Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2014, 11:49:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: E-Kul admits gun bans favor criminals.  (Read 576 times)
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« on: January 23, 2013, 10:35:13 AM »

Priceless quote from E-Kul lol....

What a load of crap, I have lived in Australian for 40 years, for the last 17 years gun have been heavily restricted, even if I wanted a gun, they would be very hard to get.  I could really get one if I wanted, but it means utilising criminal networks.  For the average law abiding citizen it would be much harder to obtain than for a criminal.  To suggest that guns are just as easy to get as mobile phones is the most ABSURD suggestion I have ever heard.  I can go to the supermarket right now, which is open 24 hours and buy a mobile phone.  To get a gun could take months of discreet questioning of workmates, friends, acquaintances etc etc without any guarantees at all.  Dazza is a complete fucking tool, either that or he is a Criminal who has easy access to guns.

Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25514


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2013, 11:25:00 AM »

And apparently the strict gun laws in Australia have actually worked in reducing gun violence

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&

I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.
By JOHN HOWARD
Published: January 16, 2013



IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 19, 2013


An Op-Ed essay on Thursday about gun control legislation in Australia misstated the name of a journal that published an article finding that a gun-buyback plan there had cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. It was The American Law and Economics Review, not The American Journal of Law and Economics.
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2013, 11:47:22 AM »

Priceless quote from E-Kul lol....



Most of the anti-gun crazies have already admitted that nothing they're proposing would have prevented Newtown. All they care about is control and consolidation of power.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9274


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2013, 11:50:28 AM »

So go move to that place if you want to be a slve and serf to the govt

And apparently the strict gun laws in Australia have actually worked in reducing gun violence

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&

I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.
By JOHN HOWARD
Published: January 16, 2013



IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 19, 2013


An Op-Ed essay on Thursday about gun control legislation in Australia misstated the name of a journal that published an article finding that a gun-buyback plan there had cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. It was The American Law and Economics Review, not The American Journal of Law and Economics.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2013, 11:59:20 AM »


 Roll Eyes I posted that because he just admitted it's easy for criminals in Australia to get guns but very hard for law abiding citizens.

But what the hell...


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP1dMhXYA1s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP1dMhXYA1s</a>

Violent crime stats below:


* cfi115.gif (8.59 KB, 655x355 - viewed 93 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21019


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2013, 01:01:08 PM »

Most of the anti-gun crazies have already admitted that nothing they're proposing would have prevented Newtown. All they care about is control and consolidation of power.
Report to moderator   Logged

Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25514


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2013, 02:10:50 PM »

Roll Eyes I posted that because he just admitted it's easy for criminals in Australia to get guns but very hard for law abiding citizens.

But what the hell...


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP1dMhXYA1s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP1dMhXYA1s</a>

Violent crime stats below:

According to the former Prime Minister in an article published in the New York times violent crimes using guns went down

Whats the source for the chart you posted

Quote
And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25514


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2013, 02:11:23 PM »

So go move to that place if you want to be a slve and serf to the govt


Why would I move

I like it here

You're the one constantly whining about where you live
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2013, 05:55:26 PM »

Whats the source for the chart you posted
US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Source book of criminal justice statistics; FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Program; Statistics Canada. Uniform crime reporting survey; ABS. Recorded crime, Australia; UK Home Office. Crime statistics for England and Wales.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2013, 06:00:13 PM »

A really good question is if violent crime in the US has really been going down per capita for decades, why in the hell are we talking about gun control at all?  Doesn't that really just say we're doing something right as it stands now and we should not fuck with it?


* vc.gif (14.45 KB, 556x303 - viewed 57 times.)

* US_murder_rates_20_yrs.gif (19.26 KB, 464x316 - viewed 53 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2013, 06:17:41 PM »

So way more guns were purchased under Obama than at any time before and the result is that violent crimes keep going down?  hmmmm....
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2013, 06:27:53 PM »

So way more guns were purchased under Obama than at any time before and the result is that violent crimes keep going down?  hmmmm....
QUIT MAKING SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21019


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 07:05:36 PM »

If I'm not mistaken though, Obama and Co. illegally put thousands of Full Auto weapons into circulation?  No one really minds that...  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2013, 08:38:51 PM »

If I'm not mistaken though, Obama and Co. illegally put thousands of Full Auto weapons into circulation?  No one really minds that...  Roll Eyes

They were Mexicans and not voting Dem so they're expendable. Leftists aren't big on minorities they can't exploit.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2013, 08:41:43 PM »

If I'm not mistaken though, Obama and Co. illegally put thousands of Full Auto weapons into circulation?  No one really minds that...  Roll Eyes
no b/c they had "good intentions"

you need to think like a liberal which means set aside logic and commonsense and use pure emotion.
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21019


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2013, 08:56:29 PM »

no b/c they had "good intentions"

you need to think like a liberal which means set aside logic and commonsense and use pure emotion.

 Grin

Funny, because it's true

My radical leftist uncle is always talking about how stuff "feels"...  Grin

I mentioned this in another thread, he bitched at me because I said something about how I like Chick-Fil-A coleslaw!!
Report to moderator   Logged

Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11974



« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2013, 06:12:30 AM »

Most of the anti-gun crazies have already admitted that nothing they're proposing would have prevented Newtown. All they care about is control and consolidation of power.

Exactly. And, why would anyone favor stricter control over something that serves no effective/beneficial purpose for them?


you need to think like a liberal which means set aside logic and commonsense and use pure emotion.

This is a fair and accurate criticism of many on that side.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2013, 01:27:04 PM »

A really good question is if violent crime in the US has really been going down per capita for decades, why in the hell are we talking about gun control at all?  Doesn't that really just say we're doing something right as it stands now and we should not fuck with it?

Would be nice if some of the gun control advocates here would answer this question...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!