Obama cites Australia’s gun confiscation program as example for US

originally posted by: Magnivea
a reply to: beezzer

but we also need to be able to defend ourselves from our own government.

For me as a non-US citizen who however lived there for about a decade this sounds absolutely RIDICULOUS, or let's better say delusional.

Ya know, the argument of self-defense I can buy. The US is a country where I had experienced so much crime it is not even funny. Gang-bangers wherever you look, bullets whizzing by when your drive through certain areas in Chicago, stuff like that.
No doubt about that.

However if you think that owning guns gives you any real way to defend yourself in the hypothetical case of a confrontation "with the government" you're just delusional. The best what would happen is that you would be labelled as terrorist/extremist. For me, this "freedom" you see there by owning guns easier and with less formalities (license etc. as required in other countries) is nothing but SYMBOLIC. Your gun does NOT make you more free whatsoever, except in your head.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: amraks

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: LrdRedhawk
Obama should move to Australia.

we don't want him either....

I was being selfish, wasn't I?

No you were trying to sweep your garbage under our rug.


We already enough stench in our parliament both federal and state, And not to leave out local councils their smell isn't that pleasant either.

a reply to: Kryties

So, stomp your feet and go away???


I'm fine with that.

Are you for stopping the killing of innocent people or not??

originally posted by: Magnivea
People with any experience can fire a lever action or pump action with in a rate comparable to a semi auto.

They can run pretty close, no doubt. Here's what Australia allows:



Neither of those guys are very good, but note that they can both dump a 10 round magazine in about 5 seconds. Lever actions, especially pistol caliber carbines, are easily capable of that, too. Some of those guys in competitive cowboy action shooting and with customized rifles can do that in well under 3.

originally posted by: bellagirl
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

everyone join in the chant....usa usa usa usa

you are so predictable. you cant win so resort to calling me a racist.

usa usa usa

Its not a competition to win or loose.

They were simply pointing out your racist remark, not accusing if being racist.

How does our gun laws prohibit those wanting to use guns for their criminal activities from acquiring them?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

So, stomp your feet and go away???

LOL, nice try.

Are you for stopping the killing of innocent people or not??

Are you going to stop putting words into my mouth and making false assumptions that I don't care about people dying (of whatever method)?

Stop being so bloody ridiculous mate, it doesn't serve your argument at all, in fact it makes me think you are some kind of idiot.

originally posted by: Kryties
Are you going to stop putting words into my mouth and making false assumptions that I don't care about people dying (of whatever method)?

My question to you is since the majority of people killed in Australia are by knives how do propose to address that?

There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims. Source

a reply to: Skyline74

At least there are some here down under that wont forget.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Name how many mass murders have happened in Australia due to a knife or knives?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is none.

originally posted by: Kryties
Name how many mass murders have happened in Australia due to a knife or knives?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is none.

So is your sole justification for a firearms ban the prevention of murders or mass murders?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
Name how many mass murders have happened in Australia due to a knife or knives?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is none.

So is your sole justification for a firearms ban the prevention of murders or mass murders?

Making guns harder for people to obtain = less chance of mass murder, and less murders by guns. Twofold. And the proof can be seen in Australia and its gun policy.

originally posted by: Kryties
Making guns harder for people to obtain = less chance of mass murder, and less murders by guns. Twofold. And the proof can be seen in Australia and its gun policy.

What about knives since there is an obviously growing trend of people to be knife-murdered in Australia? Should these be regulated since they are the tool of choice for most homicides?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

What about knives since there is an obviously growing trend of people to be knife-murdered in Australia? Should these be regulated since they are the tool of choice for most homicides?

No mass murders in Australia since the gun ban, by guns OR knives. FACT.

Facts are facts, I won't be diverted by ridiculous comparisons that have nothing to do with each other.

a reply to: Kryties

Australia is not the same as the US. First the population is MUCH smaller. The US has several states with a larger populous than the entire country. We also have a lot of area, a lot of rural area. The controls that were put in place down unda there simply will not work.

Different experiment, different parameters, different set of controls, equates to a different outcome.

Double post.

2nd Amendment is a right!

originally posted by: Kryties
No mass murders in Australia since the gun ban, by guns OR knives. FACT.

Facts are facts, I won't be diverted by ridiculous comparisons that have nothing to do with each other.

But there are still murders. Both by guns and knives with knives being the tool of choice. One is regulated, the other is not.

So again, are you concerned about murder or mass-murder?

a reply to: Kryties

Facts are facts,

Yes they are arent they.

To bad the facts that got Aussies to willingly comply weren't facts.

No mass murders in Australia since the gun ban

Yes and the massacre that brought about the gun ban was done by who exactly?

Some have found that an Israeli trained merc was in Australia at the time and left the country shortly after.

Some have speculated that only a small number of specialists could repeat the accuracy of the shootings that day.

But yes facts are facts.

All we can do is argue what they are and how our opinions might mirror facts.

However if you think that owning guns gives you any real way to defend yourself in the hypothetical case of a confrontation "with the government" you're just delusional. The best what would happen is that you would be labelled as terrorist/extremist. For me, this "freedom" you see there by owning guns easier and with less formalities (license etc. as required in other countries) is nothing but SYMBOLIC. Your gun does NOT make you more free whatsoever, except in your head.

So, hypothetical, what happens on the day when the government collapses into a tyrannical dictatorship? What do you do? Do you decide that it's the legitimate authority and tamely go along even when it starts ruthlessly enacting policies that allow it to confiscate property or haul people out into the streets and shoot them?

It's against these kinds of actions that we have the 2nd Amendment, but even more it's in the hope that just having and exercising the 2nd Amendment will make this type of day completely unnecessary in the first place. You can't conceive of a day when the government decides to go all Nazi or Mao or Stalin on its people? Neither can I (although I'm getting less disbelieving), but which populace is more likely to receive that treatment: the one that is armed and ready to stand up for itself or the one that is disarmed and completely, tamely compliant?

Oh, and absolutely on that day when the armed citizen stands up for his or her rights he or she will be labeled as a terrorist. No doubt. But every government that has its people rebel has done the same to the rebels. The question is whether or not the rebels' greivances are just or not. The Founders put the 2nd Amendment in there as a safeguard attempting to make sure that no one would ever have to do what they had just had to do in winning independence from and overbearing and disinterested British rule, both are issues of self-defense.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
Name how many mass murders have happened in Australia due to a knife or knives?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is none.

So is your sole justification for a firearms ban the prevention of murders or mass murders?

Making guns harder for people to obtain = less chance of mass murder, and less murders by guns. Twofold. And the proof can be seen in Australia and its gun policy.

If making guns harder to obtain was all it took, Chicago wouldn't be the murder capital of America. They have the strictest gun laws in the country, so strict some museums can't even display guns.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

So, stomp your feet and go away???

LOL, nice try.

Are you for stopping the killing of innocent people or not??

Are you going to stop putting words into my mouth and making false assumptions that I don't care about people dying (of whatever method)?

Stop being so bloody ridiculous mate, it doesn't serve your argument at all, in fact it makes me think you are some kind of idiot.

Are you going to answer the question or not?