Tea Party and the Occupy Movement

[Gerald Lively]

A cut & paste about gun control in Australia:

On 28 April 1996 a mentally disturbed man slew 35 people in cold blood, and left 23 more wounded. The killer, Martin Bryant, showed no mercy.
 
Port Arthur is a historic prison colony tourist site in the state of Tasmania, Australia. That day Martin Bryant first murdered a couple in a nearby bed and breakfast hotel before heading to Port Arther and slaughtering 12 people eating lunch at a cafe, 8 people in a gift shop adjacent to the cafe, 4 people in the car park outside the cafe, 7 people on the way up a toll booth at the entrance to the site, a lady at a nearby service station, and her boyfriend at a nearby house whom Bryant had taken hostage.
 
The tragedy which became known as the Port Arthur Massacre was one of the worst shootings to occur in Australian history.

Bryant then got back into his car and proceeded to leave the car park. Witnesses say he was sounding the horn and waving, others say he was also firing. Bryant drove along Jetty Road towards the toll booth where a number of people were running away. Bryant passed by at least two people. Ahead of him were Nanette Mikac (née Moulton) and her two young children, Madeline, 3, and Alannah, 6 years old. Nanette was carrying Madeline and Alannah was running slightly ahead. By now they had run approximately 600 metres from the car park. Bryant opened his door and slowed down. Mikac moved towards the car, apparently thinking he was offering them help in escaping. Several more people witnessed this from further down the road. Someone then recognised him as the gunman and yelled out "It's him!". Bryant stepped out of the car, put his hand on Nanette Mikac's shoulder and told her to get on her knees. She did so, saying, "Please don't hurt my babies".
 Bryant shot her in the temple, killing her, before firing a shot at Madeline, which hit her in the shoulder, before shooting her fatally through the chest. Bryant shot twice at Alannah, as she ran behind the tree, missing. He then walked up, pressed the barrel of the gun into her neck and fired, killing her instantly.
 Martin Bryant used an AR-15 assault rifle to kill 12 people within 15 seconds. Some of the victims did not even know there was a gunman before they died. Others had no time other than to stand up and receive a bullet to the brain, or to try and duck under their tables and hope the bullets wouldn't kill them.
 James Holmes used a Smith and Wesson M&P15, a variant of the AR-15. Many of the victims did not even know he was a gunman before they were killed.
 
The Australian people were shocked and appalled, and the Australian Government - unworried by the political strength of the National Rifle Association - acted strongly. In fact it was actually the conservative Government at the time that introduced the new laws. They were even successful in undermining the local pro-gun lobby by leaking to the media that these local organisations were receiving financial assistance from the NRA!
 
Self-loading and semi-automatic handguns and rifles were banned. Self-loading, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were banned or prohibited. Every weapon used by Holmes in his killing spree are currently banned in Australia.

 
Just try taking this shopping list of weapons used by the Aurora killer to a local Bega sports or firearms shop and see how far you get: Remington 870 12-guage pump action shotgun, AR-15 assault rifle, and a Glock .40 calibre handgun.
 In New South Wales they are prohibited weapons.
 
Even the bullet proof vest and leggings worn by the gunman are scheduled as prohibited weapons in NSW.
 
In Colorado however these are all available from numerous gun shops, with the kind of assault rifle used in the Aurora massacre currently on special in one Denver area gun shop web site for only $999.99, apparently one of the shops used by the Colorado gunman.
 Under direction from the Australian Federal Government each state government introduced an amnesty and gun buy-back scheme. Owners of now illegal guns were able to turn their firearm in and receive market value compensation. Approximately 640,000 guns were taken out of circulation and destroyed. This reduced the stock of firearms in Australia by approximately one fifth.
 In the United States, this would be roughly the equivalent of 40 million weapons.
 
Strict new licencing criteria were introduced for the ownership of firearms. The only firearms that are available for general use are air rifles, rimfire rifles, single and double barrel shotguns, muzzle-loading firearms, single shot double barrel and repeating centrefire rifles, and break-action shotgun/rifle combinations. Every other firearm is either fully restricted, or prohibited to only those who can demonstrate a genuine occupational or official need.

 
Each reason requires rigorous proof, checking, and a 28 day approval process, and before applying you need complete approved firearms safety training.
 You cannot get a licence if:
 
You are subject to an Apprehended Violence Order or for 10 years after the expiry of an AVO  You are on a good behaviour bond for a prescribed offence  You are subject to a firearms or weapons prohibition order  You have been convicted within the last 10 years for an offense prescribed by the regulations
 
If you succeed in getting a firearms permit then you will need to get a Permit to Acquire (PTA) a firearm.
 
All firearms transactions, both purchase and disposal, must be witnessed by a licensed NSW Firearms Dealer.
 
The dealer will send the completed paperwork to the NSW Firearms Registry.
 
And you can only get a firearm in the same category for which you have a firearm licence.
 Most importantly of all - it worked. Prohibition of military style weapons, a massive buy-back for those weapons that had been made illegal, very strict licence and issuing conditions. This led to a decrease in firearm suicides in Australia from 2.2 people per 100,000 in 1995, to 0.8 people per 100,000 in 2006. Firearm homicides dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006. These are drops of 65% and 59% respectively.
 There were some 13 mass shootings in Australia between 1979 and 1996. Since 1997 there have been none. In Australia the public and government acted swiftly to make sure something similar could never happen again. In America Louie Gohmert wonders why more people didn't bring a gun to the cinema.
 
Veronica Moser-Sullivan was six years old when a bullet from a military grade weapon ended her life. The same age as little Alannah Mikac. Alannah's mother was killed. Veronica's mother lies injured and paralysed on a hospital bed grieving for her daughter.
 
There should be no doubt about the need for a gun control law for Veronica's sake. Otherwise this will happen again.

[okarol]

Wow!
Did you miss your Metamuscil or something?

I don't know who this directed at, but it does nothing for the discussion.
 

[Gerald Lively]

Ya don't say!  Your post was a downer too!

[okarol]

Ya don't say!  Your post was a downer too!

Gee thanks. 

[Willis]

A cut & paste about gun control in Australia: ....

Well thankfully we have the 2nd Amendment. In a country of 300 million+ like the U.S. with 24/7/365 "news" coverage from a dozen national outlets every incident gets repeated over and over until it becomes background noise. Then the "next guy" has to do something bigger and more brazen than the ones before to get attention. If it wasn't an AR-15 it would have been something else just as deadly. Most people don't realize that the worst mass murder in U.S. history by an individual perpetrator was in 1927 when a suicide bomber blew up 38 children and teachers at a school in Michigan.

In 2011 there were 32,885 traffic fatalities. There's something like 65,000-75,000 ESRD related deaths per year in the U.S. These numbers are meaningless to most of us because we would shrivel up into little balls of neurotic goo and huddle in a corner at home if we contemplated the true danger of just driving to the post office. Only because shootings like the one in Colorado are so rare do they get so much attention (like commercial aircraft crashes).

I don't mean to minimize the pain and suffering of those involved in the shooting and the perp deserves to be crucified (really, yes, actually publically crucified...maybe that would get these bastards to think twice about going on such rampages). But we shouldn't let statistics rule our lives in fear to the point where we give up all liberty for the sake of safety. It's impossible for life to be 100% safe--we are all going to die of something. Measures to try to insure 100% safety just take away more and more liberty from those who mostly are NOT the threats to public safety. Things are getting to the point that I'm actually more afraid of government regulators and law enforcement than I am of random acts of irrational violence.

 

[MooseMom]

My dad was a gun owner and a member of the NRA.  I have plenty of relatives who enjoy hunting and are responsible gun owners.  I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.  While I am not a hunter nor a collector of firearms nor a fan of target shooting, I am not an enemy of those who are.  But for the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would want to buy 6000 rounds of ammo off the internet, purchase military grade protective armor or have an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons unless you intend to cause harm.  Could someone please explain this to me?  Why would someone want so much of this stuff?

Have Americans really become so frightened that we feel the need to arm ourselves to the teeth?  What is behind this irrational fear?  What happened to being the home of the brave? 

I despise the NRA with every fiber of my being because their only purpose is to manipulate the American people with fears of conspiracy and God knows what else.  But like I've said before, it is our own fault for allowing this massive lobbying group to scare us and to manipulate us into giving vast amounts of money to them and to gun manufacturers.

I also am deeply disappointed that we have turned into a society of "I have the right to do whatever I damn well please" (Insert "freedom and liberty" here) and no longer wish to act in the common good.  What I would really like to see is, to show care and support for those victims in Colorado, for Americans to willingly disarm themselves or, at the very least, reduce the size of their personal arsenals.

What the second amendment safeguards is a "well regulated militia".  What we have now is NOT what the Constitution outlines, but the NRA conveniently forgets that.

[Bill Peckham]

I don't mean to minimize the pain and suffering of those involved in the shooting and the perp deserves to be crucified (really, yes, actually publically crucified...maybe that would get these bastards to think twice about going on such rampages).
 

This is a terrible idea. The opportunity to be publicly crucified would increase the number of these tragedies. In general, in the moment news coverage of these events should not include any talk about the gunman. None. And after the fact he should just disappear into supermax oblivion.

This under 3 minute video makes some important points about how to make doing these things less appealing through more disciplined news coverage http://youtu.be/PezlFNTGWv4 from 1:45 on it makes the most important points.

As far as gun control in the US, I don't  think anyone is saying no guns, just less lethal guns. It should be obvious that if fully automatic weapons were available legally that is what would have been used - I mean there are a lot of military weapons that would have been far deadlier. So regulations making them hard to get and illegal to own makes us safer. Thus, we can make gun laws that make us safer.

I think everyone should have full access to any weapon available in 1789, after that I think we should talk about it and regulate to our interests. Drum magazines?

[Gerald Lively]

The NRA is saying we should not publicize these tragic events.  Willis’ post sounds like a mimic of those instructions.

The Supreme Court Justice Scalia commented on the Second Amendment, “The Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership but that does not mean guns cannot be regulated.”

[jbeany]

The NRA has ulterior motives for not wanting press coverage - but the idea that we don't spend so much time and energy focused on the nut case isn't a bad one.  Unfortunately, the media feeds us all the details because so many people want to see them.  At some level, we all are hoping the next whacked-out fact will answer that one question that doesn't have an answer - "Why?"  Crazy doesn't need a reason, though.

MM, like you, I grew up around gun owners.  I married into NRA family central - my former father-in-law owns a gun shop.  He's a long-time NRA member, but even he was okay when Michigan law made background checks for mental illness a requirement for gun ownership.  He said that in all the years he's been selling guns, no one ever needed one so quickly that they couldn't wait a day for the crazy-check to come back.  He didn't have any problem with the idea of reporting multiple purchases of weapons that either were or could be made automatic to the feds either.  Really, if one of your neighbors is stock-piling hundreds of automatic weapons, who wouldn't prefer that someone check into it? 

Again, I'm stuck in no-man's land in the middle of a political debate.  The NRA wants no restrictions, while the opposite side would prefer they all be melted into slag.  I think people should be allowed to own firearms, but I also think there should be reasonable restrictions on them. 

[KarenInWA]

Here's one of my many takes on this whole gun/ammo issue. We have to show ID when we buy Sudafed, have our name put in some kind of database that keeps track of how much Sudafed we buy, and the local police/sheriff are notified if we buy too much (please note: I have not looked into how this is officially done). We also have to go to the pharmacy counter to purchase Sudafed.

However, when your crazy, demented neighbor, who hasn't been treated for his craziness, and has never broken the law, so therefore, can pass a background check if given one, can go to local gun stores and buy semi-automatic weapons, go online and buy thousands of rounds of ammo for said guns, stockpile them in his attached-to-his-neighbors apartment home, buy the materials he did to rig said apartment with bombs/explosions, decorate himself in fancy body armour gear, have his canisters of tear gas to confuse the crowd even more (let's face it, this guy was brilliant in pulling off his scheme) and some people are all in a tuzzle because "OH NO, we can't lose our freedom and liberty!!!!!!" Um, where's my freedom and liberty when my potential crazy neighbor could be stockpiling all this stuff and putting my home, health and safety at risk if I happen to be the unlucky sucker in one of the apartments attached to his??? What about MY rights??? (and, of course, the rights of ALL citizens to be able to go to a movie and ensure that they see the whole movie and walk out of the theater alive and uninjured so they can go home and go on with their lives. Same thing to be said for anything else in life, really). Does this now mean that I, as an American, now have to be worried about the random crazy person who is going to come to where I am and shoot up everybody because of their own anger and frustration at the world? Remember, a smaller version of this just happened recently in Seattle, then there was the AZ shootings in Jan of last year. These were all individuals who obtained their arsenal "legally". (Seattle gun guy had a record, but he purchased his guns/permit before all of that, and local officials would not take it away.) One of the women shot by that Seattle freak was dropping off a friend at a different location then the Cafe. He wanted to steal her car. He did, but only after he killed her. He ended up killiing himself in front of the cops.

I am disgusted with all of this crap. When the 2nd Ammendment was written, we did not have semi-automatic weapons and magazines, so I don't see how those items can be covered under it.

I want Americans to have the freedom to be protected from the crazy, gun and ammo collecting crazies. Sounds like Australians have that freedom. Must be nice...

KarenInWA

[Willis]

Some alternate viewpoints if anyone cares to read them. I'll just post the links to save space.

http://stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts

 

[MooseMom]

Willis, thanks so much for those links.  I found the Stephen Halbrook article of particularly interest because he references the horrible, shocking shooting in Dunblane, Scotland.  I was living in London at the time, and I can tell you from firsthand experience how deeply that experience affected the entire British population.  Yes, the end result was a weapons ban, but at least at the time, the public supported that.

I am not terribly sure how relevent these reports are of how different countries handle private ownership of guns.  Switzerland may be awash in privately held guns, but no one in their right mind believes that Swiss society and cultural values are the same as those in the US.  Switzerland does not have the same cultural history of pioneering and the Wild West, etc, that holds the use of guns so dear.  There is something about American US culture, both past and present, that is vastly different from that of Switzerland.  These studies about guns and crime in other countries just reinforce my suspicion that there is something uniquely frightening and FEARFUL about Americans that make us particularly prone to horrific gun violence.  Why are mass shootings on school campuses and movie theaters and malls so common in the US but so rare in someplace like Switzerland?  Willis, what do you suppose is the reason for this?  I'd be really interested to hear your theories.

Willis, what do you think has made Americans so fearful?  What do you suppose we are so frightened of?  Anyone have any ideas?  What is so different about American culture/society from, say, Swiss culture/society that makes it so much more likely for you to be shot in the US than in Switzerland, despite the fact that Switzerland is more "armed"?