verging_on_random

50 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I’d add to this the idea of “property”, its sanctity, and the need to protect it. In a society which venerates consumption, accumulation, and individual wealth, it is only natural that, once you’ve got your hands on all the stuff that you need, you have a responsibility to keep others from taking it. I agree with your point about paranoia. It goes like this: I have what I want, surely everyone else wants the same, so I have to protect it myself. I reckon this is at the root of fear of socialist ideas, too: they’ll take my stuff.

   Comment by Damian — March 13, 2008 #

2. I think Rusty has a good response for you.

   http://rustmeister.blogspot.com/2008/03/clueless-aussie.html

   Comment by Madrocketscientist — March 14, 2008 #

3.  Thanks for the link dude. It illustrates my point nicely:

   It’s a fact that there are people who would attack me if only they get half a chance. What should I do? Let them have their way, or defend myself and my family.

   What a nasty Hobbesian world these people inhabit. Or maybe the guy writing this stuff deals drugs or something, who knows?

   Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 #

4. Wow, an ad hominem attack right off the bat! Good job. Guess that’s all you have when the facts are against you.

   Would you care to take my challenge?

   Of course, living in Oz, there are no home invasions, robberies, assaults, etc., are there? Everybody just holds hands and sings Kum-By-Ya, right?

   The world I inhabit is only potentially nasty, I simply choose to recognize that for what it is. You can choose the “it only happens to someone else” mindset if you wish, but you do so at your peril.

   Comment by Rustmeister — March 14, 2008 #

5. I had a read of that, Rustmeister. I love the bit about how US foreign policy is not, what, aggressive enough? Classic.

   Sorry, mate, but your raving about people wanting to get you - without any evidence at all - is paranoia. That’s what paranoia means.

   The thing is that you happen to live in one of the most secure nations in the world. You have food security, you have reliable infrastructure, you have a democratic system of sorts, you have functioning armed forces and police and emergency response forces. Yet you still don’t feel safe enough!

   And that’s where the parallel with US foreign policy is most pronounced. How many Camp Bonsteels will the US government need, how many missile defence systems will it need, how much money must be spent on arms before the US feels safe in the world?

   The same paranoia that has you clutching your guns is the driving force behind the world’s largest military machine. Is it really making you safer?

   Comment by Damian — March 14, 2008 #

6. You classify that as an ad hominem attack? Wow dude, you really are paranoid!!!

   Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 #

7. Calling me a drug dealer? Yes, it is a personal attack.

   Damian, the Nuke the Moon thing was a humor piece. Although I would be considered a “hawk”, my views are a bit more serious than that. I was just poking fun at what I thought was a silly remark on the part of the author of this post. I don’t discuss foreign policy with people in other countries. I’ve found that to be an exercise in futility.

   As for paranoia, take the challenge I put in comments. Then tell me I’m paranoid.

   Comment by Rustmeister — March 14, 2008 #

8. Rust, I’ll happily take your challenge. Won’t prove much. All societies throughout history have known violent crime of varying degrees. Just because we have the interwebs and mass media to tell us all to be scared doesn’t mean that our societies are any more violent than they used to be.

   You love your guns, they make you feel good, and you can protect the stuff you own. Any justification will do, but why not just tell the truth?

   You’re right, however, about discussing foreign policy. If you wanted to convince me that the US’ military activities and expenditure is somehow justified then it would indeed be an exercise in futility.

   Comment by Damian — March 14, 2008 #

9. The intriguing question about Rusty’s post is: how did he even know about an insignificant blog in Australia? His post was up within hours of mine.

   Does the gun nuts’ paranoia extend to endlessly searching the intertubes for impure thoughts, just so they can reaffirm their own righteousness? Maybe they have web crawler software do it for them, a kind of gunlovers’ equivalent of The Inquisition engaged in an eternal quest for heresy.

   An American expat living in the Philippines responded to the bloke I quoted in my post: “You and your guns should both stay home you sad frightened man.” Amen.

   Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 #

10. “All societies throughout history have known violent crime of varying degrees.”

    You just made my point. I choose to be able to defned myself is all.

    “but why not just tell the truth?”

    I am telling the truth. Just because it’s not what you want to hear doesn’t make it false.

    Administrator, (if that is your real name), it’s called Google News Alerts. I actually started writing my response before I noticed you were in Oz. Like foreign policy, I usually don’t debate gun ownership with people in other countries, unless it’s a debate over which caliber is better for bringing down Cape Buffalo.

    I do this because I don’t want my country winding up like others - disarmed and helpless.

    How’s that violent crime rate doing down there, by the way?

    Comment by Rustmeister — March 15, 2008 #

11. “His post was up within hours of mine.

    Does the gun nuts’ paranoia extend to endlessly searching the intertubes for impure thoughts, just so they can reaffirm their own righteousness?”

    It’s called Google Alerts.

    However, I’m unclear on something. So, I keep a gun to defend myself in the event that I experience a home invasion, and that makes me paranoid. Does keeping a fire extinguisher on hand in the event of a fire also make me paranoid? Both circumstances aren’t very likely, so how do I know if I’m being paranoid or just being prepared?

    Comment by Ahab — March 15, 2008 #

12. As Ahab noted, you apparently feel that only the paranoid would wear a seat belt when driving their car. After all, your odds of being in an accident are reasonably low so why should you spend any time or effort in preparing for one?

    I think the divide on guns breaks down along the lines of whose problem you think things are.

    If you feel that the State is supposed to take care of things for you then you’re likely to not see why someone would want to own a gun.

    If you think you have to be responsible for yourself then you’re more likely to see guns as simple tools and evaluate whether or not you think you might need one - or more.

    Comment by KCSteve — March 15, 2008 #

13. I carry a gun because I’m a free man.

    If I expect to maintain that freedom, I have to be willing and have the means to defend it. The gun does that.

    Allow me to correct a misunderstanding about the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is part of that is common misunderstanding within and outside the United States. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights that were pre-existing before it was enacted. Those rights don’t come from government or a sovereign. They came from God and all free men possess them. The Bill of Rights is supposed to restrain government.

    Our government has been infringing on our gun rights and we have started to take them back. There is a court case called Heller v. DC that is being heard by our Supreme Court. Its an important gun case. If you want to learn about the gun laws in the US, check out the briefs filed in that case ….. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

    In particular, check out my gun-groups filing … GeorgiaCarry.Org It talks about how gun control was used to persecute the blacks during slavery and afterward.

    The 2nd Amendment position of a politician tell us alot about whether they will honor our other rights …. free speech … protection from unreasonable searches .. etc.

    Here’s an interesting statistic. The NRA has 4M - 5M members. When people are asked if they are members in surveys, the implied membership is over 30M. Alot of Americans think they are member of the NRA, even though they don’t pay dues.

    I carry a gun (glock 23), especially when I’m with my daughter. I’m not a fighter and don’t know hand to hand fighting. I’m a middle aged professional (I work for a telecom company negotiating contracts). You’d love me as a neighbor and co-worker as I’m quite boring and peaceful. My hobbies include stock market trading, gardening and pistol competitions.

    I carry a gun to protect my daughter. I’m not paranoid, bad people are every where, including restaurants, schools, buses, and even Australia. A gun evens the odds against a stronger assailant. A free man is not free if he lives in fear of crime. The gun frees me from that fear.

    I carry a gun because I want to defend myself and not have to rely on others. I carry a gun because I am a free man.

    Comment by Mike123 — March 15, 2008 #

14. I don’t really feel particularly threatened by anything; statistically speaking, I’ve pretty much experienced all the crime I’m ever going to experience if I stay away from bad neighborhoods after dark. So I don’t feel the need to own a gun for protection from baddies or terrorists or invading armies.

    I feel the need to own guns because my doing so bugs the hell out of hippies halfway around the world so much that they write essays about it.

    Cheers, mate!

    Comment by Tam — March 15, 2008 #

15. me, i’m here because i read those other gun nuts’ blogs. i do that to keep tabs on my political opposition. hi there, i’m a member of that endangered species, the gun-nutty far leftist!

    i grew up in europe. granted, rural northern europe, but still — spent my first quarter century on the right side of the atlantic. then i emigrated to the USA, and promptly got culture shocked.

    i really don’t think you (specifically) can understand americans; unless a person spends several years here immersed in heartland U.S. culture, i don’t see how any other explanation of it can get through as deeply as it needs to.

    just please take my word for it that we — i’m americanized enough, now, that you wouldn’t see the difference in me, although Ahab and Rustmeister surely would — aren’t as crazy as we look. it’s not an insane worldview, just a profoundly different one. i hate to sound all american-exceptionalist, but the culture(s) here really are different from what’s de rigueur in old europe — and, apparently, in your Australia also.

    if the USA really has a problem with violence (it might well), then that cultural difference is much, much more likely to be the cause than any amount of steel and wood machine tools. trust me, americans would not be any safer a people if you swaddled them in foam and locked them in padded cells, much less then if you merely took away their weapons. they’d get more dangerous if you tried to disarm them, because they’d resent you for it. in fact, by the standards of american culture, they would rightly resent that sort of insult.

    besides… if you find yourself advocating a policy which even Niccolo Machiavelli in his day considered unwisely tyrannous, shouldn’t that fact alone be enough to set you thinking?

    Comment by Nomen Nescio — March 15, 2008 #

16. As an American we take our rights very seriously. Part of what makes America so different is that the citizens choose to retain the power and only delegate certain responsibilities to the government. In order to ensure that the federal government can not tyrannize it’s citizens. That may sound paranoiac, but what many people in other countries do not understand is how much that fear underlain the entire War of Independence and the foundation of our Republic.

    The entire American Revolution was from the British attempting to take Boston colonists powder stores. The Shot that was Heard around the World started the whole revolt.

    The British thought like you, that a bunch of rabble with muskets was no threat. But that rabble fought so well at the Battle at Breeds Hill June 17, 1775, that even though the British won it was considered a Pryhhic victory. The Americans were just a bunch of farmers and the British had 800 wounded and 228 killed before they took the hill. That was just farmers from the Boston area. British General Henry Clinton remarked in his diary that “A few more such victories would have surely put an end to British dominion in America.”

    From Wikipedia:
    .” On the night of June 16-17, Colonial Colonel William Prescott led 1,500 men onto the peninsula. At first, Putnam, Prescott, and their engineering officer, Captain Richard Gridley, disagreed as to where they should locate their defense. Breed’s Hill was viewed as much more defensible, and they decided to build their primary redoubt there. Prescott and his men, using Gridley’s outline, began digging a fortification 160 feet (50 m) long and 80 feet (25 m) wide with ditches and earthen walls. Benjamin Cotterell, a resident of a small settlement named Poestenkill, is said to have carried the first wheelbarrow of earth to the battle. They added ditch and dike extensions toward the Charles River on their right and began reinforcing a fence running to their left.
    In the early predawn, around 4 a.m., a sentry on board HMS Lively spotted the new fortification. Lively opened fire, temporarily halting the Colonists’ work. Aboard his flagship HMS Somerset, Admiral Samuel Graves awoke irritated by the gunfire which he had not ordered. He stopped it, only to reverse his decision when he got on deck and saw the works. He ordered all 128 guns in the harbor to fire on the Colonists’ position, but the broadsides proved largely ineffective since the guns could not be elevated enough to reach the fortifications.
    Across the narrow channel in Boston stood General Gage, his staff, and loyalist Abijah Willard. Upon looking through a telescope, Willard recognized his brother-in-law Colonel Prescott. “Will he fight?’ asked Gage. ‘I can’t speak for his men,’ replied Willard ‘ but Prescott will fight you to the gates of hell

    The colonists were able in one night put up such fortifications that the British were dumbfounded. The only thing that stopped the rebels were they ran out of gunpowder. That is where the statement came from “ Don’t shoot until you see the white of their eyes.” The colonists took 450 casualties of which of those, only 140 were killed. So your statement on how a “bunch of blokes with flano shirts with hunting rifles can turn back hoards of South Americans” does not fit with our history. Because just a bunch of blokes with hunting rifles managed to defeat the greatest military power at the time, the British Empire.

    Since that time, the United States has managed to win two World Wars and defeat the Germans and Japanese. I know that the Australians were a great help in the Pacific. But it was the American effort that won those two wars. It is the mindset of Americans that we take care of ourselves and that we can not only defend ourselves but sucessfully attack others that we consider a danger to our freedom. That mindset comes from our origins, Australia did not fight a war to get independence, it just slowly evolved.
    So the gun culture and the love that Americans have for their guns are part of what makes Americans different. That culture is directly derived from our history.
    Damien stated,”The thing is that you happen to live in one of the most secure nations in the world. You have food security, you have reliable infrastructure, you have a democratic system of sorts, you have functioning armed forces and police and emergency response forces. Yet you still don’t feel safe enough!” The reason we have all those things is that we created that by being free and we intend to stay that way by never allowing our government become like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Hitler’s Germany who first took the citizens guns away. We can, if needed, stop that from happening.
    Our Second Amendment protects all the other rights we have.

    Comment by RAH — March 15, 2008 #

17. and, see, when americans start talking about how american national sentiment all comes down to a half-hearted revolution two hundred years in the past, people from other countries start looking at us funny and wondering if we know what century we’re living in today and are we ever gonna get over the fact that George III not only lost that fight, but is dead.

    seriously, i think us ‘merkins have plenty of good enough arguments to stick to our guns anyway. such as, twenty years of steadily liberalized gun laws (shall-issue carry) in the vast majority of the states haven’t caused blood to flow in the streets, so what’s the harm in them? also, most citizens are trustworthy, so it’s patronizing and belittling not to trust them, and a secure state can’t be built on the government openly distrusting the people. just for two arguments right there.

    Comment by Nomen Nescio — March 15, 2008 #

18. They look at us funny when talk about our half hearted revolution from 200 years in the past? Why would they do that? Don’t they know we have guns and are paranoid?!

    Comment by J T Bolt — March 15, 2008 #

19. I guess we do have different perspectives. A couple of weeks ago when my wife and I went to a Mall here in Dallas to watch a movie, I told her that I might leave my concealed-carry pistol at home since it was kind of uncomfortable when I sat in a movie for a period of time.

    My dear lovely wife who is in her 60’s told me, “OK, but if some mad, crazed gunman starts shooting people in the mall you will be real disappointed that you don’t have your gun so you can shoot him.”

    Perhaps the difference is that we, Americans, are often ‘do it yourself’ people.

    Comment by OldTexan — March 15, 2008 #

20. How’s that violent crime rate doing down there, by the way?

    Since you ask:

    Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated) - first column is homicide, second column is suicide, third is other (mainly accidents):

    USA (2001)                     3.98     5.92     0.36
    Italy (1997)                     0.81     1.1       0.07
    Switzerland (1998)           0.50     5.8       0.10
    Canada (2002)                 0.4       2.0       0.04
    Finland (2003)                 0.35     4.45     0.10
    Australia (2001)               0.24     1.34     0.10
    France (2001)                  0.21     3.4       0.49
    England/Wales (2002)      0.15     0.2       0.03
    Scotland (2002)              0.06     0.2        0.02
    Japan (2002)                   0.02     0.04     0

    The incidence of gun-related deaths has declined even further since gun laws were tightened in 1996.

    And no, we don’t run round stabbing and slicing each other with knives and swords instead. They’re illegal too.

    Comment by Administrator — March 15, 2008 #

21. And no, we don’t run round stabbing and slicing each other with knives and swords instead. They’re illegal too.

    name something you WOULDN’T make illegal if it scared you enough…?

    Comment by Nomen Nescio — March 15, 2008 #

22. I may be wrong but I heard that crime in Victoria went up 300 to 400% after the gun ban in Australia. Is that true?

    I know the homocide rate is high in US that also includes justifable homicide by police and citizens. Justified homicide is a category that most other countries do not allow their citizens.

    We have heard horror stories about muggings and incidents of violent assaults in England. Some people say the crime rate is much higher than in the US. Also that the home invasion is much higher in England.

    Comment by RAH — March 15, 2008 #

23. Ken, Ken, Ken. What have you done? Forget the home invasions, I’m more worried about GOOGLE ALERTS!

    Comment by Damian — March 15, 2008 #

24. “I may be wrong but I heard that crime in Victoria went up 300 to 400% after the gun ban in Australia. Is that true?”

    No.

    And what is the implication of this myth … that prior to gun laws being tightened would-be criminals were too scared to break the law because all the citizens were toting guns? Ridiculous.

    There’s an enormous amount of information available about comparative rates of gun-related crime on the net for anybody who’s seriously interested in getting factual data. The conclusions are obvious to anyone who considers them with an open mind.

    Virtually every country in the developed world except the USA has strict laws controlling the possession of weapons. Some people might want to argue that this is all part of a global conspiracy to introduce communism or let the terrorists win or open the way for One World Government or whatever. However most people think it’s a common sense measure that reduces the problems inevitably associated with urban living. The figures cited above tell their own story.

    Comment by Administrator — March 15, 2008 #

25. “And no, we don’t run round stabbing and slicing each other with knives and swords instead. They’re illegal too.”

    Best not to say knives and swords are illegal. A claim from an Aussie over there claims otherwise. It seems Ol’ Digger has quite a collection of bladed weaponry ranging from a simple pocket knives to a khukri that was carried during the second world war. Not to mention a high quality katana. Apparently he can legally carry a knife and intends to obtain a firearms license (certificate or whatever it’s called). Of which class? I don’t know. Yet any way….

    Comment by Jack of All Trades — March 15, 2008 #

26. if the “problems” are “inevitably associated with urban living”, and your proposed measures can only “reduce” (not eliminate!) them, then i say the thing at fault isn’t the guns at all — it must be the cities. we must tear them down, for the sake of peace and safety.

    (and i’m only half joking — i’ve seen american inner cities. what’s there in them that’s worth disarming for?)

    Comment by Nomen Nescio — March 15, 2008 #

27. Mr. Administrator,

    And what is the implication of this myth … that prior to gun laws being tightened would-be criminals were too scared to break the law because all the citizens were toting guns? Ridiculous.

    FWIW, it bugs me when my fellow American gun nuts draw that conclusion, too.

    The main conclusion to be drawn from a lack of a serious decrease in gun crime (or an increase, cf. the UK) after stricter gun laws are passed is that the people most likely to commit crimes with guns aren’t much deterred by gun laws. After all, if you’re ready to risk being nicked for murder, what’s an additional charge of not having your firearms certs in order? The people that are going to turn them in are the ones least likely to get up to mischief with them in the first place.

    Comment by Tam — March 15, 2008 #

28. I’ve commented on this issue here:

    http://gunblobber.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/tempest-in-an-aussie-teapot/

    In a nutshell:

    “Aussie is scared of what he perceives as a tyrannical, lying, stupid, insane US Government. At least he has a few thousand miles of ocean separating him from it. We Americans must rely on our guns for our defense against such a government, albeit only as a last resort.”

    Comment by Gun Blobber — March 15, 2008 #

29. We don’t license people to allow them to have Children either, but those kids grow up to be thieves and robbers and carjackers and a variety of criminals - all without the relevant and appropriate safeguards controlling the possession of Children.

    Comment by DirtCrashr — March 15, 2008 #

30. ‘And no, we don’t run round stabbing and slicing each other with knives and swords instead’

    Yeah you do. To the tune of about a 140% increase compared to before you banned weapons. And home invasions up about 70%. And you had a lower overall crime rate before the weapons ban. The only thing that declined was murder by 11%. In the US in the same time frame, overall violent crime dropped and our murder rate dropped 32%. And Australia’s suicide rate is 25% higher than the US rate. You just use fewer guns. And, after the ban, there was a sharp decrease in gun crime but it has risen every year since.

    Newsflash: it’s not the guns.

    But I’m just a paranoid American gun nut, what do I know?

    RAH’s numbers were a bit off but his point stands.

    Comment by SayUncle — March 15, 2008 #

31. And your beer sucks.

    Comment by SayUncle — March 15, 2008 #

32. Your beer SUCKS!

    But your soldiers fight. It’s an honor to serve with your non-hoplophobic citizens. No better ally than an Aussie ally beside you. Oy!

    But your beer sucks.

    Comment by J T Bolt — March 15, 2008 #

33. In the eyes of Non-Americans, I own more than a few guns. I have only one gun that was I am sure was fired in anger at another human being - and that one was fired in the Battle of San Juan Hill by a Rough Rider in 1898! I have a few Mausers that may or may not be battle veterans, they could be parade props or training pieces for all I know, I do not have the psychic touch to descry such information.

    I own guns because I can! I can do that since I am a free born human being, endowed by my Creator with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Owning a Gun makes me happy.

    I am a citizen of a country that (still) believes that the right of the people trumps the rights of the government. If I were a subject of a country that did not recognize that universal truth, then I would emigrate to America.

    I AM different than the people in all of the other, countries that I have lived - (West) Germany, South Korea, Panama, Honduras, and of the many countries that I have visited. I am a Freeman, Born and Bred to be free and I bow to no master nor any Government. I am a Proud S.O.B. and apologize to no one for lack of respect for lesser forms of Governments.

    My government represents me, it does not rule me.

    My guns and the guns of my brother and sister Citizens ensures, insures, assures, and secures the right of self determination in this representative democracy. We do not fear the screaming hordes of any country, nor do we fear the possibility of Jackbooted thugs taking over our government and disobeying OUR wishes. America is a country Of the people, By the people, and For the people…. can you dig it? I dig it - and it feels great!

    What is so hard to understand?

    Comment by Kevin — March 15, 2008 #

34. Fascinating figures SayUncle. Do you actually have a source for them or should we just accept that you counted them yourself?

    Your comment implies that at some point in time Australia ‘banned weapons’ and that it makes sense to compare ‘pre-ban’ with ‘post-ban’ figures. The suggestion is nonsensical. There was never a moment when ‘weapons were banned’. In common with the vast majority of developed countries, there have ALWAYS been strict limits on who can own a weapon and the circumstances in which they can use it. Those rights have been progressively tightened since the 1920s, when hand guns were banned.

    Gun control is a state responsibility so the laws are not uniform. For example some states banned private ownership of shotguns and self-loading rifles in 1987. In 1996 the then prime minister (who just got an annual award from the American Enterprise Institute for services to conservatism) led largely successful efforts to establish uniform state regulation. This meant more change in some states than in others.

    Anybody interested in actual rather than imaginary figures on crime in Australia can find them here. They present a mixed picture: homicides pretty much static, assaults up, unlawful entry down, car theft down. Any attempts to make causal links with gun laws are plain silly.

    A concise history of gun regulation can be found here.

    Now I’d like to thank people for providing so many excellent illustrations of my original post, which was about the personality and culture of gun lovers. Feel free to keep commenting but I will refrain from further contributions myself. If y’all want to fantasise about being in a gunfight at the OK Walmart it’s none of my concern.

    Comment by Administrator — March 15, 2008 #

35. I’m paranoid?

    I’ve been stalked. I’ve been assaulted. There are diseases out that that make rape fatal even if the creep doesn’t kill you outright. So I carry a gun. I’d carry no matter where I live, no matter what nitwitted laws some stuffy well-off man in a nice suit with bodyguards tried to force on me. He does not have to live my life.

    I have no idea why anyone else might want to carry a gun (or not want to) and I don’t care. Actively preserving their lives is not my affair, only refraining from harming them as long as they leave me alone.

    Gunfight at the five and dime? No thanks, I’ll avoid that if I can. It’s the sudden grab from the dark I’d just as soon not be facing unarmed again.

    You can face such risks however you like. Me, I’ll be having the one thing that gives a skinny gal a fighting chance against a strapping, loony man.

    Would you be happier to have me raped and bleeding? Beaten and robbed again? Would that satisfy the superior moral sense of so highly developed a nation? Tough. I’ll not be sacrificed on the altar of your wilful ignorance.

    Comment by Roberta X — March 15, 2008 #

36. “Do you actually have a source for them or should we just accept that you counted them yourself?”

    Whatever you choose to believe (which is apparently that guns have magical powers). I note you did not refute them with, you know, facts and stuff. A quick google will give you the answers. I notice that in 2001/2002 of the stats you listed that there was a decline in what I assume is home invasions but the other years pretty much agree with what i stated. Curiously absent from your chart are murders, assaults, rapes and other violent crimes. Why is that? I mean, since those were the specific sorts of crimes I was referring to.

    “There was never a moment when ‘weapons were banned’.”

    Really? It’s amazing because you follow that up with all the bans your country has enacted.

    “which was about the personality and culture of gun lovers’

    You mean that we offer facts and easily refute yours, like I just did?

    Comment by SayUncle — March 15, 2008 #

37. Perhaps the US is different — here’s a correlation of gun restrictions vs. crime rates; not the more retrictions on owning and carrying guns, the higher the crime rate:

    http://www.njcsd.org/content/view/724/9/

    More guns — in the hands of the law-abiding — less crime.

    Comment by Roberta X — March 15, 2008 #

38. BTW, I’m quite amused that here are a bunch of us gun nuts calmly refuting what you say and you keep calling us paranoid. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Comment by SayUncle — March 15, 2008 #

39. Damian, Google Alerts are your friend!

    Comment by Rustmeister — March 15, 2008 #

40. Doesn’t matter what anyone says to them, they believe the world consists of people who want to attack them if only they get half a chance.

    Apparently, Americans have been enduring the preceding criticism for some time:

    Over here, over there, everywhere. Yesterday, today, always…
    Bad people there are.
    Hate you they do.
    Kill you they will.
    Watch out, you better.

    – Ancient Shoshone Proverb

    (Let’s see what sort of meaning you can abstract from that without being foolish, supercilious or bigoted.)

    Comment by Moriarty — March 15, 2008 #

41. Definition

    Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are “out to get them.”

    I think that expresses my meaning satisfactorily.

    You blokes are hilarious. I mean honestly, you’re hugely diverting entertainment for me and my small band of loyal readers but what purpose are all these comments serving for you? Talk about irrational behaviour.

    SayUncle you’re pathetic. The statistics are clearly labelled, why assume they mean something different? The source I linked to gives figures for homicides, assaults, robberies, sexual assaults and other crimes so I suggest you go and have another look. Moreover you now acknowledge that there was never a single ban, but you insist nevertheless that your earlier comparison of stats before and after ‘the ban [singular] on weapons’ is valid, even though you decline to provide a source or even say which period you are referring to. Meaningless drivel.

    Roberta X I made clear in an earlier comment my opinion that any attempt to make cause/effect links based on crime statistics and changes in gun control is worthless. There are far too many other known and unknown variables that could potentially affect outcomes. The question of whether gun control regulations affect crime, like other matters irrelevant to my post, was introduced by commenters who sniffed the scent of battle and rushed furiously to defend their beloved guns.

    Comment by Administrator — March 15, 2008 #

42. Australia — Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. (that would be the gun ban) As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998.

    Comment by Ahab — March 15, 2008 #

43. My Fellow American Citizens Please stop poking at the safe secure caged Ozzies.

    They are safe, they are secure, they know that their Government will never let the bad people hurt them anymore. They know that their Masters chased all the mean Jihadis away with sharp words and they have nothing to fear - the mere thought that a peaceful religion will demand conversion at the point of a sword is the penultimate height of paranoia, why Just ask the blokes.

    The social scientists must have even perfected a way to banish violence and avarice from the human condition. It must be a secret ingredient that the government put in vegamite, or their outstanding beers. But Something happened in the land of OZ to change the Human psych. They must have evolved from mere mortals such as the knuckle-dragging American gun owners into the Australian version of the New man, Singing Kumbaya on the beach while sipping Fosters in the shade

    Just listen to the mirth in their words. They chuckle, knowing that Bad things only happen in far away countries like the decadent USA or in out of the way places like Bali. Why Mick Dundee will save them if ever a sociopath actually invades the Utopia that is Australia, for it is obvious that everyone on that continent is so peaceful and serene that they surreptitiously import criminals from England just to justify the police force. (That has been going on for quite a while.) Why I’ll bet that you could walk the length and breadth of the continent and never encounter a dangerous animal, much less a dangerous human being. It must be paradise there.

    Just ask them - you will hear many a convincing word But who are they trying to convince? The American readers or the Australian readers?

    Comment by Kevin — March 15, 2008 #

44. What purpose do these comments serve? Amusement. Curiosity. Sheer amazement at the dichotomy between your worldview and ours. And, perhaps in some cases, a genuine desire to try to bridge the gap between cultures.

    I don’t think you need to go back two hundred and thirty years to understand the American obsession with being prepared even for wildly unlikely events. I think you need go back only 66 years, or perhaps even only six. When we’re attacked and we aren’t ready for it, lots of people die. On an individual level, any time one is attacked and one isn’t ready to defend oneself, one is likely to get hurt. Some of us simply look at that equation and decide “if anyone’s gonna get hurt, it’s gonna be my attacker, and not me.”

    Damian, you wrote: The thing is that you happen to live in one of the most secure nations in the world. You have food security, you have reliable infrastructure, you have a democratic system of sorts, you have functioning armed forces and police and emergency response forces. Yet you still don’t feel safe enough!

    Right. We don’t — because unlike you, we understand how easy it would be to lose all that. On infrastructure, the people who carry guns for protection tend to be the same people who understand how fragile infrastructure is. On police protection, we have a saying: “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” In some parts of the USA, the police might even be hours away. There’s only one protector you can ever count on being there at crunch time: yourself. Some people choose to be ready for the day they need a protector, even as they devoutly pray that day never comes.

    The gun collector, however, is a whole different breed. Some people collect things, it’s just part of their personality. Gun collectors are collectors whose focus happens to be guns. They don’t collect guns because they think they might ever need them all. They collect guns because they like to admire the skill and talent of the gunsmith. Gun collectors are aesthetes who understand and marvel at the fundamental paradox of the well-made firearm, which is also the fundamental paradox of the human psyche: we humans enjoy destruction, yet we also enjoy the creation of beauty even in destruction.

    Comment by wolfwalker — March 15, 2008 #

45. Not all governments are benign and kind — in fact, history demonstrates the precise opposite, over any length of time.

    Having an armed citizenry, at the end, means that the government is forced to be polite in their dealings with you.

    And spares the people from the killing fields and cattle cars, forever.

    And speaking of “sparing”: spare me the comment that “That could never happen here!”

    If history teaches us anything, it’s that this can happen anywhere — anywhere, of course, except where the people are armed.

    Comment by Kim du Toit — March 15, 2008 #

46. “Right. We don’t — because unlike you, we understand how easy it would be to lose all that.”

    Wolfwalker you may not have meant it this way but do you realise how incredibly patronising that sounds? Gun laws like Australia’s are the rule rather than the exception in developed countries. Try carrying a gun in Japan or Germany and see how long you last. I think the people in those countries have far greater historical experience of ‘losing all that’ than citizens of the USA.

    Kim can you perhaps give a historical example where an armed citizenry has successfully resisted government oppression? I suggest there are however many examples where one armed section of the population has used those arms to oppress the remainder, or where widespread possession of guns has made civil wars more violent. Iraq since 2003 is an excellent example of what happens when civil authority breaks down and the population have ready access to guns. Are you suggesting that’s an example to emulate?

    Comment by Administrator — March 15, 2008 #

47. Damien,

    I do not know if you are still checking these comments, but I checked out you blog and it appears that you are a person who enjoys adventure. That is great. Have fun and stay safe. I hope that in your future traveling that you do not need a firearm for defense. It is quite dangerous in third world areas. You may change your mind, but we hope that it won’t happen because you become a victim.

    Comment by RAH — March 15, 2008 #

48. Sorry SayUncle I don’t accept comments from people who are too gutless even to reveal their isp.

    Nor do I maintain this blog to host your kind of bullshit. Fuck off and play with the other kiddies.

    Comment by SayUncle — March 15, 2008 #

49. I’m sitting in FNQ of an evening getting sidetracked when I should be studying. Front & back doors open to our garden for the breeze (no dog, no fences), kids sleeping peacefully. Australia is safe because we have a decent government and the rule of law and most importantly NO GUNS.

    Allowing citizens to hold guns just starts an arms race and the results are clear in the table of gun deaths in various countries given above. Every individual who gets a gun to “feel safer” actually makes the place incrementally more dangerous for herself/himself and everyone else around. Thank god there will never be kids with guns in my child’s school. How can anyone think it is normal for people to wander the streets with guns?

    But I see firearms as a bit like cigarette smoking; it’s not really possible to have a rational converation about addiction with a smoker, is it?

    Good luck to the bloke running this site, I like your comments here & elsewhere. Pity about the gun loonies but really, their comments just confirm that while not perfect (yet) Oz is a far saner society.

    Comment by isobel — March 31, 2008 #

50. I apologize on behalf of Say Uncle and his fellow quislings.

    I guess every country has its lunatic fringe; the gunloons and the white supremacists (actually a lot of overlap) are ours.

    The fact our gunloons can’t get around is that violent crime, in industrialized nations, is so much lower than in the world’s most prosperous and powerful nation.

    Comment by JadeGold — June 24, 2008 #

Leave a comment