Society/Culture Gun's

Fire

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Posts
9,949
Likes
2,803
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#26
This is primarily where we differ.
I'd rather defend myself than be shot in the face.[/QUOTE]


Stats show that in general you are more likely to be shot in the face without gun control than with it, so this is where the extremity comes into the opinion again again.

While you might feel safer and freer by in your view 'being able to defend yourself', the reality is that you are STILL more likely to be shot in the face without gun control than with it.

I'm happy to take the risk of being shot defending myself, rather than take the chance that I will end up a defenseless statistic.

You are free to live without a gun and I am free to have one. We can both be happy.
No we can't and you know it. This isn't a question of personal liberty like allowing gay people to marry. It actually directly effects people on both sides. Like someone deciding to fart in an elevator, everyone else on board have live with the conciseness. And the majority of the public has spoken on this issue - we want gun control.

That's democracy in action my friend. As soon as you can convince the majority of Australians that they don;t want gun control, you can start your ridiculous claims about it being somehow undemocratic.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

patsmith

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Posts
3,532
Likes
349
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
92&94&06
#27
I guess a rather pertinent question is whether a freedom which encourages and facilitates violent crime is a freedom worth having...

Personally, I like living in a country where gun crime is almost non-existent.
 

Brad Roo

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
5,572
Likes
21
Location
Copperhead Road
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Butt Pirates
#28
I'd rather defend myself than be shot in the face.


Stats show that in general you are more likely to be shot in the face without gun control than with it, so this is where the extremity comes into the opinion again again.

While you might feel safer and freer by in your view 'being able to defend yourself', the reality is that you are STILL more likely to be shot in the face without gun control than with it.
Where are these stats please?

Particularly the one that states that I am more likely to be shot in the face because I am armed.

No we can't and you know it. This isn't a question of personal liberty like allowing gay people to marry. It actually directly effects people on both sides. Like someone deciding to fart in an elevator, everyone else on board have live with the conciseness. And the majority of the public has spoken on this issue - we want gun control.
The public HAS gun control. No problems as I see it.

That's democracy in action my friend. As soon as you can convince the majority of Australians that they don;t want gun control, you can start your ridiculous claims about it being somehow undemocratic.
Your watered down version of democracy is not idolised by many sections of the public. Indeed I would say the majority. It's not as if we are ever given the choice to vote for serious alternatives and I am yet to see a major political party lobby to take power away from parliament and put it back in the hands of the people.

Unfortunately, there will always be a sizable, easily manipulated portion of the electorate that crave to have themselves tucked in to bed at night by big brother to the detriment of personal freedom.

Fortunaltely, we are also free to ignore that which is perceived as stupid or overly authoritarian because a certain percentage of the population has a Disney Land view of reality.

Whether you like to admit it or not, it's people with your outlook that create a fertile environment for unlawful firearm possession.

You simply do not speak for me and many, many others.
 

Brad Roo

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
5,572
Likes
21
Location
Copperhead Road
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Butt Pirates
#29
I guess a rather pertinent question is whether a freedom which encourages and facilitates violent crime is a freedom worth having...

Personally, I like living in a country where gun crime is almost non-existent.
Then instead of getting caught up in jingoistic drivel, address the root cause of the problem.

Blame capitalism.

Blaming guns for crime is akin to taking aspirin to cure cancer.
 

CAS79

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
16,132
Likes
2,394
Location
around about
AFL Club
Sydney
#30
Where are these stats please?

Particularly the one that states that I am more likely to be shot in the face because I am armed.



The public HAS gun control. No problems as I see it.



Your watered down version of democracy is not idolised by many sections of the public. Indeed I would say the majority. It's not as if we are ever given the choice to vote for serious alternatives and I am yet to see a major political party lobby to take power away from parliament and put it back in the hands of the people.

Unfortunately, there will always be a sizable, easily manipulated portion of the electorate that crave to have themselves tucked in to bed at night by big brother to the detriment of personal freedom.

Fortunaltely, we are also free to ignore that which is perceived as stupid or overly authoritarian because a certain percentage of the population has a Disney Land view of reality.

Whether you like to admit it or not, it's people with your outlook that create a fertile environment for unlawful firearm possession.

You simply do not speak for me and many, many others.
Are you advocating in not obeying laws he does not like because the people that voted in a government in your opinion are wrong, stupid or less informed than you? .
 

patsmith

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Posts
3,532
Likes
349
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
92&94&06
#31
Then instead of getting caught up in jingoistic drivel, address the root cause of the problem.

Blame capitalism.

Blaming guns for crime is akin to taking aspirin to cure cancer.
That may be so, but a society which has few guns (like Australia) doesn't need any more. Believe it or not, gun crime is harder to control when guns are harder to control.

The removal of firearms should be one of the many goals of a free, enlightened society. They only bring suffering.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,685
Likes
26,187
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #32
Domestic gun ownership is the ultimate form of democracy.
Rubbish.

Domestic gun ownership is the ultimate form of idiocy.

Do you think it's possible that the U.S. have the highest number of unregistered guns in the world?
And why is that?

Lawful gun ownership is not the problem.
Bullshit.

Its the biggest problem.

As for unlawful weapons, attempting to abolish them is as futile as attempting to abolish drug importations.
So we shouldn't try?

Lets just let the drugs and guns get across the border hey?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
#33
Im prepared to listen to argument. But I need to do better than hear because he's got a gun I need a gun argument, that is the line of the nutter to me. Though for gun control to be successful needs to be police not just motherhood statements either.

Though to be prepared to listen to argument what is the rate of gun ownership in Switzerland and what sort of guns do they have?
I dont think you heard that from my post so I wont counter.

"Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home."
This is fairly well documented - the above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Also a lot of the examples relied upon in this thread ironically cite illegal gun use which kind of undoes their point. These guns are not affected by gun control.
Was the gun referred to in OP registered and legally held?

Only motherhood statements are emanating from the state and its unthinking spruikers.
Guns Kill, like Speed Kills, is a mantra that has been repeated so often it is now simply accepted without the apparent discomfort of having to apply critical thought.

If we compare knife attacks today with gun attacks prior to gun buyback and then apply the same logic it would appear Master Chef is in it's last season.

For the record I am not or ever was a gun owner.
 

patsmith

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Posts
3,532
Likes
349
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
92&94&06
#34
Was the gun referred to in OP registered and legally held?

Only motherhood statements are emanating from the state and its unthinking spruikers.
Guns Kill, like Speed Kills, is a mantra that has been repeated so often it is now simply accepted without the apparent discomfort of having to apply critical thought.

If we compare knife attacks today with gun attacks prior to gun buyback it would appear Master Chef is in it's last season.

For the record I am not or ever was a gun owner.
But knives have a purpose other than killing. I am yet to hear one for guns.

I guess the question that needs answering is; 'do we need more guns?'. If the answer is no, then the follow up answer is; 'do we need less guns?'. The answer is always yes.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,685
Likes
26,187
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #35

Also a lot of the examples relied upon in this thread ironically cite illegal gun use which kind of undoes their point. These guns are not affected by gun control.

It self evident that gun deaths are due to three factors:

a) Guns (legal or illegal)
b) Social issues
c) Human nature.

Take any one of those three things away, and you wont have gun deaths.

Human nature and the Social issues are a lot harder to deal with than the guns.

Was the gun referred to in OP registered and legally held?
Who cares. Lawful of not, guns are ****ed up and bad.

Private ownership of guns (legal or not) is almost universally wrong.

If we compare knife attacks today with gun attacks prior to gun buyback and then apply the same logic it would appear Master Chef is in it's last season.
Silly argument.

A little hard to go on a mass killing spree when armed with a knife now isnt it.

And its a lot harder banning and restricting the use, proliferation and ownership of kitchen knives than it is to do similar with guns.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
#36
But knives have a purpose other than killing. I am yet to hear one for guns.

I guess the question that needs answering is; 'do we need more guns?'. If the answer is no, then the follow up answer is; 'do we need less guns?'. The answer is always yes.
Have you seen some of the confiscated knives?:eek: They're not used for spreading butter.

In context. We need less guns in criminal hands and sadly the buyback didn't have much (any?) effect there.
One simple question - Has the gun buyback served it's purpose?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"Whatever gun laws you have, you will still have people obtaining guns illegally." - "That's the reality"
Premier Steve Bracks - Victoria - The Age - 14/5/01
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"Therefore, if relative lethality is measured by the number of victims killed, a firearm is not the most lethal instrument of homicide."
Jenny Mouzos - AIC Researcher - "Homicidal Encounters - A Study of Homicide in Australia" Australian Institute of Criminology.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago." Police Commissioner South Australia Mal Hyde 23/12/99 - The Advertiser - Adelaide

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls for a decade - and its lowest arrest rate ever. The growing number of planned, ambush murders this year has put added pressure on the homicide squad."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Herald Sun - Melbourne - 12/11/99

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"More cases of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated burglary are being reported in Victoria...overall crime rate rising by 3.7 per cent in 11 months. Homicide - Source: Police data, Crime management Report, 1996-97 136, 1997-98 120, 1998-99 176 ( 11 months only)"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Age - Melbourne 11/8/99

There is no end to these quote available so I will stop there, but my point stands - the key is the 'nutter' rather than the gun.
[/FONT]
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,685
Likes
26,187
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #37
Have you seen some of the confiscated knives?:eek: They're not used for spreading butter.
Comparing a knife with a hand gun is like comparing a hunting rifle to a cruise missile. Silly argument.

In context. We need less guns in criminal hands and sadly the buyback didn't have much (any?) effect there.
Bullshit.

How many Port Arthur style mass shootings have we had in the past 15 years?

zero.

Guns are now harder to get for your 'average' person.

This is a good thing seeing as your 'average' person is the one most likely to commit murder.

One simple question - Has the gun buyback served it's purpose?
Yes.
 
Joined
May 21, 2008
Posts
1,386
Likes
4
Location
Macleod
AFL Club
Essendon
#38
I know of one person that took in some bits and pieces from different types of pistols which included a spring from an old washing machine and then handed this assembly of odds and ends in during a gun amnesty.

He was paid $800 by the government for this mish mash of bits and pieces.

He went straight out and bought a brand new shotgun with his amnesty payment.
MacGyver?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
#39

It self evident that gun deaths are due to three factors:

a) Guns (legal or illegal)
b) Social issues
c) Human nature.

Take any one of those three things away, and you wont have gun deaths.

Human nature and the Social issues are a lot harder to deal with than the guns.
Agree with all your points except perhaps highlighted (A plus either B or C is enough to create possible ugly situation).
Keeping in mind you could replace gun in the above with any weapon.


Who cares. Lawful of not, guns are ****ed up and bad.

Private ownership of guns (legal or not) is almost universally wrong.
This is your opinion, perhaps along with the majority even, however still opinion - hence your qualification.
Murdering is universally wrong and is happening (increasing) with or without guns and regardless of gov interference.
There are plenty of well adjusted individuals who like guns and use and store them safely. (As stated previously I am not one - gun lover that is not well adjusted individual)
Democracy "where two wolves and a lamb vote to decide what is for lunch"


Silly argument.

A little hard to go on a mass killing spree when armed with a knife now isnt it.

And its a lot harder banning and restricting the use, proliferation and ownership of kitchen knives than it is to do similar with guns.
Agreed. It is an intentionally silly argument to highlight the folly of blaming a weapon rather than a supposedly responsible individual wielding it - be it a gun, knife, car, etc. etc.

I am not pro gun (simply taking the Voltaire approach), more anti government interference in individual choices. I am against statutory nobbling of the populace. Maybe we should enforce the laws already in place before introducing new ones which invariably fail.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
#40
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“In reaching a historic agreement on prohibition of weapons, we made a mighty contribution to delivering a safer and more secure Australian society.” [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Howard, 1996-97, Australian Prime Minister

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "National gun laws and the destruction of 640,000 firearms under the buyback scheme appear to have done little to reduce the national murder rate, says a new study." Research paper issued by the AIC on the affect of the new gun laws. The Age - 3/6/99[/FONT]

:D
 

CAS79

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
16,132
Likes
2,394
Location
around about
AFL Club
Sydney
#41
I dont think you heard that from my post so I wont counter.

"Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home."
This is fairly well documented - the above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Also a lot of the examples relied upon in this thread ironically cite illegal gun use which kind of undoes their point. These guns are not affected by gun control.
Was the gun referred to in OP registered and legally held?

Only motherhood statements are emanating from the state and its unthinking spruikers.
Guns Kill, like Speed Kills, is a mantra that has been repeated so often it is now simply accepted without the apparent discomfort of having to apply critical thought.

If we compare knife attacks today with gun attacks prior to gun buyback and then apply the same logic it would appear Master Chef is in it's last season.

For the record I am not or ever was a gun owner.
Helicopter.

I was not having a go at you with that so sorry for the confusion as your prepared to discuss this rationally.

Illegel weapons are a big part of the argument but where gun usage is so common it blurs the lines get blurred between legal and illegal is the problem. But where you and I do disagree is that illegal guns do fall under gun control.

The entire point is to declare which guns are legal and who has a right to own them and how they keep them.

Now I know it's not going to be cleaned up quickly but by at least attempting to police it people who have possession of a weapon illegally will probably not take it for a joy ride in their car to show their mates and therefore when someone crashes into them get angry and use it - not an uncommon scenario in St Louis. Where as if effective gun control did not exist they well might. Therefore as most people leave their illegal weapons well hidden so does the other fruit cake as he is less threatened as there are not so many guns on the street for him to feel the need to protect himself from.

Gun control and gun abolition are not necessarily the same thing either but why would anyone need a .38 in Australia? That from the op is a fair question.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,685
Likes
26,187
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #43
Keeping in mind you could replace gun in the above with any weapon.
Lets not.

A knife is weapon yes, but to compare it to a semi automatic handgun is really disingenuous.

Give me a Glock 17, a couple of mags and a box or two of ammo, and i could literally kill hundreds in a day before the cops brought me down.

A little hard to do this with a knife.

As evidenced by the fact we dont have any 'mass stabbings' with multiple fatalities.

Id like to see how far Bryant would've gotten with a kitchen knife instead of an AR 15.

Murdering is universally wrong and is happening (increasing) with or without guns and regardless of gov interference.
I thought the murder rate was decreasing?

Not that it matters anyway.

There are plenty of well adjusted individuals who like guns and use and store them safely. (As stated previously I am not one - gun lover that is not well adjusted individual)
For every 'good' gun owner I can find you a bad one. We wouldn't have gun accidents at all if this wasn't the case. Plus a lot of gun murders and other deaths are caused by lawfully owned and bought guns.

There is just no need.

Hunters I can see the argument for, sporting shooters also perhaps. But they should keep their guns in central armories (just like our Soldiers and Cops do) when not in use.

Also, stats don't lie. Gun ownership dramatically increases your chances of actually getting shot and killed. Quite dramatically in fact.

Agreed. It is an intentionally silly argument to highlight the folly of blaming a weapon rather than a supposedly responsible individual wielding it - be it a gun, knife, car, etc. etc.
It goes a bit deeper than that IMO.

Distributing firearms amongst the population just simply wouldn't end well.

Anyone who thinks they would be happier living in an armed society simply hasn't got a clue.

Personally i am quite comfortable knowing I can walk home at 3am through inner city Perth (drunk off my dial) with zero fear of getting shot. It does not even cross my mind. Laughable concept in fact.

Try doing similar in some places of the US. Its just as alien a concept to explain to them our absence of fear of gun violence as it is their predominance of it.

Quite simply, **** that.

I love not having to worry about guns or getting shot.

I am not pro gun (simply taking the Voltaire approach), more anti government interference in individual choices.
Choices? Thats the central function of government. To govern.

They will pass laws telling you where you cant go, what you cant say, what you cant do and what you cant own.

As long as they do it according to rule of law, and the social contract. I'm fine with it.

When you think about it, laws exist everywhere to affect choices. We cant simply do what we want when we want to.

You don't live in this world alone you realize?
 

CAS79

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
16,132
Likes
2,394
Location
around about
AFL Club
Sydney
#46
What does an armed population have in common with a lawless population?
Fortunaltely, we are also free to ignore that which is perceived as stupid or overly authoritarian because a certain percentage of the population has a Disney Land view of reality.

Whether you like to admit it or not, it's people with your outlook that create a fertile environment for unlawful firearm possession.

You simply do not speak for me and many, many others.
Are you advocating in not obeying laws he does not like because the people that voted in a government in your opinion are wrong, stupid or less informed than you? .
And with that I think Brad Roo has in fact answered his own question.
 

Brad Roo

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Posts
5,572
Likes
21
Location
Copperhead Road
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Butt Pirates
#48
And with that I think Brad Roo has in fact answered his own question.

I am far from alone in this thinking.

Let's come to an agreement?

If you and your control freak friends don't tell me what I can and can't have, then I won't tell you what you can and can't have.

Deal?
 

Hawkamania!

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Posts
6,832
Likes
18
Location
My house
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
49ers,Box Hill,NT Thunder
#49
One of the cornerstones of liberty is the right to protect ones self, whether that be with guns, knives, lasers, guard dogs, bare hands etc. Once you stop people's rights to defend themselves, then the criminals have an unfair advantage.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,685
Likes
26,187
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #50
Wow, you're so deep.

I bet you get laid a lot.
Yes I do thanks.

Age is slowing me down a bit sadly.

I am far from alone in this thinking.

Let's come to an agreement?

If you and your control freak friends don't tell me what I can and can't have, then I won't tell you what you can and can't have.

Deal?
Unless its a Burqa right?
 
Top Bottom