The case against guns

[Seth]

Right Gallstones. The point is not what the "rate" is in either place, it's where the rate is GOING after changes in gun policy.

The direction of CHANGE down under is as predicted...crime is going UP after the banning of guns.

The direction of change in the US since the liberalization of the lawful carry of concealed weapons by the law-abiding public is the opposite direction...crime is going DOWN.

You can quibble all you like about correlation and causation but the simple fact is that in the US, where guns are both much more widely available and the laws about carrying them legally in public are becoming less and less restrictive, the rate crime in general, and the rate of gun crime specifically is NOT GOING UP, which is the universal prediction of hoplophobes. Crime is going down even as more and more guns are available to the public.

So even if there is no causative link between more guns and less crime (but there is) there is no correlation as predicted by hoplophobes that more guns equals more crime.

Therefore there is no reason to ban guns because they are clearly not the causative factor in crime and more of them does not increase the danger to the public.

All hoplophobe objections to lawful concealed carry are based in biased and factually disproven political and philosophical blindness, not facts or reason.

[Collector1337]

Did we say there was going to be less crime without guns?

What the fuck is the point of banning and confiscating all firearms if there isn't less crime?

It's for your own good, so you don't shoot your penis with the concealed gun.

So, a complete and utter dodge of a response, huh?

Wow, how intellectually honest of you.

[Tero]

Look, all the statistics Seth throws at us are bunk. The constitution is the only thing that backs up guns as a right for you. There is absolutely no benefit for me in your owning all those guns. There may be a benefit for you. If you use them wisely, there probably is. But for the rest of us, all them people owning guns is no benefit. They are unlikely to come to my rescue against "evil doers." So we..yes, we are your boss...are letting you have the gun for your personal protection. If it looks like you are becoming a danger to others, we should have the right to examine your case and take all the guns away. It should be possible to limit your right, just as we limit driving. The amendment is outdated, made for days in the 1700s when the Gubment was minimal.

[Woodbutcher]

17 Years After Gun Bans in Australia …Police Say Gun Crime is Out of Control

What a festering pile of NRA hoplophile gundamentalist shit. US has nearly four times the murder rate and Australia is out of control. Fucking useless trolls. Pathetic wankers. Typical propaganda from hoplophiles and you believe it.

[Clinton Huxley]

17 Years After Gun Bans in Australia …Police Say Gun Crime is Out of Control

What a festering pile of NRA hoplophile gundamentalist shit. US has nearly four times the murder rate and Australia is out of control. Fucking useless trolls. Pathetic wankers. Typical propaganda from hoplophiles and you believe it.

I think you praise that article too highly

[Hermit]

17 Years After Gun Bans in Australia …Police Say Gun Crime is Out of Control

No police statement to that effect, or anywhere near it for that matter, is discernible in the link you provided or the link your link leads to. Not only that, but in fact, the incidence of "Gun Crime" has been decreasing throughout Australia for decades. Just look at the statistics for armed robbery and murder. They are all down on a per capita basis.

[Seth]

Look, all the statistics Seth throws at us are bunk. The constitution is the only thing that backs up guns as a right for you. There is absolutely no benefit for me in your owning all those guns. There may be a benefit for you. If you use them wisely, there probably is. But for the rest of us, all them people owning guns is no benefit. They are unlikely to come to my rescue against "evil doers."

Well, that's why the right being available to all is important, so that YOU can carry your OWN gun against evil-doers. The fact that I or anyone else might come to your aid is just a side benefit of the right and moral and ethical behavior by those who are armed, but the real purpose is to ensure that YOU can arm yourself if you feel the need to do so. If you don't, that's your choice, but you shouldn't expect ANYONE, including the police, to put themselves at risk to protect you if you choose to be helpless. In fact, it's immoral and unethical for anyone to knowingly place the burden of defending or saving you on public employees like police or firefighters, who have a right to go home alive and uninjured at the end of their shift.

So, just as not having a fire extinguisher in your home and not taking care not to create fire hazards is a moral and ethical (not to mention legal in some cases) lapse, failing to take precautions to provide for your safety, and the safety of your family against criminality is just as unethical and immoral.

So we..yes, we are your boss...are letting you have the gun for your personal protection.

Er, no, you aren't.

If it looks like you are becoming a danger to others, we should have the right to examine your case and take all the guns away.

That power already exists and always has. The key is that because it's a right, "you," in the persona of the government, have to have SPECIFIC information that rises to the level of at least probable cause about a SPECIFIC individual who is improperly exercising his 2nd Amendment-protected rights before you can even begin to think about infringing on that right. In point of fact, the government must have a "compelling need" to regulate or restrict even an individual's exercise of a fundamental right, and it's regulation must be the "minimum practicable" degree of infringement or regulation that is "necessary" in order to achieve a "legitimate government purpose."

Certainly placing an individual into custody for mental health evaluation and barring him from possessing firearms while that review is underway meets all those standards if and only if and when the specific individual exhibits behavior that leads a reasonable trained medical or law enforcement professional to reasonably believe that that particular individual poses an imminent risk to the lives or safety of himself or others.. Government may not simply assume, as Jonno does, that everyone COULD be a risk, it has to have actual evidence that an individual IS a risk before it can infringe on a right.

So does barring a convicted felon from ever possessing firearms (although there is significant debate as to whether barring non-violent felons who have completed their sentences from both firearms and voting rights is constitutional) or regulating specific time, place and manner exercises of the right (like "you can't shoot a gun at random in a crowded place" or "negligently and carelessly discharging a firearm is a crime") for protecting public safety.

But ALL such regulations have two things in common: they either regulate the OPERATION AND USE (discharge or brandishing) of firearms, or they apply ONLY TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS who have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to properly exercise that right.

The mistake that you make is in assuming that ANYONE who possesses a firearm is somehow inherently dangerous to the degree that the "strict scrutiny" test that applies is triggered. This is not demonstrated at all by the facts, which prove that the vast, vast majority of law-abiding citizens never misuse their firearms in any way, and that less than one-hundredth of one percent of all firearms are ever used to commit a crime.

These observable facts demonstrate that there is no "compelling need" to restrict private ownership of guns by the law-abiding, and that simply banning the possession of firearms by the law-abiding public is NOT the "least restrictive" method of achieving a "legitimate governmental objective."

This is because there is a substantial difference between "keeping and bearing" arms and "operating or discharging" of those same arms. The latter is not, as some suggest, an inevitable consequence of the former, any more than the possession and use of an automobile inevitably results in people getting drunk and driving.

It should be possible to limit your right, just as we limit driving.

It is possible. It's done all the time in fact. But it requires a particularized analysis of the INDIVIDUAL who is keeping and bearing arms as to whether they are safely and properly exercising that right. Our Constitution doesn't allow the generalized infringement or denial of the exercise of a fundamental right based on "what if" speculation. This applies to the 2nd Amendment as much as to the 1st Amendment. Our system requires that an individual actually demonstrate that they have or cannot properly exercise the right without creating unreasonable risks or adverse impacts on others before that individual's rights can be constrained.

Government cannot justly infringe on the exercise of a fundamental right applied to everyone in society merely because it, or someone else, fears that the exercise of the right might be abused by some particular but unidentified individuals.

The amendment is outdated, made for days in the 1700s when the Gubment was minimal.

How does the size of government change the powers and authorities granted to it by the People? What about an increasingly large and intrusive government increases it's fundamental constitutional constraints?

Laws may not overrule the Constitution merely because government is bigger and more complex and therefore government thinks it needs greater power to interfere in the lives of citizens. That would defeat the whole purpose of the Constitution, which is not a grant of rights to citizens but a leash on the exercise of power and control by government.

[Seth]

17 Years After Gun Bans in Australia …Police Say Gun Crime is Out of Control

What a festering pile of NRA hoplophile gundamentalist shit. US has nearly four times the murder rate and Australia is out of control. Fucking useless trolls. Pathetic wankers. Typical propaganda from hoplophiles and you believe it.

Heh. Typical hysterical disinformation from hoplophobes.

You might want to track the links back to the source, which happens to be an Australian newspaper:

New plan unveiled to tackle out-of-control gun violence

Jessica Grewal
21st Aug 2013 3:16 PM

Story Tools

Use this content
Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione

COMBATING gun crime in NSW remains the top priority of the state's police force, senior officers announced on Wednesday.

and 3352 people have been charged as part of ongoing investigations by Strike Force Raptor and Operations Apollo and Spartan.

Unveiling a new plan to tackle out-of-control gun violence in Sydney on Wednesday, NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said all three strike forces had been brought together to form Operation Talon.

"There is no single source of gun crime violence...guns have fallen into the hands of organised crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred," Mr Scipione said

"That's why it is so important to focus on all these aspects in a unified way...pulling our resources together under the one banner we have that opportunity."

Emphasis added.

Now how in the HELL did all those gangs, outlaw bikers and petty criminals get possession of firearms in Utopian NSW?

It's a puzzlement...NOT.

[Tero]

Seth//How does the size of government change the powers and authorities granted to it by the People? What about an increasingly large and intrusive government increases it's fundamental constitutional constraints?//seth

It was one of the reason to have guns. They were restless times with no standing army. So the 2nd Amendment wasn't kidding about Organized Militias.

Don't you read history? Guns is history.

[Seth]

Seth//How does the size of government change the powers and authorities granted to it by the People? What about an increasingly large and intrusive government increases it's fundamental constitutional constraints?//seth

It was one of the reason to have guns. They were restless times with no standing army. So the 2nd Amendment wasn't kidding about Organized Militias.

Don't you read history? Guns is history.

Yes, but one of the other reasons for having guns is to allow the people to control an increasingly large and tyrannous government. This means that if anything, as the size and intrusiveness of government grows, the reasons for prohibiting that government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms becomes even stronger and more necessary.

The Founders recognized exactly this dynamic and that's one of the principle reasons for forbidding our government from doing what the British monarchy had been doing for thousands of years.

If you read the Federalist Papers you'll see that the Militia was intended as a bulwark against enemies foreign AND domestic, with one of the greatest threats to individual liberty being perceived (correctly) as the government itself.

[Woodbutcher]

Funny! The article seems to indicate that police are cracking down on gangs who have guns. What they call gun violence would not even be reported in the States. The fact of the matter is that gun violence is going down in Australia, and reason for that is crackdown on gangs who have guns. A sure way to increase gun violence would be to allow private ownership of handguns.

[Seth]

Funny! The article seems to indicate that police are cracking down on gangs who have guns. What they call gun violence would not even be reported in the States.

How so? You do realize that it's illegal for anyone to possess a gun or a single round of ammunition if they have malicious or criminal intent, right?

The fact of the matter is that gun violence is going down in Australia, and reason for that is crackdown on gangs who have guns.

A sure way to increase gun violence would be to allow private ownership of handguns.

Logical fail.

P1: Gun violence is going down in Australia
P2: Police are cracking down on gangs with guns
C1: Private ownership of guns would increase gun violence

Sorry, it does not logically follow.

Better luck next time.

[Woodbutcher]

Funny! The article seems to indicate that police are cracking down on gangs who have guns. What they call gun violence would not even be reported in the States.

How so? You do realize that it's illegal for anyone to possess a gun or a single round of ammunition if they have malicious or criminal intent, right?

The fact of the matter is that gun violence is going down in Australia, and reason for that is crackdown on gangs who have guns.

A sure way to increase gun violence would be to allow private ownership of handguns.

Logical fail.

P1: Gun violence is going down in Australia
P2: Police are cracking down on gangs with guns
C1: Private ownership of guns would increase gun violence

Sorry, it does not logically follow.

Better luck next time.

Aha! Another pile of festering Seth.Where in hell do you get your logic from, you do not understand english.
Crackdown on gangs decreases gun violence because it decreases the number of illegal guns used for crime. The more guns you have in criminal hands as in US, the more violence you have. NRA advocates the private ownership of guns for everybody because that causes feedback increasing crime and gun violence, therefore they say it's necessary to own handguns. Most people in US who are against gun control are disturbed individuals who should not have guns in the first place, and fear seizure of their love tools due to mental illness. Anybody who thinks they need guns to control government are would be traitors, who would like to see their own form of governance set up. The trouble is that there would be severe in-fighting, like you see in the middle east with religious factions. That's what NRA is to some: a religious organisation. The nutcases in US are so behind the times they have a hundred years to go before they reach the intelligence level of sunnis or shias. You will have different sects among gun advocates pretty soon.
I'm a gun owner. I have a hunting rifle and I know how to use it. I do not need handguns because I am not a cunt towards my fellow men nor do I wish to strike fear into those around me. Guns are fine. NRA is a fucking criminal organisation.

[Tero]

Hear hear Woody! Stated the obvious feedback loop for guns. Self fullfilling prophecy.

[Seth]

Aha! Another pile of festering Seth.Where in hell do you get your logic from, you do not understand english. Crackdown on gangs decreases gun violence because it decreases the number of illegal guns used for crime.

Why yes, yes it does. What an amazing conclusion, that cracking down on criminals reduces criminality.

The more guns you have in criminal hands as in US, the more violence you have.

Yup. Absolutely true. Thus the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

NRA advocates the private ownership of guns for everybody because that causes feedback increasing crime and gun violence, therefore they say it's necessary to own handguns.

No they don't and no it doesn't. Strawman argument.

Most people in US who are against gun control are disturbed individuals who should not have guns in the first place, and fear seizure of their love tools due to mental illness.

Unsupportable drivel.

Anybody who thinks they need guns to control government are would be traitors,

Depends on which side of the equation you're on. History is written by the winners, and the distinction between "patriot" and "traitor" is a fuzzy one until the conflict is over. But clearly when a government abandons the rule of law and becomes despotic and tyrannical and engages in unconstitutional activities it's not traitorous to remove those individuals in government who are usurping power and are acting outside of the consent of the governed, it's patriotism.

who would like to see their own form of governance set up.

...or who merely want the form of governance that was supposed to exist protected and preserved against despotic and tyrannical acts that suborn and overthrow the rule of law and consent of the governed.

The trouble is that there would be severe in-fighting, like you see in the middle east with religious factions.

Yeah, that happens from time to time. We lost half a million Americans in the 1800s resolving some fundamental questions about the nature and form of our Republic. TANSTAAFL.

That's what NRA is to some: a religious organisation.

I don't philosophically disagree. To me protection of the RKBA is a a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons that is comprised of the body of persons adhering to that particular set of beliefs and practices and is something I believe in and follow devotedly. It is most certainly a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

The problem with your intended slur is that there's nothing wrong with being religious. You, like most Atheists, confuse religion with theism on a regular basis.

The nutcases in US are so behind the times they have a hundred years to go before they reach the intelligence level of sunnis or shias.

And yet you don't see "sects" of NRAism blowing each other up at sect meetings do you?

You will have different sects among gun advocates pretty soon.

We already do. We have the hunting sportsmen who just care about having their shotgun or rifle for hunting and don't care about the self-defense and militia roles of firearms in our society. They often support more federal regulation. Then you have those who are ONLY interested in the self-defense and militia roles of firearms who almost always oppose more federal regulations. Then you have the mixed gun owners who see both roles as important to protect.

But again, you don't see us bombing and shooting one another over our philosophical differences do you? Thus, your comparison of NRA members to Sunni and Shiite Muslim extremists is pure amphigorical drivel and mendacious pettifoggery.

I'm a gun owner. I have a hunting rifle and I know how to use it.

Good for you.

I do not need handguns because I am not a cunt towards my fellow men nor do I wish to strike fear into those around me.

Well, I'm afraid that's a matter of opinion...

Guns are fine. NRA is a fucking criminal organisation.

[/quote]

I challenge you to cite one criminal law, federal, state or local, that the NRA has either perpetrated or even philosophically supported.

Go ahead. Just one. Get on it and get back to me when you have something besides the bum custard you just spewed.