Tim Blair

Hey, "the War against drugs" has been a brillaint success, surely banning firearms will achieve the similar wonderful results

Exactly. Do we legalise all drugs because drug use is impossible to stamp out, and ever tighter drug laws do not always stop the faster flow of drugs? A libertarian would say yes. Where do you stand Tim? If you think we should legalise guns and ban drugs explain why the latter is worse than the former.

For an intelligent approach to gun control laws, Florida seems to have the answer. ALL citizens are entitled to own/carry firearms unless they have a criminal record or history of mental illness. Since the laws were introduced, gun-related crimes have actually declined.
How long will it take the anti-gun lobby to get it through their thick skulls---BANNING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM OWNING GUNS MEANS ONLY CRIMINALS WILL BE ARMED.
Sorry to shout, but the lame-lefty muesli munching wishful thinkers seem deaf.

No, no, it's this:

BANNING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM OWNING GUNS MEANS ONLY CRIMINALS AND BODYGUARDS PROTECTING IMPORTANT MEMBERS OF THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY WILL BE ARMED.

Understand, it's not their guns that they want to ban.

Matthew, guns and drugs, legal or illegal, just don't mix and I've always advised against induldging in them together. BUT throw in a fast car and you've got the ingredients for a serious roadtrip to Vegas. [see H.S. Thompson]

And while we're on libertarian inconsistencies, if guns don't kill people, how many people does Ken Park kill?

"And while we're on libertarian inconsistencies, if guns don't kill people, how many people does Ken Park kill?"

It would appear you missed out on the latest Pilger extravaganza "The Guilt of Ken Park", in which he lays out the case for how the CIA-sponsored filming of Ken Park led to, among other things, the Rwandan genocide, the Columbine massacre and George W Bush stealing the presidential election of 2000. It is painfully obvious to all right-thinking members of the socially responsible portion of the Australian population that Ken Park must be stopped - and stopped now!

Bon Scott, of course guns kill people. So do bread knives and cars. So what's your point? That all of us should be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Hand in your kitchen implements then, and be consistent.

Keith those items do not kill people. They may be used to kill people but they do not operate themselves, they do not think, and they do not act. In other words they are inanimate. Here in the states libertarians are for legalizing all drugs and are pro second admendment.

I remember a quote by democrat senator Ted Kennedy and I paraphrase, "Guns killed both of my brothers." Using that logic Mary Jo Kopechne was killed by an Oldsmobile.

D2D, I didn't really mean that guns themselves kill people. I was poking fun at that idiot mindset.
Not very well, I'll admit. :O)
The "ban everything" mentality just makes me see red.

Hey D2D, with the use of passive voice, you got a twofer:

Mary Jo Kopechne was killed by an Oldsmobile

You ought to be in marketing or public relations. You have a true gift for obfuscation!

I live in a community, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA, that has a peculiar ordinance: it requires all heads of households to possess a firearm. The ordinance was enacted in response to rising crime rates due to criminals coming in from nearby Atlanta (to be fair, it was also probably enacted as a result of a bit of libertarianism, red-neck-ism, or both).

The ordinance has been successful, by all credible accounts I have read, in that crime promptly dropped substantially.

Florida enjoyed similar results, when it passed its concealed-carry laws described by another poster above.

BANNING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM OWNING GUNS MEANS ONLY CRIMINALS AND BODYGUARDS PROTECTING IMPORTANT MEMBERS OF THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY WILL BE ARMED.

Let's amend this slightly:

BANNING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM OWNING GUNS MEANS ONLY CRIMINALS AND BODYGUARDS PROTECTING IMPORTANT MEMBERS OF THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY AND LYING, HYPOCRITICAL PRESS LEFTIES WILL BE ARMED.

Yeah, he's talkin' to you, Rosie. I don't see anyone else around, do you? My addendum is, of course, an homage to the dearly departed loony lefty screaming anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan, busted for exercising the 2nd Amendment rights he so dearly wanted to deny his fellow African-Americans in DC. They just happened to be guilty of the crime of being poor and living in bad neighborhoods. "Just dumb n*****s undeserving of full citizenship rights" was his thinking, I suppose.

These new handgun laws would have no influence on the figures for handgun homicides from 1999-2002 as they are NEW laws. Therefore to see the effect these laws will have we will have to wait a while, so that reference is irrelevant.

Also suspicious is the reference to "Sydney's most populated areas". Why didn;t they just give the figures for Sydney? Or Australia, seeing as though the Port Arthur-inspired laws were Federal.

It seems as though I might be a tad pinko with this issue but I do think guns suck and we shouldn't have them.

No Brian people using guns killed Ted Kennedy's brothers and Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne using an Oldsmobile.

I thought gun ownership was illegal in Austrailia. What's up with people having them down under? How can you make something more illegal than it already is?

Hey, let's give a break to those using a little levity, okay?

My favorite thing to ban because they cause death would be ball-point pens. According the the CDC at least 100 people have died from sucking on them. (I think they inhale the cap and it lodges in the trachea, but the report doesn't say.) Of course, we could always think of it as evolution in action.

As for Gabor, check the coincidence of armed crime rates and gun laws in Britain. As gun laws have gotten tougher, crime using guns has risen even more rapidly. I grew up in a heavily armed rural community. The crime rate was negligible, and just about none of it involved guns.

..but I do think guns suck and we shouldn't have them.

Okay now, fun's over. Be a good little kid and get off your daddy's computer now.

The one thing that absolutely scares the shit out of me more than than a criminal with a gun is wheb only the police and armed forces have guns. That is a recipe for tyranny.

I think acne sucks and no one should have it. I propose we make a law banning it. That way only criminals will have pimples.

Weapons of Mass Destruction don't kill people, people kill people. So what's all this hoo ha about weapons of mass destruction?

Criminals aren't sourcing their guns from highly regulated sources. The source, one understands, is smuggling from decent types like the IRA.Why would it be otherwise? Or is it to be assumed a crim kindly obliges by applying for a licence, then acquiring a firearm from a retail store, then registers it, satisfying all compliance regulations, then goes on their crime spree? What a bloody joke.

Look at the crime gangs running around Melbourne carrying firearms not for sporting reasons but as weapons.Bye the bye, one is truly mystified what police forces are for, what with thug unions, criminal gangs, S11 `anti-globalist' protestors smashing property whenever they hold a `peaceful protest', greenies spiking trees to cause injury or maiming or death when a log cuts into a spiked tree, oh and the senior officers who warned another criminal gang aboard the Tas. ferry, of an impending raid by CIB, what in the blazes is going on. Why is the taxpayer compelled to pay for zippo on the crime front and instead law abiding citizens bear the full brunt of coercive money grabbing governments. What a first rate joke.

And what was the Church about giving hardened crims and killers christian burials, as those of recent weeks. Another frigging joke.

pezza, you're a genius. Never seen someone miss the point so completely.
"all this hoo-ha about weapons of mass destruction" is precisely BECAUSE people kill people. And a loony with WMD would be able to kill an awful lot of 'em in one hit.
But...to confuse an issue of national security with the liberties of law-abiding citizens is being either deliberately obtuse or just plain confused.
Nobody is arguing that mom and pop should be allowed to collect tactical nukes.Or anthrax spores.
A firearm in the house is the sensible, minimum level of protection against thugs and criminals. Any government demanding the "right" to disarm citizens is implying that it will assume the responsibility for the protection of those citizens.
It can't.

Good one pezza. I propose that all countries should have WMD's, that way no will want to take the chance attacking anyone else resulting in world peace!

I think the new laws don't do far enough- what about rubber bands? They can be used to project a straightened-out paperclip, or a deadly wadded pice of paper; you could have someone's eye out. And on the subject of ball-point pens, what about the casings for disposable pens? these can be used to fire dangerous spitballs, which may cause the spread of SARS.
On a related subject, Transport Authorities have banned fuzzy dice, dancing Elvis' and nodding dogs from motor vehicles- about time, these deadly items encourage Bevan-like behaviour such as doing peel-outs from the bottle-shop.

Might be a redundancy, on rubber bands,pens and paper clips , Paul: already catered for by those zoos-prisons called schools and the numerous dork ubniversities. All that is needed is to erect 100 feet high walls around them to keep the inmates in.

all this hoo-ha about weapons of mass destruction" is precisely BECAUSE people kill people. And a loony with WMD would be able to kill an awful lot of 'em in one hit.

A loony like a Martin Bryant perhaps, or a Julian Knight or the kids from columbine. Guns can kill a lot of people in one hit too and that is why they are heavily restricted in Australia and why the previous post is ridiculous. I can't remember any massacres using rubber bands or fluffy dice. I'm sorry law abiding citizens have to forego some liberties to make sure that whacko's like Martin Bryant can't go into the local store, buy a semi-automatic shotgun and slaughter a bunch of people having lunch, but that's the price to pay.

Well, pezza, governments, each tier of them, have over the decades, found one more reason to eliminate more real common law grounded freedom.
To draw more than an analogy because bound up with it: those who assert, they are happy to pay more taxes for increases in government consumption.
Noticed anything , Pezza: most of them dont' pay taxes full stop, the incomes they recieve from government are extracted by taxation from those who produce things and thus generate wealth. In return the powers granted to the ATO to enforce the grab certainly conflict with common law. But what do we hear from screaming pillock for brains dumbos .... but the sacrifice of common law freedoms is worth the price to prevent tax evasion. Bullocks and more-over, there is no crime in people attempting to ensure the tax man does not grab as much of their assets and products( which is what money measures) as possible.

Yep, Pezza , let's make Australia so safe that , really, and truly, some big morally pure government `professional' should actually be housed in everyone's home just to make sure they do nothing not approved by ... who... well the very twats who decide for some mystical reason they are free to eliminate common law freedom, which, at bottom is what really gets up theirsnot filled nostrils.

> I can't remember any massacres using rubber bands or fluffy dice.

In the US, the most effective mass killers use fire.

Does Australia have match and/or flammable liquid control?

Second place goes to folks who use cars to mow down crowds of pedestrians. What stops Australian cars from being used that way?

For sheer numbers of people killed, however the American champs are serial killers, not mass killers.

American SKs tend to use knives and other weapons of strength. Are all Australians equally strong?

Our most successful? SK up to date, Ivan Milat, used a variety- knives, handguns and a Ruger Mini 14. Use of the firearms was superfluous, as his victims were mostly lightly-built backpackers, and Milat was a hormone monster. The fact is, these mutants will use whatener they have to hand, and if one of Milat's intended victims had a 9mm in their backpack, Ivan would be in a well deserved hole rather than costing taxpayers money to feed. Re Martin Bryant, my dear old (deceased) Dad, a former Lt. Colonel in the Australian Army used to always carry a Lee Enfield .303 in the boot of his car, with a clip in the spare wheel well; he said at the time if he, or some-one like him had been at Port Arthur that day, Marty might have got two or three, but he would have found himself with several extra holes in his person shortly there-after. He was always suspect of a government that dis-arms its population, and I share that cynicism.

Pezza keeps ignoring the one huge, massive, extremely large, obvious fallacy in the gun-control pusher's argument: the majority of gun problems are caused by criminals with guns, not law-abiding gun owners. Criminals do not obey any laws. Criminals tend to obtain their guns through illegal means. If the laws already on the books aren't stopping them from doing this, what makes you think even more laws will stop them?

As for the oft-cited Columbine-type rampage being used as proof that no one should own guns, the incidences of lawful gun-owners going on a berserk killing rage are quite rare compared to the number of crimes committed every day with illegally obtained guns. There are already laws against murdering people with anything; that fact has not been known to stop crazed snipers in their tracks. It's a straw man argument.

I read in the paper recently about a guy from Yale who has written a book about the inverse relationship between gun control and crime frequency. Apparently he started out in favour of gun control but changed his mind after being asked to teach a subject on it in Yale Law School. The report said he is now a gun owner.

As for libertarians and guns, the basic philosophy is that you only ban actions that hurt others. Ergo: owning guns fine, shooting people bad. Equally: taking drugs fine, shoving them down another guy's throat bad.

The last gun buy-back fiasco resulted in a shit-load of weapons turning up on the black market- they were fetching a better price than the buy-back was paying. It also had a flow-on effect on our neighbours; the "raskols" in PNG who mainly used machetes,home-made shotguns and cane knives found they could trade Highlands grown dope for semi-autos and pump action shotguns, illegal in Australia after Pt Arthur. Now the buggers are well tooled up, and law and order no longer exists. The Chinese take-away at Mt. Hagen is behind an eight-foot besser-block wall with razor wire and a steel gate, with patroling armed guards- image if they opened a MacDonalds- the counter-jumpers would need kevlar, and the chip cook would have an RPG tucked in his apron.
Meanwhile, there are shootings weekly here, and there seems to be more hand-guns than ever; whenever a member of the 5T gets thrown out of a nightclub, out pops a 9mm and they start blazing.
Huge success- as Tex has commented, just like drug prohibition.

Its on subjects like this that the Americans stand out. Australia does not have a gun culture, guns are rare here. To suggest everyone in a town has to own a gun makes me distinctly uncomfortable. I don't know where stats come from that suggest gun crime is out of control - I've been a cop in Sydney for ten years, three of them investigating armed robberies, and I can assure you that offences with firearms are very uncommon. One individual on a gun crime spree creates a significant blip in gun crime stats because they are so rare. A rise from ten to fifteen offences is a 50% rise, which of course sounds impressive, but it can be created by one person and does not herald the end of the world.

Legislation isn't going to control criminals - and prohibition isn't going to work until sentences get enforced, be it for drugs or guns.

Gun control works for us in Australia, only because of the lack of guns in circulation. If I was in the states I would not be happy about gun control either - I don't think Americans would hand their firearms in the way Australians did.

Anyway, I've got to go to work and repress the population. Unlike American cops I won't be wearing a bullet resistant vest. People here don't tend to have guns or shoot at us and I'm safe in the knowledge that the last policemen killed by a firarm (Ambushed by a lunatic) was six years ago. I wonder if cops in the largest city in the states would feel so safe? (Is it ok to use a question mark, I have avoided exclamation marks so as not to offend)

Actually, believe it or not, cops here in the shoot-'em-up USA don't to to work every day in kevlar vests either. I don't know where you got that idea.

I realize that Australia has a different culture re guns than the US. But saying gun laws are effective because there aren't that many guns in your country doesn't really mean anything. There are several antiquated laws still on the books here and there that could said to be "successful" because no one does the things they prohibit.

Gilly makes a very good point. I am arguing for gun control in Australia, not America and I don't necessarily think it would work over there.

Andrea, I'm not ignoring anything here. I know criminals will still get a hold of guns and most gun crimes are committed by criminals. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to control them.

You say:
As for the oft-cited Columbine-type rampage being used as proof that no one should own guns, the incidences of lawful gun-owners going on a berserk killing rage are quite rare compared to the number of crimes committed every day with illegally obtained guns.

Do you think I don't know this? The point is that their not rare enough. And these incidents have become much rarer in Australia since gun controls were tightened following Port Arthur. Also harking back to Gilly's point, I would suggest that rampage shootings made up a much larger proportion of gun related deaths in Australia prior to 1996 than is the case in the US. I should also point out that this by and large is not a right/left issue here like it is in the States. A large percentage of liberal voters (as opposed to liberals) here are in favour of gun control measures.

The cars kill more people and can be used as weapons argument is also not a valid one in my opinion. The issue is benefit to the community. For all the dangers posed by guns what benefit are they to the community? I would argue very little (even though I know many will disagree with me).

Port Arthur was the one and only major gun rampage ever- there was the postal looney in Melbourne, Julian Knight in Hoddle St(who would still be able to do the same, as he was in the Army Reserve) and a ratbag in a Sydney shopping centre- none of whom were exectly Charles Starkweather. Funny that Switzerland, where EVERYONE is armed has had only one recorded case of someone running amok, and he only shot politicians.

I am in favour of gun registration but remember that a crim will be less willing to brake into your house if they think you have a gun and the gun by back mite give them the impression that there is less deterrent. And remember the principle of being guilty after the fact and not before.

This is a misuse of numbers to lead to a wrong conclusion.Firstly an increase in gun robberies in a small geographical area proves nothing - there may have been more crims or lazier cops or better reporting of crime.
What is important is the total no of gun deaths (accidental or otherwise ) and these have gone down .
The next logical step forward is a UNIFORM gun law under commonwealth control.
Another alternative is to adopt the Malaysian solution . If you have a gun and the cops see you with it they are entitled to shoot with no questions asked - it works a treat

"Another alternative is to adopt the Malaysian solution . If you have a gun and the cops see you with it they are entitled to shoot with no questions asked - it works a treat."

Man I would not want to live in a country where the cops were "entitled" to anything. That would be worse than in Britain where burglars are "entitled" to other people's property.

> Another alternative is to adopt the Malaysian solution . If you have a gun and the cops see you with it they are entitled to shoot with no questions asked - it works a treat.

It's not often that you see someone openly support giving low-level govt agents blanket permission to kill. (The only folks who I've seen do so are actual fascists and leftists.)

Even dumb 'murrican cops know how to turn that "alternative" into permission to kill anyone they please. (Planting a gun is easy but "I saw one" usually works well enough by itself.)

The statistics that Tim has quoted to support gun rights are selective and misleading. Not one pro-gun lobbyist in this comments thread has directly challenged Gabor's contention. JorgXMcKie made a nice deflection and Bashir Gemayel was reduced to ad hominem attacks. I want someone to answer these questions:
1) Why did the quote only mention Sydney's most populated areas, when what actually matters is the overall figures for Australia?
2) Why was it that figures from 1999 to 2002 were quoted, when the new gun laws were in fact introduced in 1997? Any conclusive statistic would make a comparison with pre-gun law figures.
I will tell you why. Because the author is making a case by selecting the statistics he likes. Say what you like about other statistics, but these are flawed.

D2D,
Cops already have "entitlements", if you want to call it that. We as society must grant cops a certain amount of authority to make big calls because we acknowledge that their job is dangerous and difficult. Unfortunately very few people respect that authority.

> We as society must grant cops a certain amount of authority to make big calls because we acknowledge that their job is dangerous and difficult.

No, that's not why we do it, or at least it shouldn't be. Authority to make big calls is not appropriate compensation. Danger and difficulty is grounds for good pay, unless, of course, there's no problem finding folks to do the job for less.

Gary

In actual fact a crim is less likely to break into your house if he simply knows there is a person home, gun or no gun. The vast majority of home break and enters occur while no one is home.

Andrea, I do actually believe the gun laws are effective due to a lack of guns and a lack of gun culture. No laws work unless basically everyone believes them to be a good idea. Legislation banning killing another person is not what controls the populations homicidal tendencies, it just provides a mechanism to imprison those individuals who feel the need to kill others. Most of us can grasp the concept that killing another person is wrong, without the government passing a law to remind us.

To those that suggest matches, flammable liquid, along with the very dangerous straightend out paper clip are just as capable of killing as a gun, nice one! Thats why our infantry are armed with those things and not rifles, lets be serious.

Phred said "Firstly an increase in gun robberies in a small geographical area proves nothing - there may have been more crims or lazier cops or better reporting of crime" Which is the most accurate thing anyone has posted - then he followed it with that weird stuff about following that crazy Malaysian law, which was probably the most inaccurate.

In a nutshell, if I lived in a country where everyone else was armed, I would want to be armed as well - but I don't, and frankly I'd like to keep it that way.

Oh by the way Tim, whats this quoting UN figures business, one gun per nine people or something - what a crock. I've a mate who lives on the land who I go shooting with, he must have 30 firearms, all for doing different jobs, they are just tools afterall. If you take primary producers, sporting shooters and all the firearms they own out of the equation, then I wonder what the figure would be, one per 500, one per 1000 maybe.