Hey Bilby I thought Australia had gun control?

[Emily Lake]

For consideration in this derail, only about half the households in the US have firearms, and the majority of those only have one. Rural areas have more households with firearms... but they also have more bears and mountain lions and wolves, and they do more hunting. There's a relatively small number of households in the US that have crazy numbers of firearms.

 

[laughing dog]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

First, reducing gun violence is good, regardless of the source.

Second, effective gun regulation works to reduce gun ownership by everyone.

The USA has a gun problem. There are too many firearms out. Now, do I think the citizenry of the US is ready to do the long hardwork of amending the Constitution and changing our collective fucked up obsession with firearms? Now, I don’t.

I agree that reducing gun violence is good. I am not convinced that effective gun regulation will effectively reduce gun violence in the US, when the guns were illegally acquired by violent criminals in the first place. If you can convince me that making it significantly harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms is going to reduce the number of guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang members, I'm open to it.

Fewer guns mean fewer guns acquired by everyone - legally or illegally.

Why on earth do you think this? It's kind of the exact opposite of the argument when it comes to drugs - where making them legal is supposed to result in lower rates of addiction and deaths, and remove the appeal of them being taboo and counterculture. Are you also for much stricter drug laws?

Try this thought experiment. Suppose 80% of all US firearms in private hands disappeared or became dysfunctions. You don’t think gun violence wouldn’t be reduced?

The argument for legalizing drugs is to reduce the expense of obtaining them which would 1)reduce theft and robbery
2) reduce the use of more dangerous methods of taking them, and
3) to provide less incentive to mix in mire dangerous ingredients.
In addition, legalization reduces the stress and expense on the criminal justice system.

I cannot imagine how making guns easy to get is remotely similar.

 

[laughing dog]

For consideration in this derail, only about half the households in the US have firearms, and the majority of those only have one. Rural areas have more households with firearms... but they also have more bears and mountain lions and wolves, and they do more hunting. There's a relatively small number of households in the US that have crazy numbers of firearms.

According to this  Percent_of_households_with_guns_by_country the proportion of US households with at least one handgun (21.9%) is more than double than the next highest (Switzerland, 10.9%). The table shows there is no country in the table with a 30% rate for household firearms, with most less than 10%.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

Where do those illegal guns come from? The answer is that at one time they were legal weapons. Reduce greatly the availability of legal weapons, and this will flow on to there being much less illegal guns.

Whereas the severely limited self defense options of places like Australia strongly favor the criminals.

And yet, crime rates in Australia are FAR lower than those in the US. Suggesting that your beautiful hypothesis is unable to defend itself against beastly facts.

Some crime rates are lower, and it leads to a case where the aggregate rate is lower. But some types of crime rates are higher - rape, assault, and burglary are higher per capita in AU than the US.

Australia vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats

Intentional homicide rate, Crime levels, Rape rate, Murder rate per million people, Murder rate and 78 More Interesting Facts and Stats

www.nationmaster.com

It's very difficult to compare an overall crime rate when the laws are different on certain things. AU's gun control will absolutely result in a lower crime rate for all things that involve guns - duh. Similarly, the ease of acquiring illegal drugs results in different offending rates where drug use is involved (not necessarily just direct use or possession crimes).

I'm not saying that the US is better. We have many, many, many problems. I'm only saying that a high level comparison isn't really useful, nor is a simple "gun control!" proposal a viable solution to the problems that the US has. US problems are not the same as AU problems, it's not reasonable to think that the way AU addresses issues is the best way for the US to do so.

There is a minor higher reported rape rate in Australia. Do you know why that is? The rape rate in USA is actually higher, but less are reported, because often it is not worth the effort of trying to report it as such is greatly discouraged in USA by a process that makes it difficult to report rapes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fewer guns mean fewer guns acquired by everyone - legally or illegally.

Why on earth do you think this? It's kind of the exact opposite of the argument when it comes to drugs - where making them legal is supposed to result in lower rates of addiction and deaths, and remove the appeal of them being taboo and counterculture. Are you also for much stricter drug laws?

Try this thought experiment. Suppose 80% of all US firearms in private hands disappeared or became dysfunctions. You don’t think gun violence wouldn’t be reduced?

Counter: You're talking about 80% of the LEGALLY OWNED firearms in private hands. Which doesn't at all address the firearms that were illegally acquired in the first place. Are you assuming that the drug dealers and gang members are going to voluntarily surrender their illegal firearms?

For your second point, of course it would be reduced... just not materially. Because again, the vast majority of the gun violence in the US is being committed by people who illegally acquired their guns in the first place, and it's associated with people who already have criminal histories and who are actively engaged in significant violent criminal activity. So yes, technically, you'll reduce some gun violence on the edges - but since the majority of gun violence isn't coming from law abiding citizens, taking the guns away from the non-crime-committing non-violent citizens isn't going to affect the behavior of criminally-involved already-violent people.

The argument for legalizing drugs is to reduce the expense of obtaining them which would
1)reduce theft and robbery
2) reduce the use of more dangerous methods of taking them, and
3) to provide less incentive to mix in mire dangerous ingredients.
In addition, legalization reduces the stress and expense on the criminal justice system.

I cannot imagine how making guns easy to get is remotely similar.

I'm not saying that making guns easy to get is similar - they're already easy to get, and in my view too easy to get. What I'm saying is that making them *harder* to get will *introduce* risks that don't currently exist because *you aren't addressing the cause of gun violence*.

I know it's trite, but that oversimplified adage of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" has a kernel of truth to it. If you don't have a plan for reducing drug dealers, cartel activity, organized crime, and gangs... then removing guns from law abiding citizens isn't going to materially reduce gun violence in the US, because the law abiding citizens that you're seizing guns from aren't the ones doing the violence in the first place.

 

[bilby]

For consideration in this derail, only about half the households in the US have firearms, and the majority of those only have one. Rural areas have more households with firearms... but they also have more bears and mountain lions and wolves, and they do more hunting. There's a relatively small number of households in the US that have crazy numbers of firearms.

IMO, one is a crazy number of firearms to have in a suburban household.

Guns are not defensive in nature; Having one in your house increases your family's risk, it doesn't decrease it.

I have zero problem with guns for hunting or for sport; But the very idea of a gun for self defence shows a horrifying lack of understanding of what a gun is, and what it can and can't do.

 

[RVonse]

I have zero problem with guns for hunting or for sport; But the very idea of a gun doing nothing for self defence shows a horrifying lack of understanding of what a gun corrupt government is, and what it can and can't do.

Fixed it for you.

I view Australians the same way I see my step grandson driving without insurance. Feeling fine and secure since your accident has not happened yet. Australians can enjoy today since your government has not become corrupt yet. But eventually everything becomes corrupt. And when if/when your government does become corrupt the guns you don't have will be of utmost importance for your own self defense. You can not arm yourself in time if the government slides into tyranny. And this is what the 2nd amendment is really about having absolutely nothing to do about hunting for sport. If enough good citizens have guns in good hands they will stop even a powerful corrupt government that owns the cruise missiles and drones.

Good citizens owning guns does exactly the same thing nuclear weapons do. A deterent for bad actors.

 

[Playball40]

For consideration in this derail, only about half the households in the US have firearms, and the majority of those only have one. Rural areas have more households with firearms... but they also have more bears and mountain lions and wolves, and they do more hunting. There's a relatively small number of households in the US that have crazy numbers of firearms.

IMO, one is a crazy number of firearms to have in a suburban household.

Guns are not defensive in nature; Having one in your house increases your family's risk, it doesn't decrease it.

I have zero problem with guns for hunting or for sport; But the very idea of a gun for self defence shows a horrifying lack of understanding of what a gun is, and what it can and can't do.

Right. And no one needs a military weapon for HUNTING

 

[Derec]

Inflating those gun violence figures for cities are people like Rittenhouse, who come to city from the country to shoot up citizens (OK, that effect is miniscule, but just saying).

What is with you people and your hate priapism for Kyle Rittenhouse? I just had a discussion about this old self-defense case in the Chalie Kirk thread with Archtish and others. If your ragection lasts longer than 4 years, seek medical attention.
It's not like Kenosha is such a big city, and Ritt lived and worked nearby.

No, US gun violence figures for cities are not inflated because of self-defense cases like that of Kyle Rittenhouse.
It is not politically correct, but blacks in the US have ~5-6x higher homicide rates than whites, according to FBI. And, to forestall your objection, yes, the raw number is just a little higher for blacks. But, if we divide by populations from the 2020 census, we get a homicide rate of 7.09/100,000 for blacks and 1.19/100,000 for whites.
But no, let's pretend that people who look like Kyle Rittenhouse are the cause of all the ills in the US, because that's the politically correct and woke conclusion.

In theory, going around carrying guns might be considered an arrestable offence in USA, but in practice too often it isn't.

Depends on the state and circumstances.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Inflating those gun violence figures for cities are people like Rittenhouse, who come to city from the country to shoot up citizens (OK, that effect is miniscule, but just saying).

What is with you people and your hate priapism for Kyle Rittenhouse? I just had a discussion about this old self-defense case in the Chalie Kirk thread with Archtish and others. If your ragection lasts longer than 4 years, seek medical attention.
It's not like Kenosha is such a big city, and Ritt lived and worked nearby.

No, US gun violence figures for cities are not inflated because of self-defense cases like that of Kyle Rittenhouse.
It is not politically correct, but blacks in the US have ~5-6x higher homicide rates than whites, according to FBI. And, to forestall your objection, yes, the raw number is just a little higher for blacks. But, if we divide by populations from the 2020 census, we get a homicide rate of 7.09/100,000 for blacks and 1.19/100,000 for whites.
But no, let's pretend that people who look like Kyle Rittenhouse are the cause of all the ills in the US, because that's the politically correct and woke conclusion.

In theory, going around carrying guns might be considered an arrestable offence in USA, but in practice too often it isn't.

Depends on the state and circumstances.

Okay, my comment was semi-serious, as should be able to tell from reading it. Give up on the psychoanalysis, you're not good at it (wrong, unprofessional terminology to start with ).
Let's concede your factual figures on gun violence. Then the question becomes why. Do you know why? Do you have some ideas to put forward about that?

 

[bilby]

Fixed it for you.

No, you didn't. You fixed it for your own nutso ideology.

I view Australians the same way I see my step grandson driving without insurance. Feeling fine and secure since your accident has not happened yet. Australians can enjoy today since your government has not become corrupt yet.

Tell me you know nothing about Australian history, without telling me that you know nothing about Australian history.

That's one of the most hilarious things I have read this year.

But eventually everything becomes corrupt. And when if/when your government does become corrupt the guns you don't have will be of utmost importance for your own self defense.

No, they really won't.

You can not arm yourself in time if the government slides into tyranny.

Nor can you. A band of plucky civilians with loads of guns and ammo can't beat a government by force of arms, except in truly execrable movie scripts.

And this is what the 2nd amendment is really about having absolutely nothing to do about hunting for sport.

You have no clue what the second amendment is "really about".

If enough good citizens have guns in good hands they will stop even a powerful corrupt government that owns the cruise missiles and drones.

Not in the real world, they won't.

Good citizens owning guns does exactly the same thing nuclear weapons do. A deterent for bad actors.

If the Second Amendment could prevent tyranny, the current President would be in jail, or in a cemetary.

As I said here back in 2019:

No revolution in history has ever failed due to a lack of access to weapons. If there's a demand for weapons, they will become available. If your revolutionaries are disinclined to break the law, your revolution is a joke.

No revolution, no matter how well armed, can defeat a national army that remains loyal to the authorities - for a revolution to succeed, it is essential to have the support of at least a part of the armed forces. With their support, privately owned weapons are irrelevant. Without it, they are futile.

Resistance to authoritarian states is not in any way affected by the availability of lawfully owned guns, nor by any constitutional right to bear arms.

It is just as likely to succeed (or fail) regardless of any such laws or rights.

The idea that the second amendment can prevent, or even begin to help in resisting, tyranny is fucking insane.

The idea that something resembling the second amendment is necessary or even helpful to people who resist tyranny is equally insane.

It doesn't matter how strictly controlled or illegal weapons are - tyrants will find that those who resist them are able to arm themselves. No government has ever succeeded in eliminating contraband, be it weapons, alcohol or other drugs, sexual services, or just goods that have not had duty paid in accordance with tax laws.

If the second amendment is intended to ensure availability of arms to rebels, then it is is a remedy for a problem that simply cannot exist.

And in 2021:

Non-military and paramilitary forces are not really relevant to a civil war in any nation with a powerful regular military force, and the US has one of the most powerful regular militaries in history.

Neither right wing nor left wing second amendment enthusiasts can make a serious stand against the US Army, so the only way to get a civil war (as opposed to a campaign of terrorism with isolated acts of violence) would be for the army to split its loyalties.

There's a reason why the leaders of many revolutions are Colonels or Generals; An army officer (or group of officers) with command of a significant fraction of the military, needs to decide to support the anti-government forces (and to retain the loyalty of his subordinates when he does so), or there can be no civil war.

The only way I see that happening in the US would be to have a group of senior officers who are completely convinced that the government has already been unconstitutionally subverted. If a bunch of redneck yahoos with ARs think Biden (or his successor) has stolen Trump's rightful presidency, then they can make a criminal nuisance of themselves, but any 'civil war' exists only in their heads. But if a cabal of officers in command of a worthwhile fraction of the military buy into the claim that Trump has been robbed, then that's a very different and very dangerous thing.

So far I have seen little evidence from the Pentagon of high ranking officers who do not recognise the legitimacy of the electoral process that led to Biden's inauguration. If that were to change, then only at that stage would the risk move from one of hightened terrorism threat, to one of a danger of civil war.

The 'militias' cannot go toe to toe with the cops, much less the army. They'd be crushed like bugs.

The Provisional IRA thought that they could stand up to the British Army in the 1970s. They were far better organised, disciplined, and cohesive than any extant US 'militia', and they got their arses kicked, and very quickly went back to sporadic terrorist attacks. No amount of arms, ammunition, and local knowledge can substitute for organisation, discipline, training, cohesion, and effective and robust logistics and command structures.

Again, I wonder what you think you gain by ignoring the stuff that's been posted on the subject over amd over and over again.

Do you just have a really short memory? Or are you hoping that everyone else does? Or both?

 

[pood]

If enough good citizens have guns in good hands they will stop even a powerful corrupt government that owns the cruise missiles and drones.

So “good citizens” with guns (what about all the bad citizens with guns?) are a powerful deterrent to a government with cruise missiles and drones, and let’s not forget, nukes.

Riiiight.

 

[pood]

Funny how so many people forget the well regulated militia part of the Second Amendment.

 

[pood]

This reminds me of the scene in the movie Don’t Look Up in which a goober starts shooting at an incoming comet that will destroy the world. Guns, baby!

 

[Kylie]

Looks like theres been some shootings in Australia. Where did they get their guns?

Bondi Beach: Eleven killed in shooting targeting Australia’s Jewish community

A further 29 people have been taken to hospital and one gunman was also killed, NSW Police have told a news conference.

www.bbc.com

We do have gun control. That's why this is like just the sixth or so mass shooting in thirty years instead of the 390th this year.

 

[pood]

So if tomorrow our deranged president decides to nuke New York City, will all the good citizens with guns in the city be able to prevent that?

 

[Patooka]

Fucking bilby, mate. You beat me to the punch every fucking time son.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Another scenario I thought of a couple of years ago. Your gun lover is walking along the street with their gun quickly available to them. That does nothing for them if some other pedestrian whips out a gun and shoots them dead.
The safest scenario is if neither of them have a gun. And yes people can be fatally attacked with a knife, and we have had recent examples of that in Australia, but your survival chances can be better as you may have some time to react, or someone nearby can act.
But as a general rule the person with the gun(s) is deadlier and can kill more people, as so often happens in USA (over 390 mass shootings this year, and yet individual shootings make up the majority of gun deaths).