Politics The Gun Debate

[Niximus]

Do you really think most people are hero arseholes? No the vast majority are cases where they saw someone coming at them in the dark and grabbed the cricket bat and hit them 2 or 3 times or pushed them down the stairs some purposely let the dog out.

To add, this topic has come up before on here and seeing how many people view 'self defence' as a licence to enact vengeance on someone who has threatened them, I do not doubt that there are 60 people in the NSW prison system who feel that they have been unjustly punished for 'defending themselves'.

 

[evo]

From your posts it is apparent that you want to live in an Anarchist society, where everyone is armed.

Seen Mad Max?

Not a big gun advocate myself, but anarchism does appeal. I see your Mad Max and raise you Deadwood.

 

[malph]

Whos talking about 'thought'? Were talking about an unfettered right to freedom of speech, not freedom of thought.

I think we just draw the line between 'speech' and 'harm' at different points to each other.

An unfettered right to free speech is (by definition) illiberal.

Speech is speech. I can say what I think. I can write what I think. I can associate with whomever I like. I can worship whatever God I choose. When I encourage others to carry out criminal activities in the support of those beliefs, it is no longer just speech, that’s when we enter Harm territory.

Just because you don’t want to hear what I believe, it doesn’t mean it should be made unlawful. Including the right not to be offended is stretching the boundaries of a right to ‘liberty.’ The same people who could be offended by someone holding a “God Hates ****” sign probably have no problem offending the religious by saying “God is a bullshit lie.” If I want to publish a book that says Jews are evil and that the Holocaust was a hoax, the government shouldn’t be able to stop me.*

*I have no problem with Jews and I don’t deny the Holocaust.

A Bill of rights is just legislation, and it is interpreted by Judges (i.e. it is the common law).

It's really not.

Look at recent cases in the USA in relation to the 2nd amendment where it was left up to Judges to decide what exactly was 'meant' by the 'right to bear arms in a militia' and the precedent that this decision formed.

Of course it was left up to the Supreme Court. That’s its responsibility, nobody else’s. As for that interpretation of what exactly was ‘meant,’ no expert in the English language would disagree that the second clause does not need the preamble to be relevant. It is clear.

Anyway, there have only been three Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the turn of the 20th century. Those "recent cases" were also the first cases in 70 years.

I am suggesting that a Bill of Rights is not the best way to to go about it.

Constitutionally assured Seperation of the powers, a mandated requirement of the state to abide by the Rule of Law, and a requirement to adhere to the principles of Liberty as the sole overriding legal framework would do me just fine.

In Oz we expressly have two of those three things. I would gladly support the third which is currently only implied.

How are you proposing that to happen?

Why does someone need to be advised that if he confesses Murder to the Police, that he is probably going to get in some serious trouble?

Dont get me wrong, we need to protect against police overstepping the mark, but for a voluntary confession to be thrown out simply because the accused was not 'advised' that such a confession (given freely and willingly to the Police) will be used in evidence against them in a subsequent trial against the accused, doesnt exactly fit my definition of the police oversetepping the mark.

It doesn’t matter what your definition is. The accused has rights, and a waiver of those rights cannot be implied. If an implied waiver of those rights could be argued by the state in court, are you saying that would cause fewer problems? A constitutional requirement that the police inform the accused of their rights is not a problem, nor is it even controversial.

In any case, Miranda didn’t go free. He was retried on different evidence and still sent to jail. So what’s your problem?

Roe vs Wade isnt the Bill of Rights, its an evolution via the Common Law.

The 14th amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights, but it is the constitutional amendment that ensures the Bill of Rights is applicable to the states. And it wasn't a decision upheld by precedent, it was underpinned by the amendment. That same amendment supported Brown v Board of Education too, overturning precedent in favour of the 14th.

Again a simple requirement that every Law passed by the State conform to the principle of Liberty would have sufficed here.

We can’t even agree on what constitutes free speech, so how does a society possibly agree on something so vague as a “principle of Liberty”?

What are you proposing, to attach a copy of On Liberty at the bottom of our constitution?

Personally I disagree with the US 'fruit of the poison tree' doctrine, and favor the Australian approach where illegally obtained evidence is prima facie excluded from use by the Crown, but such exclusion is rebuttable depending on the overall circumstances.

That’s because we don’t care about privacy in Australia. “Probable cause” should be central to any police investigation.

Do you know what a general search warrant is?

You believe in a constitutionally mandated separation of powers, but not a constitutional requirement that it always be adhered to.

The fundamental right to liberty incudes the right to free speech but only as long as you do not use that speech to unreasonably harm others.

See also, defamation laws, censorship laws, racial hatred laws, inciting violence laws, intellectual property laws, copyright laws etc.

An unfettered right to 'free speech' is not liberal any more than any other unfettered fight.

Look, I understand the Harm Principle, but I much prefer the balance further towards the individual rather than the state which is where I imagine you lie. The more speech you place into the Harm box, the harder it is to stop expanding. What about pornography? Sexually suggestive advertising? My Jew-hate book?*

It should all be good as far as I’m concerned. Society will take care of the hate-spewing ignoramus.

*I haven’t written a Jew-hate book.

 

[Malifice]

Not a big gun advocate myself, but anarchism does appeal. I see your Mad Max and raise you Deadwood.

Why do the good shows always end too early?

Better that jumping the shark I guess.

 

[Malifice]

I think we just draw the line between 'speech' and 'harm' at different points to each other.

That does seem to be our main point of contention. Indeed the main point of contention in any debate about liberalism (well, that and 'objective reasonableness').

How are you proposing that to happen?

Rather than a specific list of 'Rights' (which are by themselves exclusive and exhaustive) simply insert a singular right that guarantees Liberty (a prohibition on the State from making any Laws unless those laws are reasonably needed to protect the objective reasonable person from objectively reasonable harm from others).

In many ways such a universal right to Liberty is better than a limited bill of specific rights.

We can’t even agree on what constitutes free speech, so how does a society possibly agree on something so vague as a “principle of Liberty”?

A topic for a different thread perhaps.

What are you proposing, to attach a copy of On Liberty at the bottom of our constitution?

Probably a good idea seeing as most Americans Ive met dont know what the term means.

You believe in a constitutionally mandated separation of powers, but not a constitutional requirement that it always be adhered to.

I argued the exact opposite.

Its one of my biggest gripes with the Westminster system in fact.

Look, I understand the Harm Principle, but I much prefer the balance further towards the individual rather than the state which is where I imagine you lie. The more speech you place into the Harm box, the harder it is to stop expanding. What about pornography? Sexually suggestive advertising? My Jew-hate book?*

The principle of what constitutes 'harm' is up to the State to decide (specifically the Courts).

Thats the case currently, in both Oz and the US.

 

[estibador]

Not that I support it, but I recon censorship of the various gunmen's 'stories' would work better. It would become a less culturally ingrained option for the disenfrachised to act out. The background to 'why they did it' tends to get celebrated to a degree for the sake of our entertainment. Celebrate is the wrong word but hopefully you get my point.

There's a forensic psychiatrist from America who's been pushing this line of thinking for 20 years.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/07/how-media-shouldnt-cover-mass-murder



Nice in theory, but unfortunately no news outlet is going to commit commercial suicide by limiting themselves to dry facts while the station next door is turning it into a salacious soap opera to cash in on the 'car crash syndrome'.

This latest shooting is a particularly good example since the media are giving this piece of s**t everything he was craving, no more aptly demonstrated than the fact they are running with his self appointed Joker nickname.

 

[Clay Davis]

The self defence argument as validity for no gun control basically assumes that in such a situation there's perfect knowledge of who the threat is. This notion that a massacre would have been averted if those in the cinema had guns ignores the even greater likelihood that more could have died in the resultant confusion, and is so *ed it is worth the possible yellow card I might get for using that word.

But good to see Old Skool entertaining yet a few more paranoid fantasies. Seriously, do you have a job?

 

[Old Skool]

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4...L1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx#.UA2VvEpa_7E.facebook

 

[Tex_21]

Far be it for me to talk about guns, in the thread where the debate seems to have gone toward a liberty-based discussion, but as someone who has grown up with guns, and been hunting/shooting my whole life (accompanying my dad from the age of 4 or 5, shooting myself from 12), I think we have the balance pretty good here in Australia. It is sufficiently difficult for someone to obtain a licence and a weapon, but provided they can show they have a legitimate reason, they are able to do so, and must have all weapons well secured.

Pistols are only available to competition shooters, and anyone with a licence for handguns is fingerprinted, and required to have an alarmed system (at least in Victoria) for their weapons.

I see no reasonable rationale why a civilian should need an assault rifle, you don;t hunt with an M16, nor do you do any kind of sport.

The US has a totally different culture though, and as long as the majority is in favour of liberal gun laws, they shall remain (or at least indifferent to)

 

[greennick]

Agree with Tex_21 above. The balance in Australia is right. It is not easy to get a gun here and those that shouldn't have them (history of violence, mental illness, age, etc), can't get a licence.

When I lived in the US, one of my mates had an automatic shotgun in his bedroom (14 years old at the time). There is no plausible reason for this. Sure, he went hunting, but never with that gun. It was just for ******* around. Sure it was fun to play with and shoot at targets out the back of his house bordering on a national park, but there is no requirement for this. The negative is that these types of weapons kill thousands each year.

To those that argue handguns stop these large killings, while that can be true, more people die each year from their own gun than are saved by guns. And if there are no large scale supply of automatic weapons, this wouldn't be an issue, so there would be no need for it.

In order to reduce the gun crime, the US needs to ban automatic and assault weapons. Then they can work on restricting hand guns. There is no way this will happen though, as there are too many redneck hicks in the US and the rest are too focussed on individual liberties and blaming the individual responsible.

 

[Malifice]

Awesome.

Now for every story you can find about a 'gun carrying citizen' preventing a crime/ saving a life, I bet you I can find 100 more stories about a 'gun carrying citizen' killing innocent people/ taking an innocent life.

The ratio of innocent people getting shot and killed as opposed to 'crimes prevented by a citizen with a gun' is seriously out of whack.

Try an objective assessment of the possible benefits of an armed society against the obvious drawbacks of such a society.

I mean you really dont get it mate. In an armed society your chances of getting shot and killed (which apparently worries you so much) increase, it doesnt decrease. If protecting yourself from getting killed is such a massive thing to you, why on earth would you advocate for laws that resulted in people being armed with weapons that make it so much easier for them to kill you?

Your position is counter productive to say the least.

 

[rayven]

America spends more of GDP on weapons (military) than anyone of note .The people are only mimiking what there seeing.

 

[Donners]

I lean towards cynicism about people, if not a degree of paranoia. If we had US-style laws, I would get access to a weapon and carry it with me as soon as possible.

I have had a few scary encounters in my time, and have got away unscathed through being passive or avoiding the situation as much as possible (and outright fleeing at one point). If I had a weapon on me, the artifical self-confidence could have led to a very different result.

Carrying a gun does not enhance one's protection. Indeed, it can leader greater danger where, rather than avoiding confrontation, an armed person relies on their weapon to face it.

 

[Malifice]

When I lived in the US, one of my mates had an automatic shotgun in his bedroom (14 years old at the time). There is no plausible reason for this.

A few years back when I was visiting Miami (Spring break, woohoo!) I entered intoa discussion re US Gun culture with a 19 year old college student (University of Miami).

This bloke proceeded to pull out his 9mm Sig Sauer handgun (with laser) and show it me.

Initially I freaked a bit, but it was all perfectly legal; he had a concealed carry permit and all (also shown). Millions of Florida citizens have these permits.

Proudly he informed me that he had a .357 magnum revolver back home (snubnosed with a sunken hammer for 'quick draw'), a Glock 17 semi-auto chambered for .40 ACP, an AR 15 semi auto .556 carbine (replete with picantiny rails, laser sights, front handgrip etc) and a 12 guage semi auto CAWS shotgun.

A little spun out that this 19 year old was legally wandering around the city with a concealed semi automatic handgun on him, and it being prime binge drinking season (Spring Break and all) the question naturally sprang to mind:

Whats the deal with concealed weapons at bars and nighclubs? Surely you have to 'check your weapons at the door' or something?

He looked back at me confused; you see he had never encountered this situation before. Suddenly the realisation dawned on me that this kid was 19 years old; although in the US he was lawfully allowed to own (and carry around with him shopping and such) a small aresenal of high powered weaponry, he wasnt old enough to lawfully drink a beer yet.

Land of the free and home of the brave.

 

[rayven]

The other day I was cleaning out the flu for my old man who's nearly 80, I still remember when i was about 19 and I shot it with the .22 bolt action cause i could, mark is still there, bullet went threw the first part but not the second.

I use to smoke cones until I slept back then cause i thought thats what you do, I used to drink until i vomited back then, cause thats what I thought you do.

 

[telsor]

About 15 years back, I was in the US and walking out of a suburban shopping all with a friend when just ahead of us, and argument broke out over a parking spot.

One of those arguing, pushed back his coat, revealing his pistol to emphasise his point (yes, very wild west, although it was actually upstate New York).

I was gobsmacked and just stopped looking at this, at which point my friend took hold of me and guided me away.

The 2 points that stick in my head though are that a guy was threatening to use a gun over a parking spot, and that it was normal enough that it didn't cause my friend to bat an eye.

I can see good and bad in both sides of the gun debate, but whenever I remember that episode, I'm very glad we're not like that.

 

[KC_Resurrected]

Let them have their guns. Leftists would love it if people couldn't fight back against government when the day of reckoning comes

 

[Ron The Bear]

Maryland man found with dozens of weapons, says he's the Joker

I understand people have hobbies, but...

When police arrived, Prescott was wearing a shirt that read, "Guns don't kill people, I do."

 

[Blue and Silver]

OK.

So a couple of points to make about guns.

They do kill people. They're designed to do so. They do it very quickly and with practically no effort or risk on the part of the shooter in comparison to other methods.

People also kill people, and have been doing so since the dawn of humanity. There is no way to stop people killing people, but there is a way to restrict the ease at which they do so and to provide a greater chance for victims to survive. By limiting the weapons they can use.

No one in their right mind would be ok with everyone having chemical weapons, or free access to land mines. Because these have no purpose save killing and maiming. Guns also have no purpose except killing or maiming, which is what they are used for (hunting is killing/maiming an animal). A modern assault rifle can be used to devastating effect to very quickly kill dozens of people. Handguns and shotguns, while less effective, exist with the same purpose.

A society which condones violent uprising against its government is missing the point. If your government is so bad, then you'll be doing your best to dispose of it anyway. You do not need a gun to end a bad government, only common sense. By allowing everyone weapons of mass destruction all you do is allow those that would commit evil, to do so more easily.

Guns in the hands of civilians DO NOT SAVE ANYONE. For every death prevented by guns, there may be only a minority of deaths/maiming caused by them, yet if very few people had them, then many of the cases of deaths prevented would themselves be non-existant.

Before anyone suggests that by only allowing the government guns we allow the possibility of tyranny a few points:

1. If I was a US citizen I would already live in fear of gun violence. Tyranny committed by citizens is just as wrong as that by the government

2. Soldiers and Police Officers are people, who live within our community, who are raised within it, and know us. To think they would blindly assault us is wrong. Where it happens in the world today there are other factors at play, religious conflicts, power vacuums, regimes established on violence who educate their soldiers to ignore humanity. Some of these people aren't completely stable, but if anyone honestly thinks that they will be happy to walk onto the streets now and start killing people pointlessly then I think you're out of touch.

3. Violence as political process should be a last resort, but in the states it isn't. The congresswoman who was shot is proof of that.

 

[Niximus]

Florida man kills door-to-door salesman: I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/...hat-steps-on-my-property/#.UBIHQtV334E.reddit
A man in Cape Coral, Florida on Wednesday was arrested for shooting and killing an unarmed door-to-door salesman on his property.
Kenneth Bailey Roop, 52, has been charged with second-degree murder for killing 30-year-old Nicholas Rainey.
Roop’s neighbors described him as “the neighborhood crazy.” Roop has a concealed weapons permit and approximately 14 firearms.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/...hat-steps-on-my-property/#.UBIHQtV334E.reddit

 

[Pie eyed]

As a former shooter, and owner of a small arsenal of semi-auto and modified fully automatic assault and assault style weapons, not to mention numerous shot guns and bolt action rifles I had no real issue with unloading all my arms when Johhny got on his soapbox.Not because he was right or because I thought it would limit urban massacres but because at the same time my fist daughter was born and child and a firearm have no place being in the same vicinity, no matter how safe you think you are in their storage and handling.
I can still buy a Gloch pistol today, illegally, if I so desire, for any anti-social purpose.

 

[Old Skool]

As a former shooter, and owner of a small arsenal of semi-auto and modified fully automatic assault and assault style weapons, not to mention numerous shot guns and bolt action rifles I had no real issue with unloading all my arms when Johhny got on his soapbox.Not because he was right or because I thought it would limit urban massacres but because at the same time my fist daughter was born and child and a firearm have no place being in the same vicinity, no matter how safe you think you are in their storage and handling.
I can still buy a Gloch pistol today, illegally, if I so desire, for any anti-social purpose.

Good for you.

Do you think that gives you the right to decide for me?

 

[Pie eyed]

Good for you.

Do you think that gives you the right to decide for me?

I have the right to decide for my daughter.
As for you, personally I don't know you.
If you miss out on getting to lob down to KFC with a semi-auto pistol and responsibly leave it holstered when the little turd behind the counter gives you some s**t all well and good, but it's not the sane people with guns who a). I am worried about or b) are likely to cut loose and kill half a dozen innocent people.
Everywhere I look I forego a little freedom to protect others from the the dishonest, the irresponsible, the loons, the irrational and sometimes even themselves.
Foreget gun laws, just look at consumer laws. I pay more for everything I buy to protect the incompetent and/or uneducated.
Drug laws..numerous substances are illegal simply because some people are unable to show restraint or control their use.
I have to pay for the existence of the family court because some people cannot control their personal relationships or child bearing.
I pay for the carelessness of others at work,on the roads, in the home and in public.

It's not really a case of gun lovers being unfairly singled out in isolation.

Personally I would like all the stupid people rounded up and locked away out of harms way and not have to fund their existence, but then who decides who the stupid people are? Half of them, at least, make the very legislation which costs me.

Not having a rifle next to the bed has not effected my real liberty in anyway at all and apart from your indignation at being told what to do, I'd wager it has not cost you anything of any substance let alone any measurable freedom or liberty.

 

[Old Skool]

Personally I would like all the stupid people rounded up and locked away out of harms way and not have to fund their existence, but then who decides who the stupid people are? Half of them, at least, make the very legislation which costs me.

These are the tiny minority which make a farce of democracy.

In reality, we are a society controlled by a minority.

 

[Pie eyed]

In reality it is the majority which has chosen to protect the minority and consistently votes to maintain and even enhance this protection.
Most of us agree with the concept in one manner or other, not necessarily all circumstances but generally.