Obama Praises Australian Gun Ban

[guruatbol]

I think that when outlets like MSNBC and others either don't report all the facts to spin it, such as the NY Times did, we need to write letters to their sponsors complaining of this and telling them we will suspend the purchase of their products if they continue to sponsor them.

There are some very fundamental things we should be active in doing in order to get the attention of these people that insist on spinning everything!

Just my .02

Mel

[Sierra280]

I think everyone here is missing the bigger picture. Obama has sold more guns than anyone else I can think of. He just mentions 'gun control' and people go into a buying frenzy that helps retail sales, tax revenues, and manufacturing. It happened a few years back for those who pay attention.

Quote:
He has nothing to lose but the D's will take a beating for it in the next couple of election cycles. Bring it on, Mr. President.

Obama has been doing everything possible to help the economy lately. Because, when the economy is on the up tick during a midterm election it typically helps candidates on the same party as the sitting President. So if gun sales, and everything else Obama causes help the economic numbers look better in Nov, it will actually help his party.


BTW, haven't we all seen this before? And how many big terrible, take-away our rights, gun control laws has the federal goverment passed under Obama?? Anyone?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The OC crowd with EBRs hasn't help our PR. The general public and the most in the gun world think that it is unreasonable to expect someone sitting in Starbucks to separate out some sleazy looking OC type from a rampager.

[born2climb]

1 Kings 20:11.....it is one thing to sit behind closed doors and run one's mouth about disarming America. It is another animal entirely to hitch up one's skirts and get to doing the taking.....

[44 AMP]

The people who believe Manchin_toomey or any other gun control is common sense are likely lost causes, anyway.

The people who think they are, because the TV says they are, (and they don't know any different) might still be reached by reason.

Remember earlier in the administration when some cabinet level were making noises about more gun control, and were, essentially told to shut up by the white house (no doubt with a whispered "now is not the time"...)

When they can't dance in the blood of children crying "oh the horror", gun control is a political loser, and they know it. This does not stop the die hard "true believers" from pushing, but their traction is mostly limited to the faithful, absent a fresh tragedy, paraded before us 24/7.

[dajowi]

Unfortunately every mass shooting only erodes the confidence of those Americans who are sitting on the fence regarding gun control into believing that more control or bans are necessary to prevent gun violence. And thus, agree with Obama more and more.

[44 AMP]

Unfortunately every mass shooting only erodes the confidence of those Americans who are sitting on the fence regarding gun control into believing that more control or bans are necessary to prevent gun violence.

While I agree this is, essentially the case, my opinion is that while mass shootings themselves are very bad, and do have some effect, what is hammering the confidence of the fence sitters is the virtually constant 24/7 talking heads on the screen, and in print, TELLING them more gun control and bans are necessary.

Herr Goebbels knew what worked, and the anti gun bigots do, as well...

[TDL]

Violent crimes did fall after the National Firearms Agreement, but they were already in decline as early as 1991. It's hard to gauge what effect the ban actually had, especially since compliance is estimated to be only about 20%

.

For the sake of accuracy, taking the level of overall murder from the date of the Australian NF, the US murder rate fell quite a bit more.

Ie Australia had X murder rate and ended with 0.75X and the US had Y murder and ended with 0.5Y during the same period.

Also the claims on Australian overall suicide dropping are problematic, there deaths in types of accidents, mainly drug overdoses, but others as well, of the type that are "hidden suicides," went WAY up. Australia also changed its probative burdens on suicide findings right about the time of NFA, which researchers there say is also causing an serious undercount as well. It is likely NFA had no net impact on suicide, but simply altered the means.

Dare we also mention Australia had its constitution written for it by another country? Or that it has less protections on several rights. I wonder if Obama and Holder would worship its evidentiary rules?

[Webleymkv]

I really don't see another big gun control push coming before the upcoming midterms, or possibly even before the next presidential election for a variety of reasons. First of all, barring another mass shooting that equals or surpasses Sandy Hook, the prime time for new gun control legislation has passed. Support for gun control among the populace at large is almost always at a peak right after a particularly bad mass shooting and support among politicians is almost always as far away from an election as you can get. Both of those conditions were met with Sandy Hook yet they weren't even able to get it through the Democrat-controlled Senate, much less the Republican-held House.

Now, part of this may be because they waited too long after the shooting and thus failed to "strike when the iron was hot" when emotions were at their peak. However, I think part of it is because, for Democrats not from deep blue districts like NYC, Boston, LA, or Chicago, gun control is usually a poison issue that does nothing but hurt their re-election chances. I very much suspect that Democrats from moderate and conservative-leaning districts would rather not talk about gun control at all as it puts them in an unenviable position: anger their constituency or their party leadership.

Also, while I have no doubt he'd take an opportunity that presented itself, I really don't think that gun control is that far up on Obama's list of priorities (it's not as though he doesn't already have enough problems). While he made some fiery speeches and acted outraged for the cameras, Obama's last gun control push seemed a bit half-hearted to me. Putting Biden, who isn't known for endearing himself to the other side, in charge of a blue ribbon panel seems like more of a "ra-ra-ra" to the base than a legitimate attempt to get something done. I very much doubt that Manchin-Toomey generated the same level of political arm twisting that other legislation like the ACA did.

Finally, one needs to remember that most polls only measure opinions on an issue, but not the enthusiasm with which those opinions are held. I've seen more than one set of research which indicates that gun control supporters are, as a whole, much less enthusiastic about the issue than gun control opponents. While members of pro gun groups like the NRA, SAF, GOA, and others might represent a minority of gun owners, members of anti gun groups like the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Americans for Responsible Solutions represent an even smaller minority among non-gun owners. I've seen quotes from more than one politician, including some very prominent ones such as Bill Clinton, stating that, in essence, gun control opponents usually feel very strongly about their position, generally have good memories regarding political stances on the issue, and that pro 2A groups, the NRA in particular, are very good at reminding their members of politicians' records on the issue particularly around elections. Because of this, I think that gun control opponents will likely "get out the vote" more effectively in the midterm elections (which typically have low turnouts anyway) than gun control supporters. Therefore, many of those who supported the last gun control push are probably already in an unenviable position, so doing it again right before an election is, IMHO, basically political suicide.

Basically, I think this is probably little more than an attempt on the part of the President to rally his base and possibly distract some attention from the numerous other problems he's having right now. The Democrat party's prospects in the midterm elections aren't looking all that good anyway, so I think the last thing they need to be doing in revisiting a poison issue like gun control.

[shooterdownunder]

Huh? Guns are banned here? That's news to me.
Whilst some have different levels of restrictions, the only firearms that are actually banned here are full automatics. Everything else is perfectly legal.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Please reconcile your post with the information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

It seems that the ordinary citizen has severe limits. For example:

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

[shooterdownunder]

Hi Glenn,
Please note that I didn't say they weren't restricted, I said that they weren't banned. There is a difference. I know more than a few people with Cat D licenses

[barnbwt]

So semi automatic rifles are perfectly legal? Then why was;


Care to elaborate?

Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters.

Sure sounds like the Average Joe to me. This happened way too recently in Australia for people to have grown accustomed already; someone, please tell me it isn't so far gone there already?

TCB

[shooterdownunder]

Because most average joe's don't have a genuine need for one. Same goes for any firearm including single shot target rifles.
If you do have a genuine need (Large sized property, professional shooter, theatrical armourer etc) there is nothing stopping you from getting one.

As I said originally, YES they are heavily restricted but NO they are not banned as the article said.

[kilimanjaro]

Well, they are certainly banned for 97% of the population, it seems.

[Webleymkv]

shooterdownunder, it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about the difference between an outright ban and a de-facto ban. While it is theoretically possible for someone to legally posses a "category D" firearm in Australia, thus they aren't outright banned, the regulations and costs involved with doing so are so heavy as to prevent the vast majority of people from owning such weapons thus creating a de-facto ban.

A parallel here in the U.S. would be post-1986 macnineguns. You see, machineguns as well as some other types of weapons like suppressors and short-barrel rifles and shotguns are regulated and registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In 1986, an amendment known as the Hughes Amendment was added to the Firearm Owners Protection Act which closed the NFA registry to machineguns except to military, law enforcement, and those possessing a Class III dealer's license. This means that unless one falls into one of the three aforementioned categories, you cannot legally posses a machinegun that was not registered under the NFA prior to 1986. Because the vast majority of people are not military, LE, or in possession of a Class III Dealer's license, they cannot legally own a post-1986 manufactured machinegun so the result, for the vast majority of people, is the same as an outright ban.

[thallub]

No surprise that president Obama should praise draconian gun control in Australia. Anti-gun presidents often praise gun control schemes.