Like America, Australia was a European settler colony, founded in the blood of massacred Indigenous people, and has a frontier myth in which guns and conquest have played a historically important cultural role. America had its cowboys, buckaroos and gunslingers; Australia its squatters, drovers and bushrangers. And like America, Australia today is a multiethnic state-based federation in which gun-friendly rural areas enjoy considerable political influence.
But these similarities tell only part of the story. Australia’s success in pushing through gun reform in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre was mostly the result of timing, luck and the idiosyncrasies of the Australian Constitution. On gun policy, the fundamental differences between Australia and America outnumber the similarities. If anything, a closer examination of Australia’s success with gun reform reveals the magnitude of the task ahead for America. …
The Australian gun lobby did not take these changes lying down. Gun owners protested against reform in the thousands. Effigies of the National Party leader, Tim Fischer, were burned at several rural demonstrations, and Mr. Howard took the extraordinary measure of addressing a crowd of gun supporters in the Victorian coastal town of Sale in a bulletproof vest. (He later said that he regretted wearing the vest.) But as in the United States, the 1990s in Australia were a politically more innocent time, with less polarization, more bipartisan agreement on basic issues of justice and fairness, and a less toxic media environment than the one we have become accustomed to. …
[D]espite the very real drop in gun violence witnessed across Australia since the mid-1990s, signs of erosion in the national framework of gun control have recently begun to emerge. There are now more guns in Australia than there were at the time of the Port Arthur massacre (3.8 million in 2020 compared with 3.2 million in 1996), and a quietly resurgent gun lobby is spending, on a per-capita basis, about as much as the N.R.A., according to a recent report. Stringent gun control standards have not stopped Australia from incubating its own radicalized killers and exporting violence abroad: The gunman in the 2019 Christchurch massacre that left 51 dead was an Australian.
So the Australian experience of gun control resists easy translation to America. But if Australia is to serve as any kind of example, it is for the bravery and principle shown by conservative and rural leaders, often at great cost to their own political fortunes, in making the case for reform to their gun-loving constituents. Character of this caliber may be far harder to extract from the ranks of today’s Republican Party than it was from Australia’s conservatives in the 1990s.
— Aaron Timms in What It Took for a Country With a Strong Gun Culture To Give Them Up
the rinos sitting down with the straight commies right now are not displaying any caliber of character.
Then hold their feet to the fire. Flood their offices with calls. Investigate supporting their opponents in any upcoming primaries. Contact state-level legislators about laws that would nullify federal misbehavior on the matter.
We cannot be passive about this. Make damned sure they know that they will suffer for caving in on our rights.
Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Canada…all the major English-speaking, European-originated countries outside of the U.S.A. do not have the individual’s right to protection from its own government enumerated in their founding documents. Only America has this, and is well known for it.
I live and work among people who come from all over the world to a top-class university near me (they have student visas for the duration of their education before returning home). I’ve had people from New Zealand, Africa, Britain, Ireland, et al, personally tell me they are envious of America’s 2A, and that we should always fight for it.
My wife is a free-lance journalists and she works with other journalists visiting from Australia and the U.K. frequently. Most journalists from these countries love to come to the U.S.
So overall I have met a lot of people from Australia and the U.K. The firing range and AR-15’s and hand guns are among the first things they bring up usually during down time, wanting to go shoot so we do. Especially the female journalists, they really get a kick out of it. They all basically say the same thing about violent crime in their country – that its out of control and growing and that criminals shoot many people every day across their country, basically on a country wide scale in numbers every day there is a ‘mass shooting’ in Australia and the U.K.
It’s no rare ability to ignore inconvenient data and embrace a manufactured fantasy.
Town to town and state to state legislative bodies routinely enact impossible nonsense that demonstrably failed mere miles away always with the promise “this time it will be different” if they even bother to recognize that indeed the same policy was enacted and failed.
Just look at how shot-spotter installations keep popping up even as municipalities are removing them for being costly and pointless.
quote—————-The gunman in the 2019 Christchurch massacre that left 51 dead was an Australian.—————quote
Proving the nut case had to go to New Zealand to commit the mass murder because he could not get weapons of mass destruction in Australia.
Each nation including Australia that has heavy regulations or bans on weapons of mass destruction has seen a vast decrease in mass murder.
Britain cracked down in 1996 when a mass school shooting took place in Drunblane and since that date they have not had any mass school shootings.
Australia has had a few but none were of the vast numbers that took place when a nut case used a Ruger Min-14 in the first big mass shooting proving that the Australian gun laws did work.
Canada cracked down when a nut case committed a mass murder with a weapon of mass destruction and since then they have had no more. Canada is now about to ban the sale of pistols as well. Many other nations have done this decades ago such as Britain, China, Japan , Russia and other countries.
Lets face facts when you arm the vicious naked ape he will use those weapons on everyone else, even for such small irritations as his neighbors cat sitting on his car. Heavy regulation and heavy vetting do indeed save lives by keeping guns out of the hands of nut cases and criminals, its been proven to work all over the world.
dacian you are so full of it.
The United Kingdom has had a gun ban in place for years. In the UK gun related crime has risen 27% in five years and the number of firearms seized has quadrupled. Firearms are easily available to criminals despite an almost total ban of firearm ownership among law-abiding citizens. Its pretty clear their gun ban hasn’t really been working to stop illegal gun trafficking or crime as its been touted to be by the anti-gun crowd. Today, due to a change in the U.K. reporting requirements, over 40% of the violent crime is either under reported or not reported in U.K. stats because there was no conviction because the criminal was either not caught or was given a lesser charge or released on a technicality yet despite this there was still a victim and future victims of a violent crime who will never be reflected in “stats” and lives in terror unable to defend them selves because the government keeps them disarmed while the violent criminal has ‘carte blanch to re-offend.
The U.K. has had many mass shootings – just not all at once and by the definitions we use in the U.S. but collectively in terms of numbers shot by criminals over time, considering reported AND not reported to authorities. In this sense there are mass shootings in the U.K. almost daily across the country if its considered that four or more at shot by criminals across the country every day. And since the time of imposing more strict gun control and bans, violent crime has become more brutal and increased and today the U.K. is the violent rape capital of Europe and the most likely spot in the world to be knifed.
Australia is the same type of joke the U.K. is when it comes to their false logic failed gun-control.
Again Booger Brain show me a school shooting in Britain since 1996, they have not had any proving their gun control laws work.
Last year at the London Bridge terrorist attack they were not even able to buy shotguns so they tried to use knives and the bar patrons beat the shit out of them. In the U.S. they would have bought second hand guns and killed everyone in the bar in seconds.
Have said this before but comparing the U.S. to England is utter nonsense. England is an ISLAND. It’s pretty easy to control the borders on an island. United States? Not so much. A better comparison would be Mexico, which has some of the world’s strongest gun control laws and guarantees the right of citizens to own guns under the Mexican Constitution. (There is only one gun shop in the entire country, caliber limits, and heavy vetting and licensing requirements for the public.) If we banned guns in the United States it would look a lot like Mexico–not England or Australia. So how is Mexico’s gun control working out? About as well as Alcohol Prohibition, the War on Drugs, the War on Sex Workers or any other Big Government prohibition. To be very clear: It Does Not Work.
So. You’ve given up those vast numbers of guns you claim to own? Practically one of every type that is reviewed here on TTAG. Your mothers basement must be too full for anything but you and your blow up doll.
jwm,
No self-respecting blow-up doll would be in the company of dacian the stupid. She (or he) would bust a seam and put its/his/her self out of their misery. His daily circle jerk with MinorIQ is the closest he will ever come to sexual fulfillment.
Leave your mother’s basement and move to one of those safe places. Problem solve.
“Proving the nut case had to go to New Zealand to commit the mass murder because he could not get weapons of mass destruction in Australia.”
No, proving that non sequiturs flow from you like the green-apple quickstep.
The ‘newspaper’ that buried an assassination attempt on a sitting Supreme Court justice on page 20 because the justice was a Republican appointee pans Republicans for the current divisiveness because they won’t ignore their constituents and go along with the Democrats’ disarmament agenda. Go figure.
🙄 – my surprised face
“to Give Them Up”
They’re saying the endgame out loud.
Not so long ago when racists wanted to do “something” to defenseless Black Americans they just did it because they could just like nazis could do whatever they wanted to unarmed Jews.
Jim Crow Discrimination made it difficult or impossible for Black Americans to own firearms. Today that same level of Discrimination can be seen on the floor of the US Congress. Where Discrimination that once applied to Black Americans is in the process of transferring to all Americans 18 to 21 years old.
2A Rights for that age range removed at the stroke of a pen and the knee jerk excuse is based on the murderous rampage of an 18 year old insane individual. Some people may be thinking to themselves that sounds reasonable. But when a knee jerk incompetent government can do something that disarms some of us they can do something to disarm all of us.
Make no mistake about it…The people running the Uvalde school are fully responsible for making soft target sitting ducks out of children. Those running the show walked away without a scratch while lynch mob blame reminiscent of a Salem witch hunt was placed on Gun Owners, the NRA, gun manufacturers, etc. Everyone miles away from the scene who had zip, nada, nothing whatsoever to do with the tragedy.
If America was not armed the aforementioned lynch mob would have targeted the homes of Americans exercising a Constitutional Right just like lynch mobs did to Black Americans and nazis did to Jews. After all history confirms Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide.
Despite all the legal mumbo jumbo, Australians are still subjects of the Crown. There is no way to compare Australian politics to American. Comparing gun cultures wears thin quickly.
The only comparison in gun cultures is historical. Everywhere in the world where Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and other lowlife dictators have established themselves, gun control was necessary for that to happen.
We’ll keep our guns, so that we don’t have to endure a Hitler, or a Mao, or a Mussolini. We’re not going to have an African style genocide, because everyone has guns. You can’t walk into an armed village, and start hacking people to pieces because they voted wrong in the last election – or whatever.
quote————–The only comparison in gun cultures is historical. Everywhere in the world where Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and other lowlife dictators have established themselves, gun control was necessary for that to happen.————quote
In Reality Hitler actually relaxed gun control laws in Germany and during that time period most European countries had very few gun control laws. A few decades earlier the guns that were used in the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand that touched off WWI were bought over the counter with no paperwork.
Since you are a fascist of course you try to make hitler out to be a hero. He only relaxed gun laws for those he approved of.
dacian the Dunderhead Seems you are caught in another lie.
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1327/
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-201910313-04Handout.pdf
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
“In Reality Hitler actually relaxed gun control laws in Germany . . .”
Yeah, except for those pesky Jews, right dacian the stupid??? But, then, it would take a Leftist/fascist like you to try to whitewash Hitler. Do you have a poster of him next to your poster of Granny Maojackets???
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Hitler relaxed the gun laws ONLY for his Nazi party members. IF you were not a Brownshirt or SS good luck. If you were Jewish and caught a firearm they murdered you with your own gun.
To Dud Brain
to Walter the Beverly Hillbilly
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired as your own link again states that “Hitler relaxed gun control laws”. Yes he discriminated against the Jews but guns were still available to other people and those guns found their way into the hands of the Jews as was evident in the Warsaw Uprising. The Jews had no problems getting them. Try again genius boy, the guy who claimed he went to college. You obviously flunked the History classes you never had.
You’re not literate at all Dud Dacian. Read again the words I wrote: “gun control was necessary for that to happen.” Nazis took full advantage of existing gun laws, then passed their own, so that they knew who had guns, and who didn’t. Then they rounded up the targets of genocide, one at a time, and killed them.
There’s a community college near you offering a remedial reading class.
Exactly right.
The United States were born from war, which is why we have weapons of war a/k/a ‘scarey black rifles” according to the anti-gun wackos.
I’ve been asked before, but not recently. “Why do you need?” and I answer “because me and 20,000 of my friends might decide to make some changes since you can’t refrain from violating the Constitution.” “That! is exactly why the 2nd Admendment was included.”
“We’re not going to have an African style genocide, because everyone has guns.”
The Hutu-Tutsi comparison? Really?
Roughly-equal numbers of people here, with vastly different attitudes on gun ownership. Those who don’t have them, want the guns from the ones that do have them.
They haven’t exactly carefully thought through what they’re planning, it seems… 🙂
They expect .gov backing, even if only de facto.
They can riot for 100 days and openly commit arson. They can have one of their own attempt to assassinate a sitting SCOTUS justice and the rest can go on protesting illegally in front of the guy’s house. They can burn down a house, let the fire department put it out then light it on fire again, then move down the street and threaten you. But while that’s happening if someone sees you with a shotgun through your window, the cops come for you.
Weird how they can find box trucks full of “right wing racists” in the middle of Midwest BFE, Idaho but can’t stop the Left from setting fire to a church right across the street from the White House, huh?
Laws and rules are for plebs and the politically disfavored. Guess which group you’re in?
Prepare accordingly.
And what will most gun folk do about it? Put another thin blue line sticker on their car?
Where is the funding for this going to come from? There is no reason for the federal government to fund this. The federal government can make recommendations based on intense studies, then let the states and local governments implement it. The main function of Congress is to waste your money while they make personal and political deals to benefit themselves and their donors.
I was referring to the proposed bill in Congress, not a new disarmament scheme.
American’s are not morons “to the crown”…We will not just hand our guns over to anyone…The queen is no different than any other woman to me…Anyone that puts a human on a pedestal like that, is an idiot…
quote—————Where is the funding for this going to come from? There is no reason for the federal government to fund this. The federal government can make recommendations based on intense studies, then let the states and local governments implement it——–quote
Pure ignorance based on a miserly way of life. In reality many states are dead broke and have been dead broke for decades. Moscow Mitch McConnell resides in one of the poorest states that receives the most Federal Money but he rants against the Federal Government spending money to help his own constituents. Shades of Paul Pot for sure.
Agreed. Let’s borrow more money from China to implement this on a national level.
There’s also a large store of personal wealth in this country that is just screaming to be “liberated.” Home equity — oops, that’s about to be wiped out. Well, let’s just take the full value of the homes from the people that paid them off. A government IOU is good enough, isn’t it?
Savings accounts, for sure. Let’s have the Feds grab them before they’re also worthless.
Retirement accounts, 401Ks, stock market gains — oops, they’re drying up fast, too. We need immediate action to seize these assets. No one needs more than $200 or so on hand anyway.
And since the Blue States are subsidizing those ignorant, toothless, uneducated Red State citizens, let’s just transfer those monies to the Federal Treasury and let those stupid, uncivilized Red State takers to starve. They’ve been living off of the producers for far too long; the bill has come due.
I’m entirely on board with Dacien’s plan. Why don’t the rest of you join us?
“Savings accounts, for sure. Let’s have the Feds grab them before they’re also worthless.”
Unfortunately, they’ve already grabbed a massive chunk of hard earned savings. It’s called the Puppet Administration inflation tax. Don’t look now, but the investment markets aren’t doing so well either. The dirty little secret is, they were artificially pumped up by extreme deficit spending. You can only keep that scheme going for so long.
“In reality many states are dead broke and have been dead broke for decades.”
LOL! Then where does the money come from? You’re like a child.
To Dud Brain
quote———-LOL! Then where does the money come from? You’re like a child.———–quote
LOL. Its called a Federal Income Tax genius boy and yes Kentucky people pay Federal Income Tax. Try again genius boy.
The federal government doesn’t have enough money coming in for any new spending. That means every new spending proposal requires a plan to get the money in the first place. Our country is in a very dangerous situation because there are people like you in charge of our government who think they can spend whatever they want without worrying about balancing the budget.
With the current inflation tax, there is zero support for more federal income tax. More business tax will result in the cost being passed to the consumer. That means even more inflation. There’s zero support for that as well. If the money is going back to the states, then why would the federal government get involved in the first place? That makes it much less efficient, and much more expensive. All state money should come from the individual states. They understand what they need more than some DC idiot hundreds of miles away.
You said yourself the states are broke. How do you not understand the situation at the federal level?
Its simple Dud brain. The income from taxes in all states are not equal therefore the needy states can only get the money they need from the Feds by the taxes they levy on more affluent states. Its not rocket science.
dacain, the Dunderhead, believe it or not, the taxpayer is not you Leftist-Socialists’ piggy bank.
Your theory isn’t how it works in reality. Each new dollar added to the budget is a dollar borrowed. Let’s pretend we have a balanced budget and new spending means new taxes. That tax money comes from people in various states. If California needs “federal” money, then why should Tennesseans pay for it? If California is so affluent, then keeping money within the state would work great for them. Yet, I bet they’re against it. Look at the state level debt per capita (linked). Tennessee is the most responsible. The states in the northeast are the least responsible, yet they’re supposedly the affluent states. Why aren’t they for keeping money within the state? Because they want irresponsible deficit spending money.
Keeping the money within the state forces fiscal responsibility. It doesn’t hide reckless policies with more Fed money that isn’t even coming from the states because we’re borrowing it. Each state has their own set of needs. Let them figure it out. The federal government shouldn’t offer anything more than a set of guidelines. That won’t fly because Congressmen want to make personal deals to provide federal funding for their districts and states. That’s why we’re in a mess right now.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/debt-by-state
Dud brain you live in your own miserly, cheap, fantasy world. California cannot keep the money taxed by the Federal Government. When a sane person thinks about this the U.S. economy would collapse if bankrupt states received no help from the Feds. The poor states would not even have passable highways.
Really you are way out in la, la, land.
dacian, the Dunderhead, Regret to inform you that the Federal Income Tax is not your means of redistributing the wealth. If a certain state wants certain services then it is up to THAT STATE to come up with the revenue on their own without taking from other states. Novel idea, huh?
“In reality many states are dead broke and have been dead broke for decades.”
Yep. KKKalifornia, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii . . . are and have been bankrupt, by NORMAL accounting, for years.
You DO know, don’t you, dacian the stupid, that “annual Federal expenditures” by state aren’t broken down by category, correct? What did your beloved Leftist/fascist states start doing, way back in the 60s, that other (non-fascist) states were smart enough not to do?? Oh, that’s right, evicting military installations. So now, today, where are virtually ALL military installations located? Oops, in “red” states. So, yes, a substantial amount of Federal spending goes to . . . U.S. military facilities. Hmm, what a paradox!
You are simply too stupid to insult, dacian the stupid. Go micturate up a cable. Sit there in yo momma’s basement, have your daily circle jerk, and leave the rest of us alone, you pathetic f***tard.
To the Lamp that went out in his head.
quote———So now, today, where are virtually ALL military installations located? Oops, in “red” states. So, yes, a substantial amount of Federal spending goes to . . . U.S. military facilities.———quote
You consistently make a fool out of yourself with your posts.
Despite the fact that military installations actually bring in money to the local vendors, restaurants, movie houses etc the Red States remain the poorest of the states despite the added income they receive from military installations.
And I might add that the bulk of your tax money is sucked up by the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate Subsidies (Corporate Welfare) not money paid out to needy people or money used for educational programs.
I might add that the North Eastern States are the most prosperous. Next time research before making a complete fool of yourself.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-07-18/the-most-prosperous-states-in-america
To paraphrase you “You are to stupid to insult”
Well, dacian the stupid, your response ALMOST met the requirement that you actually read my comment . . . but you didn’t. Yes, many “red” states are relatively poor . . . and don’t appear to engage in the extent of bogus “government accounting” that characterizes ALL blue states. Gavin “Hair Gel” Newsom CLAIMS to have a “surplus” . . . but only a moron such as yourself would believe one word of that.
As far as military spending boosting local economies . . . I would refer you to an economics textbook, if I thought you had the ability to read one. (Hint: research “velocity of money” . . . oops, sorry, I forgot that you are illiterate, as well as ahistorical, ignorant of economics, and generally uneducated).
That the US government takes too much of my money to fund its idiot ideas is painfully obvious to me, particularly every April 15. OTOH, national defense IS actually one of the things the federal government is AUTHORIZED to do. I may disagree with how they spend the money (and I often do), but at least they are AUTHORIZED to do that. Find me where the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to even HAVE a “Department of Education” (and since you were clearly “educated” after the Feds started getting involved, we can easily see the results).
As I said, dacian the stupid, you are too stupid to insult.
quote————LampOfDiogenes June 15, 2022 At 13:57
Well, dacian the stupid, your response ALMOST met the requirement that you actually read my comment . . . but you didn’t. Yes, many “red” states are relatively poor . . . and don’t appear to engage in the extent of bogus “government accounting” that characterizes ALL blue states. Gavin “Hair Gel” Newsom CLAIMS to have a “surplus” . . . but only a moron such as yourself would believe one word of that.——-quote
Once again your rants prove that you are refusing to believe any accredited studies because it does not fit your far right nut case rantings.
I might add that even an historical Moron would have known that the North East of the U.S. was it original manufacturing base and one of the reasons it won the Civil War but all this is way over the head of someone who never attended a University and flunked out in high school history classes.
You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think.
dacain the Dunderhead. Well, you see, a state’s budget is that state’s responsibility Not any other state or the Federal Government. If your state wants to provide certain service it is up to that state to provide the revenue to pay for that service.
Laws, bans, restrictions regulate and control the law abiding, not criminals or adverse human nature.
Violent crime in on the increase, or has not stopped, in every country that has strict bans or controls on firearms. The targets of that violent crime are the law abiding made defenseless by the being disarmed.
There is this magical fantasy false logic that removing/banning/restricting guns for the law abiding means that violent criminals stop committing violent crime.
Humans are basically an animal species. All animal species have a predator of some type that preys on them in some violent manner, sometimes its their own species. Sure, some do not have a ‘natural predator’ but they are still preyed upon by other or their own species. A quick look at nature tells us that the more defenseless an animal or animal population is the more the predators will prey upon that species unrestricted.
That’s what happens with removing/banning/restricting guns for the law abiding – eventually the violent predator criminals will increase their predatory activity. Because it does not happen immediately or soon does not mean its not going to happen or such removal/ban/or restriction on the law abiding was successful and something to cheer about, because it is going to happen. Today we see the evidence of that around the world and in the United States.
Removing/banning/restricting guns for the law abiding is only making the law abiding easier prey and increasing death and injury among the law abiding, it is not stopping and has never stopped overall violent crime, or crime overall, from happening and in fact has facilitated its growth and presence in society.
There is scant comparison between the USA & down under. A country the size of the continental US with a meager population of 26000000-less than Texas. As is happening now so-called conservative elements are leading the gun grabbing brigade. Look what happens in Oceana,Canaduh & England. All subjects. An apocalypse is coming & I ain’t giving up squat!!!
Australia today is a multiethnic state-based federation
British: 67.4%.
Irish: 8.7%
Italian: 3.8%
German: 3.7%
That’s 80% European (white). Not even close to multi-ethnic, multi-racial diversity of the USA.
Also, they are an island with NO open borders that is really hard to get to from almost anywhere, and they have less than 1/10th the population with less than 1/100th the number of guns. Australia’s best comparison to the US is land-mass size.
Small nit, Australia is actually a continent, riding on it’s own tectonic plate.
But, yeah, ‘border security’ is quite different there…
Unfortunately for your anti-gun radicals, researching a subject is not their strong point.
And you think actually doing research, and having and understanding facts, even matters to Leftists?? Oh, that’s so CUTE!!
Walter, any time a Leftist quotes you a “fact”, you are assured of four things: (i) the “fact” is undoubtedly false (or at a minimum not presented properly), (ii) whatever “study” it is taken from was (intentionally) flawed, and the data is likely cherry-picked, (iii) they are going to fail in their attempt to do ANY kind of “cause/effect” analysis, and (iv) the Leftist has no clue WTF the issue is, they’re just parroting talking points. Makes it easier to ignore their blather . . . other than the joy of abusing them for their stupidity.
When you’re right, you’re right.
I’d quibble (iv) a bit. Some of them do, in fact, know and even understand the issue. In those cases they’re disseminating propaganda.
The three main goals of propaganda are:
1. Preach to the faithful.
2. Confuse the uninitiated.
3. Demonize the heretic.
If their BS accomplishes one or more of these then they have zero problem straight out lying. Anything for the cause.
And for some, strych9, I agree that is true. MOST Leftist idiots (pointing to, for example, dacian the stupid and MinorIQ) don’t know s*** from Shinola – just look at their shoes. Some (like Mini-Mike, for example) are smart enough to actually KNOW what they are saying is bulls***, of the purest ray serene, but they think they can get away with lying (and, to their “followers”, who are largely dumber than Balaam’s off @$$, they can), so they do.
dacian and MinorIQ?? They’re too dumb to pour p*** out of a boot, with the instructions on the heel.
” bulls***, of the purest ray serene”
That, Sir, is a turn of phrase that Gray probably wouldn’t appreciate, but it’s still a damned good saying.
Lamp you just echoed my post. They don’t know how to do research that is valid.
Don’t know how, and don’t WANT to, Walter. All they are concerned about is that their talking points support their narrative . . . that EITHER would have even a passing relationship to reality would be serendipity, but they don’t care, either way. The narrative is ALL that matters to those morons.
It would be interesting to know what the actual compliance rate with Australia’s “buyback” program has been. New Zealand’s is hovering around 29%, IIRC.
Rookie,
I’m actually surprised it’s that high, TBH. In “deep blue” KKKalifornia, the compliance rate is variously estimated at between 3% ( https://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-group-3-percent-californians-assault-weapons-registered-latest-gun-law/ ) and around 10-11%. I’ve seen similar estimates for NY, NJ, MA, etc. And this against the FACT that “assault weapons”, indeed, rifles of ANY sort, account for about 1%-2% of “gun deaths”.
29% is higher than I would have expected (and MUCH higher than I would have hoped), but the simple answer is that . . . it has accomplished f***-all. Just as a renewal of the US AWB will accomplish f***-all. And won’t be complied with (although if Senile Joe proposes a $5000 “buyback”, I’m going to make some money – that I’ll use to buy more firearms!)
If an “Australia” ever happens in the US I won’t be burning effigies…
The Australian model is a raging success and should be implemented in the United States as soon as possible.
Did you know that they haven’t had a single shooting since the confiscation– I mean, voluntary turn-in of guns was decreed in 1996? They had one-hundred percent compliance, being the superior, civilized industrialized nation that they are.
And no one commits suicide, and there’s no violence, and they all get along just like in the Crocodile Dundee movies, and life is wonderful all the time.
Dacien told me so.
“often at great cost to their own political fortunes”
Translation: Got voted out of office for failing to represent the views of their constituents. That’s not an issue for several of the Republican gun control appeased since their are retiring.
One has to wonder about the down-stream effects of gun control in Oz.
How in the world would Australian pols have had to the balls to creat concen… er, quarantine camps and enforced some of the strictest lockdowns in the West for obscene periods of time.
How would they have gotten to the point of simply cutting their electricity capacity to the point that they have pensioners who can’t afford to heat their homes in winter?
Is it gun control or Australians just emasculated? Is one a sign of the other? Is there interplay?
Does it even matter? Is it Live or is it Memorex!??!
If Grace is suggesting that Democrats have any character at all she ought take her head out of her butt and take a survey of whether or not people believe most Democrat Politicians have any sense of morality, ethics, logic or common sense. She might be surprised by the results but most of us would not because zero is still zero.
It seems that I need to continue reminding everyone that guns are only a secondary target. The primary one is the right of the private citizen to use force, including deadly force, in self defense against attack by violent criminals. I remember an exhortation, which I believe came out of Australia, “Never resort to violence not even to save your own life.” What we should be asking the gun control zealots is, “How many victims are you willing to sacrifice by depriving them of the most efficient tool yet invented to protect themselves?” We should also be telling them, “A violent criminal, in the process of attacking an innocent victim, pins a target on his back and invites the rest of us to take our best shot at him, at least figuratively if we can no longer do it literally. You may be able to take away the firearm I would use to shoot a home invader or carjacker, but you won’t stop me from beating his head in with a baseball bat or running over him with my vehicle.”
I have a friend in Australia, who, years later, deeply regrets turning in and giving up his guns. All he has now are some nice knives and swords. He has warned me about never giving up our guns here in the U.S. So if Mr. Timms is so terrified of said weapons, maybe he should move to Australia, where he is not allowed to have guns, and he can feel so much safer being an unarmed kuck.
I’m a retired cop and retired Chief Master at Arms USN. If they want to come and take mine, it’s No Holds Barred!
Comments are closed.