Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State




ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2005 05:56:40 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

> >You might contend that the restrictions on firearm ownership in
> >Australia have the same effect as a ban, but the facts show this is not
> >the case
>
> Onerous restrictions on freedom.

If that's your opinion fair enough, but that is not a ban.

>
>
> >. Firearms are not banned and licences can be obtained and most
> >importantly are obtained. Australia has had good success at the last 2
> >Olympics in shooting events which is an obvious demonstration that guns
> >are not banned.
> >
> >As you rightly point out restrictions on flying commercial airliners
> >are in place to facilitate "maintaining safety standards". Well,
> >Australian gun regulations are similarly designed.
>
> LOL That's right - designed to disarm the law abiding citizen so
> they can be easy prey for the criminal

Then why are criminals using them in ever decreasing numbers (if you
are going to say because they no longer fear armed citizens you need to
prove this was ever the case)?

> >
> >There is no "guise" of public safety, the regulations are
> >overwhelmingly supported.
>
> And if the majority "overwhelming supported" the elimination of the
> Aborigines?

Oh ye of little faith. Here's a fact, they don't. You might try arguing
on what the situation is, not what you dream up.

Here's a tip for you Glenn, I don't support gun restrictions purely
because the vast majority also do.

>
> > Clearly ownership of certain weapons for
> >certain purposes is discouraged no apologies for that.
>
> Self defense?

Like I said, no apologies. If you require a gun for self defense I'm
sorry to hear that.

>
>
> > As for your
> >claim that the restrictions "serve no real purpose other than to
> >discourage" guns, that is a wildly inaccurate statement. The "real
> >purpose" of the original 1996 gun laws was the one stated at the time,
> >which was to limit the possibility of firearm mass-murders. Since that
> >time there have been none.
>
> LOL And lots of other crime increased.
> --

Yes, I think embezzlement might have gone up, maybe graffiti too.

As for crimes where guns are involved their numbers rose by 2.1%
between 1996 and 2004 while the population rose by 10% during that same
period, eg a lesser rate of violent crime now.

Nice to see you laughing out loud about a crime, firearm mass-murder,
that in the 8 years from 1987 to 1994 saw 128 killed and in the 8 years
post 1996 none killed. I imagine you used to giggle uncontrollably as
you pulled the wings off flies as a child.

.



Relevant Pages