The man responsible for the biggest ever wipeout of the Nationals’ primary vote is at it again, this time spruiking more anti-gun drivel as part of a Monash University alumni event:
In other words, three left-leaning anti-gun spruikers are getting together in an echo chamber on behalf of the most left-wing university in the most left-wing city in the country, to nod furiously in agreement with each other for an hour. Identical to Sam Lee and David Shoebridge’s stunt at Politics in the Pub months ago.
Donald Betts is a former Democrat Senator from Kansas, so no guesses as to his leanings on firearms. It’ll be interesting to see if Mr Betts is keen to discuss the disproportionately high homicide rates of the African-American community vs the rest of the country. I doubt it.
If you’re in doubt as to the views of Andrew Saindon, here’s what he said about the landmark DC vs Heller ruling in 2008:
“Andrew J. Saindon, a D.C. assistant attorney general, argued the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the right to carry. Mr. Saindon claims the carry ban prevents crime and increases public safety. Echoing a favorite argument of local politicians, Mr. Saindon asserted, “The District is a unique place. It’s the seat of federal government, home to hundreds of politicians … and a proven target of terrorists’ attack.”
Yep, another anti-gunner. Government officials are already protected in Washington DC by, oh I don’t know, guns?
Three simple questions for the panellists:
Will the panel discuss the 49% reduction in the per capita homicide rate in the United States since 1980, despite the firearm supply now over 400 million?
Will the panel also discuss the 46% drop in the firearm death rate in Australia in the 16 years before John Howard got anywhere near the PM’s office?
Will Tim Fischer provide an accurate, non-waffling explanation about how the non-legally binding National Firearms Agreement has any relevance at all, given the legal flavour of the event?
I doubt it, given there’s no pro-gun counter balance on the panel, as is standard.
Call this event for what it is – the usual, self-aggrandizing, echo chamber wank about apparently how much better Australia is at regulating firearms than America, while avoiding any real in-depth discussion about the complex myriad of socio-economic, political, historical, cultural and other factors that render this simplistic, binary argument completely irrelevant.
The event claims to be exploring this side of the debate: “in particular, this panel will focus on what makes Australia and the US distinct both legally and culturally in the context of gun regulation.”
Well, we could have told you that for free and saved you the trouble of listening to Tim Fischer.
they’d be better off holding a seminar on why so many people dis-believe the official “narrative” of the Port Arthur ‘incident’ ;
IIRC, even a past Premier (not sure if it was NSW or Tas.) said that not having a full and transparent legal process and, possibly, an independent inquiry into the ‘incident’ has fuelled the brush-fire of conspiracy theories over the decades since….
(check on ‘Wiki’ …. could be under “Port Arthur conspiracy”, from mem. )
Like your comment. 🙂 David Leyonhjelm wanted to bring up the inquest, but it got quickly swept under the rug very recently.
They’ve already got Aussie type gun laws in some states there: New York City (upstate New York is ok, but you aren’t allowed to enter NYC and you still need 3 references and live in NYS [New York State] for 5 or 10 years), Hawaii, California (it’s very hodge podge — some places good some places bad) and New Jersey (the most Australian like state in America!!) Crime is considered to be worse in the strict gun law states/areas than those with more lax laws like Florida, Colorado or Tennessee. I don’t know why Connecticut wants to be even more like New Jersey/Australia!!! It’s gotten so bad in New Jersey a woman died waiting to get a gun for self defense! There is even a website dedicated to 2nd amendment insurance in that state! No joke! http://www.nj2as.org It’s a great idea mind you… (So in other words, there 2nd amendment is in name only.)
Conneticut’s gun laws I think are ok, but it’s a pretty lengthy read at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut The more “spiel” you have in conditions applied to them, you can safely bet there are a lot of restrictions.
Yes, as what you said in the article it should be noted on WHO is doing what with guns.
America is becoming crazy and it would be a sad day if they become like Australia. There needs to be more Americans joining the NRA and that’s the only antidote to this problem.
Bill, if Australia had an NRA in 1996 we wouldn’t be where we are now, the rate of firearm ownership is increasing and as it increases the anti gun crowd are attempting to add more and more restrictions to try to stem the tide. there are enough of us now that if we voted as one, just once, we would get our rights back because political parties are pragmatists.
My advice for Americans, if you are not in the NRA, join – if you are in the NRA, but unhappy with it, join another similar group but maintain your NRA membership – the NRA is the big political stick, don’t let politicians see it as getting weaker or you’ll wind up like Aust, 10 rd magazines for pistols, barrel length restrictions and likely to be charged with firearms offences if you manage to access your gun in time to protect yourself if needed.