Gun Control in Australia

[rushmc 23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

If the public doesnt stand up for their rights this could be happening here if we let a bunch of legislators determine whats best for people.

[billvon 3,070]

> if we let a bunch of legislators determine whats best for people.

That's how our country works. We vote those legislators in and we can vote them out. If we don't care enough to vote for people we want, then we have no right to bitch when they make bad decisions.

That system is called out in the US Constitution. It can be changed, and if you do want to change it, the system to amend the Constitution is in place - but you (and a lot of other people) have to care enough to make the effort.

[regulator 0]

What I am referring to specifically is the option for the circumvention of the congress and the house and for Obama to use EO instead of going about it the right way. I am in complete agreement with you about what you said.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

If the public doesnt stand up for their rights this could be happening here if we let a bunch of legislators determine whats best for people.

You should try reading the Constitution sometime. You'll find it enlightening.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

> if we let a bunch of legislators determine whats best for people.

That's how our country works. We vote those legislators in and we can vote them out. If we don't care enough to vote for people we want, then we have no right to bitch when they make bad decisions.

That system is called out in the US Constitution. It can be changed, and if you do want to change it, the system to amend the Constitution is in place - but you (and a lot of other people) have to care enough to make the effort.

Justout of curiosity... what do you think of limited terms of office for Senators and Congressmen? For instance... 2-terms for Senators and 3 terms for Congressmen? To me, it seems that the longer they are in office, the liklihood of them getting 'stale' is possible. Limiting terms in office, would keep things 'fresh'.


Chuck

[regulator 0]

Since when does EO have anything to do with the constitution...other than circumventing it for political gain?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> if we let a bunch of legislators determine whats best for people.

That's how our country works. We vote those legislators in and we can vote them out. If we don't care enough to vote for people we want, then we have no right to bitch when they make bad decisions.

That system is called out in the US Constitution. It can be changed, and if you do want to change it, the system to amend the Constitution is in place - but you (and a lot of other people) have to care enough to make the effort.

The problem is (and you know it) the Constitution is already being changed by exec order and the courts

Because the progressives cant get it done the legal way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>Justout of curiosity... what do you think of limited terms of office for Senators and Congressmen?

I see good parts and bad parts. On the side of long terms you have people whose legislative record is very clear; this is an excellent way to decide on whether to vote for them. You may not know how a trial lawyer will vote on (say) gun control bit you will know how a two-term Senator will vote - because he's voted on them before.

You also have people who know how government works so there's not as much of a learning curve.

On the side of short terms, you have the prevention of the creation of cabals, voting blocs that no one can override. You could also eliminate the 'career politician' who makes a Senatorial position more of a personal career than a job intended to allow him to represent others.

I agree with the 'stale' and 'fresh' parts, but keep in mind that a 100% 'fresh' congressman, well plugged in to the mood in the US, would likely vote for more gun control since this represents the will of the people - whereas a 'stale' guy who has been in congress for decades would more likely think 'this furor will pass so I'm not changing my mind on gun laws.'

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If the public doesnt stand up for their rights this could be happening here if we let a bunch of legislators determine whats best for people.

You should try reading the Constitution sometime. You'll find it enlightening.

Enlightened or not, people like you ignoring it is what the problem is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Since when does EO have anything to do with the constitution...other than circumventing it for political gain?

Or how about the DoJ saying they will not enforce some law because they dont like that law?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>Justout of curiosity... what do you think of limited terms of office for Senators and Congressmen?

I see good parts and bad parts. On the side of long terms you have people whose legislative record is very clear; this is an excellent way to decide on whether to vote for them. You may not know how a trial lawyer will vote on (say) gun control bit you will know how a two-term Senator will vote - because he's voted on them before.

You also have people who know how government works so there's not as much of a learning curve.

On the side of short terms, you have the prevention of the creation of cabals, voting blocs that no one can override. You could also eliminate the 'career politician' who makes a Senatorial position more of a personal career than a job intended to allow him to represent others.

I agree with the 'stale' and 'fresh' parts, but keep in mind that a 100% 'fresh' congressman, well plugged in to the mood in the US, would likely vote for more gun control since this represents the will of the people - whereas a 'stale' guy who has been in congress for decades would more likely think 'this furor will pass so I'm not changing my mind on gun laws.'

You make some good and interesting points. I appreciate your views.
I can sure see the pros and cons of the subject.


Chuck

[DannHuff 0]

The former Australian Prime Minister giving his perspective on introducing gun control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?hp&_r=0

[skypuppy 1]

Interesting reading about australia's buyback and it's effects.

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[41]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[34] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[35] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[36]

A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[43]

In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia’s gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions".[45]

Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[46]

CLASS (The Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) in 2003 stated that no benefit-cost analysis of the buyback had been carried out and that scientific debate was politicised and ignored benefits of shooting and costs forced on legitimate owners.[48] The Attorney General's Department rejected a 2011 Freedom of Information request for benefit-cost analysis or analysis of externalised costs because "no such documents exist".[

Responding to Neill and Leigh, The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia replied [51] that suicide by firearm has been decreasing steadily since the mid-1980s, but suicide by other methods such as hanging has not followed the same trend; that important assumptions of the work were not mentioned in media reports; that 93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss; and recommended the work of Lee and Suardi, who reviewed almost 90 years of ABS data when making their conclusions, while Leigh and Neill chose to analyse only two five-year periods on either side of the 1996 buy-back.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[davjohns 1]

That would be consistent with what the US found after a ten year assault weapon ban. But let's not cloud the issue with facts. It didn't work before...we should try it again.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.

Really? Have you been here and tried to get one?!
Available? Yes. Hard to get? Very.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Bertt 0]

Term limits for congress?? I like it.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

The former Australian Prime Minister giving his perspective on introducing gun control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?hp&_r=0

what's interesting is howard had admitted that the Port Arthur massacre had nothing to do with his gun control initiative. He states quite openly in his autobiography that he was always against guns - he calls them 'evil' - and that he saw the massacre as 'an opportunity' to implement his gun control policies across the board.

Other studies than the ones he quotes in his op-ed piece of the effectiveness of his policies run the gamut from unquantified effrects to actually increasing incidents of violent crime. Along with the loss of value of personal property that many australians had to undergo.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone