Gun Lobby: Healthcare Reform Will Take Away Your Guns

[Pooky 3,930]

For an organised civil uprising, the government would not use local law enforcement.

What would they use? They cannot use the military for law enforcement in the US - there's a Federal law against that.

And if an organised civil uprising looked likely/was in progress, how long do you think it would take to ram emergency measures through Congress and the Senate to deal with it?

When the need arises, politicians often take a sledgehammer to a problem.

[mawilson 2,133]

And if an organised civil uprising looked likely/was in progress, how long do you think it would take to ram emergency measures through Congress and the Senate to deal with it?

When the need arises, politicians often take a sledgehammer to a problem.

Bush did just that - his changes to the PCA were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

[Heracles 417]

Right to bear arms is ridiculous. Nothing else to it.

No, what's rediculous is a "knife amnesty program" and the fact that 93% of those killed by firearms in Australia were done so with unlicensed and unregistered firearms. Nearly half of the murderers had criminal records and more than a third of the victims did as well. Murder victims in NSW were 15 times more likely to die by knife than by gun.

Progress?

My big question is are the people in Australia going to stand up to their government, if needed, with spoons? Or will those be illegal by then too?

People killed by means of firearms

No Gun Control

South Africa: 31,918 ~ person killed every 16 minutes (wow)

Columbia: 21,898 ~ person killed every 24 minutes

Thailand: 20,032 ~ person killed every 26 minutes

USA: 9,369 ~ person killed every 56 minutes

Philippines: 7,708 ~ person killed every 68 minutes

Gun Control

Canada: 144 ~ person killed every 3,650 minutes

AUS: 59 ~ person killed every 8,908 minutes

UK: 14 ~ person killed every 37,542 minutes

New Zealand: 10 ~ person killed every 52,560 minutes

-------

Homicides due to Firearm

No Gun Control

Columbia: 85%

USA: 65%

Gun Control

UK: 8%

AUS: 16%

Canada: 34%

New Zealand: 13%

-------

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

No Gun Control

USA: 5.8

Gun Control

AUS: 1.2

Canada: 1.83

It's not rocket science. Anyone with a high school education should be able to connect the dots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...s-with-firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...l_homicide_rate

Dude, what welfare did you give in the first place for it be successful? Come on. It says something that someone on welfare in Aus actually earns more than someone working a 40 hour minimum wage job here.

Exactly. It says it's only a matter of time before all those Aussies start gathering up whatever spoons or logs or table legs or whatever they're lawfully allowed to possess and assemble to petition their government for redress of grievance. See, they have to "petition" because they're asking nicely. In the U.S., we have a right to ask nicely before we take action. However, once the die is cast, and we've run out of "petitions" then we no longer have to ask nicely.

Did you say someone on welfare "earns" something?

I see, I see. Personally, if there is a state that reeks financial success, it's definitely Ohio. After all, just look at how many folks there earn $1,109 USD per week (Aus median). Or the sheer number of homes worth $498K (Melb Median). Better yet, the Unemployment rate close to 5.7% right..

Edited November 25, 2009 by Booyah!

[Pooky 3,930]

And if an organised civil uprising looked likely/was in progress, how long do you think it would take to ram emergency measures through Congress and the Senate to deal with it?

When the need arises, politicians often take a sledgehammer to a problem.

Bush did just that - his changes to the PCA were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Different scenario. That was a natural disaster. Civil unrest is often present in the aftermath of events like that. And the measure passed first, before being repealed (which is kind of stating the obvious - sorry )

When there is evidence of men with guns organising an uprising, a coordinated effort to unseat government, you can bet that political pragmatism and CYA-ness will take over and emergency measures will be voted into effect in the blink of an eye.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

The government has no use for any of us....

The government is going to get all of us.

[HAL 9000 96]

The government has no use for any of us....

The government is going to get all of us.

It would be hilarious... the government of the people doing away with itself due to its peculiar composition.

[natty bumppo 297]

And if an organised civil uprising looked likely/was in progress, how long do you think it would take to ram emergency measures through Congress and the Senate to deal with it?

When the need arises, politicians often take a sledgehammer to a problem.

Bush did just that - his changes to the PCA were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Different scenario. That was a natural disaster. Civil unrest is often present in the aftermath of events like that. And the measure passed first, before being repealed (which is kind of stating the obvious - sorry )

When there is evidence of men with guns organising an uprising, a coordinated effort to unseat government, you can bet that political pragmatism and CYA-ness will take over and emergency measures will be voted into effect in the blink of an eye.

and will pit brother vs brother ... wonder if success will be the destruction of part of the country or as success as VN was for the french and US ....

[mawilson 2,133]

When there is evidence of men with guns organising an uprising, a coordinated effort to unseat government, you can bet that political pragmatism and CYA-ness will take over and emergency measures will be voted into effect in the blink of an eye.

You really think that either the House or the Senate can draw up a bill, send it to the

chamber floor for debate, send it to the second chamber committee for review, send

it to the Joint Committee and then send it to the President to be signed into law

faster than an organized, coordinated group of armed men can unseat the bastards?

[Pooky 3,930]

When there is evidence of men with guns organising an uprising, a coordinated effort to unseat government, you can bet that political pragmatism and CYA-ness will take over and emergency measures will be voted into effect in the blink of an eye.

You really think that either the House or the Senate can draw up a bill, send it to the

chamber floor for debate, send it to the second chamber committee for review, send

it to the Joint Committee and then send it to the President to be signed into law

faster than an organized, coordinated group of armed men can unseat the bastards?

Self preservation tends to be a remarkably effective motivator.

[Peikko 1,575]

When there is evidence of men with guns organising an uprising, a coordinated effort to unseat government, you can bet that political pragmatism and CYA-ness will take over and emergency measures will be voted into effect in the blink of an eye.

You really think that either the House or the Senate can draw up a bill, send it to the

chamber floor for debate, send it to the second chamber committee for review, send

it to the Joint Committee and then send it to the President to be signed into law

faster than an organized, coordinated group of armed men can unseat the bastards?

Self preservation tends to be a remarkably effective motivator.

It wouldnt take much. All the 'powers that be' would have to do is declare the insurgents 'domestic terrorists' and job done.

Very foolish to believe that what maintains the US is the ability to bear small arms but men with their toys...

[Kevin and 10]

For an organised civil uprising, the government would not use local law enforcement.

What would they use? They cannot use the military for law enforcement in the US - there's a Federal law against that.

They use National Guard directed by the .GOV

During Katrina, Oklahoma NG and police were ordered to go door to door and search for firearms.

Listen to when asked if he would shoot an American at the end.

[slim 1,533]

I am always amused whenever someone alludes to a civil revolt in the USA and thinks that it might work.

Would it work today? Absolutely not.

Could it work in a year or two? Maybe. But if we were to turn in "most" of our guns, like they've done in Australia, it would be almost impossible. Hard to have a respectable Revolution without arms. The U.S. is one of the only countries in the developed world where the people have the capability to overthrow the government by force today. As said above, it wouldn't be possible because even with the capability, there's not enough coordination - nor necessity!

Back in the 18th Century, when messages went by horse, taking days to get to the people they were meant for, and muzzle-loaders were de rigeur on the battlefield, I'd say yes, there was a good chance it would work. The American Revolution was touch and go for a long time, but it worked out in the end.

On Apr. 19th, 1775 - 14,000 armed men, arriving mostly on foot, surrounded Boston in response to the government's confiscation of arms by force. Could we get 14,000 armed me to respond anywhere today, even with our cars, cell phones, internet, etc.? No way. Reason is because conditions in the U.S. are nothing like conditions were in Boston back in '75. However, folks are starting to feel like conditions are worsening. If conditions were ripe for revolution, like they were back in '75, perhaps we could raise more than 14,000. Maybe even more like 14,000,000!

If you think a civil uprising could work today, you need to see someone professional, and soon. Decisive action may not be the government's forte, but faced with organized civil unrest, you can bet there will be little procrastination before an armed and armoured response is committed. Disregarding the speed at with the government will be able to target overwhelming forces to put down any such movement with prejudice,

You are absolutely correct. However, you have to think of the scale at which they'd have to respond. A civil uprising in one city or part of the country would be dealt with quickly and decisively. A civil uprising in every single city in the U.S. could not be contained without "outside" help. (Pull out your tinfoil hats!) There are over 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. If civil uprising was to happen, I bet there'd be quite a few more. - Crunch the numbers.

it would be a field day for the criminal element to go to town and kill, loot, burn and destroy what they wanted, so that whoever comes out of organized civil unrest on top, most likely the government, will have a ravaged and chaos-stricken shambles of a country to piece back together. Or, worse still, fragments of a country going their own way and the break-up of the USA.

Which is exactly why we need to keep our guns. How can the criminal element run amok if the populace is armed? If the criminal element is the only part of the population that's armed (like in Australia) then they will, no doubt, have a field day.

The Founding Fathers lived in a different day and age than we do. But times have moved on. We no longer live in a time where revolution occurs in the civilised world. That's what democracy is for. Votes don't kill people, but they can still bring about change. And the government has better eyes and ears and bigger guns.

Sure, but they don't have near the numbers. Look back to our Revolution, it wasn't won because of superior firepower, it was won because the hearts and minds of the people changed. They, unfortunately, had to vote with their guns, but their vote was for change. Iraq is a good example of how "democracy" is working. It won't be long til they're using their guns to "re-elect" officials.

The size and amount of arms matters little when the mentality of the people is such that they're no longer satisfied by government.

I see, I see. Personally, if there is a state that reeks financial success, it's definitely Ohio. After all, just look at how many folks there earn $1,109 USD per week (Aus median). Or the sheer number of homes worth $498K (Melb Median). Better yet, the Unemployment rate close to 5.7% right..

So happiness is directly linked to financial success?

Ohio's population is roughly half that of the whole of Australia (plus we still have 49 other states and a few territories) so if you'd like to compare apples to apples, do a quick Google search and find me a nation that's closer in population to Australia (preferably one with a lot of firearms) and then we can talk. If you're making a quality of life is reduced by more firearms issue, make sure your Google search includes New Zealand and Switzerland.

It wouldnt take much. All the 'powers that be' would have to do is declare the insurgents 'domestic terrorists' and job done.

George Washington, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Joseph Warren.... - All Terrorists!

Very foolish to believe that what maintains the US is the ability to bear small arms but men with their toys...

Not foolish at all. The stability of everyday life in the U.S. is, compared to other countries in population, top-notch. A big reason for that? Firearms in the hands of population, not just government and/or the criminal element.

They use National Guard directed by the .GOV

During Katrina, Oklahoma NG and police were ordered to go door to door and search for firearms.

Listen to when asked if he would shoot an American at the end.

Once again, this is a small-scale incident when compared to the entire U.S. Even though Katrina's wake was huge, it was rather small when you consider confiscation and "problems" that had to be dealt with by the government were, for the most part, contained to New Orleans.

What if they would've had to do that in New York (which is largely disarmed already), Los Angeles (which is largely disarmed already), Chicago (which is largely disarmed already) Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Dallas, San Diego, San Jose, Detroit, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Austin, Columbus, Ft. Worth, Charlotte.... and so on. Keep in mind, we've already exceeded the population of Australia and we still have about 270,000,000 more people to check once we've cleared those cities. How are they gonna do that?

[Heracles 417]

I see, I see. Personally, if there is a state that reeks financial success, it's definitely Ohio. After all, just look at how many folks there earn $1,109 USD per week (Aus median). Or the sheer number of homes worth $498K (Melb Median). Better yet, the Unemployment rate close to 5.7% right..

So happiness is directly linked to financial success?

Ohio's population is roughly half that of the whole of Australia (plus we still have 49 other states and a few territories) so if you'd like to compare apples to apples, do a quick Google search and find me a nation that's closer in population to Australia (preferably one with a lot of firearms) and then we can talk. If you're making a quality of life is reduced by more firearms issue, make sure your Google search includes New Zealand and Switzerland.

Ever heard of per 100,000; which negates population.

US population: 303 million

Aus population: 21 million

~ US has 14.4 times the population

USA: 9,369 ~ person killed every 56 minutes

AUS: 59 ~ person killed every 8,908 minutes

~ 158 times the homicide rate by means of firearms.

Not foolish at all. The stability of everyday life in the U.S. is, compared to other countries in population, top-notch. A big reason for that? Firearms in the hands of population, not just government and/or the criminal element.

Absolute rubbish. The US has one of the worst crime rate in the developed world.

Which is exactly why we need to keep our guns. How can the criminal element run amok if the populace is armed? If the criminal element is the only part of the population that's armed (like in Australia) then they will, no doubt, have a field day.

Another bunch of horse sh-t. Stats do not support this.

How many other developed countries want people to walk around with guns? Clearly there is a reason for this. No?

Edited November 26, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,533]

Ever heard of per 100,000; which negates population.

US population: 303 million

Aus population: 21 million

~ US has 14.4 times the population

USA: 9,369 ~ person killed every 56 minutes

AUS: 59 ~ person killed every 8,908 minutes

~ 158 times the homicide rate by means of firearms.

Sure, we got you in firearms, but if we have 14.4 times the population, then why is our TOTAL homicide rate (per 100,000) only 5 times as high?

I'd hypothesize, and this isn't scientific at all, but if Australia was to grow it's population by 14 times (whilst still paying folks on welfare over $1000/week!) the homicide rate would be significantly higher, even without firearms.

Not foolish at all. The stability of everyday life in the U.S. is, compared to other countries in population, top-notch. A big reason for that? Firearms in the hands of population, not just government and/or the criminal element.

Absolute rubbish. The US has one of the worst crime rate in the developed world.

Once again, please compare apples to apples.

China - very low reported crime rate. Very high rate of government influence in peoples' everyday lives.

India - Low crime rate?

Indonesia - See India.

Brazil - HA!

Pakistan - Please!

If you're going to compare apples to apples, just in the top five, the U.S. has it, hands down.

Which is exactly why we need to keep our guns. How can the criminal element run amok if the populace is armed? If the criminal element is the only part of the population that's armed (like in Australia) then they will, no doubt, have a field day.

Another bunch of horse sh-t. Stats do not support this.

How many other developed countries want people to walk around with guns? Clearly there is a reason for this. No?

This scenario was given in terms of after a civil unrest and/or revolution. (It wasn't even my scenario.) There are no stats for that - yet.

As for walking around with guns in a developed country, Switzerland always seems to come to mind when folks bring this up.

[Heracles 417]

Sure, we got you in firearms, but if we have 14.4 times the population, then why is our TOTAL homicide rate (per 100,000) only 5 times as high?

I'd hypothesize, and this isn't scientific at all, but if Australia was to grow it's population by 14 times (whilst still paying folks on welfare over $1000/week!) the homicide rate would be significantly higher, even without firearms.

While the US has 14 times the population, it has 158 times more homicides by means of firearms. Otherwise, if the murder rate by means of firearms was on par with Aus, you would only have 849 murders for your population. The reality Reality is that gun restrictions enacted in Australia over a decade ago have worked.

Once again, please compare apples to apples.

China - very low reported crime rate. Very high rate of government influence in peoples' everyday lives.

India - Low crime rate?

Indonesia - See India.

Brazil - HA!

Pakistan - Please!

If you're going to compare apples to apples, just in the top five, the U.S. has it, hands down.

I don't know what you are even pointing out here. It actually backs my argument that population alone has little to do with crime.

This scenario was given in terms of after a civil unrest and/or revolution. (It wasn't even my scenario.) There are no stats for that - yet.

As for walking around with guns in a developed country, Switzerland always seems to come to mind when folks bring this up.

Civil unrest? We live in the 21st century. First world countries no longer have civil unrest, as we vote in change. The 2nd Amendment was there for protection against the British soldiers who raided people's homes. It's laughable to think that people actually believe it's how you run a country. "Do as I say or else...". Are we living in Sudan or the United states of America?

Since you pointed out population, Switzerland is a country of 7,739,100 people. Switzerland is also a country that does not have an issue with crime, violence, gangs and so on. Aka "Apples with oranges". Even in the US, you have states that have lower crimes rates than European countries. Guns in these states are not a problem. However, it's the states with crime problems that need to be regulated. The fact is that since the gun buyback scheme in Aus was enacted, deaths by means of firearms have dropped.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Booyah!