Gun control protects criminals

[Diuretic]

And if the GC and the rest of the government are in collusion?

The only defence is the High Court. And that's assuming that anyone would take any notice of a pronouncement of illegality committed by the government as deemed by the HCA.

But for it to be of any effect (the coup I mean) it would require the chief of the Australian Defence Force and his or her colleagues (chief of Army, Navy, Air Force) to be in it as well. If they were in it then it's fair to say we would be knackered.

 

[Diuretic]

I just had a dose of l'espirit d'escalier.

We tend not to elect extremists. A Vladimir Jirinovsky wouldn't get a run here. Having said that we do get the odd bod - Pauline Hanson is one - http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/ - but while she attracted the suntanned-neck vote she had no chance of getting into a position of influence.

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

Let's face it, the only thing that will happen with a gun control policy is the fact that the law abiding citizens will become defenseless while the criminals illegally obtain firearms.

The only result of such an action will be a boom in the price to obtain an illegal firearm. It's not going to keep guns off the street, just guns off the law abiding family men. As a result, we could possible see a huge rise in gang power and crimes.

Disarm the citizens and arm the hoodlums?

Over my dead body will our government take my arsenal.

United I stand and United I'll fall; but not on their clock.

 

[Dr Grump]

Let's face it, the only thing that will happen with a gun control policy is the fact that the law abiding citizens will become defenseless while the criminals illegally obtain firearms.

The only result of such an action will be a boom in the price to obtain an illegal firearm. It's not going to keep guns off the street, just guns off the law abiding family men. As a result, we could possible see a huge rise in gang power and crimes.

Disarm the citizens and arm the hoodlums?

Over my dead body will our government take my arsenal.

United I stand and United I'll fall; but not on their clock.

And so the cycle continues...

 

[Diuretic]

And so the cycle continues...

And just when I thought there was some understanding of the issues.

I blame politicians frankly, I'll never forgive John Howard for (among other things) the two buyback schemes. It was populist politics at its most cynical.

Quick summary:

1. Gun control isn't about criminals with guns, the criminal law is about criminals with guns. Gun control is a separate issue.

2. I won't pontificate about gun control in the US. The US Supreme Court consideration of the Second Amendment vis-a-vis the DC ban is of academic interest to me but that's as far as it goes.

3. Crime is such a problem in the US (I'm generalising) that I would think ccw is a reasonable policy response. If I lived in the US I would apply for a ccw permit and I would carry a handgun everywhere (allowing for the various prohibitions of course).

 

[jillian]

3. Crime is such a problem in the US (I'm generalising) that I would think ccw is a reasonable policy response. If I lived in the US I would apply for a ccw permit and I would carry a handgun everywhere (allowing for the various prohibitions of course).

But it's not...

 

[BrianH]

It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

If you have a CHL, you've completed requirements to have it and you've passed background checks. You've also had to pass an immediate background check (by the FBI/NICS) upon purchasing any firearm.

There is already gun regulation whether we want it or not. If guns were not regulated to an extent, you could go down to the local supermarket and get you a fully auto machine gun (you can't legally)--at least not in Texas anyway. So their regulating the gun market---what makes it into our stores.

Banning guns altogether for the average, law-abiding citizen is absurd. How many crazed psychopath's do you hear about mugging cops in the street? Cause the low-life's know their packin. Same concept with school shootings--no one will shoot back, so it's an optimal target for attack.

'Pearl, Miss. 17-year-old kid walks along a hallway in Pearl High School gunning down other students. The vice-principal has a .45 automatic in his car (federal offense, though no one has ever pressed charges) and runs out to the parking-lot to retrieve it. A moment later, this educator stands face-to-face with the kid, pointing his gun at the young man, and says "Stop!" Amazingly, the kid stops. A 17-year-old crazed mass murderer with a loaded gun in his hand is ordered to stop shooting, and he does."

Could have been a lot worse if the vice-principal hadn't had a gun (broken the law --ironically enough.)

I feel the same thing about college campuses...if law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry, they stand some chance of survival.

 

[Diuretic]

But it's not...

I'm used to living in a city where I don't have to worry about locking my car when I'm in and stopped at a red light to give myself the best chance of escaping from a carjacker.

I'm also used to being able to walk around a city street at 3 am and not worry about being mugged (it happens but not to a great degree)

I don't feel the need to carry as much as a kitchen knife (off duty anyway).

I've only nearly been mugged a couple of times, once in London and once in Paris (if I'd been mugged in each city I could have had a nice play on words with Orwell's Down and Out in London and Paris but, fortunately for me, I can't). I didn't get mugged because each time I eyeballed the would-be mugger and with body language and facial expression told them I knew exactly what they were thinking and that they should find an easier mark.

I've never been so much as threatened when I've been in the States but strangely enough I do feel that if I lived in a city in the States, heck if I lived in a town in the States, I'd carry, I really would.

 

[tigerbob]

Fair question. Interesting one too, I admit I hadn't thought of it so here goes.

The Governor-General of Australia (representing the Monarch) has the residual power to dismiss a government. Shocking isn't it? But it happened on 11 November 1975 (yes, Armistice Day) - http://whitlamdismissal.com/. I'm not posting that to bombard you with info just to let you know it actually happened.

So, in the scenario, the government seeks to legislate to keep itself in power and because (let's say) it has the numbers in the lower house and also in the Senate it can pass the legislation. The legislation has no effect until it's assented to by the Governor-General. I would think that the Governor-General would consult the High Court and that the High Court would probably give it the constitutional thumbs down and advise the GG not to sign it. Therefore no legislation passed. It's entirely possible the GG would then withdraw the commission of the government, in effect dismissing it.

If the government tied to get the military involved then the GG, in place of the Monarch, would order the military not to to do so and to stay in barracks unless the GG gives orders otherwise (to the Chief of the ADF I mean).

The only police agency at the Commonwealth level in Australia is the Australian Federal Police (http://www.afp.gov.au). They aren't powerful enough to do anything to help or hinder the government and if they did I feel the GG would get the ADF on the job which would effectively neutralise the AFP.

The upshot would be the arrest of the members of the now dismissed government. They would be tried and sentenced to prison to listen to every parliamentary speech made over the last twenty years. If that's not sufficient deterrent then nothing is.

Same in Britain. The only thing that would conceivably cause the monarch to withold the 'Royal Assent' is a dominant potitical party trying to force through something that was clearly unconstitutional, such as increasing a parliamentary term from the current 5 years to, say, 15 years (or, of course, turning the army on the people).

As to the later question someone raised about what if the PM and GG (or in our case HM the Q) were colluding, I can't see that happening. On the other hand, if it did (as you rightly say) we'd be screwed.

I've never understood the prevailing fear among so many Americans that someday the government may turn on them and so everyone needs to have a rifle tucked away in the garage. And for those people who do give that reason, I've always suspected that while some actually believe it, some are being disingenuous. I have much more time for the "only criminals will have guns" argument.

 

[Diuretic]

Same in Britain. The only thing that would conceivably cause the monarch to withold the 'Royal Assent' is a dominant potitical party trying to force through something that was clearly unconstitutional, such as increasing a parliamentary term from the current 5 years to, say, 15 years (or, of course, turning the army on the people).

As to the later question someone raised about what if the PM and GG (or in our case HM the Q) were colluding, I can't see that happening. On the other hand, if it did (as you rightly say) we'd be screwed.

I've never understood the prevailing fear among so many Americans that someday the government may turn on them and so everyone needs to have a rifle tucked away in the garage. And for those people who do give that reason, I've always suspected that while some actually believe it, some are being disingenuous. I have much more time for the "only criminals will have guns" argument.

The parliamentary system has a really interesting history, I suppose it's easy to forget Charles I and his argument with the parliament, when you think about it that was a revolutionary act, to execute the king. And then Cromwell's protectorate of course. Then the Glorious Revolution. I'm a bit rough on the details but I do remember that parliament was always going to be number one after the Restoration. But a monarch or a pm can't do much without coercive force and it seems to me that the military chiefs would do the right thing and adhere to the constitution rather than the whim of a monarch or politician.

On fear of government. I don't understand it either but I'll put money on it that it's not so much a fear as a distrust of government. The United States and Australia sprang out of the same home - Britain, at about roughly the same time. The US colonists grabbed their independence in 1776 and they took it by force from a despotic British regime. The Founding Fathers struggled to create a new nation that wouldn't fall under the hand of despots as was the case in Britain in the 18th Century. Small wonder a culture of personal independence and distrust of government exists.

My country, as everyone knows, was a dumping ground for British convicts (and political prisoners such as Fenians and French-Canadians). That was a pretty rough start, the prison of the Empire. As such the original colony was under centralised military control. It took many years of evolution for self-government for the various colonies (one province, South Australia, was settled by free people under a British company rather than the British government). That evolution, which still hasn't finished and won't finish until we are a Republic, means that we have developed a fairly benign, if somewhat cynical view, of government. In political temperament we are closer to the British, whereas Americans are - and some may not like the comparison - closer to the French. Anyway those are just my ideas.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

But it's not...

please clarify.

 

[jimmyBUFFET]

I am amused by the fact that the people who claim to be the most patriotic then turn around and say that we can't trust our own government. I don't know if you're one of those people, but it just makes no sense.

It is most certainly possible to be a patriot and still leery of the government...the very nature of government is a suspicious one, and the only way to protect yourself from it is to be armed in case things DO go overboard. Our governmental system was built brilliantly by men who understood the danger of government; this is precisely why we have the checks and balances that we have. I love this country, but I don't trust many of the people who have been put in charge of running it, and that is why I don't trust the government...the fundamentals are protected by each other through the system laid out two centuries ago, but human nature will triumph, and when it does I plan on being able to protect myself and my family from it.

I highly doubt that the US is going to turn into a facist military state if we control the sale and distribution of firearms. I challenge you to find any other democratic industrialized nation with strict gun control laws who have suddenly turned their military on their own people.

I challenge you to find a democratic industrialized nation that is anywhere near as powerful as we are on the world stage that has strict gun control laws at all.

-jB