Sol: A sixteen-year old Nashvillian working for Paramount. Interesting concept.

*takes sip of non-acloholic beer*

Now if I understand Daryus correctly, the effects of the '96 laws were that certain guns were removed from the public hands and replaced with other types of guns. Now if that happened in every case, so that the total number of guns in private hands is the same, if the kinds of guns replaced are just as effective as the kinds of guns that replaced them, and if there are no other effects of these laws, then I can see no reason that these particular laws could increase crime. Now if other laws were passed at the same time, maybe, but I don't know of any, so I can't theorize. These particular laws don't seem all that insidious (with the possible exception that I'm under the impression that this allows searches without warrants, but I'm not sure there).

Here's a little story whose source I've unfortunately lost, but which occurred on Aug. 20, 1999. Perhaps our Ozzie friends can dig up the relevant newspaper stories? But this is the story I got:

This is the story of a middle aged man who belongs to a shooting club and is a known gold prospector. In his capital city suburban backyard, he washes and treats small quantities of ore-bearing deposit for the gold traces.

The federal taxation department, decides that he MAY be withholding information relevant to his income. It asks the federal police to pay a call on the house. They contact their state counterparts and find that he has 20 registered firearms.

The resulting visit they pay to the house is at dawn, by courtesy of the tactical response unit, wearing flak jackets. The man and his family are bundled out of the house under submachine guns.

THIS is the new Australian way of asking people if they're making too much pocket money by washing dirt in their backyards?
What justifies this?

OOH, they said, he had 20 firearms registered. Imagine... anyone so potentially callous and potentially violent and potentially tax-avoiding as to own 20 guns, belong to a shooting club, become a licenced shooter, and then register his guns with the appropriate authorities. How.. Despicable!

They also tell me that a certain police official in Victoria keeps a very close eye on the database so that if a gun owner allows his shooter's licence to lapse, for whatever reason (including hospitalization and travel) he can send police out immediately to confiscate the now-illegal firearms. I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Also, no nation should be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal. No one needs that much power anyways!! In fact, ballistic missles as well. We should take away these horrible weapons from all nations. They can kill people, and they are terribly dangerous.

Sounds absurd, doesn't it?
How many nations would agree to this?

"Sounds absurd, doesn't it?"

Um...no? Brilliant, I'd say. Also unworkably utopian. Still a good idea.

"How many nations would agree to this?"

Aside from Brazil and Argentina and South Africa? (All nations which voluntarily ended their nuclear weapons program after suitable international pressure, I believe. Though my recollection is a bit rusty, and it might only be one of these nations.) It depends on how sweet the offer is. Don't have nukes or we'll kick your ass won't entice as many nations as don't have nukes and we'll set up a sweet trade deal. Flies, vinegar, honey, etc.

Do you, then, think that every nation has a right to a nuclear arsenal? I don't mean to sound snippy, I'm genuinely curious. This is something I was thinking about the other day. If so, you are at odds with, well, every nuclear power. Consider the fuss raised over Pakistan and India. And I'm willing to bet large sums of money that both of those nations will be on the side of the other nuclear powers when the next nation decides to build a few warheads.

Most nations, it seems, simply don't need to have any nuclear weapons on hand. In the current geopolitical climate, any nation using them in a war is going to be an instant pariah. And while they're good for intimidating enemy nations, there aren't too many enemy nations around. A glance at the map shows that most conflicts these days are internal, and not the sort where really, really big bombs are all that useful. (You wouldn't want to be using nuclear bombs to clear out a neighborhood of Bosnian Muslims when they're just a few blocks away from your own home, etc.)

------------------
I am not good with English but excuses me. I hate you whom think bad of the gods of the thunder known under the name of ""Metallica"". Good tape of ""Metallica"" is ""Load"", that you like it or not. A much better tape of Metallica ""Load"" than overrated the tape known under the name of ""Iron Maiden"" ""Powerslave"". You all are penis for the bad one of thought about ""Lars"". ""Lars"" can take a cucumber in bottom of his throat without reflex of muzzle. Lars can too take cucumber in bottom with no stretching of bottom hole sphincter muscle. Thanks for reading.
--
an anonymous fan
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Because I'm saving all my love for you.

Sort of like when I used the planet buster on you in Alpha Centauri.

------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

To get rid of ALL nukes, you must have every nation do so, or it won't work.

To get rid of ALL guns, you must have every individual do so, or it won't work.

I'll give up my right to a gun when the outlaws give them up too. Otherwise, I'd rather have a more level playing field.

With your kind of mentality, the celebrated land-mine ban/agreement which was just created a year ago would never have been created. (Notice that the United States still refuses to sign it)

On a more significant point, that is the general intent of the various START-style treaties that the States have been involved in.

Gun control (or the reduction of nuclear weapons) does not have to be an all or nothing procedure. All you have to do is reduce the number of weapons in the hands of amateur criminals (ok...thats an odd sounding term, insert whatever is the reverse of professional criminals.)

That is all.

------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/

And before anyone brings it up, it isn't paranoid to think that there are people that will take advantage of you if given the chance. It's stupid to think there aren't. It WOULD, however, be paranoid to think that EVERYONE will take advantage of you if given the chance. There's a big difference.

The problem with having a big military, even for self-defense is that you always end up using it when you've got nothing else to do. Its essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We had feudalism which created a class of knights. Without anyone to fight, these knights couldn't just sit around twiddling their thumbs, so they went out and tried to find a fight anywhere they could.

Its the same today, any looney without anything to do (and needing to boost his popularity) can lob a few Tomahawk missiles at Afganistan, or Iraq, or who knows where. (see: Wag The Dog)

Just like with giving citizens guns. You end up with people shooting their pizza-delivery or paper-delivery people. Everybody wants to be a bloody hero.

I'd like to see the government try to take away all the criminal's guns... But first, they'd start on the easy targets, like Mr. Jones on 5th Street, Smalltown, USA, who has had the gun for 12 years, uses it for hunting and target shooting. He also has a wife and 3 kids and works at Factory, Inc. etc. etc.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.

True, but you also end up with several hundred, if not thousand, times MORE crimes prevented by citizens with guns than accidents by citizens with guns.