John Howard writing in the Fairfax press about one of his proudest moments.
EARLY in 2008 Janette and I were guests of the former president, George H. W. Bush or ”41”, as he is affectionately known, at his Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. I spoke to a warm and friendly audience of more than 300 who enthusiastically reacted until, in answer to a request to nominate the proudest actions of the Australian government I had led for almost 12 years, I included the national gun control laws enacted after the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996.
Having applauded my references to the liberation of East Timor, leaving Australia debt free, presiding over a large reduction in unemployment and standing beside the US in the global fight against terrorism, there was an audible gasp of amazement at my expressing pride in what Australia had done to limit the use of guns.
I wonder if he mentioned that after banning guns he went on to become Australia’s highest taxing and spending prime minister? He should have told them he introduced a national sales tax too. Those two pieces of information would ensure that his American audience never contemplate the kinds of gun control Howard imposed on Australia.
I am being a tad unfair – John Howard is only the highest taxing prime minister because the policies pursued by his successors have left the tax base so weakened by debt and deficit that it cannot generate the kinds of revenue that the government would like to spend. As it turns out the Australian GST was carefully drafted to avoid the kinds of problems consumption and sales taxes have experienced in other parts of the world. Yet our American friends know that a politician who disarms the public is up to no good.
John Howard knows that too.
The Second Amendment, crafted in the immediate post-revolutionary years, is more than 200 years old and was designed to protect the right of local communities to raise and maintain militia for use against external threats (including the newly formed national government!).
The American constitution is a revolutionary document – Americans have the right to wage war against the state and for that purpose need guns. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and we have no such right. Whether or not we should have that right is another issue.
I want to point to what Howard says next.
It bears no relationship at all to the circumstances of everyday life in America today. Yet there is a near religious fervour about protecting the right of Americans to have their guns – and plenty of them.
This is an extraordinary blind spot in a (former) politician who has (had?) a profound understanding of the broad mass of people and their views. Howard describes it as a ‘cultural divide’ on an attitude toward guns. To be fair almost every op-ed I’ve read over the past few days does the same thing.
It has not occurred to any Australian commentator – even Howard – that the kinds of gun control they advocate is a violation of the US constitution and the Americans won’t have a bar of it. The US is a country where people take their constitutional rights seriously – even politicians. By contrast Australian politicians, even Howard, view our constitution as some sort of impediment, an inconvenience to be navigated, and not a constraint on government behaviour. Now I’m not suggesting that US politicians don’t stretch their constitution to breaking point, as do ours, but I don’t think that an American politician can get away with expressing to the same contempt for their constitution as ours do.
John Howard is an old fashioned control freak who views the electors as “subjects” rather than “citizens”. There are, regrettably, too many like him in conservative circles. (But not libertarian circles – anyone who advocates gun control cannot consider themselves a libertarian.)
The remarkable thing is that Howard’s gun laws achieved nothing in terms of public safety, which was his purported objective. There have now been several studies confirming that. Yet he and his cheer squad continue to believe they were a major achievement.
I think I know what kind of achievements they support, and they are not the kind that libertarians would share.
Control freaks of the right are no less evil than control freaks of the left.
DavidLeyonhjelm
1 Aug 12 at 9:28 am
Because the majority of guns used to commit crimes are illegally imported weapons and very few are stolen for legitimate an licenced gun owners. The fallacy of the the Australian gun control approach is the ideal that you control criminals by regulating law-abiding citizens. Criminals will find ways to acquire weapons; and our borders are porous. If someone in Europe can post 150 illegal Glocks to Australia then I somehow doubt that ever tightening controls on licenced gun owners can ever stop criminal acquiring weapons.
Brett
1 Aug 12 at 9:34 am
This, this, this. A thousand times, this.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 9:38 am
All those readers of The Age must be spewing out their coffee to find they are agreeing with Howard.
Introducing a consumption tax base so that we can in future reduce our reliance on the even more evil income tax is a great reform, I don’t know what Sinc’s problem is on that one.
As critical of Howard as I have been in the past, most of his economic reforms make up for this gun control issue which I have to say I can’t feel passionate about. So say what you want about him but I’d take him over most US Republicans any day.
jtfsoon
1 Aug 12 at 9:49 am
I think I’m being verballed. Jason – I would probably support the abolition of income tax in return for an increase in the GST.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 9:52 am
This points to the culture war we should be having. Without a constitution held in reverence by our society and institutions we can’t expect limited government.
Howard’s only real redeeming feature was that he was a fiscal conservative and an anti-debt hawk. When the ALP finally found a leader in Rudd who was willing to publicly affirm a commitment to fiscal conservatism, who said stop this reckless spending, the public was happy enough to ditch Howard. We desperately need leaders who are genuine fiscal conservatives, however if that is all that we expect of our leaders then the bar is set pretty low.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 9:56 am
And yet for all this fetishisation of the US constitution, which is the nation that people would say is most likely quietly checking all of your emails, or prepared to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” in certain circumstances if they think you might be a terrorist?
Which nation spends the most wasted court hours on challenges as to whether a nativity scene in the public square is an affront and unconstitutional?
There is much to be said for being practical and flexible in your constitutional system, as we are in this nation.
steve from brisbane
1 Aug 12 at 9:58 am
Fine in principle but where has this ever happened?
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 9:58 am
Terje – yes, but it is more than just respecting the constitution. We have a tradition of freedom that goes back at least 1000 years. Howard is crapping on about a section of the US constitution being 200 years old and presumably not relevant anymore – so what does he think of the Magna Carta?
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 9:59 am
Look, whinge all you want but guns have never been widely available in Australia. There is no significant politician, Labor or Liberal, who favours even a tenth of the kind of gun law liberalisation supported by a Democrat in the US. Furthermore they are not in the constitution here. So all things considered, I am not going to refrain from supporting a particular politician here just because he is strongly in favour of gun control. It just isn’t an issue on which my vote will make a strategic difference either way.
jtfsoon
1 Aug 12 at 9:59 am
The US has had their share of stupid constitutional decisions, such as the Filburn case.
How can we resolve such decisions which clearly are not in the spirit of a limited, constitutional Government – without having Parliamentary supremacy which has left us with very few intrinsic rights in Australia?
.
1 Aug 12 at 10:00 am
Jason please refer to the 1950s and the low crime rates and death rates from guns back then.
We had a good economic outlook back then and the death penalty for murder. Guns were widespread, as were shell shocked soldiers.
No massacres.
In my lifetime you are correct.
I feel strongly about guns – but there are so many other ways we are getting shafted. The Finklestein thang and fining people for saying the carbon tax makes things more expensive – this crap belongs back with the Stuarts and Tudors.
.
1 Aug 12 at 10:06 am
Howard doesn’t think the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with everyday life in the US?
It has everything to do with the idea of recourse against tyranny. Why do you think Fast & Furious was launched?
Why do you think the media and politicians want to make the awful Batman theatre shooting about gun control?
The 2nd amendment is the ultimate reminder that in terms of tradition and on paper the sovereignty rests with the individual. With permissions to the government.
That’s the so-called negative liberty Obama so disdains in the Constitution. He prefers the liege lord system of government. And the 2nd Amendment sits out there as the ultimate reminder about the theshold even the king may not pass into without permission.
Howard sounds like Obama-”we accept no limitations on our jurisdiction.”
Phooey.
Robin
1 Aug 12 at 10:09 am
You don’t have to feel passionate about the gun issue, Jason. Look at it from a utilitarian perspective. The buyback cost a billion dollars. We are saddled with expensive firearms registries in each state. Gun owners are treated like criminals in waiting. Nobody is allowed to have a weapon for self defence.
And not a single beneficial outcome, just touchie feelie nonsense.
DavidLeyonhjelm
1 Aug 12 at 10:09 am
So, most diehard supporters of guns, any comment?
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 10:13 am
What a surprise – John Howard selectively citing “research” that agrees with his extreme anti-gun views, and conveniently overlooking the large number of studies that show his billion dollar gun bans had no impact on public health and safety.
BP
1 Aug 12 at 10:14 am
These are also a beautiful set of numbers.
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 10:14 am
The Americans have chosen freedom over tyranny. The probability of being shot is lower than the probability of being taxed or oppressed by government in a gun-free society.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 10:15 am
So you concede that America’s lax firearms laws are a major part of the explanation for the disparity in murder rates, Sinclair, since you didn’t provide a counter argument to that stat.
(Yes, I’m verballing you.)
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 10:19 am
Howard is lying.
.
1 Aug 12 at 10:20 am
Quoting here an interesting comment from Bunyipitude. Maybe it was one of you?
With apologies to The Expat:
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Ooh Honey Honey
1 Aug 12 at 10:20 am
m0nty – Brazil, Switzerland.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 10:22 am
Former American Presidents don’t go around trash-talking Australia’s gun laws or her Constitution, and I don’t imagine it’d go over too well if they did.
Just sayin’.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:28 am
Howard was always a second rate animated corpse who only got their because Peacock was so easily mocked and had the piss taken out of him.
.
1 Aug 12 at 10:29 am
Umm, we are lucky not to have so many African Americans who would otherwise skew our murder rates to American levels? What else could you mean?
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 10:29 am
70 shootings in Sydney this year.
Gab
1 Aug 12 at 10:32 am
Yes, but that is because of the different cultures. Americans needed guns so they could drive the Indians off their lands and keep the lands for themselves- also, these lands had heaps of wild animals that thought of humans as food! (Bears, Cougars, wolves, alligators.) Australia only has dingos in the outback, and crocodiles up north. Perhaps, if we want more people to bear arms, we should release some foreign wild animals into our cities, or breed nastier versions of existing ones (Giant goannas, anyone?)
I read in the book “The probability broach”, that Switzerland has a high incidence of gun ownership (because of National Service), but when did anyone hear of a swiss person going postal? Culture, again?
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 10:32 am
Yes, but that is because of the different cultures. Americans needed guns so they could drive the Indians off their lands and keep the lands for themselves- also, these lands had heaps of wild animals that thought of humans as food! (Bears, Cougars, wolves, alligators.) Australia only has dingos in the outback, and crocodiles up north. Perhaps, if we want more people to bear arms, we should release some foreign wild animals into our cities, or breed nastier versions of existing ones (Giant goannas, anyone?)
I read in the book “The probability broach”, that Switzerland has a high incidence of gun ownership (because of National Service), but when did anyone hear of a swiss person going postal? Culture, again?
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 10:33 am
Going by the equipment US police are now using, it’s obvious they’re becoming para-militarised. There are going to be several factors driving this change, but it’s not out of the realms of possibility that one cause is that they have an arms race problem with civilians.
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 10:36 am
He knows that, IT. Statistically, if you are a white Caucasian you are no more likely to be murdered in America than in Australia. You are, however, more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Australia than in America. The sexual assault rate in particular is much higher in Oz.
We’ve been through all this before, all the facts and figures have been laid out, all the points have been made, but the m0ntys and Steves of the world just put their fingers in their ears and go NANANANANAICAN’THEARYOUNANANANANA.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:36 am
Hey remember when mOnty was accusing us of being LNP stooges who would die in a ditch for them?
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 10:38 am
Looks like my intuition was correct:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 10:38 am
Armed policemen are 11 times more likely to shoot an innocent person than an innocent person with a legal weapon is.
Law-abiding citizens with legally-registered guns are not the problem here.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:39 am
Guns are a good defence against vicious animals. They would have been useful against that vicious animal who recently killed a dozen people at the cinema. Some vicious animals walk on two legs.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 10:39 am
Did you see the Fed Police on TV next to the drug haul they busted? They looked like SAS in blue cammo.
We have the same problem.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 10:39 am
Drug laws Jarrah.
If you, C.L and I agree that something is wicked and odious, then it probably is.
.
1 Aug 12 at 10:40 am
if we want more people to have the right to bear arms
Hope you don’t mind the edit, Nuke.
Gab
1 Aug 12 at 10:40 am
“The right to bear arms” seems a deep part of the American psyche. it’s not in ours.
Mr Howard is right about the cultural divide.
It’s not the end of the world that he said that, you know, it’s very perceptive, and Mr Howard is still our greatest PM to date.
(apart from the Work Choices thing – he got that one wrong).
candy
1 Aug 12 at 10:41 am
m0nty – I’m not providing a counter-argument (is there one?) I’m explaining the choice Americans have made.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 10:41 am
All Liberal party leaders tend to the soft-left. They fight against soft-left media while in office, but once out, they run into the arms of the ABC looking for a warm embrace and reconciliation. Howard will be no different over the coming years. He will become critical of Abbott in his years as PM, because it’s easy to drive the interview couch and make sniping remarks. Keating has it down to a fine art.
For all his fiscal achievements, his inability to explain workchoices and fight the union machine was a terrible way to end his legacy. He just got tired of fighting the good fight and gave up.
As for Americans and gun control – it’s impossible to compare apples with apples when it comes to gun violence from statistics. For a start there are variations in national reporting, for a second, gun violence happens even if nobody gets shot. Having a gun stuck in your face and your vehicle taken is gun violence, but it doesn’t show up because nobody took a bullet.
Americans in aggregate are a much more violent people than Australians are. Mexicans are different again, as are Swiss, Japanese and Tongans.
The simple fact is, their constitution says you can carry guns around. Until the constitution is changed, that’s the way it is.
I don’t have a gun and don’t want a gun. But I’m not about to lecture American citizens on whether they should or not, because it’s none of my damn business.
brc
1 Aug 12 at 10:42 am
and the ban on lightbulbs, and health warning labels, and the super surcharge levy, and the increased spending, and the MRET, and the invasion of East Timor, and …
Feel free to add to that list
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 10:44 am
History will be less and less kind to him.
He paved the way for the nanny state and set us on the course to a ruinous European style future where men wear loafers, kiss each other hello and retire at 45 after completing 5 useless university degrees.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 10:44 am
You know who’s got a bigger body count than the Aurora shooter? The illegals Obama has refused to deport.
Law-abiding citizens with legally-registered guns are not the problem here.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:45 am
“Feel free to add to that list”
Very easy to look back restrospectively, but Work Choices was a dog and everyone knew it except him.
candy
1 Aug 12 at 10:50 am
Apart from politically, was it really?
If so then how exactly?
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 10:53 am
Politically and perception-wise, it was.
In reality, it should say something that the state with the highest percentage of workers with actual personal working knowledge of WorkChoices was not just the only state to vote Liberal in ’07 but actually increased the number of LNP seats.
But since “politically and perception-wise” is what really matters, yes it was a dog.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:57 am
Baby bonus.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 11:01 am
Yes and the Family Benefit payments.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 11:03 am
I hope the Libs never forget the non support from business.
Helen Ridout is scum.
You can understand Abbott’s point that until the case for reform is well made outside of the Liberal Party he isn’t gonna radically reform it.
Serve then right.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 11:04 am
I actually think the baby bonus was one the least egregious of the Coalitions middle class welfare bs.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 11:05 am
I look forward to you attacking current LNP MPs on this issue. Particularly since they share the same views as Howard. In fact, they share most views with Howard.
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 11:07 am
It’s funny that virtually every comment on that article that supports Howard’s position begins with, “I normally disagree with Howard, but…”
Fleeced
1 Aug 12 at 11:07 am
Baby bonus was popular like most of Mr Howard’s policies. Things were bubbling along nicely. But after 11 years and his Work Choices, there was like a “sea change” towards Labor and most particulalry k. Rudd as the new face, i know that’s an intangible thing but there it is.
But Work Choices killed it for Mr Howard really.
(thankfully we’re heading back towards the conservatives again)
candy
1 Aug 12 at 11:11 am
If you think we’ve been hard on the mouth breathing chromosome challenged scum who make up the left in this shitty country, wait until you see what we do to people who pretend to be of the right.
It’s going to beautiful in its viciousness. If I don’t get a tap on the shoulder from the Feds I’ll be annoyed a myself.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 11:16 am
I always say Howard was Australia’s second greatest PM……which is further proof of the woeful quality of Australian PMs and politicians in general.
I could imagine him becoming the PM of the UK, which is more than say KRudd or Gillard, but I couldn’t imagine any of them coming close to being POTUS. Australia never gets politicians with the convictions of Reagan (or Thatcher), the statesmanly aura of Obama or the charisma of Clinton (don’t even consider talking to me about Bob Hawke).
John Mc
1 Aug 12 at 11:17 am
Immunisation bonus which was never even means tested. Has at least been removed in the last budget and replaced with a stick instead.
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 11:18 am
The Right to Bear Arms is a Common Law right which goes back centuries into English history. Henry VIII passed a law where fathers had to train their first born son to use a bow and arrow or you were fined one months wages. It was written into the English Bill of Rights.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
“That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”
The British Army still needs parliamentary legislation every 5 years or so to exist and so is under civilian control. However the Right to Bear Arms has been gradually legislated away by the British Parliament. It has also been legislated away here but I think if you want a gun you can get one. Since you now need a license to drive a car it makes sense you need a license to own a gun.
Neil
1 Aug 12 at 11:18 am
Do we know the views of Tony Abbott on guns and a right to self-defence?
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 11:19 am
But Work Choices killed it for Mr Howard really.
He fumbled the ball but really it was a brilliant intercept by the unions and the pro-commie Hawker-Britten advertising agency that brought it home for KRudd.
John Mc
1 Aug 12 at 11:19 am
Do we know the views of Tony Abbott on guns and a right to self-defence?
I can guess. He has already said individuals only exist in the context of wider society.
John Mc
1 Aug 12 at 11:21 am
S’ok.
The firearms used were all registered and kept in safes before the shootings.
————————————————-
One thing I find interesting and amusing is that lefties absolutely support the escalation of firearms fetishisation in our police ‘services’ but wet their beds about old Bob the farmer having a 4-10 in the cupboard.
C.L.
1 Aug 12 at 11:26 am
“lefties absolutely support the escalation of firearms fetishisation in our police ‘services’”
They do? You must hang out with some strange ‘lefties’.
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 11:37 am
Lad, you dummy. Disarming Bob the farmer is an essential pre-requisite for the necessary massacre of civilians years down the track to fortify the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communists have a proud history of never letting the public get in the way of a bloodthirsty counter-revolution.
Tom
1 Aug 12 at 11:41 am
You’ll be sure to hear the libertarian-leaners here in full grumble-mode when the LNP gain power and serve up their slightly lower-fat socialism/nanny state.
Once you’re over the cliff, the speed with which you reached the precipice seems less significant.
Ellen of Tasmania
1 Aug 12 at 11:44 am
Once you’re over the cliff, the speed with which you reached the precipice seems less significant
Definitely the case in Europe. The only question about the ‘crunch’ is which generation is going to wear it.
We’re close to the edge but I don’t think we’re falling. Although all momentum seems to be carrying us closer to the edge.
John Mc
1 Aug 12 at 11:46 am
Yes good point Tom. If the left have no problem whatsoever electing Soviet money bags, Lee Rhiannon and subsequently, the Liars Party forming a coalition with the Greens, you really need to worry about what they’re up to.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 11:47 am
When will people wake up and realise Howard was not a conservative; he was a lefty. Think abou it…
*State funded family support;
*State funded baby bonuses;
*Cash payouts;
*Socialisation of the property market (false boom);
*Gun control;
*Nanny state legislation
*Oh my, how the list goes on and on.
Sum = Lefty.
Lysander Spooner
1 Aug 12 at 11:53 am
On that, I’d have to agree.
At least he was an ok administrator and not a fiscal deadbeat.
The ALP cannot even get that right. They don’t deserve to be in office, let alone run the HR department of the Sydney City RSL.
.
1 Aug 12 at 12:05 pm
Sinc, have you read Andrew Leigh’s paper “Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data”?
If so, do you think his conclusion, that a firearms reduction equivalent to Australia’s 1997 buyback would avert 200 gun deaths a year in a population the size of Australia’s, assuming no method substitution, can be drawn from his results?
(Of course, this was reported as Howard’s gun laws save 200 lives a year!)
His figures (Fig. 1) for firearm and non-firearm suicide and homicide don’t exactly paint a compelling picture that the NFA had any effect.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 12:13 pm
Come to think of it, at one time in the far past, the Liberals were big supporters of state rights. Then ‘Honest’ John became Prime Minister, AND the States were Labor strongholds, so States’ Rights were a non-core issue, suddenly.
Howard is not a lefty, but a right-wing Populist. This means that power is centralised under right-wing popular slogans (less taxes, small business rights), leaving the left with all the mass-number issues (workers and union rights, more taxes for social justice)- BUT power still flows uphill to Canberra, to compensate for the laws flowing down from the mountain.
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 12:17 pm
Come to think of it, at one time in the far past, the Liberals were big supporters of state rights. Then ‘Honest’ John became Prime Minister, AND the States were Labor strongholds, so States’ Rights were a non-core issue, suddenly.
Howard is not a lefty, but a right-wing Populist. This means that power is centralised under right-wing popular slogans (less taxes, small business rights), leaving the left with all the mass-number issues (workers and union rights, more taxes for social justice)- BUT power still flows uphill to Canberra, to compensate for the laws flowing down from the mountain.
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 12:17 pm
I was correct:
Howard is lying.
.
1 Aug 12 at 12:18 pm
I have read Andrew’s paper and we discussed it at the time but I can’t recall the detail. I’d have to have another look.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 12:21 pm
“Sum = Lefty.”
Suppose J.Howard could be sent that survey at the other thread they’re talking about, to fill out about being a “lefty”, but i don’t think he’ll meet the criteria!
perhaps he would be quite bemused to be thought of the “left”.
candy
1 Aug 12 at 12:33 pm
that a firearms reduction equivalent to Australia’s 1997 buyback would avert 200 gun deaths a year in a population the size of Australia’s, assuming no method substitution, can be drawn from his results?
As far as I can recall, Australia has never had anything near 200 gun deaths in any given year ever, including the year with Port Aurthur.
John Mc
1 Aug 12 at 12:40 pm
Gab, good point! We should be trying to insert this as an unbreakable right into the constitution, along with other basic rights! We should aim to do better than America, with it’s Kelso decision (the resumption of private land for the public purpose of raising more taxes from the new business on that land). Hey what happened to that protestor outside Canberra? The farmer? At one time, all over the news, now, nothing! Did I miss the happily-ever-after resolution?
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 12:51 pm
Gab, good point! We should be trying to insert this as an unbreakable right into the constitution, along with other basic rights! We should aim to do better than America, with it’s Kelso decision (the resumption of private land for the public purpose of raising more taxes from the new business on that land). Hey what happened to that protestor outside Canberra? The farmer? At one time, all over the news, now, nothing! Did I miss the happily-ever-after resolution?
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 12:51 pm
It depends. If you want it for self defence and nothing else then you are not allowed to get a firearm. At least not in NSW.
In terms of licensing there is a distinction to licensing the user versus licensing the implement. Licensing the actual firearms (Howards gun registry) as opposed to a licensing system for shooters (which is long standing) are quite different things. There are no demonstrated benefits to the former. The latter has never really been controversial.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 1:00 pm
Eddystone – there is no good reason to assume zero method substitution.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 1:02 pm
What does a kid killing innocent people in a movie theatre have to do with ‘A well regulated militia’?
Constitutions are capable of amendment by referendum and of re-interpretation in the light of changing circumstances.
Peter OBrien
1 Aug 12 at 1:09 pm
Americans complain that they need guns to protect themselves but make damn sure the government is deprived of any means to minimise risks of guns falling into the wrong hands. Non-licensed gun sellers are not required to do background checks and their sales amount to 40 percent of the market.
They promote the general line that since the world cannot be me made completely safe from nutters why bother even trying to minimising risks where that is possible.
There is not much difference in attitude between many Americans and Afghan warlords in their belief they have the right to be armed to the teeth (including access to rocket launchers!)as a potential militia in waiting without let or hindrance from even minimal pesky monitoring from government.
This purely anarchic tendency is quite frankly scary and belongs in a time warp. They actually believe in the fantasy of riding to the rescue of the republic guns blazing. The fact that this sort of thinking has support here is surprising to say the least.
Viva
1 Aug 12 at 1:56 pm
So tell us, Viva, how many people were killed by their own governments in the 20th Century?
I agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of psychopaths – governments should be disarmed immediately.
Eyrie
1 Aug 12 at 2:07 pm
Monty, I take you to task on the beautiful set of numbers…
The number of murders has stayed relatively flat from 1993 – 2003, and in fact has been decreasing since 1990 from 2003 to 2007 the murder rate decreased further.
Where as the number of firearm related murders started to drop off in the 1980s, and has continued to drop, and that was well before the firearm buyback.
That is based on the stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology I would say the your beautiful set of numbers has nothing to do with guns being taken off law abiding citizens.
It is not surprising to see that at about the time of the gun buyback, there was a drop off in gun related murders, almost directly offset by knife or sharp object related murders.
So I call Bullshit on the number of homicides reducing due to the gun buy back and if you care to argue further take it up with the AIC
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 2:28 pm
TerjeP, I take it you have read the paper?
I’m not a statistician, but it seemed to me the paper was a long winded way of suggesting that if there was a decreased availability of guns, fewer people would commit suicide with guns.
Well thanks, Captain Obvious!
It was reported in the media as 200 lives saved annually by Howard’s gun laws.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 2:29 pm
Tell us under what circumstances you would change the 1st amendment to ban free speech.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 2:30 pm
As Eyrie shows, it’s not necessary to be paranoid to love guns, but it sure helps.
steve from brisbane
1 Aug 12 at 2:30 pm
Peter OBrien – yes, those who propose gun control in the US should do so in the context of a constitutional amendment.
I’m not a big fan of reinterpretation – I see that as violation of a deal. I went off Richard Posner after reading his Bork and Beethoven paper on this issue.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Aug 12 at 2:32 pm
So, 9mm or 38 super?
cohenite
1 Aug 12 at 2:34 pm
Old Fridgie, the trouble is that the raw data doesn’t show the desired result, so it has to be subjected to some exotic statistical massage to achieve the desired happy ending.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 2:35 pm
Further to the gun buy back, can I confirm from MY OWN personal experience that ALL of the firearm owners I know (living in a rural area – that was considerable ~ 30 odd firearm owners) who had to surrender an “illegal” firearm, purchased one or more to replace eacj of those surrendered.
Almost every firearm was purchased at a rate well above the going second hand value, this made it even easier and more affordable to replace the surrendered firearms.
The gun buy back was a total waste of money and did squat to reduce the number of firearms held by law abiding citizens and did absolutely fuck all about getting guns of crook and miscreants.
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 2:39 pm
You are quite clearly a communist and should be beaten, tied in a hessian sack and tossed into the Potomac River.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 2:40 pm
I’d prefer 40S&W, but it compromises public safety too much to punch holes in cardboard with 10mm projectiles compared to 9mm.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 2:42 pm
SfB take note..
A good ol’ boy once said – “just cause you ain’t paranoid, don’t mean they ain’t out to get ya”
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 2:44 pm
For those who don’t know, one of the government responses to the Monash shooting was to ban semi-auto pistols with a bore of 10mm or more.
9mm is still ok.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 2:46 pm
No, just a clueless numpty whose only firearms knowledge comes from Hollywood and video games.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 2:50 pm
Nothing reveals the fault lines in American society so much as their regular, almost routine, firearm massacres. These tragedies occur over and over again, and the responses are entirely predictable.
The president (and before an election) the opposing presidential candidate, make statements condemning the brutality and express sympathy for the victims.
The NRA usually issues a statement, but reaffirm their stance that everyone (including the 5% of the population certifiable or close to it) has the right to bear arms.
Then everyone carries on as if nothing has happened, and we wait for the inevitability of the next tragedy.
It’s a strange blend of collective denial and pure lunacy that is central to what is fondly called the American dream. There are scores of families in Colorado at the moment living something else. They would probably call it the American nightmare.
The sad fact that a significant proportion of Americans live in a fantasy land in which they pine nostalgically for the violence of the frontier wars is quite remarkable. The fact that US legislators (with a few exceptions like Bloomberg) lack the courage to change this deplorable state of affairs is beyond sad.
1735099
1 Aug 12 at 3:12 pm
It should be noted that the English took the Right to Bear Arms to North America and Australia. One of the best articles I have seen is this one.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
“History: Second Amendment Right to “Keep and Bear Arms”
The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A.D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty. 1 This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the “fyrd”.”
Since Britain does not have a written Constitution, Parliament has the power to legislate away this right. When firearms became more powerful British Parliament took away this right. They were especially worried about troops coming home from WW1 with modern weapons and late one night they legislated away most of this right. With revolution in Russia, Parliament was worried about what their own civilians might do with modern weapons.
Neil
1 Aug 12 at 3:13 pm
Eddystone – I have not read the paper for a while but I did read it, and discussed it extensively, when it was first published.
Statistics is an important part of the policy discussion. Andrew didn’t make a persuasive case based on statistics and the correct conclusion would have been that the data is hard to interprete and is inconclusive. It certainly does not make the case for the Howard era gun controls.
As for suicides it is hard to make the case that a semi automatic weapon is more effective when it comes to suicide than a manual load firearm. If the first bullet doesn’t kill you it is unlikely that you will have the capacity to take advantage of the automatic reload feature on a semi automatic. I think it is quite spurious to claim that shifting from semi automatic firearms to manual firearms could have a causal impact on suicide.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm
Another astonishing and amusing thing about lefties and guns in the US is that despite their ostentatious concern about shooting deaths, they’re perfectly comfortable and cool with Planned Parenthood slaughtering tens of thousands of babies a year pursuant to the supposed ‘right’ to do so.
So we know with certainty that these critics are not morally serious people.
C.L.
1 Aug 12 at 3:18 pm
Based purely on population we would expect the USA to have 14 times as many such incidents as Australia.
A quick unscientific eyeball of the following two lists suggests that this ratio is close to the reality:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_Australia
Although obviously a proper comparison would look over equivalent time periods and adjust for changes in population over time.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:22 pm
Thanks Terje.
It seems that the effects of the gun laws are only visible statistically, as the raw data appears to show no benefit.
Of course, the potential benefits of freely available firearms never figures in the discussion. The thing not seen.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 3:25 pm
Bloomberg is not a legislator.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 3:29 pm
I dunno who 1735099 but whoever he is he’s clearly a tosser.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 3:34 pm
If you torture numbers long enough they can usually be forced to admit anything you want. In this instance you need to torture them a long time.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:37 pm
JamesK – stop changing the topic.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:38 pm
Get off your soap box Terje. This isn’t your site. Stop telling people what to do.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 3:39 pm
Infidel Tiger, you seem to be implying that constitutional amendment is a slippery slope. I would not change the first amendment to ban free speech, because I am in favour of free speech. I’m not in favour of private citizens using semi-automatic military weapons to kill innocent people. If the Constitution was capable of amendment to accommodate the right to bear arms in support of a ‘well regulated militia’, surely that provision is capable of further amendment to address unintended consequences.
Peter OBrien
1 Aug 12 at 3:47 pm
Get off your soap box JC. This isn’t your site. Stop telling people what to do.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:47 pm
Well it was just airily delivered opinion without an iota of evidence, TerjeP.
I think your doing well on this thread.
Don’t let your emotionalism get the better of you just as you’ve been making some sense.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 3:49 pm
Is it possible to have any thread where CL doesn’t bring up abortion?
SteveC
1 Aug 12 at 3:51 pm
Fuck off Terje. Don’t try and turn it around to me. I’m telling you to stop, you passive aggressive moron.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 3:51 pm
JC – I’ve already turned it around. You don’t own this blog. You don’t own me. I am not beholden to you. So whine all you want but I’ll speak my mind. If you don’t like it then tough. Now stop derailing the topic at hand with pointless blather.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:55 pm
Who is in favour of this?
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 3:56 pm
JamesK – Perhaps you missed my point but I was appealing to you to keep pointless emotionalism out of the discussion. 1735099 is not the topic. Rather than make 1735099 the topic why not just agree, refute or ignore? (p.s that is a rehtorical question).
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 3:59 pm
You’re off topic again TerjeP.
Settle down Petal.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 4:00 pm
How about guilty people?
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 4:02 pm
No, you tried to turn it around terje, you bolivating nincompoop. The site is a free flowing one. No one really has a problem with what James has said, only you.
As for derailing the thread, you did that with your stormfeherer comment directed at James. He made a relevant comment on that idiot’s moralizing and sermon.
If I did you would have been sold ages ago to the lowest bidder. Trust me on that one.
Now stop wrecking the thread with your stupid babbling.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 4:04 pm
Howard led a baying lynch mob against the innocent. The ritual public contempt, the sexualised terms of abuse, the little details of the contempt written into law -it was utterly personal.
Looking at how wrong that lynch mob, the chattering class in general, have turned out to be on, well, just about everything, should set alarm bells ringing about the one action of Howard they supported.
The claims of benefits in lives saved are based on conflating suicides with murders under ‘gun deaths’. Root causes? Not examined. Substitution of method? Assumed to not exist on very dodgy grounds.
Its time to re-examine the role of media reporting and activism in teaching and rewarding massacres.
ChrisPer
1 Aug 12 at 4:05 pm
Since were talking about serious weapons firepower in the wrong hands: what about Eric Holder?
Congressional report blames five ATF employees for Fast and Furious debacle
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 4:08 pm
No I would have noticed if he did that. Now shut up.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 4:09 pm
He did, that’s quite true. However the other side of that is what Sinclair suggested earlier. We don’t have constitutional protections, so we see governments knee jerk like Howard did and then like this present one act out with more malicious intentions of snuffing out political free speech through the Finkelstein laws.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 4:11 pm
You? You would have noticed? lol Stop the bolivating crap.
Fuck off Terje. Stop trying to tell people what they can and can’t say.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 4:13 pm
JC – how about we move on. There will be plenty of time for trading insults another day.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 4:20 pm
You should apologize as it’s the right thing to do.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 4:22 pm
Sorry JamesK. I should have said please.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 4:25 pm
“why not just agree, refute or ignore?”
I’m getting flashbacks to DOS.
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 4:29 pm
I’m very disappointed in your thread-derailing emotionalism, TerjeP.
You’ve let yourself down yet again.
Now apologise to yourself.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 4:29 pm
Because gun massacres only occur in the US.
The top five worst gun massacres by an individual. Only one of which was in the US.
Eddystone
1 Aug 12 at 4:40 pm
What is it with April and madmen?
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 4:48 pm
I found some interesting insight here…….. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-guns/?scp=2&sq=gun%20debate&st=Search
The 2 reports mentioned were also revealing and insightful.
Xevram
1 Aug 12 at 4:49 pm
I think we could do with some group-hug time!
Q. How many libertarians does it take to change a light-bulb?
A. One libertarian can light up a whole room with witty and intelligent sayings! Who needs lightbulbs anyway?
Nuke Gray
1 Aug 12 at 5:08 pm
Can TerjeP and JC please settle their disputes in the octagon? A lot of us would pay to see that particular UFC match
jtfsoon
1 Aug 12 at 5:11 pm
How much prize money are you offering Jason? I mean you can’t seriously expect JC and me to just put on a fight for nothing.
TerjeP
1 Aug 12 at 5:19 pm
Let’s crowdsource some contributions from Catallaxy readers and see what we get
jtfsoon
1 Aug 12 at 5:20 pm
Xevram-the-mutt “found some interesting insight” in a New York Times blog.
Like…wow.
Wow
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 5:22 pm
I’d prefer to see JC and Jarrah go at it. It’s always fun when former pals become mortal enemies.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 5:24 pm
“The top five worst gun massacres by an individual. Only one of which was in the US.”
Wrong metric if you’re trying to refute “regular, almost routine”. Most per capita would be the statistic to look at. A quick googling isn’t helping me, does anyone know?
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 5:26 pm
If the US has only 1 of the top 5, then any per capita statistic is meaningless Jarrah.
On the positive side your ignorance of statistics as well as your general stupidity is a cause for much mirth if not head-shaking disbelief
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 5:35 pm
“If the US has only 1 of the top 5, then any per capita statistic is meaningless Jarrah.”
No, it’s the only meaningful statistic if we’re talking about 1735099′s claim:
“your general stupidity”
The pattern holds true! Whenever you’re wrong, you call someone stupid. It’s an amazing correlation.
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 5:43 pm
The second graph you linked was percentages only, Old Fridgie. What Howard was saying is that the amount of gun homicides went down but there was not a jump in the number of non-gun homicides. The amount of non-gun homicides stayed roughly the same but they represented a larger percentage of the lower overall number.
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 5:46 pm
No it’s not a meaningful statistic if your talking the worst top 5 because only 1 was in America.
The per capita statistic can only be meaningless.
If you want to defined a killing spree as say 3 or more ramdom killings by an individual near simultaneously and have that as the definition then perhaps a per capita statistic could be applied.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 5:48 pm
One of Jarrah’s trademarks is to double down on stupidity when challenged.
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 5:50 pm
“if your talking the worst top 5 ”
Exactly. We’re not. We’re talking about 1735099′s claim about “regular, almost routine”. Not about which individual cases killed the most people, which has nothing to do with the regularity of gun massacres.
“One of Jarrah’s trademarks is to double down on stupidity when challenged.”
And again the pattern holds true. It’s quite amazing.
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 5:53 pm
A spree killer is someone who embarks on a murderous assault on two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations.
So that definition would exclude many random mass killers
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 5:53 pm
Comprehension not a strong point is it…
From the link I provided and written in plain text from the AIC…
There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims.
I couldn’t give a fuck what Howard was saying, I was referring to your comment, and I stand by what I said, gun murder went down, knife and sharp object went up. Please hurry up with the next rebuttal, i hope it’s better than the last…
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 5:54 pm
“Let’s crowdsource some contributions from Catallaxy readers and see what we get”
if they wear some cute silky little shorts it could be interesting.
candy
1 Aug 12 at 6:00 pm
This is a partial list of mass murders and spree killings perpetrated by individuals. It is further divided into several subsections.
This list shall contain every case with at least one of the following features:
Mass murder cases with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
Mass murder cases with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
Mass murders by intention with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)
(The definition of mass murder applied here is: murder of four or more persons within a rather short period.)
Number of incidents listed
Africa/Middle East 75
Americas 116
Asia 121
Europe 99
Oceania/Maritime Southeast Asia 139
Workplace 91
Educational settings 61
Hate crimes 26
Home Intruders 76
Familicides US 110
Familicides EU 103
Familicides RoW 131
Vehicular 31
Grenade 28
Other 34
Total 1241
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 6:08 pm
I’m ready. I just need time to order my evander holyfield silks.
James , you could be the fight doctor, right?
Jc
1 Aug 12 at 6:36 pm
Don’t have the fight anywhere that JC’s allergies play up. He’s delicate that way.
steve from brisbane
1 Aug 12 at 6:37 pm
So in reality the US isn’t really a huge stand out. It’s on the high side but not overwhelming.
Jc
1 Aug 12 at 6:37 pm
As percentages, per the graph you linked, Fridgie. That doesn’t mean the raw amount of knife murders went up, as the overall murder rate is down. Maths is not your strong point, is it?
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 6:39 pm
Stepford.
I’m allergic to the country side.
In any event don’t you have dishes to wash. I hope your husband slaps you off the computer.
Jc
1 Aug 12 at 6:40 pm
Thanks, JamesK. It looks like a ready-made list doesn’t exist, we’d have to collate stats from various sources. That list of mass murders and spree killings would have to be disaggregated by country, then added to school massacres and workplace killings, and then we’d have to calculate per capita. I’m way too lazy to do that
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 6:42 pm
I’ll take this as a concession of defeat.
The answer is no – when lefties are ostentatiously pretending to care about body counts owing to putatively weird interpretations of the US constitution.
We should also mention the 1000 people killed by the Rudd/Gillard government.
The Australian left has been totally cool with that.
C.L.
1 Aug 12 at 6:48 pm
Assigning the abilty of people to Protect their family, community, country to others is the first step in removing the people independance.
It’s the first step towards the population being dependant on the State for their welfare.
If you can’t protect your family, values and ideals and rely on someone else to do it for you? you must compromise your family, values and ideals as a trade for others to take that risk for you.
Simple really.
Don’t give up your guns Yanks!!
Your the last hope of free and independant people all over the western world.
I read a bumper sticker… I have my gun, I can trust you! In other words, you not going to bugger around with me while I have the ability to fight back.
Again, Simple!
When the Yanks losse their ability to fight back, the West is truly toast.
Nick
1 Aug 12 at 7:05 pm
As long as there an endo-tracheal tube and ventilation equipment handy.
There’ll be no mouth to mouth resuscitation
JamesK
1 Aug 12 at 7:27 pm
As the AIC stated – There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims.
Well yes it does fuckwit –
~ 260 murders in 2007 about half were knife/sharp object makes 130 knife/sharp object murders
~300 murders in 1993 at about 30% knife/sharp object makes 100 knife/sharp object murders.
What part of the above can’t you understand you fucking moron. knife and sharp object murders went up, overall murder rate went down and gun murder continued the trend down that started in the late seventies early eighties.
Maths isn’t your strong point is it Monty you maroon.
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 7:32 pm
You are cherry picking and straight out lying. The percentage graph is done on financial years, whereas the raw numbers are on calendar years. 1992/93 was about 30% but 1193/94 was about 40%. Average that out as you should, and it’s 35% of 300, which is 105. The percentage for 2007/08 is an outlier, and thus should not really be used for comparison. Nevertheless, again, average out 2006/07 at 35% and 07/08 at 45% (where did you pluck 50% from?) and you get 40%. 40% of 260 is 104.
105 down to 104, even using your outlier figure. Under the most basic of statistical analyses, your point collapses like a house of cards.
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 7:46 pm
That’s not statistics monty. That’s conjecture.
.
1 Aug 12 at 8:02 pm
Hi Steve,
Get your cute little silky shorts out too, just in case one of the fighting duo flake out, okay? just for me.
candy
1 Aug 12 at 8:02 pm
ShitferBrains, the number is in excess of 90 million. Some historian did a research project. I’ll let you find it on the net.
Eyrie
1 Aug 12 at 8:07 pm
Monster, why are you even attempting to have a discussion on stats when even by your own admission, you’ve never been good at the numbers stuff?
Not only that, but I now see you admonishing someone’s analysis.
Be aware that somewhere in the universe a little baby died as a result of you trying to do stats analysis.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 8:16 pm
What are you all tearing your hair out for – the answer is in that linked top 5 list:
It just does not happen very often. There you go.
Incidentally, while we’re drawing spurious facts from statistics, the top 3 on that list all happened in countries with advanced welfare systems. Top 4 if you consider the USA to have an advanced welfare system.
There you go : welfare states produce mass murderers. It’s right there in the statistics! It’s the best curve fit – there can be no other explanation.
brc
1 Aug 12 at 8:28 pm
Fridgie took that conjecture and twisted it into a lie.
m0nty
1 Aug 12 at 8:45 pm
Digits has walked up to the Catallaxy tent, pissed in, and walked away.
Some of you don’t get it do you?
Winston Smith
1 Aug 12 at 9:06 pm
Its not really that it doesn’t happen very often, but that the background rate of gun homicides (and homicides in general) is pretty high. On any day around 20-30 people are murdered with a firearm in the US. So in the context 12 people murdered is not that exceptional. It only makes the news because it was so many people at once and the batman/joker link, plus a child dying made it more “newsworthy”.
Even technical “mass killings” of say 4 or 5 people aren’t necessarily widely reported outside of the US because they’re just not that unusual anymore. I think the US population are just getting used to them as part of life. A few days of mourning, a bit of outrage and then everyone gets on with life, but no real effort into avoiding them in the future. Perhaps not even a belief that they can be avoided.
I think they’ve become a great example to other countries of what to avoid.
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 9:08 pm
You know Monty I was looking at it ALL wrong, silly me, so let me go at it from another angle.
As you quoted
So I went to the ABS and got some numbers from them…
I did not cherry pick just got the earliest and latest numbers available and used them – nothing sinister there Monty.
In the calendar year 1993 there were 290 murders.
59 by firearm 18%
124 by other weapon – including knife 43%.
90 no weapon used 31%.
17 weapon not specified 8%
In the calendar year 2011 there were 240 murders.
40 by firearm 17%
112 by other weapon – including knife 47%
63 no weapon 26%
25 not specified 10%
Therefore I could conclude that looking at 1993 and 2011 in isolation there has been no change in the firearm related murder rate and only a marginal change upwards in the other weapon rate, offset by a marginal drop in those murders where no weapon was used.
I could conclude further that given those numbers, the money spent on the buy back was wasted and those who claimed the gun by back as a success are plainly wrong.
Sorry for arguing the wrong point before Monty, I am glad you put me on the right track.
As I said before I call bullshit on the stats that I highlighted above from your quote.
Now feel free to go again.
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 9:18 pm
Yes, drug prohibition.
They’ll be like Mexico one day.
.
1 Aug 12 at 9:24 pm
Fridgie what the stats prove is we need a knife buyback, stat.
brc
1 Aug 12 at 9:26 pm
The great thing about this debate is that irrelevant now.
It’s entirely possible for the average citizen to manufacture weapons in his home now.
The government can make whatever laws they want, but they will be impossible to enforce.
Yobbo
1 Aug 12 at 9:32 pm
Yes they have rather inconsistent drug laws which result in a lot of people going to jail making long term results worse. But there’s less chance of the US going the harm minimisation route for drug abuse than there is of there being any tightening of gun laws.
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 9:36 pm
Not quite Yobbo, the average citizen will still need access to steel barrels, chamber and firing mechanism, or the means to machine them, I can’t see a plastic barrel and chamber withstanding the pressures and forces generated by firing a round.
Give it time though and see if 3D printing of metal is possible
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 9:38 pm
Harm minimisation? What are you, a fascist?
.
1 Aug 12 at 9:38 pm
Chicago has Nazi-esque extreme gun-control laws. Almost no-one can legally own a gun. Chicago is the anti-gun campaigner’s dream: they have enacted in law almost every single anti-gun law the bedwetting hoplophobes of the world could imagine, and then some.
Chicago is the murder capital of the world.
Law-abiding citizens with legally-registered guns are not the problem here.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 9:42 pm
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/remembering-chicagos-victims/
Gab
1 Aug 12 at 9:44 pm
Steveies, Monster.
You know how you morons were mocking me about future technology? Monster, you were mocking me specifically about 3D printers.
Take a good look at Yobbo’s link, you unfathomable dullards and see what these things are capable of.
If anything people are generally conservative about tech.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 9:47 pm
3d printers can make steel products too.
Yobbo
1 Aug 12 at 9:50 pm
I don’t see what is fascist about not involving police when an ambulance is called for a drug overdose so as to avoid situations where people are too afraid to call for help.
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 9:51 pm
Not quite the sort of gear to have at home yet – like I said give it time
Old Fridgie
1 Aug 12 at 9:53 pm
If you think that is all “harm minimisation” involves, you are either gullible or stupid.
.
1 Aug 12 at 9:54 pm
I said on another thread that 3D printers are the genesis of fabricators, however the Bobbsey triplets were scoffing at it.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 9:57 pm
If you’re in favor of loosening America’s drug laws, because drug laws don’t stop the drug trade or drug use and in fact cause more harm than good… but you are in favor of tightening America’s gun laws, because you think that that would stop the gun trade and gun use and in fact stop a certain demographic of Americans from shooting each other…
You might want to think that through again.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 9:57 pm
“It’s entirely possible for the average citizen to manufacture weapons in his home now.”
I’m a big fan of 3D printing, it’s going to change economic structures in a fundamental way over the next few decades, but this particular claim isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Firstly, people always could make weapons in their own home – see this recent story.
Secondly, there currently isn’t any way to make gun parts in a 3D printer that are equivalent to high-strength forged steel. That’s why the guy in your link had to use off-the-shelf parts for the chamber and barrel.
This will change. 3D printers have already moved beyond resin and similar. High-strength steel will undoubtedly be possible eventually. But “now”? Not quite.
Jarrah
1 Aug 12 at 10:02 pm
talk of making guns at home is crazy talk on several levels
candy
1 Aug 12 at 10:02 pm
Why candy? Stop talking out of your arse.
.
1 Aug 12 at 10:06 pm
Uh-oh! 3D printer produces a real gun
Gab
1 Aug 12 at 10:07 pm
Next Gab announcement: hey everybody, the Olympics has started.
steve from brisbane
1 Aug 12 at 10:11 pm
You’re so effeminately catty, Stepford.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 10:13 pm
As opposed to masculine catty, like you, JC?
SteveC
1 Aug 12 at 10:19 pm
It’s pert though, or so she said. Hope it’s true.
Candy, making a gun at home if it ever comes to that will be pretty much the same as buying a gun, if you think about it.
You will need computer coding that would allow you to do that. These could be managed like an I-tunes sale or if the government gets really shirty they will be bought and sold in the black market. The process of making them will sort of be easier, however you could purchase the right to make one under license and that commuter code simply extinguishes once used like ITunes.
Don’t worry you pretty little head about this, as it’s all under control by the fellas here. We know what we’re doing. Don’t listen to girly-men like the Bobsey triplets.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 10:19 pm
StevieC, Kimberly your sex doll has needs at this hour. You should attend to her.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 10:21 pm
SteveieC
Honestly I don’t know what the fuck you’re doing here except wasting pixels. You’ve never had an original thought in your head, or at least never expressed one. Mostly it’s all boiler plate talking points that any of us could pick up from Fairfax or watching the idiot audience on Q&A. All your arguments and points are calls to authority usually by linking to some half baked idiot you agree with that you think may sound convincing.
Your exhales ought to be taxed, you waste of space.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 10:28 pm
“as it’s all under control by the fellas here. We know what we’re doing. Don’t listen to girly-men like the Bobsey triplets.”
well JC i’d like to say hogwash to all of that but you are being charming, so I can’t
candy
1 Aug 12 at 10:29 pm
I’m always charming, Candy. I’m a great great charmer.
Look, I’m on the right track in terms of how it would work out. You would also have to register the weapon too, so the sale of the code would necessitate registration. In fact it would be a harsher process than it is now in some ways.
In the US you can buy a gun with limited requirements at gun sales.
Any slippage ought to be measured against the slippage there is now with illicit guns in US.
What this will do in the end is make a mockery of our own gun laws if the computer coding can be bought over the web.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 10:38 pm
Yeah, just like how all the ‘home chemists’ making designer drugs in their kitchens can only get the recipes via approved governmental outlets, must and DO register said kitchens as FDA-approved drug manufacturing facilities, and only sell their product according to strict government pharmaceutical dispensing and control laws.
When you have a problem, the answer isn’t necessarily “MOAR LAWS PLEEZ!”. Sometimes the laws themselves are either at the root of or just exacerbate the problem.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:50 pm
Personally, I think the US should just bite the bullet (so to speak) and make murder illegal.
That’ll solve all these problems, tout de suite.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:52 pm
LOl Dog
Yea true, but my point is that making a gun with a 3D printer may not be as bad as what Candy thought it would be in the long run.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 10:53 pm
Candy is scared of everything, JC.
She puts more faith in the State than she does in her fellow citizens.
Candy is a chucklehead.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 10:57 pm
Does anyone know Abbotts personal take on Australian gun laws? Does he differ from Howard on this at all?
(I haven’t read all the comments, sorry in advance if this has been discussed)
Chris M
1 Aug 12 at 10:58 pm
I think they would be the same as Howard’s. I don’t think he ever has spoken about it. If he did, we didn’t hear about it, so I assume his view won’t differ.
Look, I think you people are hoping the Libs will relax the laws, they are dreaming. There’s not a chance in hell those fuckers would move a muscle.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 11:05 pm
Perhaps you should spend some time in Somalia Sdog. The experience might give you a slightly different perspective on the value of a functioning state. Unless of course you decided that shooting up the place with the boys offered the opportunity for some jollies.
Viva
1 Aug 12 at 11:08 pm
Well here’s some other examples. What’s fascist about:
- allowing there to exist places where drug users can inject illegal drugs under some medical supervision
- needle exchange programs
- decriminalising cannabis (its a schedule 1 drug in the US, alongside heroin and more tightly controlled than cocaine!)
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 11:09 pm
3-D printing is going to hit companies that make a lot of physical objects like the internet hit the music and tv/video corporations. I bet most of them don’t realise its even coming. People will be happily illegally swapping designs like they’ve swapped music, for everyday objects, which currently have quite good protection under copyright law but will have little to no protection when people can just print them in the privacy of their own home.
For example I predict the death of LEGO sales in the next decade. The cheap 3D printers (<$1000) are almost good enough to print lego blocks now. It doesn't take that many purchases to spend $1000 on lego.
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 11:17 pm
Nothing at all. In a free society people should be able to smoke crack cocaine and own bazookas.
Infidel Tiger
1 Aug 12 at 11:19 pm
Chris
It seems to me that there is a business in there, which is helping people with complete or partial design of their own stuff.
JC
1 Aug 12 at 11:28 pm
Good lord, but you’re retarded.
Sorry, but you are.
sdog
1 Aug 12 at 11:42 pm
Fine Chris. We live near Kings Cross and would like the injecting room to be moved elsewhere. This is due to the anti-social and threatening behaviour that is regularly experienced within its vicinity.
Can you please identify your own location of residence so we can lobby for removal of said facility to be near you, since you are such a strong supporter.
Lazlo
1 Aug 12 at 11:50 pm
Definitely. But it will be a big shakeup for existing players. There’ll be a lot more job specific design work for individual customers rather than make something then expect to be able to sit back while you manufacture millions of them at high profit margins. Probably great for individually talented designers, not so good for large corporations with a lot of overhead.
As the entertainment industry have discovered copyright is really difficult, costly and unpopular to enforce at the individual person level (rather than against other corporations). And patents won’t be much different either.
Chris
1 Aug 12 at 11:51 pm
I’m out in the ‘burbs with rather average public transport so its probably not the best place to put an injecting room. But if you really want I’ll swap the youth detention centre for the injection room. No more helicopters wandering around at night looking for escapees.
Chris
2 Aug 12 at 12:00 am
No problem, Kings Cross has rather average public transport too. Not asking for a swap. Just wanting you to back up your support for injecting rooms with some real commitment.
Lazlo
2 Aug 12 at 12:09 am
“We live near Kings Cross and would like the injecting room to be moved elsewhere. This is due to the anti-social and threatening behaviour that is regularly experienced within its vicinity.”
I bet you any money the pubs in Kings Cross are far, far greater contributors to anti-social and threatening behaviour than the injecting room.
“Can you please identify your own location of residence so we can lobby for removal of said facility to be near you, since you are such a strong supporter.”
They need to be where the users are, otherwise there’s no point.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 12:20 am
“For example I predict the death of LEGO sales in the next decade. The cheap 3D printers ($1000) are almost good enough to print lego blocks now.”
As long as they don’t put ‘LEGO’ on the blocks, they can. But people has come up with an even better idea – printed blocks that can join otherwise incompatible brands together. It’s brilliant.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 12:23 am
Here it is.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 12:26 am
Looks great! But LEGO have a gazillion (not yet expired) design patents as well so 3rd parties are still limited in what they can legally sell. And then you also have the copyright issues around the themed sets where third parties will demand licensing fees (eg Star Wars/Harry Potter etc).
The owners of War Hammer recently went after someone (using the DMCA) who uploaded design files for 3D printers for objects that looked too much like what they sell.
Chris
2 Aug 12 at 12:41 am
That’s crazy, Chris. Warhammer could sell a download file of their stuff for half the price. Make it single use and miss out on the packaging, transport, and retail costs.
But they probably have franchise issues. Perhaps the Franchise Model in some areas is about to go down the gurgler.
Winston SMITH
2 Aug 12 at 6:00 am
Companies like Games Workshop are going to go broke from 3d printing.
3d miniatures are exactly the kind of product that 3d printing is going to make uneconomical in the future.
Because it’s really hard to find data on the internet apart from on Itunes, amiright?
99% of people in the world have never paid for a single download ever in their life.
Yobbo
2 Aug 12 at 7:22 am
“But LEGO have a gazillion (not yet expired) design patents as well so 3rd parties are still limited in what they can legally sell.”
That’s true. I was only thinking about basic bricks.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 10:00 am
Is that the only shot you’ve got in your locker Sdog? Try harder.
Your contempt for the state as opposed to the individual is all very well within reasonable bounds -until you need to be airlifted out of a war zone or find yourself needing wildly unaffordable drugs which, luckily for you if you live in Australia, is subsidised – again by the state you so despise. But never mind, your neighbours who you prefer to rely on, will give you a decent burial.
Viva
2 Aug 12 at 10:12 am
The difficulty for them is that there isn’t really any practical way for them to make the files “single use”. The music industry originally tried going the encrypted route, but as they learned it takes just one person to decrypt it (or show others how to do it) and share the file. And in the end they have to trust the 3D-printer with the unencrypted data. And they don’t control it.
Also 3D scanners are also getting quite cheap. So for simply things like figurines which don’t “do” anything you can essentially just photocopy them.
Chris
2 Aug 12 at 10:37 am
No.
The state makes them unaffordable. We also fund the state.
.
2 Aug 12 at 10:41 am
“The state makes them unaffordable.”
Unless you’re referring to patent law driving up costs, that’s completely backwards.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 10:52 am
Jarrah,
They also outlaw experimental drugs against the will of terminal patients “for their own good”.
.
2 Aug 12 at 11:02 am
That’s true, regulation does hinder development of new drugs and thus increase direct costs. They also reduce the number of drugs that do more harm than good, and thus decrease indirect costs. Do you know of any attempts to quantify this?
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 11:25 am
No, the difficulty for them is trying to justify an existing pricing model in a new paradigm.
It will always be cheaper to produce those things by the thousands than it is by the one off.
It’s just the scale of the difference will drop.
The markup achieved through artificial scarcity will disappear.
At least they have a few industries to look at and assess how to make the transition themselves.
Driftforge
2 Aug 12 at 11:25 am
Jarrah, why would any company produce any drug that does more harm than good? Aside from long-established addictions like tobacco and alcohol, what profit would there be in such substances? Wouldn’t the bad publicity and loss of reputation be more than it would be worth?
Nuke Gray
2 Aug 12 at 12:29 pm
“Jarrah, why would any company produce any drug that does more harm than good?”
Assuming basic humanity, because the harmful effects may not be evident early on. Making less generous assumptions, because the causal connection might be difficult to argue in a court of law (both scientifically and logistically). Assuming bastardry, because a calculation can be made that bad publicity and compensation are still less than the profits.
“Wouldn’t the bad publicity and loss of reputation be more than it would be worth?”
It depends (see above). If they can deny the harm for long enough, or avoid responsibility altogether, then it would be worth it.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 12:38 pm
So, do you have an actual example you can share with us, or is this all hypothetical?
Nuke Gray
2 Aug 12 at 1:21 pm
They don’t.
Harm is proportional to the dose-response relationship.
Now tell us if sodium thiopental does more harm than good.
.
2 Aug 12 at 1:33 pm
It’s all straightforward economic theory, Nuke. Credence goods, etc. I don’t what kind of example you want, considering regulation of drugs has been operative for yonks.
Jarrah
2 Aug 12 at 1:40 pm
The problem is doctors don’t have enough training in the administration of drugs or dosages. If there was more properly done “off label” treatment, then the perceived need for regulation would largely go away.
.
2 Aug 12 at 1:43 pm
Nuke
There’s also basic error that even our best systems are at times unable to pick up. New Yorker ran with a piece last year about a psychiatric drug which showed great promise, went through the ringer in terms of testing/clinical trials.
It was later found that it didn’t work or actually caused serious side effect problems. I forget which.
They sent the drug through the ringer again and found that the previous testing may have been caught in a statistical cluster spewing out misleading information.
Conclusion: All drugs are risky and although we think we know enough about them, we probably really don’t.
JC
2 Aug 12 at 1:49 pm
I think this was the piece in the mag.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
JC
2 Aug 12 at 1:53 pm
And, of course, there’s the other side- the people who benefit when the majority don’t! For instance, a doctor discovered a family in Italy who can eat all kinds of fatty foods, and not get fat! They have a version of stomach acid that is slightly different to the average (better able to break down fats), so they have no trouble with foods that would kill the rest of us. Since Government regulations are for a hypothetical ‘average’ voter/taxpayer, these people would get no benefit.
Nuke Gray
2 Aug 12 at 3:03 pm