Video ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

[Durango95]

I am curious andy as to which Sydney is the one from which you hail? Is it Sydney in Florida? Is it Sidney in North Dakota or Texas? Did you misspell the name? In what state in the U.S. are you located?

 

[andysayshi]

The real Sydney, of course, in Australia!

Inevitably at this juncture you will now respond "Why do you care?", "Mind your own business", or both.

And my standard response: I have lived and worked in the US for several years, and probably will again in the next few years. I have plenty of wonderful friends who are US citizens. I visit at least once every two years.

My vested interest in US gun laws is in it's direct effect on the friends and loved ones I have in the US, most of whom share and or welcome my views, and my personal interest as an occasional resident. And I believe I offer a valuable objectivity to such debates, as I come from a nation who has successfully used gun control to dramatically reduce gun crime.

 

[CowboyBob]

I am curious andy as to which Sydney is the one from which you hail? Is it Sydney in Florida? Is it Sidney in North Dakota or Texas? Did you misspell the name? In what state in the U.S. are you located?

What state are you located?

And there's no Sydney in North Dakota anymore. It's a ghost town. You're thinking of the Sidney in Montana.

Better take a geography refresher course. And a spelling lesson.

 

[Durango95]

There is a saying here...clean up your own backyard and leave my yard to me. You don't have a dog in this fight. Maybe you should worry about your own country with it's incredibly restrictive immigration policy, racist policies and prolific racial and economic segregation.

I'm sure you'd support the"immigration reform" under this current administration in this country where 11 million (and counting) people of color are flooding into this country. Whereas Australia's immigration policy has been humorously known as The White Australian Policy for decades and only allows a trickle of people of color annually.

One anecdotal aside, I have a friend, yes and white, that was thinking of immigrating to Australia a few years back. He and his wife would have had to be on a waiting list for quite some time because they didn't have enough points or some such nonsense because they didn't have skills that were currently sought. It was generally understood though that the transfer of a large bank account would definitely grease the wheels.

I'm sure you think it is awesome this country has a black, well half black, president. In all likelihood there will not be a person of any other color, than white, as Prime Minister of Australia in your lifetime. There certainly won't be anything other than a white person as your monarch ever. From what I can tell there is only one person of color currently in your Senate.

Please do pontificate on how much better you can make this country by your intrusion. I do not discuss Australia's policies for a simple reason. It is not my place to do so because it does not affect me. Besides that there is no way possible I could care any less about what Australian policies are concerning anything.

 

[Rolyo85]

I fail to see how your Australia-bashing off-topic does anything to change the fact that while our side offers hard data with multiple sources, all you have is a dismissive opinion. It doesn't even distract from it. Also, you are not authorized to decide who has what interest in which topic. Everyone is free to express their opinion in any thread as long as they follow the CoC. Furthermore, he obviously has much more concern for America than you do...

 

[andysayshi]

Thanks, Rolyo85.

I have no idea, either, what Durango95's last little rant has to do about anything, other than it's rather obviously racist undertone. But I will say one thing... he is COMPLETELY out of touch about Australian immigration.

But, once again, Durango95 has shown he really isn't interested in facts.

 

[opinterph]

There is a saying here...clean up your own backyard and leave my yard to me. You don't have a dog in this fight. Maybe you should worry about your own country …

Please do pontificate on how much better you can make this country by your intrusion.

andysayshi has been here in the JUB backyard much longer than you and is fully entitled to regard you as the intruder in this situation. He has consistently contributed thoughtful and substantive ideas to many discussions here in CE&P. andysayshi is welcome to share his views about US, Australian, or any other politics in this forum anytime he so chooses.

 

[CowboyBob]

There are several JUB members who don't like "foreigners" giving their opinion about American politics. We've seen them tell Australians and especially Canadians to MYOB and focus on their own country. What happens in America effects people in other countries too.

 

[andysayshi]

Thanks for the kind words, lads.

 

[TX-Beau]

YOU PEOPLE just hate American Exceptionalism. (grin)

 

[chance1]

i LOVE how some people like to connect dots where none exist

course there is a topic here

some just can't find it within themselves to address the topic rather they ........ play

as for the ad, it shows in 30 seconds - that's all it takes

that the intent of gun laws "back in the day" was for protection - a gun that shoots multiple rounds vs. a single shot per minute - is different

it just is

 

[Kulindahr]

So I am projecting uncertainty, but your assumption that guns make you safe despite what's happening all around you is, um... being objective?

Given "what's happening all around", the decision to go armed is definitely objective.

 

[Kulindahr]

And proven historical fact again & again has shown that what you are saying doesn't always happen. More times then not even the most skilled and brave have gone down in a blaze of glory all the way back to the most primitive musket. Pffft! I side with the posters ascertaining your wild west mentality and the romance you hold of bravery/courage is of a era that never was except in folklore and Clint Eastwood movies. Thinking that office workers in a situation like this should be trained & skilled to stand and have a shoot out instead of take sides with the natural instinct to hunker down and find cover is ludicrous , just nutty perhaps making you the type of person that shouldn't pass the muster in the mental dept to own a fire arm? The allure and illusion clouds logical civilian thought in a civilized (supposed to be) society.

You're not even talking about the video: what "shoot-out"???

 

[Rolyo85]

Given "what's happening all around", the decision to go armed is definitely objective.

No, it is clearly and glaringly not. It's a panicked decision by a mentality paralyzed with irrational fear of one's neighbors. Because - ironically - they're packing just as much heat.

 

[Kulindahr]

.
NEOCON WET DREAM or why we need guns for our "protection".

Wolverines!

Nice liberal fantasy.

To understand why we need guns for our protection, just read the headlines about violent crime.

Oh -- and think about George W Bush.

The number of US mass shootings that have been stopped by an armed civilian in the past 30 years...?

Zero.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Nice, but irrelevant: the laws told the law-abiding they couldn't fight back, they had to be victims.

Certainly, in the incident in this TV spot someone could just run and crash tackle the gunman. But it's satire - it's not meant to reflect a real scenario. And anyway, relying on the heroics of innocent bystanders is not a viable approach to crime prevention or crime response.

No, it's far better to just let innocent people get killed or raped while waiting for the cops.

 

[Kulindahr]

Most reputable studies have found this to be a myth. If you exclude the debunked studies of John Lott and Kleck/Gertz, there has never been a study that proves this true. Of course, if the NRA didn't lobby to prevent Government agencies from studying gun violence, we might know a lot more about Americans with guns. But the NRA have paid plenty of money to ensure such studies never happen.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

In fact when you look at the surveys involved in Kleck's work, there's reason to believe his figure of 2.1 to 2.5 million defensive uses a year is actually low.

 

[andysayshi]

To understand why we need guns for our protection, just read the headlines about violent crime.

Laws should be shaped by reality, not headlines. And the statistics show us that people around guns are more likely to experience violent crime.

Nice, but irrelevant: the laws told the law-abiding they couldn't fight back, they had to be victims.

Nope. Take Gabby Gifford's shooting. Despite being surrounded by police and security professionals, the gunman was taken down by unarmed civilians whilst he was reloading. The only civilian who came close to firing a shot admitted on Fox News that he was a few milliseconds from shooting one of the heroic bystanders, mistaking him for the gunman.

No, it's far better to just let innocent people get killed or raped while waiting for the cops.

Emotional response that ignores my point. You can't address crime prevention with the hope that innocent bystanders will act heroically, because they often will not. Most people just run. Emotional responses won't change that reality. The goal of lawmakers and crime prevention policies must be to reduce the likelihood of gun crime, not increase the ability of the public to respond to it.

 

[andysayshi]

In fact when you look at the surveys involved in Kleck's work, there's reason to believe his figure of 2.1 to 2.5 million defensive uses a year is actually low.

Most of the people who've looked at Kleck's survey think it's grossly overstated because of poor methodology. The US Dept Of Justice certainly does, and say so publically.

Kleck's surveys had uncharacteristically high non-participation rates, because he opened his phone call with a question like "Do you mind participating in a survey about gun ownership?" He broke the cardinal rule of phone surveys - never tell people what it''s about, because you create a bias of respondents who are interested in the topic. The result, in Kleck's case, was that people who don't like guns or don't own guns were more likely to decline doing the survey. He ended up with stats that imply numbers which simply don't reflect the wider community.

That's just ONE of the methodology problems, but I've told you the others in the past.

Still, at least he actually conducted real surveys, unlike John Lott.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you side with the president you want criminals to have guns and law abiding citizens to be defenseless.

Several gals I know call that position "pro-rape", because of the three, who were each an intended rape victim, one didn't get raped -- because she had a gun.

These politicians expect us to be sheep. They forget that I am not some statistic for them to manipulate as they please, I'm a person who has a choice in how to maintain his safety -- and it's MY safety, not theirs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah but you can't fucking mail order a fire tempered AK... I can be an assault force in three days ... because I have Amazon prime... fives days without....

If I had attended the last KC gun show I could be an arsenal in an hour... a single hour.

let me ask you this Kuli... have you ever been angry for a part of a day and then gotten over it?

Plus the premise is entirely flawed. Increased coverage of the background check DOES NOT reduce the availability of weapons just the availability for criminals to acquire weapons.

Now that the cowards who call themselves leaders of their people have decided to relinquish their governing responsibility to legislate, I sincerely hope that they are shoved out of office and folks who ACTUALLY want gun control... not just background checks, show up and enact laws that do take weapons from hands. FUCK them.

This is where we gain traction... Remember 2010? where we lost our asses due to inactivity? This next year must be non-stop attack ads against the 46 cowards. This sint a throw the bums out as in anyone idea... this is throw the cowards out who fail to act for their people.

/end rant.

I've never been angry enough to want to use a firearm against anyone -- that's not what firearms are for.

"Taking weapons from hands" favors the criminals, as it requires citizens to be victims.

Last, we shouldn't be talking "gun control", we should be talking what the Constitution does: militia discipline.