Posted on Jun 25, 2015
Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United States?
5.64K
34
36
4
4
0
The Australian gun control has been mentioned several times by citizens and politicians. From what I read in this article, Australia paid gun owners to give up all their weapons. They have banned all What you haven't heard is that it was mandatory. When I read the first sentence of how Australia got the people to give up their weapons, I thought, yeah, but they don't have our constitution, protecting our rights as gun owners.
The Australia Gun Control Fallacy
When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws, he is really saying that gun control is worth risking violent insurrection.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=68226c7145-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-68226c7 [login to see] 1
The Australia Gun Control Fallacy
When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws, he is really saying that gun control is worth risking violent insurrection.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=68226c7145-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-68226c7 [login to see] 1
Gun Control
Australia
United States
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 12
4
4
0
SPC (Join to see)
LtCol Matthew Sutton - It is no worse than in prison than it was a few years ago. End of the day criminals will always find a way to get what they want no mater what new good idea fairy law is created.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
If anyone truly believes that Australia's gun control laws make them safer than Americans, I think the obvious response is for them to vote with their feet and move there. Why should they inflict their beliefs on me by making me surrender my rights?
There's lots of empty space in Australia and I'm sure they'd love to have gun-fearing Americans come fill it up for them...
There's lots of empty space in Australia and I'm sure they'd love to have gun-fearing Americans come fill it up for them...
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Let's start with some basics:
1) Australia didn't have a Protected Right to Bear Arms to begin with.
2) Australia doesn't have the same population as the US (24M vs 320M so less than 1/10)
3) Australia doesn't have the population density that the US has (7.3/sq mile vs 90.6/sq mile) even though they have "comparable" landmass.
4) The didn't have widespread gun ownership to begin with.
1) Australia didn't have a Protected Right to Bear Arms to begin with.
2) Australia doesn't have the same population as the US (24M vs 320M so less than 1/10)
3) Australia doesn't have the population density that the US has (7.3/sq mile vs 90.6/sq mile) even though they have "comparable" landmass.
4) The didn't have widespread gun ownership to begin with.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) He does, but they have to be Confirmed by the Senate. He doesn't do it in a vacuum. We've seen the Senate hold up the Confirmation process quite a bit over the last several years for not only cabinet but for Federal Judges. We've also seen them hold session pro forma so he can't make vacancy placements while they are out of session.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, You stated the POTUS does not appoint them. I showed you he does appoint them. I know they have to be approved by the Senate, but he does appoints them. Thanks for your comments.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) I said he doesn't "directly appoint" them, and that he can't get rid of them. He doesn't have complete power in the system. Removing the word "directly" from my statement changes its meaning, just like adding the phrase "and can just as easily get rid of them" makes your initial statement false.
We both agree that the Australian system won't work here. My argument is separate of the current political players, because frankly they are irrelevant. The argument was brought up when it was Bush/Kerry fighting it out. It will be brought up with Clinton/Bush are fighting it out. The Australian system is non-viable for the US. It's unrelated to the current Legislative members or President.
We both agree that the Australian system won't work here. My argument is separate of the current political players, because frankly they are irrelevant. The argument was brought up when it was Bush/Kerry fighting it out. It will be brought up with Clinton/Bush are fighting it out. The Australian system is non-viable for the US. It's unrelated to the current Legislative members or President.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google