Who Benefits From Bans on Guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cortez

member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
46
Location
Riverview Queensland Australia
Hi everyone. I'm the "notorious" Cortez/Darius plus a few other usernames from the AussieSeek anti gun forum in Australia. I've been banned so many times from their site that I'm dizzy but I found out how to keep reentering and it seems they have given up trying to stop me.

The person "TOM" that keeps starting all the anti-gun threads on our sites is allegedly female and allegedly from Atlanta, GA. From what she writes she seems to be the front agent for the Brady Bunch (your leading anti-gun group?)

Anyway, I've put the heat back on them with this posting and have been greeted with a deafening silence ever since.:



Whenever bans of any kind have been forced on the public by any government, who has been the beneficiary of such bans??

The most notorious bans ever imposed were the bans on alcohol in the USA during the prohibition era.

Did this stop people from getting and drinking alcohol? No way. Well, if it wasn't available legally how did they get it?

Simple. Criminal organisations saw a ready market and started making alcohol available illegally through the black market and through "speak easys".

Prohibition caused organised crime to blossom so much so that the criminal organisations behind the supply of illegal alcohol became exremely powerful businesses in their own rights with tentacles in all branches of government.

When the Prohibition era ended (because the government realised that it was not having the desired effect) did this cause the large criminal organisations to collapse??

No way, because the government had already created a new opportunity for them to supply goods illicitly at huge profits. What goods? Drugs.

Nowadays, despite bans throughout the world and billions of dollars being expended by governments, the drug trade thrives and grows.

Every illegal drug bust simply drives up the price of the drug in question. Who benefits? The crooks of course.
Why are there drugs? Because people want them.

Nowadays the corruption associated with the illicit drug trade outstrips anything that existed in the prohibition days. There is simply so much money to be made from trading the product, that people from all walks of life including governments, want to get their slice of the action.

Could the governments of the world really stop the drug trade? No, because it's what people want. But they could destroy the criminal cartels by simply legalising the drugs and taking over the production and supply themselves.

Are they likely to do this? Of course not. There are too many splinter groups who through their lobbying and pressure would stop any government from doing this.

In addition those people in government who are already on the take have a vested interest in seeing the illicit trade continue because it means more money for them. So again, who benefits from this? Answer, the crooks and their hangers-on - and the trade thrives.

Lets look at gun bans. The UK instituted a blanket ban on handgun ownership for ordinary citizens following the Dunblane massacre. Did this have any effect on gun crime?

Absolutely. Gun crime is at an all time high in the UK and HANDGUN crime is at record levels. How come? Because criminal organisations supply the guns. Why? Because people want them.

Is society safer as a result of these bans? No way. More people than ever are being killed with handguns and other firearms. Who benefits from these bans?
Yep, you guessed it - the crooks and those who have their grubby fingers in the illicit trade pie.

Who keeps lobbying strongly for gun bans world wide?

Heaps of so-called Gun Control organisations. Would such bans affect the supply of firearms? No way. As history has shown and as is happening now, a thriving black market springs up - and who benefits from this? The crooks of course and their fellow travellers.

It's high time that governments started to closely investigate gun control organisations and their possible connections with criminal cartels. The important thing is not to try to stop the avaiability of guns. They will ALWAYS be available.

The important thing is to try to stop criminal organisations from being the ones who supply them and benefit financially from government bans.

Don't hold your breath though. The gun control groups are backed by some very powerful organisations, who also make handsome donations to elected governments through a variety of offshoot coompanies.

For the average citrizen there is not much that can be done except not to fall for the clap trap, that by banning this or that you are somehow going to be better off. You aren't.

The question to ask ALWAYS is - who ultimately benefits from this? And if the answer is "the crooks" then don't be taken in. You will be the losers, not them.


Make a vow. Piss an anti-gunner off at least once per day.:D :D :D :D
 
I just skimmed your post, and it seems reasonable. But I'm not sure if you came to a conclusion to the question.

The answer is, or at least I feel that in America it is, no one. Gun control, as it's supported in America isn't an attempt to disarm the public and then commit massive tyranies. It's the belief of people who truely believe that we all benifit from it.

Comparing Guns to Drugs and Alcohol doesn't help. It's all been said before. The point which needs to be driven home isn't that Gun Control doesn't work. That implies that guns are somehow bad, like drug-addictions and alcoholism. They will continue to strive for perfection, and try to make it work. And I can't blame them.

The point that needs to be made is that guns are necessary. Not on a government slaughter/ dictatorship level, but on a day to day practical level. That small time corruption can become out of control. That small gangs, small drug dealers, local politicians can, do, and will threaten the public on a one by one basis. "The Mexico Theory", I call it. And it's a lot more believable than everything else.

I guess you kinda touched on that with the UK part, but the UK doesn't really have a notorious problem. Mexico has the cartels, the small corruption, etc.
 
In the US at least, the beneficiaries were initially law enforcement and residents of urban cities that had been hit by race-related violence. Black people had begun arming themselves to resist what they viewed as white oppression. Whether or not they were correct in these views, the establishment reacted pretty quickly to neuter these movements. National level gun control (especially the 1968 dealer licensing restrictions and the import restrictions) made it easier to implement negro control on a local level. The Great Society programs of the early 70s also contributed towards this end.

During the early 90s, gun control got started again. The Democratic party seized upon gun control as a national level issue to make them appear tough on crime. They succeeded at first due to non-interest on the part of gun owners but there was a severe backlash after the 94 semiauto ban passed.

In much of the country, there havent really been any groups that stood to gain from gun control, so gun control was (and still is) pretty scarce on a state and local level. Something like 40 states allow concealed carry with barely any restriction and many states have no firearms restrictions beyond federal law. Machine guns are relatively rare due to the 86 federal ban, but still owned by many people. Semiauto AKs and ARs are extremely common, as are handguns.
 
DMack

I'm sorry if my conclusions seemed vague.

What I was trying to say was simply this. There are always groups of people who for one reason or another take a dislike to something. Once it was alcohol, then (and still is) drugs, and now guns. In Australia we have cigarette bans too, which are biting into one's right to smoke if that is what they wish to do.

There is no connection between any of these things, except the fact that at some stage governments can be persuaded to ban them "in the public interest"

My point is that in the end it isn't the public that benefits at all. The beneficiaries are those who choose to supply the banned item to those that want it, and do so illicitly because the law doesn't allow it to be done legally, and by definition these people are criminials. The greater the demand the greater the profit to be made, and as a consequence the greater the corruption that is generated. In brief, prohibition encourages crime.

It is impossible to ban guns. It could be done for all legal gun owners and I suspect that this will be tried one day but if there is such a ban, then the black market will thrive as never before. Once again, it's criminals who benefit and no one else. I'm concerned that the anti gun organisations whether consciously or otherwise are in fact doing the criminals a favour by seeking to ban guns and I believe that because some of these organisations have some very powerful organisations backing them, that governments ought to be urged to check out the anti gun groups to see if they are legitimate and not in any way connected with criminal organisations.

If it did nothing else it would put the anti gun brigade under intense scrutiny and this would have to be a good thing, in my opinion.
 
How about domestic gun manufacturers?

Many of them supported GCA '68 because it made it somewhat more difficult for an average citizen to get cheap imported rifles that were in direct competition with domestic sales.

Assault weapon ban- There were domestic manufacturers who supported this law as well if for no other reason than cheap SKS rifles were a much better value than the overpriced crap made by *cough* *Ruger* *cough*
 
Are you a facist or a communist ?

Are you a facist or a communist ?

----

Gosh....about AussieSeek cortez says (paranoid remark)

hes trying to get me banned all over the Internet. !!!!

Tell us all how thats done cortez !!!

Your little campaign to get me to Ban Pro Gun Posts was a fizzer; We are NOT a Gun Board, (although we just started ine ) we are a general board so All Opinions are welcome

It also helps the discourse.... slightly. I figured only commies were agains free speech.

The Gun argument wins because of sanity and logic. Not because of threats.

You dont see it that way I guess.

I know.youre not lateral,,, But Why dont you suggest
I should lobby for Banning computers !!!

Thats Almost as stupid as saying Banning Guns will stop crime

Everyone including GWB is a communist according to cortez and some single issue posters....

If you want to find out what you really are considered as .. try this

http://www.gravett.org/yobbo/quiz/quiz.htm


Australian Political Quiz

Welcome to the Australian political quiz - 10 questions that will help you determine your political philosophy and where you stand compared with Australian political parties

It provides the same result if youre American

Are you a facist or a communist ?

Find Out

Keith

-------------------------------------------

A Response !!!!


From PC


Who is organising a new Gun Poll

KEITH - Interesting.
I scored:
Your economic freedom index is 15, and your social freedom index is 14.
Which puts me alongside the LDP.
PC
 
How about domestic gun manufacturers?

I hate to admit it, but you are 90 percent correct. I think 10 percent of it is the establishment wanting to kill all cheap supplies of military class weaponry for the lower classes. The other 90 percent is definitely all about protecting companies like colt, bushmaster and ruger from cheap overseas competition like norinco or the combloc manufacturers.
 
Aussieseek is the guy who runs his own Forum in Australia which features long, rambling and abusive posts from anti-gun proponents.

If you as a pro gun owner try to reply to these posts in like manner, you are censored and/or banned.

Any criticism of the Aussieseek administrator results in a "hurt" response and permanent banning ot the person doing the criticism.

Don't waste your time on him. He simply isn't worth it.
 
Why waste bullets on the Messenger?

I did NOT Ban Tom and Cardigan they just left. Anti Gun Poster Straightshooter was Banned for abuse as were pro gun posters
tysia,cortez and Johnny for TOS breaches and using multiple names. People spend time in the SYN BYN for a short period.
Those that ARE banned simply can apply for a new membership
using another name. But will be deleted if they attempt to shoot the messenger (as is being done with the last post) or for abuse or racial vilification or trying to multiple vote in a Poll.

Again AussieSeek is a general site and ALL points of view are welcome.

Keith
-------------------------------------------

Willy Said


gee they dont get their own way and they get all snotty.
the reason you get the impression the AussieSeek board is pro gun cardibag is because you lot constantly post lies and unsubstantiated irrelevant crap and it gets disproved.
 
I don't intend to get invovled with a to and fro argument with you, Aussieseek, on this Forum. I have more respect for it.

Your forum is, however, a disgrace and that isn't simply my opinion.

Why don't you take yourself back to your sad little forum, and carry out some introspection in a place where the sun never shines.
 
Dear "notorious" Cortez/Darius plus a few other usernames

And Cortez

You can answer John who says

Let's get down to facts.

A couple of anti-gun ratbags surfed in to AussieSeek and began bombarding it with anti-gun drivel. Much of this material was from the US and totally irrelevant to Australian conditions, other material posted was from pseudo-science (aka junk-research) which had been discredited years ago.

A couple of licenced, law abidng, gun owners heard about this and joined the site to counter the material being posted. Surely, if you're advocating the confiscation of my property, which is what gun control is all about, I have a right of reply.

A couple of those gun owners, in the view of the moderator, (and it is his site) crossed the line with regard to their actions and were sent to the Syn Byn. I myself spent time there for asking too many questions.

When Straightshooter crossed the line, as is only fair, he was also sent to the Syn Byn. The other two responded to this by threatening the moderator, and behaving like spoiled brats. As far as I am concerned, these three have provided nothing to this forum and their leaving would be a definite benefit to this forum and the level of discussion here. It is interesting to note that another poster here, who is also a dedicated anti-gun lobbyist, appears to be of the same opinion.

Also, I read of no one here "giving" a gun to a five year old, I did read of those who allowed a five year old to use a gun under very close adult supervision in a controlled environment, such as a shooting range. This was happening in jurisdictions were it was legal to do so, and, as I have already pointed out, this discussion is totally irrelevant to an Australian Political Duscussion Forum as the controls on juveniles accessing firearms in Australia are quite strictly controlled under legislation, as it should be. It is interesting and relevant to note that research done some time ago found that juveniles who received positive socialisation in the recreational ownership of firearms where less likely to be involved in criminal behaviour.

In view of your obvious concern and my difference of opinion with your concern I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

1. Some pro-gun posters overstepped the mark and went to the Syn Byn, so be it, some anti-gun posters overstepped the mark and also went to the Syn Byn. Are you advocating that pro-gun posters who, in the moderators opinion go beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour, should go to the Syn Byn, but anti-gun poster should be immune from such sanctions?

2. Can you explain to me the relevance of research from the Brady Bunch, regarding issues related to firearms ownership in the US, to the Australian Political Discussion Forum?

I'm not holding my breath waiting for an answer.
 
Who Benefits From Bans on Guns?

People with too many good intentions.
Gun bans are always feel good laws to make one sleep better at night. Theres rarely any research or thinking behind them. When they backfire, no ones interested in explaining why, its always the same song and dance.
They write a feel good law that costs more lives than it ever saved, then explain the results as enevitable and their law as the one thing keeping society "safe".

To which I just ask them not to do me any more favors.
You want to feel good? Go watch a movie, stay out of law making.
 
Hell there are still FFL dealers that do this. Don's Guns in Indianapolis, Indiana has been trying to get a law passed outlawing gunshows since he started. In the 90s he put up a 'cemetary' at his north store railing on TV about those evil 'assault weapons'.
Then he burned 'his' 'assault weapons' on TV, only odd thing was all the guns had torch cuts on them and I went in a day or two later and he had plenty AKs, AR15, AR10s, Tec-9s and Glocks.
 
A couple of licenced, law abidng, gun owners

I was trying to follow until I read this part. Then I realized I couldn't understand the thread anyway, since the mindset of licensing the ownership of guns is still foreign to me.

jmm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top