My Answer to an Aussie

[gerhard1]

Looking over some of my older posts on the Kansas forum, I came across this response from the Aussie gentleman and my response on the old IMDb boards. As I recalled, I had not followed up with the OSA board, so here is the post. Admittedly late, but here it is.

I must apologize for my extremely late reply...
I did mean to thank you and Gary for your wonderful posts.
I do hope that I have caused no offence? I certainly didn't intend to imply that all gun owners in the USA are intent on shooting everyone around them. I was just asking out of curiosity as most Australians have nothing to do with fire arms. Of course the police and security guards do have hand guns.

I'm certainly not implying that we don't have a gun problem in Australia... fortunately or unfortunately, gun problems in this country tend to stem from the more criminal elements of society. A few years back, when I was living in Melbourne, there were a spate of shootings amongst the cities criminal class. It appears that history is repeating in Sydney, there are crime gang members being shot every few days!

Well thank you again for your very informative (as usual) posts!>

Attila, I have to say that you are a very gracious man. Thank you for your very kind words. It is not often that I get to explain the whys and wherefores of firearms ownership and use to someone who has limited exposure to them. I really enjoyed doing so, as it forced me to think before I write. Too often, I think, Americans get unnecessarily hostile in explaining their affection for firearms to those who don't share our affinity for them, especially to those who live in countires with very strict gun laws, such as Australia and in particular, the UK, which has even more stringent gun laws than you have Down Under.

At least in Australia, gun ownership is possible (even handguns) although a very strict licensing system is in place, while in the UK, handguns are almost completely banned. As I understand it, rural veterinarians are able to own handguns for the humane dispatching of livestock, but that is just about it. During the Olympics, for example, the pistol-shooting events had to take place in France, due to the legal situation in the UK.

Like I said before, such events as Aurora, Port Arthur, Dunblane, Hungerford, and Newtown, while they are truly shocking, horrible events, are (thank God!) anomalies. And broad, sweeping legislation should not be based on such events, and especially not if it affects as basic a right as that of self-defense.

There is also the argument that doing away with military-looking rifles is the first step towards the total elimination of firearms. Gun-control advocates scoff at this, saying that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy. And, to be honest, it usually is. This argument, also known as the camel's nose argument', goes like this: if 'a' is allowed to happen, then 'b' will follow, then 'c', and before you know it, we are at 'z' which is a place that we for sure and for certain don't want to be. The reason that it is not a fallacy in this case, is because the gun-control proponents themselves say it is a first step.

And then too, we have the example of the UK. Perhaps it is not too well-known, but prior to about 1920 or so, firearms were fairly easily obtained in the UK. Then Parliament started getting more and more strict until now, even what we Americans call 'long guns', (that is rifles and shotguns) are heavily regulated. The British NRA caved in at first, wanting to appear 'reasonable' and every time new restrictions were proposed, they went along with it, for the same reason. Before long, they found that their 'reasonable' attitude had resulted in the nickle and diming away of not only the right of gun-ownership, but that of self-defense as well. You might, as illustration, google the case of one Thomas Martin. And that is one of the things that gun-advocacy groups such as the American NRA are afraid of.

And no, my friend, your post did not offend me in the least. It was a very legitimate question, and Americans should learn how to graciously respond to these types of queries.

 

[KOPBET]

Why would you want to catch flies? Just curious...

 

[Glock 'em down]

You shoulda sent him this lil' cartoon.



DISCLAIMER: I do not condemn nor condone this video, nor do I believe and/or support everything depicted in it's contents. I just think it's funny as hell.

 

[Glocktogo]

• Looking over some of my older posts on the Kansas forum, I came across this response from the Aussie gentleman and my response on the old IMDb boards. As I recalled, I had not followed up with the OSA board, so here is the post. Admittedly late, but here it is.

Sounds like you had a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person. That's a rarity these days. FWIW, I can have a reasonable discussion or debate with anyone who comes of as sincere yet has a different set of life experiences or even values. It's when they come off as superior if you disagree with them or that it's somehow their place to teach you a lesson that I get contrarian!

 

[John6185]

I could tell the Aussie in one word why we are so fascinated by firearms...Obama!