Gun control protects criminals

[Bern80]

I gave a ridiculous example that was made to make the point that probability of misuse is a factor in deciding on gun control. If society was composed solely of Mother Teresa people then we'd probably be relaxed with tanks being available. If society were composed of bin Laden people then I think we'd realise that tanks would have to be taken away from everyone but the military. So, the probability of misuse of weapons is a consideration in the debate. From there it requires a bit more thought. How strong is the probability of misuse? Can the effects of misuse be ameliorated by restricting the type of firearms lawfully available?

I agree 100%. so it seems to me what we've established is that it is people that are dangerous, not guns. Yet we are trying to pass laws that are all about guns and have nothing to do with people. Does that really make any sense?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Has the Bill of Rights crumbled to dust? If so, then I guess I have absolutely no right to own a gun, no right to practice my religion within reason. I won’t stoop to name-calling but I hope that it is clear to most people here that even the Bill of Rights is understood to have at least some implied or generally understood limitations and yet the Bill of Rights still exists.

I am okay with limitations, to an extent. I don't an RPG. However, those that want "gun control" want us to go the of the UK. I simply will not except this. The Bill of Rights has not crumbled, but if we repeal or tamper with the Second Amendment by banning guns, then it will crumble. If the second amendment can be repealed, then perhaps the fifth can be as well. All it takes is uninformed people that "afraid" of guns to get the ball rolling. That is all.

P.S. Sorry about the asshole comment, It was lateand I was into my second bottle of wine. Please accept my humble apology.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree 100%. so it seems to me what we've established is that it is people that are dangerous, not guns. Yet we are trying to pass laws that are all about guns and have nothing to do with people. Does that really make any sense?

That's a good point. I was mightily pissed by the populist politics of our federal government when it launched the "buyback" schemes (the one with handguns and the second one with s/auto long weapons). Both schemes focussed on the firearms, not the control over unsuitable users. In the end both schemes achieved absolutely nothing useful.

I'll probably piss off a few people here with this but for me gun control consists of a mix of considerations. In the mix are the firearms themselves and the people who want to lawfully deal with them. I take criminals out of the mix completely (except to routinely deny to anyone convicted of a serious crime the right to lawfully possess firearms without having proven their rehabilitation) because, as we all accept, crooks will obtain firearms anyway.

 

[Bern80]

That's a good point. I was mightily pissed by the populist politics of our federal government when it launched the "buyback" schemes (the one with handguns and the second one with s/auto long weapons). Both schemes focussed on the firearms, not the control over unsuitable users. In the end both schemes achieved absolutely nothing useful.

I'll probably piss off a few people here with this but for me gun control consists of a mix of considerations. In the mix are the firearms themselves and the people who want to lawfully deal with them. I take criminals out of the mix completely (except to routinely deny to anyone convicted of a serious crime the right to lawfully possess firearms without having proven their rehabilitation) because, as we all accept, crooks will obtain firearms anyway.

The problem is I think people see bad things happen with guns and they want to pass laws thinking, and for the purpose of, haveing such things never happen again. Well that just isn't going to happen, but in the effort to do so innocent people's rights get trampled as well. All because some people seem to think the best way to kill a fly is with a cannon. No amount of stringent gun control is gonna mean their will never be another school shooting or that gangbangers won't be blasting away at each other from time to time. I've said before and will say again, if we want to call ourselves a free society you have to take the good with the bad.

 

[Diuretic]

The problem is I think people see bad things happen with guns and they want to pass laws thinking, and for the purpose of, haveing such things never happen again. Well that just isn't going to happen, but in the effort to do so innocent people's rights get trampled as well. All because some people seem to think the best way to kill a fly is with a cannon. No amount of stringent gun control is gonna mean their will never be another school shooting or that gangbangers won't be blasting away at each other from time to time. I've said before and will say again, if we want to call ourselves a free society you have to take the good with the bad.

Again I'd like to make the point that I'm not referring to the US situation - for various reasons, but your point about the passing of laws is right.

Legislation prepared in haste and as a panicky and populist reaction to one event (as terrible as that event might be - ie Port Arthur, Tasmania 1996) is bound to be flawed.

The appropriate reaction to the Port Arthur shootings would have been for the Tasmania government to tighten its own lax gun control laws, but instead, a populist government led by a Prime Minister that was completely poll-driven, panicked and forced a buyback regime on every state and territory in Australia, even those that had (and that was just about all except Tasmania) effective gun control laws.

Okay, Australia-specific remarks completed.

I do think that gun control is necessary. How it's effected is where the debate lies.

One of the things that people must be told is that gangbangers and other criminals don't care about gun control laws, the wider criminal law has to deal with them. But that also means that the effectiveness of the "criminals don't care about gun control laws" critique from certain quarters is neutered.

Gun control laws aren't about stopping criminals from getting guns (that's nigh impossible), they're about ensuring a balance between responsible firearm ownership (and use and the other associated verbs) and safety in society. That's all there is to it I think.

The debate should be about the mix. The "ban all firearms from society" argument is naieve and totally impractical in any society that allows any private ownership of firearms. But the other end of the spectrum, that there should be no gun control whatever in society is also flawed.

 

[tigerbob]

Not really. What is the difference between 50 machine guns in the hands of mother theresa and 50 machine guns in the hands of Osama bin Laden?

I can scarcely believe that's a serious question, but.....

1. Mother Teresa would not use them - she was all about helping people, not about killing them..
2. Mother Teresa, one would hope, would be more likely to pass a background check.
3. Mother Teresa is dead.

 

[Taomon]

What deregulation?

Oh, and most criminals obtain their firearms illegally, so they aren't passing background checks anyway, if they could.

Are you calling for lax gun laws? That would be deregulation. Not all criminals purchase their guns illegally. Loosening restrictions does not make the situation better anyhow.

 

[tigerbob]

However, those that want "gun control" want us to go the of the UK. I simply will not except this.

Does anyone think that if Britain had the same gun laws as America there would not be an increase in gun crime in Britain?

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

"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.
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."


THis is ignorane at it's best! Their is no need for Democratic industrialized nations with strict gun control laws to turn their military on their people. Why, you may ask? Boils down to the age old saying, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"! Countries that ban gun control already have the people suppressed, oppressed, and in fear of performing an uprising. Especially since the have no arms to defend themselves. Our Forefathers stressed the need for the people to have the right to bear arms and form a well-regulated militia to act as a counter balance to the Government.

If the checks and balances of our federal government WERE to fail then the people of the United States' only PATRIOTIC duties would be to defend themselves against being oppressed by tyranny and return power back towards the people.

 

[Gunny]

Are you calling for lax gun laws? That would be deregulation. Not all criminals purchase their guns illegally. Loosening restrictions does not make the situation better anyhow.

Did I say I wanted deregulation? I asked WHAT deregulation.

I did not say ALL criminals purchase their guns illegally. A lot of them steal them as well. The only criminals that can purchase firearms legally are the ones who haven't been caught the first time yet. A felony conviction is an automatic disqualifier.

Lossening restrictions for lawabiding citizens doesn't make the situation worse, either.

 

[Diuretic]

"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.
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."


THis is ignorane at it's best! Their is no need for Democratic industrialized nations with strict gun control laws to turn their military on their people. Why, you may ask? Boils down to the age old saying, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"! Countries that ban gun control already have the people suppressed, oppressed, and in fear of performing an uprising. Especially since the have no arms to defend themselves. Our Forefathers stressed the need for the people to have the right to bear arms and form a well-regulated militia to act as a counter balance to the Government.

If the checks and balances of our federal government WERE to fail then the people of the United States' only PATRIOTIC duties would be to defend themselves against being oppressed by tyranny and return power back towards the people.

Where I live we chuck our politicians out of power every three years at the federal level. The survivors keep their jobs and some of them are allowed to form government. So much for fear and oppression!

 

[PpleLOSINGpower]

So what you're saying is you'll be the one throwing stones at tanks if in the event the country you lived in went totalitarian.

 

[Diuretic]

So what you're saying is you'll be the one throwing stones at tanks if in the event the country you lived in went totalitarian.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

 

[Gunny]

Where I live we chuck our politicians out of power every three years at the federal level. The survivors keep their jobs and some of them are allowed to form government. So much for fear and oppression!

And suppose they choose to no voluntarily yield power and legislate it in such a way that it's legal and they have the military and police to back them up?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And suppose they choose to no voluntarily yield power and legislate it in such a way that it's legal and they have the military and police to back them up?

Whats funny is since Australia has a system nearly the same as Britain, they probably could do JUST that. Legally and with in the almost nonexistant restrictions that are placed on the Government.

 

[Diuretic]

And suppose they choose to no voluntarily yield power and legislate it in such a way that it's legal and they have the military and police to back them up?

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.

 

[Diuretic]

Whats funny is since Australia has a system nearly the same as Britain, they probably could do JUST that. Legally and with in the almost nonexistant restrictions that are placed on the Government.

See my response (above).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wait. The Governor General is APPOINTED by the Prime Minister? Lets redo your great faith in the fact that he or she would always have Australia's best interest at heart shall we?

This is akin to the argument the Brits make that if the Government legislates bad things they will just magically kick out enough members of Parliament and that they all would be of the same mind to repel the bad legislation.

Scant protection indeed. Hoping the APPOINTED Governor General will not be on the side of those that appointed him every time.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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

 

[Diuretic]

Wait. The Governor General is APPOINTED by the Prime Minister? Lets redo your great faith in the fact that he or she would always have Australia's best interest at heart shall we?

This is akin to the argument the Brits make that if the Government legislates bad things they will just magically kick out enough members of Parliament and that they all would be of the same mind to repel the bad legislation.

Scant protection indeed. Hoping the APPOINTED Governor General will not be on the side of those that appointed him every time.

The PM - and by the way the office of Prime Minister is only a convention, it doesn't appear in the constitution - makes a recommendation to the Monarch who usually rubber-stamps the selection. But that doesn't privilege the PM over the GG.

True enough as Bagehot pointed out ("The English Constitution") the PM is really the powerful one in the day to day governing of the nation, but as we've already seen a GG recommended by the PM and appointed by the Monarch, dismissed an elected government, allegedly in the best interests of the nation.

Given this precedent I would think that it's fair to say that all the other powers (and we do adhere to the doctrine of the separation of powers as put in place by your Founders from Montesquieu) would combine to defeat a government that tried this.

Of course I can't say that the dystopia would never occur, I can't, I can though argue that it's not likely.