Do Australians have bigger bazookas than Americans? [DNO]
 

dno
> Philip:

> Thanks for your comments about The Great
> Ideas Letter :o)

> Now on to your question(s).

> First, let me say, personally, I have no
> desire to own a semi-auto high-calibre
> rifle. I would never buy a Mini 14, for
> instance.

> As far as I'm concerned, any competent
> rifleman can do as much "damage"
> , if not more, than any old hack with a
> semi-auto. They can shoot a running target
> (wild board) with as much accuracy and
> nearly as fast.

> With semi-auto handguns... there are
> legitimate sporting contests in which the
> semi-auto's are used.

> Eight shot shot guns usually have a short
> barrel designed for use in thick scrub. You
> need the eight shots because the scrub could
> absorb and/or deflect the shot. So multiple
> shots could be needed to take down the
> target - feral pigs.

> Double barrel shotguns have a longer barrel
> and are not suited for hunting in thick
> scrub.

> Even though I do not own a semi-auto, nor
> even desire one, I will defend your right to
> own one because I know that any step in the
> direction of getting rid of guns, is a step
> closer to a disarmed population.

> Look at how Australia did it...

> A combined NATIONAL license and gun
> registration system - even to existing
> licensed firearm holders.

> Also, all future firearm purchases from that
> point on needed a police permit. And the
> purchase was thus added to your
> "file" as a new registered gun.

> Illegal to sell a gun privately. MUST be
> sold to a licensed dealer, or with the
> interaction of a licensed dealer.

> All firearm owners had to do a test - safety
> course - to get/keep their license.

> Together with this... the buy back.

> So now, before a cop visits your house, he
> can check his onboard computer and know
> whether you have a gun or not. And know who
> else in your street has a gun. And what
> types.

> Personal Safety is NO LONGER a legit reason
> to own a gun in Oz. A letter of permission
> from a land owner to shoot on his land, or
> membership to a sport shooting club (with
> compulsary visits) are pretty well the only
> accepted reasons for owning a gun now.

> Chip. Chip. Chip. That's how they did it.
> One small little "it can't harm"
> step at a time. The old frog in boiling
> water thing.

> Continued small sneaky "can't
> harm" steps and suddenly, no guns at
> all. We then become totally defenceless from
> any and all.

> Oh... I love what happened in S.A. With no
> shooters allowed in the crown land, feral
> goats bred like wildfire, then the gummit
> had to hire professional shooters to get rid
> of them. HA!

> Anyway. About the stats. Give me a few days
> and I'll see what I can find.

> Possibly. The onus is on the gun owners to
> keep their guns safe.

> People go through a period of training
> before being let loose to drive a car. I
> have no objection to similar training being
> given before owning/firing guns. After all,
> they can both be a source of enjoyment or be
> used as a deadly weapon.

> Michael Ross

Course we do
 

We got bigger EVERYTHING, especially here in Western Australia!

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

> Now, the Australian gummit is at it again.
> This time it's semi-auto handguns. If it has
> no "sporting shooter" use, it is
> being made illegal.

> Why?

> Because some drongo Crooks and psychos
> killed some people with similar type
> weapons. Would these types of people hand
> back their illegal weapons?

I think this recent buy-back initiate was sparked by university shootings where the shooter was a legal owner of his guns, and not a crook.

So what's the point of making many guns illegal?

I think the main point is that it decreases the supply of guns in the community. Not all murders are carried by career criminals with underground connections.

Perhaps you have a person who is very stressed, very anxious, or going through a crisis. Perhaps they're just going through a divorce, and they're on the edge and about to snap.

Such people may feel the inclination to kill themselves, or to kill others, and I believe that limiting legal gun ownership would decrease the probabilities of such events happening.

On the flip side, you're taking away the enjoyment derived from owning a gun from potential gun owners (whether that enjoyment is from feelings of protection/self-defence, or recreation, etc).

So it's a trade off between these two. Is it a worthwhile trade off? I think it is, but I'm biased due to having no desire to own a gun.

- Thomas.

The difference between guns and cars
 

Let's suppose you have an economy where you're the only person in it. You grow your own food, fetch your own water, cut your own hair, build your own house, and all the other activites that life involves.

Now imagine you suddenly discover a neighbour. Great, you now decide to grow the food, cut the hair, while he can fetch the water and build houses.

Suddenly another person comes, and as more and more people come into your world, you all become a little more specialised and more efficient at your tasks.

Overall, providing transaction costs are sufficiently low, this increased specialisation will probably lead to greater productivity and efficiency.

So, this all sounds well and good, but what does it have to do with cars? Well, cars (and other forms of transport) make the world a smaller place by making travel easier. The number of "specialists" you can reach vastly increases with a car, and thus it allows for greater specialisations and greater efficiencies.

The internet does the same thing to some extent, by the way.

In other words, cars have a very real effect on the efficiency and productivity of the world we live in, and getting rid of all cars would hinder this.

Guns, on the other hand, do not have this direct impact on efficiency.

Having said that, you are right, taking away cars would probably decrease deaths (via the road toll). Is it worth it?

You could calculate it. All you'd need to do is compare the dollars saved in car crashes and medical plus the dollar value of the lives lost (which is what you'd gain if you banned cars) to the dollar value of the efficiency loss you'd incur by getting rid of this.

You'd probably also want to include a value for the "freedom" people enjoy from owning a car (as you would with a similar "gun" analysis).

Just my 2 cents,

- Thomas. :)

Re: Don't run with scissors in your hand . . . .
 

Hi Mark

Just a thought about "guns" and "cars".

A gun is made only for one purpose "to blast a hole in an object".
The object could be a target, tin can, bottle, animal, or people.

Once the gun is in a persons hands he/she decides who, and what to KILL.

A car only purpose is to transport people or product from point A
to point B and back to point A.

Once a person is in the drivers set they decide on the safety of
the people or product.

So trying to compare guns and cars makes no sense.

Ciao,
D.R.(Don) McArdle

In Context
 

Don:

> So trying to compare guns and cars makes no
> sense.

Mark's response was to the comment about saving lives. As if saving lives is the sole and only reason to take guns away.

So if you look only at saving lives as a reason, then comparing guns with cars makes perfect sense, in the context is was written.

Michael Ross

Pitcure this...
 

All guns are taken away from honest people - leaving only the crooks and the police with guns.

The crooks, knowing no-one can defend themselves, find all households easy pickings. Hold ups run rampant.

Many people trying to defend themselves end up being shot. If killed, their productivity goes down to zero. If wounded, there are medical bills coupled with a loss of income. Their productivity suffers.

It can all be covered with insurance... which, of course, would skyrocket. Even before the affects of gun removal would be felt - because the insurance companies know what would happen.

On top of this, add the collapse of the whole firearm industry - metal suppliers, powder suppliers, sporting shooter clubs, outfitters, camping gear, safes, firearm manufacturers, their specially designed safe transport, etc., etc.

If cars and transport were treated like the anti-gunners want to treat guns - leaving them only in the hands of the professionals - then there would be a vast increase in public transport and private licensed mass moving transport to compensate for the loss of our cars.

People would move closer to their jobs or get jobs closer to home.

There are already many thousands of people who use publics transport, even travelling great distances.

The affects of car removal - as in leaving them only in the hands of the necessary people - would be minimal though the surrounding car industry would have a similar residual and flow on effect as removing guns would have. But it would be within their respective industry.

Seeing as you brought freedom into it, you would also have to weigh up the loss of freedom removing firearms would have, as you would now be totally as the mercy of the gummit. (Cross fingers and hope no tyrants get into power, eh?)

What is more important... freedom or a car?

Michael Ross

Re: Bearing arms in public places
 

Boyd,

I live 10 minutes from Red's (the one that used to be Cook's).

Red reminds me of Burt Reynolds.

I was there last week, playing around with a new CZ75B I bought a couple of months ago.

I think I'm gonna buy the Kel-Tec P32 next. Only 6 oz. Great for deep concealment.

And especially good for when the ladies ask, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are just happy to see me?" ...

I can whip it out and say, "Why yes... it IS a gun in my pocket!" :)

That should go over REAL WELL with the ladies.


Click here to Get Your Dog To Listen To You, Anywhere You Go!

Doubting Thomas...
 

Thomas,

Nice to meet you.

You state: "I believe that limiting legal gun ownership would decrease the probabilities of such events happening. " [In regard to wackos who legally purchase a gun and then SNAP!]

I reply: You are correct. There probably would be less wackos who use a gun when the fall off the deep end. And then they'll go get a bag of fertilizer or a tank of gas and make a bomb and blow up a McDonald's instead of walking in with guns ablaze.

So what's next? Banning fertilizer?

There is no perfect solution. However, the number of violent acts that are PREVENTED because there is a gun in the house (at least in America) far outweighs the number of deaths at the hands of wackos by about 900,000 to 1.

Number-wise, banning guns just doesn't make sense, if your true motivation is to save lives.

- Adam.




Get your dog to listen to you, anywhere you go! Click here to learn more...

Well said [DNO]
 

dno
> Boyd,

> I live 10 minutes from Red's (the one that
> used to be Cook's).

> Red reminds me of Burt Reynolds.

> I was there last week, playing around with a
> new CZ75B I bought a couple of months ago.

> I think I'm gonna buy the Kel-Tec P32 next.
> Only 6 oz. Great for deep concealment.

> And especially good for when the ladies ask,
> "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are
> just happy to see me?" ...

> I can whip it out and say, "Why yes...
> it IS a gun in my pocket!" :)

> That should go over REAL WELL with the
> ladies.