SO WEIRD that we almost certainly have more people are concealed/open carrying now that any other time in our history and yet we also have more shootings that any other time in our history.
I cannot believe they’re still trying the “an armed society is a polite society” argument
Administrators, can I just let you know from my 30 years of teaching experience: you do not want to sit in your staff meetings with dozens of heavily armed teachers. Show some self-awareness, geez.
Would teachers get that $10,000 bonus is they just brought an UNLOADED gun to school, with maybe the bullets in a different pocket? Asking for a friend.
The person who said "An armed Society is a polite society" was an asshole.
Chris Rock joked that one way to limit gun violence was a $50 tax on each bullet. So that when you felt the need to bust a cop you had to ask yourself if shooting that person was worth $50?
The person who said "An armed Society is a polite society" was an asshole.
/Quote
Well, Heinlein was a libertarian, so I'm not going to argue "asshole" with you. I will point out that quote has been pulled out of context (from the novel "Beyond This Horizon") to become a mantra for the gunhumpers. I'll let Stonekettle explain:
Quote/
Nearly everybody in "Beyond This Horizon" carries a personal sidearm. Those that don’t are pariahs and have to wear special identifiers. And they get the opportunity to use those weapons on a regular basis because dueling is the primary method used to resolve interpersonal conflict.
Which is where the quote comes in. See, if you don’t want to duel to the death with an immortal superman, then you’d best be damned careful not to give offense in any way. You’d better be unfailingly polite.
An armed society as a polite society works for "Beyond This Horizon", and it works *because Heinlein wrote it that way.*
It was simply a device to hang a story on and nothing more.
I have yet to meet a libertarian who wasn't an asshole. As for Heinlein, his society was based on the willingness and in fact the necessity of murdering anyone who displeases you. That is a sick society. Full stop.
Yeah, not gonna argue that with you. The point was not that it was something to emulate, but *that it was fictional and that’s why it works*. “An armed society” isn’t and was never meant to be an actual blueprint for how things ought to be.
I’ve wanted to talk to an Australian citizen for a long time about this. We bring up Australia ALOT on this issue. My understanding is that your country had a few tragic incidents of gun violence years ago, and the government sensibly banned most assault or military weapons for civilian ownership, and heavily regulated and controlled handguns, shotguns, rifles. Your gun violence statistics are incredibly low. Why can’t we do that here? Because our campaign finance laws are broken, and the NRA pumps so much money into republican politics we can’t get a single Republican to support even the smallest safety regulation. We had a ban on assault weapons for a few years, maybe 10. It expired and wasn’t renewed by a Republican president (George W.) So, we have more than one mass shooter per day here, and ones like Maine seem like a weekly occurrence. It’s almost like it doesn’t matter how many murders we have, nearly 1/2 our country feels it’s worth living in a violent dystopia to guarantee everyone can own an AK-47.
In 1996, a man named Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured another 23 at the tourist site of Port Arthur in Tasmania. At the time it was the world's worst peacetime massacre. It's known as the Port Arthur massacre.
Bryant used two semi automatic rifles. He didn't have them legally, but the guns themselves were legal to own.
There had been an increase in gun crime in Australia, including isolated mass shootings. The Port Arthur massacre came just six weeks after a mass shooting in Dunblane, Scotland.
The Federal government had been trying to improve gun laws nationwide for years, but reforms had been opposed by the notoriously conservative states of Queensland and Tasmania. One State premier said "It would take a massacre in Tasmania" to achieve reform. A proposed reform had been scuttled by Tasmania just the year before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Community outrage after the massacre allowed the Federal government to bulldoze opposition and ban many types of gun, including automatics, semiautomatics, and pump action shotguns. All owners must be licensed and have a "legitimate reason" for a gun. "Self defence" isn't considered a legitimate reason. There's a national register of gun owners, with the relevant serial numbers. There are also rules about how and where guns must be stored. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
I consider us very fortunate to not have the bloody Second Amendment. Because there's no Constitutional right to own guns, State and Federal governments can and do just make whatever legislation they see fit. That's where a lot of your problems lie: there's a limit to how much restriction your government CAN introduce.
So what do our gun laws mean in daily life?
There's only two people I know that definitely have a gun, and another handful that I wouldn't be surprised. Because I know a lot of farmers, and they quite likely have an old bolt action .22 or similar for vermin. I haven't seen or handled a gun since my father got rid of his in the 90s sometime.
Handguns are VERY heavily regulated. NO ONE has handguns. They're exclusively for on duty cops and security guards. I've never even seen one not on a cop belt.
Open carry is NOT a thing. There are very strict laws about how guns have to be transported, which include keeping them out of sight as much as possible. Anybody who sees a gun (outside of the carpark of a gun club) is going to call the cops. And the cops are going to show up FAST and PISSED.
Concealed carry is DEFINITELY not a thing, what even the fuck. Also, no handguns and it's difficult to conceal a rifle.
Magazines or clips or whatever the fuck they're called are limited to 5 shots.
Shops that sell ammo are fairly rare, and ones that sell actual guns are rarer. They don't advertise. I have no idea where the nearest place to get guns or ammo even is, although I could Google it.
I don't know anyone who's ever been injured by a deliberate or accidental gunshot.
AFAIK there has never been a child, parent or staff member killed or injured by gunfire on school grounds, anywhere in the country, ever.
There's been precisely one political assassination by shooting. Australian politicians routinely mix with the public with very few safety precautions.
Our system isn't perfect, but the average person simply isn't at risk from guns. There hasn't been a classic mass shooting* since Port Arthur.
*There was a hideous family annihilation, where a creep shot his wife, daughter and four grandchildren before himself. He used a legally owned single shot. It was literally just down the road from me. Appalling, but it doesn't fit the definition of a "mass shooting" because the victims weren't random.
Honestly, I have to admit reading you describe your nearly gun-free nation made me tear up. What a stark difference. Your government sensibly said “enough,” and learned virtually from Port Arthur alone that guns aren’t necessary for daily civilian life. Australia certainly isn’t alone. Many countries have very limited gun ownership with rigorous training and licensing. We could. We’ve amended our constitution before. And a right to “bear arms” can still be achieved with more conventional weapons- rifles, shotguns, pistols. We’d still have gun homicide and accidents, but far fewer and virtually no mass murders like Maine, etc. But we aren’t capable of even that. The NRA buys elections here. And our “leaders” try to convince us that if only everyone was armed, we’d all be safe. It’s literally insane. It’s not rhetoric.
I'm so sorry you have to live like that. It must be absolutely terrifying. All my Thoughts and Prayers are that your politicians finally do the right thing.
On a related note, the US is currently suffering from a massive teacher shortage. Like massive. There are schools in texas that are using remote teachers to run multiple classes. Georgia's does not appear as extreme, but one of the main causes of people leaving the profession is not feeling valued or listened to. Sure my response is not about guns, but the union is "categorically opposed" and that may be a hint that this will not make teachers feel more valued. Especially when the lawsuits start rolling in.
Not their teachers, not their classmates, not their friends' parents. If guns aren't around them, thet won't get shot.
ETA: Stastical probability comes into play here. I get that there is a non-zero chance of my kids being shot on the freaking moon. But let's play the odds here, even though I'm not the gambling type.
In a story I’m working on where a human gets drafted into an alien SWAT team, his partner is surprised how well he does on the firearms training course. He chalks it up mostly to video games, and she asks if his quick response time to finding cover when enemies start shooing comes from that too. He replies, “Oh no; a public school education gave me that.”
…I meant it as a dark joke, but… man; it’s funny because it feels like it’s true, doesn’t it?
If trained police officers can open fire on a man after mistaking a wallet for a gun, then what happens when an armed, stressed out teacher is startled by a third grader holding a stapler?
I remember what some of the teachers were like at my grade school and there's probably lots like them. I would not trust them with any weapon not made of Nerf foam.
SO WEIRD that we almost certainly have more people are concealed/open carrying now that any other time in our history and yet we also have more shootings that any other time in our history.
I cannot believe they’re still trying the “an armed society is a polite society” argument
Ta, Robyn. Guns are a convenient way for hateful people to express their hatred.
Administrators, can I just let you know from my 30 years of teaching experience: you do not want to sit in your staff meetings with dozens of heavily armed teachers. Show some self-awareness, geez.
Would teachers get that $10,000 bonus is they just brought an UNLOADED gun to school, with maybe the bullets in a different pocket? Asking for a friend.
The person who said "An armed Society is a polite society" was an asshole.
Chris Rock joked that one way to limit gun violence was a $50 tax on each bullet. So that when you felt the need to bust a cop you had to ask yourself if shooting that person was worth $50?
Quote/
The person who said "An armed Society is a polite society" was an asshole.
/Quote
Well, Heinlein was a libertarian, so I'm not going to argue "asshole" with you. I will point out that quote has been pulled out of context (from the novel "Beyond This Horizon") to become a mantra for the gunhumpers. I'll let Stonekettle explain:
Quote/
Nearly everybody in "Beyond This Horizon" carries a personal sidearm. Those that don’t are pariahs and have to wear special identifiers. And they get the opportunity to use those weapons on a regular basis because dueling is the primary method used to resolve interpersonal conflict.
Which is where the quote comes in. See, if you don’t want to duel to the death with an immortal superman, then you’d best be damned careful not to give offense in any way. You’d better be unfailingly polite.
An armed society as a polite society works for "Beyond This Horizon", and it works *because Heinlein wrote it that way.*
It was simply a device to hang a story on and nothing more.
/Quote
https://www.stonekettle.com/2014/09/bang-bang-crazy-part-10.html
Yes, Heinlein used the line in a patently ironic context. The "asssshole" was whatever GOPer pseudo-intellectual first used it unironically.
I have yet to meet a libertarian who wasn't an asshole. As for Heinlein, his society was based on the willingness and in fact the necessity of murdering anyone who displeases you. That is a sick society. Full stop.
Yeah, not gonna argue that with you. The point was not that it was something to emulate, but *that it was fictional and that’s why it works*. “An armed society” isn’t and was never meant to be an actual blueprint for how things ought to be.
BLOOD FOR THE GUN GODS!!! CASH FOR THE NRA THRONE!!!
BLOOD FOR THE GUN GODS!!! CASH FOR THE NRA THRONE!!!
That's all I can hear from these guys.
Here in Western Australia, we've had a rash of people wilding out with guns. Three recent incidents I can think of.
Total death toll, not including shooters? One.
Why so low? Because the only weapon available to the average person is a single shot rifle. Inconvenient for a rampage.
And the Premier is so horrified that the State Parliament is *tightening* gun restrictions.
I cannot imagine how you live like that. Your politicians are fucking psychopaths.
I’ve wanted to talk to an Australian citizen for a long time about this. We bring up Australia ALOT on this issue. My understanding is that your country had a few tragic incidents of gun violence years ago, and the government sensibly banned most assault or military weapons for civilian ownership, and heavily regulated and controlled handguns, shotguns, rifles. Your gun violence statistics are incredibly low. Why can’t we do that here? Because our campaign finance laws are broken, and the NRA pumps so much money into republican politics we can’t get a single Republican to support even the smallest safety regulation. We had a ban on assault weapons for a few years, maybe 10. It expired and wasn’t renewed by a Republican president (George W.) So, we have more than one mass shooter per day here, and ones like Maine seem like a weekly occurrence. It’s almost like it doesn’t matter how many murders we have, nearly 1/2 our country feels it’s worth living in a violent dystopia to guarantee everyone can own an AK-47.
In 1996, a man named Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured another 23 at the tourist site of Port Arthur in Tasmania. At the time it was the world's worst peacetime massacre. It's known as the Port Arthur massacre.
Bryant used two semi automatic rifles. He didn't have them legally, but the guns themselves were legal to own.
There had been an increase in gun crime in Australia, including isolated mass shootings. The Port Arthur massacre came just six weeks after a mass shooting in Dunblane, Scotland.
The Federal government had been trying to improve gun laws nationwide for years, but reforms had been opposed by the notoriously conservative states of Queensland and Tasmania. One State premier said "It would take a massacre in Tasmania" to achieve reform. A proposed reform had been scuttled by Tasmania just the year before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Community outrage after the massacre allowed the Federal government to bulldoze opposition and ban many types of gun, including automatics, semiautomatics, and pump action shotguns. All owners must be licensed and have a "legitimate reason" for a gun. "Self defence" isn't considered a legitimate reason. There's a national register of gun owners, with the relevant serial numbers. There are also rules about how and where guns must be stored. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
I consider us very fortunate to not have the bloody Second Amendment. Because there's no Constitutional right to own guns, State and Federal governments can and do just make whatever legislation they see fit. That's where a lot of your problems lie: there's a limit to how much restriction your government CAN introduce.
So what do our gun laws mean in daily life?
There's only two people I know that definitely have a gun, and another handful that I wouldn't be surprised. Because I know a lot of farmers, and they quite likely have an old bolt action .22 or similar for vermin. I haven't seen or handled a gun since my father got rid of his in the 90s sometime.
Handguns are VERY heavily regulated. NO ONE has handguns. They're exclusively for on duty cops and security guards. I've never even seen one not on a cop belt.
Open carry is NOT a thing. There are very strict laws about how guns have to be transported, which include keeping them out of sight as much as possible. Anybody who sees a gun (outside of the carpark of a gun club) is going to call the cops. And the cops are going to show up FAST and PISSED.
Concealed carry is DEFINITELY not a thing, what even the fuck. Also, no handguns and it's difficult to conceal a rifle.
Magazines or clips or whatever the fuck they're called are limited to 5 shots.
Shops that sell ammo are fairly rare, and ones that sell actual guns are rarer. They don't advertise. I have no idea where the nearest place to get guns or ammo even is, although I could Google it.
I don't know anyone who's ever been injured by a deliberate or accidental gunshot.
AFAIK there has never been a child, parent or staff member killed or injured by gunfire on school grounds, anywhere in the country, ever.
There's been precisely one political assassination by shooting. Australian politicians routinely mix with the public with very few safety precautions.
Our system isn't perfect, but the average person simply isn't at risk from guns. There hasn't been a classic mass shooting* since Port Arthur.
*There was a hideous family annihilation, where a creep shot his wife, daughter and four grandchildren before himself. He used a legally owned single shot. It was literally just down the road from me. Appalling, but it doesn't fit the definition of a "mass shooting" because the victims weren't random.
Honestly, I have to admit reading you describe your nearly gun-free nation made me tear up. What a stark difference. Your government sensibly said “enough,” and learned virtually from Port Arthur alone that guns aren’t necessary for daily civilian life. Australia certainly isn’t alone. Many countries have very limited gun ownership with rigorous training and licensing. We could. We’ve amended our constitution before. And a right to “bear arms” can still be achieved with more conventional weapons- rifles, shotguns, pistols. We’d still have gun homicide and accidents, but far fewer and virtually no mass murders like Maine, etc. But we aren’t capable of even that. The NRA buys elections here. And our “leaders” try to convince us that if only everyone was armed, we’d all be safe. It’s literally insane. It’s not rhetoric.
I'm so sorry you have to live like that. It must be absolutely terrifying. All my Thoughts and Prayers are that your politicians finally do the right thing.
Thank you so much for the history and civics lesson! Your country sounds lovely (from a no-guns perspective, specifically, but also just generally.)
Thank you, it is! It's not perfect by any means (we have racism out the wazoo), but we're working on it.
They see it as a necessary sacrifice to their 2nd amendment God(s).
The pedant in me must fix:
"though there is data showing ..."
to the correct "though there _are_ data showing ..."
"data" is the plural of "datum."
Also "pierogi" is the plural of "pierog," though nobody eats just one pierog.
Yeah, I indulge in that kind of pedantry as well, but language is as language is used. Irritating, but what you gonna do?
As grass is the plural for grass, data usually appears as a set, a single thing, therefore it should be singular.
Good for you. Using the humor to lighten things up. I have a B.A. in English. I can relate. Why are adverbs disappearing, by the way?
Why? Possibly for the same reason people say "I am loving pierogi!" instead of the simpler "I love pierogi."
I appreciate this so much
Especially with the onions and the butter.
Guns don’t kill people. Cornhole does.
they don't want teachers or schools.
yet another way to sour people on public education?
On a related note, the US is currently suffering from a massive teacher shortage. Like massive. There are schools in texas that are using remote teachers to run multiple classes. Georgia's does not appear as extreme, but one of the main causes of people leaving the profession is not feeling valued or listened to. Sure my response is not about guns, but the union is "categorically opposed" and that may be a hint that this will not make teachers feel more valued. Especially when the lawsuits start rolling in.
I don't want firearms around my kids, full stop.
Not their teachers, not their classmates, not their friends' parents. If guns aren't around them, thet won't get shot.
ETA: Stastical probability comes into play here. I get that there is a non-zero chance of my kids being shot on the freaking moon. But let's play the odds here, even though I'm not the gambling type.
A wise friend says the only thing you can do is improve the odds.
In a story I’m working on where a human gets drafted into an alien SWAT team, his partner is surprised how well he does on the firearms training course. He chalks it up mostly to video games, and she asks if his quick response time to finding cover when enemies start shooing comes from that too. He replies, “Oh no; a public school education gave me that.”
…I meant it as a dark joke, but… man; it’s funny because it feels like it’s true, doesn’t it?
https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/
If trained police officers can open fire on a man after mistaking a wallet for a gun, then what happens when an armed, stressed out teacher is startled by a third grader holding a stapler?
that'll stop little johnny from always being sassy, though
I remember what some of the teachers were like at my grade school and there's probably lots like them. I would not trust them with any weapon not made of Nerf foam.
My grade school teachers were nuns. They didn't need guns.
Some of my teachers, I wouldn’t trust with anything sharper than a boiled egg.
Sure, lets pay teachers 10k to be willing to kill their own students, but not to teach them. Asshats.