A breath of fresh (local) air

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by zhuk, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0
    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


     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2010
  2. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    2
    0
    I thought you were the only right wing nut job in that part of the planet. :)
     

  3. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0

    Shhhh! ASIO is always listening, lol :eek:
     
  4. Gordo323

    Gordo323 New Member

    1,086
    0
    0
    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:D
     
  5. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    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.......
     
  6. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0
    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 :eek: 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:

    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:



    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 :mad:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  7. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    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-

    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  8. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0
    "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? :rolleyes:


    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.
     
  9. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    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
     
  10. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    So..you use a proxy to get here? By the looks of that ASIO page it might be a good idea:eek:
     
  11. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    2,031
    0
    0

    Well I figured Id try proxies to get ready for our awesomely totalitarian Net Filter that's due to kick in later this year....no idea if it really works tho...and I've probably been pinged by the ECHELON system long ago anyway lol


    Isnt this bit choice, btw:



    Its the detaining on rolling warrants without having to inform anyone including family members, which impresses me. And not having to admit to the detaining when asked, either...more legislation originally courtesy of that well-known gun-hater, John Howard.
     
  12. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    But all that control and censorship is for your own good,Brother Aussie.

    Everyone knows you cant be trusted to make decisions as to the content of what you read on the web for yourself........:rolleyes:

    You might *gasp* be able to find historical accounts that prove the globalist socialists to be the monsters they are.

    But dont despair.

    Big Brother will take care of you,from cradle to grave.