Gun rights - an Australian perspecitve

[Marbig]

As an Aussie, I've always been fascinated with American's fascination of guns. Yes, a minority of Australians living in rural areas (mostly farmers) do own guns but most of us do not and I simply don't understand the need to if you are living in a metropolitan city. The way I see it is as follows:

• Yes, there is the argument that citizens owning guns is a good thing since it will allow people to fight back if the government monopolises power. But, in this day and age its not so much gun vs gun as it is gun vs drones. The government will always have the better equipped and trained men as well as technology like drones - they can surely snuff out a group of white collar worker with handguns if they wish to (not they it should but this is hypothetically speaking).
• The "I need a gun for self-defence" argument also fails too. Pepper spray works and so do tasers. From a foreign perspective, the amount of deaths guns have caused within the USA is insane. I read somewhere that thrice the amount of Americans died compared to those who have actually died in real wars over the last decade or so.
• The "if you ban it, the supply of guns will just go underground" argument is also flawed. Yes, gun violence still occurs in Australia occasionally but its much harder to obtain a gun when you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars compared to a thousand. Most of the people who commit gun crimes from what I read are those that are not very well-educated and, most likely as a directly result, will not have the money to pay for a dangerous weapon illegally.
• As for the "its in the constitution!" argument...well the law is created to serve the population. The constitution should be read in light of modern values to befit a modern population and - like I said in the first point - society has already evolved to the point that guns alone will not be able to stop a tyrannical government. To be very honest, from what I read, it seems the USA government (as well as Australia's) is more keen to control people psychologically anyways rather than using brute force.

I get that the majority of people owning a gun are sane and will not use it unreasonably but in my opinion the cost is too damn high. If an insane person gets a hold of a knife, he/she may kill one or two people before being tackled to the ground and arrested. Compare this to something like Orlando where fifty innocent people are murdered and the criminal is never given the chance to rehabilitate or properly punished as they are immediately shot dead.

I dunno. Thoughts? Have I miss any arguments?

 

[oldshadow]

As an Aussie, I've always been fascinated with American's fascination of guns. Yes, a minority of Australians living in rural areas (mostly farmers) do own guns but most of us do not and I simply don't understand the need to if you are living in a metropolitan city. The way I see it is as follows:

• Yes, there is the argument that citizens owning guns is a good thing since it will allow people to fight back if the government monopolises power. But, in this day and age its not so much gun vs gun as it is gun vs drones. The government will always have the better equipped and trained men as well as technology like drones - they can surely snuff out a group of white collar worker with handguns if they wish to (not they it should but this is hypothetically speaking).
• The "I need a gun for self-defence" argument also fails too. Pepper spray works and so do tasers. From a foreign perspective, the amount of deaths guns have caused within the USA is insane. I read somewhere that thrice the amount of Americans died compared to those who have actually died in real wars over the last decade or so.
• The "if you ban it, the supply of guns will just go underground" argument is also flawed. Yes, gun violence still occurs in Australia occasionally but its much harder to obtain a gun when you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars compared to a thousand. Most of the people who commit gun crimes from what I read are those that are not very well-educated and, most likely as a directly result, will not have the money to pay for a dangerous weapon illegally.
• As for the "its in the constitution!" argument...well the law is created to serve the population. The constitution should be read in light of modern values to befit a modern population and - like I said in the first point - society has already evolved to the point that guns alone will not be able to stop a tyrannical government. To be very honest, from what I read, it seems the USA government (as well as Australia's) is more keen to control people psychologically anyways rather than using brute force.

I get that the majority of people owning a gun are sane and will not use it unreasonably but in my opinion the cost is too damn high. If an insane person gets a hold of a knife, he/she may kill one or two people before being tackled to the ground and arrested. Compare this to something like Orlando where fifty innocent people are murdered and the criminal is never given the chance to rehabilitate or properly punished as they are immediately shot dead.

I dunno. Thoughts? Have I miss any arguments?

1- First you assume it will be all out war with the federal government that is the tyrant citizens would fight.

The Battle of Athens

2 AUGUST 1946

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

The government is not going to use nuclear weapons or gas on the people even if it was an all out revolution and large numbers of the military and other organizations would go to the other side and bring there weapons and skills with them.
The fear of an armed people also keep the government in check to a degree, just the fear and the government should always fear the people and what they can or might do.

By the way this was the real lessons the UK can take from the recent vote to get out of the EU is this is what happens if you disregard a majority of the people.

2- Pepper spray and tazers are shit effective many times and I would never bet my life or my families life on them and I should not have to.

3- Even the uneducated made zip guns and bombs when they needed them. And they will use knife or what ever they can get there hands on. Leaving the unarmed law abiding citizens at a large disadvantage in self-defense.

$ Yes its in our constitution (which is different then where you are so you have no right to a firearm its considered a privilege)which could be changed but the people don't want it changed and will fight any attempt to do so.

The criminal deserves no chance when it comes to stopping their deadly rampage. The first priority is always putting an end to that. If they live through that then the second priority is punishment which for murder like that should be death or at least real life so rehabilitation is of little concern in premeditated murder.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Australia never had the right enshrined in their Constitution.
That makes comparisons apples-oranges, aside from any consideration of populations.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Im Greek-Canadian living in Toronto but as i know it America has had some experience with tyrannical governments which may have necessitated it at the time but as oldshadow said it's in their constitution it's their right. Personally i think we should have guns as self defense inside the home. I find it ludicrous that if a person breaks into my home in Canada i can face jail time if using a firearm for self defense.

 

[usmctanker242]

Yes, TS, you missed the argument.

1. We're allowed to have just about any kind of weapon here, not just handguns. If the government socialized and went after the people or their guns, it would be an absolute bloodbath for those who tried to confiscate the guns. The entire point of the 2nd amendment is that the citizens are armed and capable of defying a tyrannical government.

2. Pepper spray and tazers are completely over-rated. I've been pepper sprayed, and while annoying, it wouldn't stop me from doing harm to others if I chose to. Tazers are hit and miss... tons of videos of cops using the best shit around and people not dropping. Would you really want to challenge a firearm with pepper spray or a tazer? Also... you "read somewhere" isn't an argument. If you have a source then post it and we can debate that, but you can't say some silly shit like you did an expect anybody to take it seriously.

3. America is not an island, we have very real, physical borders. Guns will come through that border, which funny enough, the left/liberals vehemently defy any kind of border control or security. It's much easier to control what comes into your country when you're an island, so perhaps you're just unaware of what it's like to live adjacent to a country which is going through a massively violent period.

4. You don't understand the US constitution and therefore you shouldn't be making conclusions about what our founding fathers meant. The government could, potentially, take our guns and pacify us, but it's highly unlikely. It would be a massive undertaking and it would cost tons of lives on both sides. But just because something potentially COULD happen, that doesn't mean we should just give up and let the government do as they please.

-Reality is that young people today look to the government for protection from everything, but this is just a fantasy. Police only arrive AFTER a crime has been committed. There is no way the government could stop crime, or even a majority of it, which is why the onus is on the citizens to defend themselves. Also, most gun crimes are from gang violence, and lots of that is in cities where gun control laws are extremely strict. Only between 3-10% of crimes committed with firearms comes from firearms which were legally obtained.

 

[Cid]

America has almost 4x our murder rate TS.

They need as much protection as they can get.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

As an Aussie, I've always been fascinated with American's fascination of guns. Yes, a minority of Australians living in rural areas (mostly farmers) do own guns but most of us do not and I simply don't understand the need to if you are living in a metropolitan city. The way I see it is as follows:

• Yes, there is the argument that citizens owning guns is a good thing since it will allow people to fight back if the government monopolises power. But, in this day and age its not so much gun vs gun as it is gun vs drones. The government will always have the better equipped and trained men as well as technology like drones - they can surely snuff out a group of white collar worker with handguns if they wish to (not they it should but this is hypothetically speaking).
• The "I need a gun for self-defence" argument also fails too. Pepper spray works and so do tasers. From a foreign perspective, the amount of deaths guns have caused within the USA is insane. I read somewhere that thrice the amount of Americans died compared to those who have actually died in real wars over the last decade or so.
• The "if you ban it, the supply of guns will just go underground" argument is also flawed. Yes, gun violence still occurs in Australia occasionally but its much harder to obtain a gun when you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars compared to a thousand. Most of the people who commit gun crimes from what I read are those that are not very well-educated and, most likely as a directly result, will not have the money to pay for a dangerous weapon illegally.
• As for the "its in the constitution!" argument...well the law is created to serve the population. The constitution should be read in light of modern values to befit a modern population and - like I said in the first point - society has already evolved to the point that guns alone will not be able to stop a tyrannical government. To be very honest, from what I read, it seems the USA government (as well as Australia's) is more keen to control people psychologically anyways rather than using brute force.

I get that the majority of people owning a gun are sane and will not use it unreasonably but in my opinion the cost is too damn high. If an insane person gets a hold of a knife, he/she may kill one or two people before being tackled to the ground and arrested. Compare this to something like Orlando where fifty innocent people are murdered and the criminal is never given the chance to rehabilitate or properly punished as they are immediately shot dead.

I dunno. Thoughts? Have I miss any arguments?

1. This is a pretty dumb argument. Does America just indiscriminately level cities? Who does the military support in a truly tyrannical government situation. Guerrilla warfare would be used by an estimated 10-15+ million people. That is 2-3x the military of usa, russia and china combined. To give you an idea. Isis has 20-32k people. Look what they do. Obviously very different situation but still as an example.

2. With less lethal options there are no guarantees.

3. This is what SOME Australians and Canadians don't understand. You can't compare yourselves to the US. We have over 300 million guns and we have multiple states with higher populations than your country. We also have Mexico that could absolutely facilitate weapons if there was a demand.

 

[Ruprecht]

You live in Sydney, it doesn't surprise me that you seem uninformed about the situation with firearms in Australia.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

As an Aussie, I've always been fascinated with American's fascination of guns. Yes, a minority of Australians living in rural areas (mostly farmers) do own guns but most of us do not and I simply don't understand the need to if you are living in a metropolitan city. The way I see it is as follows:

• Yes, there is the argument that citizens owning guns is a good thing since it will allow people to fight back if the government monopolises power. But, in this day and age its not so much gun vs gun as it is gun vs drones. The government will always have the better equipped and trained men as well as technology like drones - they can surely snuff out a group of white collar worker with handguns if they wish to (not they it should but this is hypothetically speaking).
• The "I need a gun for self-defence" argument also fails too. Pepper spray works and so do tasers. From a foreign perspective, the amount of deaths guns have caused within the USA is insane. I read somewhere that thrice the amount of Americans died compared to those who have actually died in real wars over the last decade or so.
• The "if you ban it, the supply of guns will just go underground" argument is also flawed. Yes, gun violence still occurs in Australia occasionally but its much harder to obtain a gun when you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars compared to a thousand. Most of the people who commit gun crimes from what I read are those that are not very well-educated and, most likely as a directly result, will not have the money to pay for a dangerous weapon illegally.
• As for the "its in the constitution!" argument...well the law is created to serve the population. The constitution should be read in light of modern values to befit a modern population and - like I said in the first point - society has already evolved to the point that guns alone will not be able to stop a tyrannical government. To be very honest, from what I read, it seems the USA government (as well as Australia's) is more keen to control people psychologically anyways rather than using brute force.

I get that the majority of people owning a gun are sane and will not use it unreasonably but in my opinion the cost is too damn high. If an insane person gets a hold of a knife, he/she may kill one or two people before being tackled to the ground and arrested. Compare this to something like Orlando where fifty innocent people are murdered and the criminal is never given the chance to rehabilitate or properly punished as they are immediately shot dead.

I dunno. Thoughts? Have I miss any arguments?

1: Can you give an example of a modern military successfully holding and stabilizing an insurgent civilian population? If not, than your theory must be discarded.

2: I take it you have never used pepper spray or a tazer.

3: The gun markets of Pakistan:


I post this video to show you just how easily firearms and ammunition can be produced from raw materials with minimum skill levels.

4: Our Bill or Rights does not grant any rights. Our Bill or Rights prevents the government from infringing upon our inalienable and natural rights.

If that concept feels alien to you, that's because your own government (Australia) has been infringing upon your inalienable and natural rights for so long you may be unable to conceptualize those rights anymore.

That is a future I refuse to leave for my children.

 

[rshawneecarbon1]

Why is the underground scenario flawed? There's more guns then people in the us and a lot or even a majority of them aren't registered.

I think it's closer to fact guns would go underground if the government tried to take them away.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

100'000'000 gun owners (more than 4x the entire population of Aus) in the US with 300+ million guns in circulation - and you think banning them wouldn't cause a massive black market surge?

Australia ranks pretty high in alcohol consumption and averages 15 deaths per day in deaths due to alcohol - how would you guys react to banning booze?

 

[Ruprecht]

Australia ranks pretty high in alcohol consumption and averages 15 deaths per day in deaths due to alcohol - how would you guys react to banning booze?

We haven't banned guns. Booze copped taxes, lowered BAC limits for drivers, "social awareness campaigns" (including the "alcopops" hysteria) and advertising bans.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

We haven't banned guns. Booze copped taxes, lowered BAC limits for drivers, "social awareness campaigns" (including the "alcopops" hysteria) and advertising bans.

I never said Aussies banned guns; however, it seems like the central theme of the OP is that America would be better off banning guns. Relating to banning items you "dont need" or that are harmful, deadly, or violent - i would say in most countries, including the US, Aus, etc - booze would take priority over guns - since it kills way more.

But still, we dont check a persons mental health history, or criminal history before we sell them a bottle of whiskey.

 

[TheStruggle]

Praises 'mandatory buy back of guns' aka They take your guns away


Liberals: No one is trying to take away your guns.

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

Sherdog has made me absolutely detest gun debates with Australians over the years. No offense, TS.

 

[Gregolian]

With civilians being able to train with guys like this:




And with the Federal Government seemingly inching further and further in on dictating what people can and cannot do in their daily lives and the instances of all out violence occurring far more than it used to... I'll keep my firearm, get training, get the gear I need to survive, and do what I can to help those around me when the time comes.

Also, gun "violence" stats surrounding deaths always forget to mention they include suicides (who, if a gun isn't present the person may slice up their arms, jump off something, or down a bottle of pills), people killed by police officers in warranted and unwarranted instances of shootings, and they neglect to mention how many were done by people that were allowed to posses a gun legally.

 

[Ruprecht]

I never said Aussies banned guns; however, it seems like the central theme of the OP is that America would be better off banning guns. Relating to banning items you "dont need" or that are harmful, deadly, or violent - i would say in most countries, including the US, Aus, etc - booze would take priority over guns - since it kills way more.

But still, we dont check a persons mental health history, or criminal history before we sell them a bottle of whiskey.

The TS doesn't seem particularly informed on the situation with firearms in Australia, but the Australian model is regulation, not a "ban".
Potential for self-harm is usually less regulated than a perceived danger to others.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The TS doesn't seem particularly informed on the situation with firearms in Australia, but the Australian model is regulation, not a "ban".
Potential for self-harm is usually less regulated than a perceived danger to others.

Im Canadian (probably have less gun restriction than Aus - but somewhat similar model, a gun owner, and a supporter for increased gun ownership restrictions.

Ironically, the vast majority of gun deaths are self harmed - as is alcohol deaths. But, the numbers for drunk driving deaths and accidents resulting in the deaths of innocents is comparable to the homicide rate.

 

[djacobox372]

Consider this Aussies: if a major global event happened (asteriod impact, polar shift, mega volcano, etc.) Your government would fall apart and you'd be left on your own to defend yourself from radical islamic opportunist just a short distance away to your north.

Of course that sort of thing is unlikely, but not nearly as unlikely as being killed by any of the guns you banned.

 

[Ruprecht]

Im Canadian (probably have less gun restriction than Aus - but somewhat similar model, a gun owner, and a supporter for increased gun ownership restrictions.

Ironically, the vast majority of gun deaths are self harmed - as is alcohol deaths. But, the numbers for drunk driving deaths and accidents resulting in the deaths of innocents is comparable to the homicide rate.

I'd assume (although I don't know) that Canada has comparatively low homicide rates, and that there are "dry zones", fairly comprehensive random breath testing, and substantial penalties for drink driving (let alone in the cases where it results in death). Firearms licencing here is less involved than driver's licencing.