3 ms·

Speaking as an Australian I'd put the key difference between Australians and Americans this way: Americans feel like every surface is a slippery slope. Australi

by cletus 7y ago

Speaking as an Australian I'd put the key difference between Australians and Americans this way: Americans feel like every surface is a slippery slope. Australians don't. It's why Americans (many anyway) resist even toothless firearm regulations, for example. "If they take away our bump stocks then before you know it they'll take all our guns and we'll have no defense against the tyranny of government!" While I certainly don't support raiding the ABC, for example (as opposed to News Corp, which needs to burn to the ground followed by exiling every Murdoch on Earth to Tristan da Cunha), an important question to ask--which I haven't seen the answer to--is did the AFP obtain the source of the leak from the raids or not? If no then things are pretty complicated, for David McBride at least. He himself wasn't (and isn't) a journalist. He did obtain classified material in his capacity as a lawyer for the Defense Department, which is a bit of a double-whammy. Even if you can get passed the classified part, having your lawyer make unauthorized disclosures of professional work product (essentially) is a problem. Even in America this would be a problem. It was certainly a problem for Chelsea Manning.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Is there anything more stereotypical than an Australian lecturing Americans on the slippery slope of gun control? Preface... In Australia 1997 there was a gun confiscation (buy back if you wanna call it that, but be honest) on any gun deemed suitable for defense. It coincided with an almost double number of police per capita. Crime fell! Unfortunately for that argument crime fell by a greater rate in the USA over the same time period, no gun ban, no major increase in police per capita. We talk about the slippery slope being real, because we have so many examples of it being so: - Capacity of magazines... No magazine limits country-wide, then in areas... 100 round drums banned, large capacity firearms regulated as destructive devices, a brief period where they tried to say “no larger than what the gun was designed for”, 30 round magazine limits, 15 in New Jersey in Colorado now, 10 in ban states like California Maryland Connecticut, New York went 7 with the mostly failed SAFE ACT, Canada has 3 and 5 on rifles depending on situation and I’ve already heard that come up in interviews in the USA. There is no number ever safe enough to satisfy people who argue for disarmament. Goal has always been to the define an arbitrary number and re-define it later. It’s the very system of getting you to accept an arbitrary number in the first place. - Want to go again? The SKS rifle, a Soviet precursor to the AK-47... no restrictions in the USA, after an SKS is illegally converted to full auto and used in a shootout with police in California… CA decides this gun is unusually dangerous (it’s not), state wide sales of SKS rifle’s are halted, a registration program is instituted, despite assurances grandfathering will remain allowed, not long later that registry is used to door to door confiscate those rifles. Something the felt comfortable doing because of the small number of registered owners. A single crime with and illegally converted gun directly led to the confiscation of a rifle that is typically less dangerous than common alternatives. - You gave the example for bump stock ban. Ok, The 1934 National Firearms Act defines that a machine gun is a firearm that fires two or more bullets for every one press of the trigger pull. Bump stocks do not fall under this category in any way, the trigger must be activated multiple times for multiple shots. The ATF approves a product called the Atkins Accelerator; think of it as a bump stock with a spring for 22 rifle, later after approval the ATF decides because it’s spring operated it is a machine gun, they ask for registration, use the registration for confiscation (as is always the plan) - but not of the stock! Only the spring in it. Many years later bump stocks become popular the ATF examines and okays them because it meets no definition machine gun, has no spring for automated actuation, and does nothing an experienced shooter can’t do without the help of that stock. And here we are again, now the ATF has decided that despite no bump stocks being used in crimes, no spring, and despite previous approval, they are now illegal. With no registration there has been no confiscation. Last I heard the number willingly turned in is in the low hundreds, with of hundreds of thousands sold. Possession of a previously legal plastic injection molding, with no change in law, only opinion, has now made you a felon. - More examples would include ammo shape and metal contents under the entirely arbitrary guise of “armor piercing”, the NFA itself, import restrictions, ITAR continually evolving, the “approved handgun lists” that states have adopted but intentionally failed to maintain, etc Might have better luck arguing that the slippery slope regarding guns isn’t real, if we didn’t have so many examples of it being so. Edit: All historical facts.
- red_admiral 7y ago
  > despite no bump stocks being used in crimes Except for a mass shooting from a hotel window? EDIT: ok, if you're talking about Australia then I'm not refuting your data. But I can understand why a country that sees news of a mass shooting abroad would ask itself whether that could happen to them too and whether they might want to do anything about it.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Well, ok, Vegas... Well... You would have me there! Except that the ATF in FOIA requrest reported that they were aware of no crimes that involved bump stocks [0] Aside from that, I could probably ask how the media was confidently able to report bump stocks were used - but that NOT A SINGLE official report or released info mentions them as being used. Only media coverage. Everyone should be extremely skepical of the extreme limited amount of confirmed information released on Vegas. Not implying any sort of conspiracy at all, but there is clearly something atypical with that event. But hey, maybe the ATF and the Criminal Enforcement System of Records is wrong! [0] http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/05/01/foia-response-from-the-atf-no-bumpstocks-used-in-any-crime-to-date/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/05/01/foia-response-from... edit: For additional info on Vegas. The ATF says up front they were never authorized to examine the firearms in the Las Vegas shooting (highly irregular). They can't say they were R/DIAS, Lightening links, illegal sear conversions, crank trigger, bump stocks or just shot quickly. [1] That data on still should have been added to and appeared the CESR though, which it does not. My personal opinion is that the photos released show bipods - Bump stocks don't work from bipods! [1] https://waronguns.blogspot.com/2019/04/about-those-bump-stocks.html https://waronguns.blogspot.com/2019/04/about-those-bump-stoc...
    - red_admiral 7y ago
      Since you seem to know more about this than I do: could one deduce what was used from the audio recordings that I'm sure lots of people have made? I imagine some combination of rate of fire and pauses between bursts and other factors could tell if it was "real" full-auto fire.
existencebox 7y ago
A few discrete arguments. First, I don't think it's fair to 1. paint slippery slope paranoia in such a negative light, nor 2. paint all Americans who fear downward trends as being right wing gun nuts. Let's look at a convenient example from history. The progression of america over the last 200 years is a progression of executive power, and the results have really been a mixed bag. Wilson and Lincoln's powers during wartime, the antiquities act, the 16th amendment, the new deal, wickard v filburn. There has _definitely_ been a slope there, and I feel like a lot of the debates surrounding our current situation as a country could have been preempted many decades ago with a closer eye to this trend. (Obvious examples: Our use of torture as decided by administration lawyers, bulk surveillance, military action exceeding constitutional limits) Second, on the differences between national sentiment. Even putting my fears about the future aside, I can say australia has long since crossed a threshold I'd consider unacceptable _in the moment_ in terms of govt. control and censorship, even as early in the 90's with the game censorship, which, to be evenhanded, they DID address to allow MA rating, although a _decade_ later, and still followed by heavy banning of individual games. So to my eyes it's less about slippery slopes and more just an acceptance of a higher level of govt. control. As with my examples of executive power above there are certainly factions in the US pushing for similar in the same way there are Australians opposed, so there's clearly not "some uniquely american bias towards paranoia". My gut feel as well with many of those defending the 2nd amendment is that it's become a tribal thing where the rote arguments that get paraded around are just the rallying cries at this point. (And I say this as someone who would broadly falls on the "less regulation" side of things) To be precise, Your final point about compromise of a lawyer's role seems reasonable and I don't mean to speak on that as I don't have background to comment; this was entirely to address the characterization at the front and defend the position a little.
slavik81 7y ago
As a Canadian, my perceptions of freedom of expression in Australia were probably first set by seeing Australians on gaming forums asking foreigners to buy them copies of Left4Dead. It was rated for ages 17+ in Canada, but by Australian law, all video games had to be suitable for children—there was no adult rating. So, the Australian release was censored. It's a relatively minor thing, but when I was playing I would occasionally think, "this is illegal in Australia? Really?" I took it as an example of how Australia's governance really is different.
rayiner 7y ago
Americans think every surface is a slippery slope because our society is deeply polarized and the slide down the slope is always a real threat. For example, out of the largest five EU countries, four (Germany, Italy, Spain, and France) have abortion laws generally limited to first trimester, with mandatory waiting periods and counseling being typical. (Germany still has them, France recently got rid of the waiting period.) On paper, those restrictions would be among the strictest in the country if they were in the US. (Alabama and Georgia currently have a 22-week limit, until the heartbeat laws take effect next year.) But as you can see with the recent push in the US, the goal for a large contingent of people in the US really is the outright elimination of elective abortion. Liberals, correctly, recognize the slippery slope and categorically oppose restrictions, even ones that are common in Europe. The same dynamic holds for gun control. In liberal circles it’s common to deem the second amendment “obsolete” and declare there is no reason for private gun ownership. Prior to Heller DC law banned ownership of handguns (except ones grandfathered in), and requires rifles and shotguns to be kept disassembled. Licensure procedures have been used as effective bans, with municipalities almost automatically denying applications for a license. Second Amendment advocates, quite reasonably, don’t trust “reasonable restrictions” because they know that the end goal is prohibition.
brokenmachine 7y ago
>important question to ask--which I haven't seen the answer to--is did the AFP obtain the source of the leak from the raids or not? The AFP already knew who the source was!! As I understand it, he confessed before the raids even happened.
- plugger 7y ago
  And his court date is already set. That's what confused me regarding the raids; the AFP already knew who the leaker was before conducting the raid on the ABC. Given that I'm a bit confused as to why the AFP needed to raid the ABC given they already had all the info required to move for a trial and conviction. Finally, the leak happened in 2017 and yet they're only now getting around to raiding the ABC?
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    The message is clear - report on our secret child murdering and we will send our goons to get you. Are we still the good guys?

by cletus 7y ago

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

Is there anything more stereotypical than an Australian lecturing Americans on the slippery slope of gun control? Preface... In Australia 1997 there was a gun confiscation (buy back if you wanna call it that, but be honest) on any gun deemed suitable for defense. It coincided with an almost double number of police per capita. Crime fell! Unfortunately for that argument crime fell by a greater rate in the USA over the same time period, no gun ban, no major increase in police per capita. We talk about the slippery slope being real, because we have so many examples of it being so: - Capacity of magazines... No magazine limits country-wide, then in areas... 100 round drums banned, large capacity firearms regulated as destructive devices, a brief period where they tried to say “no larger than what the gun was designed for”, 30 round magazine limits, 15 in New Jersey in Colorado now, 10 in ban states like California Maryland Connecticut, New York went 7 with the mostly failed SAFE ACT, Canada has 3 and 5 on rifles depending on situation and I’ve already heard that come up in interviews in the USA. There is no number ever safe enough to satisfy people who argue for disarmament. Goal has always been to the define an arbitrary number and re-define it later. It’s the very system of getting you to accept an arbitrary number in the first place. - Want to go again? The SKS rifle, a Soviet precursor to the AK-47... no restrictions in the USA, after an SKS is illegally converted to full auto and used in a shootout with police in California… CA decides this gun is unusually dangerous (it’s not), state wide sales of SKS rifle’s are halted, a registration program is instituted, despite assurances grandfathering will remain allowed, not long later that registry is used to door to door confiscate those rifles. Something the felt comfortable doing because of the small number of registered owners. A single crime with and illegally converted gun directly led to the confiscation of a rifle that is typically less dangerous than common alternatives. - You gave the example for bump stock ban. Ok, The 1934 National Firearms Act defines that a machine gun is a firearm that fires two or more bullets for every one press of the trigger pull. Bump stocks do not fall under this category in any way, the trigger must be activated multiple times for multiple shots. The ATF approves a product called the Atkins Accelerator; think of it as a bump stock with a spring for 22 rifle, later after approval the ATF decides because it’s spring operated it is a machine gun, they ask for registration, use the registration for confiscation (as is always the plan) - but not of the stock! Only the spring in it. Many years later bump stocks become popular the ATF examines and okays them because it meets no definition machine gun, has no spring for automated actuation, and does nothing an experienced shooter can’t do without the help of that stock. And here we are again, now the ATF has decided that despite no bump stocks being used in crimes, no spring, and despite previous approval, they are now illegal. With no registration there has been no confiscation. Last I heard the number willingly turned in is in the low hundreds, with of hundreds of thousands sold. Possession of a previously legal plastic injection molding, with no change in law, only opinion, has now made you a felon. - More examples would include ammo shape and metal contents under the entirely arbitrary guise of “armor piercing”, the NFA itself, import restrictions, ITAR continually evolving, the “approved handgun lists” that states have adopted but intentionally failed to maintain, etc Might have better luck arguing that the slippery slope regarding guns isn’t real, if we didn’t have so many examples of it being so. Edit: All historical facts.

red_admiral 7y ago
> despite no bump stocks being used in crimes Except for a mass shooting from a hotel window? EDIT: ok, if you're talking about Australia then I'm not refuting your data. But I can understand why a country that sees news of a mass shooting abroad would ask itself whether that could happen to them too and whether they might want to do anything about it.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Well, ok, Vegas... Well... You would have me there! Except that the ATF in FOIA requrest reported that they were aware of no crimes that involved bump stocks [0] Aside from that, I could probably ask how the media was confidently able to report bump stocks were used - but that NOT A SINGLE official report or released info mentions them as being used. Only media coverage. Everyone should be extremely skepical of the extreme limited amount of confirmed information released on Vegas. Not implying any sort of conspiracy at all, but there is clearly something atypical with that event. But hey, maybe the ATF and the Criminal Enforcement System of Records is wrong! [0] http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/05/01/foia-response-from-the-atf-no-bumpstocks-used-in-any-crime-to-date/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/05/01/foia-response-from... edit: For additional info on Vegas. The ATF says up front they were never authorized to examine the firearms in the Las Vegas shooting (highly irregular). They can't say they were R/DIAS, Lightening links, illegal sear conversions, crank trigger, bump stocks or just shot quickly. [1] That data on still should have been added to and appeared the CESR though, which it does not. My personal opinion is that the photos released show bipods - Bump stocks don't work from bipods! [1] https://waronguns.blogspot.com/2019/04/about-those-bump-stocks.html https://waronguns.blogspot.com/2019/04/about-those-bump-stoc...
  - red_admiral 7y ago
    Since you seem to know more about this than I do: could one deduce what was used from the audio recordings that I'm sure lots of people have made? I imagine some combination of rate of fire and pauses between bursts and other factors could tell if it was "real" full-auto fire.

existencebox 7y ago

A few discrete arguments. First, I don't think it's fair to 1. paint slippery slope paranoia in such a negative light, nor 2. paint all Americans who fear downward trends as being right wing gun nuts. Let's look at a convenient example from history. The progression of america over the last 200 years is a progression of executive power, and the results have really been a mixed bag. Wilson and Lincoln's powers during wartime, the antiquities act, the 16th amendment, the new deal, wickard v filburn. There has _definitely_ been a slope there, and I feel like a lot of the debates surrounding our current situation as a country could have been preempted many decades ago with a closer eye to this trend. (Obvious examples: Our use of torture as decided by administration lawyers, bulk surveillance, military action exceeding constitutional limits) Second, on the differences between national sentiment. Even putting my fears about the future aside, I can say australia has long since crossed a threshold I'd consider unacceptable _in the moment_ in terms of govt. control and censorship, even as early in the 90's with the game censorship, which, to be evenhanded, they DID address to allow MA rating, although a _decade_ later, and still followed by heavy banning of individual games. So to my eyes it's less about slippery slopes and more just an acceptance of a higher level of govt. control. As with my examples of executive power above there are certainly factions in the US pushing for similar in the same way there are Australians opposed, so there's clearly not "some uniquely american bias towards paranoia". My gut feel as well with many of those defending the 2nd amendment is that it's become a tribal thing where the rote arguments that get paraded around are just the rallying cries at this point. (And I say this as someone who would broadly falls on the "less regulation" side of things) To be precise, Your final point about compromise of a lawyer's role seems reasonable and I don't mean to speak on that as I don't have background to comment; this was entirely to address the characterization at the front and defend the position a little.

slavik81 7y ago

As a Canadian, my perceptions of freedom of expression in Australia were probably first set by seeing Australians on gaming forums asking foreigners to buy them copies of Left4Dead. It was rated for ages 17+ in Canada, but by Australian law, all video games had to be suitable for children—there was no adult rating. So, the Australian release was censored. It's a relatively minor thing, but when I was playing I would occasionally think, "this is illegal in Australia? Really?" I took it as an example of how Australia's governance really is different.

rayiner 7y ago

Americans think every surface is a slippery slope because our society is deeply polarized and the slide down the slope is always a real threat. For example, out of the largest five EU countries, four (Germany, Italy, Spain, and France) have abortion laws generally limited to first trimester, with mandatory waiting periods and counseling being typical. (Germany still has them, France recently got rid of the waiting period.) On paper, those restrictions would be among the strictest in the country if they were in the US. (Alabama and Georgia currently have a 22-week limit, until the heartbeat laws take effect next year.) But as you can see with the recent push in the US, the goal for a large contingent of people in the US really is the outright elimination of elective abortion. Liberals, correctly, recognize the slippery slope and categorically oppose restrictions, even ones that are common in Europe. The same dynamic holds for gun control. In liberal circles it’s common to deem the second amendment “obsolete” and declare there is no reason for private gun ownership. Prior to Heller DC law banned ownership of handguns (except ones grandfathered in), and requires rifles and shotguns to be kept disassembled. Licensure procedures have been used as effective bans, with municipalities almost automatically denying applications for a license. Second Amendment advocates, quite reasonably, don’t trust “reasonable restrictions” because they know that the end goal is prohibition.

brokenmachine 7y ago

>important question to ask--which I haven't seen the answer to--is did the AFP obtain the source of the leak from the raids or not? The AFP already knew who the source was!! As I understand it, he confessed before the raids even happened.

plugger 7y ago
And his court date is already set. That's what confused me regarding the raids; the AFP already knew who the leaker was before conducting the raid on the ABC. Given that I'm a bit confused as to why the AFP needed to raid the ABC given they already had all the info required to move for a trial and conviction. Finally, the leak happened in 2017 and yet they're only now getting around to raiding the ABC?
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  The message is clear - report on our secret child murdering and we will send our goons to get you. Are we still the good guys?