An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[TerryMathews]

That depends entirely upon the user. Or do you have something to back up your opinion?

Or was "often" your rhetorical wiggle room?

Common sense?

What weapon would be better than a gun for self defense?

 

[sm625]

You dont even know who is posting what crap. It could be 6 paid hacks directly from the obama administration, or from any alphabet soup agency (or more than one). All it takes is half a dozen people each using half a dozen spoofed online personas to raise enough hell to ruin just about anything. It's called poisoning the well, a very old tactic, with several variations. Do you actually think this stuff dont go on? You have to stay focused...

 

[Zxian]

In a nuthsell, we agree overall. In a perfect world I'd love some very strict gun licensing. Hell I'd like "Firearms ed" to be taught alongside driver's ed in public high schools. But the sad truth is I can't trust my government to protect my rights. In fact I can trust them to make every conceivable attempt to compromise them towards their own ends. Until that changes, I can't in good conscious give ground or trust them to wield power given responsibly; save at political gunpoint. I'm all for the concept of licensing, but implementing such a system would be giving my house keys to a convicted felon.

For those of us who live outside of the States, I think the bolded part of this quote is the key difference for us. Many non-Americans do trust their governments to act reasonably to protect the rights of the citizens, while Americans have a much larger distrust of government (and other social policies) in general.

There's also difference between individual liberties and collective liberties. Americans generally value freedoms from government restrictions. Europeans (and I'll lump Canadians in there for now) generally value collective rights, i.e. freedom from a problem. I'm willing to accept taxes that go towards public health care, since I may be one of those people in need at some point. If I were an American, I'd be more likely to view my health care as a personal issue that I had to deal with.

I keep coming back to Port Arthur and the Australian legislation that was put in place in 1996 as an example of how the removal of guns from a society has had significant reductions in crime and homicides. This has been dismissed by others due to things such as "Australia isn't America" and "it's a totally different culture", but many of the political and social issues were the same there. The mass shootings have continued State-side since then, while there have been zero in Australia. I feel that it's an example of successful gun legislation that's dismissed too easily simply because it isn't America.

 

[dank69]

For those of us who live outside of the States, I think the bolded part of this quote is the key difference for us. Many non-Americans do trust their governments to act reasonably to protect the rights of the citizens, while Americans have a much larger distrust of government (and other social policies) in general.

There's also difference between individual liberties and collective liberties. Americans generally value freedoms from government restrictions. Europeans (and I'll lump Canadians in there for now) generally value collective rights, i.e. freedom from a problem. I'm willing to accept taxes that go towards public health care, since I may be one of those people in need at some point. If I were an American, I'd be more likely to view my health care as a personal issue that I had to deal with.

I keep coming back to Port Arthur and the Australian legislation that was put in place in 1996 as an example of how the removal of guns from a society has had significant reductions in crime and homicides. This has been dismissed by others due to things such as "Australia isn't America" and "it's a totally different culture", but many of the political and social issues were the same there. The mass shootings have continued State-side since then, while there have been zero in Australia. I feel that it's an example of successful gun legislation that's dismissed too easily simply because it isn't America.

I am not familiar with Australian history, but was Australia founded with the use of firearms and were firearm possession rights baked into their founding documents? Did Australia have to fight off an oppressive government?

 

[TerryMathews]

I am not familiar with Australian history, but was Australia founded with the use of firearms and were firearm possession rights baked into their founding documents? Did Australia have to fight off an oppressive government?

A ) It's still the Queen's land.
B ) It started out as a giant prison.

 

[irishScott]

For those of us who live outside of the States, I think the bolded part of this quote is the key difference for us. Many non-Americans do trust their governments to act reasonably to protect the rights of the citizens, while Americans have a much larger distrust of government (and other social policies) in general.

There's also difference between individual liberties and collective liberties. Americans generally value freedoms from government restrictions. Europeans (and I'll lump Canadians in there for now) generally value collective rights, i.e. freedom from a problem. I'm willing to accept taxes that go towards public health care, since I may be one of those people in need at some point. If I were an American, I'd be more likely to view my health care as a personal issue that I had to deal with.

I keep coming back to Port Arthur and the Australian legislation that was put in place in 1996 as an example of how the removal of guns from a society has had significant reductions in crime and homicides. This has been dismissed by others due to things such as "Australia isn't America" and "it's a totally different culture", but many of the political and social issues were the same there. The mass shootings have continued State-side since then, while there have been zero in Australia. I feel that it's an example of successful gun legislation that's dismissed too easily simply because it isn't America.

Well "Australia isn't America" isn't just a cultural issue. Australia never had the sheer number of guns that we have, nor do they have a porous southern border that illegal guns travel across all the time. Likewise gun buybacks were successful in Australia whereas here they are the definition of pitiful. Virtually no one turns in any guns of consequence when they do work (it's usually some old antiques that have been sitting in an attic). Hell earlier this year there was an attempted gun buyback in Seattle, which is a gun control stronghold. I say attempted, because private merchants set up shop around it offering better prices for most of the guns than the police. Which is good IMO, they saved a lot of history.

Nothing short of warrantless door-to-door searches of the entire nation will make gun restrictions work in America. We have a hard enough time stopping drugs and people coming in from the south. Hell recently authorities discovered a tunnel over the California border that had a working rail system and air conditioning. Any strict gun legislation will simply be a boon to the black market unless we seal that border, and there isn't any practical way to do that at present.

Hell even if we sealed it perfectly and did the door-to-door searches, the domestic supply would last criminals for decades, ensuring that criminals are the only ones armed.

Like it or not, European/Canadian/Australian-style gun control would be about as effective in America as an open-top convertible in a blizzard.

 

[Zxian]

I am not familiar with Australian history, but was Australia founded with the use of firearms and were firearm possession rights baked into their founding documents? Did Australia have to fight off an oppressive government?

This is precisely the tongue-in-cheek "America isn't Australia" argument I was talking about as dismissive. For the record, no other British colony has needed a violent revolution to separate from the old Empire since the US.

Hell earlier this year there was an attempted gun buyback in Seattle, which is a gun control stronghold. I say attempted, because private merchants set up shop around it offering better prices for most of the guns than the police. Which is good IMO, they saved a lot of history.

I wonder if the private merchants chose to purchase those firearms purely for profit or if part of it was to "stick it to the man", so to speak. They were likely people opposed to the buyback in the first place, and believed that the firearms were better in the hands of private companies and owners than in the hands of the government. To me, this is one of the cultural issues at hand in the US (my earlier comment about distrust of government or social systems).

The majority of Australians were opposed to the gun laws that were enacted, but the results have been very positive. There are other countries in the world where guns are a common part of daily life, but the amount of gun-related killings and accidents are significantly less than in the US.

 

[irishScott]

I wonder if the private merchants chose to purchase those firearms purely for profit or if part of it was to "stick it to the man", so to speak. They were likely people opposed to the buyback in the first place, and believed that the firearms were better in the hands of private companies and owners than in the hands of the government. To me, this is one of the cultural issues at hand in the US (my earlier comment about distrust of government or social systems).

The majority of Australians were opposed to the gun laws that were enacted, but the results have been very positive. There are other countries in the world where guns are a common part of daily life, but the amount of gun-related killings and accidents are significantly less than in the US.

A little of each I imagine. I once saw a vintage Martini-Henry rifle from the 19th century and a civil war musket at a gun buyback, both of which would go for multiple times the $300 gift cards the Seattle PD were offering.

And like I said, we have practical concerns that the Australians never had. I've yet to hear your answer to those.

I'd also like to point out that America's "gun problem" is not pervasive. I've lived in America my entire life and I've never once been shot or shot at. Hell I've never even seen a gun that I didn't want to see. The constant gun violence is largely isolated to the inner cities which, ironically, have the strongest gun control. The occasional mass shooter is random and gets a lot of media coverage, but you're still more likely to be struck by lightning than be attacked by one. It's a statistical fact that 99.997% of Americans will never be shot.

Other countries are typically much more culturally homogenous than America, and don't have things resembling American inner-city ghettos. Here's a fun statistic by the FBI: African Americans are responsible for half of all US crime despite being less than 1/5 of the population. No racism, just hard statistics from a reputable agency. I think that signals a problem with African American culture at large, personally.

Bottom line is the only real solution to gun crime in American is focusing on the fundamental causes of crime. Frankly, America is historically unique in every sense when it comes to guns. No modern nation has ever been so well armed for so long. No national population has ever treated the right to bear arms as we have. Very few nations have anything like our state concealed carry programs. Every international comparison is Apples to Eggplants.

Even Australia, which you argue is the closest, only had several million guns at its peak. We have over 300 million, and we aren't an island who's borders are naturally sealed.

 

[AViking]

Although the USA is unique I think the same thing could be said of EVERY country. I struggle to believe that the USA could never have universal healthcare because it didn't have Vikings, Norse Mythology, and ABBA.

If anything the problem we have is that we are unable to see a solution because we think we're a special snowflake. We also think the USA is indestructible because we're a special snowflake. We're not though.

The USA needs to be able to adapt to the changing world. In 1776 we didn't have inner city ghettos, a drug war, or a diverse population. Today we do. We need to adapt to these changes and be able to deal with our gun and healthcare problems without all these excuses.

 

[dank69]

This is precisely the tongue-in-cheek "America isn't Australia" argument I was talking about as dismissive. For the record, no other British colony has needed a violent revolution to separate from the old Empire since the US.


...

There was no tongue-in-cheek and my post wasn't dismissive. Yours is, however. Explain why these points don't matter. You say that Australians were opposed to the gun laws. I guarantee if our government tried to enact a gun ban there would be a violent revolution, justified or not. That should tell you right there that the two countries are not comparable on this issue.

The first important stat we need to examine is how much of the gun violence in the US is drug related, and that includes gang related when the gang's primary purpose is drug distribution.

 

[dank69]

A ) It's still the Queen's land.
B ) It started out as a giant prison.

That doesn't really address my questions. I thought Australia broke free of the UK in the 30s(?).

 

[TerryMathews]

That doesn't really address my questions. I thought Australia broke free of the UK in the 30s(?).

Nope. Google would've answered your question in 30 seconds. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia

Edit: in case youre having trouble following, my point with A) was that they've never fought off an oppressive government because the Queen still owns the damn thing.

 

[dank69]

Although the USA is unique I think the same thing could be said of EVERY country. I struggle to believe that the USA could never have universal healthcare because it didn't have Vikings, Norse Mythology, and ABBA.

If anything the problem we have is that we are unable to see a solution because we think we're a special snowflake. We also think the USA is indestructible because we're a special snowflake. We're not though.

The USA needs to be able to adapt to the changing world. In 1776 we didn't have inner city ghettos, a drug war, or a diverse population. Today we do. We need to adapt to these changes and be able to deal with our gun and healthcare problems without all these excuses.

Simply saying the US is unique isn't justification for dismissing gun legislation or even gun bans. Figuring out how each country's unique characteristics affect specific issues may or may not lead to true justifications.

The universal healthcare issue is completely different from the gun issue because switching to universal healthcare doesn't violate or restrict any rights. Americans clearly take our rights a bit more seriously than other nations in that many, many people would be willing to fight to the death to protect their rights to own guns. I don't blame those people one bit. They are 100% justified IMHO.

 

[dank69]

Nope. Google would've answered your question in 30 seconds. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia

Edit: in case youre having trouble following, my point with A) was that they've never fought off an oppressive government because the Queen still owns the damn thing.

Thank you chief, I am aware of Google's existence. I was referring to this:

Britain's Statute of Westminster 1931 formally ended most of the constitutional links between Australia and the UK. Australia adopted it in 1942,[77] but it was backdated to 1939 to confirm the validity of legislation passed by the Australian Parliament during World War II.[78][79] The shock of the United Kingdom's defeat in Asia in 1942 and the threat of Japanese invasion caused Australia to turn to the United States as a new ally and protector.[80]

Maybe they aren't 100% free but it seems any ties are mostly superficial. Like I said though, I really don't know too much about this stuff.

 

[TerryMathews]

Thank you chief, I am aware of Google's existence. I was referring to this:

Maybe they aren't 100% free but it seems any ties are mostly superficial. Like I said though, I really don't know too much about this stuff.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_monarchy_in_Australia

I think you're confusing the Crown with England.

The purpose of Balfour was to make the colonies equal to England within the United Kingdom, in large part due to their contributions during WW1. They are still subject to the "benevolent" rule of the Royal family.

I dont know how else to help you see this, your whole premise is flawed. Australia has never overthrown their government. They've restructured their standing within the UK but they are still subjects of the Royal Family.

 

[AViking]

None of this has anything to do with gun control. It really doesn't.

 

[dank69]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_monarchy_in_Australia

I think you're confusing the Crown with England.

The purpose of Balfour was to make the colonies equal to England within the United Kingdom, in large part due to their contributions during WW1. They are still subject to the "benevolent" rule of the Royal family.

I dont know how else to help you see this, your whole premise is flawed. Australia has never overthrown their government. They've restructured their standing within the UK but they are still subjects of the Royal Family.

You don't seem to understand what my argument is. My argument is and was that Australia hasn't overthrown their government, and certainly not violently.

I know I am a liberal but please understand that I break with liberals on the issue of gun control. While I am not in any way against sensible gun regulations I am opposed to illogical gun regulations and vehemently opposed to gun bans.

 

[dank69]

None of this has anything to do with gun control. It really doesn't.

It is absolutely relevant to the argument that "if it worked for Australia, it will work for the US."

 

[TerryMathews]

You don't seem to understand what my argument is. My argument is and was that Australia hasn't overthrown their government, and certainly not violently.

I know I am a liberal but please understand that I break with liberals on the issue of gun control. While I am not in any way against sensible gun regulations I am opposed to illogical gun regulations and vehemently opposed to gun bans.

Australia has a gun ban. I dont see how you are intending to connect the dots here.

 

[dank69]

Australia has a gun ban. I dont see how you are intending to connect the dots here.

I am trying to explain one single factor that leads me to believe that a gun ban that worked for Australia might not work for the US. That one single factor being that Australia wasn't founded with a violent overthrow of their govenrment in which guns were instrumental. So instrumental that the founding fathers specifically coded protection for the right to own firearms into our founding documents.

I believe there are many other factors as well, but I am focusing on one specific factor until it is refuted with some actual logic.

 

[TerryMathews]

I am trying to explain one single factor that leads me to believe that a gun ban that worked for Australia might not work for the US. That one single factor being that Australia wasn't founded with a violent overthrow of their govenrment in which guns were instrumental. So instrumental that the founding fathers specifically coded protection for the right to own firearms into our founding documents.

I believe there are many other factors as well, but I am focusing on one specific factor until it is refuted with some actual logic.

I agree with that. It certainly isnt the conclusion you appeared to be driving towards.

 

[dank69]

I agree with that. It certainly isnt the conclusion you appeared to be driving towards.

Considering I was directly questioning someone dismissing the "Australia isn't America" argument with obvious examples of how Australia and America are different, I have to assume that in this case it wasn't so much the appearance of my arguments so much as your pre-conceived assumptions about me.

I can't possibly put into words how aggravating your line of questioning was to me in this thread without collecting an infraction.

 

[TerryMathews]

Considering I was directly questioning someone dismissing the "Australia isn't America" argument with obvious examples of how Australia and America are different, I have to assume that in this case it wasn't so much the appearance of my arguments so much as your pre-conceived assumptions about me.

I can't possibly put into words how aggravating your line of questioning was to me in this thread without collecting an infraction.

And since you chose to continue to play cute with your responses instead of clarifying your position, you created your own aggravation...

If it was obvious to you that I was misunderstanding your point, why didnt you save us both the time and aggravation and point it out?

 

[dank69]

And since you chose to continue to play cute with your responses instead of clarifying your position, you created your own aggravation...

If it was obvious to you that I was misunderstanding your point, why didnt you save us both the time and aggravation and point it out?

Because then we wouldn't learn anything. I had suspicions that that is what was happening but wasn't sure. That is why I pointed out that your response didn't address my questions. Instead of examining that and maybe figuring out what the posts you were responding to were actually saying, you just went on with more irrelevant info with a helping of snarky attitude without actually explaining what they had to do with my posts. It wasn't until your third post that you actually come out and say what you think my premise is, which is when I corrected you. I am not a mind reader. I can only respond to what is posted.

But this is all my fault for being cute.

 

[TerryMathews]

Because then we wouldn't learn anything. I had suspicions that that is what was happening but wasn't sure. That is why I pointed out that your response didn't address my questions. Instead of examining that and maybe figuring out what the posts you were responding to were actually saying, you just went on with more irrelevant info with a helping of snarky attitude without actually explaining what they had to do with my posts. It wasn't until your third post that you actually come out and say what you think my premise is, which is when I corrected you. I am not a mind reader. I can only respond to what is posted.

But this is all my fault for being cute.

You asked a question: Did Australia break free from the UK and did they have a right to bear arms at one point.

I answered those questions, in a way you felt was not relevant. Which it turned out was correct as you were arguing the other side of the argument but that wasn't clear from the post I responded to.

The fact that you had a followup post claiming that Australia "broke free" in the 30s certainly reinforced my view that you were trying to draw a parallel between US and AUS with the difference being that the AUS freed themselves without a second amendment.

When I realized what you were actually driving towards, I said it was a misunderstanding and left it at that.

You were the one concerned with laying blame. I just wanted to make sure you kept your fair share of it. :beer: