, a few points: 1) while there may be more than a few American gun owners who have a “slavish, drooling” love of their guns, most gun owners by and large simply seem to view the devices as just useful objects for certain tasks. The idea that owning a gun entails having an obsessive, twisted personality is an idea that has been (quite successfully) spread throughout the world by the popular culture unfortunately emitting from my own country, and says more about the distorted beliefs held by a relatively small and pampered subset of American society towards the rest of the population of the US than it does about gun ownership.
Second, I suspect that the reason why many pro-gun fans come off as strident, overbearing, and frightening is due to ignorance about guns and gun operation of the general population in my country and yours, which is for the most part middle-class, urban and pampered. Few of us have to own guns because we don’t have to kill our own food or protect our homesteads from marauding savages or wild animals. Therefore owning a gun becomes a sport, yet one that is suspect because of the fact a gun is still a weapon, and that reminds people of downers like responsibility, duty, and danger—which in turn is a damper on the atmosphere of easy fun that we have come to think we are entitled to.Third, the idea that you, Mr.Nick, are glad that your neighbors don’t have weapons doesn’t illustrate any truths about guns, but it does say interesting things about relations between you and your neighbors.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 07 at 11:44 PM • permalinkBTW, with regard to gun-death statistics, once you remove suicides from those figures (which anti-gun activists never do), the figures look much less impressive. To my way of thinking, suicides would commit suicide whether they had access to a gun or not; they’d just switch methods to something else.
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 07 at 11:51 PM • permalinkwell i know two people who have killed themselves with guns… i wouldn’t be surprised if someone found that an eaiser, quicker way to go than trying to hang or poison themselves….
i think if there are more guns out there, the simple law of averages says there will be more accidents/crimes/deaths etc involving guns??? the more cars there are in a society, the more car accidents/deaths on the road… i would have thought that was perhaps logical??? especially seeing as guns are very efficient killing implements….
and while u can kill with rocks, knives, poles etc… u can usually only hurt someone in close proximity, and it takes quite a bit of intent to kill them with the rock and the pole… u can’t accidently hit someone across the street or whatever…. ask that poor friend off rootin’, tootin’, shootin’ dick cheney??? :o)
i think sometimes the NRA and others in the US are fighting a losing battle trying to convince everyone that its all hunky dory and normal over there, with just a few bad apples which you could never do anything about anyway… for all the laws and stuff on the books etc, at least in some of the cities combined with all the drugs and stuff, it just doesn’t sound like a very safe, normal existance to me…
it may be different in most of the midwest and law abiding centre of the US, although all these postal and school shootings just sound downright abnormal to me as well, no matter how its all explained or argued???
once again if i was talking to lefty types who wanted to ban them all, i would defend some level of gun ownership, but i can’t just give a tick of approval to everything that has happened and contines to happen in the US….
that may be so…Dr.Nick, i like that, but even with the 80 x 365 = 29,200 shootings, (that is deaths only), that is acceptable? you find that acceptable? less people have died in the last 6 months in a war zone of Iraq,
i am not being pompous, not intentionally, but really, what kills people the most? heart disease, cancers, other sicknesses, but a genuinely preventable figure (29 thousand, living, breathing people), is acceptable because it isn’t as high as it seems, when said 80 people a day.
ok, if you want to do the math, 300 million Americans, 20 million Australians, 80 deaths a day (death only, not gun related crime, not assault, not terrorism, just shooting deaths) so that is 5.3 Australians a day, shot dead from guns?
but that is acceptable because it is only 1934 people a year being shot, dead, as opposed to the average 60-80 we do have a year….so yes, the statistic, is accurate and bloody scary
geez just accept it, it isn’t a difficult concept, i know ‘the right to bare arms’ that was in the context of the British taking back the country, in the context of civil bloody war, not in suburan areas, and sorry, but maybe, if Australia is inevitably going to be little America, the TV, the media, everything, at least we don’t need the bloody guns to mimic the death rate
ever heard of the million mother march?
well people kill with guns… people don’t often kill with toasters…. although one of the guys i knew who killed himself with a gun i think had once tried to electrocute himself by dropping his stereo in a bath… although all he did was ruin his stereo i recall….
its like i think i heard someone say once that an armed society is a polite society… following that logic, iraq and afghanistan should be just a total, civic delight to live in…. so have to be careful sometimes of trite lines u hear now and then….
i think sometimes the NRA and others in the US are fighting a losing battle trying to convince everyone that its all hunky dory and normal over there, with just a few bad apples which you could never do anything about anyway… for all the laws and stuff on the books etc, at least in some of the cities combined with all the drugs and stuff, it just doesn’t sound like a very safe, normal existance to me…
Blah blah fucking blah. Really, why do peoples’ brains shrink to the size of pinheads when the subject of guns comes up? Everyone here on any other subject has nothing but complaints about the way the mainstream press reports only the worst, most awful news about everything (for example, the Iraq war, global warming, etc.), yet suddenly you have no problem blindly accepting the news media’s distorted reporting on crime, and their habit of labelling anyone under thirty (perhaps as a charmless holdover of the old hippy credo “never trust anyone over thirty”) a “child” in their gunshot statistic lists.
From the day I was born until 1999 I lived for (mumble) years in Miami, one of the most dangerous cities (per crime statistics) in the US, yet I have never, ever been threatened by anyone with a gun, even though I drove every day for over twelve years across town to where I worked in an office building on the edge of one of Miami’s prime crack neighborhoods. As for the episodes of people going off their rockers and slaughtering random strangers or coworkers, they are 1) rare occurrences, and 2) not a direct result of sane, normal people owning guns.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 12:33 AM • permalinki just don’t want people to get hurt
What the fuck does that mean? That’s just asinine! What you’re saying is you think everyone should remain home strapped to their beds having nutrition administered intravenously; maybe then they won’t get any boo-boos.
God, what a stupid thing to say. Talk like an adult, for god’s sakes.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 12:37 AM • permalinkBy the way, seeing the “ooh, scawy gunz!” commentary here, whatever happened to the Australians who weren’t “intimidated by anything”? Or is that just in the case of sports?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 12:40 AM • permalinkMy main fear is not the Crim out to burgle the house - regardless of laws, he’ll be armed anyway. Having the likelihood of the victim being armed would deter them, but also make them more likely to shoot first.
My main fear is the obnoxious drunk who has a few too many, loses his or her temper, and instead of chucking a brick through the neighbour’s window, shoots it out.
I’m in favour of rather more regulation of firearms than I am of driving licenses. Overall, quite a bit, in some ways more than now, but the situation with shooting clubs in Australia is way over the top.
It’s not so much the amount of gun control that’s the problem: it’s that the wrong people are being targetted. Some regulations are so silly they should be relaxed or repealed, while others are harmful because of lack of enforcement (except to people they shouldn’t apply to anyway).
its about finding a sensible level Andrea, not about banning them or letting it be open slather, i think thats what some here are arguing…. its not a matter of being intimidated…
obviously people are differing on what the sensible level is that protects people’s individual rights, while assisting everyone to enjoy a reasonably safe, decent society… if your happy with what u have, by all means enjoy it, i’m not coming down on the US like a ton of bricks, i just lean towards our arrangements a bit more….
Hell, every car is registered and evey driver is trained/examined and licensed, and we still manage to kill upwards of 40-50K each year on the highways (US). So you can’t tell me the government is going to be any better at reducing gun violence by basically registering and licensing only those people who agree to it (law abiding citizens).
Guns are also a great leveler for the fairer sex, if I may be so bold. Another demographic for whom the Left claims unqualified support (Another intended “beneficiary” upon which the Left’s policies always seem to have a deleterious effect.)
Don’t have much home breaking crime here in rural small town west, because we have proportionate response: you come in my house uninvited, I fire a warning shot through your spleen. The DA supports my action as justified and prosecutes the homebreaker if still alive. DA stops supporting that, we get a new one.
None of the above should be construed to my not supporting gun safety instruction (yes, there are lots of morons out there), the ability of courts to prohibit gun ownership by proven wackos or known felons, or your right to not bear arms if you so choose.
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 08 at 12:45 AM • permalinkIts not all of Us Andrea - I for one quite like the Idea of everyone packing heat at a Victorian ALP meeting.
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 12:46 AM • permalinkThe other thing is Andrea - we probably drink a whole lot more beer than you guys
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 12:49 AM • permalinkanother topic where i think we will have to agree to disagree coz i don’t think any minds are going to get changed and civility is fast disappearing….
No, I will not fucking “agree to disagree” or be “civil” when you are acting just like the leftists assholes do by spreading mainstream press lies that just happen to agree with your own fears and fantasies. You are WRONG but you aren’t man enough to admit it. How disappointing.
You know, you can’t play cyber terrorist fighter forever. You might find yourself in a situation where a very real and solid fanatical Muslim (maybe carrying one of those Glocks) will confront you in meatspace at a place and time where there won’t be any soldiers or policemen to protect you. What would you do then, throw your keyboard at him?
Are we in a war or not?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 12:49 AM • permalinkblah blah blah? that is just callous stupidity, “oh, it doesn’t effect me, I haven’t seen it, so it doesn’t exist”
I have never seen a heroin addict, so I guess they are a figment of the ‘evil media’s imagination’
I don’t like the media, the mainstream media is a polluted, diseased prostitute, but the shootings happen!
they do happen don’t they?
I know there is no chance in hell, of taking a gun off a gun owner in America as Charlie Heston put it, when he was the head of the NRA “from my cold dead hands”
I don’t want AUSTRALIA to have that problem, we have problems, that is just another one, we don’t need,
like I said, if you have a farm, or an actual REASON to have a gun, by all means…otherwise go to a gun club, and leave your gun with them, you have no need for it in your home
and sorry, it isn’t normal, no other country (democratic, developed nation) has the same problem, not one, none, no-one else, nobody, just the USA, have the awesome shooting rates,
but its not because of the guns is it? nope, course not….its the bogeyman media,
open your eyes a bit more and maybe you would have seen something, being oblivious, or stupid, doesn’t mean people weren’t being shot in those bad neighbourhoods
Wow, there’s nothing like gun control to get the comments going.
Just remember: guns don’t kill - people kill.
Is that in any way similar to, “toasters don’t toast - people toast”?
Actually, yes. It’s exactly the same.
Both toasters and guns are inanimate objects, totally devoid of volition. Have you ever seen a toaster, all by itself, grab a slice of bread and toast it? You have not. In every instance, a human being has inserted the bread and turned the toaster on. The toaster has been entirely passive. It does not act; it is acted upon.
So it is with guns. Guns do not independently attack people. A human being must pick the gun up, load it, cock it, aim it, and pull the trigger. If someone is killed as a result, the gun did not kill them. The person wielding the gun did.
To call the gun evil and try to blame it for the violent act is a denial of the concept of responsibility. Anyone who actually thinks that way is morally retarded.
In Australia the right to bare arms means you can go out in a singlet…
Seriously, I had to leave my black beauty—a Llama 9mm—back in seppo land with my brother when I emigrated to OZ.
I remember when car-jacking was “all the rage” (pardon) in the early ‘90s. I carried that pistol in the car whenever driving through LA/SF/Sacto.
Sometimes when a “doof-doof” blaring WRX full of glaring sand monkies pulls ups alongside me in some parts of Melbourne, I wish I still had it.
Call me irresponsible.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 08 at 12:58 AM • permalinkMr Nick - in a world of Asymetiric Urban warfare, I think that a “legal guns problem” is less of a “problem” than the alternative.
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 12:58 AM • permalinkI don’t really understand what all the fuss is about. You can still buy firearms in Oz.
You just have to register and join the Sporting Shooters Assoc.
You just can’t own semi-auto rifles any more though you can own a semi-auto pistol.
I have 3 longarms. A double barrel shottie, a .22 lever action and a trusty .303 SMLE III
Why the fuck do civvies want semi-auto rifles anyway?
Tim, go buy yourself a glock if you want. There is nothing stopping you unless you have a criminal record.i think the urban warfare things is being a bit overblown…. while its not perfect over here in the West, i have to say sometimes i’m thankful that i live over here rather than over east…. not sure we have the same ethnic problems, or at least to the same extent u guys do…
by this comment i am probably going ot turn all my eastern states brothers and sisters against me, as well as the entire US…..
you have no need for it in your home
Yeah but after another few years of Iemma and co running down the police force who knows?
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 01:02 AM • permalinkAgreed Tasman.
why are pollies so scared of them?
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 01:06 AM • permalinkI wonder if John Howards Petrol station ever got held up when he was a Kid?
he seems to be quite “spooked” by them
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 01:09 AM • permalinkI would say you were deliberately distorting my words, Mr. Nick, if I didn’t suspect instead that you were simply too stupid to understand me. Okay, I will use the small words: I did not say that gun crime did not exist, I said that the way the news media reports it makes it out to be much worse, and affect much more of society, than it really does. I used my own gun-violence-free life as an example. Since you are close-minded, you chose to interpret what I said as “there is no gun crime,” even though that’s not what I said.
Please remember: news shows, even 24 hour cable news shows, only report a small part of what happens on earth, so they tend to report the most dramatic sort of events. Why do they do this? Well, partly to get people to watch or read their shows and papers; and partly to push their own agenda, which is they think is “making society better”; and partly because they are just as stupid about guns as everyone else is and they believe their own bullshit about guns being evil demonic creatures who somehow cause murders and suicides to take place.
I suspect another reason people have decided to embrace the comforting “guns are evil, if we ban them or restrict them so harshly that no law-abiding person will be able to own one then no one will get hurt” notion is because it lets people continue to believe the equally comforting, and erroneous, idea that all people are basically good. Therefore that crazy guy? Who went nuts and shot all those people? Not our fault—see, we turned in all our guns? And the killer hasn’t killed anyone since. Of course he hasn’t, he’s either dead or in prison, but never mind that—we’ve Done Something, we’ve banned guns! By the way, doing barn-door-closing things like enacting harsher gun restrictions on law-abiding gun owners after something awful has happened is not a rational act, but rather a ceding to dark impulses known as doing “sympathetic magic.” You might as stab a voodoo doll, you’ll get about the same results.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 01:10 AM • permalinkyep gun, inanimate killing device, toaster, inanimate toasting device…wrong person, bad result.
clearly, no gun supporter can even see the other arguement,
it is too late for America anyway, i am advocating gun control, CONTROL, and all i hear is talk about myths and left wing greenies, no-one wants to fess up to the FACT guns are weapons of destruction, inaminmate, potential, weapons of no purpose, bar death,
but its cool, legal = ethical right?
Didn’t that arsehole Bryant use an AR15.
Now why would a civvie need a fucking assault rifle???
Assault rifles and large calibre handguns are banned.
Fair enough I reckon.
Did anyone read my post?
Storm in a teacup folks.
Tim buy your Glock.
Everyone, go buy a rifle or a pistol if you wish and your record is clean.
You can.
It’s legal.
What the hell is the fuss?I can see your other side of the arguement Nick
yes guns are an “amplifier” for evil people
solution more legal well trained gun holders so when the next martin bryant comes out, or someone trys to do a beslan in an Australia a memebr of the public can thwart them.
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 01:15 AM • permalink#52 & 60 Andrea:
LMAO! Watching you comment is like watching a shark attack! You go, girl! :-D
#50 Casanova:
Hi Cas! I see what you’re saying, and I normally agree with your comments, but I reckon that your Iraq/Afghanistan analogy is specious; both of those areas are war zones. Normal rules do not apply there.
BTW, no one has mentioned swimming pools or electricity yet; how many accidents happen every year in pools alone? I’m thinking that we ban them next…think of the poor, drowned children! ;-D
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 08 at 01:21 AM • permalink‘Muslim male tries to use SUV for mass murder’ -
Ban SUVs! They’re evil things!Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 08 at 01:21 AM • permalinkAwright, Nick, toasters at dawn.
Mine’s a Sunbeam Four-Burner, and I’m packing thick sourdough in fast-loaders, so youse better come prepared to be buttered but good.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 08 at 01:22 AM • permalink81 alpha - can I really walk into a shop in down town Sydney and buy a glock?
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 03 08 at 01:22 AM • permalinkThe reason people start commenting when we talk gun laws, is that it is a ‘
marker issue’. I can show I am a nice person by having the right ideas.All my life I have seen comments and framing of facts in the media based on the culture of ‘what the nice people think’. The Astralian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Democrats and most of the whiny activist groups are religious about it; if anyone thinks different they are deranged or evil.
Guns, abortion, death penalty… yadda yadda yadda. It is the same as Prohibition - the facts matter less than ‘taking a stand’ for goodness.
how quaint, thankyou Andrea, yes the news report bad stuff, and bad stuff includes shootings, but the amount of shooting doesn’t worry you at all?
and you clearly believe that only nuts are shooting people, not a person, who on a normal days, is very normal, but on one particular day, under heavy stress and having a terrible day, who also has access to a gun, may use it,
only nuts, gotchya,
i like Americans for the most part, but it is a clear cultural differnce, which is fine, but what amazes me, is your abnormal need to hold on to this gun thing, just because you can,
what solution do you propose then?
we banned guns, and guess what, stabbing the voodoo doll here, no more shootings of random civilians…we had two terrible shootings here in the last 2 decades, on of which claimed more than 10 lives, because he had access to high powered weapons, with explosive bullets, now, you can’t get them, so guess what? no more shootings,
America, has done…nothing….sorry, educate…and guess what, ‘bang!’
“oh he was a nutcase, not a level minded person like me” right?
and it is a rational act, it protects people from idiots with guns, i don’t feel impeded because i couldn’t get a gun, i dont want one, because i feel safe,
feels good
i am off now, but yeah, keep safe, agree to disagree, and quite frankly, i was talking about Australia, if you are annoyed because it makes USA sound so dangerous…maybe because it is
By the way, just so you all know, it’s not the issue of guns that has me upset—I am not particularly interested in them (I prefer the bow and arrow, if you must know my weapon of choice)—it’s the thick-skulled, smug stupidity displayed by such people as the sanctimonious Mr.Nick. If people here were being just as obtuse on any other subject I’d be just as irritated. You know what gets people “hurt” and even killed? Stupidity. Stupid people drink and wave guns around. Stupid people stick forks into plugged in toasters. Stupid people talk on their cell phones while trying to negotiate crowded city streets with their SUVs and run over a pregnant woman and her two toddlers. We could either blab about the dangers of guns, toasters, and SUVs, or we could recognize the dangers of stupidity.
I just don’t want anyone to get hurt.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 01:26 AM • permalinkOh and Mr. Nick, you just keep misrepresenting my argument and claiming I said things I did not say. It just makes you look like the jerk.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 01:28 AM • permalinkthanks snuff, i was just saying that guns don’t make places civil and polite, decent law abiding people make places civil and polite… and the level of gun ownership can be quite irrelevant to that, or even counter productive….
but a trite little saying that rolls off the lips quickly, like “an armed society is a polite society” can sound quite sensible… but apply a bit of logic to it and it doesn’t stand up… it doesn’t have to be in a war zone… i’m sure some of the tougher neighbourhoods of los angeles or chicago or other places around the world aren’t particularly well mannered???
What’s the better self-defence option:
1) Go through red tape and buy a shotgun legally. But then it has to be kept in a safe and possibly unavailable when you need it.
or
2) Get a pistol illegally, but then risk being locked up if you ever end up using it to defend yourself
Anyone?
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 08 at 01:31 AM • permalinkBy the way, I don’t believe in “safety.” There is no such thing. We are in danger of dying every minute. If you think you are “safe” from all harm because you think guns are nasty then I have a $2,000,000.00 I’d like to put in your bank account for safekeeping until my uncle, General Sese Profumo Notuwange, regains his post as chief of security for the Nigerian government. All I need is your bank account number.
You can trust me. Pinky swear.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 01:32 AM • permalinkGee that gun buy-back worked REAL WELL didnt it?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 08 at 01:32 AM • permalinkBy the way, wasn’t it one of the survivors of Port Arthur (a woman) who said she’d left her pistol (which she usually carried) at home that day?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 08 at 01:33 AM • permalinkStone Cold: fake arguments will be ignored.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 08 at 01:33 AM • permalink#90 - Depends. Do you want to be law-abiding or be dead?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 08 at 01:40 AM • permalinkMark Steyn has written several illuminating columns on gun control. Here’s one.
Unfortunately, a very good column in the Spectator is no longer available, due to their efforts to quash free expression.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 03 08 at 01:41 AM • permalinkActually Andrea, I don’t think it’s a “fake” argument at all. The law here is such that you stand a very real chance of getting locked up even if you are acting fully in self-defence, just because the gun you use is not legal.
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 08 at 01:41 AM • permalink76 Nick, do you reckon the folks in Darfur would be better off right now if they could keep and bear arms? German Jews about 1939?How about Cambodia circa 1977? I am not trying to be acrimonious here. The reason this is such an emotional issue for many is that the gun registration/control/ban slope always gets presented by otherwise well meaning people as being “beneficial” to society when the historical examples clearly prove otherwise. It is the ultimate “individual right”, one of the bedrock principles of the freest, most successful, prosperity creating system ever created, Western civilization. People will get killed or hurt by people with guns no matter what we do, we cannot put Friar Bacon’s genie back in a bottle. But I would humbly submit that the numbers will always be significantly less from crime and accident than from capricious goverment action often on its own unarmed citizens.
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 08 at 01:46 AM • permalink#100 - Not true. You cant use a legal gun for home defence either. In fact you really cant use any force against a home intruder in Australia. You’ll be charged by the Police and will probably face civil charges from the intruder.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 08 at 01:47 AM • permalinkFirstly, I think Tim has nicely proven that “Neocon” “Zionist” “Right-Wing” “Conservative” blah blah blah bloggers can, and do disagree with John Howard. Sometimes, even in the mainstream media!
I can’t recall who, but some lefty blogger insisted Tim was incapable of this.
Secondly, there are some great arguments here in defence of gun ownership. My personal opinion is based on my experience in Israel, where every soldier (i.e. everyone between ages of about 18-21) has an M-16 slung over his shoulder, in the bar, on the bus or in the bank.
I would feel far safer letting my teenage daughter roam around there, then walk up George Street Sydney.
Additionally, no one would DARE hold up a bank in that country. I expect domestic break and enter is significantly reduced when the bad guys know they run the risk of getting their nuts blown off.
Sadly, I suspect lifting gun restrictions is like raising speed limits. For every good, sensible and well researched argument in favour, you’ll always have someone shout “what about the children” and trump the debate.
So the swarthy male crooks still walk around Sydney with guns…
but that is also coz in australia, most burglars don’t carry guns, and usually don’t threaten anyones life either… although the odd old person does cop some rough treatement and can come of second best…
so its rare that u ever have to kill someone in australia for self defence in terms of your life being threatened…
Er when I say clean criminal record I mean no serious criminal record. Speeding fines I doubt would cruel you.
You’ll have to jump through a few hoops to get your Glock but in Queensland you can own two Glocks, two .22’pistolas and two revolvers so long as you tick the right boxes and follow the prompts.
The laws vary from State to State a tad but they are pretty much similar.So I could reiterate by saying that only a criminal record could anyone who wishes from buying themselves a Glock or two in Oz.
So again I ask what’s the fuss about?
Didn’t that arsehole Bryant use an AR15.
Now why would a civvie need a fucking assault rifle???
Assault rifles and large calibre handguns are banned.
Fair enough I reckon.
Did anyone read my post?
Storm in a teacup folks.
Tim buy your Glock.
Everyone, go buy a rifle or a pistol if you wish and your record is clean.
You can.
It’s legal.
What the hell is the fuss?Yes, I read your posts. Because they were a crock of shit, I chose to ignore them. Satisfied. What are you? Copper or grunt? The derogatory use of the term “civvie” irks me. And who the fuck are you to tell me I can’t have a “semi-auto”? My now-crushed .22 LR posed no threat to anyone. Nor did my ancient, rattly pump action shotgun. But enjoy yourself while you can, jerk—lever actions and military rifles (.303s, comprende) are now being targeted by the government(s) and the antis. Why the fuck does any civvie want a military rifle anyway? (That’s sarcasm, in case you missed it.)
Mr. Nick
... high powered weapons, with explosive bullets
Admit it, you haven’t got a frigging clue what you’re talking about, have you? WTF is an “explosive” bullet? Mercury-tipped? These have never been available in Australia.
As for no more shootings, I guess the poor bastards found in the vats in South Australia, or burnt to death in the backpacker’s in Queensland is acceptable, or the poor bloody kids mowed down in Mildura by car the other day is OK, because they weren’t shot.
Idiot.
I’m not adding to this topic. The sheer blind ignorance and pants-wetting blathering at the thought someone might actually own a gun and enjoy shooting as a recreation is numbing.
#103 - If the gun was legal and you shot an intruder, the cops might charge you with murder/manslaughter etc. It would then go before a jury and as long as you were genuinely acting in self-defence you would almost certainly get off. However if the gun was illegal, then apart from any murder/manslaughter trial you would be facing illegal firearm ownership charges, to which you would basically have no defence. And I wouldn’t be facing any civil action from the intruder, on account of him being dead.
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 08 at 01:59 AM • permalinkYou can’t walk into a gunshop in Australia and buy a Glock until you’re a member of a pistol club, have completed the training course (3 - 6 months), have a police clearance certificate, have a police certificate to purchase a particular Glock, and have the required safe storage facility.
Then you have to attend 6 competitions a year, you must store the pistol and ammunition separately, (and no loaded mags, even if locked up separate to the pistol), the Glock can not have a calibre greater than 9mm, barrel length less than 120mm, or magazine capacity more than 10 rounds.
Self defence is not considered a valid reason to own a pistol, only club competition.
Oh, then you are registered on CrimTrac along with the pedophiles, and are subject to random, warrantless police inspections of your storage facilities.
81alpha, I can think of reasons why I would want to own a semi-auto rifle. Quite reasonable ones that don’t pose any threat to anyone else. So why would anyone object?
As for Port Arthur, if concealed carry was permitted in Australia, the massacre probably wouldn’t have happened, they tend to occur where the perpetrator has a good chance of not being stopped by an armed citizen. (Hint; that’s somewhere that guns aren’t permitted)
And if anyone would like to politely let Mr Howard know how you feel about your drooling, slavish love of guns, you can find his email address on this page.
My point was that guns, like toasters, are single-purpose items. The purpose of a gun is to destroy whatever it’s pointed at, whether it is a clay pigeon, a paper target, or a varmint.
Unlike a toaster there’s not much call for a gun in your daily activities in a modern society. No wolves, no bears, no unpatrolled areas where highwaymen abound.
But having said that, I sure do like guns. I like the feel of them, I like the smell after you fire one, I love the sound when you work the bolt and load a cartridge in the chamber. You could call me a gun nut, apart from the fact I don’t own a gun (any more).
I don’t own a gun for the same sort of reasons I don’t own a horse. I am so full of analogies today.
Mr Nick & Co.
The Swiss have a far higher proliferation of weapons, and Canadians (I believe) havea gun ownership rate at least as high as in the USA. Yet, neither Switzerland, nor Canada have gun crime rates as high as the USA.
Why is that?
Put it this way: If you don’t stand on a street corner in Venice Beach, wearing Cripps colours and dripping with bling, you have about as much chance of being murdered in the US as you do in Australia.
Further, you’ve failed to address the fact that the Australian government has engaged in a wholesale deprivation of the right of free citizens to arm themselves, and yet, the crime rate has not fallen. ONE. LITTLE. BIT.
You are engaging in the politics of symbolism. You don’t care that your plan doesn’t work; just as long as it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling of self-righteous goodness.
In my old job I was subjected to several death threats. 2 of them were serious enough to send the cops out, and in both those cases the guys had guns. Inb both coases the guns had been legally acquired and then flipped to the nutcase making threats. The business has had several incidents of people bringing guns along with them to meetings and in the 1950s had an upset client go on a hunt, killing several doctors who had done some work for the organisation.
I am all for gun control, and in fact stricter gun control. This is because I’m a coward and I value my skin higher than I value your right to own a gun.
How about martial arts then? Feel-good self-development reasons aside, the martial arts are all about hurting people and causing injury/death. Should they be banned? Should owning a sword and studying Kendo be illegal? I mean, the whole art is just teaching you to kill someone with a sword. In fact, I’m betting drunken wankers using martial arts cause more injuries in pub brawls every week than just about anything else. Yet the anti-gun lobby are silent about martial arts. All the arguments for guns apply to martial arts, yet just about every school in Australia has a martial arts club training there after hours on weeknights. Where will the banning end?
Disclaimer: Before you jump on me, I’m a martial artist myself (albeit still a wuss :-). And don’t be telling me that I don’t understand “The Way” either; you know what I meant. :-)Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 08 at 02:29 AM • permalinkjpaulg
I repeat myself:
you’ve failed to address the fact that the Australian government has engaged in a wholesale deprivation of the right of free citizens to arm themselves, and yet, the crime rate has not fallen. ONE. LITTLE. BIT.
You are engaging in the politics of symbolism. You don’t care that your plan doesn’t work; just as long as it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling of self-righteous goodness.
#111 etc- In Queensland you also have to leave your weapons in a safe at the pistol club, so if some hoons break in and are raping your cat and being rude to your wife, you have to ask politely if they’ll wait patiently while you drive across town, unlock the safe then lock and load on the way home and pop the bastards if they’re still around.
Then expect a lawsuit from their douchebag family for the loss of the main bread
stealerwinner.I personally recommend a flaregun for close quarter home defence- it has the added benefit of a free cremation of the burglar.
Regarding the fatuous comments about Martin Bryant, my dear old dad (who always carried a Lee Enfield .303 and clip in his car boot) said at the time “If someone like me was there at the time, the bastard might have got one or two before he had a hole in him”.
There are many times where the police and military cannot provide immediate response and protection, and law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and others with direct action.
I’m highly suspect of any government that seeks to disarm its population- and let’s face it, in a democracy government should only be allowed to do what we citizens permit it to.
The firearm over-reaction was well outside the mandate of the federal government, and has been a bureaucratic nightmare ever since.
(And the bastards crushed a damn fine Winchester built .30 M1 carbine, quite rare and jam-free; as to the peanuts questioning why a “civvie” needs a semi auto, the fact is they are the most effective thing for vermin control, both on four legs and two).
The original comment from Tim on this post was:
Two things. Firstly, Howard again here demonstrates his uncanny ability to reflect mainstream Australian opinion;
most Australians, across the political spectrum, share Howard’s loathing of guns and think the US more than a little weird
for so embracing them. Secondly, Howard is entirely wrong. {on guns being evil}
So what did Tim say?
1. Howard understands that most Australians loathe guns.
2. Howard is wrong to think guns are evil.
And this whole thread morphs into gun ownership/control issue.
I think we can agree that point #1 is correct; I’ve read that Australia is not a gun culture, and the comments here confirm
that.
Now, for point #2.
“There are some things about America I admire, there are some things I don’t, and one of the things I don’t admire
about America is an almost drooling, slavish love of guns. I think they’re evil.”
Let’s look the word evil; it’s the operative in this sentence. Here are some definitions of “evil” from
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
How can an inanimate object be “morally bad or wrong” or harmful? If I put a locked and loaded
.45 on a table in a crowded room, how does that pistol turn wicked?
The objective view is that pistol on a table is as “safe” as the same pistol in a gun safe, unloaded.
Put that weapon—loaded or not—within the reach of people, and the equation changes. We might be
looking at a person handling it unsafely.
Semantic nitpicking? No. This is a factual statement.
You can declare firearms “evil” only if you blame the weapon itself, and not the person holding it.
That’s an emotional reaction to the weapon, placing the weapon on the same level of responsibility as people.
“Guns are evil” is not a rational argument. It’s an emotional reaction.
I hate reptiles. Snakes in particular. This comes from an incident in my childhood. It’s an irrational fear, but I try not to react emotionally when I see a snake (i.e., jump, curse, and run like hell).
But I know why I hate snakes…..and I don’t blame them. Snakes aren’t evil, even though I loathe them.
That’s a non-emotional reaction, folks.
Some commenters here have offered valid and logical reasons for gun control. Some people have commented against gun control.
Most of these I support. And other people here have offered an emotional response to the problem.
Now, step back and look at things. Where have we seen this before?
How about the infamous “Bush Derangement Syndrome”? Some people aren’t rational when it comes to Bush. Bush is a living
creature, not an inanimate object like a firearm. But that’s not the point. My point is that we are seeing the “Gun
Derangement Syndrome” here. Lead by John Howard.
Skeptic commented that [url=http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/nothing_in_the_bulletin/#103367]Woo-hoo, John
Howard is acting like a leftist asshole. [/url] Rght!
Howard offers an emotional response to a real problem, like Michael Moore did in “Bowling For Columbine”. I think most of us agree Moore is a leftist asshole, yes?
I don’t equate Howard and Moore. I am noting that - in this case and for entirely different reasons - Moore and Howard are thinking in the same patterns.
Howard is wrong because because he is not being objective about his “guns are evil”. He is feeling. But he has the support of most Australians. Which makes him right, in a democratic sense.
Take from this what you will. Just be sure to look at this with a clear head.
Editorial note—I will be ignoring any ad hominem attacks on this subject. Feel free to get it out of your system,
subject to the limits imposed by Andrea. Just don’t send any snakes.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 08 at 02:47 AM • permalinkOh, and I have a better example than Michael Moore…..how about the parents of Corrie Rachel blaming Caterpillar for the death of their daughter?
Same sort of reasoning, folks.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 08 at 02:50 AM • permalinkYou can own them, they’re just not readily available for defensive purposes.
It’s a bit of a fallacy that Australia’s never had a firearm culture either- the more effete’ parts of capital cities may recoil in horror at the first glimpse of blued steel but in rural areas weapons were and continue to be part and parcel of existence.
I grew up in rural Queensland and got my first air rifle at 13; it was compulsory to be in the cadets at my school, and you were carted off to the range at 14 with a .303 you could barely lift, to put a magazine’s worth out the naughty end on a regular basis- a pair of footy socks wedged inside your shirt would cut the bruising from the recoil down to severe beating levels.
We were moved onto bren guns by the end of your first year; the only damage to anyone that I can recall was an idiot who shot himself in the hand with a speargun while snorkelling off Keppel Island.
I hate safety nazis.
#119 The Real JeffS:
Since you mention Bowling for Columbine, here’s an excellent website debunking the whole film. Old news, I know, but there may still be people out there who think that it’s a legit documentary.
Michael Moore = Assclown!
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 08 at 03:08 AM • permalinkjpaulg
Try being the Guard Commander at Campbell Barracks in Swanbourne, then you’ll know what death threats are.
Oh! and that was, before the first Gulf War, so I’d hate to think how the guys on the front gate are copping it these days.
Posted by deadparrot on 2006 03 08 at 03:09 AM • permalinkOh, for Chissake. This is one of the stupidest thread’s I’ve ever read on Tim’s site. Makes the arguments on Web Diary seem sane. Grow up.
Australians tend to have a different perspective on guns in the general populace that Americans. Howard acted in response to the murder of 35 people in an afternoon by one nutter & banned certain types of weapons that needn’t be within the reach of the general populace. Big bloody deal. Those that didn’t like it, voted against it. That’s good.
Everyone stop frothing at the mouth like some leftoid “climate change” conference, stay in your respective ‘gun control’ corners, keep voting to support your side & if you don’t like it, ship out.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 08 at 03:24 AM • permalink#126 Stop Continental Drift!:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha…oh, wait. You were being serious. My mistake. ;-)
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 03 08 at 03:44 AM • permalink#127 ‘Snuffles.
You are forgiven. One mistake in life ain’t bad.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 08 at 03:58 AM • permalinktilts head in compassionate, inclusive gestureArrrrgh! See what this thread is doing to me!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 08 at 04:04 AM • permalink#119
“But he has the support of most Australians. Which makes him right, in a democratic sense.”
Your basic premise is not necessarily correct. The Uniform Firearm Laws were ‘sold’ to the Australian public on the basis that the ownership of automatic and semi-automatic long arms would be banned for the vast majority of Australian firearm owners. This is still, more-or-less, the belief of the average (non-aligned) Australian who wonders (like the vociferous gentleman above who claims to be a firearm owner) what all the fuss is about.
Such a belief is largely uninformed - in reality the Uniform Firearm Laws went far beyond that and, in fact, imposed a rigorous and draconian set of controls and requirements on firearm owners designed to discourage firearm ownership per se. These regulations apply to all firearms - even single-shot air-rifles - and they are continuously being refined and tightened by the various State governments.
As a State delegate to a very large Australian national shooting organisation I sometimes address service clubs and other community groups on the question of firearms controls and invariably, when I explain just what the requirements of the UFLs are, I am greeted with surprise, even amazement, and a frequent comment is. “That is not what we were told”! Oh, and by the way, the private ownership of “automatic” firearms had never been allowed in Australia, but this was still an intrinsic part of John Howard’ dis-information campaign.Finally, the oft-repeated furphy that Australia has never had a history of gun-ownership (gun culture), is of course, absolute nonsense. The settlement of Australia and the Australian frontier was often as dangerous and wild as that of North America and a settler’s rifle, or handgun, was as necessary as his axe or saddle - firearms and firearm ownership are an intrinsic part of Australia’s history.
#109.
Yes, I read your posts. Because they were a crock of shit, I chose to ignore them. Satisfied.
Let it out, BIWOZ. Let it out.
And who the fuck are you to tell me I can’t have a “semi-auto”?
He’s a co-member of the society you live in. As such, your rights are not unlimited.
My now-crushed .22 LR posed no threat to anyone. Nor did my ancient, rattly pump action shotgun.
I’m sure they went to gun heaven.
..lever actions and military rifles (.303s, comprende) are now being targeted by the government.
You’ll need to provide evidence of that, since the grief caused by loss of your firearms classifies you as biased.
fuck the law. i’ve armed myself. if mick gatto can shoot someone and admit in a court of law to carrying an unlicensed pistol and still be walking arounf free, then i can have one too. unlicensed is better - less hassle. if i shoot someone in self defence i’ll take my chances with the jury - just as gatto did.
For a while you can settle for the gunless fantasy. But in a world where there are more and more who seem to belive that violence can advance their cause, or that perhaps, like Mao, think that power comes from the barrel of a gun, or other threatening device - I have severe misgivings about the tightness of the gun restrictions here. I have not had a gun since teenage rabbit shooting, now many years ago.
But I thought from the outset that Howard overdid the gun thing. I recognise that some guns are too far down the military track for them to be held by ordinary “mugshots”, but the strictures applied were too great.
Thanks Tim for re-opening the subject. If our politicians do have antennae for what the good and regular public are thinking , they should take note.
People should also check just what they can buy and own - such as under gun club rules - it might be a little (very little) better than you think.
Hmmmmmm! Lever action!I reccommended a lever action 30.06 or 30/30 previously; clear evidence the legislation was drafted by wingnuts who wouldn’y known the naughty end from the safe end of a spraygun.
Most lever rifles will hold 8+1, and can be discharged at near the rate of a semi-auto; the 30.06 is a particularly nasty round, as can be attested by many former members of the Wermacht and Waffen SS now acting as landfill throughout much of Western Europe.
Keep it under your hat though- a weapon that uses a military round, has a reasonable magazine and a high fire-rate sounds like the end of civilisation and music to the ears of an authoritarian police minister in a state government that’s as popular as a turd in a punchbowl.
Maybe they should act to prevent a Chuck Connors inspired bloodbath.
Speaking of gun enthusiasts, wasn’t it Paul Keating that said
“....out of my cold, dead hand!”
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 08 at 07:13 AM • permalinkHoward acted in response to the murder of 35 people in an afternoon by one nutter
Just because a law was passed in reaction to a horrific event doesn’t make it a good law. I would bet that few of those who think the Aussie gun “ban” was a good reaction to Port Arthur also believe that the American Patriot Act was a good reaction to 9/11. Yet they are much the same in many ways.
</i>& banned certain types of weapons that needn’t be within the reach of the general populace. </i>
Needn’t according to who? Using the word “needn’t” rather assumes the conclusion, doesn’t it? And the whole premise of the gun ban has been invalidated by experience, as it hasn’t made Australia any safer. We know this for a fact, folks, a fact that the gun ban’s many fans can never quite bring themselves to acknowledge.
Gun control is never really about guns. Its always about control.
Thank God I live in Texas, with a scawy “high-caliber” .45 (high-capacity 14 round mag firmly seated in the handle and one up the spout, thankyouverymuch) within easy reach. And you know, its funny - I have lived my entire life within the reach of evil-inducing gun rays, but I have never hurt another person. Even though I “needn’t” have any of my guns, acoording to my betters.
G’day RC Dean
I frankly don’t want an argument here; I’d rather do a piss-take like I do on lefty blogs. But I’m not game, with Andrea rampant on the subject (well, except for that last token effort re Keating).
Good on you having a .45 handy. I mean it! In Texas its apparently the thing to do. When I lived in Nevada (wa-a-a-ay out of town), my good neighbour liked to blast just about everything in sight with his various guns/rifles/whatever. Sat on his back porch and blasted away at the sage bushes, claim posts & the occasional animal. I sometimes joined him in the blast-a-thon. A great afternoon, with half a case of Michelob Dry (plus it kept me on the right side of the barrel).
But over here in Oz, as TB mentioned, the general populace appear to want less guns. Lots of people disagree, but Howard acted (OK - over re-acted if you like). Its about 8 or 9 years ago now and I think the country has survived OK. Sorry not to share the passion one way or another, but its very old news, y’know?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 08 at 08:54 AM • permalinkIt’s not as if it’s compulsory to own a weapon.
There’s no justification to the legislation, and anyone who supports it is revealing themselves to be a statist yahoo who belongs playing pixie pat-a-hash cake with Bob Brown.
Fuck me, a complete leftist loon like the lovely Hulun Clark oversees a system that allows a fit person to own AK47s, pump action shotguns and handguns as long as they’re registered with the local plod and kept in a weapon safe; if they get rid of Clarkie and bring back rogernomics, bugger the hippies who were going to flee the Howard government, I’ll lead the charge.
Marlborough makes a quite passable Sauvignon Blanc as well.
Anyone who thinks Howard is a free market libertarian should read the succinct review of his era by Stephen Matchett; the only thing these buggers really have going for them is that the alternative would be far worse.
BTW- Martin Bryant was prohibited from owning a firearm; a pretty glaring example of the overwhelming success of prohibitions.
The bastard was crazier than a bedbug but managed to get whatever he wanted- the buyback managed to put a lot more weapons on the crim market.
I’m sure ex-pats in PNG and Vanuatu must adore JWH for it as well- within months of it coming in, the Raskols were tooled up with SKSs, SKKs and semi-auto shotguns rather than machetes and home-made shotties, thanks to a flood of these coming on the Australian market and snapped up by hoons to be exchanged for Mt Hagen hooch.
A stunning success, not just locally but regionally.
#130—Boss Hog, have you been able to repeal the Uniform Firearms Law? No? That’s democracy in action. Or at least the democratic process.
Ask the legitimate (and safe!) gun owners in California about this. There’s nothing in the Democracy Handbook™ about the system being fair. Or sane, it’s run by people, after all.
And, for what it’s worth, I’m with you on love of firearms. But not on muscle cars. Sorry, they just ain’t sexy to me. ;-)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 08 at 10:27 AM • permalinkThe_Real_JeffS: Shoot the snake.
126 Stop Continental Drift!: A better armed populace might have elected to shoot the nutter somewhat before he got to 35, perhaps with lever-action cowboy guns.
Thank God almighty I live in a place where I can at least carry an inexpensive Kel-tec sub 2k carbine behind my truck seat…Now if they would only get on with chambering it in .45 or .50 Action Express.
Anyway, I propose a more accurate amended name for the anti-gun collective - How about the Anti-gun nut lobby or totalitarian wingers, or even National Socialists for Disarmament And Politics (NSDAP).
Seeing as how history hasn’t stopped being…You know…Created, I feel reasonably confident in observing that any nation without riflemen (or is that riflepersons) is a nation which exists at the mercy of others.
Texas Bob — You need a gun rack* in your muscle car. Then you’d be quite the catch!
*(Or a nice SCAT or pintle mount)
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 08 at 11:01 AM • permalinkHere in Ohio, we have what’s known as a concealed carry law, which means if we manage to pass the tight restrictions on gun ownership, we can not only own a gun, we can legally carry it concealed on our person in any public place of our choosing. So far, Ohio has not turned into the Gunfight at the OK Corral, and I’ve never seen one person walking around with a gun on his or her hip (although I figure there are a few in briefcases and purses). As in any other state, most shootings happen in late-night bars and bad neighborhoods where people would have access to illegal guns anyway, and it almost always occurs over drug deals. Sometimes there are domestic dispute shootings, along with knifings, beatings, etc. They’re relatively rare, but they happen, and sometimes, it’s the woman defending her life against her abusive husband/boyfriend.
To paraphrase, there are statistics and there are damn lies.
For a country that is often stereotyped as being full of the likes of Steve Irwin and Crocodile Dundee, I’m surprised that so many have bought into the stereotype of Americans haveing a “drooling, slavish love of guns.” Especially John Howard, who until now, I thought was a pretty smart guy who knew BS when he saw it. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt though, as just being a good politician who is in touch with the views of his constituents. Still, he could have chosen his words better.
Just to clear the record, for those who want to be informed: The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was adopted to allow private citizens to protect themselves from their government. At the time, British oppression was fresh in the minds of the constitutional framers. Although we don’t worry too much about the British anymore, oppression from the government is still a real threat, and it would be foolish to only allow law enforcement and criminals to own guns.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even in America.
I haven’t seen anything in this thread about actual crime statistics, and as I have worked in this area professionally (government research and all) I’d like to add something, particularly since I’ve seen references here to AMERICA’S ASTONISHING CRIME RATES.
I know nothing about Oz crime rates (beyond a new desire to avoid the beaches should I venture to your lucky country), but I have looked at a variety of European numbers. It might interest (shock, appall) you to know that at present, nice and safe disarmed Britain has violent crime rates two to three times higher than the US in most categories.
The one exception is murder, but there’s an interesting twist there too: if you filter inner-city black-on-black murder out of that, we end up looking a lot more like Belgium. I will leave the sociology of that to someone else; but the facts are that the ordinary joe going to and from the grocery store is in considerably more danger in small town Britain than in most any location in America.
Another intriguing point is that home invasion, which is becoming a major British pastime, is a much, much smaller phenomenon in the US. Our burglars keep the same hours as the rest of us, mostly working in the daytime, when people are off at their jobs. They don’t like to crawl in through the window at night, and guess why.
To my way of thinking, suicides would commit suicide whether they had access to a gun or not; they’d just switch methods to something else.
Not cops. Suicidal cops must eat their guns. It’s the way.
May I recommend two books: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John Lott and his followup The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 08 at 03:20 PM • permalinkFolks - We may be nuts, but it is well to remember that we are heavily armed nuts.
Too right, mojo!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 08 at 03:54 PM • permalinkPS:
I was going to add “BUAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!”, but I didn’t want to leave the wrong impression. We are nuts, not insane.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 08 at 03:55 PM • permalinkHabib,
My mates all keep their pistols at home.
One turn of the key and you are armed or you could just say hell I was about to clean it and that’s why it was there by my bed at 2am….when this guy came through my window.
My suggestion is to get everybody to be a licensed shooter and then perhaps you’ll have political clout along the lines of the NRA in the US.
But again I state you can own a decent firearm.
Just like the Glocks those Leb gents were brandishing.32 Mr Nick
in America, I can get ... an automatic assault rifle, and armour piercing bullets, that is weird, and scary…
Yeah? Get back to me after you’ve actually TRIED to purchase an “automatic assault rifle.”
scroll scroll scroll ... ZANG! 154 comments ! This thread’s too deep for me already.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 08 at 06:34 PM • permalinkThoughts from a pedestrian supporter:
I’m glad Andrea calmed down. I was afraid she was about to ban herself.
I’d prefer commit suicide with a gun than a brick.
Guns are not just for killing. They are a very effective supporting prop for pointing at people when you politely ask them to behave themselves.
#154- but nothing over .38; unless you want to spend a few grand on concreting a safe in your floor and having Trevor Plod paying unwelcome calls at any time to inspect same you have to store at a registered club.
They swiped my pre-WW1 Browning .45 auto, but let me keep a nickel-plate S&W .357 Python with a 7” vented barrel, and there’s no problem with me loading the bugger up with wadcutters. Go figure.
The inescapable fact about this entire expensive, reactionary, draconian and futile exercise is that Australian criminals and vermin have never been more heavily tooled up, while a disarmed law-abiding populace is virtually undefended by a toothless, ineffective and politically correct police “service” keener on collecting speed camera revenue and pandering to the sensibilities of douchebags than doing any actual law enforcement.
<r>rant off</r>
Only slightly OT - I am an American expat living in Melbourne. This past weekend, I had a chance to visit Port Arthur in Tasmania and wanted to get more information on the massacre. When I google the topic, the majority of hits seem to revolve around conspiracy theories. Can anyone suggest a good source for actual information on the event. Thanks.
#159 JanG
Good question. I think at Port Arthur Historic Site itself there may been some material; there is certainly the memorial you would have seen. Ultimately your best source of info may be at the library, looking at newspaper (eg The Mercury) coverage at the time.
God, I don’t even want to know what the conspiracy dickheads are saying on the net. If ever there was a case for capital punishment in Oz - a premeditated (over a period of hours) heinous crime (35 deaths and ?dozens wounded), with absolutely no doubt who did it (lots of survivors, fortunately)... .. just pull the lever, man.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 08 at 10:34 PM • permalinkThe conspiracy dickheads are dreadful. I suggest the Wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_Massacre as a passable resource.
Stoop — OR armor-piercing bullets (known as “bullets” to the cognoscenti)...
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 01:03 AM • permalink#20 Casanova,
Actually the Framers did have individuals in mind. When they were writing the Constitution the militia was the total male population between 16 nad 60. that’s also the way it was defined in the first law on militias after the Constitution was ratified. In those days the “assault rifle” was a smoothbore musket or a fowling piece, or for a few a Pennsylvania rifle. Those were the sorts of weapons King George’s troops were trying to take away at Concord. What the Framers never would have understood is letting law enforcement go to hell and allowing these gangs to rise in the first place. The Supreme Court and even legal scholars favoring gun control have recognized that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, and was intended to apply to individuals. Americans want the guns for personal defense and because we think that the other rights we enjoy will not last long if the Second Amendment goes down the tubes, any more than if the First Amendment does. That’s out of step with fashionable opinion around the world. Too bad, but we can live with being unfashionable.The gangsters get guns illegally. Nor do gun control laws stop them. Even in places where there are stringent gun control laws the criminals ignore them and get smuggled guns with no problem. Gun control disarms the law abiding but has no effect on criminals. That being the case, one cannot believe that those politicians who champion gun control are actually concerned about reducing crime via that means. Their aim must be some other thing, and disarming the population is a means to that end,since it will not reduce crime.
We did have gun control in parts of the USA for a while. It was in the Jim Crow South and was intended to disarm blacks (didn’t apply to whites, of course). Made lynchings ever so much safer for the po’ white trash, dontcherknow.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 03 09 at 01:07 AM • permalink(Sorry if this goes throught twice, seem to have had a minor glitch.)
I think the 1990s gun-buybacks were just political stunts, unnecessary, and didn’t really achieve much. That said, I prefer overall the higher level of gun-control we have in Australia than what they have in USA.
We’ll do our thing our way, and the USA can do the same.
I’ve seen gun-debates before and noticed a lot of myths about Australia that seem to be quite frequently expressed in the US pro-gun community (not necessarily expressed here BTW).
MYTH: Australians were able to buy guns freely very similar to America, and after the 1996 massacre they were banned. (MentalFloss’s comment #94 (“By the way, wasn’t it one of the survivors of Port Arthur (a woman) who said she’d left her pistol (which she usually carried) at home that day?” reminds me of this.)
REALITY: Guns were more restricted here than USA pre-1996, and they just became a bit more restricted.
MYTH: Australians can no longer legally own or use firearms.
REALITY: There are plenty of ways to own guns here. Farmers still own rifles. Hunters can still hunt. Sporting shooters can still do their sport. And yes, teenagers do still play with air-rifles if Dad lets them. There are more restrictions than USA on specific types, calibres, magazine sizes, storage requirements, etc but most people can still legally own a gun if they want to.
MYTH: Crime rates have “sky-rocketed” since guns were “banned”.
REALITY: Homicide rates have remained virtually unchanged. (Historically, the US per-capita homicide rate is approximately 4 times worse than Australia’s). Attempts which I’ve heard before to link, say, the rate of car-theft or purse-snatching or something with the gun-laws demonstrate a total ignorance of Australian society. Aussies don’t (and didn’t pre-1996 either) carry weapons around in their cars or at restaurants or on George Street, etc, etc
(cont-)
But the one thing that does shit me is when groups like the NRA peddle misinformation to their members and the American public in general.Few may remember, but the NRA caused a minor diplomatic incident back in ~1999 with an infomercial video thing (it was also downloadable from their website back then) they produced that published fake crime statistics about Australia and distributing this to their members (allegedly skyrocketing homicide rates, etc, etc. Basically, “don’t be disarmed like those Aussie sheep” seemed to be the message). The problem was that their stats were totally bogus, and the Australian Attorney-General (Darryl Williams as I recall) demanded they cease and desist this slander and apologize.
It turned out that the NRA got their bogus figures from a private Australian pro-gun organization, and (according to them) took them at face-value and didn’t bother to check them themselves. (NOTE: this information was freely available online at the Australian Institute of Criminology website) That’s pretty shoddy behaviour from an organization with several million members!
But were they just incompetent, or was this wilful ignorance?
Well, it certainly looked like the latter, because the infomercial also showed footage of protesting Australians and misrepresented it as a gun rally. The “reporter” (whose name was something like “Ginny Simone” or similar) simply filmed a bunch of people in Adelaide protesting about crime, and police numbers, tougher sentencing, etc and said in voice-over stuff along the lines of ‘These are Aussies demanding their guns back. They have been disarmed, and they are protesting about it. They want the gun ban reversed. Don’t end up like them!’ etc, etc. It was a total and utter bullshit. The rally had nothing to do with guns at all.
Whether you are pro or anti-gun, there is no other reasonable conclusion than that the NRA behaved dishonestly, deceitfully and unethically. Whether this is common practise for them I do not claim to know, but in this case their behaviour was disgusting.
And Charlton Heston (who I’ve always liked) gave me the most mealy-mouthed, half-hearted apology I’ve ever seen.
So American pro-guners - at home, do things as you see best. It’s your country, and its your right.
But just beware - the things you may believe or be told about foreign places like Australia, Britain, etc may not be true.
The NRA may represent you, but some of the time it’s also bullshitting and manipulating you.
(Fuck, that was long. Thus, endeth my rant!)
Australians have no agreed upon rights.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 03 10 at 11:26 AM • permalinkRight Miranda - even the righties often don’t agree about who’s right
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 03 10 at 07:20 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
One might suggest, if one were uncharitably inclined, that Howard endorses one Anglo culture for the young men and women he sends overseas in harm’s way, and another Anglo culture entirely for the men, women and children left at home who can only hope doesn’t come their way…