but NOT the (important) part about the compulsory buybacks and new laws to make the bought-back guns illegal??

"Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws." wiki


So how do they want to deal with the millions and millions and millions of guns out there? (be they handguns or semi-autos) Through "restrictions on possession"? What does that mean???

jmg: - they like the "common-sense" route Australia took but NOT the (important) part about the compulsory buybacks and new laws to make the bought-back guns illegal??

Australia has only about 3 million guns for its ~20 million aussies. America has 100 times more guns (300 mill), what would work in Oz will not work in USA. What with the subversion of the 2ndA in 2008 it would be hard to enact laws to outlaw a particular type of firearm due to buybacks.

HClinton: “The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach,” she said. “But they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, by offering to buy back those guns they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”

jmg: So how do they want to deal with the millions and millions and millions of guns out there? (be they handguns or semi-autos) Through "restrictions on possession"? What does that mean???

The article did recommend these possible solutions, and remember all that can be reasonably expected by gun control efforts is a marginal reduction in violent crime:

◦Restrictions (not a ban) on the sale and possession of handguns, which were used in 5,562 of the 8,124 gun homicides reported by the FBI for last year.
◦Mandatory universal background checks on all firearm purchases.
◦A federal database that includes those individuals that the states have determined are not mentally capable of handling weapons.
◦A means to report family members or friends whose behavior leads one to suspect that they may harm themselves or others which would lead to a temporary suspension (10 days) of their right to posses a gun pending an investigation.
◦A removal of the NRA-dictated gag on federal research into gun violence.
◦The repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from the same negligence and product liability lawsuits that every other manufacturer in the United States must face.

Anyhow, where you been old friend? long time no see.

product, of course they can be sued for product liability.

(I generally skip your posts, because you always seem to use 50 words to make your point when 10 would be enough.)

Glock manufactures a pistol with a short trigger creep and no mechanical safety. The result is a gun that discharges upon holstering or un-holstering so often that the resulting wound has a name in the gun world: Glock leg syndrome. However Glock can't be sued because they designed the firearm that way and it 'functions as designed' as if it were designed to shoot the user in the leg.

A manufacturer of any other product with that sort of safety record would have been sued to the point that they would correct the design or go out of business.

Remington was sued because of a defective trigger.

http://www.guns.com/2014/07/14/remington-settles-lawsuit-over-trigger-possibly-recalling-5-million-rifles/

So I guess it was designed to wound users????

It is no more the fault of the manufacturer than a car skidding on a slick road
when the idjit behind the wheel drives too fast for conditions

His argument distilled down, boiled down to this:

They should be like cars, in terms of ease of use, not so complex or complicated.

I ended that nonsense, by asking him if he was born knowing how to drive.

The morale of the story, is this:

There is no 'standard' or 'commonality' that links all like items together in terms of how they are designed to be manipulated my the user.

Obvious examples include cars in foreign countries that drive on what we see as 'the other side' of the road, and seat the driver on 'the other side of the car', guns with a de cocker safety instead of a standard safety, 'cocked and locked' safety system, and on and on and on.

The anti-gun mindset seizes upon these things as if significant, in spite of the fact that the entire line of argument is nonsense. Its these same people that hate the PLCAA with the fury of a thousand white hot suns, because they want things like the 'glock safety' legislated from the bench...Since they have about as much chance of congress legislating it as an amoeba has of writing a sonnet.

I do not care for that design so I do not own one.

It is on the trigger.

Snobblevitch I generally skip your posts, because you always seem to use 50 words to make your point when 10 would be enough.

Thanks I guess; you're more of a 'tweetie bird' I presume.
Anyhow, I won't lose any sleep over your avoidance.
I use enough words to make the point & protect myself from being vulnerable to attacks, which often makes for lengthier posts. I combine a lot of adversarial concerns into one post also, which makes them longer.

conversationalist at parties. (Cliff Clavin, perhaps?)

Just a few current posts on a couple threads regarding individual v militia interpretations, tho. Rawle tucker story, & 1939 miller & Cruikshank & presser. Enter at your own peril & discretion!:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=179997

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=180007

the goal of our national gun control groups is to ban guns or make them so difficult to acquire that we essentially have a defacto ban...like what's in place in New York City. If we enacted UBCs, we would be foolish to think Bloomberg and his paid minions would take up a new hobby.

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

drive-by threads, there would be fewer comments to annoy you.

you meant sarcasm at all

Than why is Hillary talking about the "Australian solution" being something that is worth "looking at" ?

It was such a naïve statement from a political standpoint. The Republican nominee will HAMMER her with this statement in swing states like Colorado, Virginia and Ohio where Second Amendment rights are important and it does nothing to help her in states she was going to win anyway.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:17 PM - Edit history (3)

and a compact 9mm carry pistol. Your side is damn sure talking about banning the first two and putting a whole lot more restrictions on the third.



And the "Australian model" was confiscation of most semiautos and pump-action long guns, as well as taking handguns away from a large percentage of the gun owning population. The fact that the author of that article is profoundly ignorant of that fact doesn't make it any less disconcerting to owners of semiautos and pumps.