Australia's ahead of the U.S.,,,,

[Rebeldon]

When I lived in Birmingham, I talked to some police officers who are as jealous of their right to keep and bear arms as anybody. I asked one, "If the City of Birmingham were to pass anti-gun laws, against Alabama's preemption laws and constitution, would you obey your bosses at city hall and enforce them, or what? Without even stratching his head he said "NO".

Let's say the government went tyrannically apesh*t and decided to comfiscate everybody's guns. What kind of cops would carry out this work? Or would they quit their jobs? In many states, especially in the South, I believe there would be mass resignations. Besides, it would be dangerous work. Here comes the police van carrying goons to take away Bubba's guns. They stop in front of Bubba's house, only Bubba's not there. Bubba's across the street on his neighbor's roof with his Remington 700 .270. How many members of the goon squad can Bubba take out before he's killed. Or what about Cooter, who turns his trailor into a giant bomb, and hides behind a tree with the detonator as the good squad approached his door. It would be a messy situation. It would cause a complete cultural collapse.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Route666 - You should visit Israel. They have seriously diverted MILITARY specops units to fight victimless crime.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

if the owner has a ... bad day they may well ... attack some of our police

Once in a while, I have a bad day. I might curse and fume, but I refrain from shooting anyone, or even kicking the dog.

But from that quote, the folks in OZ must have REALLY bad days.

Regards.

 

[Route666]

Microbalrog:

Israel? Are they misusing their police forces? What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

Sleeping Dog

I guess someone could possibly have a day that bad, but it could happen any day as well. I sure hope I don't ever have a day that bad lol.

 

[threeseven]

Route666, you just said exactly what I was trying to say. Well done. I'm pretty sure both of us are being completely misinterpreted, however.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Israel? Are they misusing their police forces? What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

I live in a country were guns used to be treated like in Australia today. It got worse. Let me tell you this: once gun ownership is no longer a right, it will almost always get worse.

 

[Route666]

I live in a country were guns used to be treated like in Australia today. It got worse. Let me tell you this: once gun ownership is no longer a right, it will almost always get worse.

Why? Just because it has happened before does not mean that it is the only outcome. Our countries are totally different, and so one could not hope to imagine what would happen here based on what happened elsewhere.

I don't think it ever was a right. Our country was built out of a prison. It definitely has never been a right to own a handgun, but right now is an easy time to own one. I grew up not caring that noone could buy handguns (or so I thought) in Australia. Now that I know people actually can, I'm excited, I'm now pistol shooting, and love it. I don't see why it should be a right, rights get abused, priveliges are somewhat respected because they can be taken away. On that note, I can actually go and buy a handgun right now. There is no law against buying ANYTHING in this country. There are laws against certain items coming into the country, and laws against possession of some items without certification, just like you're allowed to buy a car, but not allowed to drive until the authorities say you can drive, and give you a license to prove that.

 

[MicroBalrog]

There is no law against buying ANYTHING in this country

There are laws against certain items coming into the country, and laws against possession of some items without certification,

So you can buy a gun, but not possess it?

Just because it has happened before does not mean that it is the only outcome.

Well, that has happened before in practically every country.

It has happened in australia (it has only gotten worse).

 

[MicroBalrog]

And it continues to get WORSE!

 

[Route666]

Yep, you can buy a gun but not possess it. Just like you can buy a forklift for use in your company, but unless you have a forklift license, you personally can't use it, even if you own the company and the forklift.

 

[Route666]

worse? Do you see the dates on that page? That is talking about the current laws. Which I have been talking about.

 

[Tomac]

The problem w/"sensible" storage laws is who sets the standards for what qualifies as "safe storage"? All it takes is a stroke of a bureaucratric pen to require (for example) 3' of hardened steel plate buried at least 200' underground for "safe storage" and suddenly *nobody* can afford the new "safe storage" requirements. Police: "No safe storage for your firearms? Turn 'em in..."
Tomac

 

[MicroBalrog]

USE=/=possess

For example, I could take possession of the forklift, put it on my lawn and paint it pink. I just couldn't use it, that is, drive it on a public road (in some countries, I could use it on my own land.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Do you see the dates on that page

Yes. In the period 1984-2004, Australia gun laws were getting worse, not better.

 

[Route666]

For example, I could take possession of the forklift, put it on my lawn and paint it pink. I just couldn't use it, that is, drive it on a public road (in some countries, I could use it on my own land.

Yep, you could buy a gun, but not remove it from the dealer's premises without having a license for it, just like you could not drive the forklift away from the place where you bought it without a forklift license. Sure you can get someone else to ship it, or drive it, but forklifts are hardly the most common tool used in crimes, and so storage and the ability to acquire a firearm is more a matter of national defense than it would be for a forklift.

Yes. In the period 1984-2004, Australia gun laws were getting worse, not better.

I don't think so. How are they worse? Just because it requires more dedication to get a firearm doesn't make it worse. I would rather a bunch of people who were keen about firearms, how they work, who understand them the most from their superior amounts of research on the subject over just anyone who has a fleeting want for a gun, and doesn't really understand nor care about safe operation, and the effect a firearm can actually have.

Guns are as available in this country as they are useful. Most people who own them do so for recreation. Definitely not for defense, and not for hunting, and not for security jobs.

I don't see how the laws are "worse". Our vehicles have to be roadworthy, which means they are less likely to break and cause an accident. This must be checked before you register your car. They do the same with the potential owner of a gun. They make sure he's not going to break and cause harm, injury, or death. I've not heard anyone crack the sads over the constant vehicle emmisions checks in some states in the US (California and where else?), and that is the same as a cop checking your firearm storage.

The problem w/"sensible" storage laws is who sets the standards for what qualifies as "safe storage"? All it takes is a stroke of a bureaucratric pen to require (for example) 3' of hardened steel plate buried at least 200' underground for "safe storage" and suddenly *nobody* can afford the new "safe storage" requirements. Police: "No safe storage for your firearms? Turn 'em in..."

You say sensible, then you say legislation requiring a ludicrous amount of storage would get passed?!? The reasons for the buy backs were because of a massacre we had, not because of some obviously insensible sensible requirement. The storage requirements are like most US gun owners get anyway, to stop them getting stolen. THAT is the reason for the sensible storage law, to stop weapons getting into the wrong hands. NOT so you can't use it on someone. NOT so it is hard to use to defend yourself, because you are not allowed by law to use a firearm in self defense.

The reason the sensible storage requirement won't go to 3 foot of steel is the same reason people in the US buy safes for their guns.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Car emissions tests and car registration are not required in the U.S. to own or drive a car. You don't even need a license to drive a car here. It is only when you wish to drive on public roads that you need those things. If you own a thousand acre ranch, and your vehicle is just for travelling on your land, you don't need any government approval for anything car-related in the U.S.

 

[MicroBalrog]

How are they worse?

Add that to your "100 things you never expected to hear on THR" list.

 

[Chip Dixon]

-(quote)-
Guns are as available in this country as they are useful. Most people who own them do so for recreation. Definitely not for defense, and not for hunting, and not for security jobs.
-----

Are you serious? You mean there are no people over there who own guns just in case their country, or area of the country, decends into chaos? There aren't people who are concerned that they may need to defend themselves and family against certain death? No one is concerned at all that the government could be taken over by goons? Sure, it is very possible you may live your entire life without needing them. And most of the people I know who keep a stockpile of guns and ammo certainly don't want to have to use them. But you'd be naive to think that you will certainly never need them. It is the exception for a country to go on forever without any periods of war, rioting, or civil unrest. If your entire country is actually disarmed as you say, down to the recreational shooters, then whenever the tyrant or conqueror comes along, they will have quite the easy time. It'll be either servitude or out to the outback for you. That is, unless you're one of the bad guys...

 

[freewheeling]

What gets me about this is that most of these guns are supposedly in remote and rural areas, and yet they're concerned about theft. Can't you just see urban criminals travelling out to a remote sheep station to swipe the guns? In lieu of being able to use the guns to defend against their theft I suppose the only real option you have is to put them in a safe, and then obviously the next step will be to have the authorities swipe them since they know precisely where they are, and they might as well for all the good they're doing anyone.

But Australians have always been a far different crowd than Americans. Their deference toward authority was, in large part, conditioned by the experience of being a penal colony under the assignment system, and there are stories of Aussie youth walking 150 miles to voluntarily appear for a court summons. They're great folks, and as English Settler Societies we share many values in common. But Americans, they aren't.

 

[pax]

Let's say the government went tyrannically apesh*t and decided to comfiscate everybody's guns. What kind of cops would carry out this work? Or would they quit their jobs? In many states, especially in the South, I believe there would be mass resignations.

Sure, lots of the good guys would quit rather than carry out such an order.

So who would be left on the police forces, and what would they do?

Sorry, I don't find much comfort in that line of reasoning.

pax

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. – John Hay

 

[freewheeling]

A Failed Doctrine

I think I've read through most of this thread, although it took awhile. First of all, a lot of the disagreement between the Kiwis and Aussies on one hand, and the Americans on the other, has to do with culture (and especially the origins of our two cultures: one based on "assignment" and the other on a Lockean revolution). And the frequency with which Americans raise the issue of tyranny is probably not very impressive to most other English Settler Societies, or the English themselves, because they've lived under such draconian gun laws for a long time and don't really appear to be in much danger of becoming a Big Brother state.

I started out as a gun owner and user in my youth, became anti-gun as an adult, and recently changed my mind again. And perhaps the reason I changed my mind has some relevance to this discussion. I'm not actually too concerned that the US will become a tyranny, or even a totalitarian state (which would be a lot worse, btw). The odds of that are nil, even if we all lived under gun laws like those that govern the District of Columbia, or the UK. Life would still be worth living, and we'd continue to enjoy enormous freedoms compared to tyrannical and totalitarian governments, or even compared to authoritarian governments in the "southern cone."

But here's the rub, and what compelled me to change my mind. The social contract implied by the protectionist parent state was completely shattered on Sept. 11, 2001. It wasn't shattered when the passengers of the hijacked planes sat meekly in their seats with trust that the "authorities" would somehow resolve things, while the Qaeda pilots flew directly into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That was certainly when the doctrine failed, but the paradigm was shattered in the skies over Pennsylvania when a small group of passengers decided not to sit meekly in their seats.

 

[oldfart]

This whole disscussion seems to revolve around the old "rights" vs "privileges" question. We debate it among ourselves here in the US so I suppose it's reasonable to assume it's equally debateable in the international arena.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These words are pretty well known here in the US but mat be a bit less so in OZ. They come from the second paragraph of the "Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies." They started a war once and began the unraveling of the British Empire.

Notice that it says "all men." Not just the men of the American colonies or the men of the British Empire, but ALL men-- even the ones in Australia and New Zealand. Further, notice the claim to RIGHTS.
Not privileges or licenses or concessions, but rights completely beyond the contol of government. It goes on to list three of those rights; "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Since these "rights' are beyond the control of government they cannot-- except in extreme circumstances such as being lawfully imprisoned-- be taken from you. You can, however, give them up. Many people have done so by simply failing to stand up to whatever entity is trying to take them.

So, if these 'rights' actually exist there must be supplementary rights to support them. For instance; the right to life is of no value unless you also have a right to defend it. Ergo, you have a 'right,' endowed by your creator (not your governemnt) to defend your life!

If a bad guy points a gun at you and gives you every indication that he intends to kill you-- what do you do? Call the police? If you have a gun and you choose not to shoot him because of the possibility that your government might prosecute you, you have essentially given up your right to life. Many of us have a saying; "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

So, even in Australia, you have a divine right to defend yourself with whatever tools are best suited for the job. Sure, you may get slapped in jail for doing so, but you'll be alive and able to file appeals. There is no appeal from death.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well said, old fart.

 

[tcsd1236]

"NOT so it is hard to use to defend yourself, because you are not allowed by law to use a firearm in self defense."

Why is a firearm, the most useful tool for defending oneself across the spectrum of different age groups, physical ability groups,sex, etc, specifically named as a no-no for using in self-defense? Do they assume that no law abiding person would ever have a legitmate self-defense situation in which the firearm is the best tool available?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It's not that. England, and recent offshoots, have decided that the criminal's life is more valuable than that of their innocent victims. I mean that sincerely. It has nothing to do with believing that guns are not effective means of self-defense. To me, this indicates that they have gone completely mad as a culture. It's truly frightening.