The usual suspects in the US quickly associated the latest gun maniac with the Tea Party.
A reminder that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
-
Liberty Quotes
It is obviously futile to attempt to eliminate unemployment by embarking upon a program of public works that would otherwise not have been undertaken. The necessary resources for such projects must be withdrawn by taxes or loans from the application they would otherwise have found. Unemployment in one industry can, in this way, be mitigated only to the extent that it is increased in another.
— Ludwig von MisesOngoing Debates
Catallaxy Surveys
Recent Comments
- Elizabeth (Lizzie) B. on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Rabz on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Leigh Lowe on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Leigh Lowe on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Sinclair Davidson on Australian Treasury
- Token on Australian Treasury
- Token on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Token on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- GerardB on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- Aaron on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Splatacrobat on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Tel on Why no libertarian countries?
- Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Jim Rose on Do something positive about IR. Join HR.
- johno on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- struth on Will Scott Fitzgerald’s economy meet that of Steinbeck?
- struth on Will Scott Fitzgerald’s economy meet that of Steinbeck?
- Token on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- A Lurker on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- struth on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- Steve of Glasshouse on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- struth on Why no libertarian countries?
- Gerry on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- Tom on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Oh come on on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- perturbed on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- Abu Chowdah on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- kurt on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- Cold-Hands on Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- C.L. on Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
-
Recent Posts
- 3Ps and the economy
- Australian Treasury
- Is Peter van Onselen Rudd’s campaign manager?
- Local Government Referendum
- Will Scott Fitzgerald’s economy meet that of Steinbeck?
- Do something positive about IR. Join HR.
- Why no libertarian countries?
- Wind farms: my place in their downfall
- Tuesday Forum: June 18, 2013
- For western civilization
- The earth is shifting right before our eyes
- Gas regulations, taxes and efficiency
- On wind farms we are less crazy than the rest
- Another Obama foreign policy success
- Q&A thread: June 16, 2013
- Costly course of a ship of fools
- Suppose Sarah had been President
- Helen Hughes, Australia’s greatest female economist: 1928-2013
- A question for Mr Rudd
- Unfortunate advertising
- Violence in language
- The characteristics of psychopaths
- In the pay of Big Soft Drink aka Big Fizz
- Apotheosis of Kevin Rudd (II)
- Open Forum: June 15, 2013
- Weekend Liberty Clip: June 15, 2013
- Secession of States: United States of America
- Rafe’s Roundup 14 June
- Catallaxy survey 19 (closes 21 June 2013)
- Why does the public oppose privatisation?
Archives
Pages
Blogroll
- 38 South
- ABC The Drum
- Alex
- All about Finance
- Andrew Bolt
- Andrew McIntyre
- Andrew Norton – New
- Andrew Norton – Old
- Arnold Kling
- Aussie Macro Moments
- Becker – Posner
- Bill Mitchell – billy blog
- Bunyipitude
- Cafe Hayek
- Carpe Diem (New)
- Carpe Diem (Old)
- Causes of the crisis
- Charles Rowley
- Chris Kenny
- Club Troppo
- Conversable Economist
- Coordination Problem
- Core Economics
- Crapulous Coercion
- Daniel Greenfield
- David Boaz
- Econ Journal Watch
- EconAcademics
- Econbrowser
- EconLog
- Econometrics Beat
- Fama/French
- Fault Lines
- Fear the boom and bust
- Fiscal Times
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Free Banking
- Freedom and Prosperity Academy
- Freedom Watch
- Greg Mankiw
- Guido Fawkes
- Harry Clarke
- Hayek Project
- Hey … What did I miss?
- Homer Paxton
- Ideas@The Centre
- inCISe
- Institutional Economics
- International Liberty
- John Cochrane
- John Humphreys
- John Lott
- John Quiggin
- John Taylor
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Julie Borowski
- Keith Hennessey
- Larvatus Prodeo
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Law Blog
- Macrobusiness
- Mannkal Foundation
- Marginal Revolution
- Mark the Ballot
- Mark the Graph
- markedlymacrotoo
- Market Urbanism
- Master Resource
- Matt Ridley
- Menzies House
- Michael Oakeshott Association
- Michael Smith
- Minding the Campus
- Miranda Devine
- Money Illusion
- Muck and Mystery
- MyGovCost
- Natural Order – Christopher Lingle
- New Economist
- Niche Modeling
- Nick Cater
- Offsetting Behaviour
- Oliver Hartwich
- On Line Opinion
- Open Capitalism
- Opinion Dominion
- Organizations and Markets
- PERColator
- Peter Martin
- Philippa Martyr
- Piled Higher and Deeper
- Political Calculations
- Pollytics
- Potemkin's Village
- Poverty Cure
- Prick with a fork
- Principles of Forecasting
- Quadrant Online
- Retraction Watch
- Retronaut
- Rhino economics
- ricardian ambivalence
- Robert Murphy
- Roger Kerr (archive)
- School Watch
- Sensible Social Policy
- Simon Jackman
- Skepticlawyer
- Sound Money
- Spiked
- Stephen Dawson
- Stephen Koukoulas
- Steve Schwartz
- Stimulus Watch
- Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax
- Stubborn Mule
- Sustainable Development
- Tax Check
- Tax Foundation
- TaxProf
- The Baseline Scenario
- The Beacon
- The Black Steam Train
- The Moronic Lodge
- The TaxPayers' Alliance
- The Visible Hand
- Think Markets
- Thoughts on Freedom
- Tim Blair
- Tim Worstall
- We are all dead
- William Briggs – Statistician
- Yobbo In Thailand
Meta
sdog, I don’t have time to look into your rape statistics: it would be a very safe bet that they are dodgy in one respect or another.
America has a Democrat President who had a Democrat super-majority in Congress for two full years.
Chucklehead.
d-b: you’re the one who asked of me: is it a co-incidence that successful mass shootings typically occur in gun-free zones?
Yes, the implication of this is that there is an association between successful mass shootings and their victims being typically unarmed. You think this is co-incidence, apparently. And I earlier gave you an instance in which an attempted mass shooting was successfully prevented from escalating because some of the would-be victims were armed. Another co-incidence, apparently.
Did going to the US make you stupider than before?
LOL
Errors: semi-auto and fully-auto are treated as equivalent. Machione guns (typically massive magazine weapons with moderate rates of fire but capable of sustained fire without overheating) are then equivalent to semi-autos. The pistols he calls “OK” are semi-autos.
He is incoherent.
Oh yes a nutball who’s thinking of snuffing out the lives in a packed theatre would be worried about buying a rifle on the black market. You know in case he gets caught.
That’s a really good reason to be disarming the general population. Really good. Works for me too.
sdog, I don’t have time to look into your rape statistics: it would be a very safe bet that they are dodgy in one respect or another.
Steve sez: Teh lying wimminses, they lie. Also, the US Justice Department*.
*Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, U.S. Department of Justice
liar-steve™, the Cat’s very own underwear thread skid mark is baaack
Step:
Tiny Dancer and James really don’t like you. But you know that already, right?
Steve, for God’s sake, stop displaying your total ignorance and go and research the topic.
Then come back and try to argue coherently.
United States Constitution: Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
unquote
Gun control does not prevent deranged criminal people from getting guns, it prevents the law biding citizens from getting guns.
This is one of the reasons why we have the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, ie; the right of the American people to have guns / bear arms, to allow the citizenry to be armed as individuals, and to assemble as needed against govt tyrants, criminals, and anyone else who becomes a real clear and present threat and danger to their families and freedom.
“You can legally own a light or heavy machine gun, an artillery piece, and several types of rocket launchers.”
Artillery? Wow.
George Will in US’s This Week weighs in.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/22/george_will_vs_joe_klein_on_gun_control.html
To paraphrase:
This fucker had booby trapped his apartment which means he had figured a long term plan, can people honestly suggest this would not have occurred if there were legislation in place limiting guns.
Stevie can. He has a list of people who changed their minds after they sat down and read the legislation.
I wonder if psychological testing/background checks would be in order if say a person suddenly buys a number of weapons and an inordinate amount of ammunition out of the blue, who has never bought a gun before.
This case Colorado he got four guns and something like 6000 rounds of ammunition i think locally.
gun free zones are an excellent example of expressive voting. people cheer for these policies despite the fact they are pointless and attract mass killers.
“This case Colorado he got four guns and something like 6000 rounds of ammunition i think locally.”
Chris Rock has a suggestion.
That’s a good suggestion, Jarrah!
Jarrah: a single artillery piece is about the most useless thing on earth. Also, being single-action, it is likely legal in Australia
Given how hair-trigger the US Feds are supposed to be these days with terrorists sourcing materials to rig explosives to buildings, if there was a greater legal support on paper trails for buying that stuff then it could have been picked up earlier.
Yeah, great suggestion, Jarrah because crims would never ever steal bullets and sell them on the sly cheaper. Nor would they import them illegally from a cheaper source. Never happen. Ever.
No one is showing any proof of this at all.
I gave the more likely explanation, and you just respond in the Birdian fashion “no you’re wrong”.
So monster, you’re saying that if he wasn’t able to access tear gas, or ran a risk of being caught trafficking in the stuff he would not have gone ahead with it. He wouldn’t have even tried to buy a gun and ammo on the black market… and you know the rest.
yea, I guess it sounds credible to perhaps Tubbsie Milne.
Never let a crisis go to waste: Obama makes Aurora pit stop on West Coast fund-raising swing
“Turns out he’s headed West anyway for a massive fund-raising swing, and he’s got no plans of laying off the money-grubbing tour:
He’ll also hit up Nevada and New Orleans for votes, even though the two transparent campaign events are classified as “official” White House business.
Many Colorado residents and political observers nationwide would prefer he leave Aurora alone. Others wonder why no special trip to condemn violence in blood-soaked Chicago is in order”
Well, SfB, there is also no evidence that restricting firearms ownership reduces murders.
I’m glad we cleared that up.
How many victims of mass shootings were armed?
James from Bedwetterstan… erm, Melbourne:
Oho! We have a real half-brained inner city bedwetter here. So all gun-owners have a vigilante complex, do they? News to me, and I have been a gun-owner for many years and have known one hell of a lot of other gun owners over those years.
Never met one with a vigilante complex yet. As gun owners, we understand something you don’t, as we are not prone to your infantile form of magical thinking. Firearms are merely tools.
Oddly, I have met many bedwetting hoplophobes who wail about such things, and make up scary stories to justify their pathetic little phobias, though.
As a gun-owner, will I even stoop to protect you?
No.
Why should I? I will protect me and mine first, and extract them from danger. You are on your own.
Depends on the range. If it’s ‘maniac at 50-300m’ then yes. And a second shot to make quite sure of the issue. If it’s below 50m, then things get a bit hinky. Less so if one has a firearm able to take a bayonet, but still hinky.
“Jarrah: a single artillery piece is about the most useless thing on earth.”
I don’t doubt it. Makes me wonder why anyone would want one, although it would be a fun way of clearing rabbit warrens…
“Yeah, great suggestion, Jarrah”
It’s not mine, Gab, and I wasn’t endorsing it. It was just a bit of fun, you humourless ignoramus.
Says the Jonathan Stewart of Catallaxy.
You think it funny to joke about people being killed? You have a very strange sense of humour.
I’ll type this slowly for you, SfB.
Nearly all random mass shootings occur in gun free zones.
Therefore;
1) The fact of a gun free zone attracts the killer, (plus the presence of potential victims).
or
2) The absence of armed citizens permits the killer to carry out his killing unhindered.
I’m sure you see this as a good argument for banning guns anyway. Go to that second link and scroll down to the paragraph “Arguing with a Moron”.
Hope this helps.
Is Jarrah a Leibowitz too?
Jarrah:
You do not know what you are talking about.
US 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Who are the militia?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In other words, the US defines by Constitution and by Code (10 USC § 311 – MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES) that ALL males 17-45 PLUS females in the organised militia (only) are members of the Federal unorganised militia.
What you are looking at is an eighteenth century concept of the nation-in-arms.
Every male US citizen 17-45 YO is a member of the unorganised militia whether he likes it or not. He may bear any such arms as he can afford and desires to. Take that back to its 19th century intent and it was probably intended to mean ‘infantry arms’, as that’s what a nation in arms normally is.
The organised militias were generally thought to be intended to have the cavalry and the artillery back in those days (they were too expensive for nearly all individual persons), but they were NOT so limited and are not so limited now.
This is EXACTLY why wealthy men raised their own regiments of soldiers during the American Civil War and the Federal Government was obliged to accept them into the Army and obliged to commission the man who paid for them as their Colonel.
Do you really know so little of history?
If you and 200 of your mates decide to form a tank company in the unorganised militia, you can. In time of war, the government is obliged to accept you, too, even if only as ‘unorganised militia’.
So the reality is the exact opposite of what you say. The rights are NOT limited because national survival trumps ‘public safety’ (a term not to be found in 18th century US lexicons anyway).
Therefore ‘gun control advocates’ are actually – and quite literally – enemies of the people. They are among those the US right to bear arms was specifically aimed at.
At page 16 of this 2011 Australian Institute of Criminolgy report, the long term trend downwards since the late 1990′s in homocides is clear; at page 19 the long term reduction in the percentage of homocides by guns in Australia is similarly clear over the same period.
No wonder sensible people don’t want to relax gun laws here.
Hey, I’m doing “homocides” again!
Must get spell checker installed …
So liar-steve™ is now purporting to pass himself off as “sensible”!!!
Muhahaha
In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate in the USA declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
Including before, during and after the introduction and expiry of President Clinton’s ban on assault weapons.
liar-steve™ sure loves his strawmen comments.
homocides….homocides
No, it’s homicides.
the long term trend downwards since the late 1990′s in homocides is clear
However, the long-term trend downwards predates the gun buy-back. Back to the drawing board, sfb.
The seething horde of individually crazy people each of whom could only want a gun due to loopiness sounds just like the kind of movies I prefer.
Most people are normal. That’s what defines normal. Most people would never shoot another person, and if forced to would need counselling or comfort. Most people would accept that, and do it anyway, if they had to.
“Every male US citizen 17-45 YO is a member of the unorganised militia whether he likes it or not.”
I’m aware of this. My comments had literally nothing to do with the various controversies surrounding the phrase “well regulated militia”.
“The rights are NOT limited”
You’re quite wrong. In the words of Scalia:
“Do you really know so little of history?”
LOL
Are there any stats of gun crime ( any type ) in Australia stating % of licensed v un- licensed perpetrators ?
And compere to US?.
i think Steve is right about the deranged killer targeting a place of perceived injustice, such as school/uni. It’s like perhaps the killer has failed in something there, and ‘take that, shoot ‘em all down.’
Not sure that the mass victims being unarmed (or probably were) comes into it. it’s a deranged mind.
the movie killer has a “reason” for Batman movie, it’s just bizarre but it will be known i guess, he’s still alive to tell his tale.
Glenn Reynolds:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/147156/
Steve you moron the trend for all murders has been going on since the 1970s.
You are simply an inveterate liar.
Guns laws do nothing.
Not sure that the mass victims being unarmed (or probably were) comes into it. it’s a deranged mind.
Really, candy? To use an analogy, if a boat or ship sinks, do you imagine the availability of life-jackets doesn’t come into it? It’s only about a sinking ship?
Arguing with
SfBa moron.And once more jarrah is reduced to sophistry. If you really want to play kiddie games, then you said “So the right to bear arms is inherently limited. They are limited because public safety demands it.” whereas Scalia used the terms ‘not unlimited’ – which merely restates the intent of the US founders anyway in classifying federal militia as infantry. They would not be expected, for example, to own and use carronades.
I do like the way you beclown yourself when you are reduced to sophistry. Especially when the intent of your argument is that of restriction.
Do you really know so little of history?
My question stung did it, diddums?
Thanks for answering in the affirmative.
So basically they’re just saying that the normal US restrictions (particular locations, no certified loonies, license to sell and trade) are considered constitutional.
“Dangerous and unusual” in this case seems to mean things like car bombs and flamethrowers; the man-portable WMD kind of thing.
Sophistry? With your claim that “not unlimited” doesn’t mean ‘limited’? My god.
“which merely restates the intent of the US founders anyway in classifying federal militia as infantry.”
Again, because apparently you’re too stupid to understand, the controversies around ‘militia’ have nothing to do with the bazooka argument, which is all about the word ‘arms’.
I say the right is limited, Scalia says the right is limited, as have US courts since forever. This is entirely uncontroversial. What is up for debate are what limits, and why.
“My question stung did it, diddums?”
LOL squared. Here’s a hint, you social retard – when people laugh at your limp-wristed flailing, it’s because it is self-evidently pathetic.
Sure, Mark, whatever you my-gun-is-my-penis types believe. I can just see you blasting away the perp a la Bruce Willis, probably even blowing the smoke away before re-holstering. Under your armpit, of course. Before striding off into the sunset….fade to credits.
Funny thing is, the cops, who are trained in firearms, often make grievous errors, at shorter ranges than those at which you have self-declared your expertise. So something tells me that it doesn’t always happen as you guys might fantasise. And I mean that in the clinical sense.
“So basically they’re just saying that the normal US restrictions (particular locations, no certified loonies, license to sell and trade) are considered constitutional.”
Yes. Because certified loonies having guns is a bad idea for the people around them, ie public safety is a legitimate concern.
That’s why the strongest arguments against gun-control advocates are ones that show that further restrictions do not improve public safety, and can even be counter-productive. It turns their position against them.
James, go air your inadequacy elsewhere, please. I find your phallic obsession trying.
Jarrah, I agree, but it can also be argued that the writers consider lunatic or criminal individuals as an entirely different case from law-abiding citizens.
IOW, while public safety is a concern, you’re reading it as a safety-from-firearms concern, where it might be a safety-from-lunatics concern. Make sense?
I really don’t care to carry a concealed gun, but I’d feel quite safe living in a society in which a small fraction of the civilian population did so long as they did legally, were of sound mind, and were reasonably proficient.
Excellent point, wreckage.
Wreckage, I noticed of late that you’re issuing out orders to other people here in a sneering tone.
If anyone made you sneering director or Sgt Major of the site, let us know as we’ll salute when you’re going past. Cut it out or fuck off.
And by the way, I haven’t read the point of disagreement.
But that’s just it, Dover. I don’t want such a group self-selected, thanks very much.
Funny thing is, the cops, who are trained in firearms, often make grievous errors, at shorter ranges than those at which you have self-declared your expertise.
Your typical cop isn’t a particularly well trained or capable firearms handler. (Which is why ‘training was inadequate’ is invariably a conclusion in every investigation into every cop accident or mishap.) The argument that the higher level of training of police is the mitigation that ensures public safety doesn’t stack up. You can’t ‘institutionalise’ into people competence or professionalism through ‘mechanical’ training; it has to be done through hands-on experience. If a cop doesn’t want to do more than the basics – which is probably most of them – they’re no different to the typical public and a lot worse than your average competitor at a civilian range.
But that’s just it, Dover. I don’t want such a group self-selected, thanks very much.
And cops and the military aren’t self selected, or any less so than a licensing process?
So it’s only a “small fraction” of armed civilians that you’re comfortable with, d-b, yet you were trying to make something of how mass shootings have involved unarmed people being killed.
So what is it? If you want some sort of guarantee that there’s always going to be armed and competent civilian shooters at the seen of every mass shooting, you’re probably going to have to go with more than a “small fraction”. If you’re happy with, say, a few in a hundred to be carrying a gun, you’re probably not going to increase the odds much of said armed and competent person being handy and willing to do anything anyway.
Dover specified a small fraction of the civilian population.
“it can also be argued that the writers consider lunatic or criminal individuals as an entirely different case from law-abiding citizens.”
As well they should. The point remains that what is at issue are which limits are sensible (like keeping guns out of the hands of certified loonies) and which are not (like arbitrary restrictions exemplified by the semi-auto discussion above).
“while public safety is a concern, you’re reading it as a safety-from-firearms concern, where it might be a safety-from-lunatics concern.”
I agree, which is why I said public safety can be used as a justification for resisting further limits.
The cops and the military generally recruit from the civilian population. Contrary to what you may believe, neither organisation has a breeding or cloning program going on.
But that’s just it, Dover. I don’t want such a group self-selected, thanks very much.
You’d prefer only a self-selected group of illegally obtained firearm-owners?
That’s the reality in the US and Israel. You can have a gun at home, but you can’t legally carry a gun in either country without getting a permit.
And except for those places where guns cannot be carried, mass murders are almost non-existent. The nutters still try, but they are stopped by people with legal guns.
In Australia we can’t own or carry any kind of weapon specifically for self defence, our own or our family. Even at home. It’s disgraceful.
I don’t think anyone argues for open slather. In the US, the instant background check system is supported by the NRA. Violent criminals relinquish some of their rights.
The problem is you can’t always tell who is going to crack. That’s why you need decent people to be armed so they can stop the loonies before they get started.
I think you’ve made a decent point David. I don’t think people can easily dismiss the case against carry and concealment out in public. Yes of course there are arguments, but it’s not really what I’m driving at. The roads, sidewalks etc are public thoroughfares and like it or not the government has a right -some right- to regulate usage in the the same way it can regulate the tonnage that uses a road.
However the home is an entirely different story.
So what is it?
Anywhere between 1 in 50 to 1 in 20 would do me.
If you’re happy with, say, a few in a hundred to be carrying a gun, you’re probably not going to increase the odds much of said armed and competent person being handy and willing to do anything anyway.
They don’t just need to be handy; the threat that they might be handy is just as relevant.
Cops are hardly the best and brightest of society. If they were, they probably wouldn’t take such a low-paying job.
As someone linked before, far more innocent people are killed by cops with guns than are killed by nutcases with guns.
perhaps a solution to conceal and carry could be firearms with only a few shots and smaller caliber.
Jarrah’s sophistry is not terribly…… well…….. sophisticated, is it?
He’s as about as genuine as liar-steve™
Don’t be ridiculous, we were not talking about the police or the military.
I have to accept that there is such a group, AKA criminals. They are the police’s raison d’être.
There’s an old saying – when you come to a gunfight, bring enough gun.
Decent people shouldn’t be told they can’t be trusted.
That particular sentence says nothing about the people who are moved to join the police forces, nursing or teaching professions or firefighting and much about Yobbo.
That’s the reality in the US and Israel. You can have a gun at home, but you can’t legally carry a gun in either country without getting a permit.
Only a fortnight ago I was regularly walking my dog each evening, near or passed midnight, in Brooklyn, often near projects, and felt reasonably safe.
Don’t be ridiculous, we were not talking about the police or the military.
I am. That’s why I used the term “cops and the military”. What were you referring to when you said “Funny thing is, the cops, who are trained in firearms, often make grievous errors, at shorter ranges than those at which you have self-declared your expertise”?
They are the police’s raison d’être.
Indeed, but we also have locks on our doors, and so on.
So the solution is to add a third person to the cop v nutcase situation – a person even less-well-trained than the cop?
All that I am arguing against is this assumption that the heat-packing-citizen everyone always lauds as society’s great protector is going to prove to be an ice-cool dead-eye. I say that is a Hollywood fantasy, and that in a real maniac-shooter situation, the poor public (assuming the cops haven’t got there yet) is going to be caught in the crossfire between the shooter and the vigilante.
I’m not immune to imagining the horror of an Aurora/Port Arthur situation – it absolutely appaIs me – but I just feel that gun fans, when they talk about what would have happened if a civilian gun-packer were there, way, way over-estimate their fellows’ capabilities.
Dover:
Me:
Since comprehension and you were separated at birth, John, get someone to read you the initial quote and the response. Sheesh.
I am well aware that it is trite, but it is relevant to this discussion.
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.
I just feel that those whose solution is to always default to a position of disempowering everybody as much as possible, and want to centralise this ability to some higher elite authority, are almost always underestimating their fellows rational ability and desire to do good.
Your facts are sadly wrong. Police are very poorly trained with pistols and it is indeed good luck that more innocent people are not killed by them.
In my pistol club we will not allow police to shoot until they have been through our training. None of them are safe. And virtually every club member would be much safer and more competent than the police.
Since comprehension and you were separated at birth, John, get someone to read you the initial quote and the response. Sheesh.
Do you think you could link more than two basic ideas in a go? Try it, adults achieve it all the time.
Here it is step by step:
1. You aren’t happy if a group of civilians ‘self select’ to have firearms.
2. You are happy for the police and military to have firearms.
3. The police and military largely self-select, at least with not much more vetting than a licensing process.
4. Hence, the quality of firearms handler is not different in either the civilian or military case.
5. Hence, your position is illogical.
See, not that hard.
James in Melbourne.
I would be interested to know why you feel that way, James. Many, many CCW permit holders in the US are highly skilled, train regularly and are fully aware of the laws pertaining to using their firearms.
Or do you just consider that anyone who takes his/her personal safety seriously is just a redneck yokel itching to shoot up the neighbourhood at the smallest excuse?
The biggest problem with allowing police and security guards to have guns – but not the general population – is that you are limiting gun ownership to people who enjoy having power over others so much that they decided to make it a career.
The use of the term ‘civilian’ in Dover’s post renders only point 1 of your list valid, John. Beyond that point we are not talking about civilians. I would subscribe to Point 2. The rest is balls, O Learned One.
Brilliantly essayed here:
“Use their weapons?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPHQtV-heso
Yeah, Yobbo. We need more drunk 22 year olds with guns at Kings Cross on Saturday nights to show those night club security guards a thing or two.
Great argument. I’ll take that as you have no valid point to make or convincing perspective to proffer.
Again!!!
Doubling down on the small-mindedness.
Even more condescending dross which says little about the people who join the police force and heaps about Yobbo.
John, it was clear – or should have been – that DB’s post, and my response to it, assumed that the police exist and are armed. My response to DB obviously referred to ‘civilians.’ You then crashed in talking about how the police and the military self-select. Of course they do, but its relevance to DB’s post and my response to it was nil. And I stand by my statement that i do not want a group of self-selected civilians packing heat.
but I just feel that gun fans, when they talk about what would have happened if a civilian gun-packer were there, way, way over-estimate their fellows’ capabilities.
Whereas you deliberately under-estimate them.
Ooh..the two James’ are, for a fleeing moment, temporarily on my side. It must be very disturbing for them.
fleeting moment…although fleeing is inadvertently appropriate too.
And I think most people here still stand that your position is illogical and it’s not about what you want, but rather what delivers optimum outcomes for the civilised people in a society. Again, great ‘argument’ you’ve got going there.
Jarrah:
As I said: If you really want to play kiddie games, then…
So you don’t like it when people point out your own infantile pettifogging and turn it back on you, eh?
That’s just so sad.
I think gun ownership is right and also a responsibility not unlike a driver’s license.
The only success on 9/11 as with the panty-bomber was civilians responding to threats when police couldn’t.
There have also been several potential mass killings thwarted because of armed civilians.
Anything that sees citizens behave as citizens with a government rather than a government with sheep is a good thing.
Poor James is projecting again:
Amusing that the only one putting this sort of infantile fantasy up here is you.
What are you, twelve?
Firearms are merely a tool. They are little different from a hammer in that sense. I use them to cull feral animals. To do that humanely, you have to be accurate. So I practise at a range.
This appears to be a surprise to you. It should not be, hundreds of others do the same and most are more accurate than I.
That includes kids – the SSAA runs excellent comps for kids and their marksmanship is astonishing. Especially the girls.
.
Oh please. Police are godawful marksmen and very few of them use long arms. I don’t go hunting with cops because their firearms safety is nowhere near my minimum. They use cheap government issue handguns and crappy ammo on the 20m range FFS.
Why don’t you stop pulling yourself about what happens in the movies and check out your local range this weekend? Or would the cognitive dissonance further emasculate you?
That’d be right Shit for Brains. You get to run away, and kid in the wheelchair, and the little old lady with the walker frame becomes a target.
You are the kind of person who stays at home and makes a fortune from war production while better men die defending the nation.
No, it’s true, James.
Australian cops carry a Batman-like variety of weapons on their utility belts – semi-autos, pepper sprays and ray-guns. You see them decked out this way directing traffic, ffs. Why? Well, they’ll tell you there are some dangerous people out there and they need to be well-armed and ready to defend themselves.
Now why in the name of Zeus’s butthole shouldn’t John Q. Citizen be equally unlucky and equally well-served by a firearm?
I see you don’t deny your breath-taking hypocrisy. Whatever. Stop trying to derail the thread, Mk.
Way more than “several” in both the US and Israel. Dozens at least.
BTW, the second worst mass murder in Australia was committed with a can of petrol at the Whisky a Go Go disco in Brisbane.
Neither a gun ban nor concealed carry could have stopped that. Some shit just happens.
John, I simply don’t want the opening scenes of Romeo + Juliet playing out everywhere I go. We are not – yet – the USA. I don’t want us to become the USA. If you heat-packers like it so much, go and live there, and ‘carry’ to your hearts’ content. Who knows, you might even get to fire it. I’ll be happy for you.
James, in the Giffords shooting one civilian carrying a concealed weapon tackled the gunman and with others disarmed him. When interviewed afterwards he stated that he felt no need to draw his weapon. So reality can be quite contrary to our imaginings.
On the other hand the 71 year old who foiled the two losers at the internet cafe in Florida showed a good technique and a calm demeanor as he popped a few rounds into them (he aimed low and they survived).
The basic idea of concealed carry is to introduce an element of uncertainty into the mind of the would-be crim. A certain level of concealed carry is all that is necessary. Not everyone needs to do it once crims decide that the odds are too great of becoming the casualty instead of their intended victim. It’s a bit like the concept of herd immunity against disease. If sufficient people are vaccinated, then this provides protection for those few who are not protected.
Welp.
Spot’s link:
How many shootings have occurred recently, especially in Sydney? About 60. How many shootings were carried out in self-defense? Zero.
I do, kinda. In the United States, the prosecutor responsible for Andrew Bolt’s trial would be in jail and the judge would have been voted out of office.
But sissy Australians don’t care.
We are not – yet – the USA. I don’t want us to become the USA. If you heat-packers like it so much, go and live there, and ‘carry’ to your hearts’ content. Who knows, you might even get to fire it. I’ll be happy for you.
I don’t want to live in the kind of benign, tasteless and ineffectual Australia that people like you represent. I agree Australia isn’t exactly dominated by ‘rugged individualists’. But your limp-wristed kind doesn’t have the upper hand either. So we’re both working towards our vision for the country we’d like to leave our children.
You are the kind of person who stays at home and makes a fortune from war production while better men die defending the nation.
Shit-for is definitely the kind of person Mill had in mind when he said “…….miserable creature who can never be free unless made and kept safe by better people than himself…..” or something close.
“We are not – yet – the USA. I don’t want us to become the USA.”
This is where Australian gun-controllers go wrong. The problems in the US with gun violence are because of factors unique to the US. Australia having more rational gun laws won’t turn Bankstown into south Chicago.
The best thing they could do is stop the war on drugs.
” I don’t want us to become the USA. ”
I feel same as james of melbourne on that issue
There are states in the US that have lower homicide rates than Australia’s overall average. They tend to be the ones not renowned for drugs or gangs.
Colin Greenwood, the British policeman who did the 70′s study “Firearms Control: a Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales” concluded that firearms violence was lower before any controls were enacted.
He said it would make no difference to crime if criminals and madmen had the same access to guns as everyone else.
That was the situation in England in the early 20th century, and violent crime was very rare.
You been there Jazz? I’m betting you haven’t been a mile outside the CBD except for Bali.
Oops … sorry that was Candy, not Jazz. I just assumed it was Jazz saying that.
The basic idea of concealed carry is to introduce an element of uncertainty into the mind of the would-be crim. A certain level of concealed carry is all that is necessary.
My thought, exactly.
I would love to live in the US.
I felt very safe and at home there, including when staying at Venice Beach, and while in NY and Washington.
Having neighbours with guns doesn’t worry me. Being rendered defenceless by politicians and the police does.
Good-oh. When a man attacks you, just lie back and think of Social Justice. While my baby sister in the States, if a man attacks her, will shoot him in the face.
Yes, I pray my sis never has to shoot someone. And in the vast majority of attempted assaults, simply showing your weapon is all that’s required. But I would rather she receive counseling for having shot a rapist in the face than receive rape counseling and spend the rest of her life understanding that by virtue of her small stature and her gender she’s doomed to be a victim and there’s nothing she can do about that.
“Yes, I pray my sis never has to shoot someone. And in the vast majority of attempted assaults, simply showing your weapon ”
america sounds a very unsafe place to be
It’s not unsafe. Statistically you safer being in the US than say watching Q&A and having heart failure because of the morons you see and hear.
Candy you’ve been watching too much television.
Far far safer country than Australia as long as you stray away from black neighbourhoods. Friendlier people and cheap too.
I’d say King’s Cross is far more unsafe. No one in NY goes out looking to king-hit people on a night out.
And so have you JC.
New York is one of the safest places you’ll visit, particularly if you stick to Manhattan.
The two most under reported phenomena of the last century was the staggering decline of the Japanese economy and the plummeting US crime rate.
You are more likely to become a victim of violent crime – including rape – in Australia than you are in America.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
Gun murders in America are mainly criminals and gang-bangers killing other criminals and gang-bangers. And they happen most in areas where guns are most tightly “controlled”.
If you’re not involved in drugs or gangs, you’re pretty safe.
US crime rate graph:
http://monthlyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/old/090601-hmfj-chart-5.jpg
It’s baffling why the crime rate continues to drop like Gillard’s popularity when this stuff is happening:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/2011-smashes-sales-record-guns
sdog links to Instapundit, who is a dimwit and likes dodgy stats as much as sdog.
I’ve already linked to the 2011 AIC crime stats report that shows the true, long term picture since stricter gun laws were introduced. There is nothing in them to indicate Australia is in need of looser gun laws.
Fortunately, the pro gun lobby in Australia and on this blog in particular are doomed to be unhappy about Australian gun laws for a long, long time. The childish argument about “but, but (some) crims have guns, why can’t I?” convinces a very small number in this country. Good.
And IT is the equivalent of a pommy whinger on an Australian holiday, except he’s not a pom and not on holiday, and is only happy when out of Australia on holiday.
True enough. I love freedom.
So no argument from liar-steve™ just the usual dross and the deeply insightful observation that a change in the gun laws in Australia is unlikely.
The latter is not disputed nor the issue raised on this thread.
But apparently the beedin’ obvious is something liar thinks is deeply significant and newsworthy.
I’ve already linked to the 2011 AIC crime stats report that shows the true, long term picture since stricter gun laws were introduced.
The trend preceded stricter gun laws.
I’ll bet we have gun law reform one day. I’ll bet my arse there’s no carbon tax or ETS in 18 months.
Australians invariably patter out this “at least we’re not the US!” line. It’s pathetic.
I still don’t get Steve’s ostentatious concern about 12 dead Americans.
What about 1000 dead asylum seekers?
Which, if you backtrack to about 1980 shows a consistently declining trend, a trend which does not alter significantly before, during or after the gun buy-back.
Stop being an idiot.
NZ can show the exact same graph from their gun reforms after their 1990 massacre, with the same “zero massacres since gun reform”, and their gun reform was photo licenses.
The USA has the same declining graph and a lower overall rate of violent crime than Australia.
You hate guns. You fear them. Knowing people own them makes you feel unsafe. That’s it, that’s all, show’s over, bye-bye.
wreckage: a nation having a homicide rate of 4 times ours, and continuing numbers of mass shootings by nutters (which we last saw when, exactly?) might just have a teeny tiny bit to do with Australians perceptions that Australia is a safer country.
You’re also being dim if you don’t realise that your “but Australian decline in crime was already underway before the gun ban” argument cuts both ways – it means you also can’t know with certainty that American looser gun laws have been the cause of its decrease in crime.
I don’t have any particular fear of guns, and have enjoyed shooting them at times.
I just dislike ideologically motivated stupidity such as that displayed here that would reject in America:
a. a re-instatment of the assault rifle ban, as was supported by well known communist dimwit Ronald Reagan; and
b. limits on magazines that allow large numbers of quick kills as per recent shootings
Stepford
The murder rate within racial cohorts are aligned pretty well. In other words the murder rate among say Scandinavians and Americans of Scandi origin aren’t dissimilar.
Liar never desists from spouting diarrhea
Six years after new Zealand’s gun reforms ended shooting sprees there for good.
In defence of the US in general, if you knock out the entrenched fuck-ups of racial ghettos, the murder rate drops to pretty much the international norm. While I agree there’s a problem, it’s not guns; its entrenched disadvantage, unemployment and the total destruction of family and community ties in particular suburbs and rural areas.
Actually I’m satisfied that you’re acknowledging the lack of correlation. I am arguing that the availability or not of guns does not materially affect the violent crime rate. I am arguing that because it is correct, tot he best of my knowledge. So while it does not make the case for total laissez-faire gun ownership, it also does not make the case for near-total gun bans such as are in force in the UK and Australia.
The murder rate in say the Pennsylvania Amish who are of swiss origin would be close to zero. In fact they possibly endured the last Amish on Amish murder in 1878
The Amish have 100% employment and strong families.
Ain’t the web a great gret thing.
I was actually right and wrong. Yes there been a murder in Amish land, in the 90′s. It’s the only one ever recorded.
On
From Eddystone.
Well said, sir.
It is illuminating to me that the bedwetters on this thread have been bleating about their fear of ordinary citizens, their friends and neighbours, who might actually be responsible and well trained enough to own a gun for their own (and possibly others) defence.
It was once called “lack of moral fibre” and occasionally resulted in a white feather being delivered in the mail or presented on the street.
Look up Eli Stutzman as well. He was still an Amishman when his Amish wife “died in a fire”. Coincidentally, his wife was a Gingerich.
But yes, by and large they are very peaceful and trustworthy citizens.
Oh… so it’s two. Wow, she also had the same name.
Steve: If you take Americans of African descent out of the equation, American has a lower rate of violent crime of all types than Australia.
Africa has the highest rates of violent crime, murder, gun crime and murders by gun out of anywhere in the world. This trend is similar anywhere in the world populated by large numbers of people of African descent.
The Australian left’s bright idea? Ban guns, but import a lot more African immigrants.
Good luck with that, Australia.
FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows
Did you used to have a job as a Pauline Hansen adviser, Yobbo? I can hear the nasal voice now approving of your line “well if we’re going to allow black africans into Australia, the government needs to allow the public to arm themselves against them.”
Sorry douche that’s only ever been the official policy of the League of rights and the ALP – you do know what the WAP is, don’t you?
I’m sorry that statistics make you feel guilty, Steve.
What do I have to feel guilty about? I’m not the one suggesting that Australians should have the right to carry guns to defend themselves from black African migrants.
I think you should come back to Australia and run for Parliament using that line, as well as your other wise social views, such as prostitution being a good career path for attractive young women and there should be more of it, if only people would be sensible about sex. You’re probably for asian women migrating here as prostitutes, I assume, and being able to import as many party drugs from Thailand as they want to sell as a sideline.
The Yobbo Party. You’d make it on A Current Affair, I can guarantee that.
Sure, why not?
Then this EBG would be illegal, but not this EBG. Or maybe it’s the other way ’round.
You really are dense, Steve. I’m not saying we need guns to defend ourselves against migrants, I’m saying that the common trait of societies with high gun crime is not the number of guns in circulation, it’s the percentage of the population that is black.
Black people in the US commit murder at a rate 7x that of the general population. In the UK, 50% of all gun crime is committed by blacks, despite making up only 12% of the population.
You said you fear Australia becoming “more like America”. Well guess what, Steve? By importing greater numbers of African migrants, we are.
Because you’re an idiot and a hypocrite on politics and race.
Because you’re a dishonest stupid liar on gun control which doesn’t work.
Hey, great job of not trying to sound like Pauline Hanson, Yobbo, by telling me that shootings in Australia are going to go up if we keep letting those blacks from Africa into our country.
As for this statement:
I would have thought that if one had a concern about blacks using guns, tight restrictions on legal ones would be a good idea.
Or is there some magic by which you think greater number of legal guns doesn’t relate to greater number of illegal guns?
You support the ALP which was the architect of the WAP. Two Wongs don’t make a white? Who said that?
Pillock.
The fact that criminals won’t hand them in, and that people went out and bought new guns to cash in on the buy back.
Fucking moron.
SfB is just trolling for trolling’s sake now. Boring.
I haven’t visited this thread for a while.
Any explanation yet as to why Steve is so ostentatiously concerned about 12 dead Americans when he wholeheartedly endorses the wilful drowning of 1000 supposed asylum seekers by the Rudd/Gillard government?
dot evidently thinks that a Labor voter can now never be in favour of non racially based immigration without being a “hypocrite” because Labor used to be in favour of racially based programs.
That is so convincing, dot.
By the way, I see that tighter penalties for illegal gun trading in Australia are on the way, together with a national register. Good. Sensible policies win the day.
sdog can go back to America if his inability to carry a pistol here disturbs him that much.
Apparently not.
“I’m not racist, go back where you came from!”
CL, unlike you, I am not a moral imbecile.
I support the Malaysia deal and think the Greens are appalling with in their ideological purity on this issue meaning that they refuse to countenance a sensible response to too many deaths at sea.
Pretty much the same that as my finding it appalling that Tea Party/libertarian types will not countenance any gun control measure in response to mass shootings, including previous measures which were (and still are) supported by some prominent conservatives.
It’s the same as his ostentatious concern that American women aren’t entitled to any and all birth control of their choice for free, while ignoring the fact that even in socialist Australia they can’t get any and all birth control of their choice for free.
If not giving American gals any and all birth control of their choice for free constitutes a #WarOnWomen, why isn’t he concerned that that same #WAR is being waged on the fairer sex of his own freaking country?
He’s hella inconsistent, the way he demands higher standards of and for the American populace than he does his own.
Oh gawd.
He’s recycling his own talking points from up the thread now.
Boring troll is boring.
You fuckhead. Fuck off and take your fucking strawman with you. I accept Australia’s laws and I’ve never said otherwise. It’s YOU who wants a foreign country to change its Constitution to suit your small-dick fears.
LOL. Yes, I remember ‘Catholic’ Steve’s zealous concern about all that.
Lol. true. Almost every leftwing idiot that showed up here arguing the free case seemed not to be aware about our situation here in oz.
Morons. Stepford was one of the worst displays.
snap Cl.
Dog – I see you following me on twitter weren’t you following me before?
OT I realise.
…and Doug Cameron talks about foreign workers.
Fucking Balts…not too long ago.
No because they don’t work. I already explained to you how the gun buyback was gamed.
You’re a rube whose only life experience is being a low level pen pusher and digging up turnips. FFS. You have no moral claim to dictate what rules we will live under.
‘sactly. He’s a rube with irrational fears.
Malaysia deal = more deaths at sea.
Amoral imbecile?
Dog – I see you following me on twitter weren’t you following me before?
I’m certain that I was, but then I went to look at something and I wasn’t anymore, so I re-followed. Twitter sometimes “unfollows” people on my behalf, without letting me know. It seems to be a bug that’s happening to a few of us lately.
Brendan O’Neill asks a good question:
Traditionally, racists and reactionaries demanded gun control in America. Why have Leftists now joined in?
BOOM!
He must read the Cat.