How many mass shootings in the previous ten or so years before this and how many after? How many weapons were in private hands prior to and what are in private hands now. It is still legal to own firearms in Australia as far as I know.

I refer you to the John Oliver 3 piece report for the first part of your questions.

I will re watch it later as I think I have seen it. It is usually very good but one sided and edited. I am looking for actual statistics and will search when I have a better internet connection.

Thanks😀

It's a comedy show (albeit little black comedy at times) and not an encyclopedia.

But the main message: before gun control - far too many mass shootings. After - what are you talking about?

I would be interested in the answers to your questions

Well whoop-de-f******-do. (Although I am reminded to travel to OZ and hang out on a beach )

I do believe sarcasm and humor are better to change attitudes than demonization so I appreciate JO's approach more than what we typically see from gun control proponents.

I do not fully agree with his cut and paste solution- and don't thnk he is actually advocating such. The U.S. has a crime problem interrelated to gun issues which I believe is greater than what Australia had in 1996. That is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.

Even so, it does not prohibit better gun control along with attacking other crime contributing factors. Unfortunately the issue is so polarized between the few that demand "all" and those that refuse to accept "any" no one can hear the majority who want "some".

If so, then it may be okay. As long as there's still a fundamental right to self defense with firearms.


Otherwise just say no to regressive ban type schemes...

Actually, we don't wory about self defence with firearms because we're not actually likely to be attacked by someone with a gun. We've got gun control.

IIRC, every state had some licensing scheme and some states had registration. You don't have to be attacked with a gun to be able to use it in self defense. In the US disparity of force is a reason. An example is multiple attackers or smaller person, weaker person defending against larger or healthier attacker, something like grandma in a walker vs a 20 something meth head (extreme examples, you get the picture).
BTW, the AFP has on idea how many illegal guns there are, and you do know about the biker gangs making their own machine guns, right?
I read about a scandal in Queensland that some of the guns turned in were sold on the black market by some of the cops.

While you haven't had mass shootings, you have had many mass murders by other means. Does that matter? IIRC, New Zealand had the same rash during the same time frame, but did nothing and had the same results. My question is, isn't it really a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

I still can't believe I'm saying this but i do: "Thank you, Prime Minister".

And yeah, we've had mass murders since then Even what I'd call a mass shooting.

Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

So, our record is not perfect.

And we've had a couple of horrendous fire attacks. And knife attacks. Don't other countries have them?

used an undemocratic means, blackmailing the states to adopt the NFA, spent millions of your dollars to confiscate registered guns from licensed gun owners only to find some of them sold on the black market by cops with no tangible benefit at all, I have to question people's judgement. BTW, why did it take six hours for police to respond to the Port Authur shooter? Did they determine where he got the guns, since he didn't have a license and one of them was stolen from a police evidence room? Were police officials in Tasmania held accountable for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty? If not, why not?

Tell me, was there a real debate, or did the government and government owned media, like ABC, simply fill the airwaves with bullshit while the gun owners, or the SSAA for that mater, were shut out? Did the very people who would be the only ones affected have any voice in this debate? If not, what does that say about Australian democracy?

So you are saying mass murder is no big deal unless the killer uses a gun? That's one of the reasons why I don't like culture warriors be they anti gun or anti abortion religious fundamentalists.

But i didn't hear one Australian (except for a few gun "nuts&quot who didn't approve of the measures. John Howard was a Liberal prime minister. Our Liberals are our right wing party. Rob Borbidge was the Premier of Queensland. He was a member of the National Party. The National party is to the right of the liberals, often by some way. he and his party supported Howard's measures.

Even the gun nuts saw the sense of Howard's measures.

Watch JO's videos.

Yeah, Howard spent millions on the gun retrieval. You know why? Because we wanted it. Australians turned in thousands of weapons because we were sickened with what happened at Port Arthur.

Number of Australians who thought this was not money well spent? To the best of my knowledge, a non-negative integer less than 1.

Did some guns get onto the illegal market? Very probably. How many? No evidence that it was a lot. If you disagree, please provide.

Were police procedures followed as they should have been? I don't know. Are police procedures followed exactly as protocol dictates in Chicago...New York...London...Tokyo...? I guess not always, unfortunately. Yep, things could have and may have gone wrong.

Argue all you like, mate but we've only had one mass shooting since 1996.

And your comment about me somehow devaluing mass killings because guns weren't involved is simply disgusting.

Were those gun owners supporting NFA speaking for themselves, or were they simply actors?
My understanding is that gun owners were simply shut out of the debate. Ever read the book Manufactured Consent? IIRC, it was written by Nome Chomsky.

I'm sorry, police officials in Tasmania should have lost their jobs. Poor response time to mass murder is not acceptable.

There is a logical fallacy US gun control activists use often, post hoc ergo propter hoc along with appeal to emotion. True, there hasn't been a mass shooting since then. Using that logic, the fact that our murder and violent crime rate has been dropping over the past 20+ years means that the states liberalizing concealed carry permitting and increased gun sales is sound public safety policy.

As for where on the left/right scale these politicians fall, doesn't have anything to do with guns. It is about culture war and authoritarianism. In the US, it is less of a left/right issue as it is a cultural issue. One of our most right wing presidents, Richard Nixon, wanted to ban handguns. Argue all you want against or liberal gun laws, but violent crime has been dropping.

I really don't care what JO says. He is a comedian, nothing more. I don't let comedians, pundits, or politicians tell me what to think. I look at the cold empirical data. Chances are you wouldn't have had another if Howard did nothing.

rather be the subject of. Most sane people would choose the knife. But maybe you are not sane.

But no, dead is dead. The guy in California that stabbed three people to death and shot another three still murdered six people. The idea that being shot to death is worse than being stabbed to death is absurd.

Terms of pain. Deep thinking? At least I do think. One logical fallacy after another. Ironic isn't it?

1. That's not possible here.
2. Control is both a myth and the antithesis of freedom.

As a side note, I'd worry about a 100 lb woman trying to defend herself from a 220 lb man with anything less than a firearm.

Australia probably has an NRA. If it does, I've never heard of it and I can't tell you it's leader's name. The NRA seems to have so much power in the US. An organization of 3 million pretty much dictating to a country of 320 million? (adjust figures where necessary)

"Control is both a myth" - well it is if you don't try it. I'll cocede that it will be extremely difficult in the US (never even been to the US, so can only view from afar).

"antithesis of freedom" - yeah? Do you know anyone who's a member of a well regulated militia? And why is it that Brits and Aussies don't feel "unfree" because we can't have a gun (we can, if we have a really good reason).

And the 100 lb woman v 220 lb man? Check out the Aussie bikini babes who obviously feel the need for guns. And, of course, she's a responsible gun owner - she keeps her guns in a safe.

The NRA: they don't speak for me nor I for them. Other than Ted of loaded pants fame, I can't say much about the leadership of the ILA division. Ted is just a cartoon character and I see no real use in discussing these various persons or what views they may hold. I'm not a member nor a contributor. I don't read their site. I searched it once and failed to find what I was looking for.

"Control is both a myth": The idea behind law, criminology and justice is basically 2 fold. The law sets an example of correct behavior, gives folks something to live up to. It's neither inflexible in it's application nor is it capricious. The law also provides a means to punish those who fail to adequately conform. Here's the key, a system of laws must essentially respect the rights and liberties of the members of the society it governs. The whole point is that those individuals will support the law and the government out of their interest in their own just treatment under the law. Law does not equal control. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are millions of people in prison in the US. Everyone of them was accused of breaking the law and everyone of them was convicted. Doesn't sound like control to me. As far as 'not trying' is concerned, the various states and federal government here have passed in excess of 20,000 laws relating to guns. I'd say they're trying. The point here is that the term "gun control" is a grand misconception. We don't have 'speed control' on the highway other than whatever limit drivers choose to place on themselves. Many folks have taken the term literally and defend such laws based upon the expectation that those laws will effect reduced rates of assault, injury and death. In reality what is required is much more. Society here needs to mature and evolve into a less violent one. Various campaigns for child safety and safe storage in general would help, probably more than any new law.

The US is changing and growing and its people with it. The US, compared to the UK and most of Europe, is a more violent and more murderous place. The UK murder rate for 2013 is less than 1 per 100,000, 9.8 per million according to what I've found. The 2013 US murder rate is 4.7 per 100,000, almost 5 times higher. An interesting fact here: in the US there is a higher rate of murders not involving guns than the overall (guns included) murder rate for the UK. The UK has evolved as culture for centuries at least as far back as the Magna Carta. The US is somewhat younger and, IMHO, in some ways, less civilized. We still have no universal health care thanks to one of our biggest lobbies, the insurance industry. We have little in terms of mental health support/care unless you're rich enough to buy your own.

Thanks anyway...just isn't worth the risk. I like my life...

So long as attackers don't outnumber the victim, are stronger than the victim, are more physically able and/or are illegally armed the victim would have no cause to be armed. That celebrating gun control relies on assuming none of those conditions occur -- but if they do occur it then means those celebrating are making sacrificial offerings of the innocent.

Or are you saying confrontations just don't happen?

It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in. If we live in a climate of fear to the point where we feel it necessary to be armed day and night, and we choose to accept this as part of the grim reality of living in America, then I see it as a failed society. And that is really sad.
The rest of the world does not share the American dream of being able to carry guns everywhere. We don't see it as having been stripped of a right. In fact, we think that those who carry without a helluva good reason should be locked up for a while. Shootings in the UK, Australia and Europe are extremely rare compared to the US.

So you think robbers, murderers, stalkers, rapists, home invaders, violent racists and homophobes should be left unopposed until the police finish their coffee and donuts and arrive on scene?

If you live in fear of being attacked by those on your list, then a gun is not going to solve your problems. In fact, it is more likely to enhance them. There is help out there for those suffering from all kinds of phobia.

Seat belts, insurance, immunizations, etc. None of that involves fear.

Criminals exist. By their nature they prey upon those they believe they can overpower. They actively work to overcome passive defenses such as locked doors. Acknowledging this fact and preparing for it with the means most likely to protect the would-be victim is not irrational.

The fact that 80+ million gun owners use their guns defensively tens, if not hundreds of thousands of times each year resulting in fewer than 250 fatalities speaks, I think, to the point that they are not driven by emotion as much as they are simply wanting to defend themselves as effectively as possible.

You, on the other hand, seem to have an emotional, irrational fixation for labeling normal, ethical behavior that you cannot understand as "fear." People are not morally obligated to coddle your irrational emotions at the expense of their personal safety.

That is your fantasy. I have zero objection to people defending their homes with firearms. My only issue is with the irrational behavior of those who feel a need to carry those guns around in public. Period.
That includes civilians, be they criminals or not, and LE not involved in special operations or on special duty that calls for them to be armed.
Nobody should be walking around with a gun without a damned good reason.
Got it now?
That's how the rest of the industrialized world operates and the results can be seen in the statistics. The folk who want to carry everywhere are pushing the envelope, which will eventually burst, and when it does the changes will probably so draconian that normal law abiding gun owners who sensibly secure their firearms at home and transport them safely to ranges and meets, or to hunt, will suffer for the actions of those who are only happy if they can carry their guns to the marketplace. The thought that being armed during a visit to Walmart or a bar or restaurant or church is going to make the world a safer, or in any way better place is absurd.
Is it possible that you do not see this as a sign of a failed society? Is that the kind of world you are happy in, where every Tom, Dick and Harriet who feels like it can walk around with a loaded firearm. If so, that doesn't sound anything like freedom to me, but rather a sense of resignation that we live in a world that is so fucked up so we might as well carry guns, just in case.

And it's definitely irrational to think innocent people are obligated to be defenseless if/when those criminals to prey on innocent people outside of their homes.

These are the 2 definitions I would use in this context.

1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:

2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.

You made references earlier to seatbelts and fire extinguishers. Would you carry a fire extinguisher around with you? Would you carry an umbrella if no rain was foredast?
If there was mayhem in the streets, I would have no second thoughts about carrying, but living in fear of the possible, potential, highly unlikely unknown is a tad over the top. Does not fall into either of the above definitions.

There are appropriate ways to behave in public. If you believe having folk carrying guns is appropriate, then I wish you good luck. If you think that putting more and more guns on the streets will solve anything, then I think you are sadly mistaken. There are better ways to solve social conflict then guns. Avoidance being the number one. I could give many more before I'd get close to resorting to a firearm. You obviously disagree. And that is OK

Controllers make laws that effect the lives of others. If the Controllers kept to themselves as you claim to do in your posts that would be one thing; but they don't. They're aggrandizing, propagandizing busybodies passing laws that don't stop criminals but make criminals and victims of the innocent.

that with the pushing of indiscriminate carry, you feed the "controllers" agenda. Eventually, they will win and everyone will lose because of the few who insist on putting more guns on the street. This is not emotional. It is logical.
The writing is on the wall. If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms, then it will move toward more rational legislation regarding firearm use.

because, quite frankly, they are authoritarian. Win? Not on the quality of their ideas. They will win because of the shill studies and lies put out by an authoritarian and racist billionaire who thinks he has bought his way into heaven, and his Monsanto executive turned plastic farmer.

Basic societal norms? You mean norms compared set by Mexico, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Singapore? Why should the US, or any other country, change their cultures and social norms to match other places? Many of those place, quite frankly, are shitholes.

Another meaningless statement.

This is nothing more than argumentum ad populum. Other nations may not recognize the RKBA. So? The vast majority of the world also doesn't recognize freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a right to not incriminate one's self, a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

We could discuss them over a picnic but I'd need you to present a photo ID before you're allowed the handle the plastic cutlery. You being extra enlightened and all. And do take extra care not to use insulting language or else you might run afoul of your enlightened hate speech laws.

You've obviously got a handle on the world. And yes, we all eat with plastic forks that have carry licenses attached.
I give up. You win. Enjoy your guns and your hate speech, because being able carry a gun and spew hatred and bigotry is what freedom is all about.

you are incapable of articulating the most basic premise of your argument about WHY it is supposedly wrong to defend one's self with a firearm outside the home.

So far all you've manage to do is splutter and hand wave about "the rest of the world." Yet, the rest of the world has not come running to your aid to help you articulate why it is wrong to defend one's self with a firearm. If the rest of the world would imprison someone for exercising self defense based on nothing more than the manner of self-defense employed the rest of the world is stupid.

Or maybe you'll scurry back to hand waving about "what sort of society do we want." I want a society where victims are not prosecuted for defending themselves for no reason other than the means of self defense employed.

Stupid countries and idiotic societies prosecute the victims while giving the predators in their midst a free pass. I honestly don't care for their irrationality and their unfounded fears of the innocent and their illogical coddling of criminals. It honestly makes me wonder if they're even worth defending with the merest of constabularies seeing as their priorities are backwards and their sympathies misplaced. They're more likely to employ the mechanisms of law to oppress rather than defend.

What does it matter if a violent predator is shot or stabbed or bludgeoned or set aflame or pushed into industrial machinery?

Enjoy your world of violent predators. Stay safe.

defends themselves from violent predators.

You assert you have a logical, unemotional reason for believing what you believe. Why does the manner of self make such a difference?

That's all. Think about it. It's your choice.

I like the true liberalism that the US was based on. One of the elements of that liberalism is individualism. The kind of society I don't want
where politicians, mostly old money oligarchs, assume the average person is too stupid to make their own decisions so they must be minded, like children, by parent like monarchs and plutocrats and elections are simply choosing which parents, who don't give a fuck about you after election day, but for their own interests and maintaining the social order. Worse is someplace like Mexico where local, state, and national government is in bed with criminal gangs. I certainly don't want in a place like DC where the public safety director says that it is better to be a victim and be injured than defend yourself. Of course, I'm sure he follows that principle himself. Not.
http://forums.officer.com/t176351/
I'm sure he tells his daughter, if he has one. Chances are he either has armed guards for he and his family or they have their own guns, just like Kim Kardashian.

You want a society where a person preyed upon by violent criminals is to be made a criminal over the means of self-defense they employ and you can't even define WHY it should be so you just have this nebulous, subjective emotional need that you think others should live by.

Not my problem. Fortunately, I don't live my life thinking about being preyed upon. Living in such fear of others, that you feel the need to be armed with a gun, doesn't sound like much fun, but if you enjoy it, I wish you well.

you sure do go on and on and on about your subjective biases.

I'm not, unless you consider my advocating self-control as being a controller. I'm just putting in my 2 cents worth. I don't believe in prohibition, in general, but if the vast majority of people choose to ban something that they think is harmful, or not conducive to living healthily in a modern, civilized society, then so be it.

Each society decides for itself, which is their right. And as long as the majority of Americans are comfortable with RKBA, then you will be able to enjoy your guns and even get to use them to shoot each other in the streets and churches and supermarkets.
As Janis sang "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose!"

I am happy to be no longer living in a society where open or concealed carry is an issue. We have more important things to discuss, like the environment and how to best accommodate the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are landing daily on our shores. How to feed and house them, not lie in wait to shoot them as they crawl through the Sonoran desert in search of a better life.

Though I doubt the chief inspector of Shetland speaks for the Crown. As you can see from the comments to your link, freedom of speech is alive and well, to this day, in bonnie Scotland. Couldn't you have found something a little more remote than the Shetlands an archipelago of 100 islands, 16 of them inhabited, and a total population of about 20,000.

And NO! that is not what I want. I don't live in the UK, and have no more interest in living there than in the US. I am happy to abide by whatever laws are in place in the countries where I choose to live. Their legislation on firearms has no bearing on my decision to live somewhere. Hell, I've even lived in Texas and loved it.

to pass restrictive gun laws in the first half of the previous century, it didn't have anything to do with a "healthy, modern, civilized society" or any other meaningless descriptions. It was simply preserving the social order. Quite frankly, the governments and the economic and political elites, including peerage, to prevent conscripts returning from the first world war becoming part of an international Communist Conspiracy. You know the red scare.

Chances are, you are in a country that may be more difficult to get a gun legally, but it is still very easy to get one illegally. It isn't like Belgium or France closed the Brussels train station loophole, or will successfully anytime soon.

But I could not carry it without a darned good reason, which makes a lot of sense to people here.

Handguns are legal to own.
I would pass any prequalifiers.
A darned good reason in Italy is as follows

El Duce's administration? BTW, why is that one caliber in a pistol prohibited? You can buy 9x17, 9x18, 9x21 yet not the 9x19? Italy isn't the only one like that, which is why you can buy a 9x21 Italy, but you won't find one in a gun shop in the US or Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9721mm

The specific regulations are always somewhat confusing, regardless of country.
To be able to own a gun here is not a difficult process. Easier than getting a driver's license, which requires 2 medical certificates to start the process. One to verify mental state and the other physical. Only one is required for a gun permit.
Gun permits are issued on the basis of purpose; hunting, sport, defense. A hunting permit can also be used for sport shooting. Not vice versa.

but the basic framework date back to then, like the ban on a specific round. Norway's ban on the .500 SW is at least half way logical, since they don't allow big game hunting with handguns (and that is what the gun is actually designed for) and the only target competition one could use it fore would be steel silhouette, which was big in the US south west and Mexico where it originated. As a defense gun, only if you are fighting chiropterans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%2B
http://bloodplusanime.wikia.com/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_500

Saya BTW, is also the Japanese word for a sword or knife scabbard.

But you're getting technical here. There is no big game hunting in Italy. Hunting guns are restricted to 5 shells, which is a problem, as some guns are designed to accommodate 6. Handgun clips are restricted to 15 rounds. Again, these are details that concern very few gun owners.

In Wyoming, it is five rounds if you have a removable box magazine regardless of the action. Tubular magazines, like the lever action I used, they are OK with whatever the gun holds. That is why some ARs made by Remington ship with five round magazines. Federal waterfowl regulation (which Florida game wardens are authorized to enforce, as well as other federal wildlife laws. I'll have to check to see that is true in Wyoming as well. If not, I'll have to lobby to change that.) allow three rounds in the shotgun. Tubular magazines have to have plugs inserted for the hunt.
If I were to take up hunting again, I would buy one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_No._1
I'm too old school. I'm not a Fudd, just a traditionalist who thinks Jim Zumbo had a valid point as far as hunting goes. I also realize many US and Canadians can't afford expensive rifles who hunt for the food and not the trophy who can only afford a Soviet or Chinese surplus SKS.
One thing I definitely agree with the European gun buying public, from my understanding, there is no market for the gaudy clown colors that seem to be showing up on dealers shelves. I detest those.

What would be the point of any legislation if that were the case. Do you think Italy, or anywhere else wants to become like America regarding guns?

All you need is a medical certificate deeming you sane enough to own a gun, be over 18, and a "nulla osta", which is common in Italy for many things. It basically translates as a permission to proceed with whatever project you have in mind. This permission is given by the appropriate administrative authority. In the case of firearms, that would be the local Questura (police). And unless you are assessed as being a threat, the issuance is automatic.

The rules have nothing to do with classicism, which is pretty funny, when gun ownership in the US is totally class based. Ask any African American who has tried walking around with a gun. Ask any undocumented Latino how easy it is to get a carry permit. Basically, the US criminalizes those who live in the inner city poorer neighborhoods, and arms the white gentry who feel they need protection from the so-called "thugs" who inhabit the inner city.
Nice try there Straw.

Otherwise, you have segregated millions of people as being unworthy. Pure classism. Not to mention all those non violent convicted felons, who are mostly minorities.
Whatever the rules, they should apply to everyone, regardless of immigration status, or race, or criminal record, provided they are sound of mind and have no history of violence or domestic abuse.

Kids going to school to participate in a school program is not the same as
Black Man vs. White Man Open Carrying AR-15 Legally ...

based on that, nothing. Assuming the white cops' motives were racist with only that is, well, racist. If you notice, not only are those different individual cops but they are in different departments in different states. The first one is a city cop somewhere in Michigan the second is is a couple of county cops in Washington. If not racism, what?
one rifle is slung, the other is not.
they are edited from two different YT videos
Are the Washington cops aware that open carry is legal?
Was the second one after a publicized mass murder?
Is that the department's standard policy with "man with a gun calls"?
Have there been past incidents of "cop baiting" in that area?
Neither of us know the answers to those questions. For all either of us knows, the result would be the same if it were two black cops and a white guy. Either way, the black guy got his false arrest payday. That was the goal of both of these clowns.

The white guy, I do know something about. That was more than his first cop baiting exercise, so the Ann Arbor PD probably know of his antics and have been briefed on how to deal with them. Chances are the two cops thought "not this asshole again" when they saw him.

Cop baiting works best if there are no ban, but few people know it is legal, banned with obscure exceptions (see Florida) and cops who don't know the law as well as they should. I frankly have a low opinion of these stunts.

I'm not supporting either of these idiots, but if you think race has nothing to do with police reaction to guns, then you are either in denial, or just not as smart as you sometimes appear.

I don't blindly jump to accusing others of racism. Automatically assuming racism is the motive is racist in itself because the cops are being judged by the color of their skin and not any relevant facts. Take Darrin Wilson for example, was accused of being a racist simply because he was white, never mind the fact that Brown was beating the shit out of him and trying to steal his gun.
I didn't say race couldn't have been a factor, I said there are a number of reasons why it likely is not. Not looking at those probabilities while jumping to conclusions shows evidence of poor critical thinking skills, but then after watching Piers Morgan is that even taught or valued in Air Strip One?

I know his name, but not much about him.
So, do you think race is in any way a factor in the US, when it comes to exercising so-called 2A rights?
Would you feel more or less comfortable, or the same, if you were a black man or latino, walking down Main Street America carrying an AR-15?

Don't remember Piers Morgan. Was he a character the guy you are talking about was named after?
I don't read the Mirror or other tabloid rags and I don't watch CNN. Why do you keep bringing up this Piers Morgan character?

I base my views on personal experience, not on what people spout in the popular media.
In the US, I have found that, in general, the bond between cops is stronger than the racial prejudice that still exists. The uniform tends to neutralize any racial differences. When they get in situations, the adrenalin takes over and it becomes "good guys versus bad guys". In these situation, the black cops often become more aggressive against black citizens. See Baltimore.
Citing Wyoming as an example is ludicrous. It has 0.3% of the US population, the least populous state, and one tenth the average black population. Why would there be a race issue?

If you want to discuss racism in America in the context of how people dress (which is racist in itself), then look at the hatred towards Obama, or the recent attack on a black tennis pro in New York.

It rarely works both ways.

anymore than hatred towards any other POTUS. I don't know how profiling people based on how they are dress is racist, but sounds absurd unless you are saying black computer nerds are oreos or something. Please explain.

As for Baltimore, I'll wait for the real facts to come out during the trial. I don't take media speculation and leaks from the DA's office very seriously, and neither should you.

... the pertinent questions.

I'm a strong believer in strict scrutiny standard being applied to any restriction placed on individuals by the State/Crown/Community. Since none of the predicted dire consequences happened after concealed carry liberalization, there is no compelling State interest to justify may issue or prohibition. In reality the "darn good reason" is having political connections or being rich. See NYC. Before Wyoming became shall issue across the board, it is often described as "may issue". When I read the original statute, I read it as a very restrictive shall issue. The occupations were pharmacists, private investigators, MDs who did house calls, couriers of valuables. While Trump has an NYC permit, his "good reason" is being rich and obnoxious, but could not get one in pre 1994 Wyoming.
Funny thing about Australia, the easiest way to get a CCW there is to open a gun shop.

But it was the change of attitude that was impressive. There are still lots of guns in Australia, but they are restricted in type. We got rid of some of the nastier ones and put controls in about who could have access to any of them. And Australia accepted it.

Sure, we've got illegal guns. So, does every other country.

Australia's next-door-neighbor, New Zealand, didn't ban guns and has a somewhat lower homicide rate than Australia, no? (0.9/100K vs. 1.1/100K, though Australia's fluctuates in the low to high 1's/100K year to year). If Australia counts homicides the same way the Brits do (on convictions, yes?), then the rate would also be increased slightly if counted as the U.S. counts them, though for all I know Ausstralia counts homicides the same way we do. A number of U.S. states do have homicide rates similar to Australia (Vermont, Utah, New Hampshire, Idaho, Maine, Hawaii are in the same 1.0 to 1.9 murders per 100K that Australia tends to bounce around, and very few other states are as gun-friendly as Vermont); most U.S. murders are concentrated in dysfunctional urban cores with double-digit homicide rates per 100K, which Australia seems to lack. I also note that the overall U.S. suicide rate is slightly lower than that of Australia, despite the very poor state of mental health care in this country, and the fact that Americans work the longest hours with the least time off of any First World nation, last time I checked.

I do note that Australia's homicide rate appears to have remained a lot more constant before and after the ban than the U.S. media likes to acknowledge, with a much later decline that paralleled the decline in many other nations that *didn't* ban guns, including the USA (whose rate has declined 50% since 1991 or so, FWIW).



Australia's gun ban and confiscations went into effect 1995-1996. Note that the overall murder rate didn't move much; looking at the data, it appears Australia's murder rate has always been low, before and after the bans, just as it was in England. And the restrictions are never enough; the Australian gun control lobby, having confiscated all handguns and most rifles/shotguns, is now fighting to ban 1860's style lever-actions and is even going after some bolt-actions now in West Australia. Personally, I think the better takeway from Australia (and Europe in general) is to figure out how they managed to avoid dysfunctional urban cores like Chicago's and Baltimore's, because that is where the overwhelming majority of U.S. gun violence occurs.

Oh, and Australia *has* apparently had mass shootings since the confiscations went down, although they don't get a lot of media play, which is probably a good thing; we'd probably have fewer ourselves if our own media didn't insist on portraying mass shooters as celebrity antiheroes.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561430158.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906200/Farmer-DID-shoot-three-children-wife-years-immense-stress-recovery-brain-injury-murder-suicide-shocked-quiet-community.html

Thing is, Australia didn't have many mass shootings in the decades before Port Arthur, either; they still don't, but they do have them. To claim that they were rampant in the decades prior, and vanished after, is probably misleading.

Also, a lot of people who praise the "Australian model" in the abstract don't realize just how extreme Australia's laws are compared to the rest of the Western world (even England, where Brits can own semiautomatic shotguns with unlimited capacity, never mind continental Europe where handguns and "assault weapons" are legal, or New Zealand), and don't think through the surveillance and police actions that would be required to implement Australia-style confiscations in the United States. You'd be looking at confiscating 140 to 200 million guns and a third of a billion magazines from more than sixty million citizens (outnumbering the police perhaps 100:1), which would make the War On Drugs look like merely a warmup. Of course, what would actually happen in *this* country would be that most law enforcement would simply refuse to enforce such a ban against their fellow citizens, as we saw with the recent magazine ban in Colorado and with the ridiculous new restrictions in New York state. So the effect would be simply to drive the legitimate gun market underground, where it would be less regulated.

The other interesting thing about Prohibition is that it tends to push the market toward trafficking in harder, more profitable goods, just like the Volstead Act pushed alcohol consumption toward distilled liquors instead of beer and wine, and the War on Drugs pushed drug consumption away from cannabis and such and toward cocaine, meth, and heroin. Looks like Prohibition in Australia is starting to move the firearm black market toward more profitable automatic weapons.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

I'll bet he isn't the only one. Submachineguns are conceptually a whole lot simpler to manufacture than closed-bolt semiautos are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175220

Here's the thing: Australia can make whatever laws it wants. I may think those laws are ineffective, counterproductive, or unjust, but I don't have to live there, and I certainly don't frequent Australian political forums trying to get them to legalize UK- or US-legal guns. I *do* have to live in the USA, though, and since the 2ndA is an integral part of the very charter that created my government in the first place (recall that the Bill of Rights was a condition of ratification), it's not going anywhere. Prohibitionists can daydream about confiscating 75% of guns in the USA a la Australia, but it is not going to happen, and pretending otherwise doesn't do their movement any good.

ezra: ....Prohibitionists can daydream about confiscating 75% of guns in the USA a la Australia,

Where did you get the 75% figure for 'confiscation'? Provide some basis for the figure:
About 650,000 legally owned guns were peacefully seized, then destroyed, as part of the buyback. According to one academic estimate, the buyback took in and destroyed 20 percent of all privately owned guns in Australia. Analysis of import data suggests that Australians haven't purchased nearly enough guns in the past 18 years to make up for the initial decline.

20% of privately held guns would mean more than 80% of all guns in Australia (including govt & military) remained. Your contention back *wards.

ezra: Australia's gun ban and confiscations went into effect 1995-1996.

The gun buyback scheme was from oct 1996 - sept 1997, you're off by a year. Confiscations (if so) occurred as a result of non compliance.

ezra: ... note that Australia's homicide rate appears to have remained a lot more constant before and after the ban than the U.S. media likes to acknowledge,

1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57% compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42%.

ezra: the Australian gun control lobby, having confiscated all handguns and most rifles/shotguns,

Ezra continues in his common misconception re Australian firearm laws:

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. ... This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94&quot long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72&quot for semi-automatic pistols..; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

ezra: New Zealand, didn't ban guns and has a somewhat lower homicide rate than Australia, no? (0.9/100K vs. 1.1/100K,..

Evidently 'no', but not that you're correct, albeit 2014/15 stats might support you. In the event tho, you'd be cherry picking; accd'g to 'gunpolicydotcom':
Overall homicide rates:
NZ: 2012: 1.57 .. 2010: 1.30 .. 2005: 1.70 2000: 1.50 1996: 1.80
OZ: 2012: 1.24 .. 2010: 1.20 .. 2005: 0.98 2000: 1.78 1996: 1.97

Perhaps ezra meant 'firearm homicide rates' which are a little better for him, but still fluctuate:

NZ: 2013: 0.18 - 2012: 0.07 - 2010: 0.20 -2005: 0.20 - 2000: 0.20 - 1996: 0.20
OZ: 2013: N/A -- 2012: 0.18 - 2010: 0.18 - 2005: 0.09 - 2000: 0.30 - 1996: 0.57

Overall gundeath rates, incl'g suicide, accident & homicide (presumably):
NZ: 2010: 1.20 2009: 1.60 2005: 1.30 2000: 1.30 1996: 1.80 1995: 2.20
OZ: 2010: 1.08 2009: 1.06 2005: 1.09 2000: 1.70 1996: 2.84 1995: 2.61
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

same link, gunpolicy: The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive
In New Zealand, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
In New Zealand, civilians are not allowed to possess handguns, military-style semi-automatic weapons or fully automatic firearms without a permit to purchase and a relevant firearm licence endorsement
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in New Zealand are not legally required to establish a genuine reason to possess a standard hunting or sports shooting firearm, but specific reasoning is required for special licence endorsements for pistols, restricted firearms, and Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons, including sports shooting, hunting, and collection. Owning a firearm for self-defence is specifically excluded, and prohibited
An applicant for a firearm licence in New Zealand must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental, medical, addiction and domestic violence

In New Zealand, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a Military-Style Semi Automatic (MSSA) licence endorsement.Each MSSA must be registered to its owner and securely stored when not in use
Regulation of Handguns In New Zealand, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a ‘pistol’ licence endorsement. Each handgun must be registered to its owner and securely stored

Back to Australia/OZ: September 2008 Over the past 10-15 years, although the overall use of firearms in violent crime has declined, handguns have increasingly become the firearm of choice in both Australia and other English-speaking countries. Handguns are often used as a means of protection, particularly among people involved in gangs and the drugs market, and their concealable nature, high firepower and large calibre are often cited as features prompting their acquisition by the criminal community.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/361-380/tandi361.html

Note: while some violent crime might've increased, the decline in firearm related violent crime makes it, well, less violent.

In the last six years, the rate of robbery victimisation has steadily declined from 86 per 100,000 in 2007 to 58 per 100,000 in 2012. Generally, the rate of robbery victimisation has been declining since 2001. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

beevul: I think the confiscationists do not understand, that whether government payed for the firearms they confiscated or not, that they indeed compelled otherwise law abiding people to give up guns against their will.

You do realize we live in democracies, yes? or are you arguing that oz is adhering to some sort of tyranny of the majority? How does it work in beevul-land, that over 90% support means law abiding people gave up their guns against their will? a few yes, aka lunatic fringies.

Upwards of 95% of Australians polled after the Port Arthur massacre said they favored more stringent gun laws like these, and mass shootings have not occurred in the continent in the nearly two decades since. http://www.rt.com/usa/165384-obama-australia-gun-law/

pollsters reporting 90–95% public approval for stringent new gun laws.” ... that year, in what came to be known as the National Firearms Agreeme.. http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3635

beevul: Playing games calling it a buyback ignores the truth of the matter.

What is it when you ignore that about 95% of aussies supported the buyback scheme?

beevul: What say you all?

Try to extract your foot from your mouth.

The Prime Minister of Australia was John Howard...a member of Australia's conservative party and a staunch ally of President George W. Bush during the Iraq War. He was favored by gun advocates and the gun lobby in Australia (although not revered)....although that lobby did not have the same abilities as our country's NRA.
But after Port Arthur, the Prime Minister became the stongest possible advocate for sweeping gun control legislation.

Which was it, a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or substandard reading skills that inadvertently led to a misrepresentation of what I actually said?

Or are you above admitting it when you're wrong?

Do we need to plan on that little blurb being right at the top every reply I make to you, so long as it remains unaddressed?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175246

beevul: Which was it, a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or substandard reading skills that inadvertently led to a misrepresentation of what I actually said?

No retraction, I said what I wanted; I think 25% to 50% of gun owners would agree with continuing the ban on gun shops in Chicago, esp inner city Chicago, due to risk of break ins, straw sales, Chicagoans opposition, and MORE!

beevul: Do we need to plan on that little blurb being right at the top every reply I make to you, so long as it remains unaddressed?

Go ahead, won't bother me at all. Unleash your wolf.

beevul: I'd ask how that squares with our party platform, but we already know the answer to that. Every last pro-gun regular on DU is closer to the party platform than you are.

You mean the individual rkba? likely split about half & half, but reconcile this:

In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
..............More strict -- Less strict -- Kept as they are -- Unsure/ No answer
7/29 - 8/2/15 52 ...........13 ................... 32 .......................2
Democrats ...... 77 ...........4 .................... 18....................... 1
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Guess what?!! Pew has a new poll which contradicts (countermands?) its last one! (tho I guess they didn't change the wording) Wow a swing of 5% pts, new differential from +6 guns, to +3 gun control, swing of 9! ..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!:

same link: Pew. July 14-20, 2015. N=2,002 adults nationwide.
"What do you think is more important -- to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?"
Protect right to own guns .... Control ownership ... Unsure/ Refused
7/14-20/15 ..... 47 .........................50 .............................3
12/3-7/14 ....... 52 .........................46 .............................3

...and then deny that they did, indeed, work against Democrats:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175182

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175361

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175378

beevul: The US isn't a democracy, its a representative republic.

Well aware; a representative republic which adheres to democratic principle in a microcosm - the majority in the house & senate rules - albeit sometimes a 3:2 or 2:1 senate majority is required (which allows an unintended consequence of the original intent of the filibuster).

beevul: If government confiscates your guns, and you agree with it, they've still confiscated your guns. The definition of confiscation isn't dependent on whether the targeted populace agrees or not.

Use of the word confiscation is really inapplicable in a proper discussion of the aussie buyback. Confiscation isn't really important except in your biased mind trying to mislead by power of suggestion, since you misuse the word in applying it to the aussie buyback. You're aping rightwing websites or blogs which pejoratively misidentify the gun buyback as 'confiscation', trying to make it appear that there were sinister dirty deeds done dirt cheap by the john howard admin, when the buyback was sanctioned supported & approved by the predominance of australians. You make it sound as if govt agents were going house to house to confiscate firearms, when the vast majority of aussies with prohibited firearms 'surrendered' them peacefully & willingly (with some glitch on pre-existing prohibited firearms).

Here an 'actual' australian guest here (being treated like dirt by some) Swiss Tony refers to the aussie gun buyback of 96'97 Yeah, Howard spent millions on the gun retrieval. You know why? Because we wanted it. Australians turned in thousands of weapons because we were sickened with what happened at Port Arthur.

He refers to it as 'gun retrieval', and I think Swiss Tony is better knowledgeable on it than the likes of a rightwing agitator here on DU, trying to twist facts to fit a 2nd Amendment Mythology. Retrieval of prohibited guns. Gun retrieval is what occurred after certain firearms were deemed too dangerous in Australia & then prohibited. Due to the law there was a turn in period where compensation was made, & this was supported by the predominance of australians. Both the prohibited firearms were supported, and the buyback scheme was supported.

The buyback program started in most states on October 1, 1996, and ended on September 30, 1997. More than 640,000 prohibited firearms were surrendered nationwide as part of the buyback program. In addition, it was reported that about 60,000 nonprohibited firearms were voluntarily surrendered without compensation.
According to a telephone poll conducted in 1999 on behalf of the federal government by Gun Control Australia, there were about 3.25 million guns in Australia prior to the 1996–1997 buyback program. One study on the impact of the buyback states that “in terms of the absolute numbers of guns destroyed, Australia’s gun buyback ranks as the largest destruction of civilian firearms in any country over the period 1991–2006.” The buyback was reported to have resulted in the withdrawal of one-fifth of the stock of civilian firearms in the country and substantially reduced the number of households possessing a firearm.

Quick beevul, what is remaining if one fifth is taken away? .... bzzt ... four fifths, or 80% of aussie firearms remained after the buyback (later law removed more firearms, handguns, semi-autos)

In addition to requiring law changes to implement the above resolutions, the agreement provided for the establishment of a twelve-month national amnesty and compensation program, to be accompanied by a public education campaign, after which the jurisdictions would apply “severe penalties” for breaches of the firearms control laws. This resolution was implemented through a national firearms buyback program, which saw the federal Parliament enacting the National Firearms Program Implementation Act 1996 (Cth). The Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 (Cth) was also enacted in relation to providing funding for the compensation to be paid to gun owners who handed in weapons that fell within the prohibited categories. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

*Not* during a Democratic primary, mind you-but during a general election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175182

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175361

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175378

Like I said, balls of solid rock, no self awareness, or oodles of both, which is never a good combination.

beevul: You either have balls of solid rock, or a complete lack of self awareness, or both.... I'll just say that I find it hilarious in a sad sad way to read your quibbling....

Beevul again demonstrates his pathetic approach to rebuttal on DU - juvenile ad hominem.

beevul: .. you use the term 'gun buyback' to describe the government confiscating with compensation, guns that never belonged to that government in the first place.

This is a red herring from beevul. 'Gun Buyback' is an appropriate light morphing to describe the aussie govt buying back prohibited guns from gun owners. It differentiates with clarity from 'confiscation' in that confiscation does not generally involve compensation.
Confiscation, as per icon's wiki link: In modern, e.g. English law, the term embraces forfeiture in the case of goods, and escheat in the case of lands, for crime or in default of heirs . Goods may also be confiscated by the state for breaches of statutes relating to customs, excise or explosives. In the United Kingdom a confiscation order is a court order made under part{s} of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requiring a convicted defendant to pay a specified sum of money to the state by a specified date.

Any confiscation was done against scofflaws refusing to turn in their newly prohibited illegal firearms (approved by the populace in general). The gun buyback was not considered confiscation since it was generally done by citizens voluntarily & willingly,returning those newly prohibited firearms for COMPENSATION.

Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury&quot is a legal seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law.

The aussie govt did not transfer those prohibited firearms to the treasury, they destroyed them.
Since aussies generally surrendered newly prohibited firearms willingly for compensation, there was generally no 'seizure of property .. in enforcement of the law', which only occurred when scofflaws did not willingly surrender them.

link in previous post: More than 640,000 prohibited firearms were surrendered nationwide as part of the buyback program. In addition, it was reported that about 60,000 nonprohibited firearms were voluntarily surrendered without compensation.

The national amnesty and buyback scheme, which was introduced in the aftermath of Port Arthur, saw 640,000 firearms surrendered at a cost of $304 million, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s41333.htm

$304 million divided by 640,000 = $475 per firearm, tho admin costs are surely involved somehow, making the compensation per firearm less.

link: The buyback was accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registration of firearms.

Which got solid support from the Australian people.

beevul: Oh, and I have some news for you james: When a tragedy happens, blaming the people that didn't do it, is a sinister dirty deed.

Utterly specious sophomoric reasoning from beevul - to regulate drones, is a sinister dirty deed? What exactly did john howard do to aussie residents when he proffered & enabled his buyback scheme in 1996? They predominantly agreed with him, he would've been held remiss NOT to do something such as he did. He deprived them of nothing as a whole, nothing.

con·fis·cate

take or seize (someone's property) with authority.


Tapdance all you like. The definition fits, certainly better than 'buyback'.