Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:23 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

This is what Australia did to its guns

67 replies, 8465 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

67 replies	Author	Time	Post
This is what Australia did to its guns (Original post)	Gomez163	Jun 2016	OP
You know...	yallerdawg	Jun 2016	#1
Gee, I was told 'they're not like us," and "they are a different culture,"	MADem	Jun 2016	#2
What do they do so the Dingoes don't eat there babies ????	frankieallen	Jun 2016	#3
Cayenne diaper powder. nt	eppur_se_muova	Jun 2016	#54
LOTS and lots of shotguns in that pic, and a few SKSs, a few .22s...seem to be all sporting arms. nt	jmg257	Jun 2016	#4
Not one of these...	yallerdawg	Jun 2016	#5
You do know	lancer78	Jun 2016	#52
Neither will they save a life or put food on a table...	TipTok	Jun 2016	#57
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2016	#6
They haven't had a mass shooting in Australia since 1996.	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#7
The Hunt family killings may qualify formally as such IIRC	Marengo	Jun 2016	#12
Yes they have.	linuxman	Jun 2016	#13
I relied on a faulty article. There were 13 in the decade before though.	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#14
They haven't	Crepuscular	Jun 2016	#55
Australia doesn't have a 2nd Amendment.	NaturalHigh	Jun 2016	#8
Ask them if they are in favor of folks like this with gunz?	Hoyt	Jun 2016	#27
WTF	NCTraveler	Jun 2016	#41
How come only white people, is your search engine broken ol' hoyt	snooper2	Jun 2016	#64
There aren't many, snooper. I'm sure you had to look hard to find those. Fact is, gunz as we know	Hoyt	Jun 2016	#65
nope, not really, didn't look for any Mexican Americans of course they open carry all over too	snooper2	Jun 2016	#66
I know how I feel.	Violet_Crumble	Jun 2016	#56
They're all bent!	procon	Jun 2016	#9
I've read compliance with the "buy back" was surprisingly low...	Marengo	Jun 2016	#10
I'll be honest.	roamer65	Jun 2016	#11
I'm not arguing for or against an assault weapons ban	TeddyR	Jun 2016	#15
We know that machine guns and military weapons are already banned with	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#21
Good question that I don't know the answer to	TeddyR	Jun 2016	#23
The AR and some AK platform Semi-Auto accoutrements were banned. Sans accoutrements, No.	Eleanors38	Jun 2016	#36
Only AR's with a certain number of 'naughty' features were banned.	AtheistCrusader	Jun 2016	#42
No, the AR-15 wasn't banned in 1994. Certain features were banned.	X_Digger	Jun 2016	#62
How?	virginia mountainman	Jun 2016	#16
Maybe those who advocate door-to-door on DU	Marengo	Jun 2016	#17
Yeah, that's freaking hilarious	Laha	Jun 2016	#20
Rather it's your lack of ability to comprehend that's on display here...	Marengo	Jun 2016	#22
Thanks for asking despite resorting to an attack on my intelligence to begin with.	Laha	Jun 2016	#26
You expect veneration after attacking my sanity?	Marengo	Jun 2016	#43
Fair response, thank you	Laha	Jun 2016	#45
I wasn't laughing at the thought they would be shot...	Marengo	Jun 2016	#49
That's a significant part of the controller wet dream...	TipTok	Jun 2016	#58
Focusing on a ban of "assault rifles (sic)" is meaningless...	Eleanors38	Jun 2016	#19
Hasn't the AR-15 been used quite a bit lately in the mass shootings????	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#25
It is used, along with semi-auto pistols (VT), a pump shotgun (Navy Yard) and an accumulation of	Eleanors38	Jun 2016	#31
I want to stop crazy people from getting any gun that can spit out bullets	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#33
If you want to keep ANY gun out of the hands of an adjudicated incompetent,	Eleanors38	Jun 2016	#38
They need to ask some questions before they sell him a dangerous weapon that	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#46
Who is "they?"	Eleanors38	Jun 2016	#63
Yeah, but they are the guns that yahoos are attracted too. Get rid of them and semi-auto pistols,	Hoyt	Jun 2016	#28
Not happening.	Eleanors38	Jun 2016	#39
Actually, we need to ban semi-auto pistols too.	Hoyt	Jun 2016	#67
This message was self-deleted by its author	Odin2005	Jun 2016	#18
K&R	Paper Roses	Jun 2016	#24
Post A Warning Next Time	SoCalMusicLover	Jun 2016	#29
A "trigger" warning?	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#30
OMG	etherealtruth	Jun 2016	#37
Most of those look like hunting rifles	davidn3600	Jun 2016	#32
You got to remember those rifles were bought back. The owners got paid.	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#34
Who cares?	TipTok	Jun 2016	#59
Probably semi-automatics	ErikJ	Jun 2016	#50
I hope they kept one or two.	rug	Jun 2016	#35
Amazingly, I don't see an AR-15 Bushmaster anywhere in there.	TrollBuster9090	Jun 2016	#40
As I recall, one of the rifles used in the Port Arthur massacre...	Marengo	Jun 2016	#44
Yes it was, I stand corrected. Thank you. nt	TrollBuster9090	Jun 2016	#60
Don't let America follow the same dreadful path.	ileus	Jun 2016	#47
There is still time....brother.	Gomez163	Jun 2016	#48
If you want to create credibility problems on guns	Angel Martin	Jun 2016	#51
I call it a good start.	ncjustice80	Jun 2016	#53
I've never seen so many 'assault weapons' in one picture...	beevul	Jun 2016	#61

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:26 PM

yallerdawg (16,104 posts)

1. You know...

there are real differences between Democrats and Republicans.

This looks like just one of them!

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:28 PM

MADem (135,425 posts)

2. Gee, I was told 'they're not like us," and "they are a different culture,"

and "they don't have racism" (LOL) .... all as "excuses" as to why WE can't do what they did.

What they have--and what we need--is the POLITICAL WILL.
It's past time.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:29 PM

frankieallen (583 posts)

3. What do they do so the Dingoes don't eat there babies ????

Reply to this post

Response to frankieallen (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:49 PM

eppur_se_muova (34,309 posts)

54. Cayenne diaper powder. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:30 PM

jmg257 (11,994 posts)

4. LOTS and lots of shotguns in that pic, and a few SKSs, a few .22s...seem to be all sporting arms. nt

Reply to this post

Response to jmg257 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:38 PM

yallerdawg (16,104 posts)

5. Not one of these...

will accidentally kill a family member, be used in a depressive state to end a life, not be turned in anger at another, not be used to commit a crime, not be used in an act of terrorism.

Not one of these - guaranteed!!!

Reply to this post

Response to yallerdawg (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:33 PM

lancer78 (1,495 posts)

52. You do know

that you are more likely to be beaten to death than killed with a rifle like the AR 15 right?

Reply to this post

Response to yallerdawg (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:27 PM

TipTok (2,474 posts)

57. Neither will they save a life or put food on a table...

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:45 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

7. They haven't had a mass shooting in Australia since 1996.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:54 PM

Marengo (3,477 posts)

12. The Hunt family killings may qualify formally as such IIRC

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:56 PM

linuxman (2,337 posts)

13. Yes they have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

And port Arthur was done with a semiautomatic fal. Not these sporting shotguns you see in the thousands.

Do you support destroying bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns here in the US?

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:01 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

14. I relied on a faulty article. There were 13 in the decade before though.

It seems to have decreased.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:06 PM

Crepuscular (1,014 posts)

55. They haven't

had a mass shooting in New Zealand since 1997, despite it being legal to possess the types of weapons banned in Australia. Weapons availability does not seem to be the determining factor for the lack of mass shootings in those two countries in recent years.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:46 PM

NaturalHigh (12,778 posts)

8. Australia doesn't have a 2nd Amendment.

Also, most Americans are in favor of private gun ownership. I don't know how Australians feel.

Reply to this post

Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:00 PM

Hoyt (54,770 posts)

27. Ask them if they are in favor of folks like this with gunz?

?resize=300%2C168

Reply to this post

Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:27 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

41. WTF

Reply to this post

Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:15 PM

snooper2 (30,151 posts)

64. How come only white people, is your search engine broken ol' hoyt

There are other open carry groups...Although, not finding any Asian Americans who open carry.

Reply to this post

Response to snooper2 (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:37 PM

Hoyt (54,770 posts)

65. There aren't many, snooper. I'm sure you had to look hard to find those. Fact is, gunz as we know

them nowadays, and gun laws, are pretty much due to white wingers.

Reply to this post

Response to Hoyt (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:41 PM

snooper2 (30,151 posts)

66. nope, not really, didn't look for any Mexican Americans of course they open carry all over too

but don't let that stop your memes ol' Hoyt...

DU wouldn't be the same without your input! I mean, a couple posters are close but when it comes to hardcore posting you got it down! Hard Core!

Reply to this post

Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:24 PM

Violet_Crumble (35,722 posts)

56. I know how I feel.

I've got no problem with private gun ownership here the way it is with tight controls. I'd hate it to be like the US where there's almost weekly mass murders with weapons that mostly have been banned here. I'd hate to have little kids shooting themselves or others because their "responsible' gun owning parents leave loaded guns lying around. I'd hate to go shopping and see fuckwits walking around carrying guns like its the Wild West and they're some sort of hero in their own mind.

I'm very grateful that as a nation our response to a horrific massacre was to say enough is enough, rather than have politicians make speeches and send prayers to the victims, knowing full well they'll be mouthing those same words when the next massacre happens.

On edit: having read through this thread I just want to say I've had a gutful of watching some Americans in the media and on the Internet use their own ignorance to distort things and act as though they're some sort of authority on how the gun laws affect Australia. Fuck the lot of them. I know I feel safer living in a society with sensible gun laws.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:47 PM

procon (15,805 posts)

9. They're all bent!

I had to do a double take and look again... the barrels have all been bent. No one is going home with a free sample from that lot!

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:48 PM

Marengo (3,477 posts)

10. I've read compliance with the "buy back" was surprisingly low...

In the neighborhood of 20 % or so, but not sure of the precise figure.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:52 PM

roamer65 (31,917 posts)

11. I'll be honest.

It may be able to get a ban on assault rifles and *maybe* semi-automatic handguns in the USA, however, I do not foresee getting a ban on revolvers, shotguns or rifles. The hunting culture runs WAY too deep in America for it to happen.
Canada back about 10 years ago, under PM Jean Chretien's Liberal government, tried to institute a long gun registry and it failed miserably. If Canada couldn't do it, we won't be able to either.

We need to focus on assault rifles first. They need to be eliminated...period.

Reply to this post

Response to roamer65 (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:05 PM

TeddyR (2,493 posts)

15. I'm not arguing for or against an assault weapons ban

But I do wonder what you mean by "assault rifle"? The weapon used in Orlando is a semi-automatic rifle and functions the same as any of the other of hundreds of types of semi-auto rifles (or pistols) that are publicly available. It isn't a machine-gun or a military weapon.

Reply to this post

Response to TeddyR (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:14 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

21. We know that machine guns and military weapons are already banned with

some exceptions by prior law. I think most people think an assault rifle is the AR-15 used in most of the recent mass killings. I assume it was banned in 1994 and then that law expired. Am I right?

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:30 PM

TeddyR (2,493 posts)

23. Good question that I don't know the answer to

I know that the AWB that expired under Bush banned a lot of weapons and had a lot of exceptions. Not sure where this one falls.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:16 PM

Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)

36. The AR and some AK platform Semi-Auto accoutrements were banned. Sans accoutrements, No.

Millions of semi-auto rifles using the aforementioned platforms (and others) were legally sold during the "ban." IMO, and in the opinion of others, the "ban" proved the biggest boost in sales for semi-auto rifles. The types referenced are, and have been for years, the largest-selling center-fire rifles in the U.S.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:32 PM

AtheistCrusader (33,982 posts)

42. Only AR's with a certain number of 'naughty' features were banned.

So a combination of two things like a pistol grip and a bayonet lug.

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:41 PM

X_Digger (18,585 posts)

62. No, the AR-15 wasn't banned in 1994. Certain features were banned.

There were over 500,000 AR-15 type rifles sold from 1994-2001 alone.

(This is from the Clinton DOJ report on the efficacy of the AWB-- their conclusion is that it didn't do much.)

Reply to this post

Response to roamer65 (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:06 PM

virginia mountainman (5,046 posts)

16. How?

Will you deal with the massive amounts ofnon-compliance and Collective middle finger most of the owners would give us?

Are you willing to go to door to door to pick them up? I don't know of a single cop (and I know many) that will flat refuse such a order.

Reply to this post

Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:10 PM

Marengo (3,477 posts)

17. Maybe those who advocate door-to-door on DU

Could be offered the job and deputized. We would certainly see who is a coward around here lol!

Reply to this post

Response to Marengo (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:14 PM

Laha (339 posts)

20. Yeah, that's freaking hilarious

You are laughing at the fact that deranged people will kill because they don't feel they should have to give up their death tools.

Your crazy is showing.

Reply to this post

Response to Laha (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:18 PM

Marengo (3,477 posts)

22. Rather it's your lack of ability to comprehend that's on display here...

Do you advocate seizure of all privately owned firearms by law enforcement?

Reply to this post

Response to Marengo (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:57 PM

Laha (339 posts)

26. Thanks for asking despite resorting to an attack on my intelligence to begin with.

Of course not. It's far more complicated then that. If you have any other specific questions I would be happy to explain how I think so.

Even when it comes to the idea of bans I support the idea of voluntary turn ins - without actually putting any real active effort into hunting down the people who decide not to participate.

Start with policies that will help educate people. There are good examples from other countries of how to handle similar situations, but I really don't expect it to happen all at once.

Reply to this post

Response to Laha (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:36 PM

Marengo (3,477 posts)

43. You expect veneration after attacking my sanity?

I have no objection to the proactive confiscation of firearms from the dangerously mentally ill or other prohibited persons. My original comment was directed at those who want the doors of the law abiding kicked down by the armed state.

Reply to this post

Response to Marengo (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:46 PM

Laha (339 posts)

45. Fair response, thank you

I acknowledge that I also made a poor choice in my method of argument.

I'm still not the one who laughed at the idea of someone getting shot.

Reply to this post

Response to Laha (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:23 PM

Marengo (3,477 posts)

49. I wasn't laughing at the thought they would be shot...

Rather that they would avoid every possibility of it while demanding others take the risk in what they acknowledge might lead to a veritable civil war against fellow law abiding citizens. Basically, a variant of the keyboard commando persona.

Reply to this post

Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:38 PM

TipTok (2,474 posts)

58. That's a significant part of the controller wet dream...

They love the idea of door to door searches and folks getting ransacked and hauled off to jail for failure to comply with feel good laws.

Reply to this post

Response to roamer65 (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:13 PM

Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)

19. Focusing on a ban of "assault rifles (sic)" is meaningless...

1). Rifles account for around 2% of all homicides-by-gun in the U.S., and so-called "assault rifles" (a type of machine gun, actually) are a subset of those rifles.

2). The category of semi-automatic rifles based on AR & AK platforms are now the Biggest selling types of center-fire rifles.

3). The AR & AK platform rifles are supplanting traditional hunting rifles due to improved accuracy, mild recoil, and preferred ergonomics. (Hunters make up 19% of gun owners.)

4). A "ban" can't get around the fast-morphing of its modular construction; you ban it, we change it.

5). The semi-auto pistol has supplanted the revolver as the most popular SD weapon. Many millions served.

6). An unfortunate use of the word "first." Pro-2A people are also concerned about "second," "third," "fourth,"...and are "hip to your tricks" (Joni Mitchell)

Reply to this post

Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:45 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

25. Hasn't the AR-15 been used quite a bit lately in the mass shootings????

How can we stop that?

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:10 PM

Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)

31. It is used, along with semi-auto pistols (VT), a pump shotgun (Navy Yard) and an accumulation of

Black Cat firecracker powder (Boston). When the Colorado theater shooter's gun with the super duper magazine jammed, he used a shotgun. In my collection I have a semi-auto rifle dating to 1905 which works well; yet it would not fall under the rubric of "assault weapon." And virtually all the routine murders in Chicago, Baltimore, etc. are done with handguns. Banning the gun de jure is a fool's errand. There are many other types which can do the murderous job. Or a bomb.

Yet another (ineffective) assault weapon ban would be as meaningless as the first one.

In answer to your question: There is no way to stop all mass murders; the methodology is demonstrably of no relevance to a killer.

Reply to this post

Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:11 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)

33. I want to stop crazy people from getting any gun that can spit out bullets

so fast they can kill a jillion people in minutes. Can we work on that?

Reply to this post

Response to Gomez163 (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:23 PM

Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)

38. If you want to keep ANY gun out of the hands of an adjudicated incompetent,

I will support a Constitutional measure. Be advised that the VT and S Carolina murderers were found to be adjudicated unqualified, but the paperwork (even when judges have a goddam computer sitting on the bench) didn't make it up the pipe. But I am mystified by Hillary Clinton's remarks today about why someone on an FBI watch list should not be asked some questions.

The FBI did that in two sessions!

Reply to this post

Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:59 PM

Gomez163 (2,039 posts)