Obama prepares order on guns

[quadraginta]

You seem to be peddling conservative dogma without any evidence, and you are making stupid comparisons on top of it. Next, you'll be bringing up concealed swimming pool permits.

That's just silly.

Why would anyone want to conceal their swimming pool?

 

[The Fool]

I can't speak for Australia, but the US tried that between 1920 -1933. It didn't work out too well.

wow, you don't restrict alcohol? or is it the usual problem that you can't differentiate between restriction and banning?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

wow, you don't restrict alcohol? or is it the usual problem that you can't differentiate between restriction and banning?

Possibly it is you who are having the trouble distinguishing between the two. The "restrictions" on ethyl alcohol I proposed would make it illegal for anyone to possess more than small amounts under a doctors supervision, and I was very clear on this. Unless Australia prohibits drinking alcohol without a doctors prescription, you are now taking the position, without realizing it (in all probability), that Australia and the US (since you said "we") lack any restrictions on possession of alcohol.
The US tried this type of restriction on alcohol between 1920 and 1933. It was referred to as "Prohibition".

To keep this on topic, deliberately misleading statements of the type you are employing here are one of the primary reasons that so many lawful gun owners are wary of "gun control" advocates.
Why don't you clarify your position?
Are you advocating restrictions on the possession of firearms that would regulate, but otherwise allow any lawful citizen to possess firearms, or are you advocating restrictions so severe that they would amount to a defacto prohibition?
If the former, we already have a plethora of such restrictions. If the latter, you need to desist in camouflaging your position and be honest about it.

 

[The Fool]

Possibly it is you who are having the trouble distinguishing between the two. The "restrictions" on ethyl alcohol I proposed would make it illegal for anyone to possess more than small amounts under a doctors supervision, and I was very clear on this. Unless Australia prohibits drinking alcohol without a doctors prescription, you are now taking the position, without realizing it (in all probability), that Australia and the US (since you said "we") lack any restrictions on possession of alcohol.
The US tried this type of restriction on alcohol between 1920 and 1933. It was referred to as "Prohibition".

To keep this on topic, deliberately misleading statements of the type you are employing here are one of the primary reasons that so many lawful gun owners are wary of "gun control" advocates.
Why don't you clarify your position?

sorry chuck, I can't clarify a reply until I can get some Idea of what on earth you are talking about. Australia has licencing laws that comprehensively restrict the sale and consumption and possession of alcohol. Can you explain again how this amounts to me claiming there are none?

Are you advocating restrictions on the possession of firearms that would regulate, but otherwise allow any lawful citizen to possess firearms, or are you advocating restrictions so severe that they would amount to a defacto prohibition?
If the former, we already have a plethora of such restrictions. If the latter, you need to desist in camouflaging your position and be honest about it.

I am being honest but not sure why I am bothering because no matter how often I explain it you seem to lack the ability to comprehend it.

I am advocating firearm restrictions that would regulate the possession of firearms to people who comply with the requirements. There are quite a few requirements and I have explained them over and over and over, they are also freely available on the web. It is no secret what the requirements are to posses firearms in australia. There are many restrictions in the US too, at least some of which I think you probably support? So people who don't think they should be restricted by the restrictions you agree with would call it a defacto ban.

Its difficult to comment on what is or isn't a defacto "ban" as it seems that any restriction is described as a defacto ban by the people affected if that restriction is seen as unacceptable.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

sorry chuck, I can't clarify a reply until I can get some Idea of what on earth you are talking about. Australia has licencing laws that comprehensively restrict the sale and consumption and possession of alcohol. Can you explain again how this amounts to me claiming there are none?

But not to the point where alcohol can only be purchased by someone with a "legitimate need" (i.e., a doctors prescription), as in the theoretical model I used, and (apparently) you agreed with.

I am being honest but not sure why I am bothering because no matter how often I explain it you seem to lack the ability to comprehend it.

You are not being honest when you make the claim that the restrictions you advocate would not create a defacto ban.

I am advocating firearm restrictions that would regulate the possession of firearms to people who comply with the requirements. There are quite a few requirements and I have explained them over and over and over, they are also freely available on the web. It is no secret what the requirements are to posses firearms in australia. There are many restrictions in the US too, at least some of which I think you probably support? So people who don't think they should be restricted by the restrictions you agree with would call it a defacto ban.

This is where your position reaches epic fail. I'm not aware of anyone who advocates complete deregulation, yet you continually imply that this is the default position of the pro-gun faction.

Its difficult to comment on what is or isn't a defacto "ban" as it seems that any restriction is described as a defacto ban by the people affected if that restriction is seen as unacceptable.

Not quite. When restrictions are so severe that they prohibit the vast majority of lawful citizens from owning a firearm (or anything else, for that matter) then it qualifies as a defacto ban.
There are restrictions on alcohol purchases in the US, but they are not so strict as to be considered a ban. During Prohibition they were so restrictive.
The firearms restrictions you advocate would qualify, as a "need" is mandated and the type of firearm available is very narrowly defined.

Which brings us back to:
Do you have any evidence that would justify such severe restrictions and that, if implemented, would work?
Specifically, can you establish a causal link between lawful ownership of firearms and violent crime?
Further, since you use the Australian NFA as your model, can you even establish that it had a major effect on lowering the crime rate?

 

[The Fool]

But not to the point where alcohol can only be purchased by someone with a "legitimate need" (i.e., a doctors prescription), as in the theoretical model I used, and (apparently) you agreed with.

you have a habit of declaring I agree with things, or is the (apparently) the escape clause?

You are not being honest when you make the claim that the restrictions you advocate would not create a defacto ban.

additional secure storage.....defacto ban?
having to actually participate in the activities you say you need the gun for....defacto ban?
having to fill in a license application form....defacto ban?

If all the Australian initiatives add up to a defacto ban there would be virtually no gun ownership in Australia. damned if I can explain all the people I know that own guns.

This is where your position reaches epic fail. I'm not aware of anyone who advocates complete deregulation, yet you continually imply that this is the default position of the pro-gun faction.

If I continually imply it you should be able to find one example? What I do continually state is that we are all gun control advocates. Nobody I know or have ever heard advocates zero control. just one example to start eh?

Not quite. When restrictions are so severe that they prohibit the vast majority of lawful citizens from owning a firearm (or anything else, for that matter) then it qualifies as a defacto ban.

the wiggle room commences. What is a "vast majority" are all the people that own guns in Australia defying the "ban"?

There are restrictions on alcohol purchases in the US, but they are not so strict as to be considered a ban. During Prohibition they were so restrictive.
The firearms restrictions you advocate would qualify, as a "need" is mandated and the type of firearm available is very narrowly defined.

umm....what firearm can't you own in Australia that the lack of is going to screw your life up?

Which brings us back to:
Do you have any evidence that would justify such severe restrictions and that, if implemented, would work?
Specifically, can you establish a causal link between lawful ownership of firearms and violent crime?
Further, since you use the Australian NFA as your model, can you even establish that it had a major effect on lowering the crime rate?

I can't do any of this to a level that you accept so pardon me if I don't continue to waste time repeating myself.

 

[funk de fino]

Its difficult to comment on what is or isn't a defacto "ban" as it seems that any restriction is described as a defacto ban by the people affected if that restriction is seen as unacceptable.

This. As they love to conflate cars and guns in these discussions this is, in essence, the same as them saying any seatbelt laws means that they are trying to ban guns.

The idiocy of the gun nuts is astounding.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

you have a habit of declaring I agree with things, or is the (apparently) the escape clause?

Probably a language barrier. Here in the US when we say "completely support your proposals" it is indicative that the speaker agrees with the proposals.

I completely support your proposals on alcohol. We should restrict its sale and possession. But isn,t that what we already do? I,m not sure what point you are making.

additional secure storage.....defacto ban?
having to actually participate in the activities you say you need the gun for....defacto ban?
having to fill in a license application form....defacto ban?

If all the Australian initiatives add up to a defacto ban there would be virtually no gun ownership in Australia. damned if I can explain all the people I know that own guns.

By guns, you mean .22 cal single shot rifles,single or double barrel shotguns, and .22 target pistols. All with strict licensing requirements including a "need" for the firearm, and in the case of pistols, additional restrictions and a probationary period. Self defense is not considered a need.
24 million citizens/ 815,000 licensed firearms owners. Almost all of those owners have single shot rimfire rifles, single/double barrel shotguns and a small number of competitive shooters with .22 cal pistols.
Good luck convincing even some of the more liberal members here that this does not constitute a defacto ban.

If I continually imply it you should be able to find one example? What I do continually state is that we are all gun control advocates. Nobody I know or have ever heard advocates zero control. just one example to start eh?

Except for the 4-5 million members of the NRA. This is something you've stated more than once.

The NRA has a particular strategy in their goal to prevent any and all gun restrictions.

the wiggle room commences. What is a "vast majority" are all the people that own guns in Australia defying the "ban"?

I think that 97 % of the population qualifies as a vast majority,if you use the current Australian figures as model for the US.

umm....what firearm can't you own in Australia that the lack of is going to screw your life up?

12ga. Mossberg 500p
Colt .45 ACP
Glock Model 19
Springfield M1A
Just to name a few. How many people do you know in Australia that own one of these?

I can't do any of this to a level that you accept so pardon me if I don't continue to waste time repeating myself.

I've stated the quantum of evidence that I would accept, and it is a reasonable one. But since you admit you can't meet it, I'll just consider this as an admission on your part that you fail to prove your case.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Now owning those particular models of firearms is going to screw up a person's life, Chuck.

 

[The Fool]

Probably a language barrier. Here in the US when we say "completely support your proposals" it is indicative that the speaker agrees with the proposals.

Is it also indicative that the proposer agrees with what they themselves propose. If you seriously want to suggest that alcohol should only be available on prescription all I can say is......you first

By guns, you mean .22 cal single shot rifles,single or double barrel shotguns, and .22 target pistols. All with strict licensing requirements including a "need" for the firearm, and in the case of pistols, additional restrictions and a probationary period. Self defense is not considered a need.
24 million citizens/ 815,000 licensed firearms owners. Almost all of those owners have single shot rimfire rifles, single/double barrel shotguns and a small number of competitive shooters with .22 cal pistols.
Good luck convincing even some of the more liberal members here that this does not constitute a defacto ban.

I think you are a little off beam with what people can own here in australia. Our cold dead hand people have plenty of firepower.
see the url I provide below of guns for sale.

Except for the 4-5 million members of the NRA. This is something you've stated more than once.

many times I have explained this. The NRA currently has a policy of rejecting all gun reform initiatives. Some of them also want to repeal some existing laws. I don't believe any but a small minority of lunatic fringe libertarians would want zero restrictions. why have you decided that resisting change is advocating change of current gun laws??

I think that 97 % of the population qualifies as a vast majority,if you use the current Australian figures as model for the US.

you are probably going to have to walk me through that one. who are the 97% would they be the 97% of gun owners who were required to comply with new restrictions? Are you signing them up to be the defy the ban club?

12ga. Mossberg 500p
Colt .45 ACP
Glock Model 19
Springfield M1A
Just to name a few. How many people do you know in Australia that own one of these?

personally I know someone with Mossberg shotguns but don't know what a 500p is.
.45acp are quite common I think I know 3 people who own one but they may have gotten rid of them recently.

Glocks I don't know anyone but they can be bought.

springfieldM1A donb't know anyone....you would have to have a collectors licence and a setup like fort knox.

look...here is a url of one second hand gun place in australia. many on your list are there and some may just not be available right now. With the ban and all these guys must be taking one hell of a risk.

http://www.acme-firearms.com.au/Colt/Colt Pistols.htm

I've stated the quantum of evidence that I would accept, and it is a reasonable one. But since you admit you can't meet it, I'll just consider this as an admission on your part that you fail to prove your case.

you should probably address some of the issues above before claiming victory.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

personally I know someone with Mossberg shotguns but don't know what a 500p is.
.45acp are quite common I think I know 3 people who own one but they may have gotten rid of them recently.

Glocks I don't know anyone but they can be bought.

springfieldM1A donb't know anyone....you would have to have a collectors licence and a setup like fort knox.

look...here is a url of one second hand gun place in australia. many on your list are there and some may just not be available right now. With the ban and all these guys must be taking one hell of a risk.

http://www.acme-firearms.com.au/Colt/Colt Pistols.htm



you should probably address some of the issues above before claiming victory.

I think you need to pay more attention to your quotes vs responses. I'll try to muddle through anyway. If I've misquoted you let me know.

Is it also indicative that the proposer agrees with what they themselves propose. If you seriously want to suggest that alcohol should only be available on prescription all I can say is......you first

No it isn't. A theoretical proposal (such as the alcohol prohibition I used) could easily be opposed by the proposer but used merely as example to show a flaw in that position. It's only a guess, but I think most people (at least the readers who live in the US) understood the analogy.
Swift wasn't really suggesting that Irish babies were suitable as food you know.

I think you are a little off beam with what people can own here in australia. Our cold dead hand people have plenty of firepower.
see the url I provide below of guns for sale.

I don't think so. How many people do you know that aren't competitive shooters who own a .45?
Not to mention that at the prices they seem to be fetching, it would put them out of the reach of the average citizen, especially considering the additional costs involved.
The restrictions in question limit the possession of handguns to one very small, somewhat wealthy, group of people.
Excepting that small group, it translates to a prohibition in practice if not in explicit letter. In other words a defacto ban.

many times I have explained this. The NRA currently has a policy of rejecting all gun reform initiatives. Some of them also want to repeal some existing laws. I don't believe any but a small minority of lunatic fringe libertarians would want zero restrictions. why have you decided that resisting change is advocating change of current gun laws??

You asked for an example, I provided one. The exact quote was:

The NRA has a particular strategy in their goal to prevent any and all gun restrictions.

Which is quite different than:

The NRA currently has a policy of rejecting all gun reform initiatives.

One statement indicates a resistance to reform initiatives, the other flatly states their goal is to prevent any restrictions. Moving the goal posts is not helping you.

you are probably going to have to walk me through that one. who are the 97% would they be the 97% of gun owners who were required to comply with new restrictions? Are you signing them up to be the defy the ban club?

OK, I'll even use small steps.
There are 24 million people in Australia.
There are 815,000 licensed firearms holders.
That's a little less than 3% of the total population.
And that's virtually no ownership.

personally I know someone with Mossberg shotguns but don't know what a 500p is.
.45acp are quite common I think I know 3 people who own one but they may have gotten rid of them recently.

Glocks I don't know anyone but they can be bought.

springfieldM1A donb't know anyone....you would have to have a collectors licence and a setup like fort knox.

A Mossberg 500P is a pump action shotgun
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/st...Combo/0310105330004/_/A-4139994?#.Vqiwm_krK70
If .45's are so common, just how many of them are there that are not in the hands of competitive shooters? Or does Australia have a lot more competitive shooters than I'm aware of?
Same for the Glock 19, only in 9mm Luger.
As to the Springfield, you'll have to advise me. I was under the impression that self loading center fire rifles were restricted to government agencies and occupational shooters. Under what circumstances may a collector own a firing model?

you should probably address some of the issues above before claiming victory.

Why? Despite repeated requests for you to provide evidence that A) Lawful ownership is a causal factor in violent crime, and B) the Australian NFA has resulted in a substantive decrease in violent crime, the only thing you've offered to date has been the hand wave, "I don't have anything that you would accept".
That seems pretty definitive until you actually offer something substantive.

 

[The Fool]

I don't think so. How many people do you know that aren't competitive shooters who own a .45?
Not to mention that at the prices they seem to be fetching, it would put them out of the reach of the average citizen, especially considering the additional costs involved.
The restrictions in question limit the possession of handguns to one very small, somewhat wealthy, group of people.
Excepting that small group, it translates to a prohibition in practice if not in explicit letter. In other words a defacto ban.

sorry this is getting too silly. You have agreed that .45acp are not banned but you think they are expensive so now thats a defacto ban.

should the government subsidise them so the average struggling family can afford the .45 they really need?

 

[The Fool]

n a firing model?

Why? Despite repeated requests for you to provide evidence that A) Lawful ownership is a causal factor in violent crime, and B) the Australian NFA has resulted in a substantive decrease in violent crime, the only thing you've offered to date has been the hand wave, "I don't have anything that you would accept".
That seems pretty definitive until you actually offer something substantive.

keep asking and I will keep replying. There is no evidence I know of that you would find acceptable..

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

sorry this is getting too silly. You have agreed that .45acp are not banned but you think they are expensive so now thats a defacto ban.

should the government subsidise them so the average struggling family can afford the .45 they really need?

You're at least right that this has gotten silly. You state I am claiming expense as the reason I term it a de facto ban, but you know better. And so does anyone else who bothers to read this thread.
I think there is a handgun ban for simple reason that unless a person falls into a very narrowly defined category they cannot possess one under current Australian law, which makes it the definition of a de facto ban.
In case you don't understand the term:
de fac·to (dĭ făk′tō, dā)
adj.
Existing in actuality, especially when contrary to or not established by law: de facto segregation; a de facto government.

The operative theory you're attempting to use is that as long as a minuscule amount of handguns are allowed there is no ban. Would you stand by that same theory if something other than firearms was being discussed?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

keep asking and I will keep replying. There is no evidence I know of that you would find acceptable..

Which translates to:
I have no evidence that would convince a reasonable, objective individual.

 

[WildCat]

Some amazing stuff going on in the English language in this thread, bans aren't bans and confiscation isn't confiscation.

When you have to redefine words to push a political agenda you've already conceded you can't win the argument on its merits and have to resort to deception.

 

[The Fool]

Some amazing stuff going on in the English language in this thread, bans aren't bans and confiscation isn't confiscation.

When you have to redefine words to push a political agenda you've already conceded you can't win the argument on its merits and have to resort to deception.

like describing things as a confiscation where you can't find anything confiscated. Or calling something a ban when its not banned?

Wildcat, I just posted Chuck a link to a for sale add for a gun he believed was banned. You sure you want to salute his claims?

 

[The Fool]

Which translates to:
I have no evidence that would convince a reasonable, objective individual.

No it doesn't translate to that as you have added reasonable and objective when you are clearly a partisan commentator.

 

[The Fool]

You're at least right that this has gotten silly. You state I am claiming expense as the reason I term it a de facto ban, but you know better. And so does anyone else who bothers to read this thread.
I think there is a handgun ban for simple reason that unless a person falls into a very narrowly defined category they cannot possess one under current Australian law, which makes it the definition of a de facto ban.
In case you don't understand the term:
de fac·to (dĭ făk′tō, dā)
adj.
Existing in actuality, especially when contrary to or not established by law: de facto segregation; a de facto government.

The operative theory you're attempting to use is that as long as a minuscule amount of handguns are allowed there is no ban. Would you stand by that same theory if something other than firearms was being discussed?

as I have pointed out quite a few times. People appear to want to call it a ban when they find the conditions unreasonable. Or in your case unreasonable or a bit to expensive.

The price of Steinway grand pianos is apaling in australia, its a de-facto ban.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

No it doesn't translate to that as you have added reasonable and objective when you are clearly a partisan commentator.

That's only your opinion, and I suspect it's just another attempt to deflect the issue by making an ad hominem attack.
Reasonable and objective evidence will stand on its own regardless of my (or your) personal position.