Society/Culture Gun's

[CAS79]

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.

You quote a man I respect immensly, it's also a quote that belongs to a time and a situation that we in Australia do not even come close to replicating.

 

[Malifice]

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.

Does this include Nerve gas? Machine guns? Flame throwers?

Its a dangerous world out there after all.

Never know when that thermonuclear device is gonna come in handy.

Once you stop people's rights to defend themselves, then the criminals have an unfair advantage.

Who's stopping anyone's right to self defense?

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson.

Quoting an American on gun issues?

Lol.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

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.

No need to apologise.
I was making the point that the buyback - by virtue of relying on honesty - claimed almost all guns from owners who would not use them in violent crime. Storage of guns is also an issue, owners having a duty of care due to children, emotional types etc.
The OPs question is indeed a fair one and sadly points to this very failure.

 

[Malifice]

I was making the point that the buyback - by virtue of relying on honesty - claimed almost all guns from owners who would not use them in violent crime.

Define 'violent crime'.

The majority of murders committed in Australia are crimes of 'passion'. The greatest majority of murders are by husbands/ defacto's killing their partners/ wives/ girlfriends (or exes).

Generally these men are 'law abiding' citizens with no prior history of violent crime.

The next most major murders are 'honor' killings (you shagged my girlfriend, now you must die, what you looking at, he called me a f** etc)

Virtually all murder victims knew their murderer closely (most often intimately) before being killed.

Think about this.

You are most likely to kill (or be killed by) someone you know. Someone you live in close proximity with.

Why the **** you would introduce a gun into this environment (dramatically increasing your chances of killing or getting killed) astounds me.

Its akin to signing your own death warrant.

Keep the guns out of your home. Then hopefully the domestic argument will simply be a fist fight, and not a ****ing gun murder.

Storage of guns is also an issue, owners having a duty of care due to children, emotional types etc.

Not an issue when there is no guns is it?

 

[Hawkamania!]

Does this include Nerve gas? Machine guns? Flame throwers?

Its a dangerous world out there after all.

Never know when that thermonuclear device is gonna come in handy.

Just try breaking into my property and physically threatening me, then we'll just see what the wheel of weapons spins for you.

Who's stopping anyone's right to self defense?

Anyone barring a citizen's means of protection.

Quoting an American on gun issues?

Lol.

No just any American, but one of the greatest and a historical figure I admire greatly. A man whose historical writings surpass such modern gems as "lol".

 

[Brad Roo]

Unless its a Burqa right?

Hey, you have tossed up virtually every other cliche, why not complete the set?

 

[Malifice]

Just try breaking into my property and physically threatening me, then we'll just see what the wheel of weapons spins for you.

Youd go to jail for killing me in this scenario you realise?

You may only use justifiable and reasonable force (including lethal force) in response to a perceived threat.

Me simply unlawfully being in your home and 'threatening you' wouldn't cut it.

Anyone barring a citizen's means of protection.

Protection from what? Ze Germans?

No just any American, but one of the greatest and a historical figure I admire greatly. A man whose historical writings surpass such modern gems as "lol".

Had some great things to say. That doesnt mean we need to take everything he said as gospel.

Particularly his notions on gun control and ownership need to taken in context.

The French revolution against a tyrannical governement, and the US war of independence, plus living in a frontier society. Plus we can be pretty sure he was conceptualizing 'arms' as they were then - single shot black powder muskets, and not 30 shot semi automatic assault rifles (or worse).

Or do we take his meaning to be that all people should have the right to own military grade weaponry regardless of its destructive potential?

I think not.

 

[Brad Roo]

No just any American, but one of the greatest and a historical figure I admire greatly. A man whose historical writings surpass such modern gems as "lol".

Ironically, a document that the Australian Constitution Act 1901 doesn't even come close to in relation to personal freedom and liberty.

When CAS79 states:

........a quote that belongs to a time and a situation that we in Australia do not even come close to replicating

He/she is certainly stating the facts.

 

[Brad Roo]

Youd go to jail for killing me in this scenario you realise?

LOL, you die and never get to rob anyone ever again in that scenario you realise?

 

[Hawkamania!]

Youd go to jail for killing me in this scenario you realise?

You may only use justifiable and reasonable force (including lethal force) in response to a perceived threat.

Me simply unlawfully being in your home and 'threatening you' wouldn't cut it.

Who said anything about killing?

Attack me or the people I care about first and then we'll sort out the legal stuff later. OK?

Protection from what? Ze Germans?

No, they always invite me to Oktoberfest. Nice people, you should be ashamed of racially profiling people.

Had some great things to say. That doesnt mean we need to take everything he said as gospel.

Particularly his notions on gun control and ownership need to taken in context.

The French revolution against a tyrannical governement, and the US war of independence, plus living in a frontier society. Plus we can be pretty sure he was conceptualizing 'arms' as they were then - single shot black powder muskets, and not 30 shot semi automatic assault rifles (or worse).

Or do we take his meaning to be that all people should have the right to own military grade weaponry regardless of its destructive potential?

I think not.

I'd rather have something that evens the playing field against those looking to do me harm. You can use whatever you want and that's cool. That's your right. But don't trample on my rights based on your beliefs.

 

[Malifice]

LOL, you die and never get to rob anyone ever again in that scenario you realise?

So executing thieves is OK?

Not just in 'self defense' but because they are thieves?

Didn't realize it still the dark ages.

Perhaps we should still be stoning adulterers and burning witches as well.

So we have a dead potential thief, a lawful gun owner convicted of murder (and getting to know 'Bubba' in prison)... and this a good thing how exactly?

Not selling me on this whole 'gun ownership' deal.

 

[Malifice]

Attack me or the people I care about first and then we'll sort out the legal stuff later. OK?

Enjoy prison.

No, they always invite me to Oktoberfest. Nice people, you should be ashamed of racially profiling people.

The cultural reference lost on you?

I'd rather have something that evens the playing field against those looking to do me harm.

When have you ever been in a situation that required a firearm to resolve?

Can you honestly imagine such a thing ever practically happening?

You can use whatever you want and that's cool. That's your right. But don't trample on my rights based on your beliefs.

Dont trample on my rights to live in a gun free community.

The majority don't own guns you realize?

If it wasn't for a few nutters that want them, we would be a much better place.

 

[Brad Roo]

So executing thieves is OK?

Not just in 'self defense' but because they are thieves?

You enter my house with a weapon then I am not going to take the time to psychoanalyse you I'm afraid.

Didn't realize it still the dark ages.

It was called the Dark Ages because the powers that be (The Church) had all the weaponry and the people had zilch.

Perhaps we should still be stoning adulterers and burning witches as well.

What about raping children and enslaving black people? Please don't leave those golden oldies out.

So we have a dead potential thief, a lawful gun owner convicted of murder

Manslaughter, and that's only if the cops actually find out.

(and getting to know 'Bubba' in prison)... and this a good thing how exactly?

By your rationale, wouldn't the gun owner be the sadistic homosexual rapist?

Not selling me on this whole 'gun ownership' deal.

Never could, it wouldn't get your obviously naive listening audience to gush at the level of your depth of character.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Choices? Thats the central function of government. To govern.

And (as opposed to guns) here is the bee in my bonnet.

I thought our representatives were elected to 'represent'. Specifically
"THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the Country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing"

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.

Again, this appears in conflict with the above.
I'm interested in the 'social contract' also. Is this the mechanism by which our natural rights are impinged?
Are our common law rights inherited from old imperial documents such as Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Petition of Rights etc. and recognised in the Constitution? And if so have we been duped unknowingly into this 'social contract' whereby we agree to our elected representatives usurping 'our will' and enforcing policies of their choosing?
If the only form of government recognised in Australia is representative and representation requires mutual consent how did our 'servants' become our 'masters'? By this 'social contract'?
Are statutes and 'The Law' the same thing or does the 'social contract' involve us agreeing to be surety for our legal persona?

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?

The common law protects others from my choices interfering with their rights does it not?

I only ask all these questions because I now assume you to be either a lawyer or gov official.

 

[Brad Roo]

Dont trample on my rights to live in a gun free community.

This right does not exist.

It's a figment of your very fertile imagination.

BUT

If you want to try and pull it off and get some credibility amongst gun owners then I suggest you start with the cops in order to set a responsible government standard.

 

[Brad Roo]

according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing"

LOL, I'd like someone to tell me the last time that this occurred?

1967?

 

[Malifice]

You enter my house with a weapon then I am not going to take the time to psychoanalyse you I'm afraid.

How many times has this happened to you?

It was called the Dark Ages because the powers that be (The Church) had all the weaponry and the people had zilch.

It was called the Dark Ages because the technology, culture and philosophy of the Romans had disappeared, and the European civilisations stagnated for a millennium.

Manslaughter, and that's only if the cops actually find out.

You going to hide the body now?

Nice.

This right does not exist.

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.

And that is something I am forever thankful for.

One of the main reasons I am against the Bill of rights TBH.

 

[Malifice]

I thought our representatives were elected to 'represent'. Specifically
"THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the Country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing"

Im sorry to tell you this, but you are living in a fantasy land.

We have Laws. Our government makes laws with our implicit consent. We (and they) abide by them or we (or they) get punished.

Its the best way we have found yet to live in an ordered society.

The government gets kept in check by the separation of the powers, the rule of law, the social contract, the constitution and the democratic process.

I really dont think adding an armed population as an additional oversight is really going to matter that much.

I'm interested in the 'social contract' also. Is this the mechanism by which our natural rights are impinged?

Were getting OT.

Start a new thread on this and Ill be happy to discuss.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Enjoy prison.

Like I said, try to hurt me or the people I care for and we''l see where it goes. I am not making the first move with this.

The cultural reference lost on you?

No but getting awfully close to proving Godwin's law.

When have you ever been in a situation that required a firearm to resolve?

Can you honestly imagine such a thing ever practically happening?

No and I hope it never does. Just because I want to protect myself doesn't mean that I will be using weapons at every opportunity.

Dont trample on my rights to live in a gun free community.

The majority don't own guns you realize?

If it wasn't for a few nutters that want them, we would be a much better place.

You don't live in a gun free community so your point is moot. You don't even live in a knife free community, or a fire free community, or a nail in a board free community.

Way to miss the point about civil liberties there. By condoning majority rules, if the majority ruled against your individual rights, would you be happy with that?

And unfortunately, nutters tend to spoil it for the rest of us no matter what they are involved with. I know where you are coming from with this, but the majority of weapons owners do not attack others just because they have a weapon.

 

[evo]

Surely it is time to ban Brad Roo. At least try and keep S,C+ P for semi- adults.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

LOL, I'd like someone to tell me the last time that this occurred?

1967?

I doubt it's ever happened.
Quoted from 'Your will be done'. The bloke knows his sh!t.
Had 53 years of research and study into constitutional law + was a parliamentarian.

 

[Pie eyed]

Just came back from Luke & Sam Willis's funeral in Newcastle

How did the person who murdered these 2 brothers ever get hold of a .38 calibre revolver.

What is wrong with gun control in our society

Having read through this entire thread, I have to say I can see merit in both arguments.

As former gun owner, a substantial number, I have to say there are legitimate reasons to own a rifle or rifles if you are a sporting shooter.
I can see no legitimate reason for the legality of handguns in the wider community.

The big problem with gun ownership is the incredibly difficult process of licensing and ensuring safe use?. How can you be sure that even if the gun owner is of sound mind and the most safety conscious human at the time of licensing this situation will not change in time? How can you ensure that no-one else can access the weapon?

Thomas Jefferson and the US right to bear arms keeps getting a mention, as it is generally the only piece of literature which the pro gun lobby have to refer to while totally ignoring the fact it was written in the day of the single shot black powder form of the weapons and that for all it's old world prose is only an opinion and even then the opinion of frenchman Cesare Beccaria, "borrowed" by Jefferson.

The US Constitution has no relevance in 2010 Australia.

Guns don't kill people true but in reality we cannot control the people who have access to guns or their circumstance.

It's a real conundrum as I can also see Brad Roo's point as a sporting shooter and despite a bit of internet bravado Hawkmania is probably very safe with his weapons and not as likely "pop a cap in your arse" as he would have you believe in a home invasion situation.

Truth is in the event, the attacked rarely have a gun, loaded, cocked and ready to go within reach as the horde of machete wielding home invaders smash the door in. Firearms are notoriously useless protection unless you are forewarned and prepared. The argument that firearm ownership prevents crime is invalid as far as I'm concerned. It just does not make sense to have a loaded weapon anywhere in a residential dwelling and if you do then you are probably up to something very illegal, have a dangerously paranoid personality or you are a not fit to own a firearm.

The fact is that any injury which occurs as the result of a firearm in a residential scenario is either a premeditated crime or carried out by someone not a fit owner, legitimate Law Enforcement excluded.

That said a correctly stored rifle, with bolt and ammunition stored separately in the hands of a safe and conscientious owner poses minuscule danger to society. Certainly less than a cigarette lighter.

Gun ownership in Australia is a privileged not a right.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Im sorry to tell you this, but you are living in a fantasy land.

I understand they don't, but I believe they should.

We have Laws. Our government makes laws with our implicit consent. We (and they) abide by them or we (or they) get punished.

Its the best way we have found yet to live in an ordered society.

The government gets kept in check by the separation of the powers, the rule of law, the social contract, the constitution and the democratic process.

I really dont think adding an armed population as an additional oversight is really going to matter that much.


Were getting OT.

Start a new thread on this and Ill be happy to discuss.

Now, now don't reword what I was saying.

With regards to your offer I would love to take you up on it as I've got heaps of questions, however if you are a lawyer could your duty to the bar prohibit a frank discussion?

 

[Malifice]

No but getting awfully close to proving Godwin's law.

Watch Snatch.

Its a movie.

The reference came from there.

No and I hope it never does. Just because I want to protect myself doesn't mean that I will be using weapons at every opportunity.

Then why increase your chances of a family member being hurt or killed for what you identify as a remote possibility?

Having a gun in your house increases the chances of someone getting murdered in that house you realize?

You don't live in a gun free community so your point is moot.

Not yet, bet we are working towards it.

And you have no guaranteed right in this country to own a gun, so your point is also moot.

Way to miss the point about civil liberties there. By condoning majority rules, if the majority ruled against your individual rights, would you be happy with that?

Im not arguing for majority rule.

I am saying that simply because a minority of nutters want guns, doesn't mean we should arm them.

And unfortunately, nutters tend to spoil it for the rest of us no matter what they are involved with. I know where you are coming from with this, but the majority of weapons owners do not attack others just because they have a weapon.

Look up statistics on gun ownership.

Check how many lawfully owned and bought guns are used in homicides.

Even 'normal' people fight in the home. Introducing a gun just increases the chances that these confrontations will be come lethal. And this is before you factor in gun accidents.

Like it or not, but there is a correlation between gun violence and guns.

Less guns = less gun availability = less gun murders.

The next idiot to 'snap' around me can come at me with a board with a nail in it, or a knife, or a baseball bat.

Id rather he came at me with that, than a ****ing machine gun.

 

[Malifice]

I understand they don't, but I believe they should.

You advocate Anarchy?

With regards to your offer I would love to take you up on it as I've got heaps of questions, however if you are a lawyer could your duty to the bar prohibit a frank discussion?

Not at all.