Society/Culture Gun's

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
Have you met people?

Like actual real people.
Yet you believe you have the solutions to all mans ills by watering down individual choice and placing it in the hands of governments?

I empathise with your dismay of the human condition but your solution is to take the problem away from a fairly insignificant portion of tiny tyrants and place it in the hands of the biggest tyrant. No thanks.

I share your mistrust of the more insidious parts of human nature, but where is that condition more amplified than in the halls of government?

Arming people is just really stupid.
Arming governments is even stupider.
If I understand your position, you believe in an armed society to protect from the government turning tyrannical,
It would certainly be more effective than an unarmed populace attempting to protect itself from a tyrannical government.

......and for reasons of personal liberty (that everyone should have a choice or a 'right' for the liberty to own a gun).
I also believe in every humans right to own a carving knife.

Where do you draw the line? What weapons should we be given access to? Should any weapons be banned or restricted?
The line is drawn when force is utilised to oppress the individual personal liberty of another human being.

Bombs? Nerve gas? Tanks? Nukes?
Bombs - I'd guess most bright high school kids could make one.

Nerve Gas - I'd guess the average person would kill themselves making the stuff.

Tanks - Why not?

Nukes - I think that is a little impractical for the layperson without a degree in nuclear chemistry, an enrichment plant and a functioning laboratory.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #102
Yet you believe you have the solutions to all mans ills by watering down individual choice and placing it in the hands of governments?
As long as they exersize that power according to the rule of law and the social contract, yes.

Of course.

We cede individual liberty to the Governement in order to live in an ordered and civil society. Im sure you have no problem with empowering the State to imprison criminals (depriving them of liberty) write (and enforce) the criminal code, govern the practices of corporations, govern immigration, govern defence.

We allow them to restrict our liberties. Shit, its what we put them in power to do in the first place. As long as they adhere to the democratic process, dont abuse that power, and do it for the collective greater good of society.

They **** up, they get outed. They get watched by our judicuary, and kept in check by the exersize of administrative law. A ceiling is placed on the use of the powers they have via the consitution.

We have a seperation between the executive, legilaslative and judicary.

Watch what happens when the government tries to do something unconstitutional. Take the recent decsion to create Military courts of justice. TheHigh court intervened and rules them unconsitutional under the defence power (that we gave to the State).

To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Personally I think we already have too many checks and balances, and am in favour of dissolving the federal system, and simply empowering the Cth government with all the functions of the States.

I simply see 7 different criminal codes, traffic acts, health systems, trade practices legislation, police forces, road laws, tarrifs, etc etc as both administraively uneccisary, and more than a little stupid.

I empathise with your dismay of the human condition but your solution is to take the problem away from a fairly insignificant portion of tiny tyrants and place it in the hands of the biggest tyrant. No thanks.
Absolute rubbish.

We have more than enough checks and balances in place already that to have to count on an armed populace keeping the State in check.

You really think our politicans would care that we are armed? Is the only thing keeping the the American government 'in check' a fear of thier armed population?

The seperation of powers, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, the constitution, the democratic process and the federal system all serve as more than effective measures to keep the State in check.

An armed population is simply uneccisary.

I share your mistrust of the more insidious parts of human nature, but where is that condition more amplified than in the halls of government?
Vote. Lobby. Agitaite.

Simply owing a gun wont change diddly squat.

I also believe in every humans right to own a carving knife.
A knife does not = a semi automatic handgun does not = a Nuclear weapon.

Bombs - I'd guess most bright high school kids could make one.
Ease of making them aside, they should be illegal right?

You have no problem with the State making it an offence to own, build or use bombs?

Nerve Gas - I'd guess the average person would kill themselves making the stuff.
So it should be illegal then?

Tanks - Why not?
Are you serious?

You have no problem with private ownership of armed Main battle tanks?

Wow.

Nukes - I think that is a little impractical for the layperson without a degree in nuclear chemistry, an enrichment plant and a functioning laboratory.
Again, im not talking about making them, easy or not.

Im talking about whether you beleive these things should be regulated by the State.
 

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
As long as they exersize that power according to the rule of law and the social contract, yes.

Of course.
I never signed any "social contract".

If you want to be a part of that scenario then that is your choice, but kindly leave me out.

We cede individual liberty to the Governement in order to live in an ordered and civil society.
Really? When did we have that referendum? I must have been out shooting.

Im sure you have no problem with empowering the State to imprison criminals (depriving them of liberty) write (and enforce) the criminal code, govern the practices of corporations, govern immigration, govern defence.
I have plenty of problems with how such concepts are currently structured.

We allow them to restrict our liberties.
No, you and people of your psychological makeup "allow them to restrict our liberties" and you become a tyrant when you force these ideals on people that don't agree with such concepts.

As long as they adhere to the democratic process, dont abuse that power, and do it for the collective greater good of society.

To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Oh yeah, and governments are historically well known for doing just that. No worries.:thumbsu:


Absolute rubbish.

We have more than enough checks and balances in place already that to have to count on an armed populace keeping the State in check.
There is the fundamental difference.

You believe that, I don't.

You really think our politicans would care that we are armed? Is the only thing keeping the the American government 'in check' a fear of thier armed population?
To some extent.

The seperation of powers, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, the constitution, the democratic process and the federal system all serve as more than effective measures to keep the State in check.
1) There is no separation of powers in the State of Victoria or any other state in Australia.

2) The judiciary is not independent and in fact is being more and more manipulated by the political process time and time again.

3) The rule of law virtually does not apply to any governments in Australia with the exception of dividing powers between State and Federal boundaries.

4) The constitutions are jokes.

5) The democratic process is a means of divide and conquer.

6) The Federal and State systems rarely contravene political party lines.


An armed population is simply uneccisary.
You believe that, good for you.

Just don't go shoving your beliefs down my throat. You are really no different to the door knocking Mormons.

I don't have the right to tell others what to do.

In relation to personal liberty.

That is a part of the fabric of my very being, however, I am not going to allow my agitation to be watered down by playing to a set of rules that are simply designed to water it down in the first place.

Simply owing a gun wont change diddly squat.
Tell that to The Archduke of Austria.

A knife does not = a semi automatic handgun does not = a Nuclear weapon.
A Castor Oil plant?


Ease of making them aside, they should be illegal right?
Not necessarily.

You have no problem with the State making it an offence to own, build or use bombs?
It depends on the state.

ESo it should be illegal then?
Not under all circumstances.

Are you serious?

You have no problem with private ownership of armed Main battle tanks?

Wow.
Your attempt to draw this topic in to sensationalist territory is patently ridiculous.

How many people could make a functioning armed battle tank?

Why would they want to do it?

How many instances of this has occurred?

Again, im not talking about making them, easy or not.

Im talking about whether you beleive these things should be regulated by the State.
Once again, it depends on the state in question.

A state that predominately and truly represented the personal liberties of its citizenry would have little to fear from that citizenry.

The flow on from this hypothetical structure in relation to interpersonal relationships would also lead to a very different world.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #104
I never signed any "social contract".If you want to be a part of that scenario then that is your choice, but kindly leave me out.
So you are opposed to all legislation and all laws then?

You assert that we should not have a government at all.

Really? When did we have that referendum? I must have been out shooting.
We dont need a referendum to have a functioning democracy. Its clearly outlined in the consitution.

I have plenty of problems with how such concepts are currently structured.
But you have no problem with the governement having the power to make these laws.

You have no problem with ceding your liberties to the governement in exchange for an ordered and civil society right?

No, you and people of your psychological makeup "allow them to restrict our liberties" and you become a tyrant when you force these ideals on people that don't agree with such concepts.
What have you been smoking?

Who's forcing what ideals on whom? If you dont like the 'no guns' approach, join a gun lobby group and have your voice heard.

If the anti gun lobby group wins out, democracy has spoken.

Welcome to liberty. Sometimes you have to concedede some of your own liberty for the liberty of others. You cant simply exersize your liberty to go wherever you want to the detriment of your neighbors liberty to have a private space, and deny others access to his property.

Its give and take mate.

Oh yeah, and governments are historically well known for doing just that. No worries.:thumbsu:
Are you seriously anticipating the Governement of Australia becoming tyrannical anytime soon?

Will this co-incide with the second coming of jesus or Armageddon?

Like they just want to take away guns (that only 5% of Australians currently own) in order to establish a 'new order'?

Execute order 66?

To some extent.
Paranoid much?

1) There is no separation of powers in the State of Victoria or any other state in Australia.
Bullshit.

2) The judiciary is not independent and in fact is being more and more manipulated by the political process time and time again.
So why does the State abide by decisions of the Judiciary?

Why not simply ignore it?

3) The rule of law virtually does not apply to any governments in Australia with the exception of dividing powers between State and Federal boundaries.
Biggest load of shit ever.

You think the governement can act outide the law, you clearly know nothing about administrative law, the powers of the ombudsman, and writs of mandamus and certiorari.

The governement is kept to a higher standard of law than you or I are!

4) The constitutions are jokes.
Im sure the High Court of Australia would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.

5) The democratic process is a means of divide and conquer.
Your scaring me now.

Would you prefer a dictatorship?

6) The Federal and State systems rarely contravene political party lines.
Agree. I hate the two party system.

Just don't go shoving your beliefs down my throat. You are really no different to the door knocking Mormons.
This is a debate on guns. Im allowed to have an opinion surely?

And whent he time comes to vote, Ill vote against gun ownership.

Gotta love an open democracy.

I don't have the right to tell others what to do.
Yes you do. So does the governement.

Example: I came onto your property unlawfully. You most certainly have the right to tell me to leave. You also would have the right to use reasonable force to eject me should I resist.
How many people could make a functioning armed battle tank?
So we should only have weapons that we can personally make?

Why do you draw this distinction?

Why is making something any different from purchasing it (or commisioning someone else to make it?)

A state that predominately and truly represented the personal liberties of its citizenry would have little to fear from that citizenry.
Exactly. Much as it is now.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,670
Likes
15,017
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Interesting topic, I love my guns but am still undecieded as the whether laws concerning gun ownership should be more relaxed or not, I would certainly oppose any strengthening of anti-gun measures.

There is a strong case that an armed populace is good for democracy as it shows that the people are in charge of the country, not the politicians. Having said that, it really is not that difficult for paranoid people like myself to get access to guns legally. Either join a shooting club, or even easier find a mate with some land and get them to write you a reference saying that they give permission for vernon control.

I do not know if self defense should be a legit reason to own firearms, there's good cases both for and against so I remain indifferent to that. Think it is ridiculous though that semi auto's are banned, if you have a decent block of land to shoot on I can't see the harm in having them legalised.
You are pretty much in the same camp as me. Undecided and able to see both sides of the argument.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
As long as they exersize that power according to the rule of law and the social contract, yes.

Of course.

We cede individual liberty to the Governement in order to live in an ordered and civil society.

We allow them to restrict our liberties. Shit, its what we put them in power to do in the first place....
We surely can not cede what we didn't already have.
I have not knowingly ceded my liberties to the government. The government simply assumes I have and uses force to ensure compliance - Unless I have been tricked into or deemed to agree with this 'social contract'.


So you are opposed to all legislation and all laws then?
Legally speaking aren't they two different things and not necessarily mutually inclusive?

Welcome to liberty. Sometimes you have to concedede some of your own liberty for the liberty of others. You cant simply exersize your liberty to go wherever you want to the detriment of your neighbors liberty to have a private space, and deny others access to his property.

Its give and take mate.
The common law would protect anyone infringed upon or damaged by anothers actions without the need for further restrictive statutory regulation, no?


So why does the State abide by decisions of the Judiciary?

Why not simply ignore it?
...You think the governement can act outide the law, you clearly know nothing about administrative law, the powers of the ombudsman, and writs of mandamus and certiorari.
Out of curiosity who pays these guys?

Gotta love an open democracy.
Not me but sadly your not alone.
Yanks love a democracy so much they've deluded themselves into believing they are one.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Personally I think we already have too many checks and balances, and am in favour of dissolving the federal system, and simply empowering the Cth government with all the functions of the States.
That right there, is whats going wrong with this country. The centralisation of power.

We are heading further and further away from becoming a true democracy.

And unfortunately the ones who can see it are in the minority.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Posts
674
Likes
113
Location
2 towns over
AFL Club
Geelong
Yes it does exist. Its called Democracy. Welcome.

I do not 'have' an obligation to live in an armed and fearful society. I (and other non-gun owners) do not have to have my liberty impinged in such a way. Our legislature can pass whatever laws they like to restrict and control guns. Gun owners in this country have no rights to gun ownership.
How is your "liberty impinged" by your neighbour keeping a pistol in his safe? How in any way does that affect you? :confused:

If he in any way used it against you, and only then, would your liberties be violated and that man would face probable imprisonment; something I think everybody would support.

So, let's see if I've got right: you believe another person should be denied access to something (the legal acquisition of firearms in this instance) based on your perception of a potential disaster that has resulted (Port Arthur, Virginian Tech et al or accidental injury/death) or could result from this activity?

Perfectly reasonable and understandable position. :thumbsu:

You don't feel you need a gun and you don't feel that a private citizen needs one either. Right? Gun ownership seems bewildering to you; the potential negatives outweigh the potential benefits by a considerable margin etc, etc.

What would you say to a teetotaller advocating the prohibition of alcohol for the exact same reasons?

"I live perfectly well without alcohol. Why can't everybody else?"

"There are no shortage of people that experienced physical abuse only from their fathers when they were drinking and never from them when they were sober. Thus domestic violence rates would be radically reduced. :thumbsu:"

"I don't like that I'm more likely to be assaulted when I'm in public by somebody because they have been drinking."

"I don't like how my friend's entire family was killed on the roads because another motorist was highly intoxicated and drove into them."

"A guy I know was drunk and wandered into traffic and died."

And so on and so forth.........

--------------

I say that for you to be philosophically consistent you would have to be supportive of alcohol prohibition. Are you? You say you believe one group's safety concerns around an issue should transcend the right of access to another group's potential cause of trouble.

Or do you practice the selective application of a principle? ;)
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #109
How is your "liberty impinged" by your neighbour keeping a pistol in his safe? How in any way does that affect you? :confused:
Because the Gun doesnt just 'stay in the safe' now does it?

Martin Bryants legally owned guns certainly didnt.

If he in any way used it against you, and only then, would your liberties be violated and that man would face probable imprisonment; something I think everybody would support.
Bit late for me by this stage isnt it?

So, let's see if I've got right: you believe another person should be denied access to something (the legal acquisition of firearms in this instance) based on your perception of a potential disaster that has resulted (Port Arthur, Virginian Tech et al or accidental injury/death) or could result from this activity?
No not at all.

I want them regulated tighter.

And not just to prevent massacres. But to also stop all gun murders. Not just the mass killings.

You don't feel you need a gun and you don't feel that a private citizen needs one either. Right?
In the vast majority of cases yes.

95 percent of Australians dont own guns now and its not an issue.

Gun ownership seems bewildering to you; the potential negatives outweigh the potential benefits by a considerable margin etc, etc.
Yes.

What would you say to a teetotaller advocating the prohibition of alcohol for the exact same reasons... I say that for you to be philosophically consistent you would have to be supportive of alcohol prohibition. Are you?
There is a solid argument for the prohibition of Alcohol actually.

Probably one of the more destructive drugs out there.

Similar arguments can be made for any drug - from cigarettes to heroin.

Where does one draw the line?

Hope prohibition never happens personally - but that's the wonders of democracy isn't it?

And its not philosophically similar to compare weapons (generally harm others) to drugs (generally self harm).

"There are no shortage of people that experienced physical abuse only from their fathers when they were drinking and never from them when they were sober. Thus domestic violence rates would be radically reduced. :thumbsu:"
I don't support physical abuse either.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #110
We surely can not cede what we didn't already have.
You dont think you have liberty?

On what possible basis?
I have not knowingly ceded my liberties to the government.
We dont survey people at birth and give them an option as to whether they want to be part of our society or not. If you dont like the system, leave.

Go live on an Island somewhere where you can have all the freedoms and personal liberty in the world.

The government simply assumes I have and uses force to ensure compliance -
Yep. But they look after you as well. Medicare, imprisoning people who do you harm, build roads for you, they built the Hospital where you were born, they'll rescue you if you get lost, they built the school and employed the teachers where you went to school, they pay, train and equip for a defense force to protect you from foreign invaders, they negotiate on your behalf with foreign governments for trade agreements and visa waiver programs, they provide legal aid should anyone harm you, courts for you to use if you want to sue someone, and money should you lose your job.

Amongst many (many) other things.

Unless I have been tricked into or deemed to agree with this 'social contract'.
You're born a party to the contract. You can rescind it if you want. Its called renouncing citizenship and moving.

Legally speaking aren't they two different things and not necessarily mutually inclusive?
Yes. Legislation is one form of law. The Common law is the other.

The common law would protect anyone infringed upon or damaged by anothers actions without the need for further restrictive statutory regulation, no?
Nope. The vast majority of protections are statutory.

And the entire criminal code is statutory.

Example - at common law you are only protected from deception in a very limited number of occasions. You can also be found out if you did not inspect the goods first, and the old common law defense of 'caveat emptor' or buyer beware covers most forms of deceit as well.

Contrast this with the protections of section 52 of The Trade practices Act (Cth) 1974 provides that "a corporation shall not in trade or commerce engage in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive.:

Note that the prohibition (legislative) is much broader than the common law rules. The corporation doesn't even have to have actually mislead you or deceived you to be found to have breached the section. Also note that 'intent' to deceive you is not an issue. Accidental deceptions (true at the time they were made) contravene as well.

Plus the penalties and remedies for deceit are much higher in the legislation than they ever were under the common law.

Also consider renting. If the Residential Tenancies Act didn't cover your ass, you would be getting smashed by your landlord, and he could evict you at a minutes notice.

Under the Residential tenancies act, he must give you 60 days notice before evicting you into homelessness.


Etc etc - for literally every facet of civil life there is legislation.

The problem with the common law is it is retrospective, extrmely slow to evolve and process is gradual.

Plus its made by Judges - non elected officials.

Id rather have my laws enacted by people I have voted in (and can vote out).

Out of curiosity who pays these guys?
Public servants obviously. But so is the Governor General and he had no problem sacking Whitlam did he?
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #111
That right there, is whats going wrong with this country. The centralisation of power.

We are heading further and further away from becoming a true democracy
We could abolish the federal system and still have decentralized power.

As an example we could retain the states executive power.

I really see little benefit in seven different criminal codes, seven different rules for renting, seven different health systems, seven different award wages, seven different gun laws, seven different road rules, seven different tariff systems, seven different police forces and court systems etc etc etc.

Not only does it create massive legal distinctions in rights and obligations between Australians, it also wastes a shit load of money.

I do share your concerns about removing a layer of 'protection' from absolute power of the federal government.

We would need some additional form of oversight to compensate.

Personally a greater separation of the executive, legislature and judiciary would help. They are a little too entwined at the moment for mine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Posts
493
Likes
72
Location
Deep in a fiction
AFL Club
Carlton
You dont think you have liberty?

On what possible basis?
I have to ask permission to engage in otherwise lawful activities from a limited liability entity in order to not have a sanction levied against me.
How can you possibly have privileges and liberty? They are mutually exclusive.
Nanny Gubmint has forbidden me from doing things I might otherwise choose to do (which wouldn't harm anyone else).

We dont survey people at birth and give them an option as to whether they want to be part of our society or not. If you dont like the system, leave.

Go live on an Island somewhere where you can have all the freedoms and personal liberty in the world.
I'm not sure I need to leave the country if I choose not not be a member of a society whose rules I disagree with.
One may choose to become a denizen perhaps.
If society is legally defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, then are we not free in Australia to choose not to be a member of a society?
If membership is not mutual does it not cease to be a society by definition?
Statutes being the rule of a society can not apply to a non member without consent, can they?

If I start the Party Cone Society, you do not have an obligation to join, nor are you bound by its rules if you don't. And you won't need to leave the country.

Of course if we choose to not belong to a particular society we do not receive any benefits of membership. May not be worth renouncing membership but the apparent lack of choice also answers your first question.



Yep. But they look after you as well. Medicare, imprisoning people who do you harm, build roads for you, they'll rescue you if you get lost, they pay for a defense force to protect you from foreign invaders, they provide legal aid should anyone harm you, courts for you to use if you want to sue someone, and money should you lose your job.

Amongst other things.
My taxes do that and they are employed to provide these things. If I hire a painting contractor for instance, I do not feel the need to cede any given rights to him/her.



You're born a party to the contract. You can rescind it if you want. Its called renouncing citizenship and moving.
This then answers you're question about why we are not truly free.
Not quite that early anyway is it? You are not a party to it until you are 'registered', your paperwork is filed by your guardian and your strawman/person is established.
 

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
Because the Gun doesnt just 'stay in the safe' now does it?

Martin Bryants legally owned guns certainly didnt.
Ohhh, Christ enough of this lop sided bullshit!!!!

You make no sense, you are just an ego on autopilot.

Thank **** you only get one vote.

"Human beings are inherently stupid. The more susceptible they are to "credible" authority, the stupider they become." - Brad Roo
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Posts
674
Likes
113
Location
2 towns over
AFL Club
Geelong
Because the Gun doesnt just 'stay in the safe' now does it?

Martin Bryants legally owned guns certainly didnt.
Martin Bryant's actions hardly represent an everyday occurrence.

That's a bit too sensationalistic don't you think? ;)

The Port Arthur Massacre was the worst civilian gun massacre in the history of the entire human race. Let's not pretend that a tragedy of this magnitude is commonplace.

Play fair dude. I'll try to. :thumbsu:
-------------

I wrote this -

If he in any way used it against you, and only then, would your liberties be violated and that man would face probable imprisonment; something I think everybody would support. .
Then you wrote -

Bit late for me by this stage isnt it?
The point I was trying to make is that even the slightest implied threat of usage of his pistol was made towards you then your neighbour should be in serious shit.

The moment he uses that gun in an offensive capacity he should be imprisoned. Your right to go about your life without threat of violence would have then been categorically maintained. He has no right to even consider usage of the pistol against you unless you were coming at him, or a member of his family, with an axe.

I still genuinely cannot understand how ownership of a firearm could "impinge your liberty" when incarceration would happen to somebody who even for one moment alluded to usage of that firearm against you.

FWIW in any American jurisdiction such a threat would result in a prison sentence and subsequently, as a convicted felon, the offender is then denied gun ownership rights for the rest of his life. The only exception is made to those who receive a Presidential pardon.


Let's try not to confuse gun ownership with gun usage.

IIRC P Diddy was looking at potentially 15 years in the pen in the early 2000s for pulling a gun on somebody in a club when he was with J Lo.

When the gun is used in an offensive way rights have been violated and the perpetrators are severely dealt with.

How does somebody having a gun in their home affect your liberty?

You can have fears of its usage; but they are just feelings.

Your right to do whatever the F you want to can never be affected by the content of their safe. I'm no scholar of the meaning of personal freedom but I can't understand how _Malifice_ from BigFooty can't utilise his self determination based on the fact that people in his neighbourhood own guns legally and out of view from him.
And not just to prevent massacres. But to also stop all gun murders. Not just the mass killings.
Massacres are the greatest argument that the gun control advocates have.

Port Arthur and Virginia Tech could not have been performed to the same extent without firearms. A stabbing spree and/or a vehicle attack (like the one in Japan) could have killed 7 or perhaps arson or explosives may have been utilised. I don't know.

Without legal access to firearms mass killing isn't nearly as easy.

That being the case it doesn't really represent a very likely way for somebody to die. Michael Moore made the point in one of his books that even after Columbine and a couple of other school killings that the odds of an American child dying from gunfire at school were in the same ballpark as the odds of that kid being struck by lightning. And that's Michael Moore making that point; hardly an advocate of gun ownership rights.

Anyway, the majority of victims of spree killers can be seen as certain of their death as a result of firearms. They'd be alive today if guns weren't available.

However the percentage of non-rampage killing victims that are dead only because of guns is an absolute unknown. How do we know the killer wouldn't have just stabbed them if a gun were not available? We don't.

I've heard it said that in all likelihood a gun-free world would only change the methods used to commit murder; not the number murdered.

Even in the US, with their citizens' right to easily acquire firearms, that 34% of their homicides don't even involve guns.

If you exclude gun homicides the US murder rate is still 50% higher than Australia's and 100% higher than Denmark's. That's without guns.

California and Canada have roughly the same population yet murder-by-knife is a whopping 200% more prevalent in California.

Vermont has no gun laws and is the #2 state for the least gun crime.

Washington DC has the tightest gun laws and is the worst "state" (I know that DC doesn't have statehood) for gun crime.

What does that tell you?

Easy and legal access to firearms clearly does not cause people to become homicidal. Vermonters would be almost extinct if this were true.

Also if gun control was seriously effective there'd have been very few gun murders in DC and Chicago in the last 20+ years. :cool:

Do you think that perhaps the problems might be rooted in the social and economic conditions of different communities?


There is a solid argument for the prohibition of Alcohol actually.

Probably one of the more destructive drugs out there.

Similar arguments can be made for any drug - from cigarettes to heroin.

Where does one draw the line?

Hope prohibition never happens personally - but that's the wonders of democracy isn't it?
Democracies believe in concepts such as the rule of law, due process, upholding precedent, no collective punishment ..............

Doesn't that imply that laws/principles are not applied arbitrarily?

Saving society from the potential consequences of the access to firearms by non-criminals yet ignoring the blatant damage alcohol has on the populace is not a wee bit schizophrenic?



And its not philosophically similar to compare weapons (generally harm others) to drugs (generally self harm)..
This is a bit off topic ........... but FWIW a gun in the US is 50% more likely to be used for suicide than homicide.


I don't support physical abuse either.

I don't believe you do.:thumbsu:

Drinkers should never be blamed for drunk drivers or wife beating drunks and gun owners should never be hamstrung by what rampage killers or gangsters do.

That's called group punishment and is an especially egregious form of injustice IMO.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #116
Martin Bryant's actions hardly represent an everyday occurrence.
Good.

Ban guns and they certainly wouldn't happen again.

That's a bit too sensationalistic don't you think? ;)
Maybe a little. But definitely OT.

The Port Arthur Massacre was the worst civilian gun massacre in the history of the entire human race. Let's not pretend that a tragedy of this magnitude is commonplace.
Happen all the time in the States.

The point I was trying to make is that even the slightest implied threat of usage of his pistol was made towards you then your neighbour should be in serious shit.
Id rather live in a society where this is not even an issue.

And thats how Ill vote.

The moment he uses that gun in an offensive capacity he should be imprisoned.
By the same logic we should legalize all weapons regardless of the destructive power.

As long as they arent being 'used' there is no issue right?

I still genuinely cannot understand how ownership of a firearm could "impinge your liberty" when incarceration would happen to somebody who even for one moment alluded to usage of that firearm against you.
I have the right to decide how I choose to live, and the kind of society I live in.

In the USA while on exchange to Miami University in Florida a mate of mine carried a Sig Sauer P338 and a Glock 17. Had a S&W .357 at home. He also had a concealed carry permit.

When I asked him how does he get into pubs and nightclubs with this little arsenal, he looked at me like I was crazy.

You see, he was just 19 years old. He wasnt old enough to legally drink in the States. Yet his government has happy with him wandering around the city with a loaded pistol or two and a concealed carry permit.

Arming teenagers?

**** that.

A few months after I left they had the virginia tech massacre.

I still remember shaking my head and wondering how it was they just couldn't see it.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
So would you suggest gun ownership and legalised drinking introduced to teenagers at the same stage in their life?
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #118
So would you suggest gun ownership and legalised drinking introduced to teenagers at the same stage in their life?
I would prohibit legalized gun ownership.

All firearms can be kept secured at an armory at a gun club. Sign them out shoot some targets, or vermin or whatever, sign them back in. Taking them home is prohibited.

Just like the cops and soldiers do.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I would prohibit legalized gun ownership.

All firearms can be kept secured at an armory at a gun club. Sign them out shoot some targets, or vermin or whatever, sign them back in. Taking them home is prohibited.

Just like the cops and soldiers do.
So after someone has 'borrowed' a gun for the day and shot 27 innocent people, do they still get their full deposit back upon return?
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #120
So after someone has 'borrowed' a gun for the day and shot 27 innocent people, do they still get their full deposit back upon return?
They cant leave the range with the weapon.

They do all the shooting there.

Its not perfect, but its better than the system now.

It'll stop the 'hot blooded' shootings. You would have to be pretty pre-meditated to plan to sign out a gun from an armory, escape the range, hunt down the person you want to kill, then sign the gun back in to the armory.

Plus the gun would all be logged. Easy for the police to find you afterwards.

No chance of the kids playing with the gun while you are out of the house, no burgulars going to steal it, no arguments are going to spill over.

Fairly elegant solution I would've though.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
They cant leave the range with the weapon.

They do all the shooting there.

Its not perfect, but its better than the system now.

It'll stop the 'hot blooded' shootings. You would have to be pretty pre-meditated to plan to sign out a gun from an armory, escape the range, hunt down the person you want to kill, then sign the gun back in to the armory.

Plus the gun would all be logged. Easy for the police to find you afterwards.

No chance of the kids playing with the gun while you are out of the house, no burgulars going to steal it, no arguments are going to spill over.

Fairly elegant solution I would've though.
Solution? What is the problem with the current system at the moment?

I dare say most mass killings are pre-meditated as it is. At least thats how the media portrays the high profile ones.

Most of the lone gunmen style shootings are exactly that.

The fact is, no wishy washy statistics, no fuzzy-wuzzy by-laws are going to stop someone from committing these acts if they have the will to.

They will do it no matter what, its not the ease of accessibility to fire arms that causes these horrid acts against a free willed populous..

And as an above poster stated, suicide is more the issue, than the mass killings.
 

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
Solution? What is the problem with the current system at the moment?

I dare say most mass killings are pre-meditated as it is. At least thats how the media portrays the high profile ones.

Most of the lone gunmen style shootings are exactly that.

The fact is, no wishy washy statistics, no fuzzy-wuzzy by-laws are going to stop someone from committing these acts if they have the will to.

They will do it no matter what, its not the ease of accessibility to fire arms that causes these horrid acts against a free willed populous..

And as an above poster stated, suicide is more the issue, than the mass killings.
All the laws in the world won't mean squat if people are determined to have firearms.

1 x lathe.

1 x milling machine

A few tools.

Some steel.

Voila, you have yourself a functioning firearm.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
32,550
Likes
25,991
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #123
All the laws in the world won't mean squat if people are determined to have firearms.

1 x lathe.

1 x milling machine

A few tools.

Some steel.

Voila, you have yourself a functioning firearm.
What is your hangup on 'if you can make it it should be legal'?

So meth labs (and by extensions methamphetamine) should be legal?

Any idiot can make one of them in thier back yard.

Why cant (or shouldnt) the law prohibit making guns as well as buying them?
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Posts
674
Likes
113
Location
2 towns over
AFL Club
Geelong
On Port Arthur ..........

Happen all the time in the States..
Really?

Nobody in the US has ever killed that many people in a single attack.

You posted a list of US massacres and the body counts.

The list went back 25+ years and I counted <200 deaths.

In a country of 300+ million people with <200 deaths from rampages in >25 years, can you seriously believe that fear of dying this way is based on reason?

Not to mention there is no evidence that all of their deaths are because of guns. You implied that the non-firearms massacres I mentioned in China and Japan shouldn't be counted because many of the victims were kids. So why did you get to include child victims of gun attacks when those victims could have just as easily been killed without firearms? Play fair please.

As I showed a man killed 7 (2 with a truck and 5 with a knife) in a spree killing in Japan. Thus people are forever vulnerable to a rampage killer.


I have the right to decide how I choose to live, and the kind of society I live in...
I don't have any issue with how _Malifice_ wants to live his life; it's none of my business. That's entirely valid; but you want to have more power than that: what you want is for you to decide how others should live their lives even when they are away from you.



In the USA while on exchange to Miami University in Florida a mate of mine carried a Sig Sauer P338 and a Glock 17. Had a S&W .357 at home. He also had a concealed carry permit.

When I asked him how does he get into pubs and nightclubs with this little arsenal, he looked at me like I was crazy.

You see, he was just 19 years old. He wasnt old enough to legally drink in the States. Yet his government has happy with him wandering around the city with a loaded pistol or two and a concealed carry permit.

Arming teenagers? ...
Vermonters don't even require permits to carry guns and how dangerous has that made Vermont? ;)

---------------------------------------------

Arming teenagers is so outrageous?

There are no teen soldiers in this country?

Wouldn't the age of enlistment in every nation's military ensure that those countries were "arming teenagers"?

Am I missing something?

Oh, but that's fine with you. Right?

---------------------------------

Why do I have to become an apologist for the US drinking age being 21?

Where the hell did that come from?
 
Top Bottom