Monday, June 16, 2014

No offense, mates

But I'd really rather not see Australian-style gun control implemented in the United States.

President Obama seems to like it, though.

8 comments:

rinardman said...

President Obama seems to like it, though.

Perhaps our friends down under would like to have him as their fearless leader?

I think we could work out a trade.

Gregoryno6 said...

NFW on that, rinardman. Although a trade of one dangerous President for two dangerous former Prime Ministers might be appealing...

Michael Lonie said...

Number Six,
Might make a deal there mate. We'd be rid of Obumbler almost three years early. The two PMs couldn't become president, so we'd be safe from from handing them supreme executive authority, as Dennis the Constitutional Peaaant might put it. They might become senators. The standards for entrance are pretty low, as Harry Reid shows. It's unlikely they would succeed in getting elected, because if they make their campaign speeches in Strine nobody here will understand them.

Still, since the Euros were so excited about Obumbler, I'd prefer to trade him to them for Nigel Farage, Sabine Herold, and a dustman to be named later.

Paco said...

C'mon, Gregory, be a sport. I mean, how long could the guy actually last there, what with all those snakes and spiders and things? I give him two weeks, tops.

Gregoryno6 said...

If you were to offer Gina Elise as part of the deal...hey, if you think France would part with Sabine Herold...
Alternatively, just tell Baz that we've got the loveliest golf courses in the world. We'll fill Air Force One with taipans and funnel-webs when nobody's looking.

RebeccaH said...

You gotta love this bit:

The agreement specifically makes clear that “personal protection [shall] not be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.”

So, in Australia, skeet shooting takes precedent over self-defense, am I reading that right?

Also, there must be a helluva black market for guns there.

JeffS said...

More to the point, Rebecca, that Down Under blackmarket is more "helluva" than you might realize.

Gregoryno6 said...

FWIW...
Until 1996 and the Port Arthur shootings, Australians could own pretty much any long-barreled weapon they desired. All it required was a licence, which was basically obtained so:
Policeman: how do you intend to use this firearm?
Citizen: Shooting rabbits and other vermin.
Policeman: Sign here, Five dollars, please.
Martin Bryant's killing spree at Port Arthur was the last in a string of mass shootings around the country. After Port Arthur John Howard tightened the rules a lot. It is arguable just how effective he was in his attempt to remove high-powered weapons from general availability but as far as I know we haven't had another Bryant style incident.
Handguns are a whole different story...
Up until the last ten years handguns were almost unknown here. Ownership required the gun be kept in a secure location in the home and only taken from the home to be used in an approved shooting range. While in transit the gun had to be kept in a secure metal box. (I'm going from memory here, but I think that's how it was).
Handguns have become more prominent in part to a slackening in recruitment standards for AQIS - Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Convicted criminals have managed to dodge detection and landed inspectors positions. You can see the potential for smuggling operations there. The Glocks and whatnot brought in though seem to be getting used mostly in gang wars in Sydney. And while they're only topping each other...
Although there was some outcry when Howard made the changes I would say that most of us were not directly affected by them. Because most of us don't own guns and aren't interested in owning them. Yes, that makes us more vulnerable to the lowlife with a pistol in his pocket. But our lowlifes are still more likely (DIYers aside) to be waving a knife or a broken beer bottle.