Gun Control in the USA

With yet another gun related massacre in the United States, the calls for more gun control have recommenced.

Now if Spartacus was a citizen of the US or lived there, he would probably support gun control.  But the problem is that all those calling for gun control are proposing legislative solutions where the US constitution provides the right to keep and bear arms.  And in the wonderful system that is the US, the constitution beats legislation.

Spartacus does not claim to be a US constitutional scholar, but he can read.  And one of the more recent decisions of the US Supreme Court on this matter, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) found that:

that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes

So give the Supreme Court has confirmed such a constitutional right, why are there no advocates for changing the US constitution?  After all, unlike the 10 Commandments, the US constitution is not etched in stone.  It can be changed, and has been.  Hence the 27 amendments to the US constitution.

Again, if Spartacus was a citizen of the US, he would support a constitutional amendment to limit the right to bear arms, but no way no how should legislation trump (!) the constitution.  If that were allowed, what would be next?  Over-ruling the right to free speech?  How about the separation of Church and State?  Perhaps the protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

As Tommy Jeff wrote rather eloquently:

… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If you don’t like it, change it.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

317 Responses to Gun Control in the USA

  1. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Again, if Spartacus was a citizen of the US, he would support a constitutional amendment to limit the right to bear arms,

    Thankfully you aren’t then.

    Right after the 2nd Amendment falls, so do all the others.

  2. max

    Question is:

    Why do mass shootings keep happening?

    Americans have been armed before 1950 as well.

    what changed since then?

  3. Richard

    Maybe the US government should just have a law that discourages people murdering other people, everytime I hear them say we must ban guns. Nobody needs a gun, nobody needs different guns, nobody needs that many guns.
    I think to myself only when you’ve used a firearm to defend your family, you will truly realise the powerful tool that they are.
    And if guns are truly the problem, why doesn’t this happen every 5 min and so on.

  4. Richard

    And another thing, I guarantee gun sales in the US will go through the roof in the coming months

  5. JC

    And another thing, I guarantee gun sales in the US will go through the roof in the coming months

    Gun stocks moved up yesterday morning eggsactly with this in mind. Wall Street can be cold hearted like that. It’s one of the first things I thought of, but never bought any. It’s just too cold.

  6. Neil

    Right after the 2nd Amendment falls, so do all the others.

    At the moment most people want certain types of guns banned not guns. Same goes for dogs. Some people want pitbulls banned not all dogs.

  7. Viva

    We keep being assured when massacres like this happen (and smaller spree killings which happen virtually every week) that gun ownership/legislation/culture is not a problem.
    So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

  8. Joe

    …what the hell is the problem?

    PEOPLE are batshit crazy.

  9. Joe

    Or are being driven to batshit craziness.

  10. v_maet

    >So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

    Could be the democrats openly calling for people to kill Trump supporters, calling trump suporters fascist/racist/nazi/biggots, calling for a revolution and blood on the streets.

    Could be the MSM telling viewers to take action and fight back.

  11. mh

    One small change could help: US constitution provides the right to keep and arm bears.

  12. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

    Societal and cultural breakdown. There’s no unifying thread left.

  13. A Lurker

    We keep being assured when massacres like this happen (and smaller spree killings which happen virtually every week) that gun ownership/legislation/culture is not a problem.
    So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

    Loss of conservative values:
    Erosion of a high-trust society.
    Erosion of personal responsibility.
    Loss of community cohesion.
    Loss of guiding morality and principles via Christianity.
    In the past communities were closer knit and people used to notice if someone was going off the rails.
    Society is more divided.
    People being bombarded with information 24hrs a day.
    Desensitisation to violence via the media.
    The closure of mental asylums.
    Certain modern lifestyles could trigger a mental break.
    People living longer so hidden genetic faults occur later rather than earlier in life.
    $hit happens.

  14. Peter

    It is not even as “easy” as changing the US Constitution, I am afraid. If there is one thing I have learned from policy work (40 years in the field) it is that initial conditions count. It is all very well to argue for change but how does one put the toothpaste back in the tube when, after a couple of hundred years there are now well over 300 million guns in the hands of US citizens.

    Not only that, there is a gun culture – over 300 million citizens, many of whom are fiercely independent and convinced that they need their guns, both to protect their families and as much as anything to protect themselves from what they see as a rapacious and barely legal federal government. As weird and deranged as this sounds to our ears it is never the less the position adopted by many gun owners in USA. Of course I find this problematic myself but we are looking at it from the position of people who live under a Westminster System which works through Cabinet and where the nature of government, with a professional public service (which still has not been politicized and in some cases weaponized, to the extent of the US public service) hold rogue elements in check. After 8 years of Obama and his cronies seeming on some occasions to be effectively waging war against his own country while misusing the tax department and other departments for blatantly political purposes including to punish his enemies and political opponents, can we entirely blame US citizens for being jumpy about about any plans to remove their right to defend themselves. Yes, their position still sounds barmy to me but I suspect that if I lived in USA I might feel some suspicion of the motives of some politicians who seem to feel unconstrained by the written Constitution or by convention.

    As much as I would prefer to see USA without millions of guns and a gun culture (especially military grade weapons) , it needs to be recognized that removing guns (given the huge number of them out there) does, whether intended or not, mean that law-abiding citizens will inevitably be the first to lose the right (and ability) to defend themselves. The problem I alluded to with initial conditions means also that with 300 million guns in the hands of Americans, many are held by criminals, crazies and terrorists. USA gun owners – the legal, rational, law abiding ones know that it is they who will be forced to give up their weapons long before the crazies, the wack jobs, the criminals and terrorists ever do. So they will ultimately become the victims as much as those poor people who were traumatized, shot, injured and killed in Las Vegas if all guns could be removed.

    So I ask the question – how from a policy viewpoint, do you go about putting the toothpaste back in the tube?

  15. C.L.

    Right after the 2nd Amendment falls, so do all the others.

    All the others already have fallen in the US.
    The 2nd amendment didn’t help.

  16. Tel

    So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

    In terms of simple statistics and body count, the problem remains Democrat Mayors in Chicago and Detroit, just like it has been for decades. This latest massacre is roughly equivalent to one normal month in Chicago alone… and that’s a city with very tough gun control (which does nothing useful).

    Of course if you want to look the other way and focus into specific one-off events, there may be a whole lot of other specific problems involved. I think mental illness is gradually getting worse but that’s a very grey area… if a person has a shit life and they also feel like shit then you would be tempted to say that is correct operation for a perception system. If a person gets fed some weirdo ideology (and there’s plenty to choose from) and as a consequence they are doing the things that the ideology tells them to do, maybe we blame a mental defect for not rejecting that ideology, or maybe we have to accept that humans have limitations, and if you feed someone enough garbage they will get sick.

    Just about every job has higher stress levels; people have very little control over their own lives and feel disenfranchised; public trust is certainly lower than it used to be; there’s a million stupid ways to get caught out if you actually attempt to abide by the law, now that regulations are ridiculously over-complex and designed to ensure compliance is nearly impossible; there’s all sorts of drugs available that can mess you up (despite the pointless “War on Drugs” which was lost decades ago). People go out of their way to destroy any positive social relationship — feminists want to turn women against men to prevent loving high-trust families; race baiters want to turn black against white with invented history of slavery blaming everything on white people; socialists want to encourage envy, SJW’s always carrying on about “fairness” all over the place.

    In a nation where very few people are genuinely needy we seem to have a lot of excess energy that gets wasted on people whose entire sense of self importance is directly linked to how many other people they can make miserable.

    That and the endless foreign wars of course… there’s a few things that might get folks down.

  17. stackja

    Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)
    #2513482, posted on October 3, 2017 at 1:48 pm
    So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

    Societal and cultural breakdown. There’s no unifying thread left.

    Leftism ‘succeeds’ again.

  18. C.L.

    The Australian reporting that shooter was the son of a notorious psychopath.

  19. stackja

    C.L.
    #2513500, posted on October 3, 2017 at 2:06 pm
    Right after the 2nd Amendment falls, so do all the others.

    All the others already have fallen in the US.
    The 2nd amendment didn’t help.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Leftists are usurping Congress.

  20. stackja

    C.L.
    #2513506, posted on October 3, 2017 at 2:14 pm
    The Australian reporting that shooter was the son of a notorious psychopath.

    Makes sense. Who certified the son sane?

  21. Sparkle Motion

    It’s an amendment. Amend it again.

  22. Bruce of Newcastle

    Even if the Left got every stupid thing they wanted the US can’t control guns because there are vast numbers in circulation already. The US has long poorly policed borders with Canada and Mexico so control legislation will be futile in the face of hordes of firearms which would be smuggled. The only reason why the War on Drugs isn’t also a War on Guns is it isn’t worth the gangs’ whiles to bother. As soon as firearm controls are implemented the prices will go up and the incentive will be there.

    On the other hand the Left thinks they can control the weather, make money grow on trees and stop obesity by taxing fizzy drinks, so you can see why they think they can eradicate firearms in the US. Mere impossibility is not an impediment to these fruitloops.

  23. Peter:

    Not only that, there is a gun culture – over 300 million citizens, many of whom are fiercely independent and convinced that they need their guns, both to protect their families and as much as anything to protect themselves from what they see as a rapacious and barely legal federal government. As weird and deranged as this sounds to our ears it is never the less the position adopted by many gun owners in USA.

    Not weird and deranged to me.
    The gun owners have a point.

  24. Fisky

    In a hypothetical country where large sections of the elite were NOT foaming at the mouth population replacement enthusiasts with a fanatical hatred of white proles, gun control would be a sensible idea.

  25. Fisky

    Why gun control is not likely to happen –

    J Burton @JBurtonXP
    “F*** YOU WHITEY, YOU EVIL RACIST F***!!! THE WORLD’LL BE BETTER OFF WHEN YOU’RE DEAD!!!

    Also, um, would you please hand over your guns?”

  26. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    In a hypothetical country where large sections of the elite were NOT foaming at the mouth population replacement enthusiasts with a fanatical hatred of white proles, gun control would be a sensible idea.

    Even then it makes no sense.

  27. Andrew

    Machine guns are banned anyhow. Gun control applied in this case, and was useless.

    Word on the street is that one of the Kenyan’s boatloads of weaponry smuggled to Mehico might have found its way back home to shoot 600 Americans. But would it make any difference without guns? This guy went out of his way to take out people at a concert. If there were no guns in the world, it would have been a truck filled with diesel, ammonium fertiliser and ball bearings.

    The issue will come up about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Trump666 should say that he pledged allegiance to the Constitution – all of it. The 2nd Amendment, as well as the constitutional procedure for amending it. It’s a State issue to call for a constitutional convention and get 38 state congresses to vote for it. (POTUS is not involved in such matters, and cannot veto.)

  28. Fisky

    The last CIA Director was literally a communist. But hand over your guns, guys!

  29. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    There is no constitutional right to SELL weapons! So just outlaw the gun trade. People could make their own weapons, but not trade them. Problem solved. And just reinterpret ‘right to bear arms’ to mean ‘right to use arms and hands’, ie Karate, judo, ju jitsu, etc. This will leave the government with the big weapons, but if you can’t trust the Police, who can you trust?

  30. DM of WA

    Americans are blessed with an absolute right to free speech and an absolute right to bear arms.

    Progressives want to restrict both of these rights.

    I really hope they fail or America will become just another country.

  31. RobK

    Legislation already exists forbidding these crimes and the hardware used. Without a societal change as alluded to above, there’s not a lot else that can be done that would improve the situation.

  32. I gave away my rifles voluntarily, before Bryant’s massacre at Port Arthur and the new laws.

    I should have kept them. The state has made it clear, both in Oz and the US, that old white men are no longer protected by the word, spirit and practice of the law.

    Its tragic and sad that this awful killing happened. I might not feel the same way had he opened up at Berkeley on a group of masked criminals.

  33. Howard Hill

    Gun ownership is a inalienable right fullstop…… .gov can’t protect my gift of life and neither can you. I’m my own protector and I will use whatever tool is necessary, available to protect that gift. Not you or anyone else has any right to stop me, you are not god or my owner.

    When governments around the world are importing filth that wants me dead, I will never relinquish my right to protect my gift of life for anyone. Molon labe, muther fcker!

  34. Defender of the faith

    Australia on average has 1.4 gun homicides a year per million of population. Canada 5.1. US 29.7.
    We have just as many scared old white guys as they do. But they have a lot more guns. This time it appears the shooter used at least one automatic weapon.

  35. Michel Lasouris

    This is quite simple really. The good people of America would welcome some radical action after the recent massacres. Close down the firearms industries with immediate effect. Place these facilities under the control of the Defense Dept of the Fed Govt. Similarly sieze all munitions factories and contro lthe manufacture and distribution of all munitions. Weed out the less popular calibres. Introduce very severe penalties for the import of firearms and the manufacture of them outside the government factories.
    Right, fixed that….NEXT!

  36. Neil

    Gun ownership is a inalienable right fullstop

    And where does that right end? One day it may be possible to fire a nuclear device from a rifle. Do you think people should have access to that?

  37. Michel Lasouris

    I do wonder what on earth possessed this creep to commit such a crime. I wondered if ( as well as being a lifelong nonentity) he was suffering with a terminal disease, and realising that he would die un-announced decided to “immortalise” himself. Perhaps all person in dire straights should be carefully, if surreptitiously watched. Thoughts on above?

  38. Michel Lasouris

    The Americans who are not pink ( all over; hands and feet only doesn’t count) demand equality in all life’s little pleasures; Housing; income; health care; justice; etc. BUT just one equality they NEVER ask for is INTELLIGENCE

  39. Eddystone

    I don’t understand the mentality of gun control advocates.

    Do they think the gun control fairy rides in on her rainbow unicorn and sprinkles magic gun control dust all over the place?

    There’s 300 million guns in the US FFS. They can’t be wished away.

    They increase in criminal shootings in Australia should convince people that gun control is a pointless exercise.

    Far better to work towards a civic society with equality before the law and sensible law making.

  40. Right, fixed that….NEXT!

    I love the irony Michel.

    Irony
    You’ll be the death of me.

  41. One day it may be possible to fire a nuclear device from a rifle.

    Neil, are you implying that would be a bad thing?

  42. Felix Kruell

    I think the arguments about guns being necessary to allow people to keep the government honest are a bit outdated. Plenty of other countries haven’t needed guns to keep their governments honest. I can’t think of the last time an armed uprising of ordinary citizens successfully overturned a mature democratic government.

    That said, I agree with the comments above that enacting gun control now won’t do squat given how many guns are already in circulation. You’d have to really criminalise possession (not just sale), and even then it would take years to remove existing guns from the community. The only good solution is to have acted 20+ years ago.

  43. Eddystone

    Felix Kruell
    #2513617, posted on October 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    That said, I agree with the comments above that enacting gun control now won’t do squat given how many guns are already in circulation. You’d have to really criminalise possession (not just sale), and even then it would take years to remove existing guns from the community. The only good solution is to have acted 20+ years ago.

    Like Jamaica?

    The Suppression of Crime Act allowed the police and the military to work together in a novel way to disarm the people: both soldiers could seal off entire neighbourhoods and policemen could systematically search the houses inside for weapons without a warrant.[3]

    And Jamaica is a very violent place, for some reason, despite criminalising possession of firearms.

  44. stackja

    The Curtis Culwell Center attack was carried out by two men who attacked officers with gunfire at the entrance to an exhibit featuring cartoon images of Muhammad at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas on May 3, 2015. Wikipedia

  45. cuckoo

    Radio National this morning was helpfully quoting Hillary Clinton on gun control as part of their Vegas shooting coverage. Remind me again what office she holds in the US?

  46. sfw

    Safest places in the US are those with legal concealed carry and few restrictions, it’s places like Chicago that have strict gun laws that have the most gun deaths/injuries. I’m told that in Switzerland every home has a gun and almost no gun violence.

    It’s the people, stupid, not the guns.

  47. cynical1

    If only the founding fathers had quit at “The right to bear muskets”…

  48. Defender of the faith

    sfw: data says the opposite.

  49. cynical1

    Its tragic and sad that this awful killing happened. I might not feel the same way had he opened up at Berkeley on a group of masked criminals.

    So what makes you better than the bitch who got sacked?

  50. zyconoclast

    And another thing, I guarantee gun sales in the US will go through the roof in the coming months

    I read this every time there is a mass murder or there are rumblings for legislative action against guns.

    I support the right to own guns.

    Who are these people that keep breaking new records for gun sales? At some point, they will run out of room to store them or have little practical use. In the event of a shootout with authorities, you probably won’t have time to get to weapon #20.

    Unless you are holding them for others to pick up when needed.

  51. Neil

    Neil, are you implying that would be a bad thing

    Yep where will it end? There are some weapons citizens should not be allowed to own. Same goes for dogs. I think pitbulls should be banned but not all dogs.

  52. Tim Neilson

    sfw: data says the opposite.

    What data?

  53. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Yep where will it end? There are some weapons citizens should not be allowed to own. Same goes for dogs. I think pitbulls should be banned but not all dogs.

    You mean like automatic weapons which are prohibited for purchase in the US except in extraordinary circumstances?

  54. cohenite

    Defender of the faith

    #2513587, posted on October 3, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    Australia on average has 1.4 gun homicides a year per million of population. Canada 5.1. US 29.7.
    We have just as many scared old white guys as they do. But they have a lot more guns. This time it appears the shooter used at least one automatic weapon.

    Take away black on black and black on everything else and that rate of gun homicides falls remarkably:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1344651072227810&set=p.1344651072227810&type=3&theater

  55. Herodotus

    So what about knives and vehicles?

  56. Phill

    In the US, automatic weapons like the ones used by the Las Vegas killer are already highly regulated. That suggest there is a point past which regulation is ineffective. The current US debate centres on the use of silencers / suppressors, which were not used by the killer.

  57. Eddystone

    Australia on average has 1.4 gun homicides a year per million of population. Canada 5.1. US 29.7.

    The Canadian politician who was responsible for the abolition of the long gun registry came up with an interesting comparison. Similar mid west populations on either side of the US/Canada border were compared. The violence was less on the US side, and gun laws were much laxer.

    So it seems that stricter gun laws don’t actually improve public safety.

    It’s really about culture and civil society.

  58. Viva

    what the hell is the problem?

    Thanks for the considered responses to this question from various Cats.

    I wonder if low trust is a function of living in a society bristling with guns and a society bristling with guns is a function of low trust.

    Chicken/egg?

  59. Oh come on

    That said, I agree with the comments above that enacting gun control now won’t do squat given how many guns are already in circulation.

    No, the idea of gun control is a bad one. It’s wrong, just like saying ‘communism is great in theory but bad in practice’. No, it’s terrible in theory, too. Similarly, the state monopolising ownership of firearms and making it impossible for for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with such tools is a terrible idea.

    The fact is that the most restrictive gun laws aren’t capable of preventing someone really determined to kill a lot of people from killing a lot of people. See Anders Breivik. You don’t even need guns to do it – bombs or cars or trucks will suffice.

    Of course all the usual suspects in the US will screech and make their usual demands. Additionally, we in Australia will have to listen to endless prattle from journalists about guns and gun ownership in the USA – subjects they are as familiar with as they are the US healthcare system. Namely, they know virtually nothing about what it is they’re opining over.

    Just this morning I heard dim bulb Hugh Riminton claim that in Nevada it’s perfectly legal to walk down the street with a pair of assault rifles, one slung over each shoulder. No, it’s not, Hugh, you conehead. Into the Dunce’s Corner for you. And while you’re there, you can research what an assault rifle is.

  60. Eddystone

    Low trust is a result of living in a diverse society with differing behavioural norms and attitudes to obeying the laws.

    Guns are irrelevant, whether bristling or not.

  61. Oh come on

    By and large, Australian journalists really are an embarrassingly provincial and ignorant group of mouth-breathers. There are a few exceptions to this, but not many.

  62. Fat Tony

    Felix Kruell
    #2513617, posted on October 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    I think the arguments about guns being necessary to allow people to keep the government honest are a bit outdated. Plenty of other countries haven’t needed guns to keep their governments honest. I can’t think of the last time an armed uprising of ordinary citizens successfully overturned a mature democratic government.

    I don’t think the arguments are a bit outdated – look at Europe with the invasion by the mohammedans – courtesy of the European governments. their police forces are used to protect the islamic filth.

    I think you will find that plenty of countries’ citizens will soon wish that had sufficient guns to protect themselves from their governments.

    Once the islamic shit hits the fan in Australia, you will find that our governments will round up all the legal firearms (all guns are registered and all owners are licensed).

  63. Chris

    Low trust is a result of living in a diverse society with differing behavioural norms and attitudes to obeying the laws.

    Guns are irrelevant, whether bristling or not.

    Try asking what the trust levels are in poor suburbs where ‘Asian’ and old brit populations are mixed in the UK.

  64. Eddystone

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
    ― Dalai Lama XIV .

  65. Chris

    I wonder if low trust is a function of living in a society bristling with guns and a society bristling with guns is a function of low trust.

    No the part bristling with legal guns and legal gun enthusiasm is not the low trust part.

  66. J.H.

    The biggest mass shootings have not been in America….. France and Norway hold that record.

    It is also interesting that all the gun violence in South and Central America, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, etc…. gets no mention at all…. and lets not forget that mass killing doesn’t need firearms. Explosives or vehicles can do a very efficient job of killing lots of people…. The Truck ramming in Nice, France 2015, killed 87 and injured 400+. The Madrid train bombing killed 192 and injured 2000.

    According to the U.N., the U.S. had 3.0 firearm homicides per 100,000 in population in 2009. But there were 14 other nations that had higher rates in 2009, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean: Honduras (57.6), Jamaica (47.2), St. Kitts and Nevis (44.4), Venezuela (39.0), Guatemala (38.5), Colombia (28.1), Trinidad & Tobago (27.3), Panama (19.3), Dominican Republic (16.9), Bahamas (15.4), Belize (15.4), Mexico (7.9), Paraguay (7.3) and Nicaragua (5.9). Three other nations had higher rates in 2008: El Salvador (39.9), Brazil (18.1) and Ecuador (12.7).

    …. and some more stats….. According to the U.N. figures, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides by firearm in 2009. That year, Colombia and Venezuela both exceeded the U.S. total, with 12,808 and 11,115 firearm deaths, respectively. Three other nations topped the U.S. amount in the most recent year for which data is available: Brazil (34,678 in 2008), Mexico (11,309 in 2010) and Thailand (20,032 in 2000).

    So the U.S. ranks high in this category, but not first.

    And lastly…. When it comes to Gun Deaths…. Not all gun deaths are bad. Included in those statistics are good guys shooting dead bad guys. Most American States have a Castle Doctrine of some description, the right to use deadly force on your property if endangered by an intruder…. They also have Stand Your Ground laws, the right to use deadly force with no requirement to retreat. You can stand your ground in a public space when dealing with an assailant and use deadly force if you are in fear of your life.

  67. Billie

    If you do own a gun in the USA, then you probably have approx 1,000 to 20,000 rounds of ammo stored away as well.

    Rightly so

    Guns are useless without ammo

    Ammo in the US is cheap, very cheap

    Asking them to give up guns is like asking climate alarmists to stop bullshutting, or religious folk to stop believing in their god/s

    Not.going.to.happen!

  68. Felix Kruell

    Eddystone: I think Jamaica is a poor comparison, mainly because the police and military are active players in the illegals arms trade. The official ban means nothing.

    A real ban can work – see the UK. Actual gun numbers are quite low.

  69. Oh come on

    A real ban can work – see the UK. Actual gun numbers are quite low.

    Can work to do what? IIRC, gun crime in the UK was on the decline before Dunblane and continued on the same downward trend even after the subsequent handgun ban was introduced.

  70. Viva

    Not.going.to.happen!

    So supporting the status quo is a rational choice according to most Americans and many of the posters here.

    And you would truly have to believe that, as that belief is tested over and over and over and will continue to be tested over and over and over in the years to come.

  71. DM of WA

    I also note how our civilian population has been losing access anything that might be used a weapon – starting with losing its right to own guns and ending with indignity of no longer being permitted to dine with cutlery on aeroplanes! While at the same time our police have become ever more menacing with more body armour, face masks, high power weaponry. And our politicians have ever more protected in their fortress-like parliament on the hill -a building to which the now unarmed public is no longer permitted access. Ironic.

  72. Oh come on

    And you would truly have to believe that, as that belief is tested over and over and over and will continue to be tested over and over and over in the years to come.

    Yes, in a population of 300 million that is fairly well armed, you will get the occasional spree shooting. Disarm the law-abiding portion of that population and guess what? You will still get the occasional spree shooting. It’s your own selection bias that makes these relatively rare events seem common and endlessly recurring.

  73. Billie

    It doesn’t matter if we do or do mot support the status quo in the USA, we’re irrelevant to them.

    You have more chance of them adopting the metric system, which they all think is laughable.

    Criticising gun ownership to most Americans is like criticising a prophet to a believer.

    They just dismiss you as an idiot who couldn’t possibly understand.

    Leave them alone, stop bitching and moaning every time you can’t understand different cultures.

    Here’s a free tip, they are not like us.

  74. Frank

    And you would truly have to believe that, as that belief is tested over and over and over and will continue to be tested over and over and over in the years to come.

    A bit like accepting the road toll as an inevitable side effect of allowing people autonomy over their own movements. You know it makes sense to ban private car ownership so as to put an end to this senseless carnage, even if only one family is saved from having to go through this again then it will all be worth it. And if you disagree then it is because you hate the children, why do you hate the children so?

    It is the price to be paid for allowing people to make their own choices.

  75. Bear Necessities

    The chances of de-weaponing the US civilian population with firearms is remote. The main reason is how would you enforce “gun-control”. Firearms are too wide spread in the population (some estimates of more than 1 gun per person) for any meaningful recall to occur. You can imagine any police force would be reticent to risk their lives to go after people with firearms. Logistically it is impossible to do. There will always large amounts of firearms in the US generally.

  76. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    I wonder if low trust is a function of living in a society bristling with guns and a society bristling with guns is a function of low trust.

    We were a higher trust society when there was a better spread of gun ownership.

    Now in Australia as in the US fewer people own more guns and trust is lower.

    It’s like the old adage “An armed society is a polite society”.

  77. tgs

    Hypothetically, even if you did believe that somehow restricting US citizens constitutional right to possess firearms was a Good Thing™ how would you possibly go about implementing and enforcing such a policy in a country that already has hundred of millions of firearms in circulation?

  78. Oh come on

    Criticising gun ownership to most Americans is like criticising a prophet to a believer.

    No, Billie. The right to bear arms is not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of logic.

    They just dismiss you as an idiot who couldn’t possibly understand.

    From what I’ve seen, pro-2nd Amendment types are more than happy to explain the logic of their opinions to those who disagree with them. They only dismiss you as an idiot who couldn’t possibly understand after that’s what you prove yourself to be, which is so often the case. Nothing unreasonable there.

  79. Crossie

    Right after the 2nd Amendment falls, so do all the others.

    The First Amendment is already gone with speech codes and everything the Left doesn’t like considered as hate speech.

  80. Slayer of Memes

    Strange. No clamouring for gun control after a Somali took out a Christian church – stopped by brave usher with his own weapon.

  81. Dr Fred Lenin

    The USA needs Tom Howyard , you know <the little four eyed guy who disarmed Australia ,for the musso terrorists and u.n. Communists to take power . This Trump guy is an unprogressive nationalist anti bureaucratic enemy of u,n, communist power . Poor Hilarity <and comrade Sanders , the harbingers of the wonderfull future .

  82. Slayer of Memes

    Black SJW gets owned on Twitter, after trying to virtue signal over Las Vegas shootings:

    4C Chest Hair‏ 
    @Tw1nty
    History shows that white people can’t be trusted with guns.

    11:04 pm – 2 Oct 2017

    Not Elizabeth‏ 
    @NotElizabeth88
    White men with guns freed your people, so what are you saying?

    2:16 pm – 3 Oct 2017

  83. Barry 1963

    I don’t think gun sales will escalate too much this time. However, I’m sure there will be a spike in sales in the conversion kits that transform your semi-auto into full auto (this appears to be what the shooter used). Gun lovers will empty these from shelves.

  84. RobK

    In this Mandalay incident, the authorities have said they don’t know the motive. The perpetrator was heavily armed, more fire power than he could possibly use, including explosives. His brother and mother were unaware of his preparation to carry out this massacre. ISIS has claimed responsibility. Surely it cannot be ruled out that the authorities are dealing with an act of war as claimed. If that’s the case, disarming the populace is futile and acknowledgement of the facts would be prudent.

  85. Neil

    You mean like automatic weapons which are prohibited for purchase in the US except in extraordinary circumstances?

    i think they should be banned. What reason could you give for owning one? Some guns should be banned. It is not about gun ownership but where do you draw the line?

    Just like dogs. My neighbour 3 doors down got a pitbull pup a years or 2 ago. They assured me it would lick me to death rather than doing any damage. Great with kids they told me. Two weeks ago i was walking past their place on the footpath, the dog saw me and charged at me, bit me on the leg, i tripped on the footpath and banged my head on the road.

    Some should not be allowed to own certain things.

  86. Viva

    Yes, in a population of 300 million that is fairly well armed, you will get the occasional spree shooting. Disarm the law-abiding portion of that population and guess what? You will still get the occasional spree shooting. It’s your own selection bias that makes these relatively rare events seem common and endlessly recurring.

    Mate your exclusion bias beats my selection bias any day!

    Even if these events were as rare as you seem to think (14 so far in 2017 but standby for the next any day now) each one rips at the psychic fabric of the community with long lasting terrible effects. Clearly supporters of the status must just block their ears each time it happens.

  87. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    I don’t think gun sales will escalate too much this time. However, I’m sure there will be a spike in sales in the conversion kits that transform your semi-auto into full auto (this appears to be what the shooter used). Gun lovers will empty these from shelves.

    Yep. They stock them right next to the add on that turns a Nerf Gun into a laser beam.

  88. RobK

    You have to wonder if he had or was expecting accomplices….or perhaps just a Looney.

  89. rickw

    Massacres are an irrelevancy to the USA’s magnificent Second Amendment.

    Without a Second Amendment, right now the USA would be entering the early stages of its Second Civil War. A real shooting Civil War carried out on the USA’s streets with all the attendant killing and mayhem.

    Think about what Antifa, BLM and the rest would be doing if it weren’t that The Second Amendment guarantees that they would be launching histories shortest armed insurrection.

    Americans will never be made to kneel in front of a pit they just dug and be shot or bayoneted by a foreign or domestic oppressor.

    Ask the Europeans how their genocide count compares to the USA’s gun massacre count.

  90. Tel

    Just like dogs. My neighbour 3 doors down got a pitbull pup a years or 2 ago. They assured me it would lick me to death rather than doing any damage. Great with kids they told me. Two weeks ago i was walking past their place on the footpath, the dog saw me and charged at me, bit me on the leg, i tripped on the footpath and banged my head on the road.

    If that doesn’t teach you the benefits of self defense, I can’t imagine what would.

  91. rickw

    In this Mandalay incident, the authorities have said they don’t know the motive. The perpetrator was heavily armed, more fire power than he could possibly use, including explosives. His brother and mother were unaware of his preparation to carry out this massacre. ISIS has claimed responsibility. Surely it cannot be ruled out that the authorities are dealing with an act of war as claimed. If that’s the case, disarming the populace is futile and acknowledgement of the facts would be prudent.

    Rob, my observation is that true psychopaths are rarely that effective, they can’t contain their desire for revenge long enough to complete really comprehensive planning. On the other hand, islamic terrorists have shown that they can plan for years and then execute. The apparent level of organisation and planning points more towards an islamic basis than psychological one.

  92. Neil

    If that doesn’t teach you the benefits of self defense, I can’t imagine what would.

    You made the wrong conclusion. For the one millionth time it is not about banning guns but where do you draw the line. What type of military weapons do you think citizens should be banned from having?

  93. rickw

    I don’t think gun sales will escalate too much this time. However, I’m sure there will be a spike in sales in the conversion kits that transform your semi-auto into full auto (this appears to be what the shooter used). Gun lovers will empty these from shelves.

    There is no need or demand for such conversion kits. If you want full auto fire then assemble the trigger group without the disconnector. It has only been possible to do this for 100 years.

  94. Viva

    Massacres are an irrelevancy to the USA’s magnificent Second Amendment.

    I often wondered at the mindset which accepts regular mass deaths as the price willingly paid for the continuation of the US as an armed camp. I still do,

    As for the “magnificent”second amendment, it merely refers to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia” in lieu of a standing army, supported by the right to bear arms. America now has the most powerful standing army in the world which could (and would) crush any pesky uprising of the citizenry without batting an eye.

  95. 2dogs

    One change the US could make, which would stay within the constitution and actually be effective, is inventory controls on ammo.

    This would involve putting serial numbers on ammo and tracing ownership of it.

    It would be effective because while most gun crime is committed with unregistered guns, the ammo usually has, at some point, passed through legitimate hands.

  96. rickw

    You made the wrong conclusion. For the one millionth time it is not about banning guns but where do you draw the line. What type of military weapons do you think citizens should be banned from having?

    Citizens shouldn’t be banned from owning any military firearm, that’s the whole fucking point.

  97. Defender of the faith

    Tom Nielsen: US National Center for Health Statistics.

  98. rickw

    I often wondered at the mindset which accepts regular mass deaths as the price willingly paid for the continuation of the US as an armed camp. I still do,

    Please give me a tally of deaths from European Genocide VS US gun massacres, since 1900 will do. You can even give relative per capita rates if you want.

    You also demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of The Second Amendment. Those who argued against it did so because they felt that mentioning it implied a right to regulate but not extinguish. In short, the position of the No Second Amendment crowd was that Government had no right to regulate the arms of the people whatsoever.

  99. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    As for the “magnificent”second amendment, it merely refers to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia” in lieu of a standing army, supported by the right to bear arms. America now has the most powerful standing army in the world which could (and would) crush any pesky uprising of the citizenry without batting an eye.

    The US can’t beat Afghanistan at war, it would have no chance against it’s own well armed citizenry and more to the point would never try, due to them being well armed.

    Look at where Antifa attack. It sure as shit ain’t in Lubbock, Texas or Cheyenne, Wyoming.

  100. rickw


    It would be effective because while most gun crime is committed with unregistered guns, the ammo usually has, at some point, passed through legitimate hands.

    For every action there is a reaction by the criminal and insane.

    In PNG, the choice propellant for home made firearms is match heads. Imagine what could be done in an industrialised country. Everything can be made from scratch, reloading and reloading equipment is commonplace.

    Incidentally the only certain effect I’ve ever seen from PNG’s gun laws is keeping guns out of the hands of those that should have them.

  101. rickw

    Right after the 2nd Amendment falls, so do all the others.

    The First Amendment is already gone with speech codes and everything the Left doesn’t like considered as hate speech.

    Just look at how Australia is tracking since our “in effect” but unwritten 2nd Amendment was smashed.

  102. marcus classis

    Viva:

    We keep being assured when massacres like this happen (and smaller spree killings which happen virtually every week) that gun ownership/legislation/culture is not a problem.
    So we have to ask those asserting this – what the hell is the problem?

    In a country of 330,000,000 people which is the richest civilisation the world has ever seen, there are quite a few nutbags.

    That’s it, pretty much.

  103. rickw

    Here’s a free tip, they are not like us.

    No, and out of them and us, in histories pages, we will be the ones who pay a hefty price for not being like them.

  104. Viva

    RickW you seem to think that an armed America is a bulwark against communal violence between different fanatical groups and point to the millions slaughtered in Europe over the last century as a warning of what could otherwise happen. I guess that’s a variant on the theme of tyrannical governments needing to be kept at bay.

    If people don’t feel safe in the world then all this makes sense. Forgive me if I say I think this is evidence of a paranoid social pathology in the US, not evidence of civic prudence.

  105. Eddystone

    Felix Kruell

    #2513731, posted on October 3, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    Eddystone: I think Jamaica is a poor comparison, mainly because the police and military are active players in the illegals arms trade. The official ban means nothing.

    A real ban can work – see the UK. Actual gun numbers are quite low.

    How do you think the police and military would be acting in a country that managed to become totalitarian enough to try to confiscate guns from its citizens by force? Probably very similar to how they act in Jamaica.

    That’s what people seem to be unable to grasp when advocating banning guns/criminalising gun ownership. It would mean the consent between the voters and the State had broken down. It would involve terrible repression.

    As for the UK, gun crime rose after the Dunblane gun bans. A massive increase in police numbers was required to bring it back down.

    And, of course, that reduction was attributed to, tah-dah! the gun laws.

  106. cohenite

    If people don’t feel safe in the world then all this makes sense. Forgive me if I say I think this is evidence of a paranoid social pathology in the US, not evidence of civic prudence.

    If being able to defend yourself, your family and your possessions isn’t an example of civic prudence then what is.

  107. Defender of the faith

    Cohenite: very hard to understand how that thinking works. Do you have any data on the lives saved? There is an awful lot of data on things like traffic rage turning to gun homicide. Is that making families safe?

  108. marcus classis

    Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray
    #2513548, posted on October 3, 2017 at 2:57 pm
    There is no constitutional right to SELL weapons! So just outlaw the gun trade. People could make their own weapons, but not trade them. Problem solved. And just reinterpret ‘right to bear arms’ to mean ‘right to use arms and hands’, ie Karate, judo, ju jitsu, etc. This will leave the government with the big weapons, but if you can’t trust the Police, who can you trust?

    Hey,a genuine know-nothing loon who’d cheerfully trust the Geheime Staatspolizei

    What’s the weather like on your planet?

  109. Bruce in WA

    However, I’m sure there will be a spike in sales in the conversion kits that transform your semi-auto into full auto (this appears to be what the shooter used).

    Really? And you pulled that tidbit out of which part of your rectum?

    This would involve putting serial numbers on ammo and tracing ownership of it.

    Ummm … have you seen what happens to a projectile when it hits anything?

    As for the “magnificent”second amendment, it merely refers to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia” in lieu of a standing army, supported by the right to bear arms. America now has the most powerful standing army in the world which could (and would) crush any pesky uprising of the citizenry without batting an eye.

    Actually, no. The Supreme Court of the USA reconfirmed that it is a personal right to keep and bear arms. And don’t forget, if it came to the crunch, huge numbers of military and police would refuse to disarm civilians.

  110. marcus classis

    Neil
    #2513595, posted on October 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm
    Gun ownership is a inalienable right fullstop

    And where does that right end? One day it may be possible to fire a nuclear device from a rifle. Do you think people should have access to that?

    And one day it might be possible to crap bombs out of one’s arse, and fly by flapping ones arms!

    This thread has really attracted the whackjobs, hasn’t it?

  111. Viva

    If being able to defend yourself, your family and your possessions isn’t an example of civic prudence then what is.

    Cohenite if I lived in the US maybe concerns around self defense would become prioritised. That’s why I’m glad I don’t live there and have not absorbed that culture.

  112. marcus classis

    Eddystone
    #2513604, posted on October 3, 2017 at 3:51 pm
    I don’t understand the mentality of gun control advocates.

    Do they think the gun control fairy rides in on her rainbow unicorn and sprinkles magic gun control dust all over the place?

    Yes Eddystone, they do.

    These morons actually believe that criminals and lunatics and islamic terrorists obey the law.

    Either that, or they are desperate for totalitarian control.

    Probably both.

  113. cohenite

    Defender of the faith

    #2513913, posted on October 3, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    Cohenite: very hard to understand how that thinking works. Do you have any data on the lives saved? There is an awful lot of data on things like traffic rage turning to gun homicide. Is that making families safe?

    There is; ok what data?

    Owning a gun saves lives.

  114. marcus classis

    Felix Kruell
    #2513617, posted on October 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm
    I think the arguments about guns being necessary to allow people to keep the government honest are a bit outdated. Plenty of other countries haven’t needed guns to keep their governments honest. I can’t think of the last time an armed uprising of ordinary citizens successfully overturned a mature democratic government.

    You don’t understand. it’s got nothing to do with overthrowing a ” a mature democratic government”.

    it’s to do with opposing totalitarianism.

  115. Eddystone

    Cohenite if I lived in the US maybe concerns around self defense would become prioritised.

    The thing that most people don’t know about the US is that, apart from some racially tense, Democrat controlled areas, it is actually safer than Australia.

    The murder rate in areas that have low welfare dependency and relaxed gun laws are comparable with Australia.

    Overall, you are more likely to be raped, bashed or suffer a home invasion in Australia than in the US. And if you avoid places like Detroit, you are no more likely to be murdered.

  116. Neil

    Citizens shouldn’t be banned from owning any military firearm, that’s the whole fucking point.

    What about howitzers? I think can think of lots of military weapons that should be banned for citizens. beats me why anyone would want the weaponary that was used from the 32nd floor

  117. Howard Hill

    America now has the most powerful standing army in the world which could (and would) crush any pesky uprising of the citizenry without batting an eye.

    And yet they can’t crush a bunch of goat herders living in a desert!
    Just try and force your lefty bullshit on the American people and then see how mighty the American military isn’t. Here’s a tip, most of the military are the very ones you want to take their freedoms away from!

  118. marcus classis

    Viva:

    As for the “magnificent”second amendment, it merely refers to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia” in lieu of a standing army, supported by the right to bear arms. America now has the most powerful standing army in the world which could (and would) crush any pesky uprising of the citizenry without batting an eye.

    Bollocks, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Under the US Federal Regulations, every member of the society (excepting the insane and criminals) is automatically a member of the US Federal Militia when they reach age of majority. This makes the US a constitutional revolutionary republic and a nation under arms.

    Their 2nd amendment then guarantees all members of the Federal Militia an inalienable right to keep and bear all the arms applicable to modern infantry, as then defined. And as defined now, I might add. The 1934 banning of automatic weapons is actually unconstitutional. The term ‘regulated’ has an 18th century meaning – it means ‘properly functioning’.

    Sothis: 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.

    Means this in today’s debased argot.

    ‘A properly functioning militia composed of all members of society is essential to the security of a nation under arms. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear all of the arms and equipment of a modern infantryman shall not be infringed.’

    Other parts of their constitution ensure that the USA is not a democracy (it never has been) and that the nation-under-arms as a DUTY to revolt and destroy any tyrannical government which arises in the USA be that at Federal, State or local level.

    Go read the Federalist papers FFS.

  119. Viva

    The thing that most people don’t know about the US is that, apart from some racially tense, Democrat controlled areas, it is actually safer than Australia.

    Then why do people in the US make such a song and dance about needing to have guns to defend themselves and it just doesn’t cross most people’s minds here in Oz?

  120. marcus classis

    Neil
    #2513948, posted on October 3, 2017 at 8:22 pm
    Citizens shouldn’t be banned from owning any military firearm, that’s the whole fucking point.

    What about howitzers? I think can think of lots of military weapons that should be banned for citizens. beats me why anyone would want the weaponary that was used from the 32nd floor

    What about them?

    In both the US Revolutionary and Civil wars, rich men provided much of the artillery and cavalry units from their own purse. As everyday patriotic Americans, they maintained their own artillery and cavalry units at their own expense. WHy shouldn’t Bill Gates maintain an artillery regiment to provide to the US Army?

  121. Eddystone

    Then why do people in the US make such a song and dance about needing to have guns to defend themselves and it just doesn’t cross most people’s minds here in Oz?

    Oh, people here make a song and dance about it too.

    But we have different histories, and Australia doesn’t have a Second Amendment, even though the Second Amendment is modelled on an English concept of the right to self defence.

    Nevertheless, what I wrote about violence levels in the two countries is correct.

  122. marcus classis

    Viva:

    Then why do people in the US make such a song and dance about needing to have guns to defend themselves and it just doesn’t cross most people’s minds here in Oz?

    Seriously, what planet are you living on?

    I do not know of a single Dad with a family who does not worry about how to protect them in the case of a violent criminal entering his home.

    The difference here in Australia is that defending your family is illegal. You just have to die. It makes the cop’s jobs safer for them, they and the politicians say.

  123. Snoopy

    And where does that right end? One day it may be possible to fire a nuclear device from a rifle. Do you think people should have access to that?

    An excellent case can be made for landlords being granted limited use of a rifle-launched neutron bomb.

  124. stackja

    2dogs
    #2513865, posted on October 3, 2017 at 7:21 pm
    One change the US could make, which would stay within the constitution and actually be effective, is inventory controls on ammo.

    This would involve putting serial numbers on ammo and tracing ownership of it.

    It would be effective because while most gun crime is committed with unregistered guns, the ammo usually has, at some point, passed through legitimate hands.

    Proposed I believe during Nixon Administration and found unworkable.

  125. Crossie

    By and large, Australian journalists really are an embarrassingly provincial and ignorant group of mouth-breathers. There are a few exceptions to this, but not many.

    I’m quite surprised when I see or hear one who knows what they are talking about.

  126. stackja

    2GB Price/Bolt ‘solving’ the USA gun problem.

  127. Tel

    In both the US Revolutionary and Civil wars, rich men provided much of the artillery and cavalry units from their own purse. As everyday patriotic Americans, they maintained their own artillery and cavalry units at their own expense. WHy shouldn’t Bill Gates maintain an artillery regiment to provide to the US Army?

    A thousand years of Feudalism can’t be wrong.

  128. Fisky

    By and large, Australian journalists really are an embarrassingly provincial and ignorant group of mouth-breathers. There are a few exceptions to this, but not many.

    Greg Sheridan is the most worldly, intelligent member of the press. Says it all.

  129. Tel

    … found unworkable.

    That’s a lock then.

  130. Viva

    Seriously, what planet are you living on?

    I dunno Marcus, I may be living on Planet Zog but I don’t feel I am living under some sort of threat. I have a good survival instinct, I don’t walk down dark alleys, take normal precautions etc. We are not living in the middle ages where bands of brigands roamed around burning villages. But I guess men are hard wired to think differently, be more protective and still somehow remember in their DNA what it used to be like. There are threats out there but you can’t let it define your environment.

  131. Eddystone

    Here’s an article from John Lott comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries.

    https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

  132. Neil

    Bollocks, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    I think the guy is correct. England was defended for centuries by the militia. Henry VIII passed a law where you had to train your firstborn son to use a bow and arrow. The Americans most probably did not get around to having a standing army after the Revolution because they could not afford one.

    Same goes for Australia. Apparently we did not get a standing army in Australia until National Service was introduced in the early 1950’s. Before that we were defended by the Militia. Hence the need for people to bear arms. One we got a standing army that need is not as great

  133. stackja

    Neil
    #2513993, posted on October 3, 2017 at 8:52 pm
    Bollocks, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    I think the guy is correct. England was defended for centuries by the militia. Henry VIII passed a law where you had to train your firstborn son to use a bow and arrow. The Americans most probably did not get around to having a standing army after the Revolution because they could not afford one.

    Same goes for Australia. Apparently we did not get a standing army in Australia until National Service was introduced in the early 1950’s. Before that we were defended by the Militia. Hence the need for people to bear arms. One we got a standing army that need is not as great

    Americans feared a standing army, remembering British army rule before the Revolution. Lincoln, I believe, created the first standing army. Then Wilson and later FDR. Cold War kept USA standing army.

  134. Defender of the faith

    Cohenite: the centre for disease control and the national health data centre are among the primary sources. The link you posted refers to some “data”the author says he find on a timeline somewhere but forgets where.
    Contrary to many comments on this thread the data shows plainly that access to guns increases the incidence of gun deaths by a big factor. Hawaii which has gun control has an incidence one sixth of Texas or Florida which have free access to hand guns. According to the UN the US incidence of gun ownership is about 88 per 100 citizens. Yemen comes next with about 57. As recen events demonstrate the US has bred its own terrorist problem that is both domestic and random.

  135. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Same goes for Australia. Apparently we did not get a standing army in Australia until National Service was introduced in the early 1950’s

    Australian Regular Army dates from 30th Spetember, 1947. Before that, there was only a permanent cadre of some 3,500 officers and men, backed up by a militia.

  136. Sean

    An American I met travelling overseas who was against gun control told me that nearly all the shooting deaths happen in the notorious areas in the US. Only a small % of the other deaths occur in the rest of the country, plus the occasional mass murder. As a result he thought many Americans are apathetic to the need for gun control.

  137. Eddystone

    Another point to keep in mind when comparing homicide rates between the US and other countries is the method used to define a homicide.

    In England and Wales, it is only homicide if a conviction is recorded, whereas in the US, the actual deaths are recorded.

    If the US used the same method as England, its homicide rate would be reduced from about 4.7 to2.26 per hundred thousand.

    See John Lott’s article above.

  138. rickw

    In both the US Revolutionary and Civil wars, rich men provided much of the artillery and cavalry units from their own purse. As everyday patriotic Americans, they maintained their own artillery and cavalry units at their own expense. WHy shouldn’t Bill Gates maintain an artillery regiment to provide to the US Army?

    Private contributions to the development of the Spitfire should not be omitted from this list DIY defence.

  139. Neil

    Americans feared a standing army, remembering British army rule before the Revolution

    I doubt if that is true. I suspect they could not afford one. Same goes for us. We did not get a standing army until 30/9/47 as pointed out by Zulu

  140. rickw

    Then why do people in the US make such a song and dance about needing to have guns to defend themselves and it just doesn’t cross most people’s minds here in Oz?

    Because Australians are fucking sheep, thus one day they will be slaughtered.

  141. Eddystone

    Contrary to many comments on this thread the data shows plainly that access to guns increases the incidence of gun deaths by a big factor. Hawaii which has gun control has an incidence one sixth of Texas or Florida which have free access to hand guns.

    Well, free access to a gun makes it easier to use one to commit suicide.

    I’m more concerned about violent crime, so the overall murder rates and violence rates are more important than “gun deaths”, in my opinion.

  142. rickw

    RickW you seem to think that an armed America is a bulwark against communal violence between different fanatical groups and point to the millions slaughtered in Europe over the last century as a warning of what could otherwise happen. I guess that’s a variant on the theme of tyrannical governments needing to be kept at bay.

    If people don’t feel safe in the world then all this makes sense. Forgive me if I say I think this is evidence of a paranoid social pathology in the US, not evidence of civic prudence.

    There is a vast gulf between feeling and reality. That’s why most J e w s didn’t flee Europe, and indeed why most genocided peoples didn’t and don’t flee. You feel safe right up until the moment the truck pulls up in front of your house and a whole lot of armed men jump out. This is a story as old as mankind itself, even from ISIS held territory today there are eyewitness reports of exactly the same story playing out.

    You are never safe, but you might convince yourself otherwise and live a long and happy fear free life, or not.

    Personally, if you are a father in particular, I consider this to be a complete dereliction of duty.

  143. cohenite

    stackja

    #2513968, posted on October 3, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    2GB Price/Bolt ‘solving’ the USA gun problem.

    Pricey having trouble believing you could once buy AK 47s in Australia and that such purchases did not require registration. FMD.

  144. cohenite

    Contrary to many comments on this thread the data shows plainly that access to guns increases the incidence of gun deaths by a big factor. Hawaii which has gun control has an incidence one sixth of Texas or Florida which have free access to hand guns. According to the UN the US incidence of gun ownership is about 88 per 100 citizens. Yemen comes next with about 57. As recen events demonstrate the US has bred its own terrorist problem that is both domestic and random.

    That’s not right:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

  145. Fisky

    Trump’s statement on the shooting.

    My fellow Americans, we are joined together today in sadness, shock, and grief.

    This is a lie.

    In moments of tragedy and horror, America comes together as one — and it always has.

    No it hasn’t.

    We call upon the bonds that unite us — our faith, our family, and our shared values.

    Complete bullshit. There are no bonds. There are no shared values.

    Our unity cannot be shattered by evil.

    You are the leader of a 300-million strong shit show. Not a country. Stop lying.

    Our bonds cannot be broken by violence.

    Yes they can. You don’t have a country.

    it is our love that defines us today — and always will, forever.

    What a joke. It’s appalling that people can lie so blatantly like this.

  146. marcus classis

    Eddystone, adding death by suicide using a firearm is an old trick to inflate ‘gun deaths’ as ammo for the hoplophobic pearl-clutching SJW wowsers.

    When you look at suicide rates before and after mass firearm confiscations, you see that there’s no change in the suicide rate. Those unfortunates who suicide merely use a different method.

    The high gun violence rate in the USA is actually a reflection of the hideous culture of their black community. And that is a deliberate creation of the left in the USA. Their proudest achievement, in fact, has been re-enslaving that community in welfare, and destroying their desire for education.

    They never did like losing their black slaves, the US Democrats. So they have finally re-enslaved them.

  147. Viva

    Because Australians are fucking sheep, thus one day they will be slaughtered.

    Australians aren’t bullshit artists pretending to be Tarzan of the Jungle.

  148. Fisky

    There is no such country as the “The United States of America”. There is a continent labeled as such on maps. But it is not a nation in any meaningful sense.

  149. rickw

    Because Australians are fucking sheep, thus one day they will be slaughtered.

    Australians aren’t bullshit artists pretending to be Tarzan of the Jungle.

    Neither are Americans, so who are you talking about?

  150. Felix Kruell

    The Lott article is a joke. When the only countries doing worse than you are failed states, there’s something wrong.

    The simple fact is that citizens of Europe, the Uk, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, all manage to survive with far fewer guns, without being subject to totalitarianism by their governments. And despite the lack of good guys with guns, they aren’t overrun with bad guys with guns on a free for all. Good men don’t feel unable to protect their families. All the arguments and hypotheticals aren’t necessary – we have seen that other countries can manage it. The USA can too.

  151. rickw

    Pricey having trouble believing you could once buy AK 47s in Australia and that such purchases did not require registration. FMD.

    Cloistered fuckwads, where the fuck have they been? Australia has been transformed in the last 30-40 years from one of the best countris in the world to an also ran shithole and these morons quite literally can only remember Australia as it was yesterday.

  152. rickw

    The simple fact is that citizens of Europe, the Uk, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, all manage to survive with far fewer guns, without being subject to totalitarianism by their governments. And despite the lack of good guys with guns, they aren’t overrun with bad guys with guns on a free for all. Good men don’t feel unable to protect their families. All the arguments and hypotheticals aren’t necessary – we have seen that other countries can manage it. The USA can too.

    Europe?! Ask 12 million Europeans how life without guns worked out for them. Are you a fucking goldfish?

  153. Crossie

    There is no such country as the “The United States of America”. There is a continent labeled as such on maps. But it is not a nation in any meaningful sense.

    Correct. There is no southern border so Mexico simply moved north.

    If they ever seal the border and deport the illegals they might have a country again.

  154. Crossie

    More to my last point, that’s why Trump was elected. Majority of citizens were horrified at what was happening to their country and he was the only one who picked up on it.

  155. rickw


    Correct. There is no southern border so Mexico simply moved north.

    If they ever seal the border and deport the illegals they might have a country again.

    Yep, and homicides would also drop significantly.

  156. Fisky

    Europe?! Ask 12 million Europeans how life without guns worked out for them. Are you a fucking goldfish?

    In 1938, Hitler banned all J-ws from owning guns, and the Soviet Union completely stamped out private gun ownership. 100 million dead bodies later, we’re all for gun control!

  157. Chris M

    Why do mass shootings keep happening? Americans have been armed before 1950 as well. what changed since then?

    Yes rather than squabbling over the type and availability of tools used to commit violence this gets to the real issue, evil is increasing. As Jeremiah 17v9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and incurable; who can know it?”

    To students of biblical prophecy this increase in violence and other signs is to be expected, get used to more of it. Since the 1950’s the civilising influence of Christianity has declined sharply in the west. We are returning to “the days of Noah” (Matthew 24) when the earth and its inhabitants were destroyed.

    Genesis 6v5 “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.”

    As godliness decreases evil and demonic activity replaces it. The latter is the force that compels jihadi Moslems to murder children and commit unspeakable acts of violence with no shred of compassion. satan knows his time is short and is ramping up evil in many forms. Revelation 12v12 ” Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

  158. marcus classis

    Felix Kruell
    #2514045, posted on October 3, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    The simple fact is that citizens of Europe, the Uk, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, all manage to survive with far fewer guns, without being subject to totalitarianism by their governments.

    poor Felix.

    Never heard of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Warsaw pact, Hungary 1956, Prague 1968, Brezhnev, Ceaucescu, …

    And it can never, ever happen here, can it, Felix? Because, … well, just because.

    What an idiot.

  159. Defender of the faith

    Cohenite: what’s not right? Your link is to international gun homicide stuff on Wikipedia.

  160. Neil

    Australians aren’t bullshit artists pretending to be Tarzan of the Jungle

    I think you are correct. There is more Rambo in Americans than Australians. And there is no need for citizens to own weapons like were fired from the 32nd floor for any reason

  161. Fisky

    Matthew Goodwin‏Verified account @GoodwinMJ 9s9 seconds ago
    More
    (EPP in) EU Parliament accepts debate on Catalonia ‘on condition it doesn’t focus on police violence’

    Those lovely democracy-loving Europeans!

  162. Howard Hill

    poor Felix.

    Never heard of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Warsaw pact, Hungary 1956, Prague 1968, Brezhnev, Ceaucescu, …

    And now it would seem Caracas and Catalonia. Softcock cucks never learn!
    But we’re just scared old white men, what would we know?

  163. marcus classis

    neil.

    And there is no need for citizens to own weapons like were fired from the 32nd floor for any reason

    Another idiot, virtue signalling furiously.

    Why not?

    If I am a collector or theatrical armourer I have a perfectly valid reason to own anything from a SMG to heavy artillery. I know both types. One of them has well over a hundred LMG and MG as well as well over sixty artillery pieces. He has many hundreds of firearms including a hell of a lot of automatics.

    What’s the danger there, sunny jim? He’ll use a 17pdr to rob the local Coles?

  164. Infidel Tiger

    I think you are correct. There is more Rambo in Americans than Australians. And there is no need for citizens to own weapons like were fired from the 32nd floor for any reas

    Proper Americans are very independent minded and fiercely sceptical of the state.

    Proper Australians are obsequious and spineless dullards.

  165. marcus classis

    Seriously, if I want to own a Type 99 LMG and take it to the range to fire, why on earth shouldn’t I if I can afford one?

  166. Felix Kruell

    Marcus:

    All those things happened back before gun control. And they still happened. And none of the people living in those countries are clamouring for more guns, or arm themselves like the citizens of the USA do. Are they all idiots as well?

    Living in a civilised country requires people to trust each other enough to be civil. That’s the price of freedom.

    If you instead arm yourself to the teeth because you don’t trust your fellow citizens, then don’t act surprised when you end up getting shot at random music festivals or at school or wherever.

  167. rickw

    I think you are correct. There is more Rambo in Americans than Australians. And there is no need for citizens to own weapons like were fired from the 32nd floor for any reason

    Yeah, and where does “reasonable” gun control end up? With not being able to own any firearm which is even vaguely useful for protecting Life, Liberty and The Country and with BB guns considered to be firearms.

  168. cohenite

    Defender of the faith

    #2514058, posted on October 3, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    Cohenite: what’s not right? Your link is to international gun homicide stuff on Wikipedia.

    Which contradicts your data.

  169. Howard Hill

    Think of the blast you could have with one of these :~)

  170. marcus classis

    Felix:

    If you instead arm yourself to the teeth because you don’t trust your fellow citizens, then don’t act surprised when you end up getting shot at random music festivals or at school or wherever.

    Your assumption is that you “arm yourself to the teeth because you don’t trust your fellow citizens”.

    Your assumption is false. So your point is garbage, mere virtue signalling that you believe you are of a higher moral standard..

    You make it worse by implying that people who enjoy owning and using those mechanical tools we call ‘firearms’ are uncivilised.

    Again, utter garbage, and patronising as well.

    I enjoy owning and firing firearms.

    So tell me, why should I not (if I can afford it) own and fire a Type 99 down at the range if I do actually live in a civilised country with a functioning social contract?

    And I can assure you that Venezuelans are indeed clamouring for arms to oppose a tyrannical socialist government!

  171. Neil

    What’s the danger there, sunny jim? He’ll use a 17pdr to rob the local Coles?

    Like i said further up the thread, two weeks ago i was walking on the footpath and the neighbours pitbull charged at me, bit me on the leg and i stumbled on the footpath and fell onto the road. The owners had assured me many times it would lick me to death before it would do me harm and it was a great dog with kids

    Some people should never be allowed to own certain types of dogs or guns.

  172. rickw

    All those things happened back before gun control. And they still happened. And none of the people living in those countries are clamouring for more guns, or arm themselves like the citizens of the USA do. Are they all idiots as well?

    FMD, doubling down on stupid:

    Most Gun Control law concepts are based on 1930’s Nazi Weapon Laws.

    A large number of Europeans are absolutely clamouring for arms seeing as Merkel decided to let the place be invaded.

    Yes, Europeans are generally completely fucking stupid.

  173. rickw


    Proper Americans are very independent minded and fiercely sceptical of the state.

    Proper Australians are obsequious and spineless dullards.

    Correct.

  174. Infidel Tiger

    Living in a civilised country requires people to trust each other enough to be civil. That’s the price of freedom.

    Yes and when there were much higher rates of gun ownership we had far more trusting societies.

    There are now more guns than ever but held by fewer people.

  175. Pedro the Ignorant

    Australians are very obedient people.

    Howard said “give up your guns” and 99% promptly took them to their local cop shop.

    Sheep.

  176. marcus classis

    Neil#2514102, posted on October 3, 2017 at 10:34 pm
    What’s the danger there, sunny jim? He’ll use a 17pdr to rob the local Coles?

    Like i said further up the thread, two weeks ago i was walking on the footpath and the neighbours pitbull charged at me, bit me on the leg and i stumbled on the footpath and fell onto the road. The owners had assured me many times it would lick me to death before it would do me harm and it was a great dog with kids

    Some people should never be allowed to own certain types of dogs or guns.

    SO you get attacked by a dog, therefore I should not be permitted – by state coercion – to own a Type 99 to use down the range?

    I would not accept this specious an argument from a five year old.

    What you are actually telling me that you are a gullible fool.

    You suspected the dog was potentially vicious.

    You did nothing to protect yourself from this possible threat. (Carry a walking stick, cross to the other side of the road – nothing)

    Your failure to act on your suspicions and protect yourself is your responsibility.

    Yet in your mind this provides justification for punishing and restricting those who had nothing to do with it! You’d cheerfully punish people who DO control their pit bull terriers.

    Grow up.

    That failure was YOURS as much as the dog owners – you just do not want to be an adult and accept that point.

  177. rickw

    Some people should never be allowed to own certain types of dogs or guns.

    And that differentiator is very simple: A criminal conviction.

    In the USA, if you have a criminal conviction, you are almost universally barred from legal firearm ownership for a very long time. Illegal firearm ownership, not so much, just like Australia.

    Marcus: I want a Bren Gun and a 1910 Russian Maxim on a Solokov mount!

  178. marcus classis

    rick – agree on the Bren, beautiful piece of machinery. I’d actually like a Lewis, Type 99 and a French built Cauchat, a highly underrated LMG.

    Of course, I’d have to be a fairly rich bloke!

  179. EvilElvis

    Complete emasculation of males, fatherless or deadbeat dad’s, lack of intent to define, identify and correctly deal with mental illness, 24hr media cycle frogshit, inability to realise that profiling is a great tool for law enforcement, lack of intent and ability by said law ‘enforcement’, the list goes on why these nutters do what they do.

    It’s a perfect set of circumstances that can be attributed to the left, yet, as usual, there is no recognition of cause and effect, just carry on progressively…

  180. Neil

    Your failure to act on your suspicions and protect yourself is your responsibility.

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

  181. rickw

    Of course, I’d have to be a fairly rich bloke!

    When the USSR broke up and the satellites started flogging all the gear they had stockpiled, dealers in the USA were selling mint Russian 1910 Maxims for $1200!!

  182. Fat Tony

    Be nice to have some of those machine guns (or all of them) – but feeding them would be rather expensive.
    And I’d hate to stump up for some artillery shells….

    Seriously though, if some of these anti-gun types went through a home invasion – when there are 8 kids under the age of 16 in the house – they may see gun ownership in a slightly different light.

    Basically though – fuck them – if they don’t want to protect their own family, so be it. But don’t try & stop me protecting mine.

  183. JC

    Tony,

    I don’t have one because I don’t feel I need it, but it’s not to hard to own a gun in oz. It’s illegal, sure – but if you feel strongly about it, you can end up buying one in the black market. And if there’s a home invasion, just tell the cops you fought the gun of the dead fucker laying on the floor.

  184. Neil

    Basically though – fuck them – if they don’t want to protect their own family, so be it. But don’t try & stop me protecting mine.

    So you need what the guy was using on the 32nd floor to defend your family. Perhaps a rifle would be adequate?

  185. Viva

    A final suggestion. Just as the usual suspects only worry about a backlash after each Islamic terrorist attack, so US gun owners immediatly start warning about calls for gun control after each mass shooting. Forget the horror in front of us, they’re coming for our guns. Please, at least wait 24 hours.

  186. Fat Tony

    Neil – my ideal home defence weapon would be a pump shotgun.
    You’ve probably never used anything other than a Nerf gun, but a pump shotty with suitable shells is quite adequate. It would have been a bit more certain than the physical stoush we had.

    And I think it is quite reasonable to have weapons/firearms to protect against governments gone bad – as is happening now in Australia, and Europe, and a lot of other places.

    I suppose you think it is proper that other “rough” men should lay their lives on the line to protect you while you sit back and sip some expensive whiskey.

  187. Fat Tony

    JC – these days i just have an assortment of bladed weapons in the house. More personal.

  188. JC

    Neil

    Here’s the thing. You’re Australian and think telling Americans how to live is more than a little amusing. They have a constitution, which not only protects their right to own firearms, but the courts have interpreted the law to inform the Federal and state governments to fuck off and die. Their interpretation creates as close to a natural right as you can get in that it restricts the states and the federal government’s attempt to restrict ownership and possession.

    If you really need to tell Americans how to run America let me suggest that you try and have them change the constitution.

  189. Neil

    You’re Australian and think telling Americans how to live is more than a little amusing.

    Most of my comments have been about the situation in Australia.

  190. Viva

    Perhaps a rifle would be adequate?

    Neil I suspect subtle understatement sails under the radar with these characters lol. J C in particular is not known for it.

  191. Mark A

    Neil
    #2514128, posted on October 3, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    Your failure to act on your suspicions and protect yourself is your responsibility.

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    Well in this case stay clear of certain areas in Melbourne. Don’t know about Sydney.
    Also make sure your car has a hidden disable switch, and tell the boys from Sudan, “it won’t go”

  192. Bruce in WA

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    Stay away from WA then. My brother’s a copper. There are places in Perth he wouldn’t go at night even with a gun on his hip. If you think Australia is some sort of Singaporean utopia of peace and safety, you’re living deep in DelusionLand.

  193. AinsleyH

    I always come too late to these good  discussions but it’s late and who cares.

    The recent Houston flood relief effort from the Cajun Navy from Louisiana is a modern example of a ‘well regulated militia’. Do we honestly think nobody was packing?

    Then tonight, Fox News reporting LV locals hopping into their ‘pick-ups’ and transporting some of the so far 527 injured in this heinous, hideous crime to hospital. That is also an example of a loose militia that would quickly coalesce through social media. It does not require government to mobilise.

    We are not Yanks though and despite massive similarities we shouldn’t think we think exactly like them. The 2A is over there for good reasons but we are bred im a different national culture with different political impulses such that 2A in its form would never fly here.

    Can we grow up and stop being sucker-punched by the tired left narrative that conveniently blames inanimate objects for things humans do? Some commenters here read like they could write copy for the NYT, yet even they must remember the egregious headline after Nice that a ‘truck (a truck!) went on a rampage’. Maybe in London the acid is to blame?

    The founding fathers were not some  bunch of dickheads but deadly serious thinkers about individual life, liberty and happiness. No system of national government is perfect because the humans who make the laws are not perfect nor the citizens that break them, no matter which laws you write. IMHO, the USA is still the great constitutional republic, even if it has allowed through judiciary, Congress and executive order, corruption of its otherwise clear principles and processes. Things like the Great Society programs or Woodrow Wilson (D) re-segregating the federal public service and other grotesque political acts set back the country grievously and onto the wrong tack sometimes temporarily.

    I’m not particularly one for conspiracy theories but boy everything these days seems other than it is. So, it is interesting if not much else that the rich old retiree with 23 guns and buckets of ammo ‘snapped’ and stole ID, booked a room, stayed days, shot out two windows and used two platforms at either end of a room for a better angle for, of all things, a country music concert. It’s hopelessly sad and puzzling.

  194. Bruce in WA

    It’s hopelessly sad and puzzling.

    One of the best summaries I’ve read so far.

  195. Neil

    If you think Australia is some sort of Singaporean utopia of peace and safety, you’re living deep in DelusionLand.

    What are you trying to say? That when i go to the shop i should be able to carry a gun for protection if i want to?

  196. Bruce in WA

    What are you trying to say? That when i go to the shop i should be able to carry a gun for protection if i want to?

    Not at all (not that it’s a bad idea, if that’s what you want to do). But you are the one who said:

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    All I’m saying (and others have said), there are already plenty of streets in Australia where you wouldn’t want to (or dare to) walk without carrying “a stick, gun or anything to defend” yourself. Sad fact of life.

  197. Infidel Tiger

    What are you trying to say? That when i go to the shop i should be able to carry a gun for protection if i want to?

    Of course you should. Although a little nervous, you sound like a sound person of goodly character. You should be allowed whatever you deem necessary to protect yourself and family, because make no mistake the State won’t help you.

  198. Bruce in WA

    OK, Cats, my meds are kicking in, so it’s time to say “goodnight from me” and “goodnight from him”. Sleep tight.

    (Or continue to guts yourself on fine Froggie food in France!) 😀

  199. Oh come on

    Bill Whittle’s take on these mass shootings remains true. He observed that these killers (as well as most violent male criminals) all have one thing in common (and it isn’t antidepressants use) – they all have absent or extremely weak or dysfunctional fathers.

    This is the consequence of socially engineering fathers out of children’s lives.

  200. Oh come on

    Told ya.

    Trump says discussion of gun laws to come after Las Vegas massacre

    It did cross my mind that this might be Trump’s Howard moment. I suspect Trump will back off once he realises it’s a dealbreaker issue for most of us base.

  201. Viva

    Can we grow up and stop being sucker-punched by the tired left narrative that conveniently blames inanimate objects for things humans do?

    Can we stop this mantra of convenience? An inanimate object is an extension of the human will and amplifies the power of that will. It enables a man to travel at great speeds wielding a ten tonne killing machine or a precision engineered tool of mass murder at an industrial scale.

  202. Fisky

    It did cross my mind that this might be Trump’s Howard moment. I suspect Trump will back off once he realises it’s a dealbreaker issue for most of us base.

    His base will go even more feral over that, than they would if he promised to amnesty 11 million illegal immigrants. Of course, Ivanka at this very moment is doing her “Daddeeeee, think of teh childrens!!” routine, so we’ll probably hear another noise or two from Trump about gun control, before he beats a very hasty retreat.

  203. Do we know yet whether the items in this loon’s inventory were legally obtained? I would have thought that this was a necessary piece of information before considering whether further gun regulation was potentially valuable.

  204. Infidel Tiger

    Before Don pretended to be for the 2A we must remember he was virulently against it.

    The old fraud will probably cuck out to Chuck and Nancy thinking Ivanka will show him her titties if he does so.

  205. rickw

    It did cross my mind that this might be Trump’s Howard moment. I suspect Trump will back off once he realises it’s a dealbreaker issue for most of us base.

    If he doesn’t instantly realise it’s a dealbreaker he knows nothing about his base. It might be a plan of say something, do nothing.

    If it’s ISIS related (perhaps he already knows this as fact), then he’s completely off the hook. As I’ve said on the other thread, ISIS making false claims trashes their brand, to date they’ve never made a false claim about an attack on US soil.

  206. rickw

    If you think Australia is some sort of Singaporean utopia of peace and safety, you’re living deep in DelusionLand.

    What are you trying to say? That when i go to the shop i should be able to carry a gun for protection if i want to?

    Yes. A million imported goat herders says that Australia is not Singapore.

  207. Tel

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    The great thing about concealed carry is that not everyone needs to be carrying a weapon to get the benefit.

    The bad guy won’t know who has a gun and who does not.

  208. 2dogs

    Proposed I believe during Nixon Administration and found unworkable.

    If you’re talking about the 1986 repeal of the ammunition controls, then not so much unworkable but expensive and time consuming.

    Given technological improvements since then, I suspect the situation has changed somewhat. Inventory reporting could be done online, for example.

  209. marcus classis

    Neil
    #2514128, posted on October 3, 2017 at 11:04 pm
    Your failure to act on your suspicions and protect yourself is your responsibility.

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    So you refuse to take responsibility to protect yourself even from animals you already suspect are dangerous and want to make sure that nobody else can protect themselves either. That’s arrant cowardice.

    I choose not to emasculate myself like that – I choose to meet my responsibilities.

  210. Senile Old Guy

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    So you refuse to take responsibility to protect yourself even from animals you already suspect are dangerous and want to make sure that nobody else can protect themselves either. That’s arrant cowardice.

    I, and my children, have been attacked by dogs on several occasions*. I always carry a heavy object of some kind which I could use to defend myself. I also live in a place where crocodiles (and snakes) are common, so being aware of my environment, and its risks, is a must.

    * The owner of the dog always claims that their dog “never bites”. Utter and complete BS. All dogs bite. The only question is when.

  211. Tel

    Yeah, and where does “reasonable” gun control end up?

    The same place “reasonable” levels of taxation ended up… and “reasonable” levels of government driven wealth transfer for supposedly charitable purposes… and “reasonable” regulations on every other day to day activity.

  212. Irreversible

    a lot of talk of freedoms here. what about the freedom to sit in the open and listen to music? the freedom to send kids to school without fear? the freedom to walk the streets without fear of some hyped up nut job with a gun?
    there is zero evidence that an armed citizenry is in any way beneficial. the fact that masculinity comes up so often is itself a sign of whats wrong

  213. Fat Tony

    Irreversible
    #2514351, posted on October 4, 2017 at 9:37 am
    there is zero evidence that an armed citizenry is in any way beneficial.

    Try asking that of the 100 million plus individuals that were murdered last century by various socialist governments.
    Oh….that’s right – you can’t. Their governments disarmed them, then rounded them up and murdered them.

    Fuckwit.

  214. Viva

    Their governments disarmed them, then rounded them up and murdered them.

    And you think the US government couldn’t enforce its will on the citizenry using the all the military resources at its command? All the macho posturing in the world ain’ t gonna change that reality.

  215. Neil

    I choose to meet my responsibilities.

    Then perhaps you might admit you could be wrong when you said this “Bollocks, you have no idea what you are talking about.” You made that statement in response to this comment

    As for the “magnificent”second amendment, it merely refers to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia” in lieu of a standing army, supported by the right to bear arms. America now has the most powerful standing army in the world which could (and would) crush any pesky uprising of the citizenry without batting an eye.

    I think the guy could be correct. It was the same thing here. We did not get a standing army until 1947. Before that there was a miniscule professional force of 3,500 people plus we had the militia which contained thousands of people. Hence the need for the right to bear arms. Both Monash and Morshead were in the militia but had jobs when war was not on. Morshead was manager of Orient lines, a shipping company before WW2 but was in the militia. He only became a full time General when the war started.

  216. Marcus,

    What’s the danger there, sunny jim? He’ll use a 17pdr to rob the local Coles?

    Don’t bother arguing with Neil.
    He thinks you can buy a 17pdr at the local Maccas – just order the super dooper oversize Big Mac.

  217. marcus classis

    Viva
    #2514379, posted on October 4, 2017 at 10:38 am
    Their governments disarmed them, then rounded them up and murdered them.

    And you think the US government couldn’t enforce its will on the citizenry using the all the military resources at its command? All the macho posturing in the world ain’ t gonna change that reality.

    Aaaah, the old ‘the soldiers are brainless myrmidons who will always obey illegal orders’ schtick!

    Ever wonder why the Wehrmacht and Red Army behaved as they did and the Imperial and American armies behaved the way they did?

    Did not think so. DO some study.

    What you are saying is that you are so stupid that you actually think that soldiers, whose oath is to the US Constitution and very specifically NOT to the US government, will obey illegal government orders break that oath and to then murder US citizens: the same US citizens from whose ranks they come, and to whose ranks they will go when they leave the US military.

    You are an idiot.

  218. marcus classis

    Neil
    #2514383, posted on October 4, 2017 at 10:39 am
    I choose to meet my responsibilities.

    Then perhaps you might admit you could be wrong when you said this “Bollocks, you have no idea what you are talking about.” You made that statement in response to this comment

    I think the guy could be correct. It was the same thing here. We did not get a standing army until 1947. Before that there was a miniscule professional force of 3,500 people plus we had the militia which contained thousands of people. Hence the need for the right to bear arms.

    Nope, because you have again clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what you were talking about.
    Australians have never had anything like the US 2A
    The Australian militia was a formal military force – all-volunteer – and based on the old pre-Fed colonial all-volunteer armies that fought in the Maori and Boer Wars as volunteers. In fact it was the same as the ‘Volunteers’ in Britain, who later became reformed into the Territorials. In other words, the process that started with the Cardwell Reforms under Gladstone, went through the Childers Reforms under General Order 41 of 1881 and which culminated in the great Haldane Reforms of 1906-1912.

    But you’ve never heard of those, have you?

    The new Australian army followed the Haldane model and was built on the Colonial Armies. It was not a nation in arms at all, even with the 1912 Musketry Training Scheme. (Pity that was not re-instituted post war)

    You are so ignorant that you apparently do not understand that a standing professional army of 3,500 men is (drum roll please maestro) a standing professional army! Sure, it was designed as a cadre to provide the hard core for rapid enlargement based on trained volunteers then untrained volunteers – so what? A standing professional army is a standing professional army no matter how small it is. Go take a look at the current Republic of Fiji Army. Not many of ’em, but tough bastards to a man.

    Every modern army on the planet followed that model in 1912.

    So all you have succeeded in doing is revealing your total ignorance. Again.

  219. 2dogs;

    If you’re talking about the 1986 repeal of the ammunition controls, then not so much unworkable but expensive and time consuming.

    Given technological improvements since then, I suspect the situation has changed somewhat. Inventory reporting could be done online, for example.

    No! to ammo control!
    I’m the sort of bloke who buys in bulk to save money.
    Especially when buying a new rifle, I also get a great deal on ammo – when buying in thousand round lots.
    I don’t believe it’s anyone’s business how much ammo I’ve got because it becomes gun control via munitions.

  220. Personally, I believe that an Irregular Militia is the go.
    All members of the armed forces and police become members after they leave.
    They would be provided with the longarms they trained with, for many of us that would be SLRs, and are issued a certain quantity of ammunition per year to keep us skills.
    Also, an IM gives protection (such as it is) under the Geneva Conventions.

  221. marcus classis

    Winston (letter on the way BTW), ammo control does not work anyway.

    What the hoplophobes mean when they say that is ‘bullet tracking’. They honestly believe that you can put a serial number on the bullet so they you can ID who fired it!

    These are hugely stupid people.

    If they force me to report my ammo inventory, I’ll just have a book inventory which I will never touch, and a second stock ‘off the books’ . I’d buy a fewK worth of bulk stock before it came in.

    Ammo is much easier to hide than firearms.

  222. struth

    It’s absolutely amazing how quickly Mal took the opportunity to crack down harder on gun control here.

    Just as a good U.N. puppet is supposed to do.

  223. Zatara

    I may be living on Planet Zog but I don’t feel I am living under some sort of threat. I have a good survival instinct, I don’t walk down dark alleys, take normal precautions etc.

    I don’t want to walk the streets in Australia where i have to carry a stick, gun or anything to defend myself.

    There are threats out there but you can’t let it define your environment.

    Neil, if you are limiting where you go and what you do in order to remain safe you clearly are allowing the threat to ‘define your environment’. You might want to re-think what you have given up in order to consider yourself safe because avoiding evil isn’t always an option even in ‘safe’ places.

    Just because someone (in the US) carries a legally concealed firearm doesn’t mean they walk into those evil areas like high noon at the OK corral looking for a gunfight. But neither have they chosen to allow that evil to redefine their environment.

    It’s about taking personal responsibility for preventing evil from controlling you and yours.

  224. marcus classis

    Zatara:

    It’s about taking personal responsibility for preventing evil from controlling you and yours.

    Bingo

  225. Deplorable

    Gun control in Australia has worked really well . Now most of the population are unarmed with specific legislation in place to further restrict a persons ability to protect ones self and family or country.
    The criminals,drug organisations and religious cult/s do not care about laws and guns are aplenty for them as are the use of other weapons.
    I note a school teacher in USA shot dead a person who had killed two already in the school. How many would have died if not for the teacher, there is always two sides to an argument and a great deal of thought and facts are to be considered. I would have to agree that all automatic and military type weapons should be seized. With all the identity politics being pushed these days it is no wonder that the crazies do what they do. Mind altering drugs are a bigger problem than owning a single shot .22 for bunnies. I must admit I think Duterte may be following the only path open to him to rid or reduce the drug barons and pushers.

  226. Neil

    So all you have succeeded in doing is revealing your total ignorance. Again.

    I said i think the guy could be correct. I had no idea we had a militia until recently. Two of our famous Generals, Monash and Morshead were in the militia but had civilian jobs during peacetime. I am sure most Australians have no idea about that. I think the militia morphed in what we now call the Army Reserve. But i still think the guy is correct when he said this

    As for the “magnificent”second amendment, it merely refers to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia” in lieu of a standing army,

    Armies are expensive and a waste of valuable manpower so it is cheaper to have an armed militia. So i think the intent of the second amendment was to save money by not having a large standing army which the new USA could not afford. And i think the same applied to us. At Federation we could not afford a large professional army so had a skeleton professional force combined with a large militia.

  227. Steveo

    Everytime I read Americans talk about gun control it is jaw-dropping.
    “Don’t take our guns!”
    Do you seriously need an assault rifle? It’s called an ASSAULT rifle, not a defence rifle.
    The sad thing is most of you haven’t lived in other countries in the world, so you won’t ever know what “normal” gun culture is suppose to look like. Instead you’ll say things like “It’s been this way forever, what has changed? Guns have always been here!” and will wave your flag with this absurd patriotism like having guns makes you more of an American. You want more mass shootings? Don’t change a thing… Blame hotel security, blame religion, blame terrorism, blame everyone except yourselves.
    I weep for Vegas, but until there is real action I will never be surprised.

  228. Plenty of other countries haven’t needed guns to keep their governments honest

    Name one honest government. Any will do.

  229. Defender of the faith

    Cohenite: you’ve confused two issues. My comments stand and are not contradicted by the data you’re pointing to.

  230. marcus classis

    This is getting tiresome. FFS go and learn a bit about it.

    Armies are expensive and a waste of valuable manpower so it is cheaper to have an armed militia

    .

    No, the nation -in-arms as an armed militia is actually more expensive than a professional army. It’s just that the expense is not on any government ledger. They are also strictly limited: they cannot form an oversea expeditionary force, for example. They are also a direct threat to any domestic power-elite which is why power-elites hate them and want a disarmed populace. Which is the major reason the US Constitutional Revolutionary Republic went that option. You DO understand that it is the duty of both the US Citizen AND the US military to revolt in order to attack and destroy any political tyranny that arises in that country, don’t you?

    So i think the intent of the second amendment was to save money by not having a large standing army which the new USA could not afford.

    No. It was to guarantee the personal liberty so hard-won during the Revolutionary War by guaranteeing that no power-elite could form and replicate the centralised government and monarchy they had displaced: or worse, which replicated the monstrous French Tyranny of the Committee of Public Safety.

    And i think the same applied to us. At Federation we could not afford a large professional army so had a skeleton professional force combined with a large militia.

    No. We had Territorial volunteers in the Colonial Armies uniquely configured for oversea expeditionary work (which is why the NSW Army and Victorian Army went to Sudan in 1885). No other Colony or Dominion had anything like that. Because of the Imperial Navy, we were NOT vulnerable to invasion. So our professional army was the training cadre for an oversea expeditionary force. And a powerful one.

    Seriously, do some research.

  231. Bruce

    From the Once and Future Penal Colony of New South Wales:

    For those who don’t know:

    The “2nd Amendment” is part of the US “Bill of Rights”

    This, unsurprisingly, was lifted in bulk from the ENGLISH Bill of rights, as signed by William and Mary of Orange, as a CONDITION of ascent to the English throne.

    There was a historical reason for the first, and, as anyone who knows their REAL history, the American revolutionaries saw themselves as PATRIOTS, not specifically to their little colony, but to a SYSTEM that had been built on those core English laws.

    The conflict came about partly because King George was a German “ring-in” and TAXATION (without representation) was the colonists main gripe, along with “billeting of troops”, etc., etc.

    As for this bogus blather about 2A only applying to muzzle-loading muskets: NO! It refers to ARMS, and this can and should be interpreted broadly and in the context of the times. That was then, this is now. The “well regulated militia” is ALL able bodied citizens. The “regulated” part means, as per the subtleties of the English language, NOT smothered by Federal paperwork, but “trained and organized”. The usual suspects have been screeching about the US Constitution being a “living document” for decades. By that, they mean to do an Alinsky and “fix” it, well and truly. As for that pesky “Bill of Rights, thing; they don’t like that one bit.

    I have been to the US several times and thoroughly enjoyed my visits, including all the historical stuff over East, and , just because, Las Vegas.

    Hang in there.

  232. Irreversible

    Fat Tony: so there is no evidence that an armed citizenry is in any way beneficial.
    There is very clear evidence that easy gun ownership has imposed severe limitations on the freedoms of large numbers of Americans. Freedoms including being alive. Being able to walk. To not have brain damage.
    In fact I would like you to have this debate with, say, some of the people whose liberties were constrained in Las Vegas.
    You clearly live in La La Land.

  233. Neil

    No, the nation -in-arms as an armed militia is actually more expensive than a professional army. It’s just that the expense is not on any government ledger.

    Well i think that is also what i meant. There is no way a newly formed USA could have afforded a standing army and if they raised taxes to start one there would have been a riot. So they had an armed militia in lieu of a standing army.

    And i suspect the same applied to us. We did not get a proper standing army until 1947.

  234. Zatara

    In fact I would like you to have this debate with, say, some of the people whose liberties were constrained in Las Vegas.

    And when those people turn out to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment what will your next meme be?

  235. struth

    So fucking stupid.

    So no one is shot in Australia anymore?

    Answer, yes, but only the innocent.
    So incredibly stupid to watch MSM bleat on about the U.S. this and the very next story was a shooting in western Sydney.

    You won’t stop bad guys having guns.
    The bad guys are the criminals and the government (but I repeat myself).
    FFS.
    Let’s disarm all the good , law abiding citizenry and arm the criminals and government.

    What fucking insanity.

  236. marcus classis

    We did not get a proper standing army until 1947.

    No. That refers only to a standing PROFESSIONAL army on the post Haldane model.

    In 1870 the New South Wales government raised a regular or permanent military force, consisting of two infantry companies and one artillery battery, their fortunes waxed and waned, but this too was a ‘standing army’. on the day of Federation, the NSW Army had over 10,000 members, of whom about 10% were regulars.

  237. marcus classis

    Idiot:

    There is very clear evidence that easy gun ownership has imposed severe limitations on the freedoms of large numbers of Americans.

    Yup. Hundreds of thousands of US criminals are contrained in the freedom to murder, rape and rob.

    And you think this is a bad thing.

  238. struth

    Freedoms including being alive. Being able to walk. To not have brain damage.

    Same can be asked of the Lindt café victims families.
    The Bali bomb victims etc.

    Socialist shitholes that ban guns have outrageously high murder rates.
    By guns!
    Outlaw guns and only the outlaws have them.

    The shooting in the states was done by a mass murderer.
    His choice of weapon is limitless.
    Banning one choice won’t stop them.
    And it won’t stop them if they decide to use the illegal weapon.

    Banning is purely a power grab on the back of misery.
    That’s why Turnbull jumped at it even though it did not occur here.

    Hands up all those who think somebody wanting to commit mass murder thinks twice about the legality of the weapon?
    There will always be a black market, as Australia proves.
    There will always be guns.
    Just not in the hands of the righteous.

  239. Defender of the faith

    Marcus classics: is there any evidence that gun ownership in the US stops murders. Like: does the us fewer murders proportionate to population of any OECD country (all of which have gun controls). I like the argument above about freedoms because imo my freedom to live in liberty would be threatened by ready access to guns. I also think the self defence meme is at best a fantasy. Simply proven by the fact that most of us have never owned one and don’t feel the need to have them available.

  240. struth

    I

    also think the self defence meme is at best a fantasy. Simply proven by the fact that most of us have never owned one and don’t feel the need to have them available.

    Yes, but ask yourself why the States is a superpower.
    Why do so many risk death to live in a place so terrifying because guns?
    Why is it so much more free and prosperous than Australia?
    Governments the world over, will take control of everything if you let them.
    Even the States.
    Yet we smugly sit back and poo poo yanks about gun control, while at the same time, being forced to bend over for our masters here.
    Your “comfortable” attitude to lack of self defence will come back to bite you or your children on the arse.
    History proves it.

  241. Eddystone

    Irreversible
    #2514351, posted on October 4, 2017 at 9:37 am
    there is zero evidence that an armed citizenry is in any way beneficial.

    You keep repeating this, but that doesn’t make it true.

    Try “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott.

    There are many quotes from brutal dictators about the necessity to disarm the population they wanted to control.

    Genocides in the 20th century were preceded by gun confiscations, which were enabled by the “sensible” gun control laws that had been enacted earlier, such as registration and severe penalties for non-compliance.

    Hopefully I haven’t just wasted a few minutes replying to you!

  242. Eddystone

    Defender of the faith
    #2514604, posted on October 4, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    Marcus classics: is there any evidence that gun ownership in the US stops murders.

    Yes. More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

    It’s a rigorous analysis of the effect of introducing “shall issue” concealed carry laws. That is, if you have no disqualification to owning a firearm, such as certain criminal convictions, then you must be issued with a concealed carry permit. It is not up to official discretion.

    In all cases, following introduction, murder and other violent crimes began to fall.

    You could also look at the situation in England where there were virtually no gun laws at the start of the 20th century, so you could carry a gun with you if you wanted, and the murder rate and general crime rate was much lower than now.

    Gun laws are not the only factor, of course.

  243. marcus classis

    Eddystone beat me to it!

    Read John Lott.

    Defender of the faith
    #2514604, posted on October 4, 2017 at 2:27 pm
    Marcus classics: is there any evidence that gun ownership in the US stops murders. Like: does the us fewer murders proportionate to population of any OECD country (all of which have gun controls).

    See above. Also research the FBI murder and violent crime stats and see how much US Blacks have to do with it: 13% of the genpop does 50% of the murders.

    I like the argument above about freedoms because imo my freedom to live in liberty would be threatened by ready access to guns.

    This is an inversion of objective reality. You are depending on the state for your personal liberty. What sort of liberty is that again?

    I also think the self defence meme is at best a fantasy. Simply proven by the fact that most of us have never owned one and don’t feel the need to have them available.

    There are tens of thousands of cases in the USA annually where armed individuals have forced violent criminals to flee due to their being armed.

    Yours is a subjective opinion dependent entirely on your current subjective perception of your current environment. Much worse, it’s built on the assumption that nothing will ever change in that environment.

    But that change is already here. People who think that ‘nothing will ever change’ have imported “the enemy”. Thirty years ago, a J.e.w with yarmulk could safely wander about Lakemba. I dare you to don a yarmulk and try that now – you will be beaten to a bloody pulp if you are lucky. Most likely you will be lynched by a baying mob of howling savages.

    Things have changed. And not for the better.

    Why can’t they change more? We are still importing this historic enemy.

    Now, I just do not care if you make yourself a soft and defenceless target for violent criminals. You are willing to accept the risk that a violent crim might invade your home, kill you and rape/murder your wife/ daughter/s. I am cool with you accepting that risk, you and your dependents are the ones who will die, not me and mine. IMHO you will have failed the fundamental test of manhood as well, but that’s your call too.

    But I am not willing to take that risk for me and mine. And I deny you or anyone else the ability to force me to take it.

  244. 2dogs

    No! to ammo control!
    I’m the sort of bloke who buys in bulk to save money.

    I am in no way suggesting that you should be limited as to how much ammo you can own.

  245. marcus classis

    Eddystone:

    You could also look at the situation in England where there were virtually no gun laws at the start of the 20th century, so you could carry a gun with you if you wanted, and the murder rate and general crime rate was much lower than now.

    Yes.

    Why did unarmed British police carry whistles?

    To call for the armed assistance of an armed citizenry against the common enemy – the violent criminal.

  246. marcus classis

    If any of the various hoplophobes who have appeared here wish to start actually learning something, here’s a place to start.

    yes, yes, I know that’s extremly unlikely!

    And yes, the author is one of you.

    By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

  247. Viva

    While US gun owners fret about the federal govt going rogue all around them large segments of their society is going rogue thanks to the left’s long march thru nearly every institution

    Fat lot of use their guns are in responding to this evolving threat. The gun controls they obsess about are the least of their worries

Comments are closed.