Re: "smart guns" from Australia

From: Robert Bradbury (
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 08:33:23 MDT

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Damien Broderick wrote:

> I swore a mighty oath that I'd never get into this sorta thing, but...

Me too!!! But...
> An especially worrying aspect of this (dominant?) American mind-set became
> apparent to us in Oz a few weeks back, when we learned that the NRA were
> TV-broadcasting ads that straight-out lied through their teeth about the
> allegedly vile consequences of gun buy-back laws here.
> The claims were that we'd gone to the dogs, people were cowering from an
> increasing assault by armed crimes, blah blah. In fact, official crime data
> showed that things had *improved* in all the salient parameters, as one
> would expect.

Aha! Ads, probably similar to those you are discussing, with "documentation"
from the Australian situation (showing dozens of guns being destroyed, people
claiming how they now felt unsafe without their weapons, etc.) *IS*
being shown in the U.S. on late night TV during the junk advertising
hours. [Does it help the NRA to be slotted before or after the
"Thighmaster" promo I wonder...]

> The NRA falsified their statistics in the most blatant fashion. The
> conservative Aussie govt was so outraged that they threatened to take legal
> action against the NRA, a step I found astonishing for a right-wing
> government. I don't know if news of all this reached the States, or just
> the paid lies.

Interesting, I wonder if the U.S. gov. would do the same if the Australian
govmt. showed the ads to be patently misleading. It isn't clear whether
this would be "advertising", subject to false claims regulations or
"reporting", where a great deal of "spin" is allowed.

Note ahead of time, I will not respond to any additional posts on
this subject. The people who feel compelled to defend the actions
of the NRA may do so, with the self-satisfaction of knowing they
have defended their umbrella organization and had the "last word".
People who read this list, know me well enough to know I could
disect anything said and point out any flaws in future arguments,
however for the sake of preserving some small measure of sanity
on the list, *I will not do so*.

I believe in the freedom to keep and bear *safe* arms, just
as I believe that the goverment "dunning" people who don't
wear their seatbelt is a *rational* approach to the problem
of people who indirectly impose additional health care costs
on society (through group insurance). With freedom comes


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:07 MDT