I would love to hear a solid argument from a conservative for why the model of Australia won't work in the USA. I won't hold my breath though, I need at least a bit of air every 12 centuries.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Gun Control In Australia vs the USA
As well as having a genuine need, a rancher is a "primary producer", so under our law they're allowed access to a more dangerous class of guns -- semi-auto rifles with up to 10-rounds loaded at once, or semi-auto shotguns with up to 5 rounds loaded at once. Hopefully that should be enough to deal with a pack of wild predators.enacting laws on the level of Australia just might impose a problem. I've seen calves lost to packs of coyotes (and, recently, wolf kills are becoming quite the nuisance as well, causing real problems among a number of local ranchers). When they run in packs, often a single shot isn't enough to deter them, so being limited to only a single-shell bolt-action hunting rifle would probably correspond with an increase in calf kills. In that regard, gun control legislation directly impacts a rancher's ability to deal with predators.
n.b. Many farmers here with guns that exceeded these limits were able to modify just their magazines in order to comply.
What about freedom to do crack, or drive whatever kind of vehicle you like, or build pipebombs on your property for fun, or to own an RPG, or drink underage, or choose to be a hermit and not pay tax, or to build your own plane unregulated, or to practice medicine on your friends? Are any of them violations of liberty? Personally, I always find it very strange that the US is so rediculously tough on drug users, but then clings to other things like guns as a matter of liberty, our pours all your tax into the military, but then pouring any into health is again an attack on liberty. In many ways, it seems US citizens have a lot less liberty than Europeans.
Give me liberty or give me death.I would love to hear a solid argument from a conservative for why the model of Australia won't work in the USA. I won't hold my breath though, I need at least a bit of air every 12 centuries.
I would love to hear a solid argument from a conservative for why the model of Australia won't work in the USA. I won't hold my breath though, I need at least a bit of air every 12 centuries.
Give me liberty or give me death.
So the Australians don't have liberty? They don't have freedom? Are they under tyranny and oppression? Hodgman are you ok?
Though I frankly don't agree with 95% of what JTippetts said, I do agree that the country in general has an overall distrust of the government (no matter which party is in power). The dysfunction (especially in the last 12 years) is creating layers of "solutions" that are hiding the actual problems. Do I think Australia's gun laws could work here in the US? Yeah. Do I think they should be applied here? No. Why? Because there are so many problems that we actually have to fix before getting to the gun problem? If anything, these problems contribute, if not exacerbate the gun problem. The dysfunction and distrust leads to overreaction of an unheard of scale. We can't pass immigration laws. We can't pass a background check law. We can't pass meaningful financial reform. We can't pass a good healthcare bill (individual mandate, ugh). We can't pass tax reform. We can't secure the border. We can't even agree that guns are a problem in a mass shooting done with guns.
God bless the United Continent of Australia. At least, you don't have to deal with half the nonsense the USA does.
What about freedom to do crack, or drive whatever kind of vehicle you like, or build pipebombs on your property for fun, or to own an RPG, or drink underage, or choose to be a hermit and not pay tax, or to build your own plane unregulated, or to practice medicine on your friends? Are any of them violations of liberty? Personally, I always find it very strange that the US is so rediculously tough on drug users, but then clings to other things like guns as a matter of liberty, our pours all your tax into the military, but then pouring any into health is again an attack on liberty. In many ways, it seems US citizens have a lot less liberty than Europeans.
It's funny, because when i was in highschool, one of my history/economics teacher had us watch a video about knowing our rights, the video was pretty much 3 kids doing drugs on the way to a concert, and a cop pulls them over. and the video goes through all the things a cop can/can't do, and so long as you know what they arn't allowed to do, you'll be fine(such as searching your bags without permission). It always made me chuckle that the video is basically a long "It's only illegal if you get caught".
Crack should be illegal more because it's production isn't regulated and it's producers aren't legally accountable if what you buy is not actually crack.What about freedom to do crack
Bombs and rockets are ordinance not arms. There is an important difference when it comes to what you have rights to in the US.or build pipebombs on your property for fun, or to own an RPG
There aren't many regulations to building your own experimental aircraft. Most of the restrictions are to do with allowing passengers in said aircraft, which is mostly to do with the fact that passengers are likely not aeronautics engineers and wouldn't know that the plane they are flying in is a deathtrap.or to build your own plane unregulated
This again isn't so much about the person practicing. It's about protecting laypeople from being dangerously misled by people in positions of authority (like above).or to practice medicine on your friends?
I think a lot of people would think that your other points are either on similar grounds to guns.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I think there are major differences both historically and currently between the US and Australia. America was born out of an oppressive government that would not recognize our independence, which we had to gain by going to war against them as a collective group of individuals rather than an assembled army. It's easy to see why we would value a citizenry's ability to defend themselves from a government because that is the very engine of our independence.
In a similar note, Australia's government seems much more representative of the beliefs of the nation as a whole. We're stuck, essentially, with a congress that carries an approval rating of around 30%. Likewise having only 2 parties really doesn't cover the wide array of beliefs in the country. It's hard to trust a party you mostly disagree with because you disagree with them slightly less than the other party; knowing that generally everybody disagrees with most of what both parties believe makes it that much harder.
I don't tell other people what to do with their own bodies - not in any legislative sense anyway. If a person wants to manufacture a weapon then more power to them. People can drive whatever they want provided they're not causing undue hazard - driver's licenses are not a bad idea. Age-related substance use laws exist to protect people who have not yet established the ability to take responsibility for their decisions: I'd be open to discussing changes, but abolition would be harmful. I have no problem with people opting out of a nation. I have no problem with people building planes. If consenting adults want to practice medicine on one another then let them.What about freedom to do crack, or drive whatever kind of vehicle you like, or build pipebombs on your property for fun, or to own an RPG, or drink underage, or choose to be a hermit and not pay tax, or to build your own plane unregulated, or to practice medicine on your friends? Are any of them violations of liberty?
There are an abundance of violations of liberty in America and the rate at which violations are being generated is increasing. That's why we need MANY MANY MORE guns.
I think the thing that people don't get is the equation of "guns" with "liberty". That's quite an odd concept to anyone outside of the US, for whom it seems perfectly possible (and indeed often desirable) to have liberty without guns.
The guns don't create or maintain the liberty. They allow a new liberty to be built when the old one spoils.
I'm not so worried about the feds, but some of the sherrifs and city-lords are tyrant enough to justify arms. If no laws are passed after something like Newtown, even with democrats in power, then I think it is safe to say there there will never be Euro/Aus-style gun-control here. There is simply not enough support for it in the moderate middle.
I always find it strange how "protecting our families" so often comes up in the US gun debates as pro argument while over here (Switzerland) gun related "family tragedies" are one of the primary arguments in anti-gun discussions/political initiatives.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
