A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Caiphus]

Weapons for self-defense creates an arms race with criminals.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Yeah it’s funny how many people make the “I need to be able to defend my family from invasions or carjackings” claim yet swear they are super safe and responsible gun owners who have their weapons unloaded in secure safes.

I can sadly accept the “ship has sailed” argument about America. The culture is gun crazy and there are just too many guns out there.

But the self defence arguments don’t wash, nor does the “we need to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government” stuff. Ironically these people are pro-military and have contributed to the development of an army that would laugh at their automatic rifles and could squash them like bugs.

 

[3KZ is Football]

It stems from keeping 'natives and blacks' away and I think that's still what it's for.

What people need to understand about the the U.S.A is that it was a nation created out of revolution and it's founding documents are revolutionary documents. The Second Amendment / Right to bear arms was adopted in 1791 and at the time the idea was that it would empower citizen's militias to arm themselves to oppose tyranny. The threat of war with Great Britain was ever present and this was a way for a new country to seek to ensure it's liberty. The big problem is, as with any society that has it's genesis in Revolution, foundational documents take on an almost religious quality and this is the issue for the U.S. today. Clearly there is no need for Civil Society in America to have the sort of access to arms that we see. The aim of the original amendment is completely redundant, but there are significant and powerful forces in the U.S. who have conflated the sense of what it means to be American and what constitutes Liberty, with a fundamentalist’s reverence of every aspect of their constitution. Just like a Fundamentalist Christian will tell you every word of the Bible is literally true and cant be changed, there are powerful forces who assert the same about the Constitution and particularly the 2nd Amendment.

Until someone can break this way of thinking, the U.S. are stuck in the same bloody loop.

 

[Skoob]

Ironically, very few of these "crazed, mass murdering, gunmen" are ever shot down by a gun totin' good citizen. It's incredible.

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[SizeMatters]

Wow really? Allowing people guns because they might need it to protect themselves is NOT the answer. If anything more guns equals more crime.

 

[Tassie4ever]

View attachment 460507

One of those very rare occasions where I find myself in agreement with your apparent sympathies.

But I must say all this Barnaby crap is extremely selective. There are many stories out there just waiting to be told, trust me.

Such as the openly gay former Minister for Employment [a Liberal] who insisted on only having handsome young men working in his office. No females. None. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, it's probably to be encouraged.

Then, I'm interested to know when the full story about Shorty's liaison with his current wife began. Was he still married, as is suggested elsewhere? And who paid for the wedding reception at Government House? Us?

And who was the former PM who needed a Public Service minder assigned for close personal support after 6pm each day as he was usually blotto?

And who was then Secretary for Social Security who was never permitted to attend staff functions without a minder? [He had an unusual manner of acquainting himself with female staff].

Then there's the story of how Therese Reines' climb to multi-millionaire began, starting with a tiny 3 person office at West End, and winning out of the blue a huge State government contract- when Kevvie was Chief-of-Staff to Wayne Goss.

I could go on- but I won't.

One day the full expo will be written. Maybe

 

[Hollow Knight]

In the first couple of days after these school massacres, the media outrage and the faux concern by politicians on the NRA payroll is almost enough to make you think that this time something will be done.

But as other pundits have said, Sandy Hook is the benchmark. Twenty 6-7 year old kids got brutally massacred. And they couldn’t even get stricter background checks and waiting periods over the line in the aftermath. It defies understanding.

 

[Viceregal]

But the self defence arguments don’t wash, nor does the “we need to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government” stuff. Ironically these people are pro-military and have contributed to the development of an army that would laugh at their automatic rifles and could squash them like bugs.

Perhaps you would care to discuss that with the German forces trying to pacify the French resistance during WWII ... or the Russians/Americans trying to pacify Afghanistan ... the Selucids trying to put down the Macabees ... the British trying to put down the revolutionary Americans ... the British trying to put down the Irish ... the Syrians (and many others) tyring to put down their rebel factions ... the Americans trying to put down the Viet Cong ... everyone trying to put down the Kurds etc etc

btw the people who are worried about the tyrannical govt forces throwing off their guise of democracy and coming at them overtly are not planning on lining up en masse to take on an armoured division (and if that happened there would most likely be armoured divisions on both sides) ...

 

[Hollow Knight]

Perhaps you would care to discuss that with the German forces trying to pacify the French resistance during WWII ... or the Russians/Americans trying to pacify Afghanistan ... the Selucids trying to put down the Macabees ... the British trying to put down the revolutionary Americans ... the British trying to put down the Irish ... the Syrians (and many others) tyring to put down their rebel factions ... the Americans trying to put down the Viet Cong ... everyone trying to put down the Kurds etc etc

btw the people who are worried about the tyrannical govt forces throwing off their guise of democracy and coming at them overtly are not planning on lining up en masse to take on an armoured division (and if that happened there would most likely be armoured divisions on both sides) ...

You seem to be profoundly unaware of how the nature of warfare has been transformed in the last 30-40 years.

 

[MacMum]

In the first couple of days after these school massacres, the media outrage and the faux concern by politicians on the NRA payroll is almost enough to make you think that this time something will be done.

But as other pundits have said, Sandy Hook is the benchmark. Twenty 6-7 year old kids got brutally massacred. And they couldn’t even get stricter background checks and waiting periods over the line in the aftermath. It defies understanding.

....and don't forget all the prayers, they worked a treat. Absolute hypocrites, make out they are very religious with their prayers, yet they do stuff all about their laws, and allow this type of thing to happen time and time again.

America is all talk and no action.

 

[Billy Puller]

I have a gun just in case s**t hits the fan and everything goes belly up. If the apocalypse comes I’ll keep y’all safe.

It’s also a bit of fun going hunting and shooting at the range. Do I have it for protection purposes? No if someone came into the house it’d take me 10 ******* minutes to get it ready to shoot the intruder.

I’ve had my safe checked twice, australia is strict as.

 

[3KZ is Football]

How could any woman resist?

 

[brizrider]

I do live in a low crime area, but if I lived in a high crime area I'd get a great security system and think about my driving and walking routes. I wouldn't think about needing to load someone up with lead as the only counter to their behaviour.

Because that's our culture and even before we had our current gun laws that was pretty much our culture. It's not US culture though. I know basically progressive, left-leaning Americans who live in fairly progressive places like California who do want their guns to load people up with lead if they trespass on their property. That's been their culture for 200+ years and I can't see it changing to be honest. Former Democratic Senator Gabrielle Giffords got shot in the head by a psycho and even she only supports 'responsible gun ownership' and nothing like the laws we have in Australia.

Anyway, it's a domestic public health, economic and law and order issue for the US. They can do or not do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. If they want to kill each other they can go for it. I think we have bigger issues of our own to deal with before we get too indignant about US gun laws.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Get On Up

 

[Viceregal]

Perhaps you would care to discuss that with the German forces trying to pacify the French resistance during WWII ... or the Russians/Americans trying to pacify Afghanistan ... the Selucids trying to put down the Macabees ... the British trying to put down the revolutionary Americans ... the British trying to put down the Irish ... the Syrians (and many others) tyring to put down their rebel factions ... the Americans trying to put down the Viet Cong ... everyone trying to put down the Kurds etc etc

btw the people who are worried about the tyrannical govt forces throwing off their guise of democracy and coming at them overtly are not planning on lining up en masse to take on an armoured division (and if that happened there would most likely be armoured divisions on both sides) ...

You seem to be profoundly unaware of how the nature of warfare has been transformed in the last 30-40 years.

I could just say that you seem profoundly unaware of what is and is not within the last 30-40 years ... however I will let you explain to me how nature of warfare has changed in such a way as to void the efficacy of native insurgency to seen-as-illegitimate rule.

Taking a country is one thing (eg Iraq) ... keeping it under control is quite another (also see Iraq) - 'modern' warfare is a very expensive process but as our terrorist friends have shown us you can do a lot of damage to infrastructure, buildings, personnel etc with plain ordinary homemade explosives.

 

[SizeMatters]

I have a gun just in case s**t hits the fan and everything goes belly up. If the apocalypse comes I’ll keep y’all safe.

It’s also a bit of fun going hunting and shooting at the range. Do I have it for protection purposes? No if someone came into the house it’d take me 10 ******* minutes to get it ready to shoot the intruder.

I’ve had my safe checked twice, australia is strict as.

Yeah I'm personally fine with the current gun control have here in Australia. It's heavily regulated that's for sure with all sorts of testing. Some on here suggest that everyone should have access to guns for 'protection' which would naturally mean less regulation. That to me is a massive no.

 

[pulpdriver]

Crime in Australia is comparable to crime in the USA - in fact in most areas it's a little less here.

Guns don't reduce crime - having no guns and being conditioned to think doing crime is bad minimises crime.

Based on what?

There's basically no crime in Japan, for example. Only Americans seem to be so afraid of their trespassing neighbour that they think a gun is necessary.

There's basically no crime in Canada or Switzerland yet both have similar gun ownership laws to the USA. Can't really compare Japan to Western countries. Japan is a wonderful country and its crime rate should be seen as a paragon to the rest of world however its culture is compromised of thousands of years of a social system based on honour and respect with littler variation. Even its criminals which do possess guns seem to try and fit into polite social conventions if they use them.
Australia is simply not comparable for many reasons and the USA even more so. Using the USA as the example I think their cultural issues and neglect of mental health are the issues most in need of addressing. This isn't saying their gun laws don't need addressing, my first post said they did, it's just I do not think it's the central or only issue.

It stems from keeping 'natives and blacks' away and I think that's still what it's for.

It really doesn't. It stems from fear of the English and subsequently a population being controlled by a tyrannical government. I don't really think there's a racial component in their gun laws.

I do live in a low crime area, but if I lived in a high crime area I'd get a great security system and think about my driving and walking routes. I wouldn't think about needing to load someone up with lead as the only counter to their behaviour.

But even that is just turning you into an impotent victim. You just stand there and let a criminal turn you into a victim until they're ready to relieve you? And even with your scenario where the person possesses a firearm for their advantage do you need to shoot the assailant? I can't say I've ever been in the situation but I assume if someone tries to rob/rape/god knows what and you point a gun at them, they freeze and ultimately try and escape which creates a situation where they can be let go without incident and no one is afflicted.
Obviously, the ideal is the ideal situation using guns as a defence. A powerful deterrent. I can't argue the perfect situation is you don't need guns full stop but unfortunately that relies on a homogenous society that has no disparity in wealth and is not afflicted by mental health. Sounds great, but it's pretty much something from science fiction.
As I first said, I don't personally see changes to gun law as imperative but I'd hate to think that if I lived in a high crime area, or had my house robbed multiple times or had been raped in a parking lot, that if I felt the need to increase my right to self defence I was told, "no, we'll just continue disarming the villains, you'll be fine."
The right to safety should be an absolute human right, if you feel that can not be provided to you by the existing institutions you should be allowed to provide that to yourself.
It obviously must come with limits, I don't want some society where people are buying guns willy nilly. Owning it should be a huge responsibility that comes with caveats but it fulfils a purpose for your situation. So maybe I should have said I have no objections to ownership parameters being changed to self defence. You can own a gun if you really feel the need to defend yourself, but it doesn't come without conditions.
I guess I just don't feel that I have the right to tell people that feel they need a firearm to protect themselves that they can't have it. I can't say I'd be campaigning for that right, but I don't object to someone having it.

 

[pulpdriver]

I've posted it before, but I suggest you watch Jim Jefferies' set on this issue. It's stand up comedy, but absolutely hits the absurdity of the self defense argument on the head. If there are stats on how many serious assaults are stopped 'thanks' to gun defense, please share.

Seen it before. He makes some good points and some not so great points. Both sides are debated ad infinitum and Jim Jeffries doesn't present any revolutionary points that redefine the whole debate.

 

[pulpdriver]

It absolutely does. Gun crime drops way further than home invasion incidence when guns have strict control placed on them, as they have here. How many deaths are we seeing here, from home invasion or carjacking, compared to the hundreds of people shot previously?

Does it? Switzerland and Canada have extremely liberal gun laws and yet have never seen a significant increase in crime, gun related or not. By the same token you're suggesting our crime rate has reduced solely on the back of deaths related to guns. It hasn't. Our violent crime has remained pretty stagnant

There is no evidence that I have seen to support gun ownership reducing serious crime.

Fair enough, how about evidence that gun ownership doesn't increase serious crime.
Even the UK who has been even more serious with their reduction of firearm ownership than ourselves has not only seen the greatest rise in violent crimes for over a decade, they've seen gun crime rising 23% with 6,375 offences in a year. In a country with even less guns than us. Even
accounting for population disparity those numbers make no sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/official-figures-show-biggest-rise-crime-in-a-decade

You only need to look at the incidence of home invasion and stealing in the USA, where they have guns to see it still goes on.
So little to no impact on stopping crime, yet huge increase in shootings, both devastatingly huge numbers due to the type of guns, but also the incidence of accidental death.

But those all exist in a nation without guns. And not in a disproportionately high percentage either. Which could suggest gun ownership neither stops of prevents crimes but doesn't increase them. The statistics don't really have a substantial conclusion.

Domestic violence alone is a big enough reason to not allow guns in the home.

Probably the strongest point for preventing guns, however if they're only being owned by approved owners after passing substantial prerequisites I doubt it'd be an issue.

 

[pulpdriver]

Ironically, very few of these "crazed, mass murdering, gunmen" are ever shot down by a gun totin' good citizen. It's incredible.

Well duh, these villains don't target military bases or police stations. They go for schools, churches and concerts.

 

[pulpdriver]

Wow really? Allowing people guns because they might need it to protect themselves is NOT the answer. If anything more guns equals more crime.

Not sure it does. Refer to earlier. Happy to concede to other evidence though.

 

[pulpdriver]

You seem to be profoundly unaware of how the nature of warfare has been transformed in the last 30-40 years.

I dunno. I see what Vice is saying. A drone can't stop resistance without destroying the surrounding area, a drone can't secure a location, A drone cannot take important hostages. Drones are one instrument, they haven't replaced the function of soldiers. Unless you meant something I misinterpreted.

 

[James North]

One of our countries shoots each other up and the other doesn’t ...

I know fear of the British started it, but it was continued because of fear of freed salves and it continues because apparently everyone else other than you in the US is out to violently trespass to the point that military weapons are kept at home.

I’m not sure low level crime stats help show that everyone needs them, it’s just a big fat fear and they’re conditioned to fear others from a young age.

It’s sad and I don't think there’s an easy solution, but not having guns does seem to prevent gun deaths.

 

[pulpdriver]

Yeah I'm personally fine with the current gun control have here in Australia. It's heavily regulated that's for sure with all sorts of testing. Some on here suggest that everyone should have access to guns for 'protection' which would naturally mean less regulation. That to me is a massive no.

I suggested that I have no issue with someone seeking to defend themselves with a gun being given access. I don't see where I said "everyone". I don't want some Oprah situation where "you get a gun, and you get a gun", more that I just don't object if someone wants to own one on the basis of self defence. Let's say hypothetically the Australian Government declared owning a gun to be a viable means for self defence for those which desire it. Why would that inherently change the pre-requisites? Presumably the same parameters: criminal record, mental health, participation in safety courses, would still be there, if not more strict. I wouldn't argue with that. If you feel you need to own a gun it's a responsibility you should prove and be required to prove periodically for the rest of your life.
How may people do you think would actually go through the process to own one? Most people still wouldn't require one, the need for those who feel it is there. I don't think because someone possesses a gun for one purpose they instantly become an untrustworthy psychopath.