Australia: land of kangroos, people that need to lighten up

Post Reply New Topic

That was the problem with the Gun myth "fact" checker guy, he was painting a negative picture of crime in Canada that was embellished by selective research, in an attempt to support anti-gun control ideology in the US.

Canada has gun control restrictions that are more effective than the US; the US could learn from Canada and require the type of educational efforts that Canada imposes on it's citizens before purchasing a firearm. Tests are required to gain licensing for a motor vehicle in the US, because of the potential dangers of driving a motor vehicle; there is no reason that holds stronger credibility than safety as why knowledge per the safe handling of guns should not be required, and tested for all those gaining licenses for guns in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#United_States

^

You've got a few problems; a massive base of already possessed firearms, a Constitutional right, and a lack of proof that it's Canada's gun regulations and not other aspects of their law and customs that are responsible for the differing crime levels. I'm mostly interested in that last one.

Based on years of immersion in this debate and thousands of hours of research, I'm quite confident that I could air-drop millions of pistols into Canada (or Japan for that matter) without seeing a jump in violent crime; it's not the guns that cause violence but the underlying conditions. There may be an argument for national healthcare or other state welfare programs in there, but not one for gun control.

There is always an argument for gun safety. Safety saves lives; there is no question about that.

I agree it would would be impossible to enforce it among existing gun owners, but worthwhile as an increased measure of safety, for new individuals registering guns.

Would it ever happen? Not likely in the US.

Canada rates #4 on the global index of peace; the US rates #88. Many reasons for that.

One reason is it is two different cultures and two very different ways of thinking among the general population, on issues like health care, gun control, state welfare programs etc. The society is healthier than the Society in the US.

I suspect the fact the country has one of the lowest overall population densities has more to do with overall levels of homicide, than any other factor. My understanding is that levels of homicide are much higher in the urban areas close to the American boarder.

There is going to be violence in New York City, with or without guns. It is an issue for most mammals when population densities and competition for resources are increased.

Guns provide a deterrent for violence as well as a cultural adaptation to overcome the natural aversion to kill another member of the same species. Not unlike nuclear bombs, they aren't necessarily a bad thing unless one becomes a victim of the weapon.

People in Japan still have a much different view point of nuclear weapons than we do, as one of the few populations that have ever actually been directly impacted by the weapon.

If anarchy ever results in the US, it's not likely that guns are going to be seen as a good thing in the streets of the US, with more people victimized by the weapon. Withstanding that potential, the factors of crime associated with guns, appear to be fairly well under control.

It's less likely that there will be an issue like that in Canada, because of the health of the society that is evidenced there above and beyond the US. If one can can stand the cold, it appears to be a much safer place, overall, to live.

Actually from 1977 when Canada introduced gun control legislation the number of guns owned per capita dropped from around 60-70 in 1977 to only 30 per 100 residents. In comparison the US has the highest gun ownership of around 89 guns per 100 residents.

The association between the drop in violent crime in Canada and gun control is so well known it inspired the Michael Moore movie "Bowling for Columbine" where across the border people living in the US have steel bars on their homes and guns for protection while in relatively gun free Canada (just a few miles across the border) the crime rate is almost non-existent and people don;t even lock their doors when they the leave their homes.

Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world, and they also eat a lot of sushi. Neighboring countries eat far less sushi, and off themselves at far lower rates, so obviously all that sushi is what's making the Japanese suicidal. A political hack filmmaker with a history of lying made a documentary about it, so I know it's true...

This sounds somewhat plausible. But it's worth remembering that this thread has gone in a direction that is not actually to do with the original topic.

The original topic was: should this photograph be condemned as irresponsible? That doesn't actually have anything to do with gun legislation. In fact, it sounds like it is more to do with the "underlying conditions" that you are referring to. Maybe one of the "underlying conditions" that causes Australia to have a lower rate of violent crime is that it has the sort of culture which would condemn this photograph as irresponsible.

If you believe that culture is the decisive factor, then you should care more about preserving the type of culture that reduces violent crime. You shouldn't say that Australians are "ridiculous" for condemning the photo. Instead, you should wish that Americans would condemn such a photo.

Last edited by Declension on 19 Jun 2012, 5:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

Good post.

I've just gone where the thread has, I don't think I even entered it until well past the point where it became less about the photo itself and more about gun policy.

That being said, I think you're missing my point, as of all the "underlying issues" I'm speaking of as being most relevant to violent crime, "gun culture" is not among them.

Remember that I'm part of that "gun culture", I hold a gunsmithing degree, which means that many of my friends and classmates are also gun people, and their friends and family follow a similar pattern. If gun culture was the problem, you'd expect to see a lot of violence and criminality in and around the group, and that's not only not the case but the very opposite. My home state is in the top 5 in the nation for concealed carry permits with around 16% of the population licensed to carry, and yet we have extremely low rates of violent crime.
Internationally, I can point to countries with strict gun control and massive crime (Mexico), strict gun control and low crime (Japan), lax gun control and low crime (Switzerland), or lax gun control and moderate crime (USA); in every case it is non-gun related factors that account for the variations in crime, not the availability of guns. If you really insist, I can dig out the charts and graphs and analysis again, but as this is the umpteenth time I've argued this issue I'd prefer not to have to get that far into it.

If you like, I can even get the graph showing how Australia's overall violent crime was (non)affected by their gun ban, and visually illustrate exactly why I think the Aussies are being ridiculous by making such a stink over such a non-issue.

OH NO!

PEOPLE FROM A DIFFERENT CULTURE CRITICIZED GUNS!

I CAN'T TAKE IT.

Oh Noez,
People are talking about yet another topic on which I'm ignorant!

MUST MAKE POINTLESS COMMENT!! !!

Right, we should stop using the vague term "gun culture", since some people assume that it refers to negative gun culture and some people assume that it refers to positive gun culture. What you describe is an example of positive gun culture. But are you really saying that negative gun culture is not a major factor in why some countries have higher rates of gun-related crime than others?




But if the "non-gun related factors" are not to do with negative gun culture, and they're not to do with legislation, what on earth are they?



I don't know whether you're referring to the Aussies in the article or (some of) the Aussies in this thread. If the former, then you are being unfair. The Aussies in the article are not making a stink about people breaking Australia's gun laws. They are making a stink about a photo which trivialises guns and makes them seem "cool". You have a gunsmithing degree, right? Surely they taught you that guns are dangerous tools, and not to be taken lightly?

I was slightly annoyed at the attitude toward Australians and guns displayed on this thread which is why I barged in on the gun lobby parade that was starting to take place on this thread.

I certainly don't want that type of American "gun culture" associated with right wing politics (Neo-Nazis and the Tea party) coming to Australia and applaud the AOC for punishing Darcy and Monk for the glamorization of guns.

What do you mean by "negative gun culture"? Illegal gun culture? I would point out that by it's very nature criminal culture is already illegal, but I'm not completely sure what you're talking about here. There is an interesting divide within US gun culture between people who grew up hunting and with firearms generally being around and those who came to them later in life and usually place a higher emphasis on pistols and self defense, but neither culture could really be called inherently negative. I'm a non-hunter myself, I didn't grow up with firearms but rather became interested in my teens and educated myself, which places me in the gun culture 2.0 category.



Poverty, treatment of mental health, corruption, the drug war, etc. Consider this simple thought experiment; if I put a gun in your hand right now, would it in and of itself make you more or less inclined to do something violent? Now imagine that you're in desperate circumstances and violence seems the only way out, would you choose the most effective or least effective weapon you have access to? Gun availability might effect what tools are used for violence, but the cause of the violence itself is entirely different.



Guns are cool, haven't you heard?

In America, that sort of judgment and action would be called a "content based restriction" and would be illegal if the state did it, but as I understand it Australians don't have nor want the freedom of speech that we enjoy here.

I also don't think the photo depicts any dangerous behavior, two guys posing with unloaded guns that are not pointed at anything under controlled conditions is hardly reckless. It would be a different case if they were pointing the guns at each other or otherwise being unsafe with them, but that doesn't seem to have been the situation.

That leaves the "glamorizing" aspect, and I'm only half-joking when I say that guns are in fact cool; most weapons are and it just seems ridiculous to try and stamp that out via nannying. You know that scene that they often have in the movies, the one where the guy who's never handled a gun before gets his hands on one and starts posing and playing with it? That's pretty true to life, even people who claim to hate the things will get this funny smile on their face if you put one in their hand, and be seemingly inexorably drawn to pointing it at things, posing, racking the action, etc. I've actually done this and observed the behavior many times, I suspect it's like power tools or muscle cars to many men and some women, there's just an ingrained fascination and desire when you're talking about a powerful item. But I digress.

Back to your room Junior! Serious people are talking.

You can come back when you have any knowledge or experience with American gun culture, not just ignorance and a strong opinion.

Sure, I understand that there are certain contexts for guns which do not raise problems. Not to be too stereotypical, but I occasionally shoot rabbits on my family's farm. And if I lived in a dangerous area, I might consider owning a gun for personal protection. But I don't think that the photograph in question is related to either of these contexts. The photograph is sending out the message: "Guns are cool." It conceals the true significance of guns: guns are tools which are used to kill things.

Consider this as an analogy: I think that there are legitimate uses for cars. But if I saw a Youtube video of teenagers being stupid with cars, I would condemn it as irresponsible.



You're confusing free-speech issues with moral judgment issues and the rights of private organisations. Nobody is saying that it should be illegal to create such a photograph! They are saying that it is irresponsible and sends the wrong message. If Swimming Australia demands that the photograph be taken down or else they will reprimand the swimmers, that is entirely a private issue and could legally happen anywhere, including the US. Are you saying that in the US, it is illegal for a private club to fire me for saying something they don't like? Of course it isn't illegal.

Last edited by Declension on 20 Jun 2012, 1:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

anyone concerned about the reputation of their activities should adjust them accordingly instead of expecting others to adjust theirs, if not its another argument.