Mass Recall

Forums: Humour, Humor, Guns, Nra, Parody
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Breaking news : Millions of weapons across the USA are being recalled for failing to kill people . This shocking announcement came in the wake of a study that found the vast majority of weapons weren't killing people which is of course their designed purpose . Weapon manufacturers say they are stunned that their product is not working . The recall includes flame throwers, anti-tank rockets, grenades, recoilless rifles, automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, machine guns, mortars, sniper rifles, land mines and hand guns and any other weapons guaranteed by the constitution .

NRA spokesman has been quoted as saying "If cars can be recalled for failing by killing people than surely our phallic symbols can be recalled for failing by NOT killing people" . Of course if you own a weapon that has killed someone you are exempt and are asked to register your notice not to advantage yourself of the recall by visiting your local Police station .

Gun shop owners report being overwhelmed with paperwork . A Police spokesman had no comment but privately Police admit to being "overjoyed" that at long last something is being done for the benefit of people's rights .

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,190 • Replies: 56

No top replies

@Ionus,

Manufacturers of drugs pointed out Tylenol was recalled after only 7 deaths, whilst car manufacturers pointed out the Pinto was recalled after only 27 deaths . They ask why guns are being recalled after 640,000 deaths in 20 yrs . Gun manufacturers have pointed out guns are meant to kill and they are only recalling those that aren't living up to their design specifications . Consumer Affairs organisations admit to being confused .

0 Replies

Did gun control work in Australia?
The Washington Post
By Dylan Matthews August 2, 2012

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

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.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I keep trying to think of something achievable that would help the situation in the USA...but I got nada . The constitution amendment in the early USA was designed to save money on an army . They wanted a militia in case the British, Spanish, French or soemone else attacked . It was never meant to last this long . With each state owning a militia now, the need for an armed populace is only to feed the egos of petty insecure men .

What are the laws in France and Europe ? I know Britain is very strict gun control...one man got gaol because he said he found a weapon when he handed it in, but they didnt believe him .

3 Replies

@Ionus,

France is not that different from the US regarding weapons. Both are revolutionary-founded countries which consider that the people have a right to be armed (as opposed to the situation before the French revolution, when the aristocrats had the right to wear weapons but not the people).

So in France anyone can own a hunting or hand gun (but not automatic military weapons I think). The controls are through 1) needing a licence to carry the gun anywhere (e.g. a hunting permit, or a sport shooting licence), meaning each gun is mapped to an owner; and 2) stringent limits on the number and types of ammunition one can buy per year. So you can still kill someone whom you want to kill, but shooting sprees are much harder to do than in the US where Walmart provides anyone with the means to kill hundreds of people.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

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.

How about the massive spike in both armed and unarmed robbery which followed the gun ban for the next five years?

What about the tragic loss of freedom?

Parados and I have periodically argued about the results of Australia's gun ban, leading to me looking up fresh stats and updating my records each time. I presume from the state of my records that our last argument about it was somewhere around 2010.

Anyway, check out the five-year-long robbery spree that accompanied their tragic loss of freedom:

Murder Rate (per 100,000 people)

1993: 1.7
1994: 1.6
1995: 1.8
1996: 1.7
1997: 1.7
1998: 1.5
1999: 1.8
2000: 1.7
2001: 1.6
2002: 1.6
2003: 1.5
2004: 1.3
2005: 1.3
2006: 1.4
2007: 1.2
2008: 1.2
2009: 1.2

Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000 people)

1993: 0.2
1994: 0.2
1995: 0.2
1996: 0.2
1997: 0.2
1998: 0.3
1999: 0.2
2000: 0.2
2001: 0.2
2002: 0.2
2003: 0.2
2004: 0.2
2005: 0.2
2006: 0.2
2007: 0.1
2008: 0.1
2009: 0.1

Armed Robbery Rate (per 100,000 people)

1993: 30.0
1994: 28.3
1995: 29.1
1996: 34.2
1997: 48.9
1998: 58.0
1999: 49.9
2000: 49.5
2001: 57.9
2002: 39.9
2003: 36.1
2004: 30.0
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
2009:

Unarmed Robbery Rate (per 100,000 people)

1993: 42.3
1994: 50.0
1995: 51.5
1996: 55.3
1997: 66.1
1998: 69.2
1999: 69.5
2000: 72.3
2001: 79.1
2002: 66.9
2003: 62.9
2004: 52.1
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
2009:

Total Robbery Rate (per 100,000 people)

1993: 72.3
1994: 78.2
1995: 80.6
1996: 89.4
1997: 115.0
1998: 127.2
1999: 119.5
2000: 121.9
2001: 137.0
2002: 106.8
2003: 99.1
2004: 82.1
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
2009:

(They changed the definition of what counts as robbery after 2004, so data from subsequent years is not compatible.)

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

The constitution amendment in the early USA was designed to save money on an army . They wanted a militia in case the British, Spanish, French or soemone else attacked . It was never meant to last this long . With each state owning a militia now, the need for an armed populace is only to feed the egos of petty insecure men .

This is all wrong.

The Framers could have afforded a standing army had they wanted one. They chose to have militia instead of a standing army because they felt that having a standing army would lead to tyranny.

They meant for the militia system to last forever. They wanted to create a society that resisted tyranny for as long as possible.

There hasn't been a valid militia in America in over a century. If there were such a militia, militiamen would have the right to own their own grenades and machineguns, and to keep them at home. By way of example, there is a valid militia in Switzerland. Look at the way members of the Swiss Militia keep their automatic rifles in their own homes.

The term "need for an armed populace" is foreign to America. Perhaps outside America, where there is no longer any freedom, the question of whether there is a "need" for an armed populace might apply. But inside America the question has no meaning. Americans are free people. As such, Americans have an absolute right to carry guns when we go about in public if we choose to do so. It doesn't matter whether or not there is any "need" for us to do so.

The reason why people choose to carry guns in public has nothing to do with petty egos or insecurity. Rather it is because they prefer to be prepared to defend themselves in case they are attacked.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

1) needing a licence to carry the gun anywhere (e.g. a hunting permit, or a sport shooting licence),

Any license to carry in public just in case you are attacked?

Olivier5 wrote:

and 2) stringent limits on the number and types of ammunition one can buy per year.

How does someone practice shooting in order to become a good shot?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It's not "massive" at all... I say I'd rather be robbed by a guy without a firearm than at gun point. As for their freedom, you should ask Australians but I would think they feel much safer now. Trading your freedom to kill your neighbour against his freedom to kill you is the essence of civilization. People can always get other toys...

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Those statistics include knife related crimes . That tragic loss of freedom didnt bother anyone . We know the difference between our dick and an anti-personnel weapon .

0 Replies

I always though non lethal rounds were better.

as a tactical war maneuver non lethal rounds are preferable.
The enemy needs to tend to the wounded, and retreat.

You just wait them out after shooting them. Non lethal weapons win wars when you have a good tactical advantage (such as having time to coming in and go out like the tide while your opponent does not want to give up their vantage point or tactical turf.)

1 Reply

@GorDie,

They've got a problem with the new ammo that's designed to go through body armour ...soldiers had fired at the enemy at less than 30ft away and swear they must have hit them, but the high powered ammo just goes right through, killing the person some minutes later . That's bad if he is firing back at you . The older rounds that wouldn't go through body armour would tumble and shatter on impact causing severe damage esp on the way out . The shock wave was slower, wider and deadlier, causing great damage around the path as well .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

What about the weapons that put people in a coma and we don't know if they could live or die? Will we keep them, or do we have to return them to, or will they be put on hold???

So many questions...

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I keep trying to think of something achievable that would help the situation in the USA...but I got nada . The constitution amendment in the early USA was designed to save money on an army . They wanted a militia in case the British, Spanish, French or soemone else attacked . It was never meant to last this long . With each state owning a militia now, the need for an armed populace is only to feed the egos of petty insecure men .

What are the laws in France and Europe ? I know Britain is very strict gun control...one man got gaol because he said he found a weapon when he handed it in, but they didnt believe him .

I'm not sure you understand the 2nd amendment.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

I'm not sure you understand the 2nd amendment.

I understand its intent...but explain what it is to you...

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Based upon what I quoted I honestly don't think you do.

Tell me what you actually think the intent was if it is different then what I quoted.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

No, you first, you raised the matter of who understands what now demonstrate your understanding.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

No, you first, you raised the matter of who understands what now demonstrate your understanding.

So you really have no idea then. I didn't think so. I raised the matter that YOU don't understand it and you've yet to dissuade my view. Some day, maybe when you can get someone else to hold your hand through an explanation of what the second amendment is all about you can come back and tell us. Until then, you really shouldn't talk about it it.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

I raised the matter that YOU don't understand it

That is not a matter. It is your assumption. You make lots of those.

Since you are going to spit your dummy, I will explain:

Quote:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a
free state. They may well have believed that but most of their motive was it is a big world and they were surrounded by Spain, France, Britain and natives and had very little money for a professional military. The revolution itself nearly petered out due to a lack of funds and interest.

It clearly states a well regulated militia, not one tooth billy and his cousins can have armour piercing cyanide tipped Police killer bullets.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

It clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They may well have believed that but most of their motive was it is a big world and they were surrounded by Spain, France, Britain and natives and had very little money for a professional military. The revolution itself nearly petered out due to a lack of funds and interest.

It wasn't for funding reasons. They made it very clear in their debates that their reason was because they felt that a professional military would lead to tyranny. Their fear of a professional military bordered on hysteria.

Ionus wrote:

It clearly states a well regulated militia, not one tooth billy and his cousins can have armour piercing cyanide tipped Police killer bullets.

"Police killer bullets" are a fiction. Every time the gun banners try to ban some kind of ammo they call it that, but there is no significance to the term other than that it is applied to whatever ammo they currently want to ban.

Anyway, English Common Law includes a right for ordinary people to carry guns that are suitable for self defense. The Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution incorporates all Common Law rights. So there are in effect TWO gun rights in the Constitution: the militia related right and the self-defense related right.

But if the government applied the Constitution as written, one tooth billy and his cousins could join the militia and then keep militia-suitable weapons in their homes.

0 Replies

Mass Recall

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know