Help Me Combat This Antigun Argument RE: Australia

[El Mariachi]

I had this same type of conversation with a sailing buddy of mine who lives in Oz. He told me that during the Big Buy Back down there, approx 800,000 firearms were turned in to the Govvy. But he also said (and what many folks don't know), that at the time, there were approx 2.9 million firearms in private citizen's hands. Which means that today, there's still about 2 million guns 'outstanding', spread about their country....and 'sposedly 'un-registered', or 'whereabouts unknown'.

So basically not all the Ozzies caved in like a lot of their fellow subjects did. And that's a good thing, in my book.....

 

[MachIVshooter]

It may be more fair to say that Colorado has an abundance of hysteria, rather than an abundance of mass shooters or victims.

More like an abundance of anti-gun zealots in the state legislature. The people of CO do not want this garbage.

 

[xfyrfiter]

In a few short years prior to Aus. ban, there were at least 1,000,000 SKS rifles imported, and with only 800,000 guns turned in, including sks's, that means that there are a lot more still in the hands of OZ's citizens, esp. if you count all other than sks.

 

[JRH6856]

More like an abundance of anti-gun zealots in the state legislature. The people of CO do not want this garbage.

I thought the people of CO voted for the state legislature. Do they not vote for who they want to represent them? How is the legislature selected in CO? rolleyes

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

It's very simple. We are not Australia. Our demographics are different. Our Founding documents are different. We have a Civic Responsibility to overthrow the government if things ever get that bad "again".

That said no matter what you do you cannot prevent acts like these mass shootings. Even with layers upon layers of protection American Presidents have been shot. These acts of madmen/women will always occur and no amount of restrictions placed on firearms will prevent these things from happening.

Just so you will know: the number of children who die every day from starvation is 16,000-18,000 depending on whoses numbers you use and 75% of those deaths are children under the age of 5.

 

[Phatty]

Even assuming that a semi-auto gun ban would effectively prevent a wanna-be mass murderer from acquiring a semi-auto gun, I don't follow the logic that the murderer will abandon his plan of mass murder. The goal of the mass shooters is not to kill as many people as possible with a semi-auto gun, their goal is simply to kill as many people as possible. The semi-auto gun just happens to be a convenient tool to carry out that goal.

Take away semi-auto guns (or even all guns) and there's still a wide variety of tools to carry out a mass murder. For example, look at the mass stabbings that have occurred at Chinese schools and day cares. As a parent, should I be relieved that my child died from a knife wound instead of a bullet wound? An even easier, quicker and more effective way of killing/injuring a large number of people is to simply get behind the wheel of a car or truck and drive it at high speed down a busy sidewalk loaded with pedestrians in a city. The anti-gun nuts have this idea in their head that the gun is what motivates people to commit mass murder, and without the gun, nobody will be inclined to commit mass murders anymore. It's a ridiculous argument.

 

[atvalaska]

I looked this up ...for 1 year to boot! http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/roadtolltable.jpg looks like its time to take away their cars

 

[G.barnes]

China has no guns. In 2010 50 kids died and more were injured in school stabbings. In australia the government isn't even smart enough to declare what constitutes a home invasion. A lot of those countries also make their gun murder rates look better by how they classify gun deaths. In europe a gun death is only counted as murder if there is a conviction. The biggest thing is how facts are stated. In the uk they had 3000 gun deaths last year we had 31,000 total gun deaths. That's 10 times the gun death rate of europe. Now state it with all the facts. The uk with 12 million people and 0 legal gun owners had 3000 gun deaths. America with 350 million people 100 million legal gun owners had 31,000 gun deaths. Put like that really changes the sound of it. So australia may not have mass shootings but they have more violent crime since the bans. So it's all how they say it

 

[Spymaster]

In a few short years prior to Aus. ban, there were at least 1,000,000 SKS rifles imported, and with only 800,000 guns turned in, including sks's, that means that there are a lot more still in the hands of OZ's citizens, esp. if you count all other than sks.

So what good does that do if you can't buy any ammo for them, or shoot them without fear of a prison term?

 

[Vector]

The REAL argument is that even though MASS Murder committed with guns has went down, violent crimes like robbery and rape go up the more you limit people access to defensive firearms.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Correct

Ergo the citizens are statistically more likely to be victims of crime than they ever faced being a victim of a mass shooting.

 

[jon_in_wv]

In my opinion we will always lose the argument with the antis until we realize one thing. Their opinions are NOT based on statistics or facts but rather a childish and ignorant fear or weapons or fear of people with weapons. In their minds disarming criminals isn't nearly as important as just getting rid of guns PERIOD. There are no knowledgeable people on the other side of the argument and facts and figures mean nothing to them. They only know in their hearts that guns are bad and people shouldn't have them. Some are OK with hunting or target shooting because they don't go out into the woods or to the range so they don't care. They just don't want you around them with guns because they fear you and the weapon. Until we can address their fears the numbers mean nothing. Its like trying to calm someone who is afraid to fly by quoting safety statistics to them. It may make sense but they will still be scared.

 

[Vector]

In my opinion we will always lose the argument with the antis until we realize one thing. Their opinions are NOT based on statistics or facts but rather a childish and ignorant fear or weapons or fear of people with weapons.

Some are OK with hunting or target shooting because they don't go out into the woods or to the range so they don't care. They just don't want you around them with guns because they fear you and the weapon. Until we can address their fears the numbers mean nothing. Its like trying to calm someone who is afraid to fly by quoting safety statistics to them. It may make sense but they will still be scared.

Excellent insight, and this is something I've been aware of for some time, just in different aspects of life. Many people do not even realize that social engineering is going on in their daily lives through a variety of ways. I will use several examples in this post to address it, but let me take a quick step back.

It was not all that long ago I was not a big fan of Open Carry though I was not opposed to it. Where I live OC is not an option, but Concealed Carry is. So while I still personally prefer CC to OC, I am thinking we should fight for more OC options for the following reason.

The word is desensitizing.

I will give two examples of how American culture has been changed (for better or worse is not to be debated here) through desensitization.

Not all that long ago inter-racial dating and marriage was frowned upon be everyone except extreme liberals. However Hollywood started in with depictions of it in movies[Guess Who's Coming to Dinner], and the Star Trek episode with Kirk & Uhura kissing. People were outraged and sickened by it, and protested/boycotted TV stations if they dared to air it. Yet over time Hollywood has gone out of their way to promote it in movies, TV series, advertising, etc. That combined with inter-racial couples now commonly walking around in public has caused a shift in public perception. The current social issue promoted by liberals is homosexuality. For at least the last 10 years or so Hollywood has gone out of their way to promote as normal homosexuals and their lifestyle. When it first started people were outraged and did the same thing and protested/boycotted.
However now days there are several mainsteam shows that not only imply homosexual behavior, but promote it as the norm, including adoption and marriage.
My point is that intentional desensitization does work to change peoples minds whether they like it or not. Even if they still hold true to their core beliefs such as opposition to inter-racial or homosexual couples, they are much less likely to be an activist against it. Whether it is apathy/ambivalence or something else, most people do not protest/boycott like they use to on those two social issues.
Ergo, if more law abiding citizens were to OC in everyday life and routine activities, the anti's would become desensitized, and less vocal in their opposition.

I might start a thread on this subject, but thought it might be of benefit to those reading this thread as well.

`

 

[blakeci]

what many people who favor bans to prevent "mass shootings" don't seem to understand, are the unintended consequences.
Let's imagine that somehow the ban does eliminate mass shootings...but it will greatly increase the numbers of victims of murder, rape, home invasions etc...

So in order to prevent 20 to 40 deaths we cause 500-600 more people to die at the hands of violent felons????

they act like they can change one out of many, many variables and it just magically eliminates the problem:banghead:

 

[G.barnes]

Sure if you take away guns you can stop a lot of gun crime. They can't be stolen, no gun suicides or accidents. On the other hand as seen many times over violent crime doubles and even triples. So you save 25,000 lives from banning guns, but 45,000 more people died than when guns were legal. Certain parts of Europe have mention bannig long pointy kitchen knives because so many people are killed with them now that they don't have guns. Australia has super high amounts of violent crime but the government can't even decide what constitutes a home invasion so criminals are never charged.

 

[kwguy]

It's very simple. We are not Australia. Our demographics are different. Our Founding documents are different.

This. That's the difference between us and pretty much the rest of the world. There is a reason for that, and the 2nd Amendment is a large part of that. Does the freedom to own a firearm that will allow you to protect yourself and your loved ones, and if necessary, resist tyranny, come at a cost? Apparently so, just like the freedom to drive the car you want, or be able to buy a motorcycle that makes more than 150 hp (Yup, places in the world restrict that, too).

To some shortsighted individuals, the cost of certain freedoms is apparently too high. I say that there are different ways to solve the problems that we face other than the tired, goofy method of 'banning' items. We can maintain our freedoms, and find ways to deal with the 'cost' of those freedoms, without giving them up or infringing upon them. We just have to be smart (and not listen to people like Feinstein and Bloomberg, etc. They can't solve anything )

 

[jon_in_wv]

I find it interesting that the people from the very countries that decry our freedom to own firearms are only to free to do without BECAUSE we have ours. Australia and the UK do not enjoy their freedom because they have such powerful military strength that no one dare challenge them. They enjoy their freedom because they are our allies. Why are we so powerful? Because we are a free country with an armed population that no one dare invade. If the people the US were disarmed we would be forced to recall a MUCH larger portion of our military to keep the US secure which would greatly reduce our ability to act internationally. If the US were invaded ALL of our allies would be vulnerable as we recalled our military to repel the invasion. If the US fell, Australie, the UK, and other country that enjoys the freedoms secured by US would also fall. They can say what they want but they would be wise to remember why they have the ability to do so and I would pray what they are asking for never comes true.

 

[denton]

The argument is very simply deconstructed.

1. One of the fallacies of the argument is so common that it even has a name: post hoc ergo propter hoc, or just post hoc for short. In short, it means "because B followed A, A caused B." Sometimes it's true that A caused B. Rather more often, it's not. It's like the old story of the guy who was sent to the psychiatrist with the nervous tic of slapping himself on the forehead. So the doc asks, why do you do that? The man replied, "To keep (slap, slap) the elephants away." "But there are no elephants anywhere around here." "Yeah. (slap, slap) Works real well, doesn't it?" Which leads us to the next fallacy.

2. Mass murders are rare events. We have them now and again here, but in a less populated country like Australia, they are very infrequent. I could run the math, but off the top of my head, you'd probably have to collect data for about a century to demonstrate that there had been a real shift in their frequency. With a bit of research, you could probably find how far back you have to go to find the next prior mass murder. Depending on how long ago that was, you might be able to say that it's no surprise, since we are simply not due for another one yet.

So the quick retort is, there haven't been any earthquakes in Utah since the confiscation, either. So perhaps the confiscation stopped those pesky earthquakes that we have here, every 150 years or so. The reasoning for this proposition is just as strong as the reasoning that it stopped mass murders in Australia.

Edited to add: There are at least two major problems with the original claim.

First, the claim that Australia has had no more mass shootings is untrue. They had another major shooting incident in 2002.

Second, the statement employs some fairly bold sleight of hand by limiting the discussion to mass shootings instead of mass murders. The evidence is that strict gun laws do practically nothing to reduce total murder rates. Evil people simply find other means, as was done in the Australian Childer's Palace fire (arson) in 2000, where 15 people died.

If you're sure someone is going to kill you, and if you strongly prefer being burned, poisoned, bludgeoned, or stabbed over being shot, then you will benefit from strict gun laws. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Tonight I was discussing the gun bans with my wife and I did a quick search on the internet to find the mass killer who attacked the school in Japan with only a knife. Funny thing was I had to sift through numerous mass killings in Japan to find the one I was looking for. Killers have used trucks, knives, swords, gas, one even had a shotgun a knife and an axe! The gun grabbers will tell you these things only happen in the US where we have guns yet the Japanese have largely banned guns for a very long time and it does still happen.

As a side note the most prolific mass school killing in the US was actually in 1927 looong before assault weapons were an issue.

 

[HKGuns]

Op, the only argument you need is we don't live in Australia. If someone wants to subjucate themselves I will buy their ticket.

in fact, lets all stop sending the NRA money and start buying tickets for all of these people to go live in the gun free Country of their choosing. It just might be more cost effective.

I say the NRA starts a new ad campaign around the duties of a citizen in this Country and offer all those unwilling to live under and support our Constitution a ticket to their Country of choice so they can experience EVERYTHING that Country has to offer them. Starting with NOBama, Uncle Fester and their consortium of leadership bereft fools.

 

[steve-]

banning guns in australia didnt stop mass killing after 1996!
it just reduced the number committed with a firearm - we still had mass killings -

it seems that banning matches would be more effective

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people

Quakers Hill nursing home fire 2011- 11-20 people killed depending on how you classify cause of death

there was also 2 deaths at the Monash University shooting. handguns were used revolvers and S/A

what people dont under stand is that nutbags will always be able to commit mass murder - sandy hook could have been done with a lever action .22 or a base ball bat or matches - they were 6y/o.

then you have the whole Domicide argument - governments have a history of killing their citizens in greater numbers than either citizen vs citizen violence or by opposing governments during periods of war.
unfortunately most Australians have rendered themsleves defenceless - something about giving up freedom for so called security

 

[Fishslayer]

It's very simple. We are not Australia. Our demographics are different. Our Founding documents are different.

Our original white settlers were religious zealots and political rabble rousers. Australia got the criminals.

Too late for a do over?