ImageImageImageImageImage

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule

User avatar
johnnywishbone
General Manager
Posts: 9,698
And1: 1,361
Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#101 » by johnnywishbone » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:57 am


I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

SYDNEY, Australia

IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 17, 2013


An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a journal that published an article finding that the country’s gun-buyback plan had cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. It was The American Law and Economics Review, not The American Journal of Law and Economics.

Play time is over.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,150
And1: 55,028
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#102 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:01 am

:D
POSTING POLICIES:
1. Posts are dictated but not proofread most of the time. It depends.
2. All typos are not the fault of the real Harthorne Wingo, may he Rest In Peace.
User avatar
johnnywishbone
General Manager
Posts: 9,698
And1: 1,361
Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#103 » by johnnywishbone » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:17 am

HawthorneWingo wrote::D


I really wish I could say that I thought that article would change one person's mind. But between the fear of the black helicopters and grown men worried about their ability to play army I doubt any of that will sink in.

But at least when they say: "oh an assault weapons ban won't change anything", we can point to Australia. What do they have to offer up as an example of a safe and gun prolific society? Venezuela?
Play time is over.
Jeffrey
Head Coach
Posts: 7,121
And1: 4,870
Joined: Aug 02, 2010
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#104 » by Jeffrey » Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:25 am

Here people.. I will just give you guys the typical talking point from a gun advocate. BTW, I'm not against banning all guns but their talking points are just spin.

- We need the guns just in case we have to form a militia against the government
- Hitler took away their' guns and look what happened
- (insert country here), look at their violence and they banned guns!!
- If you take away our guns, bad guys will be the only ones that have guns!
- Of course we're not going to use this rocket launcher, we are just collectors.. don't mind the grenades as well
- It's our rights and the federal government is taking away our rights!
- <insert a group of people to blame> (Mentally illness, violent video games, violent movies, parents)
- Guns don't kill people, people kill people
- Those Muslims are going to invade our country. (post 9-11 talking point)

Be sure not to use facts or "little factoids" when speaking to a gun advocate. It will boggle their minds. They will always look at worst case scenario but when you do the same, they will call you outlandish for having that scenario in your head. You're just not going to win a sane debate over them. They will not compromise and the only amendment in our Constitution is gun rights.
BOOMbip
Banned User
Posts: 1,799
And1: 170
Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Location: The views expressed are intended for entertaiment purposes only

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#105 » by BOOMbip » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:07 am

I can see that ignorance, rhetoric and the disingenuous still fills this debate. I'm glad that nobody in this thread has any power to rule this country. Of course when I do look at who actually does have the power and know it's not much better than how Dolan runs the Knicks, throw obscene money around and a broken clock is right two times a day. I just have to shake me head and just hope I get to live my life out in peace and joy and to die before it gets crapped up too much because most people are the blind who think they are aware.
Falstaffxx
Banned User
Posts: 9,153
And1: 165
Joined: Sep 27, 2010

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#106 » by Falstaffxx » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:47 pm

johnnywishbone wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote::D


I really wish I could say that I thought that article would change one person's mind. But between the fear of the black helicopters and grown men worried about their ability to play army I doubt any of that will sink in.

But at least when they say: "oh an assault weapons ban won't change anything", we can point to Australia. What do they have to offer up as an example of a safe and gun prolific society? Venezuela?


This isn't some short-term thing where people want to have a revolution next year or something. Don't be short sighted. And acting as if preserving the ability to protect ourselves against the government some day down the line is just about "black helicopters" is just willful refusal to think. If you neuter citizens now, it could have an impact for hundreds of years.

By the way, I'm not even necessarily against more gun control. It just bothers me that people refuse to acknowledge that the rights involved are significant.
alphad0gz
Analyst
Posts: 3,284
And1: 405
Joined: Oct 10, 2008

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#107 » by alphad0gz » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:22 pm

Again just because laws are difficult to enforce does not mean we should not have them. Are you saying it should be legal for someone to use heroin, or crack cocaine? What is a practical reason for someone to own an assault weapon?


Once again, assault weapons are simply not the threat they are made out to be. That is a fact supported universally by statistics. What exactly are you trying to accomplish and why? The opinion that they are unnecessary is completely irrelevant, unless you are saying that the government has the right to tell you what you can have and do without any real reason. Jesus, people on here are stupid. What is the practical reason for having one? The question ia better asked as what is the practical reason for making people give them up? A course to educate people on gun use? Seriously? You think this stuff was an accident or borne out of gun ignorance? You think some kind of law would have stopped even a fraction of this? People committing murder are hardly concerned with the legality of their method. That's like saying a person stealing a car would be worried about a parking ticket.

The bottom line, and it really is the bottom line, is that if people want to shoot people, they will find a way regardless of laws. And by the way, if you think there was bloodshed from these incidents you are talking about, wait til you see what happens when they have to go door to door demanding guns from owners. Not saying I would shoot someone doing so, but I promise you there are scores of people that would.
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 16,144
And1: 1,334
Joined: May 06, 2001

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#108 » by ORANGEandBLUE » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:31 pm

alphad0gz wrote:[

Once again, assault weapons are simply not the threat they are made out to be. That is a fact supported universally by statistics. What exactly are you trying to accomplish and why? The opinion that they are unnecessary is completely irrelevant, unless you are saying that the government has the right to tell you what you can have and do without any real reason. Jesus, people on here are stupid. What is the practical reason for having one? The question ia better asked as what is the practical reason for making people give them up? A course to educate people on gun use? Seriously? You think this stuff was an accident or borne out of gun ignorance? You think some kind of law would have stopped even a fraction of this? People committing murder are hardly concerned with the legality of their method. That's like saying a person stealing a car would be worried about a parking ticket.

The bottom line, and it really is the bottom line, is that if people want to shoot people, they will find a way regardless of laws. And by the way, if you think there was bloodshed from these incidents you are talking about, wait til you see what happens when they have to go door to door demanding guns from owners. Not saying I would shoot someone doing so, but I promise you there are scores of people that would.

I think the issue is not so much assault rifles, but high capacity magazine. A high capacity magazine is a threat because it allows one to inflict a large amount of damage in a short amount of time. I think the policy is, we won't stop mass-shootings, but with lower capacity magazines, the death counts won't be so high.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,372
And1: 41,816
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#109 » by GONYK » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:44 pm

alphad0gz wrote:
Again just because laws are difficult to enforce does not mean we should not have them. Are you saying it should be legal for someone to use heroin, or crack cocaine? What is a practical reason for someone to own an assault weapon?


Once again, assault weapons are simply not the threat they are made out to be. That is a fact supported universally by statistics. What exactly are you trying to accomplish and why? The opinion that they are unnecessary is completely irrelevant, unless you are saying that the government has the right to tell you what you can have and do without any real reason. Jesus, people on here are stupid. What is the practical reason for having one? The question ia better asked as what is the practical reason for making people give them up? A course to educate people on gun use? Seriously? You think this stuff was an accident or borne out of gun ignorance? You think some kind of law would have stopped even a fraction of this? People committing murder are hardly concerned with the legality of their method. That's like saying a person stealing a car would be worried about a parking ticket.

The bottom line, and it really is the bottom line, is that if people want to shoot people, they will find a way regardless of laws. And by the way, if you think there was bloodshed from these incidents you are talking about, wait til you see what happens when they have to go door to door demanding guns from owners. Not saying I would shoot someone doing so, but I promise you there are scores of people that would.


So because criminals will always find a way to get guns, we shouldn't have any laws or restrictions on guns?

Why do we have any laws on anything then? People will always find their way around anything.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 16,144
And1: 1,334
Joined: May 06, 2001

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#110 » by ORANGEandBLUE » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:09 pm

GONYK wrote:[

So because criminals will always find a way to get guns, we shouldn't have any laws or restrictions on guns?

Why do we have any laws on anything then? People will always find their way around anything.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

I think that's what a lot of gun-control proponents would argue. So unless we can pass a law that ends all gun violence, ends world hunger, cures cancer, eliminates the federal deficit, and teaches dogs how to finally talk, we should just do nothing.
AndroidMan
Veteran
Posts: 2,953
And1: 262
Joined: May 06, 2010
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#111 » by AndroidMan » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:00 pm

yaboynyp wrote:bs


Deny all you want. Let your hate ride. You are certainly up for Hater of The Year. Continue with your hate escapade. I'm certain that you will follow me from thread to thread telling me how pointless my posts are. I'll tell you right now that your whole existence is pointless.

The quote that made you so mad in the first place

AndroidMan wrote:I'm probably right in that you are ignorant of the most part of American History, but are arrogant and naive enough to believe that you do have knowledge.

Either way, a tool is a tool. Why I stopped speaking to you. I have to repeat everything all over to you again. For the last time, it was your tone and text which showed you were immature. I don't have time for you. Sorry, ask your father


Well, once again I still don't have time for you and still consider you ignorant, probably more ignorant then before. Once again, I don't have time for you. Sorry, go ask your father
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#112 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:10 pm

AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:


Deny all you want. Let your hate ride. You are certainly up for Hater of The Year. Continue with your hate escapade. I'm certain that you will follow me from thread to thread telling me how pointless my posts are. I'll tell you right now that your whole existence is pointless.


^^^^^ :crazy: Lmao
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#113 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:12 pm

AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:bs


Deny all you want. Let your hate ride. You are certainly up for Hater of The Year. Continue with your hate escapade. I'm certain that you will follow me from thread to thread telling me how pointless my posts are. I'll tell you right now that your whole existence is pointless.

The quote that made you so mad in the first place

AndroidMan wrote:



Fixed it for you Fam!
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#114 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:18 pm

alphad0gz wrote:
Again just because laws are difficult to enforce does not mean we should not have them. Are you saying it should be legal for someone to use heroin, or crack cocaine? What is a practical reason for someone to own an assault weapon?


Once again, assault weapons are simply not the threat they are made out to be. That is a fact supported universally by statistics. What exactly are you trying to accomplish and why? The opinion that they are unnecessary is completely irrelevant, unless you are saying that the government has the right to tell you what you can have and do without any real reason. Jesus, people on here are stupid. What is the practical reason for having one? The question ia better asked as what is the practical reason for making people give them up? A course to educate people on gun use? Seriously? You think this stuff was an accident or borne out of gun ignorance? You think some kind of law would have stopped even a fraction of this? People committing murder are hardly concerned with the legality of their method. That's like saying a person stealing a car would be worried about a parking ticket.

The bottom line, and it really is the bottom line, is that if people want to shoot people, they will find a way regardless of laws. And by the way, if you think there was bloodshed from these incidents you are talking about, wait til you see what happens when they have to go door to door demanding guns from owners. Not saying I would shoot someone doing so, but I promise you there are scores of people that would.


Do you believe that Heroin or Crack Cocaine should be legal?
AndroidMan
Veteran
Posts: 2,953
And1: 262
Joined: May 06, 2010
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#115 » by AndroidMan » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:21 pm

yaboynyp wrote:Fixed it for you Fam!


Sorry I'm not black or Puerto Rican. I think you have your own fam. We are certainly not related in any way shape or form, but you can continue to proceed to ask your father, who is your fam, for advice and knowledge that you lack.
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#116 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:27 pm

AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:Fixed it for you Fam!


Sorry I'm not black or Puerto Rican. I think you have your own fam. We are certainly not related in any way shape or form, but you can continue to proceed to ask your father, who is your fam, for advice and knowledge that you lack.


Dood I’m a white tea party nut job just like you, what are you talking about dood!? You, me, we brothers! :D
AndroidMan
Veteran
Posts: 2,953
And1: 262
Joined: May 06, 2010
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#117 » by AndroidMan » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:29 pm

yaboynyp wrote:
AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:Fixed it for you Fam!


Sorry I'm not black or Puerto Rican. I think you have your own fam. We are certainly not related in any way shape or form, but you can continue to proceed to ask your father, who is your fam, for advice and knowledge that you lack.


Dood I’m a white tea party nut job just like you, what are you talking about dood!? You, me, we brothers! :D


Lol, not white either, but keep trying. Your ignorance will be your failure yet again.
seren
RealGM
Posts: 24,134
And1: 4,188
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#118 » by seren » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:30 pm

Jon Stewart had a nice segment on the issue about the laws on the books and how NRA and its representation in the congress made it impossible to implement many of those laws.

The most interesting tidbit in the segment was that 53 percent of guns used in violent crimes could be traced to 1 percent of sellers.
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#119 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:37 pm

AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:
AndroidMan wrote:
Sorry I'm not black or Puerto Rican. I think you have your own fam. We are certainly not related in any way shape or form, but you can continue to proceed to ask your father, who is your fam, for advice and knowledge that you lack.


Dood I’m a white tea party nut job just like you, what are you talking about dood!? You, me, we brothers! :D


Lol, not white either, but keep trying. Your ignorance will be your failure yet again.


You mean we’re not brothers??? And I was just about to change my name to Mad Thinker :waaa:
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#120 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:38 pm

seren wrote:Jon Stewart had a nice segment on the issue about the laws on the books and how NRA and its representation in the congress made it impossible to implement many of those laws.

The most interesting tidbit in the segment was that 53 percent of guns used in violent crimes could be traced to 1 percent of sellers.



That’s pretty crazy

Return to New York Knicks