Magpie_Oz

Ok to put it in simpler terms for you, a kilo of coke is 1000 "hits" so to compare drugs and guns you need to compare 1kg of coke with 1000 individual guns. 1000 guns are a hell of a lot harder to smuggle than 1000 units of coke It could not happen because Mexico has much stricter gun laws than just about any body else and it's primary source of illegal supply is the US they don't have a domestic supply source and their import regs are far stricter. The example I mentioned before was for semi-auto weapons that are legal in the US being smuggled into Mexico where they are banned. How do you figure that? You currently have tight controls on what is imported into the USA all you have to do is put another item on the list. Are you suggesting that a vast expenditure would be needed for the customs officials to be able to recognise a gun? As previously mentioned 1000 units of drugs can be hidden in a spare tyre of a car, 1000 guns even small ones are a much tougher concealment. No what I am saying is that 1.7 trillion dollars has been spent on the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is finished and Afghanistan is in draw down so what that means is there is 1.7 trillion dollars back into the economy which you would only need a tenth of to pay $500 of every gun in circulation. I am not saying I have a better approach I am saying that just because one approach has not worked does not mean that all attempts will fail. Which is what you said when you suggested that a War on Guns would fail just as the War on Drugs has. Not one of the arguments offered on this forum or any other where I have had this debate many, many times has ever offered a practical problem that is insurmountable. I am not blithely dismissing anything. Yes I understand that the US economy has some major difficulties at present. Countries that actively use the death penalty: People's Republic of China,Iran,North Korea,Yemen,United States,Saudi Arabia,Libya,Syria, Bangladesh, Somalia,Sudan,Palestinian Authority,Egypt,Equatorial Guinea ,Taiwan,Belarus,Iraq,Malaysia,Bahrain,Botswana,Singapore,Vietnam In some esteemed company there. No and I guess that is the nub of the issue.

Records are sketchy but the colonies of the Americas were used for Penal Transportation right from the very beginning. Australia was never ruled by a government made up of convicts but true enough we were founded on the basis of being a penal colony first and foremost

It makes every sense a large amount of Cocaine can be smuggled easily, 1 kg will go a very long way and will net a huge return. Guns are much more bulky and are harder to smuggle in high cash return quantities. Perhaps but the point is they don't go the other way so Mexico is unlikely to become an exporter of guns. There would be no additional cost simply because there are already mechanisms in place to stop illegal imports so it is just something else to look out for. That is about stopping the walk in illegal immigrants, large quantities of weapons, if they were to be smuggled in would need trucks and are much easier to police. I not suggesting that you would spend more on these countries rather that the money could be found for operations in countries foreign to your own so why not find some money to help your own people? Just because one thing has not worked doesn't mean another won't either. The War on Drugs was a failure in its execution not as a concept. A different approach may yield better results. That is the whole idea, it IS doable. Our borders are a lot longer and unguarded and vulnerable to smugglers but we seem to manage to keep illegal arms out. That is one of the major problems of laws like that is the disparity between statute punishment and common law punishment. The punishment you will receive in court for breaking and entering is probably a custodial sentence in some cases up to life imprisonment but more likely 5 to 10 years. However the North Carolina example you quote places a common law penalty of death (not really but I am trying to avoid saying vigilante.) It grants the power of judge jury and executioner to the home owner which places them outside the rule of law, hardly a good situation

We kinda distanced ourselves from him some time ago. Murdoch, Gibson and the other ex-pats we only recognise as still Aussie when they are in the good books. When they stuff up they are immediately "Yanks".

Are you actually serious ? On one hand criticise my country because we are not allowed to have sub-machine guns and started out as a penal colony (just like the US by the way) and on the other ask for parenting strategies on how to stop your children being shot by their friends parents ! I'd rather be in a country that has a convict distant past than live in one that has lived under the law of the gun right from birth to present day.

Not I meant what I said, blaming your own government for the reverse osmosis on the "leaky" border was your idea

The dollar value is what it is all about. A kilo of Cocaine is worth a heck of a lot more than a kilo of handguns. It is not the concelability of a single item that is important but the concealability of a valuable amount. A Kilo of Coke will fit in a suitcase, a $1mill worth of guns would take a shipping container. Reckon you could swallow a revolver wrapped in a condom? Oh and by the by, most guns smuggled across the Mexican border go the other way, into Mexico to the Drug cartels. "It has been reported that more than 500 Romanian manufactured AK-47s (WASR-10) smuggled to Mexico were legally imported into the United States from Europe by Century Arms International despite a U.S. ban on the importation of certain configurations of semi-automatic assault rifles." Why would a ban cost more? The current police force uncover guns all the time at the moment, it would be just that now they confiscate them and arrest those in possession of them saving the expense of sorting through a register or finding out they have taken someone into custody for no reason. Glad you brought that up. To date the US has spent 1.7 trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan. You could buy back a butt load of guns for that amount. You don't think the gun dealers would get to that assumption first? Sell their guns in bulk and make a wad and then the criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns to sell to the govt ...... HANG ON ! they wouldn't be able to get guns at all.... hey how about that? If you shoot somebody who doesn't "have the upper hand" you have committed murder, self defence only comes in if you are in fear of your life Rambo.

Sure it's hard good things are rarely easy but since this thread started 493 Americans and 4 Australians have died from guns.

I'm sure he just meant hardened criminal, he'd never stoop so low as to accuse you of being a (shudder) lawyer.

Yes that is what makes it all the more sad. Thing is there are hundreds of other ways to get around the constitution. Don't ban guns, ban ammunition. Use environmental legislation to restrict the use of the components in primers. Restrict the sale of primers as they are an explosive. Tax the buggery out of gunpowder. Make guns not manufactured in the US illegal in the US and require all US gun manufacturers to be licensed and make the license fees astronomical. I'm sure there are other ways from outside the box. Main thing is you have to want to. But given the current bloke had a **** storm trying to introduce a health care system...........

Drugs and guns are in no way comparable in terms of their "smugglability". $1000000 worth of drugs is a substantially smaller and easier concealed shipment as opposed to a similar value of "Midnight Specials". If you make guns illegal then a large amount of infrastructure and cost associated with administering the legalities automatically goes out the window. I am sure out of 14 Trillion dollars and amount can be found, short term, to offer to buy anyone's gun. A criminal may well find themselves with a choice, hold up a liquor store and risk arrest for $50 or get a guaranteed $500 (or whatever) if they sell their gun. Personal protection. Think of the logic. If someone has a gun and threatens you with it you have two choices 1. Give them what they want or 2. Pull your own gun. In the first instance you lose your wallet, in the second you are almost certain that the assailant will "attempt to defend himself" and there is a good chance you will be shot, and a good chance you will die. If an assailant pulls a gun on you and attempts to rob you he is guilty of armed robbery. If you shoot and kill someone who is robbing you you are guilty of murder. Why? Intent. His intent was to rob, your intent was to kill. In all probability the verdict would be self defence but a case could be made that is wasn't. The assailant could argue he shot YOU in self defence and he had no intention of shooting you.

+1 look after the kids while the grown ups can sort themselves out.

As long as you say guys that the problem is too big it will remain so. As long as you say that people will always get guns they always will. Only criminals will have guns etc. These are all arguments that we heard when Oz banned guns and as well you know they have not come to fruition. Consider, for example, Branas et al (2009, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99 Issue 11, pp 2034-2040): "After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 times more likely to be shot". The rate of deaths due to guns in Oz has fallen from 9 per 100000 head of population in 1979 to 1.8 per 100000 in 2002 with 0.25 due to crime 1.45 by suicide and 0.1 by accident. USA is 15.22 per 100000, with 7.07 Homicide , 7.35 suicide and 0.59 accidental. There are an estimated 350 million guns in the USA huge masses of very cheap weapons. If you instituted a gun buy back with an average price of $500 per weapon you'd be up for $175 Billion if all guns were handed in. Small price to pay, what have you got to lose? If you implement it and no one sells their guns it won't cost anything, if everyone brings in their guns problem solved, they are gone. Even something in between would be a huge step forward. "What if I want a PPSh just cause I like WW2 stuff? (and no just owning it isn't good enough I want to shoot it)" You can have it if you have it deactivated, if you want to shoot it, bad luck. You're not allowed to drive your car at 160kph on the highway because it endangers others, same rules for guns.

Problem with shock tactics is that it tends to desensitise We had a similar thing awhile ago where they put mangled cars on the side of the highway as a reminder. They are just part of the scenery now and don't mean much. The key is education, you can stop the road toll by educating drivers. As for guns, well only those who actually NEED them should have them and that is a pretty short list. Soldiers on occasion, some forms of vermin control, strictly controlled sporting activities, specifically trained Law Enforcement officers (TSG/SWAT/SO19) and that's about it.

Maybe these ? http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132159 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7299592&page=1

http://kotaku.com/5489137/wii-gun-involved-in-3+year+old-shooting-is-amazingly-lifelike Here is the link, but it is a tragedy not an experiment

Maybe demographics will be more important to circulation than geographics? I'm thinking that newspapers will continue as a source of news but just in a different, electronic, form. Where they need to sell themselves is on the basis of reliability and truth which is a hard thing to find on the 'net. Can't imagine this latest stoush is going to help all that. Having said that, perhaps all these "revelations" are a simple way for Murdoch to be able to destroy the printed newspaper industry and consolidate his hold on and increase the desirability of his Internet news sources?

You don't mean the one where they had a real gun sitting next to a Nintendo Wii gun and the kid picked it up and shot someone and they tried to blame Nintendo ?

Those look great on you Stuke. Are you going to be finished with them soon? I'll need them back for the Alice Springs show.

True enough don't put it directly on plastic as it can react with it but if you do a base coat of primer there are no problems, unless you miss a bit.

My boots have zippers, such a time saver.

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, because really your dedication is quite touching, but be careful not to get to much of a sameness. The Compendium of Oz can cover so much ground so rather than stick to these few nuggets maybe just mix it up a bit? I mean you haven't even touched on any of my Barkmann's Corner stuff and that was some of my best, Classic Magpoz.

Is this a D&D Nerd rules fight ?

Oh ok. I guess most of us don't give much of a toss about peptic ulcers. If he got a Nobel prize for brewing or playing footy on the other hand .......

A = Poinciana B = Black Bean C = Box Gum D = Wattle E = Norfolk Island Pine I like the lupins particularly