On guns, Mr. PM, try Down Under

[margrace]

In the Globe and Mail on Sept. 27, 2006, comment by Greg Barnes.

Stephen Harper is an admirer of fellow conservative leader John Howard. Mr. Harper invited the Australian Prime Minister to address Parliament last May, and some of Mr. Howard's political advisers helped Mr. Harper's team win the office in January.

In the aftermath of the Dawson College shootings, Mr. Harper could do a lot worse than call his Australian friend for advice. Ten years ago, after a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, a popular Tasmanian touriest site, Mr. Howard decided to stand up to his own right-wing constituency and reform gun-ownership laws.

He did just that "His Government initiated measures to ban rapid-fire rifles and shotguns. All firearms had to be register and gun licences becam mandatory. His move was so unpopular that when he visited a rural town in Victoria to speak to a large group of angry gun-law opponents, he wore a bulletproof vest under his suit.

As one of Australia's leading hun-control experts, Simon Chapman wrote recenty, "in the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Austrailia". Before the gun laws 150 people had been killed or wounded as the result of a lone gunman going on a rampage.

There is much more to this article.

[August1991]

We have discussed this in another thread. I'll quote my posts from there:

John Howard is Harper's mentor and hero. I'm also intrigued that states have jurisdiction over gun control as in the US.

To deal with legal guns, I think we should go through gun clubs - this would include collectors. To deal with illegal guns, we must impose severe additional penalties for crimes committed with guns. To deal with hunters and farmers, we should restrict the kind of weapon they can keep at home.

Crime was one of the Tories five priorities. During the election, Harper specifically referred to gun crime. This is an issue, like the environment, for which the Tories would have tremendous credibility if they approach them properly. They are also issues in federal jurisdiction, and some voters decide their vote on such issues.

I think a reasonable gun policy would be the following:

This seems to me a reasonable compromise (or a reasonable way to draw the line):

-abolish the gun registry

-make it illegal to own large calibre semi-automatic weapons

-allow farmers and hunters, subject to control, to own single bore and small-calibre semi-automatics

-all other legal weapons would be stored at gun clubs

-bolster penalties for violation of gun laws and in particular for crimes committed involving guns

In addition, I would designate rural areas and urban areas to make it plain who is a farmer or hunter. Farmers and hunters in rural areas could keep single bore or small-calibre semi-automatic weapons at home subject to proper safe-keeping.

These rules follow roughly the current Australian rules.

----

Margrace, before starting a new thread, it would be wiser to continue an existing thread unless the topic is truly new. In this case, it's not.

[B. Max]

In the Globe and Mail on Sept. 27, 2006, comment by Greg Barnes.

Stephen Harper is an admirer of fellow conservative leader John Howard. Mr. Harper invited the Australian Prime Minister to address Parliament last May, and some of Mr. Howard's political advisers helped Mr. Harper's team win the office in January.

In the aftermath of the Dawson College shootings, Mr. Harper could do a lot worse than call his Australian friend for advice. Ten years ago, after a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, a popular Tasmanian touriest site, Mr. Howard decided to stand up to his own right-wing constituency and reform gun-ownership laws.

He did just that "His Government initiated measures to ban rapid-fire rifles and shotguns. All firearms had to be register and gun licences becam mandatory. His move was so unpopular that when he visited a rural town in Victoria to speak to a large group of angry gun-law opponents, he wore a bulletproof vest under his suit.

As one of Australia's leading hun-control experts, Simon Chapman wrote recenty, "in the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Austrailia". Before the gun laws 150 people had been killed or wounded as the result of a lone gunman going on a rampage.

There is much more to this article.

Then there are the results.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

[margrace]

In the Globe and Mail on Sept. 27, 2006, comment by Greg Barnes.

Stephen Harper is an admirer of fellow conservative leader John Howard. Mr. Harper invited the Australian Prime Minister to address Parliament last May, and some of Mr. Howard's political advisers helped Mr. Harper's team win the office in January.

In the aftermath of the Dawson College shootings, Mr. Harper could do a lot worse than call his Australian friend for advice. Ten years ago, after a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, a popular Tasmanian touriest site, Mr. Howard decided to stand up to his own right-wing constituency and reform gun-ownership laws.

He did just that "His Government initiated measures to ban rapid-fire rifles and shotguns. All firearms had to be register and gun licences becam mandatory. His move was so unpopular that when he visited a rural town in Victoria to speak to a large group of angry gun-law opponents, he wore a bulletproof vest under his suit.

As one of Australia's leading hun-control experts, Simon Chapman wrote recenty, "in the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Austrailia". Before the gun laws 150 people had been killed or wounded as the result of a lone gunman going on a rampage.

There is much more to this article.

Then there are the results.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

Interesting that this is a so called religious site.

[B. Max]

Interesting that this is a so called religious site.

Why is it interesting.

[jdobbin]

Then there are the results.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

Australian crime stats.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2005.pdf

Homicides down. Robbery down

Assaults up. However, more women are reporting domestic assaults now.

Other crime is down.

Look up the numbers yourself.

[margrace]

Interesting that this is a so called religious site.

Why is it interesting.

Can't understand why religion and guns go together in some peoples minds. I am sure your Jesus would not have approved.

[B. Max]

Then there are the results.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

Australian crime stats.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2005.pdf

Homicides down. Robbery down

Assaults up. However, more women are reporting domestic assaults now.

Other crime is down.

Look up the numbers yourself.

The crime stats are up, away up. The only thing not away up is the homicide rate which has remained fairly steady. Proof that gun grabber propaganda is false.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...&catcode=13

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2002.pdf

[jdobbin]

The crime stats are up, away up. The only thing not away up is the homicide rate which has remained fairly steady. Proof that gun grabber propaganda is false.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...&catcode=13

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2002.pdf

Why give 2002 results when 2005 results are right in the link that was published?

[August1991]

IMHO, Dobbin is right. B.Max, you are playing a numbers game.

All things considered, countries or jurisdictions that allow free gun ownership are more dangerous than countries or jurisdictions that don't.

To see this, we need more than two years or even ten years. If Australia banned certain weapons in 1996, don't present statistics from 1997 or even 2005. Give this some time.

Beyond statistics, I have two broad answers to the gun lobby.

First, should a civilized society allow any individual to own a rocket propelled grenade? Where do we draw the line and how do we draw it. In the US, how far does the 2nd Amendment extend? Does the right to bear arms include tactical nuclear weapons? What is a well-ordered militia? IOW, it's a question of degree - not absolutes - so let's argue where to draw the line.

Second, it is weak to argue that we are all protected because citizens are free to carry guns. By that logic, the world would be a safer place if every country had nuclear weapons. IMV, a civilized society gives monopoly coercive power to legitimate government and then creates strong safeguards against abuse of that power. Police should have guns and the US President should have the nuclear button - subject to strict control.

Mark Steyn has argued that airline cabins are the perfect example of modern liberal society - an antiseptic place of perfect control. In theory, no guns, no weapons, only State-guaranteed protection. And then Steyn refers to how planes were used in the September 2001 attacks against the US.

I'd agree that these attacks were a failure of the State to protect citizens but that's no reason to start arming every passenger who boards a flight from Boston to San Francisco.

There are lunatics and fanatics in the world. Most are harmless. As to the dangerous few, we would be foolish to give every lunatic a gun and say shoot the dangerous ones. We would be just as foolish to pretend we can keep peace by dealing with the root causes of the fanaticism of the dangerous ones.

Let us keep arms from lunatics. Let us arm our civilized representatives, make it possible for them to intervene quickly and ensure they cannot exercise their power without limit.

Such is one requirement of a civilized society.

[Charles Anthony]

IOW, it's a question of degree - not absolutes - so let's argue where to draw the line.

Fine. Let us limit the debate.

Let us arm our civilized representatives, make it possible for them to intervene quickly and ensure they cannot exercise their power without limit.

Such is one requirement of a civilized society.

Does this "civilized society" accept any responsibility for failure on the part of the "civilized representatives" to protect the civilians?

Making sure "they cannot exercise their power without limit" is best done how? with incentives or the strong arm of the law?

Before we get carried away, what is wrong with the way things are now? Is it inadequate in anyway?

[B. Max]

The crime stats are up, away up. The only thing not away up is the homicide rate which has remained fairly steady. Proof that gun grabber propaganda is false.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...&catcode=13

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2002.pdf

Why give 2002 results when 2005 results are right in the link that was published?

That's not the point. The gun grab had been in effect for five years while violent crime was rising. Yet the homocide rate remained almost steady from a period before the gun gab. There no evidence gun control works. http://utahshootingsports.com/

However states that introduced right to carry laws saw a drop in their crime rates.

[jdobbin]

That's not the point. The gun grab had been in effect for five years while violent crime was rising. Yet the homocide rate remained almost steady from a period before the gun gab. There no evidence gun control works. http://utahshootingsports.com/

However states that introduced right to carry laws saw a drop in their crime rates.

The point is the stats have changed from 2002.

[B. Max]

Can't understand why religion and guns go together in some peoples minds. I am sure your Jesus would not have approved.

I'm sure he would have.

We must also consider what Christ told His disciples in His last hours with them: ". . . he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the equivalent then of a military rifle today.

Christians believe in individual rights, the right of self defense being one of them. The framers demonstrated a clear belief and understanding.

[B. Max]

That's not the point. The gun grab had been in effect for five years while violent crime was rising. Yet the homocide rate remained almost steady from a period before the gun gab. There no evidence gun control works. http://utahshootingsports.com/

However states that introduced right to carry laws saw a drop in their crime rates.

The point is the stats have changed from 2002.

So what.

[B. Max]

IMHO, Dobbin is right. B.Max, you are playing a numbers game.

All things considered, countries or jurisdictions that allow free gun ownership are more dangerous than countries or jurisdictions that don't.

To see this, we need more than two years or even ten years. If Australia banned certain weapons in 1996, don't present statistics from 1997 or even 2005. Give this some time.

Beyond statistics, I have two broad answers to the gun lobby.

First, should a civilized society allow any individual to own a rocket propelled grenade? Where do we draw the line and how do we draw it. In the US, how far does the 2nd Amendment extend? Does the right to bear arms include tactical nuclear weapons? What is a well-ordered militia? IOW, it's a question of degree - not absolutes - so let's argue where to draw the line.

Second, it is weak to argue that we are all protected because citizens are free to carry guns. By that logic, the world would be a safer place if every country had nuclear weapons. IMV, a civilized society gives monopoly coercive power to legitimate government and then creates strong safeguards against abuse of that power. Police should have guns and the US President should have the nuclear button - subject to strict control.

Mark Steyn has argued that airline cabins are the perfect example of modern liberal society - an antiseptic place of perfect control. In theory, no guns, no weapons, only State-guaranteed protection. And then Steyn refers to how planes were used in the September 2001 attacks against the US.

I'd agree that these attacks were a failure of the State to protect citizens but that's no reason to start arming every passenger who boards a flight from Boston to San Francisco.

There are lunatics and fanatics in the world. Most are harmless. As to the dangerous few, we would be foolish to give every lunatic a gun and say shoot the dangerous ones. We would be just as foolish to pretend we can keep peace by dealing with the root causes of the fanaticism of the dangerous ones.

Let us keep arms from lunatics. Let us arm our civilized representatives, make it possible for them to intervene quickly and ensure they cannot exercise their power without limit.

Such is one requirement of a civilized society.

I've heard all those apples and oranges arguments before. However the lunatics are a product of the so called civilized society. You would be just as well advised to keep the number of the morgue handy, as 911.

[August1991]

I've heard all those apples and oranges arguments before.

Apples and oranges?

Huh? Give everyone the right to have a tactical nuclear weapon and the world - or an airplane cabin - will be a safe place? Steyn has argued that society and airplanes would be safer if everyone could have guns. On this, Steyn's playing to his audience and he knows it.

Yet, Steyn doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and so, Steyn's obviously in favour of "gun" control. The question is: Where do we draw the line, and how do we draw it? Nuclear weapons, RPGs, automatics, semi-automatics, small-calibres? Above in this thread, I gave my view and I agree more or less with John Howard. Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. When it comes to gun control, Steyn and I agree.

Steyn often pulls out John Howard to support an argument to an American audience. But Steyn doesn't refer to Howard when talking about guns. Maybe Steyn is afraid of losing his American benefactors' money.

So here's the question: what does Mark Steyn think about John Howard and Australian gun control?

Should Americans in a well-ordered militia have the right to bear RPGs to defend themselves against oppressive government?

[Argus]

The crime stats are up, away up. The only thing not away up is the homicide rate which has remained fairly steady. Proof that gun grabber propaganda is false.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...&catcode=13

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2002.pdf

Why give 2002 results when 2005 results are right in the link that was published?

One year's stats don't really make a damned bit of difference one way or another. You can't simply take crime states in isolation to support gun control or lack of gun control. It doesn't work that way. Perhaps there is more crime, and perhaps it's because Australia has, over the last ten years, had a huge upsurge in refugees and immigration - which brings crime. Perhaps crime is down - but with a conservative government over the last ten years I'm assuming there have been any number of anti-crime measures and tougher enforcement of tougher laws. perhaps that is partly to blame.

The one argument no one seems able to properly deal with - at least on the gun control side - is that guns have been in homes since they were invented. It wasn't that long ago that every home had at least a few guns. Yet armed robberies were almost unheard of, drive-bys, gang shootings, and rampages with kooks going around shooting a dozen people were all virtually, if not entirely unheard of.

So what has changed over the past 40 odd years? We have less guns, not more. So the change is not about guns. It's about us as a society. The source of gun violence is not the presence of guns but the abscence of discipline, self reliance and personal responsibility in society and the abscence of strong laws and strong and immediate enforcement.

As an example, purely from local news. If, forty or fifty years ago, you stabbed a person to death on the bus to steal some little bauble that person had in their posession, and were aprehended by police, you could expect to be put in prison forever, if not executed. Well, here in Ottawa, the person who stabbed a young man to death to steal his ipod earlier this week is already out on bail. His trial will likely be at least a year away, at which time, due to his youth (17) he will likely be "punished" with no more than 3 years in prison, half of which will be chopped off due to parole. He will go home, high five all his buds who were on the bus with him, and get back to his old violent ways.

Which brings to mind the value of guns. A bullet to the head of people like this saves society a lot of trouble.

[B. Max]

Should Americans in a well-ordered militia have the right to bear RPGs to defend themselves against oppressive government?

The answer is yes, and has already been determined for you. If one is defending themselves against oppressive government. It's all about putting it in proper context. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right of all men. http://www.barefootsworld.net/senate82.html#quote1

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

To understand the bill of rights one must understand it's purpose, why and how it came to be.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html#140-4

[Riverwind]

The answer is yes, and has already been determined for you. If one is defending themselves against oppressive government. It's all about putting it in proper context. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right of all men.

There is no such thing as a 'natural' right. Rights are whatever society chooses to grant to individuals. The idea that people should be armed to protect themselves against an oppresive gov't is exactly the kind of thinking that has turned places like Afghanistan and most of Africa into basket cases. In a democracy the ballot box is the _only_ acceptable way to deal with a gov't that over steps its authority.

[Renegade]

Rights are whatever society chooses to grant to individuals.

I disagree. "Privileges" are what society chooses to grant individuals, rights are not. Would you think that in a society in which slavery was accepted, that society "chose" not to grant the slave the right to freedom, or has that society voilated a right which was inherent to that individual?

[Renegade]

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are said to be absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. Several different sets of inalienable rights have been suggested by philosophers and politicians. Inalienable rights are defined as natural rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

Inalienable rights

Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of the world, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. The theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism.

The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it may not be enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all rights are legal rights.

Natural rights

[Riverwind]

I disagree. "Privileges" are what society chooses to grant individuals, rights are not. Would you think that in a society in which slavery was accepted, that society "chose" not to grant the slave the right to freedom, or has that society violated a right which was inherent to that individual?

We have decided, as a society, that people should not be allowed to 'own' other people. This is a widely held social consensus that few people living today disagree with, however, that does not mean it is a 'natural' right. Using the term 'natural' right to justify a political position is equivalent to arguing that we should adopt a certain policies because 'god said so'. It is a rhetorical device designed to silence opposition without providing any rational argument.

I could give you many rational arguments that support the idea that people should not be allowed to own other people and I could show how society benefits in the long run by granting that right to all people. I do not need to resort to the 'slavery is wrong because god said so' or 'it is a natural right' argument. If someone wants to argue that individuals should be allowed to carry weapons that could be used to overthrow the gov't then they have explain why society today would benefit by allowing such rights. Claiming it is a natural right is a cop out.

[betsy]

Can't understand why religion and guns go together in some peoples minds. I am sure your Jesus would not have approved.

As far as I know, not just everyone can fully claim to understand and translate the bible....only those who are considered experts at doing so.

Since you're obviously not a follower...or even a believer in Jesus, what makes you so darn sure what He would and would not approve?

Are you into translations too?

[M.Dancer]

Can't understand why religion and guns go together in some peoples minds. I am sure your Jesus would not have approved.

As far as I know, not just everyone can fully claim to understand and translate the bible....only those who are considered experts at doing so.

Since you're obviously not a follower...or even a believer in Jesus, what makes you so darn sure what He would and would not approve?

How about....

Matthew 26:52 (translated into modern english by M. Dancer)

26:52 Then Jesus gave them the down lo saying , "Yo Yo Yo Put down your gloc and take a pass.... homies that pack the heat will get a cap in the ass."

26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.