<< "NOTORIOUS CONSERVATIVE" OUT OF BRITAIN ~ MAIN ~ LABOR SELF-DESTRUCTION WATCH II >>
GUNS DO GOOD
Further to this week’s Howard-correcting pro-gun column in The Bulletin—much thanks for all positive mail received, by the way—here’s something from Arizona:
The 56-year-old woman was walking near East Fort Lowell Road and North Country Club Road when a man dressed in black approached her and demanded money, said Officer Dallas Wilson, a Tucson Police Department spokesman ...
Thinking her life was in danger, she drew a Smith & Wesson revolver and pointed it at the robber, who ran away.
The woman — whose name was not released by police — had a concealed-weapon permit, Wilson said.
"She was in fear for her life and she defended herself appropriately,” he said.
Yes. Yes, she did. And in Ohio:
[Great-grandmother] Eleanor Lynn, 75, said she keeps her .380 handgun loaded and nearby at all times.
"I already had the gun out,” she said. “Somebody was breaking into my house so I took the gun out and went to the door. They flew."
That’s why she was ready when the suspects entered her west Akron home Monday morning.
She’d been robbed before and wasn’t about to let it happen again.
"All I got to do is hold this trigger and it goes six times without stopping,” Lynn explained. “I just bought this one and this one has never been used. I’d like to have a chance to use it."
Think anyone will try robbing her again?
Guns don’t kill people....bullets do.
And bombs, and staircases, and lightning strikes, and bird-flu infected KFC, and President Bushes, and lies kill people, too, apparently, and cars kill people, and cigarettes, and booze and deep-fried turkey…
There’s always the legend of the Texas town where it was illegal NOT to own a gun and the murder rate dropped to zero-ish.
Is it true that murder-by-gun deaths have actually increased in Australia since Howard de-armed the nation of World War II mementos in 1996?
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 11:44 AM • permalink"one of the things I don’t admire about America is an almost drooling, slavish love of guns. I think they’re evil.”
He’s right. I’ve had four of them hanging on my study wall, and a couple more in the closet, for twenty years. They just sit there, silently. Menacing. Scheming.
They’re waiting for me to let down my guard before they strike. KA-POW!
Stories like these are more common in America than many Australians realise. Home invaders shot, carjackers shot, etc.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 03 09 at 12:17 PM • permalinkI liked the story in Munich some years ago. Policeman moonlighting at a filling station was held up by some hoodlum and shot him dead. Apparently he could carry his service weapon off-duty..................then again that was in the days before the new Walther PP9 pistol proved such a disaster that it is having to be re-tooled.
Semi-related, as far as Americans and
Australians go.The US State Department has hammered the Howeird Government for locking up people without charge and violating human rights.
Say whaaa???
Cough-cough-gitmo-cough-cough-hicks-cough-
coughHoward slams Americans for their “drooling” love of guns, the US buckets Howard over sending children insane in razor wire desert ‘integration’ camps.
Who’s trying to pick a fight with who here?
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 12:26 PM • permalinkYour column is right on the money, Tim. Restrictive gun laws concentrate weaponry in the hands of people who use them for the purpose of committing crimes. In Washington, DC - which has possibly the most draconian gun control laws in the country - firearms recovery has increased from 1,982 weapons to 2,065 to 2,344 in 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. I doubt that most of these “recoveries” were from honest but nervous citizens.
I have to say, I agree with the old adage that Guns don’t kill people- people kill people, and the view that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a corner store, not a govt agency.
# 2- I’ve heard the same legend. Leftist logic says its true, because 2 people have heard it. Excellent.
I can only imagine how the Port Arthur massacre would have played out if not owning a gun were illegal - - I’ll tell you one thing, we wouldn’t be paying taxes to have a disgusting vile excuse for a human being- and probably Green voter- locked up just a few K’s away from where I’m sitting… Come to think of it, we should probably introduce retroactive legislation allowing executions- Boonie can axe him to death as far as I’m concerned.
#14: Dave - there are scores of stories like that. And with regard to Mr. Tillman, it couldn’t have happened to a “nicer” guy.
#13: Very sound advice. I prefer a revolver, too, for home protection because of it’s simplicity (not likely to jam, as a pistol sometimes does). And you can use a speed loader if you actually need more than six bullets (but, as the author points out, if it takes you more than six, you’ve probably got the wrong tool anyway).
Another good reason to own a gun:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MACHETES-03-02-06
If you have the professionals on your side what more could you want?
11. In that photo, is Larry wearing lipstick or what?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 09 at 02:33 PM • permalinkI think a store named “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms” would be so cool.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 09 at 03:31 PM • permalinkFor some good self-defense stories, involving firearms check out this site:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ they update it daily.Hmmm.
1. I prefer a pump-action 12ga shotgun for home defense. The shot is less likely to penetrate through the house and injure a neighbor. Plus the sound of a pump-action shotgun racking a round in the dark is THE scariest sound in existence next to a T-Rex scream.
Pretty much everyone knows what that sound means and there’s no need to communicate further.
2. The only reason I would ever support a compulsory national service in America would be specifically to teach kids how to shoot and shoot well.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 09 at 04:36 PM • permalinkSeen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxjiCyE2gd0
If it weren’t an ad for an online game, I’d have said it was an ad for a gun control group’s ‘frightener’ campaign about CCW.
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 03 09 at 04:58 PM • permalinkhttp://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2006/03/way-horror-movies-should-end.html
And try this story of a Texas grandmom.
Overlong url deleted by the Management.
# 12, if Martin Bryant had the emotional, intellectual capacity of a twelve year old, then how could he be anything but a Liberal voter?
Only Howard could see the “extraordinary outpouring of...grief” following the Port Arthur Massacre as an “opportunity”.
Nice.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 05:22 PM • permalinkIs anyone else getting this thread in w-i-d-e screen format? Maybe Tim had to alter the width to accommodate the pump-actions?
LeftieLatteLover, I always find it hard to tell if comments such as yours are serious, or ironic. I hope the latter, but if not, why not go the whole hog and say Howard cunningly manipulated the police response, the trial and even MB’s actions for his cynical political advantage?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 09 at 05:44 PM • permalink#29 yeah, w-i-d-e screen, was wonderin how to fix it!
I have a friend who is rather partial to firearms. He told me years ago that Bryant’s rampage was a government plot to disarm Australians. He knew. He’d seen the video. “Bryant couldn’t possibly have killed so many people so quickly. There were bullets fired too quickly for it to be one person acting alone...” sound familiar? Grassy knoll? Hmm?
I just smiled and nodded.
I had a rifle licence when I used to go shooting with this fellow. I was rather a good shot. I was also in the ARES (Army Reserve) for 2-1/2 years. That, and my father, taught me about weapons safety, etc.
"I think a store named ‘Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ would be so cool.
Andrea, while I was travelling through southern Wisconsin, I saw a store that offered beer, ammunition, and taxidermy. No doubt, you could get cigarettes there too. Close enough for you?
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 03 09 at 06:12 PM • permalink#1, I think she’s inarticulate, possibly from post-stress shakes. But so long as she can acquire the right target and then squeeze the trigger properly, she can stammer all she likes. The rest is gravy.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 09 at 06:15 PM • permalinkBTW, yes, I am getting the “wide screen format” on this thread.....and only on this thread. Methinks wronwright is at it again. Unless paco is playing tricks as well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 09 at 06:17 PM • permalinkThere are several hundred million guns in America, spread over about a hundred million citizens.
We like guns, and those states that are gun-friendly have bedrock low crime rates. Those areas (states and cities) that ban or severely restrict guns have very high crime rates.
Most of us believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. There are 33 states that passed CCW legislation in the past 15 years. Whatever the gun grabbers believe, they are on the run at the state level except for 6 states.
Any serious anti-gun threat has to come from the Feds...and no one wants a 2nd American revolution.
Oh, and just to make it a bit worse for the statistics, I got a call today that my custom AR-15 was mailed to my local FFL dealer.
It took an extra two months, but I got a cool 9-11 memorial engraved on the magwell.
...and I live in New Jersey, the worst state in the union for gun friendly legislators.
#2
"Is it true that murder-by-gun deaths have actually increased in Australia since Howard de-armed the nation of World War II mementos in 1996?"Firstly, Howard just didn’t de-arm the nation of WW2 mementos in the UFls of 1996. Ostensibly, the purpose of Howard’s bull-dozing the States into (so-called) uniform legislation was to remove automatic and self-loading long arms from private ownership. Actually, the agenda was much deeper and much more silent.
Secondly, the targeted firearms were, largely, not WW2 mementos but rather very cheap and nasty, obsolete Warsaw Bloc (and Chinese knock-offs) surplus assault rifles, Simon SKS and the like, which the Federal government allowed to flood into Australia from the late 1960s on. Note, the Federal government could have stopped this flood at any time with a stroke of the pen, using its Customs & Excise powers.
Thirdly, contrary to some replies you’ve received, firearm related deaths (mostly homicide) did rise markedly following the adoption of the UFLs in 1996. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this trend peaked in 2001 but by 2004 had gradually fallen to 1996 levels.The most interesting part of the Australian firearm prohibition experience post the 1996 UFLs is the very significant increase in firearm related crime using illegal handguns which are easily smuggled into Australia. The inferences are not hard to draw.
Just a heads up, people: if you post a long url here that breaks the page design, I will delete it.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 09 at 07:17 PM • permalink# 29, No, it wasn’t ironic. Howard said what he said, I don’t know his motivation. But I found it a disgusting thing to say, even ten years later.
And Howard was hardly prodded to do so by Karl on ‘Today’. Actually, during that interview, Howard was his usual rude and arrogant self once he realised he wasn’t amongst ‘friends’, even though Karl treated him with respect and obvious admiration.
As for a Howard-Port Arthur conspiracy theory? Are you insane? I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to Howard and his mates, who seem to cook up an endless stream amongst themselves.
Perhaps they should all spend more time actually reading the intelligence reports crossing their desks (Iraqi WMDs, AWB cash going to Middle East suicide bombers and Saddam’s armoury) and less time having paranoid delusions. What are they smoking that makes them all so scared?
Boo!
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 07:17 PM • permalinkOh, and thanks # 34 and # 39 for the answers and interesting facts.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 07:20 PM • permalinkLets not forget that the much vaunted “right to bear arms” that the US gun lobby continues to push is actually, if you read it, directed at the raising of militias to fight, in the first instant, the British. I think the 500 billion or so they spend nowadays on their military, toys and adventures all over the world has made militias pretty irrelevant. Then maybe not, as the case may turn out to be..
Jolly good to know that some states have low crime rates.
Most countries without guns have an even lower rate..
Also, the 50000+ people killed each year, usually by somebody they actually know, whilst spring cleaning the family magnum, might have a different view point, if only 1) they had a face left and 2) they could speak from the grave.
But then power comes from having the biggest piece doesn’t it, even if a person is wrong in the first place it doesn’t matter, they can settle the discussion in the only way they know. But it is very destructive of all civilised principles and aspirations.
Why does a civilian need a high power semi automatic??
Big cockroaches?#43
Post Port Arthur there were many conspiracy theories floating around. Most were completely outrageous - a couple, concerning subsequent cover-ups by the Tasmanian and Victorian police, regarding how Bryant (a known nutter who had been brought to the attention of the law-enforcement authorities many times) had acquired and retained the weapons he used, were not so crazy and should have been investigated much more thoroughly.
The fact of the matter is that Bryant acted alone and that his victims were so defenceless that they were herded and despatched like sheep.
Look up the statistics on the web, “firearm (homicides) per 100000 head of population”.
But start here…
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt_e.aspUSA is a stand out in this regard..
# 43, ahh, you asked me if I was being ironic, I said no, I was being serious and pointed out Howard said these terrible, cold and incredibly cynical things, not me.
On #29, you asked me why I didn’t go “the whole hog and say Howard cunningly manipulated the police response, the trial and even MB’s ACTIONS for his cynical political advantage?”
To suggest that Howard “manipulated...even MB’s ACTIONS” sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, unless you suspect that was actually the case and you hoped I might be able to confirm it for you? No, I can’t. But continue your investigation and keep us updated.
The Port Arthur Massacre was one of the darkest days in Australia’s history and anybody, including Howard, who saw it as an “opportunity” is truly demented.
Shall we continue this misquoting circular dance of a discussion?
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 07:45 PM • permalinkFairly clear that Howard used the Port Arthur episode to disarm the Australian populace. Last but one thing a crafty politician wants is a home grown (armed) rebellion..
I can well understand why one group of people were very angry.. If I were a (NT) wild piggie hunter I sure as hell would want something highly powered and reliably quickly automatic..
But that is about the only reason I can think of why a civilian would need such a weapon..
Any more ??*91B30..
You have confused me here… Should that not be hoplophile??..
Also the 2 clauses are, more sensibly and logically I believe, taken together. That alters the meaning around somewhat..
See this wikipedia entry..Url removed, as it was breaking the page. Look up “2nd Amendment to the US Constitution” on Wikipedia yourselves. The Management.
Why was the Port Arthur massacre “one of the darkest days in Australia’s history”? You make it sound like some sort of black mark against you. The sad truth is, there are homicidal nutters everywhere, and believe me, they have no trouble getting their hands on weapons and killing people no matter what the laws are. You shouldn’t collectively blame yourselves for this particular murderer’s existence and actions.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 09 at 08:02 PM • permalinkDreyfuze,
I have no idea whether you fear or love firearms, I will take you at face value when you say you are a hoplophile. The point is that the argument that the 2nd amendment is somehow different from the indiviual rights described in the rest of the BOR is one consistently made by the gun grabbers.I suggest that reading the quotes of the founders found at the end of the article you linked, especially the words of Madison, Jefferson and Mason would be instructive about the intent of the founders regarding the 2nd Amendment.
"Lets not forget that the much vaunted “right to bear arms” that the US gun lobby continues to push is actually, if you read it, directed at the raising of militias to fight, in the first instant, the British.”
This is a false and profound falsehood often peddled by the anti-gun lot.
Firstly, common usage of the English language dictates that the passage merely describes that the intention of the law is to guarantee that the state and the people are *able* to raise effective militias, NOT that the law only impacts gun ownership in a militia capacity. Children can read the 2nd Amendment and understand this. Is it a blatant lie and deliberate denial of the plain and accepted laws of grammar as it has been used in all English speaking nations for the last several centuries to imply otherwise.
Secondly, it was not intended to fight the British: When the Constitution was written and ratified, the war had long since been won and the British long since sent packing.
Here’s what some of our actual forefathers had to say about the notion:
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.” - George Washington
“The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - Tench Coxe
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Coincidentally, it was Vincent van Gogh who said that the right to buy weapons is the right to be free.Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 08:23 PM • permalink#39 Boss Hogg to LatteLeftieLover:
Thirdly, contrary to some replies you’ve received, firearm related deaths (mostly homicide) did rise markedly following the adoption of the UFLs in 1996. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this trend peaked in 2001 but by 2004 had gradually fallen to 1996 levels.
This is incorrect.
Some graphs and tables from the Australian Institute of Criminology:
* Number of firearm homicides falls
* Firearm homicide, as a proportion of total number of homicides falls
* Homicide rate 1990-2003. The gun buyback did not caused any upward trend.
* Firearms fall to record low as choice of homicide weapon in 2002-2003
Jolly good to know that some states have low crime rates.
Most countries without guns have an even lower rate.
The first sentence is a concession that high gun ownership states have lower crime rates than low gun ownership states in the US. The second is an irrelevant apples and oranges comparison between the US and some other nations.
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 09 at 08:28 PM • permalinkSorry about long url.. ~My screen didn’t mind too much..
91B30.. No, I do not particularly like guns but accept of course that 1) they give some the galloping hots 2) others the galloping heebies and 3) are sometimes actually useful.
“Being in the intrepretation at a later day” is always a problem, but again, what is the actual utility of some of these weapons in civilians hands??...
Have you seen some of the things they want to have access to?? A .50 calibre rifle, for instance, could bring down a 747, for @£*% sake!!!
Who could possibly need that??
There are a great many things that I want but very few that I actually need. I believe that most weapons fall into the former category for almost all people.Dreyfuze,
Relatively few people can afford a nice Barrett .50 cal, but many can afford a 12 ga, shotgun with a slug barrel and it will have a similar effect (though without the Barrett’s range)-yet no one calls for banning them, which would make the grabber’s intent clear. You would have a hard time bringing down that jet liner except with a very lucky shot, OTOH they will bring down a Moose (almost as big as a jetliner-LOL) or other big game nicely.oh boy - the anti-gumnuts are here to lecture from on high again.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 09 at 08:49 PM • permalinkekb87
The rate of decline in the number of homicides (a long term trend) has not changed. There was an immediate fall, from 96-97, for same reason that there had been a spike from 95-96 - ie some Tasmanian ringpiece with an AR-15 and SKS going nutso.
I don;t buy the idea that the gun buyback caused an upward trend. Then again, neither do I buy the idea that it cause a downward trend. The upshot of all this is that a large sector of the community has had their property and legal rights trampled on for no good reason.
Hmm, the wrong bit of that post got submitted… In short, there is no historical evidence whatsoever to support dreyfuze’s point of view. A more sophisticated analysis can be found in this DoJ research memo on the intent of the Framers.
Dreyfuze might also note that most “gun free” Western nations have substantially higher aggregate violent crime rates than the United States, sometimes several times over, as has been the case during some years of data in Britain. Even Canada outrapes and outrobs the United States most of the time.
It helps if you abandon the myopic view that “gun crime” is somehow different from regular crime and look at meaningful statistics: Rape victims are raped regardless of the weapon used to force them to submit. New Zealand’s recent licensing scheme has reduced gun suicides drastically, but ignores that overall suicide has continued to increase as people just go find new ways to off themselves. New Zealand’s suicide rate also remains higher than that of the United States. (Insert New Zealand joke here: “I’d kill myself, too.")
Have you seen some of the things they want to have access to?? A .50 calibre rifle, for instance, could bring down a 747, for @£*% sake!!!
I encourage you to try it, friend. That it “could” bring down a 747 is not in question. In theory, those little red laser pointers could do the same. In practice, the expert marksman needed could also do it just as well with a weapon chambered for a .45 (1/20th of an inch smaller). It’s also interesting to note that all the hysteria over so-called “cop-killer bullets” was inspired by a type of armor-piercing round that had never actually been used to kill a cop by piercing his armor.
I’d love to hear your opinion on the “assault weapons” ban.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 08:52 PM • permalink#54
Fairly clear that Howard used the Port Arthur episode to disarm the Australian populace. Last but one thing a crafty politician wants is a home grown (armed) rebellion..Regarding the second sentence (above), Australian society is (was?) one of the most stable in the world. The possibility of an armed rebellion (with or without a cause) is as about as likely as Margo Kingston winning this year’s “Miss Australia” quest.
Notwithstanding, I attended several consultative meetings, where Howard was present, when the UFLs were being thrashed out and it was evident to everyone in attendance (at least on my side of the table) that Howard had a deep personal hatred and loathing of firearms per se. The fact that there was an urgent need for government action following the Port Arthur massacre was one thing but the intensely, dictatorial and unyielding way in which the man pursued his own personal agenda was something else again. He would brook no argument and would accept no compromise, no matter how fair or how sensible. The man I saw, at that time, was not the calm and collected statesman that we see on the TV screens these days.One other factor that is little known (or perhaps, has been forgotten by those who should know better) is that John Howard’s Uniform Firearm Laws were not John Howard’s at all. They had, in fact, been draughted and touted around Canberra for several years prior to Port Arthur by Michael Tate, Senator for Tasmania, and Justice Minister in the Hawke Labor Government. Hawkie and Keating wouldn’t touch them without a causas belli - remembering only too well the fate of Barry Unsworth in NSW a few years before.
In my opinion, Howard would have adopted the same hand-off approach as his predecessors had it not been for Port Arthur - that was the trigger! Following that dreadful event, all he had to do was to dust off Tate’s anti-gun manifesto and he was in like Flynn. He had, of course tremendous public support, but that support was largely emotive and, certainly, mis-informed. In more calmer times and with more reasoned and better-informed debate, the resultant State legislation(s) would have been much more acceptable to the millions of law-abiding firearm owners who will go to their graves still bitter over Howard’s putsch.
Finally, a bit of trivia - Michael Tate resigned from politics and became a Roman Catholic priest. Mea culpa? Yeah, right!#66
Dreyfuze, you know what really seems to give some people the galloping hots and/or heebies? Telling other people what they don’t “need”.
Someone of such a bent might ask you why you “need” a house as big as the one you have, or a car as nice, or why you “need” nice clothes instead of $2 rags from the op shop. Why, why, why???
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 09 at 08:55 PM • permalinkThere may be less guns in Australa for the revolution, but at least we have plenty of boomerangs, spears and nulla-nullas (!).
When it comes to overthrowing corrupt governments, we can only....who’s that kickking my front door in? I haven’t even posted this yet!
Man, that’s one fast anti-sedition reaction force!
Amazing Warren Reid (ex-ASIS) op-piece in SMH today :
“Why bother to be loyal? Who cares? The Government is interested only in itself, and the public only in low interest rates. But I have access to valuable secrets: a commodity convertible into cash, if not other rewards in kind. Oh, and the money can be paid into a foreign trust account if I wish.
”
Wow!
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 08:59 PM • permalinkDreyfuze
This seems to be more about you attempting impose your values on others.
I can ask the same sort of questions about you:
Why do you need a car which can drive at 120km/h when the speed limit is 100?
Why do you need to mow the lawn with a 4 stroke mower when you can use scissors?
Why do you need to eat steak when you can get your protein from blowing your next door neighbours’ cat?
Also, the 50000+*people killed each year, usually by somebody they actually know**, whilst spring cleaning the family magnum,*** might have a different view point, if only 1) they had a face left and 2) they could speak from the grave.
Horse. Shit. From a Tired Old Horse. Or a willful liar.
*, *** The annual firearms death rate in the US FROM ALL CAUSES is far below this.
**Turns out the folks who ‘compiled’ this ‘statistic’ decided that since gangbangers, drug dealers, and neighborhood junkies ‘knew’ each other, these were all shootings between ‘people who knew each other.’
Holophile my spotty Irish ass.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 09:12 PM • permalinkRichard: You should also note that most studies about “children” killed by firearms tend to include “children” all the way up to age 20, which means that the vast bulk are gang killings, IE criminals killing criminals. Indeed, at least two thirds of all murders in the United States are gang and drug related. (We don’t have a gun crime problem, we have a gang and drug crime problem.) Anti-gunners set out to terrorize people with the mental image of tens of thousands of kids blowing their heads off playing with dad’s gun, and it doesn’t happen.
In reality, more Americans choke to death each year than are killed by firearm accidents, by a ratio of about 2:1. We’re talking statistically insignificant.
It should also be noted that in any survey that shows “tens of thousands” of gun deaths, suicides are inevitably included, which is simply not rational as New Zealand has helpfully demonstrated.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 09:20 PM • permalink73.. Stone, you should chill a little more.. I am positing a position… Re-read the upsetting posts. Somethings are essential (like my 50 room chateau) others are not, like the M61 my neighbour uses on her quail.. Poor blighters.
Anyway, address the issues, not the issuer.72.. Thanx for some truly interesting info and insights.
My second sentence was/is provocative rather than predictive…71.. I think you may just be missing the point(s).
A modern automatic weapon gives your average nutter a chance to efficiently “off” as you put it, a great many more people than if he/she were armed with, for instance, a nicely balanced “Global” knife.
Also, if every potential “rapee” were armed with a trusty Glock, then less rape??
Wot if, tho, the cunning “raper-to-be” got his out first??
And yes, it is the conclusion that I came to, but obviously at a different time in history. So interpretation may be different to intent, but that does not mean that this part of the constitution can’t be re-interpreted (the rest has, by some..)Blade vs. pellets:
"A SYDNEY homeowner tackled three armed intruders with a knife, injuring one who was later arrested when seeking hospital treatment.
The Roseville man confronted the three men, who were armed with a shotgun, as they forced their way into his house on the Pacific Highway at about 11.15pm (AEDT) yesterday. [09 Mar 06]"
GUNS DO GOOD
Although to be fair, Tim, if we’re going to insist that ‘guns don’t kill people’ because they are inanimate objects, we can’t really claim they ‘do good,’ either.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 09:34 PM • permalinkDreyfuze,
A shotgun is a more efficient killing tool than an “assault” weapon (note: Americans cannot buy fully automatic weapons without a class 3 Federal Firearms liscense) simply because you don’t have to aim carefully. But again, trying to ban scatterguns would reveal the grabber’s true agenda.And any potential rape victim would at least be able to resist if she was armed, going unarmed offers her no option other than to get raped and hope she isn’t then killed. I think you can understand why many do not find that line of reasoning compelling.
A modern automatic weapon gives your average nutter a chance to efficiently “off” as you put it, a great many more people than if he/she were armed with, for instance, a nicely balanced “Global” knife.
Perfectly reasonable point. Plastic explosives have the same net impact, and can be made from household bleach.I assume, however, that you were responding to the “assault weapons” ban. This is precisely why I raised the point: The “assault weapons” ban had absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons: Automatic weapons had been restricted since 1934, as a reaction to the plague of tommy gun wielding bandits in Depression-era America. The “assault weapons” ban had nothing to do with assault rifles or “military weapons”, rather banning primarily a number of cosmetic features that made weapons *look* military-type.
This was designed entirely so that gun control advocates could pick up guns that terrified the wits out of little old ladies to look at and say “LOOK WHAT WE TOOK OFF THE STREETS! BOOGITY BOOGITY BOOGITY!”
In reality, weapons that fell under the classifications were only in use for a tiny proportion of crimes. (It should also be noted that there is only one incident nationwide I’m aware of where a .50 caliber rifle was used to commit a crime, and in that case, the perpetrator was apparently a police officer. Huge, expensive high-powered rifles are not the choice of street thugs.)
So, in short, if you were bringing up “a modern automatic weapon” in response to the AWB, you, too, were duped. There’s a reason Congress would not lift a finger to renew it: Many of them were had, as well.
Also, if every potential “rapee” were armed with a trusty Glock, then less rape??
Yes. It depends on which survey you use, but it appears that 192,000 rapes are prevented each year by the defensive use of a firearms to ward off an attacker. Here’s a handy collection of defensive gun use surveys.
It’s worth noting that only a tiny percentage of firearm owners who defend themselves ever fire a shot: It is merely the act of pulling the firearm that causes the criminal to retreat. (This is what gives the lie to the claim that “you’re more likely to be shot by an intruder with your own gun than you are to shoot an intruder”: It ignores that most defensive uses do not involve shooting anyone.) Criminals are predators, and like most predators, they target those they perceive as weak. That’s why muggers hit up little old ladies and not, for example, Mike Tyson. When the perception of weakness (often quite a valid perception in the case of the unarmed) is shattered, they leave.
So interpretation may be different to intent, but that does not mean that this part of the constitution can’t be re-interpreted (the rest has, by some..)
Much to the horror of people who know that “words” were assigned “meanings” for a reason, and that deconstructionism is pretentious crap.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 09:38 PM • permalink#70 Murph:
I don;t buy the idea that the gun buyback caused an upward trend. Then again, neither do I buy the idea that it cause a downward trend.
I agree, Murph. I posted the stats not to suggest that the gun buyback improved crime. I personally think it was a stunt and as useful as tits on the bull.
But that’s no excuse for others to then go to the other extreme, and create imaginary crime waves of murder and mayhem, and use bogus stats.
I’m not necessarily referring to statements in this forum, but I have seen such myths stated many times before over the years.
Sadly, even the American NRA has stooped to this level of unethical dishonesty. An organization that big should behave better.
The NRA may represent American gun owners, but on occassion it also has also misled and manipulated them.
Reinterpretation is a slippery slope.
A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.Three words changed, and no one will say that books should only be read by the intelligensia. If the 2A had been treated like the 1A has over the years, we’d be allowed bazookas in the bedroom.
The 2nd amendment will never go away until the gov’mint comes up with another constitutional amendment...which will never pass enough states to be ratified.
As the commentors have noted, the great majority of gun violence is minority-on-minority. No one will officially express this because it’s too politically incorrect.
Except for a thin crust along both coasts, America is more conservative than you can imagine, safe, friendly, and armed. We like it that way. It’s part of the buy-in you get when you come to America. There is no blood in the streets.
Personally I feel much safer travelling in a state that has concealed carry than I do working in NYC as I do or living in New Jersey.
...and here is the pattern for my new rifle. That makes my 13th firearm
77.. The figure may be a little out of date, the latest figure I can find at this time of night (where I am) is in low 30000s. Still quite significant.
USA is only 2nd in the world to Albania for firearm related homicides (according to those horse shitters at the WHO)
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/annex.pdfActually extracting meaningful data on this particular issue is quite difficult as different sources present differently and don’t all use standardised classifications/definitions…
Certainly much data does support the contention that in some cases, a weapon may have helped the potetnial victim, but it is just not as simple as that.. and still doesn’t address the issue of the needs of those who like really big ones..
trainer,
Nice. I’ve got an AR with a competition barrel, but without the picatinney rails, but for me it is just a very expensive hole punch. I use my mossberg for home defense and carry a 92F with my concealed carry permit. Still I like having it around and it is an excellent weapon for teaching others to shoot due to the almost total abscence of a recoil.Oh! Dear! Oh Dear! I swore to my good lady wife that I would no longer involve myself in pig-wrestling on the Internet - particularly when it involved “statistics” - you get covered in shit and the pig loves it, plus it does my sky-rocketing hypertension no good at all. The problem with statistics is that even the most illiterate counter-redneck can use published derived statistics to prove that you don’t know what you are talking about. And, unless you get down there and lap up a rich morass of obfuscation and distortion, you appear to be a retard - how the hell do you explain the many, many constraints that govern statistics to the illiterate.
PhDs in Quantative Methods really aren’t much use on the Internet - try explaining colours to a blind man?The fact remains that ABS raw stats.clearly show that the incidence of firearm-related crime in Australia rose after the UFLs of 1996, peaked in 2001 and have fell slowly, to 1996 levels, in 2004. It may well be unrelated, but it certainly happened. But hell - these guardians of the public good really know what they’re talking about - hey?The NRA may represent American gun owners, but on occassion it also has also misled and manipulated them.
The gun control debate has, really, become lunatic, perhaps because if we relied on hard facts, there would be no debate. I briefly interviewed a Nevada sheriff who, along with several other law enforcement officers, had his name falsely attached to a Brady Campaign document presented to Congress as endorsing their measure.
Three words changed, and no one will say that books should only be read by the intelligensia. If the 2A had been treated like the 1A has over the years, we’d be allowed bazookas in the bedroom.
I think it was Frank Lloyd Wright who said that he was all in favor of removing dangerous weapons from the hands of idiots, starting with typewriters.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 09:58 PM • permalinkDreyfuze—M61? Your neighbor uses a 20mm cannon?
I overlooked the guy in the Howard thread who bragged about loading his .357 with ‘wadcutters’ (low velocity target ammo) but I suspect we have some posers amongst us on this issue, folks.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 09:58 PM • permalinkUSA is only 2nd in the world to Albania for firearm related homicides (according to those horse shitters at the WHO)
Can you explain the significance of this statistic to me?In the absence of evidence that taking away firearms reduces crime, of what conceivable meaning is this data? In the immortal words of Archie Bunker, “would you feel any better if they was pushed outta windows”?
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:01 PM • permalinkTB talkbackers have almost cracked a hundred comments. Has this ever been done before?
Well, that was one more.
Howard also called guns “evil”, you know, like terrorists are evil. Perhaps Tony Abbott can stage some sort of mass excorsim on a few hundred thousand guns and then give them back to Australians who think they need them?
Evil is as evil does...or something.
There is a rich world of online gun-death stats to chew over and refocuse to make any point. Searching them down leads to getting lost in the Google info maze.
That is an incredible stat of twice as many Americans choke to death as die from accidental gun discharges.
Is there a connection between accidental discharges and choking I’m not aware of?
I still remember my first adventure in an LA weapons and accessories supermarket. I thought the extra-long, extra-wide trolleys were a nice touch…
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 10:04 PM • permalinkIraq is a grand success, guns no more harmful than open windows - come one fellas, you don’t have to agree with the White House on EVERYTHING, do you? I’m all for polemics that stir up the Moonbats, but Tim’s choleric partisanship is getting boring.
Posted by Bearded Mullah on 2006 03 09 at 10:08 PM • permalinkThat is an incredible stat of twice as many Americans choke to death as die from accidental gun discharges.Is there a connection between accidental discharges and choking I’m not aware of?
None was implied, friend. Read again (as some might have to apparently reread the 2A) and you’ll note that the point was that where choking deaths are highly unusual, accidental firearm deaths are even *more* unusual, contrary to the representation made by the left that there’s some sort of negligence-related bloodbath afoot.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:08 PM • permalinktry that again....exorcism.
And #76 and #72, you’re both wrong.
The correct word is : ‘calmerer’.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 10:10 PM • permalinkMr. Dreyfuze:
A modern automatic weapon gives your average nutter a chance to efficiently “off” as you put it, a great many more people than if he/she were armed with, for instance, a nicely balanced “Global” knife.
I hope you’re not as ignorant as the typical TV newsreader, who doesn’t know the distinction between “automatic” and “semi-automatic.” Pretty much all the “automatic” weapons in the US are in the possession of the police and military. Are they all “average nutters”? The vast majority of law-abiding citizens have semi-automatic weapons; are you stating that the scores of millions of armed US citizens are equivalent or identical to “average nutters”? Is an “average nutter” somebody who disagrees with you? It is true that a modern semi-automatic weapon gives your average law-abiding citizen a chance to protect himself/herself and family more efficiently from mobs, rioters, and other criminals.
Also, if every potential “rapee” were armed with a trusty Glock, then less rape?? Answer: Yes.
Wot if, tho, the cunning “raper-to-be” got his out first?? Answer: Then, at least, they’d be on an even footing.
BTW, despite your earlier psycho-babble, very few men own firearms just so they can feel better about their sexual potency; I’m sure that, like me, they believe that firearm ownership is the best way to provide for their and their family’s self-defense. Also, more and more women are buying firearms; does that mean they all have penis envy?
Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 03 09 at 10:10 PM • permalink83.. Take your various points re hand guns.
Automatic/assault (more or less the same thing for the sake of this discussion) weapons are not a concern in Australia as we just can’t have them. Am not actually discussing any US legislation, more the perception, from many US gun dealer sites, that such weapons are freely available.
Their potential for horrendous damage is the reason why the military has them in the first place, isn’t it? Does it really make sense that they (or very similar) be available, to the public, just because they want them?Have to go for now, Thanx for an interesting discussion.
#86 - Trainer. What the heck is that? (drool!)
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 09 at 10:11 PM • permalinkBTW, despite your earlier psycho-babble, very few men own firearms just so they can feel better about their sexual potency; I’m sure that, like me, they believe that firearm ownership is the best way to provide for their and their family’s self-defense.
Personally, I’m in the process of my New York State firearm permit so I can get a shotgun and feel better about *the zombie meth addicts who walk this city at night*.Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:28 PM • permalinkAutomatic/assault (more or less the same thing for the sake of this discussion)
No, they are completely different things. “assault weapons” are a non-existant classification. They were made up. There is no such class of weapons that are identifiable as “assault weapons”. There is no company that makes “assault weapons”. Automatic weapons fire in a fully automatic mode. “assault weapons”, or that to which the feds once applied the tag, are sometimes painted black. “assault weapons” are not somehow more dangerous. They are radically, hugely different terms and are in no way similar to one another.
weapons are not a concern in Australia as we just can’t have them.
We can’t have automatic weapons, either.
more the perception, from many US gun dealer sites, that such weapons are freely available.
Automatic weapons are not freely available in the United States. Such an allegation would expose a dealer to extreme liability. or they would promptly be fined to heck and back. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer once made the false allegation that the AWB’s expiration would put “machine guns” on the streets and was so quickly ripped into by the non-idiot majority that CNN had to issue an on-air correction and apology.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:33 PM • permalink#89 Boss Hogg
The fact remains that ABS raw stats.clearly show that the incidence of firearm-related crime in Australia rose after the UFLs of 1996, peaked in 2001 and have fell slowly, to 1996 levels, in 2004. It may well be unrelated, but it certainly happened.
Did it indeed? Then perhaps you should provide some evidence. The Australian Institute of Criminology directly contradicts you, and I already provided you the links. You have not done the same.
Note that the AIC is the government’s main research agency for crime, whereas for the ABS crime is just one of a zillion categories of data alongside “the number of kilometres of narrow-gauge railway track laid in 2006”, etc, etc.
The AIC are specialists in this field, the ABS are not. There are minor differences in the way they record this particular stat, and the AIC is recognized as the superior method.
ie.
- The ABS relies on coroner’s reports. The AIC uses these - and police records.
- The primary difference in outcome from this is that the AIC records the homicide when it happens. The ABS records a homicide when it is detected.
- For example, a 1990 murder that is not unearthed until 2002, would be recorded by the ABS in its 2002 figures. The AIC would append it to the 1990 figure.
- The AIC method is superior.Notwithstanding this, these would only lead to very minor differences. But what you are claiming is a major difference (with no link...) and a direct contradiction of the official AIC figures.
You are also backtracking on what you were implying.
- In #39 you refer to “firearm related deaths”. Now you subtly change it to “firearm-related crime”. Apples and oranges, BH.
- You originally claimed the stats “did rise markedly” (your emphasis) and ended your post darkly - "The inferences are not hard to draw."- But now you make it out like it was a casual observation and you weren’t implying anything - "It may well be unrelated, but it certainly happened."
You were trying to make a political point, but the stats do not support you.
Lets not forget that the much vaunted “right to bear arms” that the US gun lobby continues to push is actually, if you read it, directed at the raising of militias to fight, in the first instant, the British.
Au contraire, mon ami. The individual’s right to bear arms was a given. Because the Founders recognized the need for a well-regulated militia, they made sure that right couldn’t be legislated away: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed. Our Constitution recognizes individual rights, not collective. And it’s not only the gun lobby that “pushes” that “vaunted” right. It’s ordinary citizens as well, like moi.
I’d say more, but I’d just end up drooling all over my keyboard.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 09 at 10:40 PM • permalinkDreyfuze (#66) states that “a .50 cal rifle could bring down a 747”
Hhahaha
And they call ME ignorant.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 03 09 at 10:43 PM • permalinkTrainer, that is a SWEET weapon!
Dreyfuze—it would help your argument some if you didn’t come across as semi-hysterical.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 09 at 10:47 PM • permalinkI’ve always wondered why hoplophobes like dreyfuze are the way they are. Is it just firearms that scare them so? Or do other “death merchants” like alcohol or tobacco worry them, too?
Is it strictly their compassion for others that causes them to be so concerned about the manner in which people die? People die constantly from all kinds of natural and man made causes. Do they fret so over all of them, like they do firearm related deaths?Or is there something in their psyche that forces them to focus on this one “demon”, to the exclusion of other equally undesirable “demons”?
Why do they not grasp the idea of “different strokes for different folks” in regard to ownership of different types of firearms. I prefer bolt action rifles. Others may prefer semi-auto rifles. Or shotguns. Or a 50BMG, if they are rich enough to afford one. Guns are like women...the world would be a boring place if they were all exactly the same. Find the one you like, and have fun, I say!
The_Real_JeffS advised:
Dreyfuze—it would help your argument some if you didn’t come across as semi-hysterical.
He can’t help it. His mask keeps slipping.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 03 09 at 10:57 PM • permalinkThe individual’s right to bear arms was a given. Because the Founders recognized the need for a well-regulated militia, they made sure that right couldn’t be legislated away: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Exactly. The right to bear arms was already enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t establishing the right to bear arms, it was reinforcing its importance.
Why do you need to eat steak when you can get your protein from blowing your next door neighbours’ cat?
In decades of vitamin pills and supplements and fussing over balanced meals, I admit I never thought of that once.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 09 at 11:09 PM • permalinkThink guns are dangerous? Prefer to fend guys like this off with a rolling pin?
Richard at #91. I don’t know who posted about the wadcutters but back in the 50’s I had a 357 with wadcutters. In those days wadcutter meant small hole going in and Big hole going out! Velocity is overrated, especially at close range. A 45 has the velocity of a turtle and the carry and reach of a singles hitter but I will take it over anything at close range.
Holophobe. Wow, I never heard of that one. No really!
#113
I learned a new word today, too.hoplophobe= fear of weapons.
But I think that the holophobe is different.
Holophobe = scared of holograms? holes? religious zealots? getting a hole in oneself?**humour
Aaron-Freewill@71--
Thanks for the DoJ link. Wish I’d had it a couple of days ago when we were debating this very point over at Captain’s Quarters. Apparently, the DoJ had a long history of arguing the collective (usually on behalf of gun control legislation). Something that changed with Dubya?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 09 at 11:48 PM • permalinkNow that’s quality journalism - Publish two anecdotes as definitive proof that ‘more guns less crime’ paradigm applies.
The number one proponent of more guns less crime is Lott, and he has been proven to be a fraud.
Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 03 10 at 12:14 AM • permalink#117- The real fraud is Tim ‘rain-man’ Lambert.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 12:24 AM • permalink#117 ~ Yet Vermont and Utah - two states without any real restrictions on gun ownership - remain two of the safest places in the country.
Funny, that.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2006 03 10 at 12:25 AM • permalinkSpeaking of defending yourself against home invasions… This is a slightly O/T because guns were not the centrepiece of the story. When this news item came out, the sound track to Pulp Fiction started playing in my head.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 03 10 at 12:27 AM • permalinkAlso, the 50000+ people killed each year, usually by somebody they actually know, whilst spring cleaning the family magnum, might have a different view point
What could you possibly be talking about? Dreyfuze, your own web link puts the number for the U.S. at 1,441. You must have been thinking about automobile deaths, which are around 50,000/year. I guess we need to do something about all those cars out there.
#122 Spyder,
How bout them Mussies? Or have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years?
“Youths” tend to torch cars in Paris much more so than in Texas. Care to hazard a guess as to why?
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 10 at 12:56 AM • permalinkI am Australian. I both agree/disagree with elements of gun legislation in both USA and Australia/
Firstly the USA: No-one can convince me that you need an assault rifle as a personal weapon. These are offensive weapons in every meaning of the word. Handguns are different. They are primarily defensive weapons. Yes they can be used otherwise....but I said primarily defensive and you need to up your medication if you do not think you need,should have, or have the right to have one....and the horse you rode in on if you punched any of the NO chads.
Way things are going in Australia with these Mussie wackos (shit already be upon them) I need/want a handgun. If the shit really hits the fan I will move up the chain limited only by the ability of my 4wd to cope.
Howard...one of the greatest if not the greatest Prime Minister Australia has ever had....is wrong on this one. Well, right and wrong. The ban was political and a success from a political viewpoint....this is what politicians do. But it was stupid and wrong. Unfortunately in politics successful and stupid/wrong are not mutually exclusive.
Meantime you go with what you have. The next little prick that robs my house (my wife and I were dozing by the TV last time)will hopefully make firmer contact with my 5 iron.
A handgun would be better....a lot better.Posted by desert rat on 2006 03 10 at 01:22 AM • permalink"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” THOMAS JEFFERSON Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, June 1776. 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950) “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON, of New York, The Federalist Papers at 184-8 “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON of New York, The Federalist, No. 29
I could go on, but why? It’s quite clear.
#122, spyder—go back and read posts #52, 62, 63, 71, and 104. You are the one reading in the wrong context.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 10 at 01:27 AM • permalinkSpyder--
Yes, and the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written was that the individual had the right to bear arms. Given the State’s need for an armed populace, i.e. a well-regulated militia, the Founders made sure that the individual’s right could not be infringed (you know, by Congress or an overreaching judiciary). Even if there had been no need for a citizen militia, there still would have been an individual right to bear arms. Whether or not it would have made it into the Bill of Rights is another matter since not all rights were ennumerated. But aren’t we glad this one was.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 10 at 01:30 AM • permalink#122 - no attached to a computer - is that the modern day equivalent?
But those “youths” are not an invading army, we’re more likely to be bombed from the air in an attack. As for those “youths” I guess I’d do what the ppl in Cronulla did, stay indoors, hope the insurance would cover it, cos as much as I love my spyder mr2, I’d keep out of that.
As for the others, as an skip I’m not likely to read the US constitution or Bill of Rights - hey where I live apparently our state government is about to pass or has passed a Bill of Rights for us we haven’t even seen!
Also in our constitution we still have the Queen - remember 1975 (what a great year), so for me as an Australian, I can’t imagine that situation arising. And if it did, I don’t think some piss weak guns would be much help compared to what you would probably be up against.
Here’s a suggestion.
If Tim does a gun topic again, what say the first one to see it copies this entire thread and /or the other recent one, pastes it into the first comment, and submits it.
Then, we all know our positions, opinions, rebuttals and argumants will get another airing but it will also save us all time and stress.
Deal?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 10 at 02:35 AM • permalinkDreyfuze claims the US has a higher crime rate than nations with strict gun laws. The US has a lower rate of crime and of violent crime than Australia and many other western nations.
The most comprehensive international crime comparison among first world nations is the ICVS, the latest released one is from 2000. In it, of the 10 worst nations for violent crime, 8 were in the EU, the other 2 were Canada and Australia. Australia ranked worst.
1 page press report of ICVS with simple graphs:
http://tinyurl.com/3f0nSummary from directors of ICVS in the Dutch Ministry of Justice:
http://tinyurl.com/5xtjpThe US is now in the middle ranking for violent crime among first world nations. It has a significantly lower violent crime rate than Australia. I gave one survey, but all serious international comparisons, whether based on police reports or surveys, support this statement.
Crime in the US has fallen dramatically in recent decades. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that most states have adopted “shall issue” rules for carrying concealed firearms. This means that a typical citizen can get a concealed carry permit based on certain simple and rational rules, such as taking a gun safety course. Not surprisingly, when a potential mugger has to seriously worry about whether his potential victim has a gun, muggings and other crimes decline.
Note to those posting very long links ... http://www.tinyurl.com is your friend.
#131
But those “youths” are not an invading army, we’re more likely to be bombed from the air in an attack. As for those “youths” I guess I’d do what the ppl in Cronulla did, stay indoors, hope the insurance would cover it
Yes, I see your point now Spyder. Since they’re not an “invading army” and not bombing from the air but only on the ground, the correct course of action is to bend over and take it.
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 10 at 03:16 AM • permalink
She’s either inarticulate or she urgently needs to get that thing to a gunsmith.
“I just hold this thing and it goes six time without stopping,” sounds like a defective sear.