|
Let's talk about predictions of the future which are invoked as settled fact, look at their track record, and ask for timeframes. We'll start with Australia. When in the 1990s Australia transitioned from strong gun laws to a de facto ban, crime did not go down at a significantly greater rate than previously. Everyone marginally informed on the gun control debate is aware of this and how gun advocates claim it as a slam dunk case that Gun Laws Do Nothing. One way or another, that's not what I'd like to address here. My question is: Since Australia banned firearms, why hasn't it yet collapsed into totalitarianism or a Hobbesian war of all-against-all as is predicted in all the theories of gun advocacy, and when can we expect this to happen? First, we are generally told that, upon a gun ban, crime will not "continue to decrease at about the same rate." We are told that it will greatly increase, as law-abiding citizens will no longer have access to firearms to defend themselves but criminals will. Obviously this hasn't happened yet, but when is it supposed to? Do criminals in Australia still have access to firearms? In Australia, the homicide rate is 1.1. Of these, about 14% are committed with firearms. In the US, the homicide rate is 4.5 and about 69% are committed with firearms. So, in addition to having less than 25% the total murder rate, Australia has 5% the murder rate with firearms as the US. It's not just murder. The Australian rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 15%. In America it is 71%. The American armed robbery rate is 88.7. The Australian armed robbery rate is 34.7. So in America the rate of armed robbery with a firearm is 63 per 100,000. In Australia it is 5.2. So, in addition to having less than 40% the armed robbery rate, they also have 8% the American rate of armed robbery with a firearm. With this in mind: When can we expect these rates of crime with firearms to grow at least 12 to 20 times to at least match the US rate? Rates of crime with firearms have been decreasing there to this point. Will this occur on some timetable or in response to some event, such as Australia creating a Purge Night? Australia has problems, as does any country. Political scandals, racism, austerity measures. However it remains a functional democracy, and has the second-highest Human Development Index in the world; not much better than the US's HDI at #5, but worth noting. Question the second: Having disarmed the populace, when is the Australian government going to go (choose according to your politics) [fascist/communist/ZOG] and exterminate the [proletariat/taxpayers/pure white race]? This is a major thing we are told will happen upon passage of a gun ban, but it hasn't occurred in almost 20 years since the ban. When can we expect this? I'd like to visit before it happens. Maybe there would have been a politically vague revolution we would all have agreed with in Australia, which was forestalled by the lack of gun availability. Sadly, this is impossible to prove one way or another. But in the same time, the United States, which did not ban firearms, has not had this revolution despite being hit substantially harder by [the banking crisis/political correctness/minorities]. How do we explain this, and when are these guns going to be used to commit the revolution that all the good people like? Will I have time to finish my Christmas shopping? To shift gears a bit, I also notice that the major reason that so many gun advocates are opposed to registration is that it allows the government to know where all the guns are and round them up, presumably before instituting the totalitarianism. Several confusing questions arise from this claim. First, there are nations such as Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland which have universal gun registration yet have yet to confiscate all their citizens' guns or become dictatorships. When can we expect this? I notice that Canada had a universal gun registry, but didn't confiscate everybody's guns, let alone become Commie-Nazis, and later rescinded this universal registry and apparently destroyed the records. When, roughly, will this be revealed to be a huge trick? The US does not have a gun registry. It has, however, a vast spying apparatus that has access to all forms of electronic communication. Gun owners carry their geo-locating cell phones with them while they go to gun stores and gun ranges. They get hunting licenses. They buy guns and ammunition with means other than cash. They enroll in the membership rolls of the NRA, and subscribe to magazines about guns. They openly display bumper stickers demonstrating their gun possession. They display their guns and talk about their gun ownership, often to near-strangers. They visit gun advocacy websites without proxies and post about their guns on the internet, often under their real name and/or with pictures. So with all of this it seems like it would be relatively trivial for the government to know where a great majority of the guns were and round them up, especially if targeted the stereotypically bloviating gun advocate. And yet the government has not, to this point. When shall this occur? How much popcorn will I need?
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Australia does appear to be implementing some stupid bullshit laws around national security and surveillance that are pretty bad, but it's not like they wouldn't have done that in the absence of gun control and the US is worse in that regard anyway, guns or no guns. Yes. Thousands of preventable deaths per year, mostly of the poor and/or minorities, is a more germane consideration than the desire by cretins to not be inconvenienced in their toy accessibility. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
INH5 posted:If you do the math, the US non-firearms homicide rate is about 1.4, significantly higher than Australia's total homicide rate. So it's clear that there are factors other than the availability of guns at work here. Yes. Availability of guns is not the only factor, but it is a major factor.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:gun control isn't going to happen in your lifetime. sorry OP More questions: If this is true, and gun owners believe it, then why are they hoarding guns and ammunition? Why is every proposed meager local restriction on some firearm type invariably treated as though it is the vanguard of their eternal defeat?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Why does it work if gun control will never happen and they believe that to be true? Isn't it more likely, given this behavior totally terrified of impending gun control, that "gun control will never happen" is just what they say in a pretty obvious attempt to try to convince people to not even try?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Meaningful gun control will never happen in this country in any of our lifetimes and not a single second or penny should be spent on pursuing it politically anymore. It's nothing but a colossal waste of time and resources that could be better spent working towards political goals that are actually achievable, like fixing our healthcare system, our welfare system, ending the war on drugs, repairing our failing infrastructure, ect. Actually I think you will find that if you try to improve any of that, many people, in fact much the same people, will oppose you just as bitterly, and they will have the backing of more people who are motivated by their bank balances and not their toys or their ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Questions about the future and gun control: We literally believe that Republicans are hitler and Democrats are Captain America That is not a question, let alone the requisite 2+ questions to use the plural form of the word. Pretty embarrassing error you made here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Nah take away guns that will remove all forms of crime actually. Ban knives too and any object that could be used as a blunt weapon. I don't think that removing guns from general society will end all forms of crime. What about, say, embezzlement, or animal cruelty? Seems like you are not arguing in good faith because you are mad about the idea of people restricting your toy accessibility, original poster. Might want to work on that in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a bad law, and I will be voting for Hillary next year. I agree. What America needs today are fewer restrictions on explosive and automatic weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I'm right there with you. If anything, I'm a supporter of gun-owning freedoms because of the same sensibilities towards rights and freedoms that cause me to be a member of the left generally. I don't see anything particularly "leftist" about opposition to regulations, rejection of universally successful modern policy, the blanket right to own property regardless of the consequences to others, and allegiance with some of the most reactionary yahoos in the developed world.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Clearly, recklessly releasing toxic substances into the environment is the appropriate analogy for responsibly owning/using something in a way that harms no one. Except for the 230,000+ firearms stolen per year mostly as a result of gun owner paranoia, sloth and stupidity, their annual funneling of tens of millions into the gun industry, and their ceaseless opposition to any credible attempts to regulate firearms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I'm not really cool with government agents popping into private citizens' homes without any sort of individual suspicion in order to make sure they're following the law. Which, FYI, is not a thing the EPA does. The way it usually works in countries with actual gun control is that in order to obtain a firearms license you must demonstrate secure storage, which is at most one home visit by police with notice on your own explicit request, if even that (such as producing a ticket that shows you have a locker at the gun club.) If this is such a problem for you there's a simple solution: don't own bang bang shooty toys for cretins. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Unless CPS is randomly inspecting every child's bedroom annually without a warrant, they're not operating the way Australia does. Australia doesn't inspect every gun owner's safe randomly every year.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The second amendment isn't a constitutionally "protected" right, it's a constitutionally created right. No modern philosophy of human rights and dignities includes the category of "freedom to own dangerous poo poo" as an inherent part of human existence. The standard weeping about mandatory schemes of licensing and registration, aside from The Government Is Gonna Kick Down the Door And Steal Everybody's Guns Like Happened Nowhere, is that these things (like all other regulations) are more time-consuming and expensive for the individual than their non-existence, and therefore are an unconscionable imposition on the rights of poor people of a race or races we care about according to our politics. Question: If guns are really an important human right which cannot be restricted by access to money isn't it immoral that we trust its implementation to the vagaries of employment and the market? Shouldn't we pass Gun Welfare: every adult in the US is given a free medium-caliber pistol and, say, 20 rounds of ammunition, regardless of their ability to pay for it, be trained on it, or pass a background check (since of course people with more money are more able to afford training, lawyers and mental healthcare.) And if gun owners are correct and access to firearms has a zero effect (or a net negative effect) on crime, won't this, at worst, give everyone access to their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and not affect crime at all?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The guns used in the recent shooting in San Bernardino were already illegal in California. Clearly what we need is more laws that will absolutely prevent mass shootings this time, no, really! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3746390&pagenumber=52&perpage=40#post451493493 Pitch posted:Anyone reading Troika's posts should keep in mind that his interest in guns is entirely based on an anime he saw like three years ago. He literally just showed up in TFR on the day it started airing asking a lot of questions about he could buy the same gun that the main character has and has been insufferable about the topic ever since. If you ask him to describe his foiled muggings in any greater detail they're probably the climactic fight scene but with the magical swordfights taken out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Really, in many states the only restrictions to legally owning a firearm are "don't be a convicted felon" "have a photo ID" "have $300 dollars" and "be able to get to the store," all of which are monetary impositions to some extent or another. Why are we making racially indeterminate Poors spend all this money just to use their constitutional rights?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think it's cool that the canned response to pointing out that a proposed law might not be very effective is a sarcastic "WELL I GUESS WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY LAWS THEN HUH" That isn't what happens. Here's what happens: Some tragedy with guns occurs somewhere. Gun fanboys barge in threads with smug incoherent idiocies around theme of "look the place this happened had some kind of gun control and it didn't do anything!" Reasonable people point out that no law has a 100% success rate in preventing crime, and by the gun fanboy standard, we should not have laws at all as a result of this. Gun fanboys learn nothing, move onto other smug incoherent jabs. Note that it doesn't really matter what these gun controls are; when Gabby Gifords was shot in Arizona, which has virtually no gun restrictions, the line was that the supermarket's restriction on guns on its property made it a "gun free zone" and thus, lol, it didn't do anything! A good guy with a gun could have stopped it if only they weren't stymied by the largely unenforced policy of the Albertsons corporation
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Congratulations, we're already there. Guns are pretty regulated. According to the standard of Afghanistan perhaps
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Talking about the pretend revolution is pointless because it's all imaginary and gun fanboys always invoke Calvinball bullshit. Better points of discussion are that tens of thousands of preventable deaths per year are not an acceptable price to make their half-baked insurrection fantasies insignificantly more plausible and there's no reason to believe that the results of a gun owner-driven revolution are likely to be preferable even if they win.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How'd you get your new title Tezzor? The joke of some repulsive anime poster. I'm making lowtax a mint here
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:The only real way to prevent gun violence is mandatory gun ownership for all people over the age of 18 and mandatory gun safety classes being taught at every public school, at all levels. Actually this would make gun violence worse, Original Poster.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Turtle Sandbox posted:I want to be a leftist but I also want to disarm the proletariat can anyone tell me how to resolve these competing ideas of mine? Recognize what the proletariat actually does with their weapons, instead of what you imagine they will do in your revolution fantasies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 19:05
|
|