Republicans: continued

[Brian Peacock]

Yes, with your compliant population, the government should offer a car buy-back too.

And no, I'm not joking...

Stringent laws on gun ownership, registration, ammo, storage etc were brought in following public outcries after a series of mass shootings by 'responsible', legal gun owners in the 90s here. The government caved in to public pressure.

[Cunt]

And the resistance to giving up cars, is often the same kind of irrational that is around giving up guns.

Not that all resistance is irrational, of course, just that there exists a surprisingly large number that it worked on. I would guess that those folks would not have just destroyed their guns, or turned them in for nothing, but selling them means they could buy a cool drone, or a case of beer, or something. Makes it easier to do good.

I read that again and it sounds like sarcasm, it isn't.

I think if your government bribed people to give up driving, the same way they bribed them to give up guns, you would get a lot of participation.

[JimC]

Cars can clearly be dangerous, but it is very seldom they are used to deliberately murder someone. Rather different to guns...

[Brian Peacock]

And the resistance to giving up cars, is often the same kind of irrational that is around giving up guns.

Not that all resistance is irrational, of course, just that there exists a surprisingly large number that it worked on. I would guess that those folks would not have just destroyed their guns, or turned them in for nothing, but selling them means they could buy a cool drone, or a case of beer, or something. Makes it easier to do good.

I read that again and it sounds like sarcasm, it isn't.

I think if your government bribed people to give up driving, the same way they bribed them to give up guns, you would get a lot of participation.

And how does that relate to the fact that the public demanded widespread changes to firearms laws in the UK, particularly in light of your just-so story about how the government forced us to give up our guns and we were too afeared and compliant to resist?

[Hermit]

And the resistance to giving up cars, is often the same kind of irrational that is around giving up guns.

Not that all resistance is irrational, of course, just that there exists a surprisingly large number that it worked on. I would guess that those folks would not have just destroyed their guns, or turned them in for nothing, but selling them means they could buy a cool drone, or a case of beer, or something. Makes it easier to do good.

I read that again and it sounds like sarcasm, it isn't.

I think if your government bribed people to give up driving, the same way they bribed them to give up guns, you would get a lot of participation.

We did not give up guns as such. The buyback scheme was limited to semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. When it finished, 80% of privately owned firearms in Australia remained untouched in private ownership.

The buyback scheme came into being as a result of the Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded by one crazed man with two semi-automatic assault style rifles (one Colt AR-15 and one L1A1 SLR) which he had bought legally.

The offer to buy semi automatic and pump action firearms at market prices cannot be described as a bribe. The word you're looking for is 'compensation'.

As for your ridiculous move to somehow compare road cars with firearms, we do not allow race cars on public roads, which is pretty similar to not allowing semi automatic and pump action firearms.

[Cunt]

And the resistance to giving up cars, is often the same kind of irrational that is around giving up guns.

Not that all resistance is irrational, of course, just that there exists a surprisingly large number that it worked on. I would guess that those folks would not have just destroyed their guns, or turned them in for nothing, but selling them means they could buy a cool drone, or a case of beer, or something. Makes it easier to do good.

I read that again and it sounds like sarcasm, it isn't.

I think if your government bribed people to give up driving, the same way they bribed them to give up guns, you would get a lot of participation.

And how does that relate to the fact that the public demanded widespread changes to firearms laws in the UK, particularly in light of your just-so story about how the government forced us to give up our guns and we were too afeared and compliant to resist?

Don't like my plain language? Rephrase if you like, but I didn't say those things.

I said 'bribe' to keep it simple. I doubt it would have worked good without it. It sounds like it worked good.

Car owners (some) are resistant for the same silly emotional reasons, and a buyback would tickle them the same way.

If it worked stupidly well, the end result would be some people on the fence would push themselves off and not maintain a car. If it worked even better, more demand for public transit.

I'm surprised that it worked, and describing it with plain, ugly language expresses that. Compliant, broke-ass bumpkins gleefully handing over their guns in exchange for beer money. I bet even the ones selling their old guns, are happy with the beer (if annoyed by such an ugly description).

It also sounds like anyone who wanted to, would still have what firearms they wanted, no matter what. If, for example, JimC said (of the buyback)

No FUCKING way, cunts. I use my harrier jet to make my weekly meals on wheels deliveries. I'm fucking moving to Canada where I can keep my jet

What could the aussie government do? They wouldn't lock him in the country, they would say 'fine, fuck off', and off he would fuck.

I thought it was a rough place, because of the boxing kangaroos and everybody calling each other cunts, but it turns out, they are a mostly peaceable lot.

[JimC]

Again, there is no possible comparison between restrictions on the ownership of particular types of firearms (not firearms in general) and the ownership of cars. Most civilised countries these days have strict rules about the ownership of both pistols and semi-automatic rifles, for reasons of public safety, and their citizens are overwhelmingly in favour of such restrictions. The US is a weird outlier in this regard, and it pays for it in blood. Every year.

[Brian Peacock]

And the resistance to giving up cars, is often the same kind of irrational that is around giving up guns.

Not that all resistance is irrational, of course, just that there exists a surprisingly large number that it worked on. I would guess that those folks would not have just destroyed their guns, or turned them in for nothing, but selling them means they could buy a cool drone, or a case of beer, or something. Makes it easier to do good.

I read that again and it sounds like sarcasm, it isn't.

I think if your government bribed people to give up driving, the same way they bribed them to give up guns, you would get a lot of participation.

And how does that relate to the fact that the public demanded widespread changes to firearms laws in the UK, particularly in light of your just-so story about how the government forced us to give up our guns and we were too afeared and compliant to resist?

Don't like my plain language? Rephrase if you like, but I didn't say those things.....

Hmm.

Yes, with your compliant population, the government should offer a car buy-back too.

And no, I'm not joking...

[Cunt]

The population was surprisingly compliant, as evidence by their compliance.

As to the car buyback suggestion, I honestly think it would work. Because of that surprising compliance.

Is there something you missed there, bp?

[JimC]

The population was surprisingly compliant, as evidence by their compliance.

As to the car buyback suggestion, I honestly think it would work. Because of that surprising compliance.

Is there something you missed there, bp?

The gun buy-back in Oz was voluntary, in a sense. During the amnesty period, you could take your guns to a designated place, and they would pay you to hand them in. If, after that period, you held on to your guns, then they became illegal if they were semi-automatics. You could register any other guns, of course. When I handed in all my guns (even the bolt action ones, because my eyesight had declined to the point where shooting was no longer a sensible option), I got a good sum - in fact, more than the guns cost me, since they were all second hand when I bought them!

The compliance was there by the majority because they were sickened by the Port Arthur massacre, and persuaded by a politically conservative PM that it was the right thing to do, particularly as you didn't lose financially, and you could keep the guns that most hunters used (bolt-action rifles)

I know you are being sarcastic about a "car buy-back", equating it absurdly with the gun buy back (people rarely use cars deliberately to murder). However, a government-funded voluntary buy-back of the oldest and most polluting cars has been seriously mooted as a useful step to reduce air pollution.

[Cunt]

The population was surprisingly compliant, as evidence by their compliance.

As to the car buyback suggestion, I honestly think it would work. Because of that surprising compliance.

Is there something you missed there, bp?

The gun buy-back in Oz was voluntary, in a sense. During the amnesty period, you could take your guns to a designated place, and they would pay you to hand them in. If, after that period, you held on to your guns, then they became illegal if they were semi-automatics.

And as I pointed out, if anyone REALLY wanted to keep their guns (or jets) they could simply leave. It wasn't forced.

You could register any other guns, of course. When I handed in all my guns (even the bolt action ones, because my eyesight had declined to the point where shooting was no longer a sensible option), I got a good sum - in fact, more than the guns cost me, since they were all second hand when I bought them!

You probably drank the proceeds, or some of them.

The compliance was there by the majority because they were sickened by the Port Arthur massacre, and persuaded by a politically conservative PM that it was the right thing to do, particularly as you didn't lose financially, and you could keep the guns that most hunters used (bolt-action rifles)

This is maybe the only place we disagree. I would think so, but I would also think no-one would like it. Until I thought about it.

I don't know if it is on your countries list, but a cop handed me a SKS and a handful of bullets, on a downtown street (legally, if a bit weirdly)
Soon after, I realized that it was unnecessary. Not only crowding my storage, but they are, at best, shit. They rattle, they don't feel quality.
They ARE especially good at what they are good at, but not because of high quality. I got rid of it, as quickly and responsibly as I could, and was glad to. As it happens, I didn't get a dime, and don't care. (I did get a cider, which might count)

Anyway, my point is that a bunch of gun owners don't give a shit. If you ask them to 'give up their guns' they would say no, or think of reasons why to store it for later need. If you offer them a beer instead, it suddenly makes a LOT more sense.

Any gun enthusiasts might disagree, but right now, if I could have a free, modest quality working firearm, or ten bucks and a specialty coffee, I would take the coffee. Less trouble.

I know you are being sarcastic about a "car buy-back", equating it absurdly with the gun buy back (people rarely use cars deliberately to murder). However, a government-funded voluntary buy-back of the oldest and most polluting cars has been seriously mooted as a useful step to reduce air pollution.

I am, but just to keep mocking me for being sarcastic about the very effective buyback. I was wildly wrong about something...it was quite unexpected to me, that Aussies would be highly compliant, trading in their personal weapons for beer and specialty ice cream.

The car thing sounds silly, but think about it. Lots of car owners on the fence, and if you tell them to give up, they won't. Offer a modest sum, and I bet a lot of them talk themselves right out of being a car owner. It's a lot more trouble than looking after a firearm.

Nice mention about the eyesight, by the way. With the recent passing of my neighbour, he had left his widow to dispose of his guns. I wish I had asked him more about when a man should give up his guns.

That eyesight thing is a pretty damned good benchmark. When that happens, the sport shooter should probably find a young person to encourage. Pass them along before someone is stuck doing it, and unfamiliar. (she called the cops - they treated her awesome, but it was still trouble)

[Hermit]

The population was surprisingly compliant, as evidence by their compliance.

You make it sound as though the Australian population was compliant in surrendering their firearms when they actually remained in possession of 80% of them.

Apart from most semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns being taken out of circulation, not much has changed. People still go hunting, and when the wind blows from the south-west I can hear the sports-shooters do their stuff at the rifle range a bit less than two kilometres from my home.

That, and the number of victims of mass killings in the 26 years since the buyback scheme concluded almost halved compared to the 26 years before it.

[Cunt]

I make it sound as though they were surprisingly compliant, because of my surprise at their compliance.

Keep trying though, you might one day make me take a position you wish me to take, then you can celebrate glorious victory, against a worthy foe.

Until then though, remember I'm just some sloppy cunt on the internet. Keep at it if you like sloppy cunts, but if you want rigorous adherence to some writing standard, I suggest going to a different source. My 'post' button has a reminder about bollocks.

[JimC]

I make it sound as though they were surprisingly compliant, because of my surprise at their compliance.

[Cunt]

Is it a problem that the buyback worked well (they were compliant) or that I admit my surprise?

If you asked me, I would guess that it wouldn't work well. I had not considered those who are on the fence.

And why the hell would you be resistant to doing the same for cars? I understand lots of you need them, but like with guns, I would guess a lot of people are on the fence.