The Stupids Want To Move To Daveland

[EEVblog]

Compulsory gun buyback? So you mean they took your guns but were nice enough to throw you a few bucks?

Yes. IIRC I paid about $250(?) levy on my tax return for one year for the gun buyback scheme.

I don't understand why anyone would give up their gun to a government. I can see getting rid of your guns, say, if you get bored with them. Or if you get kids and no longer feel they're safe. Or if you're depressed and fear for your life.  But I cannot understand wny anyone would willingly surrender their guns to the government.

That's because you don't live in Australia, a country that does not have a gun culture, where its not ingrained into you at birth that it's a  right to have one to *insert reason here*

I saw something like that about Katrina, the National Guard came in and took a lot of people's guns. Took them and never gave them back. I cannot understand those folks giving them up. If I had a collection of guns and the gov came knocking I'd leave before I'd give them up - just pack up my shit and leave town. But no way would I give them up.

I suspect you'd have a hard time leaving after you've been arrested for not complying with their order.
So it's either leave before they come knocking, or make the 6 o'clock news 

Dave.

[Monkeh]

I don't understand why anyone would give up their gun to a government. I can see getting rid of your guns, say, if you get bored with them. Or if you get kids and no longer feel they're safe. Or if you're depressed and fear for your life.  But I cannot understand wny anyone would willingly surrender their guns to the government.

That's because you don't live in Australia, a country that does not have a gun culture, where its not ingrained into you at birth that it's a  right to have one to *insert reason here*

I don't live in a gun culture, either, but I also don't see why you'd willingly hand over a tool because the government says you shouldn't have it.

[Psi]

Why is selling your gun to the government any different to selling it to a 2ndhand gun shop?

[Psi]

In NZ you need a full firearms license with extra 'restricted weapons endorsement' to own a fully automatic BB gun.

Although, that rule is going to be reviewed soon. They're some confusion about automatic paintball guns.
It's expected that they will loosen the law so auto BB and paintball guns are a bit easier to use/own legally.

[tom66]

Vermin control IS hunting.

It was a joke, read it with the other sentence . Vermin control isn't hunting, no one sensible would say that.

[Monkeh]

Vermin control IS hunting.

It was a joke, read it with the other sentence . Vermin control isn't hunting, no one sensible would say that.

Sorry, but it's hard to pick out jokes and sensibility in firearms 'discussions' (I use the term loosely, as there are three types of participant: Raving anti-gun lunatics, raving pro-gun lunatics, and actual firearms owners).

[EEVblog]

No, strict gun laws don't ensure that only criminals have guns. Strict gun laws raise the bar for everyone, including the criminals. When you have strict gun laws the cost (monetary and in jail time) to illegally obtain a gun rises. It makes "the cost of doing business", if you want to call it that, more expensive for criminals.

At the same time the need for a criminal to own a gun is reduced, because the probability he'll meet armed resistance is going down.

The result is most criminals don't see a gun as an essential, affordable tool for the "business". It is no longer "a good investment" to help doing "the job".

Absolutely spot-on for Australia.
That is why we have very low gun crime here. Gun crime usually stops with usual rival bikie or drug gangs shooting each other with their illegal guns.
If one person gets shot in a regular non-gang related crime crime here in Australia it makes the national front page news, and calls for even tougher gun laws.
The average criminal on the street who might mug you or car jack you will almost certainly not have a gun.

Some stats for firearm crime in Oz:
- 25% of attempted murder cases
- 17% of murder cases
- 7% of robbery offences.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

I don't live in a gun culture, either, but I also don't see why you'd willingly hand over a tool because the government says you shouldn't have it.

People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.
Our gun buyback scheme was hugely supported by the population.

Dave.

[Monkeh]

I don't live in a gun culture, either, but I also don't see why you'd willingly hand over a tool because the government says you shouldn't have it.

People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.

Certainly can't apply that description to this government.

Our gun buyback scheme was hugely supported by the population.

Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.

My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.

[whatchitfoool]

People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.

The "government" SHOULD be of the people, by the people, for the people.
But that hasn't been the case in the USA in a long time.

[perfect_disturbance]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"  So this is the justification. 

Notice nothing in here about hunting, vermin control, or competition shooting.  The were clearly not of immediate concern of the founding fathers.

So a Couple Questions
What is a Militia? Is it the same as a Professional Military or Police force?
Why is a Militia necessary to the security of a free state?
What in the context of the founding fathers situation made them rank the right to bear arms as important as the freedom of speech, fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment etc?

[marmad]

Really! I'm in Canada and we have very strict gun laws. This doesn't seem to be stopping the criminal element from using guns. Google Toronto year of the Gun for one example.

That's because they're getting all their guns from the US - which has very crap gun laws.

[Mechatrommer]

People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.

you are short on definition. the "government" is actually the people who:
1) sucking and lying other people
2) have the power
3) have exception to law and regulation
4) tell the other people that they are the people for the people
dont get too hypnotized. whatever they say.

[8086]

Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.

My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.

You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back. It's not the responsible gun owners that cause a problem, but sometimes its the people around them, and it can be the people you least expect. At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen. But the fact is, if it does happen, once it's done, it's done. And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?

[marmad]

What in the context of the founding fathers situation made them rank the right to bear arms as important as the freedom of speech, fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment etc?

It was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists (as was the whole Bill of Rights) to get the Constitution (which many anti-Federalists felt gave too much power to the federal government) passed by the States. Federalists (generally) believed  in standing armies (controlled by the central govt) for protection (of the country) - anti-Federalists in an armed populace.

[Monkeh]

Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.

My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.

You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back.

And people commit suicide very successfully via other means, too. Come up with a more convincing argument some time.

At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen.

No, they'll use a knife, or some pills, a plastic bag, jump off a bridge, run in front of a bus.. Changing the method doesn't change the act.

And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?

I knew someone who committed suicide by firearm. So you're going to have to try another cheap tactic.

[8086]

Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.

My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.

You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back.

And people commit suicide very successfully via other means, too. Come up with a more convincing argument some time.

At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen.

No, they'll use a knife, or some pills, a plastic bag, jump off a bridge, run in front of a bus.. Changing the method doesn't change the act.

And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?

I knew someone who committed suicide by firearm. So you're going to have to try another cheap tactic.

People may try other methods, but their chances of survival are far greater than putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger.

It's not a cheap tactic. What does it mean that you knew someone that did this? It means your brain is not fully functional, if you continue to believe that it is a good thing for guns to be freely available and commonplace.

[perfect_disturbance]

What in the context of the founding fathers situation made them rank the right to bear arms as important as the freedom of speech, fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment etc?

It was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists (as was the whole Bill of Rights) to get the Constitution (which many anti-Federalists felt gave too much power to the federal government) passed by the States. Federalists (generally) believed  in standing armies (controlled by the central govt) for protection (of the country) - anti-Federalists in an armed populace.

So It's a hedge against federal power? That seems consistent with the other amendments in the bill of rights. So is that purpose achieved when the federal government confiscates weapons? And is this hedge still needed or use full? Would our free state be less secure without it?

[Monkeh]

What does it mean that you knew someone that did this? It means your brain is not fully functional, if you continue to believe that it is a good thing for guns to be freely available and commonplace.

My brain is quite functional, and not once have I said I think firearms should be freely available and commonplace. You are merely automatically placing me in the 'raving pro-gun lunatic' band because I happen to shoot.

As a matter of fact, I believe there should be tighter restrictions on air weapons. I don't, however, believe that those of us rational, responsible, and skilled enough to own and operate firearms should be unable to access the firearms we desire for reasonable use.

You can go and buy a stupidly powerful car, drive it like an idiot, and kill someone. People do that every day. But I can't go buy an AS50 and place holes in a piece of paper from 1500m away in a safe, controlled manner.

I know, next time someone drives into a bus and kills a load of children on their way to a field trip, we'll ban all cars except Kei cars.

[EEVblog]

Certainly can't apply that description to this government.

Well, yeah, in theory 
YMMV!

Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.

At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.
Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time).
Some win, some lose.

Dave.

[Monkeh]

At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.

Limiting freedoms which do not harm others is not progress.

Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time).
Some win, some lose.

The predominant prevailing views forced upon those who have no view, by those who have money and power. The vast majority of non-shooters in this country, 30 years ago, would not give a toss, as us shooters did nothing to bother them and never have. The stigma attached to firearms was manufactured and stapled onto a pair of tragic incidents. Incidents I could recreate right now with a kitchen knife. Or the entirely uncontrolled bow and arrow.

[perfect_disturbance]

Certainly can't apply that description to this government.

Well, yeah, in theory 
YMMV!

Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.

At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.
Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time).
Some win, some lose.

Dave.

So its alright for the majority to oppress the rights of minority groups?

[EEVblog]

Limiting freedoms which do not harm others is not progress.

Progress is just change, it does not have to be good for all people involved and their viewpoints.
In the case of guns, the claim "does not harm others" is laughable. Guns are designed as a weapon to kill people (with great efficiency and ease).
Argue all you want over the semantics of the whole gun debate, but that's what guns are designed to do and can do, so they can and do affect and harm other people and society in a big way.
You can't put guns up on the same shelf as say gay rights, or women's reproductive rights, which really do not effect other people but the person in question.

The predominant prevailing views forced upon those who have no view, by those who have money and power. The vast majority of non-shooters in this country, 30 years ago, would not give a toss, as us shooters did nothing to bother them and never have. The stigma attached to firearms was manufactured and stapled onto a pair of tragic incidents. Incidents I could recreate right now with a kitchen knife. Or the entirely uncontrolled bow and arrow.

Complain all you like. In this country the majority our our society want strict controls on guns, so that's what the laws now reflect.

Dave.

[marmad]

And is this hedge still needed or use full?

It was specific language invented for political purposes by people trying to solve a practical problem while living in a much different time. To adhere to it as if it was divine wisdom is idiotic.

Would our free state be less secure without it?

Free state? I'm not sure what free state you're talking about. Do you mean:
The Land Of The Free (Condiments), Home of the Brave (Gun Owners)?
The 'gun ownership as freedom' pap which is fed to young children growing up in the US as part of the illusion that the country is not only the birthplace of freedom, but the most free nation on the planet, is rather humorous for anyone living some place with much more freedom.

[EEVblog]

So its alright for the majority to oppress the rights of minority groups?

When it affects the majority, yes, they then have the right to become involved. That's how society works.
If minority things didn't affect the majority, then there would be no reason to have laws to control the minority thing.

Like I said, something like gay rights does not affect the majority in a physical or economic way, so there is no reason to limit that right.
But something like smoking or guns does affect the majority, so the majority have a right take action to control that.

Dave.