Matt Damon on Australia's gun confiscation...I wish that could happen in my country

You can't have your pudding if you don't eat your (soy-based) meat (substitute).

 

Great group... ages us.

 

Very shifty the way you change the subject, when proven wrong.

If 10% represents 20.9 millioon, then the NRA took in $209 million. You were spouting off about Bloomberg's donation to "Every Town for Gun Safety", when the NRA has a humongous budget to work with...

 

The NRA and the gun industry can funnel millions to candidates thru PAC's and the money can never be traced.

 

I know you all believe you are so noble, defending this great American tradition. And you are all so ready for the Armageddon, that is to come. But, the time will come. I won't see it, and you won't see it, but the time will come.

 

Repealing the second amendment is as close to being physically impossible, it is not an exaggeration to regard it as being impossible. There is simply no appetite for such an approach to be implemented. So once again, cease with proposing impossible notions that will never come to pass, and come up with something new.

 

Oh blah blah blah, you remind me of a rabidly Anti-Gun Chief of Detectives, and he changed his tune when his Daughter was attacked in Central park at 6 am.

I believe in personal defense and the Second Amendment.

I am the NRA, not some faceless organization like the Tobacco lobby.

 

What time is that?

 

It won't happen over the gun issue...despite all the rhetoric on the left and a few stupid extremists on the left, few politicians would be stupid enough to carry through.
The AR bans and large cap. Mag bans and calls for registration and associated penalties in Connecticut and NY were left experiments in compliance... compliance was miniscule, somewhere around 10%-15% last I checked and that was a year after the bans... people were still taking their banned guns to local ranges and as far as I know, no one has been charged with a crime, nor have I seen reported any home invasions and asset seizures of guns.
If a conflict was seeded by the left, other than the military and LE, most of which would resist orders to enforce a general ban, what guns would the left have... they disarm themselves.
Why don't you set up survey on this forum? ask Gun owners whether they would turn in their weapons if a ban was implimented.
With a follow on of how many would participate in armed resistance. Even if 10% indicated participation in armed resistance, projecting that 10% over 120 million gun owners withover 400 million guns, that is still more bodies and guns than in the combined military and LE in the US, many of which would support armed resistance or refuse to enforce a ban.
In the North of Ireland, the various Republican groups actives were miniscule, though supported by large numbers of the public against one of the largest armies in the world and they remained undefeated.

 

I didn't change the subject in any way shape or form -- I directly addressed your statements.
You haven't proven anything as illustrated by the fact you avoided my questions.

Which means nothing until you can show how much the NRA spends on what.
How much did the NRA/ILA take in? How much did it spend?

 

I love the NRA...God Bless em!

 

Here's the deal. Of course, gun owners are going to say this today. What would one expect? But if some crazy-crazy thing happens in the future, with hundreds or thousands killed, things may change on a dime. If legislation makes it a felony to own certain fireams, and citizens are told to turn them in by xx/xx/xxxx date, or be subject to the full extent of the law; then I'd bet that most gun-owners would turn them in.

 

Sure, that is a load of pure horse poop.
I do not need any other information other than what I learned as a Police Officer.

It already is a felony for people prohibited from owning firearms to possess them, yet that does not stop felons from owning firearms.

There are People stealing firearms and other weapons from Military sources, this of course is illegal too, yet Criminals break every Law made, so why make a Law that will only be obeyed by Honest people having no effect on Crime ?

 

Well, you'd be wrong.
As I posted, they tried that in CN and NY, with a felony penalty and compliance is around 10-15%. The law simply made many of the otherwise law abiding into criminals. The article below is after a year of the law in NY.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-op...FE-Act-needs-to-set-its-sights-on-6754126.php
As they begin to move to draconian enforcement measures, my prediction is, there will be a major political backlash.
The 2A is seen as a protecting a right people won't give up easily...and, some will die to preserve.
Mass shootings in this country, sensationalized by the media and used to vilify guns account for a statistically insignificant number of victims. The more the media and the left raise the Spector of fear, it reinforces the government can't protect people which in turn results in more people arming themselves...and increases distrust of both the media and the government; rightfully so IMO.

 

Only about 70% of those wonderful law abiding gun owners in Australia complied in 1996, and 20 years later the government is still trying to get the rest of those guns.

 

This is noting but unsupportable opinion.

 

WHAT A HYPOCRITE.



He makes millions for playing make-believe with guns in ultraviolent fantasy movies.

 

Who cares what a Hollywood hypocrite has to say?

 

Yes !

I do not care what a Dullard Hollywood Hypocrite has to say.

 

And look at the results for Australia!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rol-work-in-australia/?utm_term=.b78f51ecb10a

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

 

Unsupportable opinion. Who's talking? I've given my support, by citing Great Britain, Poland and Japan. You've offered nothing. Living in an Amendment 2 paradigm, brainwashed by NRA lies, is not an adequate argument.

 

No, NRA is not the lier.
People like you are.

 

Yes. The entirety of what I quoted is exactly that.

Fallacious post hoc arguments support nothing.

 

Another fallacious post hoc argument.
Why do you not understand that correlation does not equal causation?

 

Interesting. Australian government data shows that their overall murder rate only fell 26% from 1996 to 2006; in the US, our homicide rate fell 29% over that same period.

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In Leigh& Neil 2010, while the abstract claimed that gun homicides were reduced by 80%, the body of the study found no effect. In Reuter and Mouzas 2003 used the same data but found no effect on crime. A third study (Chapman et al 2006) used Australian data from 1979 to 2003 showed that the firearm homicide rate was already in decline prior to the firearm reforms and found no evidence that the legislation accelerated the declines. This remained true even when data through 2007 was added. (NIJ researcher G. Ridgeway, 2013)

Here's the government suicide data:

http://www.livingisforeveryone.com.au/uploads/LIFE_fact_sheet_3_final.pdf