David Leyonhjelm watch...

[Footy Smarts]

Nope.

He's not saying just anyone should be able to carry them.

He's saying fully licenced, higly trained civilians should be able to carry.

Unlike America.

What difference would that make? What are the chances that Bob from accounts happens to be a highly trained person with a gun when you need him in this situation?

If they're being so limited what difference does it make since the chance of there being somebody who can "take out the perp" is practically none?

 

[Maggie5]

No you have it utterly wrong.

Please, go look at the negative affect of alcohol on society then go compare it to guns.

Statistics show without a doubt gun owners are far more responsible than alcohol users.

Over your head as usual.
You agree on the negative affect of alcohol so why not give them a gun as well. Now have I got it right?

 

[Gus Poyet]

What difference would that make? What are the chances that Bob from accounts happens to be a highly trained person with a gun when you need him in this situation?

If they're being so limited what difference does it make since the chance of there being somebody who can "take out the perp" is practically none?

The point being made is that if Bob from accounts has those skills and the ability to defend himself in that manner why shouldn't he be able to?

Once again the bedwetters read something and read their own mental thoughts into it.

He's not advocating every second person on the street to be "packing heat".

It's for people to be able to defend themselves in a situation. In this case with a gun.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Over your head as usual.
You agree on the negative affect of alcohol so why not give them a gun as well. Now have I got it right?

Do you know what a straw man arguement is?

It's not gone over my head your arguement is completely stupid.

 

[Maggie5]

Do you know what a straw man arguement is?

It's not gone over my head your arguement is completely stupid.

Back at you.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Back at you.

Yes, because pointing out a hypocritical point of view even gets close to your ridiculous whatever it was.

 

[DrKrieger]

Yeah, you sound like someone who has a grasp on what is being said.

Keep on watching those movies though.

I understand perfectly what is being said, I just disagree with it in it's entirety.

Even if people were allowed to carry AR15s around, no-one will bother, because a weapon that size is a PITA to carry around everywhere you go.

And when you say "highly trained" I'm sorry, but I doubt it. The car is one of the most dangerous objects in Australia and our licencing system for that involves mostly proving you can drive no faster than a certain speed, with a u-turn and a hill start thrown in for good measure.

Again, I think most people who think they could save everyone if they had a gun in a situation like this are lying to themselves. All that happens is the person intent on harm brings a bigger gun, and shoots with far less provocation. Do you honestly believe that there would have been a better result in the cafe if someone was armed and the gunman (who, lets not forget, was appropriately licenced) had something more dangerous than an old shotgun? Because I think there would be a greater than 50% chance that we would have more injuries and deaths in that case.

The "hostage with a concealed pistol saves everyone" is much more hollywood than anything I've said.

No you have it utterly wrong.

Please, go look at the negative affect of alcohol on society then go compare it to guns.

Statistics show without a doubt gun owners are far more responsible than alcohol users.

So all gun owners are teetotalers?

If anything, this argument makes a case for restricting alcohol sales, not relaxing firearms laws.

 

[RolandF1]

Yeah, you sound like someone who has a grasp on what is being said.

Keep on watching those movies though.

You're the one advocating real life wild west scenarios.

 

[Gus Poyet]

The "hostage with a concealed pistol saves everyone" is much more hollywood than anything I've said.

That's the Hollywood spin right there. It's about personal protection more than going Rambo on an assialant in a room full of people.

It would potentially mean store employees could be trained to be able to defend themselves from assailants.

Or do you have an issue with people being able to defend themselves?

So all gun owners are teetotalers?

Relevance?

If anything, this argument makes a case for restricting alcohol sales, not relaxing firearms laws.

And that is the point. The people bedwetting over relaxing gun laws are hypocrites because if they were so concerned about people's safety they would be making a lot of a noise about something which causes far more damage to society on a daily basis.

But they aren't and they won't.

Their passion for people's welfare only stretches as far as something they don't like.

 

[Gus Poyet]

You're the one advocating real life wild west scenarios.

No I'm not.

That's you making that stupid assumption.

 

[DrKrieger]

That's the Hollywood spin right there. It's about personal protection more than going Rambo on an assialant in a room full of people.

It would potentially mean store employees could be trained to be able to defend themselves from assailants.

Or do you have an issue with people being able to defend themselves?




Relevance?



And that is the point. The people bedwetting over relaxing gun laws are hypocrites because if they were so concerned about people's safety they would be making a lot of a noise about something which causes far more damage to society on a daily basis.

But they aren't and they won't.

Their passion for people's welfare only stretches as far as something they don't like.

Well, gosh. I had this big plan to make sure that noone is ever going to be able to look after themselves, but now that you've called me out on it and accused everyone who disagrees with you of being a bedwetting hypocrite I'm totally on your side now!

You are coming from the point of view that gun ownership offers a net benefit to the individual and society. I do not believe that is the case, but please feel free to use more ad hominems to try and convince me otherwise.

Also just to add, I'm not anti-gun. I think the current rules allow those who need or want them to have access, and I have yet to be convinced there is a reason to relax the rules just because. In the grand scheme of things, I still believe the laws achieve what they were designed to achieve, and see no reason to change them.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Well, gosh. I had this big plan to make sure that noone is ever going to be able to look after themselves, but now that you've called me out on it and accused everyone who disagrees with you of being a bedwetting hypocrite I'm totally on your side now!

It's never about agreeing. It's about tolerating even if you don't like it.

Just because someone doesn't like Pot doesn't mean it's a reason to have it banned is it?

Just because someone doesn't agree with Gay Marriage doesn't mean it should be banned does it?

You are coming from the point of view that gun ownership offers a net benefit to the individual and society. I do not believe that is the case, but please feel free to use more ad hominems to try and convince me otherwise.

Then you don't have to own a gun or ever use one. That is your choice. Don't force your choices onto others.

I'm coming from the point of view it's up to the individual to be able to decide for themselves. My ownership of guns has zero to do with you for example.

Also just to add, I'm not anti-gun. I think the current rules allow those who need or want them to have access, and I have yet to be convinced there is a reason to relax the rules just because. In the grand scheme of things, I still believe the laws achieve what they were designed to achieve, and see no reason to change them.

What did they achieve?

 

[DrKrieger]

It's never about agreeing. It's about tolerating even if you don't like it.

Just because someone doesn't like Pot doesn't mean it's a reason to have it banned is it?

Just because someone doesn't agree with Gay Marriage doesn't mean it should be banned does it?



Then you don't have to own a gun or ever use one. That is your choice. Don't force your choices onto others.

I'm coming from the point of view it's up to the individual to be able to decide for themselves. My ownership of guns has zero to do with you for example.





What did they achieve?

They aren't banned outright though, and I don't want them banned outright. As someone who enjoys technical things, I even appreciate the mechanics and engineering that goes into a firearm. What you seem to be talking about is allowing ownership and carriage of firearms for the explicit purpose of shooting people. In self defence maybe, but still shooting people. I don't know that enough bank robberies and hostage situations are occurring at the present time for that fear of being in a situation like that to be a pressing concern for most people.

If the laws change I'm sure I'll get over it, but in my mind there is no reason for the rules to change, apart from the argument that some people want some things they can't get at the moment, and believe they would be responsible with it, so it must therefore be wrong for it not to be available to them.

I mean, if you're honest, as the law stands now, you are permitted to (and if I remember correctly, actually do?) own and use a firearm. What do you want to be able to do with it so badly that you cannot do now?

 

[Footy Smarts]

The point being made is that if Bob from accounts has those skills and the ability to defend himself in that manner why shouldn't he be able to?

Once again the bedwetters read something and read their own mental thoughts into it.

He's not advocating every second person on the street to be "packing heat".

It's for people to be able to defend themselves in a situation. In this case with a gun.

I don't think you've got any idea what he's advocating. Here is what he said today:

"What happened in that cafe would have been most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well," Senator Leyonhjelm told the ABC's AM program.

"Statistically speaking" in those jurisdictions, "one or two of the victims" would have had a concealed gun, he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...un-push-rejected-by-opposition-greens/5975210

Now apart from clearly having no idea about Swiss gun laws (it's illegal to carry a loaded gun in public part from very specific work-related situations), he's clearly advocating for a lot more than just highly-trained people to be carrying guns. Since there were only 17 people taken hostage be wants ~10% of the adult population to be carrying a gun. So you're right he's not advocating every second person, he's advocating about every tenth person.

Giving anybody a gun that is permanently available and loaded is pretty dangerous since everybody makes irrational decisions at times when put under extreme pressure. Thinking we can safely have ~10% of the population packing heat without a significant increase in gun-related violence is laughable. And what do you know every jurisdiction he names (apart from Switzerland which doesn't have anything like the laws he proposes) has way higher gun violence than Australia. The fact is he is proposing making us like the US with our gun laws. He goes right ahead and states it!

 

[pokerspiv]

We aren't America.

This is where that moronic arguement falls flat on its face.

Why not compare us to nations like Canada, Sweden, Germany. Austria or Switzerland? Nations with a far higher gun ownership % than Australia.

Or isn't that convinient because it shows nations can have high gun ownership and not be constantly having "american" style issues?

Even New Zealand has far less stringent gun laws in Australia. David Leyonhjelm would be happy enough for our laws to be in line with New Zealand. It really is difficult for recreational shooters nowadays, there's a lot of bullshit to go through.

 

[carnthemlions]

I don't think you've got any idea what he's advocating. Here is what he said today:



Now apart from clearly having no idea about Swiss gun laws (it's illegal to carry a loaded gun in public part from very specific work-related situations), he's clearly advocating for a lot more than just highly-trained people to be carrying guns. Since there were only 17 people taken hostage be wants ~10% of the adult population to be carrying a gun. So you're right he's not advocating every second person, he's advocating about every tenth person.

Giving anybody a gun that is permanently available and loaded is pretty dangerous since everybody makes irrational decisions at times when put under extreme pressure. Thinking we can safely have ~10% of the population packing heat without a significant increase in gun-related violence is laughable. And what do you know every jurisdiction he names (apart from Switzerland which doesn't have anything like the laws he proposes) has way higher gun violence than Australia. The fact is he is proposing making us like the US with our gun laws. He goes right ahead and states it!

He's a dickhead.

The point being made is that if Bob from accounts has those skills and the ability to defend himself in that manner why shouldn't he be able to?

Once again the bedwetters read something and read their own mental thoughts into it.

He's not advocating every second person on the street to be "packing heat".

It's for people to be able to defend themselves in a situation. In this case with a gun.

Gus plz

 

[carnthemlions]

It really is difficult for recreational shooters nowadays, there's a lot of bullshit to go through.

Who cares?

 

[madmug]

No I'm not.

That's you making that stupid assumption.

OH yes you are!!!

If you like laxer gun laws then fork ov to the USA, & have a happy life.

I dont trust anyone to have a gun unless very strictly reasoned, licensed & controlled. In that way you can see who the dangerous ones are.

Anyone with a gun out in a civil situation, they are the dangerous ones. Thats how I assess the situation, except police of course.

How else do the cops make quick decisions & know who to watch & perhaps 'take out' first? Fred Nirk who is trying to play the big hero? or the actual crim? How do the cops sort that out in 1/2 a second?

 

[RolandF1]

No I'm not.

That's you making that stupid assumption.

It would potentially mean store employees could be trained to be able to defend themselves from assailants.

BANG BANG you're dead! Shot your brains outta your head! Yeehah!

Unless of course when you say 'defend themselves' you mean the store employee asking nicely for the assailant to drop their weapon and sit down to discuss their predictment through reasoned discourse and mutual respect for the albums of Phil Collins.

 

[Lebbo73]

No one wants skitsos running around with guns. The real problem is the change in gun laws left the guns in the hands of criminals and took them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens. I am not advocating that high powered weapons should be allowed. However, you open the door to a potential dictator and/or oppressive government when you disarm your citizens!

 

[RUNVS]

I remember one American politician saying after Sandy Hook to one of the parents who lost a child "don't use your child's death as an excuse to curtail my right to own a gun"

I can easily imagine Gus Poyet saying something similar.

 

[pokerspiv]

The guy in the siege did not have a gun licence and was using a weapon that is already illegal to own in Australia.

How will reviewing gun laws help? He clearly wasn't going to follow them.

 

[RUNVS]

The guy in the siege did not have a gun licence and was using a weapon that is already illegal to own in Australia.

How will reviewing gun laws help? He clearly wasn't going to follow them.

In order to find more illegal weapons perhaps?

 

[pokerspiv]

In order to find more illegal weapons perhaps?

What, by making them extra illegal?

Surely this is an issue of customs rather than gun laws. The guns in question are already illegal. Making laws making more things illegal wouldn't solve anything.

As always, governments make more useless laws when what is really happening is a failure to enforce already existing laws. And so, little by little, almost everything becomes illegal.

 

[Maggie5]

How do you make things extra illegal?