A breath of fresh (local) air
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > A breath of fresh (local) air

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2010, 07:14 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
zhuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust
Posts: 2,031
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default A breath of fresh (local) air

Just had to share this with you guys...nice to know there are like-minded people in this country (and you're not some kind of freak lol)


The Futility of Gun Control



April 1, 2010


David Leyonhjelm makes the argument that "gun control" laws don't work, and go against liberal values.

When former Prime Minister John Howard said, “We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns, unless they are police, or in the military or security industry. … We do not want the American disease imported into Australia”, he probably reflected the thoughts of many Australians.

There were three assumptions in his comment. - that strict gun laws lead to gun control, which in turn leads to reduced violence; that the “American gun culture” is something to be avoided, and that it is OK for the government to have all the guns and for ordinary people to have none.

The first two of these are factually incorrect. The third infers a relationship between individuals and the state that most liberals find uncomfortable.



In 1996 following the Port Arthur massacre, Howard forced the States to sign up to an agreement to introduce highly restrictive gun laws. More changes followed in 2002 after the murder of two people at Monash University.

The laws made it difficult and complex for sporting shooters and hunters to participate in their sports. They also removed all remaining rights to own a gun for self-defence.

Since 1999 there have been a series of academic studies of the impact of the Howard gun laws. All used ABS cause of death figures. Perhaps the most authoritative was by Baker and McPhedran, which showed no effect of the gun laws.

Based on the paper, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said:

"I too strongly supported the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre.

The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility.

It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."


This should not have been a surprise. It has been no different anywhere else. There is no country in the world where strict gun control laws have led to a decline in violent crime.


Malaysia has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world including the death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm. Britain banned pistols in 1997 following the Dunblane tragedy. In 1974 Jamaica banned the private ownership of firearms and ammunition. The Republic of Ireland banned virtually all firearms in 1973, requiring their surrender within just three days. In not one of these did the rate of violent crime fall. In most of them it rose.

Perceptions of America’s gun culture are mostly based on movies rather than reality. With the exception of murder, rates of violent crime in the US are considerably lower than in Australia. OECD statistics for 2000 show the US had less than half the rate of general assaults, sexual assaults, burglaries, robberies and car thefts.

Britain also has a higher crime rate than the US for all major crimes except murder and rape. Also, 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with just 13 percent in the US where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.



Gun laws vary enormously between the US States, from virtual prohibition to laissez faire. Federal laws also severely restrict ownership of firearms such as machineguns. Since the early 1990s there has been considerable relaxation, with 40 States now issuing permits to carry firearms for self-defence. Yet there has been no resulting increase in crime. The US national murder rate in 1991 was 9.8 per 100,000 but fell to 5.6 in 2006. Other violent crimes also fell substantially, with the biggest reductions in States that issued the permits.

Those who believe in gun control tend to maintain that belief irrespective of the evidence. If there were another mass shooting in Australia tomorrow, we would inevitably hear a crescendo of calls for even stricter gun laws.

But the reality is, gun control is futile. It does not reduce crime; it leaves citizens defenceless; it costs a fortune in bureaucracy. And it gives all the power to the government.

On gun control, Howard was profoundly wrong.

David Leyonhjelm is the Treasurer and Registered Officer of the Liberal Democratic Party

The Futility of Gun Control - Menzies House


Quick edit: A comment after this article which is very illustrative of why you cannot allow your rights to be usurped


Quote:
Howards Gun Laws certainly opened my naive eyes to the ways of politics. As a lawful /registered firearm owner I thought that I could voice my dissent at the time about the gun laws. I wasn’t prepared to be told by my local federal member I was an idiot and then had my mail opened after writing letters to the PM (days before email)

This was not the "Australia" I thought I lived in.

Anyway I begrudgingly handed in my now banned firearms and went and bought two brand new semi automatic competition pistols with my returned tax money and started winning. Later one of these was deemed to be dangerous so I once again handed it in and bought another legal one. All time consuming and unnecessary. My point is these laws only affect people who obey them and only serve to give false hope to people who now foolishly think they are safe.

But the really slimy underhand trick JWH pulled was to remove our right to defend ourselves not just with firearms but outright. Liberal, Liberty? You have lost me.
__________________

Illigitimi Non Carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
Yes, at WalMart, you can pick up a gun, ammo, ski mask and your antidepressants all in one trip. Darn convenient if you ask me...:D

Last edited by zhuk; 06-02-2010 at 07:35 AM.
zhuk is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 06-02-2010, 11:18 AM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

I thought you were the only right wing nut job in that part of the planet.

__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 01:43 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
zhuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust
Posts: 2,031
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittinfire View Post
I thought you were the only right wing nut job in that part of the planet.

Shhhh! ASIO is always listening, lol
__________________

Illigitimi Non Carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
Yes, at WalMart, you can pick up a gun, ammo, ski mask and your antidepressants all in one trip. Darn convenient if you ask me...:D
zhuk is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 02:01 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gordo323's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sometimes in,Utah
Posts: 1,086
Default

Gun laws vary enormously between the US States, from virtual prohibition to laissez faire. Federal laws also severely restrict ownership of firearms such as machineguns. Since the early 1990s there has been considerable relaxation, with 40 States now issuing permits to carry firearms for self-defence. Yet there has been no resulting increase in crime. The US national murder rate in 1991 was 9.8 per 100,000 but fell to 5.6 in 2006. Other violent crimes also fell substantially, with the biggest reductions in States that issued the permits.

Amen to that,
and g'day mate

__________________

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
-Ayn Rand

Gordo323 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 02:49 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

A very good article.

Former Prime Minister John Howard believes that only trusted government agencies should have guns,huh?
Trusted agencies-perhaps like Stasi,KGB,and Gestapo?

Hes a real moonbat,that one.

I'm glad to see Australia might be coming out of its hoplophobic stupor.Yours was once a nation of excellent riflemen.......

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 04:49 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
zhuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust
Posts: 2,031
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default

Indeed. It also speaks volumes about the level of ignorance in the widespread community that Howard's vehemently anti views were so applauded by practically all mainstream media, and I remember letters to the editor and radio talkback at the time were running overwhelmingly in favour. Those few against this position were viciously attacked as the "pro-gun lobby"; there were even suggestions shooters had been *happy* about the massacre Which I find kinda sick.

Little known is the fact the whole raft of legislation was something that had obviously been secretly close to Howard's heart for years - NOT as a "reaction" to the what went down at Port Arthur at all, as is widely believed.

He used the deaths of those people as cynical opportunism to introduce just what he always wanted:

Quote:
During the same television interview, Prime Minister Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country".
Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



To give an idea of what deliberate misinformation & anti propaganda is spread...and this is from one of Sydney's most read conservative newspapers:

Quote:
The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, has long been an advocate of tighter firearm laws. In 2001, following a spate of crimes involving (illegal) handguns, it ran an editorial headlined “Total ban is best form of protection”

The Telegraph said, while pushing for an outright ban on handguns, “There is no reason for anyone to be allowed to carry a gun on the streets of Sydney or any other Australian city.

“Prime Minister John Howard’s ban on military style and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre changed the national psyche.

“Almost 600,000 (sic) banned semi-automatic weapons were destroyed.

“And there are tough new conditions about storing guns that are owned legally.

“The gun ban has been partly responsible for a dramatic fall in the number of homicide deaths caused by guns.

“In 1989-90, 28 per cent of homicides were caused by firearms. In 1998-99 only 20 per cent were caused by firearms.”




Unfortunately, the editorial omitted the fact that the guns used in crime are not registered, their owners are not licensed and they take no part in any amnesty.

*It omitted to mention that no one, other than police, security guards, etc., is “allowed” to carry a gun on the streets of any Australian town or city.

*It also omitted to explain that the decline in homicides committed with a firearm began well before John Howard’s 1996 gun bans were introduced.

*And it omitted to point out, that when the 1991-2001 figures are examined, it is clear that the bans had no effect whatsoever on the overall homicide rate which has remained relatively stable since 1915.


The editorial continues; “It is estimated that 60,000 handguns are registered in NSW and police say that the weapons, which are easily concealed, have become the weapon of choice for criminals,” the clear implication being that properly licensed and registered handguns are the choice of criminals.

“Many more have been purchased illegally on the black market.

“The gun lobby argues that a ban on the weapons will force ownership underground but police concede there is already a black market in the weapons.”


The Telegraph can’t have it both ways. If there is already a black market in operation, how will banning legally owned handguns, which demonstrably are not used in crime, prevent criminals acquiring illegal handguns on the black market? It omitted to explain that, too.

Media Bias and Government Spin


And we will never forget that footage of the PM turning up to speak at an outdoor meeting (of sporting shooters & hunters concerned about the scope of the proposed '96 laws), wearing a highly obvious bullet proof vest. How incredibly insulting

__________________

Illigitimi Non Carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
Yes, at WalMart, you can pick up a gun, ammo, ski mask and your antidepressants all in one trip. Darn convenient if you ask me...:D

Last edited by zhuk; 06-03-2010 at 04:52 AM.
zhuk is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 07:58 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
deliberate misinformation & anti propaganda
Brother-here in America,we know all about deliberate misinformation and propaganda.

Didn't you know Joseph Goebbels got some of his ideas from one of America's leading propagandists -Edward Bernays?

The sordid history of socialism in this country,of national socialism and statism,starts,not surprisingly,around the same time that history started in Europe-Around the late 1800's.

And 'gun control' has been a very useful tool of any oligarchy-from King George III to Mao Zedong,denial of weapons is the first step in imposing the will of a tyrant.

The page I'm linking us to here is something to think about,I dont totally espouse its contents nor do I decry it.Its just something to think about.
I'll warn everyone here tho-this stuff will upset you.

This information is highly controversial and if your upset by it dont bother personally attacking me,because I didnt write it nor is it 100% something I personally believe,because I simply havent had the chance to fully explore it all yet.

Needless to say,I'm finding,in my own amateur research,that America really isn't the nation our Founders wanted it to be-because of one word- socialism.

Dont read this if you will be upset by stuff like this-

Quote:
Bernays also created the war slogan “Make the World Safe for Democracy” -a patriotic mantra that many stupid Americans embraced just as they had earlier embraced Bellamy's "Pledge of Allegiance," America's straight-arm gesture, and mechanical chanting to flags in mass and on cue.

Bernays openly sought to use social psychology, political persuasion and advertising to construct “necessary illusions” which were fed to the masses as “reality.” Bernays described it as “engineering of consent.” The objective for Bernays was to show government, government schools and government-regulated media outlets how to gain control.

Edward Bernays' impact was similar to (and built upon) that of America's most notorious and lasting propagandists for "Military Socialism" and "National Socialism": Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance" in 1892). The "Pledge of Allegiance" produced America's stiff-arm salute and robotic chanting to flags in government's schools, where segregation was imposed by law, and racism was taught as official policy.
Anyway,heres the link-

JOSEPH GOEBBELS, The Man Behind Hitler, & the Goebbels Experiment, NAZI-SOZI & THIRD REICH NAZI GERMANY They did not call themselves Nazis - they were National Socialists under Adolf Hitler http://rexcurry.net/fascism-third-reich-hitler-nazism-swasti

Make of the information what you will.My intent is not to start a fight.

I'd rather discuss the information,
my first question is-
Was Francis Bellamy really a socialist?
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 06-03-2010 at 08:07 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:16 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
zhuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust
Posts: 2,031
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default

Quote:
Before WWI, one of America's leading propagandists for government was Edward Bernays. Bernays openly sought to use social psychology, political persuasion and advertising to construct “necessary illusions” which were fed to the masses as “reality.” Bernays described it as “engineering of consent.” The objective for Bernays was to show government, government schools and government-regulated media outlets how to gain control.
"engineering of consent", I like that. Pretty much just what Howard did - but using the deaths of 35 people to do so I find abhorrent and unconscionable.


I'm sure the population wouldn't have fallen for the lies hook-line-&-sinker if they had been given accurate unbiased information; as most of the firearms banned were not used during the massacre at all (ie pump action shotguns) and what *was* used (AR15) wasn't legal at the time anyway.

And trashing a whole class of weapon outright (semis = even .22s!) was just kneejerkism at it's finest. But as I have said, it was never about a reaction to the tragedy, was it?


I have to say in the Australian case, socialism had NOTHING to do with it. John Howard was leader of our Conservative party (ironically to your ears, named the Liberal Party) and widely recognised as the most conservative prime minister we have ever had.

This was his own personal crusade to disarm us; the original tenets of the Liberal Party was individual freedom, private enterprise and lessening of Government control - what you would more probably recognise as a Libertarian point of view.

So you can see how far he dragged his own party away from that.
__________________

Illigitimi Non Carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
Yes, at WalMart, you can pick up a gun, ammo, ski mask and your antidepressants all in one trip. Darn convenient if you ask me...:D
zhuk is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:30 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Well,I'm no fan of our recently dethroned King George II.
He wasnt exactly what I would call a good limited government conservative,and he didnt stand for the Republic either.
We called him a NeoCon,for a type of Neo-Conservative.
A big government conservative-unlike a much better man than he was-President Ronald Reagan.
God Rest His Soul.

Reagan wasnt perfect-but then,neither was Thomas Jefferson or even George Washington-but those three men understood America and the Republic far more than the other cretins like Slick Willie and the Bush Cabal ever could dream to.

And as for the ObamaMessiah-always remember that Adolph Hitler was also popularly elected.

Anyway-the cancer rotting our nation here in America is called 'socialist progressivism'.
It is responsible for the ever-growing and out-of-Constitutional bounds federal government,which the progressives must have in order to enforce their Marxist ideals of utopia on the once-free American people.A limited government just isnt powerful enough to make everyone bend to the whims of 'social justice' and such.

Usually what Marxist communist scum and/or national socialists have done in other nations to get what they want,is violently overthrow the government-they realize that wont work here.

Like Nazi Germany,the government must first be in place,the 'lawfulness' of the socialist order firmly enacted,before they can really 'get down to business'.

Here they are employing something called 'social engineering'.

Look it up.

They are 'progressively' leading us to socialism.

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism,
until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

-Nikita Khrushchev

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 06:38 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhuk View Post
Shhhh! ASIO is always listening, lol
So..you use a proxy to get here? By the looks of that ASIO page it might be a good idea
__________________
DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
hold your breath when shooting? gadrooning The Club House 13 09-22-2009 11:13 AM
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 15 05-30-2009 10:55 PM
ah time to start fresh sgtdeath66 The Club House 14 01-03-2009 06:16 AM