zor

Member Profile


Member Since: January 15, 2008
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to zor

siftbot says...

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 25 stars, earning you status of Bronze Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.


siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 6 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


zor says...

I posted this. Maybe some others will chime in: http://videosift.com/video/Australia-Case-study-1-helps-us-understand-the-NRAs-power
It may be asking people too much to focus the discussion. Let's see.

oritteropo said:

I can answer that easily, the vast majority of Australians including myself think that every word the NRA writes about Australia is a lie. Their videos take very old information out of context, and spin it into a story about another Australia and not the one we know and live in. Certainly there are some Aussies who like guns and look enviously at the U.S., and it therefore wouldn't be hard to fine one or two (out of 24 million) who will stand up and say "they took our guns!!!", but the majority are happy enough with the current laws... which is not to say they are perfect, because they aren't... they were drafted by clowns and have some really strange aspects (see @harlequinn's comment re competition pistol shooters for instance).

I don't think our legislation would suit the U.S. without some changes anyway, even apart from the dumb bits, it took into account the types of weapons common here and generally allowed people to own those types of weapon if they demonstrated a genuine need... so the list of allowed weapons would be very different in the U.S. than here. It was really just aligning all the state laws into one uniform national law rather than a lot of new controls (another point willfully ignored in the NRA articles btw, which assume a single date when everybody's guns were confiscated... wtf???).

The good part of our law is the idea that you don't just leave firearms lying around: only own them if you need them, keep them secured, if you don't need them any longer get rid of them.

Not that it really affects me either way, but it does seem to me that most of the most obvious firearms reforms in the U.S. are just reversing some things that the NRA lobbying has done over the past 20 years, and closing a few loopholes in current laws, rather than copying the Australian legislation to the letter.

oritteropo says...

I can answer that easily, the vast majority of Australians including myself think that every word the NRA writes about Australia is a lie. Their videos take very old information out of context, and spin it into a story about another Australia and not the one we know and live in. Certainly there are some Aussies who like guns and look enviously at the U.S., and it therefore wouldn't be hard to fine one or two (out of 24 million) who will stand up and say "they took our guns!!!", but the majority are happy enough with the current laws... which is not to say they are perfect, because they aren't... they were drafted by clowns and have some really strange aspects (see @harlequinn's comment re competition pistol shooters for instance).

I don't think our legislation would suit the U.S. without some changes anyway, even apart from the dumb bits, it took into account the types of weapons common here and generally allowed people to own those types of weapon if they demonstrated a genuine need... so the list of allowed weapons would be very different in the U.S. than here. It was really just aligning all the state laws into one uniform national law rather than a lot of new controls (another point willfully ignored in the NRA articles btw, which assume a single date when everybody's guns were confiscated... wtf???).

The good part of our law is the idea that you don't just leave firearms lying around: only own them if you need them, keep them secured, if you don't need them any longer get rid of them.

Not that it really affects me either way, but it does seem to me that most of the most obvious firearms reforms in the U.S. are just reversing some things that the NRA lobbying has done over the past 20 years, and closing a few loopholes in current laws, rather than copying the Australian legislation to the letter.

zor said:

Yes the narrative is tailored towards Americans and it is very very persuasive. I believe parts of it are true. I'd be interested in hearing what an Australian thinks about the NRA perspective. All you have to do is visit the NRA web site and look in the archives. I'm sure you can find many different news reports and videos covering the Australia and Mexico situation from their perspective. There will be more coverage of the Australia situation because it is considered a better analogue for what can happen with legislation. In general, there isn't much regard for whatever Mexico does legislatively. Mexico is only brought up as proof of a cultural phenomenon or confirmation of human nature from their perspective.

zor says...

Yes the narrative is tailored towards Americans and it is very very persuasive. I believe parts of it are true. I'd be interested in hearing what an Australian thinks about the NRA perspective. All you have to do is visit the NRA web site and look in the archives. I'm sure you can find many different news reports and videos covering the Australia and Mexico situation from their perspective. There will be more coverage of the Australia situation because it is considered a better analogue for what can happen with legislation. In general, there isn't much regard for whatever Mexico does legislatively. Mexico is only brought up as proof of a cultural phenomenon or confirmation of human nature from their perspective.

oritteropo said:

Thanks for your reply I was curious.

As an Australian that's not quite how I remember it, but the narrative has a certain logic to it, and as long as nobody looked too closely the NRA could probably get quite a long way with it.

I'm not terribly familiar with Mexico, but I thought the situation there was a little more complex than that too.

oritteropo says...

Thanks for your reply I was curious.

As an Australian that's not quite how I remember it, but the narrative has a certain logic to it, and as long as nobody looked too closely the NRA could probably get quite a long way with it.

I'm not terribly familiar with Mexico, but I thought the situation there was a little more complex than that too.

zor said:

In Australia, the government passed a law banning practically all guns then confiscated (read 'buy back') and destroyed them all. News photos showed guns in giant trash compactors and being sawed in half with sparks flying. This is the argument against anyone-especially this administration-who say "we don't really want to take your guns." Mexico is easy. Guns are completely outlawed there and so we see the population as helpless against better armed criminals. All the NRA has to do to defeat even the most simple legislation is bring these two examples up and you're done. That's why there is no hope of compromise.
--i'm not making an argument for or against. I'm only trying to make a correct observation of the condition.

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos