Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Bern80]

In the wake of the killings at Port Arthur in 1996 the Howard conservative government pressured the states and territories to tighten gun laws by banning certain weapons, among them s/auto firearms and long weapons with magazines over 5 bullets (from memory). Law abiding firearms owners turned up to hand over their soon to be unlawful weapons, with a bit of grumbling, and took compensation from the state governments funded by the conservatives in power in Canberra. Again from memory there were no incidents during the buyback. Some firearms owners have been charged with possessing weapons that should have been handed over but the numbers haven't been great.

What do you expect them to do? I mean really, are you one of these people who would hole up in your cabin and shoot it out with the authorities? Or is that just a fantasy scenario? Because our firearms owners are reasonable, law-abiding people they didn't act like crazed nutters and hole up to shoot it out. They complied with the law.

It was a crap piece of populist politics from a Prime Minister who made an art form out of populism. It was crap public policy but it was built on an irrrational fear about firearms whipped up by the conservative government in power for its own dirty political reasons.

So, again, what would you have our law-abiding, responsible firearms owners do? Invade Parliament House and take the PM hostage?

Thanks for the slagging off in your post, sheep indeed. Anyway keep playing your fantasy scenario about resisting the government, but don't forget to get in touch with reality now and again.

When governments start limiting the rights of individuals to defend themselves, that is the very definition fo tyranny. Revolutions are fought over such things Di and rightly so. If you and your countrymen are too blind to see that, then you are indeed a sheep and they have you right where they want you. If you dont' get pissed off at your government for disarming you and taxing you into oblivion (close to or over 50% if income for the highest income earners I believe I read) one has to wonder what you sheep would get pissed off about.

 

[Chris]

When governments start limiting the rights of individuals to defend themselves, that is the very definition fo tyranny. Revolutions are fought over such things Di and rightly so. If you and your countrymen are too blind to see that, then you are indeed a sheep and they have you right where they want you. If you dont' get pissed off at your government for disarming you and taxing you into oblivion (close to or over 50% if income for the highest income earners I believe I read) one has to wonder what you sheep would get pissed off about.

Sensible gun control is not the definition of tyranny.

That's just silly.

 

[Diuretic]

When governments start limiting the rights of individuals to defend themselves, that is the very definition fo tyranny. Revolutions are fought over such things Di and rightly so. If you and your countrymen are too blind to see that, then you are indeed a sheep and they have you right where they want you. If you dont' get pissed off at your government for disarming you and taxing you into oblivion (close to or over 50% if income for the highest income earners I believe I read) one has to wonder what you sheep would get pissed off about.

The government didn't limit the rights of anyone to defend themselvs, I'll say that for them even though (a) I despised the government that forced the policy and (b) I didn't like the policy itself because, as I may have already written, it was rank populism. But the laws of self defence were not touched.

We weren't disarmed. What happened was that the federal government, in its reflexive populist mode, went after certain firearms, not all firearms. It was purely cosmetic. I wish I could express my contempt and loathing for the policy and the government which dreamed it up and forced it on the states and territories. It has made absolutely no difference to anything and it will be seen as absolute bullshit.

This is an example of the difference in values between your country and mine - I stress "difference". I really don't want to give the impression that I'm arguing that my (adoptive) country's core values are superior to anyone else's, they're not, they're just different and I think the reasons are historical. We don't see government as an enemy or something to be feared. We don't like politicians because they seem to live in a protected bubble when they get into office and forget that they're nothing special, just ordinary people who got lucky. But we don't have a sense of hostility to government as a function. We know we can throw a government out of office so we don't feel hostage to them.

Tax. We accept that a country of just 21m people in a biiiiig landmass (most of it empty) are going to have to pay taxes which may be higher than what we would like. What we get cranky about is when it's wasted. The rate of taxes here are very rarely a political issue. Even bracket creep (where inflation might force you into a new tax bracket which hasn't been adjusted for the inflationary effect over the years) doesn't get people ignited. It's not because we're sheep, it's because we accept that in this country, because of its geography, its small population and its huge tracts of desert and arid and semi-arid land (thankfully we have a mining industry, shame we don't have much of a manufacturing industry and we just dig up stuff and sell it overseas) we are going to have to accept that our taxes will never be "low" and probably can't be. It's a fact of life for us. I usually get a bit back when I send in my tax return, though it's never enough

Tax - Individual income tax rates

 

[garyd]

We have 1500 accidental gun deaths a year, It scarcely makes the CDC's list of top accidental death makers last I checked.

Roughly 1.5 million lives are potentially saved and billions in property losses prevented every year because a home owner had a weapon which he almost never has to use.

 

[LOki]

We have 1500 accidental gun deaths a year, It scarcely makes the CDC's list of top accidental death makers last I checked.

Roughly 1.5 million lives are potentially saved and billions in property losses prevented every year because a home owner had a weapon which he almost never has to use.

A minor correction, if I may: " . . . which he almost never has to fire."

Hundereds of thousands of times (arguably millions of times) annually, guns are used defensively--often they are used, but not actually fired.

 

[garyd]

Correction duly noted and accepted Loki.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The scenario of the one individual against the combined power of the state. Ah, how romantic. How fucking stupid as well. It may be an enjoyable fantasy but that's it, a fantasy. Not that I'd wish anyone to come after you Harry but just a bit of advice, unless you want to end up full of gummint bullets or in a gummint prison, just hand them over

Now, as for your farmers and - we don't have "ranchers" here, they could be pastoralists you're referring to - they turned up just like everyone else. I have no idea where you have this idea that they stood up to the government. They're law-abiding, reasonable people, not wild-eyed crazed gun-nuts, so they complied with law even though I'm sure many of them didn't agree with it. But those crazy realists are just like that

oh believe me sir i wont be alone,and apparently unlike you i will fight and if necessary DIE for my rights......and as far as what you said about your farmers not standing up to your govt,the 6 "native"born Aussies that i was getting this info from in 2 other forums,said if anyone in this country stood up to your govt about this issue it was them,but like they told me,when the citizens were not there to back them up......

 

[Bern80]

Sensible gun control is not the definition of tyranny.

That's just silly.

We already have sensible gun control. What above and beyond what is already in place do you have in mind?

 

[Diuretic]

oh believe me sir i wont be alone,and apparently unlike you i will fight and if necessary DIE for my rights......and as far as what you said about your farmers not standing up to your govt,the 6 "native"born Aussies that i was getting this info from in 2 other forums,said if anyone in this country stood up to your govt about this issue it was them,but like they told me,when the citizens were not there to back them up......

Harry, get your hand off it, it'll grow by itself

You've been fed a line of bullshit. Where were you hanging out to get that rubbish? There was a lot of anger which manifested itself in public meetings. To give him his due Howard turned up and spoke to one meeting of protestors (there's a famous photo of him obviously wearing a ballistic vest under his jacket). Maybe your six informants don't like to comply with the law, that's their problem, here we don't get to choose which laws we will comply with and which we'll ignore. There's a way to change the laws if you don't like them but ignoring them isn't an option. We're not into revolution here.

As for dying for your rights. Spare me the dramatic statements. I've nearly been killed several times trying to protect other people's rights, yeah that sounds noble doesn't it? True though. My job is to enforce the laws that your six mates seem to want to ignore and sometimes people who don't want to comply with the laws of the land get very difficult indeed. That's not hyperbole, that's my past reality.

 

[Missourian]

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

"Federal-level background checks are used as the only level of background checks in 21 states. Seventeen states use state-level background checks in addition to the federal checks. Only 12 states rely on local-level background checks, which consult local law enforcement offices, such as a sheriff's department, in addition to the federal system. States that performed only federal-level checks saw a firearm suicide rate of 11.64 people per every 100,000 in the population. States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively."


All this says is, at most, 6 fewer people didn't commit suicide with a gun. But those six could have hung themselves, taken poison or crashed into a truck head on. If someone is determine to end their life, they are going to find a way to do it.

"A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks."

For the homicide rate it is .26 difference between the federal and the state and 1.21 difference between the federal and the local, likely well within the statistical margin of error.

Pretty much this articles value is zero. A grandiose headline that is not backed up by it's content.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We're not into revolution here.

kind of sums it up.....

 

[garyd]

Good call Missourian.

 

[Chris]

"Federal-level background checks are used as the only level of background checks in 21 states. Seventeen states use state-level background checks in addition to the federal checks. Only 12 states rely on local-level background checks, which consult local law enforcement offices, such as a sheriff's department, in addition to the federal system. States that performed only federal-level checks saw a firearm suicide rate of 11.64 people per every 100,000 in the population. States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively."


All this says is, at most, 6 fewer people didn't commit suicide with a gun. But those six could have hung themselves, taken poison or crashed into a truck head on. If someone is determine to end their life, they are going to find a way to do it.

"A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks."

For the homicide rate it is .26 difference between the federal and the state and 1.21 difference between the federal and the local, likely well within the statistical margin of error.

Pretty much this articles value is zero. A grandiose headline that is not backed up by it's content.

Nothing grandiose about it.

The state statistics show that states with loose gun laws have a three times higher gun death rate than those with the toughest laws.

 

[Missourian]

Nothing grandiose about it.

The state statistics show that states with loose gun laws have a three times higher gun death rate than those with the toughest laws.

Chris, it is absolute hogwash. To reach that conclusion the 3rd year medical student had to include suicides AND limit himself to "gun death rate".

Suicide has nothing to do with gun ownership...and if you wish to resurrect this dead line of reasoning you'll have to explain why England's suicide index rose at a rate 10 times that of 15 to 24 year old males in the U.S.




Members of the anti-gun public health community have written numerous articles that seek to blame an increase in suicide among young American males upon increased gun availability. They fail to tell their readers that while suicide among American males aged 15 to 24 increased 7.4% during 1980-1990, the increase in England was more than 10 times greater (78%), with car exhaust poisoning being the leading method of suicide in a nation where gun ownership is severely restricted.

 

[Diuretic]

kind of sums it up.....

Yep, it's called reality.

 

[Missourian]

Changes in rates of suicide by car exhaust asphyxiation in England and Wales

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. AMOS a1, L. APPLEBY c1 a1 and K. KIERNAN a1
a1 From the School of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Manchester, Withington Hospital, Manchester



Abstract

Background. Self-asphyxiation using car exhaust gas is a common method of suicide in England and Wales, particularly in young males. The introduction of catalytic converters has reduced the toxicity of car exhausts. The main aims of the study were: to seek evidence of a fall in car exhaust suicides in the general population and in age and gender groups; to relate any fall to changes in car exhaust systems, particularly since legislation on car exhaust emissions in 1993; and to examine rates of suicide by other methods for evidence of method substitution.

Methods. Population study in England and Wales using national suicide statistics for 1987 to 1998.

Results. There was a fall in suicide by car exhaust asphyxiation in all age and gender groups. This change was most marked after 1993. The overall population suicide rate (all methods) also fell but there was no overall change in suicides by young males or females. In these groups suicide by hanging increased.

Conclusions. Legislation on catalytic converters appears to have contributed to a fall in car exhaust suicides. However, the effect on overall suicide rates in young people has been reduced by method substitution.



Correspondence:
c1 Address for correspondence: Professor Louis Appleby, School of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Manchester, Withington Hospital, Manchester M20 8LR.

Published online by Cambridge University Press 12 Jul 2001


LINK

Method substitution, just like I said. Remove one method and another will rise to take it's place.

 

[Missourian]

Nothing grandiose about it.

The state statistics show that states with loose gun laws have a three times higher gun death rate than those with the toughest laws.

So we are left with this:

"A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks."

For the homicide rate it is .26 difference between the federal and the state and 1.21 difference between the federal and the local.
Literally 1 in 100,000, well within the statistical margin of error.


​

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry C - Lott has no credibility any longer in the discussion, that's all there is to it. I'm surprised anyone still references him.

Why? Because you say so? Would it shock you to know that YOU have much less credibility than Lott does, and that the fact that you have decided that everyone should just forget about him actually lends MORE weight to his work?

Sorry to spoil your delusions, but you are not and never have been the grand high arbiter - or any arbiter - of credibility on any subject.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yep, it's called reality.

yea the reality is you rolled over......

 

[Diuretic]

Why? Because you say so? Would it shock you to know that YOU have much less credibility than Lott does, and that the fact that you have decided that everyone should just forget about him actually lends MORE weight to his work?

Sorry to spoil your delusions, but you are not and never have been the grand high arbiter - or any arbiter - of credibility on any subject.

I'm not publishing self-penned letters about how good I am using a false name C. I'm not publishing studies with dodgy methodology. I'm just a (relatively) anonymous poster in an internet forum. The people who have exposed Lott have credibility. Their bylines are with their published critiques. The critiques are damning and Lott has no credibility in the bigger debate. It's not about me C, it's about Lott.