The off topic thread 6.0

[Art Vandelay_]

Did I say more guns is the answer?

You are by definition of your argument.

Arguing for controlled and regulated attainment of guns for self-defence to be easier you are by proxy arguing for an increase in guns.

Those with them illegally are not affected by changes in regulation as they don't abide by them anyway. While regulatory action to make self-defence ownership easier will increase the volume of guns in circulation. It has to.

It isn't a sign up and someone else loses their rights to a gun scenario.

 

[Bostonian]

You are by definition of your argument.

Not even close.

Nothing I have said indicates it should be easier to buy guns.

Arguing for controlled and regulated attainment of guns for self-defence to be easier you are by proxy arguing for an increase in guns.

Those with them illegally are not affected by changes in regulation as they don't abide by them anyway. While regulatory action to make self-defence ownership easier will increase the volume of guns in circulation. It has to.

It isn't a sign up and someone else loses their rights to a gun scenario.

Wrong again.

You really aren't understanding the discussion due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.

It's not about buying guns for self defence.

It's about rendering them almost worthless for law abiding citizens to protect themselves with in a violent and potentially deadly situation in their homes/properties.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

People like you

You really aren't understanding the discussion due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You have a problem.
2nd person and 2nd time you've done this in this discussion.

It's about rendering them almost worthless for law abiding citizens to protect themselves with in a violent and potentially deadly situation in their homes/properties.

Good. Guns are not the answer and we made what is considered by most of the world as a brilliant decision to eradicate guns within 12 days in 1996.

Hyperbole about how treacherous and dangerous our society is, like a war torn country doesn't enhance your argument.
We have crime in this country, some of it is violent crime. But absolutely nothing even remotely close to warranting guns for protection being a necessary adjustment.

 

[SM]

No there isn't.

That's your dumb argument done for.



Did I say more guns is the answer?

We're discussing Australia here.

It's the highly limited access to our weapons for personal protection is the issue.

Not the regulations of what it takes to own a gun. They are fine.

You said people should have guns so yes you did say more guns was the answer.

 

[Bostonian]

You have a problem.
2nd person and 2nd time you've done this in this discussion.

Good. Guns are not the answer and we made what is considered by most of the world as a brilliant decision to eradicate guns within 12 days in 1996.

Hyperbole about how treacherous and dangerous our society is, like a war torn country doesn't enhance your argument.
We have crime in this country, some of it is violent crime. But absolutely nothing even remotely close to warranting guns for protection being a necessary adjustment.

Ah you're one of those.

So what you're saying is if a woman had a gun and three men brake into her house there's nothing about that situation that warrants her being able to protect herself with a legal gun she owns.

Can we be clear, that's what you're saying?

 

[Bostonian]

You said people should have guns so yes you did say more guns was the answer.

Where did I say that?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Ah you're one of those.

You're doing it again.
Judging others because they disagree with you. With a coherent argument no less.

So what you're saying is if a woman had a gun and three men brake into her house there's nothing about that situation that warrants her being able to protect herself with a legal gun she owns.

Can we be clear, that's what you're saying?

Nice strawman.

If we're talking strangers then, In Victoria, unlawful entry with intent has fallen from 80000 in 1993 (4.4m people) and in 2023 it was 46000 (7.1m people) and that was a rise from 2021 of 29000 (6.5m people)... [Thanks Premier Allen for that inaction]...

If we're talking by partners then how can having a gun in the home for DV or sexual violence protection also protect against the aggressor getting that gun and using it on the abused spouse??

You're yet to make a compelling case that we should abandon the path we took in 1996. Which as an aside 90% of Australians in the wake of Port Arthur supported the gun reforms, and in a 2018 survey 87% of respondents thought our gun regulations were "about right" or "too weak".

 

[Bostonian]

You're doing it again.
Judging others because they disagree with you. With a coherent argument no less.


Nice strawman.

If we're talking strangers then, In Victoria, unlawful entry with intent has fallen from 80000 in 1993 (4.4m people) and in 2023 it was 46000 (7.1m people) and that was a rise from 2021 of 29000 (6.5m people)... [Thanks Premier Allen for that inaction]...

If we're talking by partners then how can having a gun in the home for DV or sexual violence protection also protect against the aggressor getting that gun and using it on the abused spouse??

You're yet to make a compelling case that we should abandon the path we took in 1996. Which as an aside 90% of Australians in the wake of Port Arthur supported the gun reforms, and in a 2018 survey 87% of respondents thought our gun regulations were "about right" or "too weak".

You're doing it again.

All along I've been talking about having that last resort for personal safety with easier access to using it.

Because you don't know the rules and regulations you have no idea what I'm discussing.

Just admit that.

 

[Cruyff14]

Bostonian are you ever wrong?

 

[SM]

Where did I say that?

Ah you're one of those.

So what you're saying is if a woman had a gun and three men brake into her house there's nothing about that situation that warrants her being able to protect herself with a legal gun she owns.

Can we be clear, that's what you're saying?

Why should she have a gun if you're saying there shouldn't be more guns?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Why should she have a gun if you're saying there shouldn't be more guns?

Maybe it's an MCC membership style suggestion. Guns capped and you're on a waiting list needing a gun owner to die to get one for yourself.

you have no idea what I'm discussing.

No one has a clue what you're on about to be fair.

 

[Bostonian]

Why should she have a gun if you're saying there shouldn't be more guns?

As always your comprehension level is rock bottom.

Right from the start the discussion was about people who already owned guns.

Not about people going out to buy more guns for the specific purpose of self defence.

 

[Bostonian]

No one has a clue what you're on about to be fair.

That's on you not knowing anything about the subject.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

As always your comprehension level is rock bottom.

That's on you not knowing anything about the subject.

He's doing it again.

 

[Bostonian]

He's doing it again.

Kinda like when you reply and nothing you're replying with addresses the actual discussion that was raised.

So yeah, need to keep doing it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Kinda like when you reply and nothing you're replying with addresses the actual discussion that was raised.

So yeah, need to keep doing it.

Haven't you had enough melts this week?
Thought the one on contracted AFL players was bad enough.

 

[Bostonian]

Haven't you had enough melts this week?
Thought the one on contracted AFL players was bad enough.

Who is melting?

You're the one melting because you can't follow a conversation because you know nothing about gun laws and gun storage.

I mean that's what the post was referring to when you inserted yourself into it.

None of your responses indicated you had a clue that's what was being alluded to.

 

[SM]

As always your comprehension level is rock bottom.

Right from the start the discussion was about people who already owned guns.

Not about people going out to buy more guns for the specific purpose of self defence.

So what on earth are you on about people needing guns to protect themselves in their homes if they already have them? What the **** are you trying to argue?

 

[Bostonian]

So what on earth are you on about people needing guns to protect themselves in their homes if they already have them? What the **** are you trying to argue?

I wasn't arguing.

You're the one who jumped in with your 2 cents and started waffling on about nothing to do with what was raised.

The literal original point was that the Government rules make using a gun as a last resort or a deterrent almost impossible if someone is kicking in your front door.

Given the Government doesn't give two ****s about our safety or ability to defend ourselves, it's an issue.

 

[Bostonian]

Why does it have to be a stabbing or a shooting?

I've been part of a group that was put into hospital when we were 'jumped' walking home one night. My cousin was beaten to death with a gym bar. I've seen dickheads throw punches at sport, at pubs etc.

Ive seen some sickening things over my time too.

Know people who have PTSD because of such incidents.

I once saw a little turd of a drug dealer king hit a guy who told his other little drug dealer mate to **** off.

The king hitter was detained by security who ran after him.

Cops arrive and then then the dodgiest shit ever occurs.

The cops have him detained and then a female civvy rocks up and starts taking to the female copper.

Two minutes later they let this ****er walk.

We were gobsmacked.

Turns out that the civvy that turned up was the king hitters mother, a Copper.

 

[SM]

I wasn't arguing.

You're the one who jumped in with your 2 cents and started waffling on about nothing to do with what was raised.

The literal original point was that the Government rules make using a gun as a last resort or a deterrent almost impossible if someone is kicking in your front door.

Given the Government doesn't give two ****s about our safety or ability to defend ourselves, it's an issue.

I was discussing the topic before you the only one who has jumped in with pages of waffle is you.

 

[Bostonian]

I was discussing the topic before you the only one who has jumped in with pages of waffle is you.

Maybe learn to read then.

But you just said it's criminals who have the guns and in higher quantity than before? So why aren't we seeing huge waves of gun violence?

So no mention of criminals having more guns at all.

A mention of there being more guns being owned, thus the "ownership" part.

See how you either didn't comprehend or misrepresented?

 

[Bostonian]

You are by definition of your argument.

Arguing for controlled and regulated attainment of guns for self-defence to be easier you are by proxy arguing for an increase in guns.

Those with them illegally are not affected by changes in regulation as they don't abide by them anyway. While regulatory action to make self-defence ownership easier will increase the volume of guns in circulation. It has to.

It isn't a sign up and someone else loses their rights to a gun scenario.

You're misrepresenting my point though.

You haven't nailed what I'm talking about because you're not talking about the same "easier" part I'm referring too.



I was referring to being able to access a registered firearm in your own house in a time frame that actually allows the victim to use it as a deterrent or to potentially save their life.

Has nothing to do with attaining guns for self-defence.

It's about being able to get your gun out and loaded in the short time it could take for someone to break into your house.




People can already buy guns for "self defence". Do you really not think there are not people out there who have bought guns and said it's for hunting and never actually ever go hunting?

"To own a gun in Australia, you must be at least 18 years old, possess a "genuine reason" for ownership like sport shooting, hunting, or pest control, complete a firearm safety course, and undergo stringent background checks to ensure you have no disqualifying criminal record"

 

[SM]

Uses light mode, as if we needed any further confirmation of his psychotic state.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Oh FFS. SSSSSS
It is me.