Philosophy Now Forum

Ginkgo wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Ok then, I think Williams is promoting a continuum fallacy. In other words, there are a huge variety to things that can be used as weapons to kill people therefore all should be classified as the same, 'able to kill category'. It ignore the possibility that weapons can be seen to produce different outcomes when it comes to particular circumstances.

Good point! By extension does the Right to Bear Arms also include the right to own an atomic bomb, or mustard gas?

I have seen it used both ways when it comes to weapons. It depends on what you are trying to promote at the time.

In your above case it would be, "major distinctions are only minor distinctions". When it comes to assault rifles it could be, "minor distinctions are really major distinctions"

You figures are puzzling. On the one hand you say guns were destroyed, then the same number have returned.
Under what basis were they destroyed and, who is buying them back. Is this legal importation?
Then you say there is not research on the resurgence, but suggest that the guns are not semi-auto.

I assume you are implying that the gun type has changed from automatics to handguns, and this corresponds to a halving of the death rate.

reasonvemotion wrote:
I can't see how this enforcement will succeed as there has been a resurgence in gun ownership in Australia. Australians are a gun loving society, not quite on the same level as the U S of A.
.

We have no constitutional right to own them.

chaz wyman wrote: So, yes it's time for the US to consider rational laws against the intent to commit a crime; and that includes clubs too.

reasonvemotion wrote:If there were no gun laws in Australia......... there would be no wild life left.

Similar to Italy.

Australians are a gun loving society, they would shoot anything, kangaroo, wild pig, birds. A large proportion of people did not hand in their guns when the Government called for this. Think "Paul Hogan" types.

As it stands handguns, semi autos are illegal and legally owned guns are stolen and used for criminal purposes.

I would hate to think what this country would be like if there were no restrictions.

chaz wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Does anybody want to challenge or comment on Williams' final two sentences? "Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns."

Ok then, I think Williams is promoting a continuum fallacy. In other words, there are a huge variety to things that can be used as weapons to kill people therefore all should be classified as the same, 'able to kill category'. It ignore the possibility that weapons can be seen to produce different outcomes when it comes to particular circumstances.

Good point! By extension does the Right to Bear Arms also include the right to own an atomic bomb, or mustard gas?

chaz wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:Australians own as many guns as they did in 1996 at the time of the Port Arthur shootings. Australia's stockpile of firearms is back to the same level. More than 1 million guns were destroyed, but over the last ten years importation of more than one million has restocked its numbers. Despite this, gun related deaths have halved, since the buy back.

Apparently these findings will be used by the gun control task force set up in America. Guns that have been imported into Australia are not the semi automatic types that were banned in 1996 and stats show that 90% of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass killings. There is no research on this resurgence of gun ownership in Australia, it is a bit like a virus, returning. We have yet to see the impact of this new development. So far, it seems it has not been a strong deterrent.
.

Yes, What happened was the Australian government deemed certain types of guns that were once legal as illegal. If you were now in possession an illegal firearms you had to hand it in and you would be compensated for your loss. I can only think that gun enthusiasts restocked themselves with legal arms over time.

I think there is a need to look at the background to this because it is important.. In Australia only about 5.2 percent of the population own guns. We have no right to arms because we have no Bill of Rights. Owning a gun in Australia is a privilege, not a right. We have had a lot of success since Port Arthur. There has been no mass shooting for 17 years.

I think the task force will not achieve anything because your background is so different to ours.

Just 2 reflections on matters of fact. Australians do have a Bill of Rights.Law is based on precedent. Australian law is based on the Lex Britannica, and as such you have the original Bill of Rights upon which the US was copied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
A second point is that the US do not have the right to bear arms due to the US Bill of Rights, but by an amendment (2nd.) to the Constitution.

To what do you attribute the lack of mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident? RvsE claims that gun deaths have dropped by half since that time, though gun ownership has risen to previous levels. How do you account for that?

Trust me. I can absolutely guarantee you that we are not a gun loving country. In fact we are the exact opposite. The 5.2 percent figure for gun ownership was not pulled out of the air. It is a fact that only a very small percentage of Australians own guns. That is not 52 percent it is 5.2 percent.

Where do you get your information?

bobevenson wrote: Since you don't have a Constitution or Bill of Rights, please don't come running to us when your next King George turns your life into a living Hell (Oh, I forgot, you're already in a living Hell).

reasonvemotion wrote:

Trust me. I can absolutely guarantee you that we are not a gun loving country. In fact we are the exact opposite. The 5.2 percent figure for gun ownership was not pulled out of the air. It is a fact that only a very small percentage of Australians own guns. That is not 52 percent it is 5.2 percent.

Where do you get your information?

Read my post.

A large majority of people did not surrender their guns and these are probably not registered. Don't be naive and believe in the "figures". Australia is an outdoor sports country, guys go four wheeling driving in the bush, go away for a weekend, with the boys camping and "shooting".
This is common, unfortunately.

How do I know. I am an Australian and I never say G'day.

bobevenson wrote:Please restrict your worthless throw-away comments to those that have a minimum level of relevancy.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Please restrict your worthless throw-away comments to those that have a minimum level of relevancy.

I think the fact that during those times that the author says were civil a great bulk of the American youth were out and about shooting and killing others may have a slight relevance.

Your author sounds like another in a long line of right-whingers who will take any opportunity to blame liberalism for the ills of your country.

Yes, well I lived in the bush as well. Most farmers and young people go pigging and roo shooting. Many own guns, as do most people who are involved with the land. But the vast majority of Australian live in cities and large towns on the coast. The bush population is only a small fraction of the total population.

Every source I have looked up give the same figure about, 5 percent. You can show me a different figure from a different source?