The off topic thread 6.0

[Bradesmaen]

Oh we're saved then. it's 13m so well spent because its gone to advertising or some other bullshit.
We'll only have to pay 20.9m in interest today.

Prevention and education campaigns are important

 

[Bostonian]

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

Only creeps lurk in the dark.

 

[SSSSSS]

Oh FFS. SSSSSS
It is me.

Thank you for the MENSA invite.

It feels great to be in the company of intellectuals like Bostonian

 

[Bostonian]

Thank you for the MENSA invite.

It feels great to be in the company of intellectuals like Bostonian

Thank you.

Knowing the actual laws that these dorks have no idea about is often a burden.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You're misrepresenting my point though.

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

View attachment 2424021

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

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

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




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

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

To bring up your first few comments. Your point about ease of access for people already with guns is not exactly clear. As evidenced below with chef talking about them being easier to access again in the context of more guns in society. Ala pre-1996.

I absolutely do not want to see citizens in this country, even if registered and trained carrying guns in public. We do not need that or want that in society.

As for home. ABS census data. 2.1% of homes experienced and break-in. 2.1% an attempted break-in. As of 23/24. This is down from 13/14 census data at 2.6%

But you'd have to query what % of break-ins occurred with the occupant at home. You'd hope criminals are smart enough that the number wouldn't be high.

Assault victims sits at 1.7%. Down from 2.25%

The LGA you and I are both in 12 months to March 2025 (est pop 300,000) had a total of 4276 homicides, assault variations, robberies, break and enter (not in attendance) and sexual violence. That's 1.42% of residents.

As for guns, there are estimated to be over 4m guns in circulation with the average person owning 4-5. So that's roughly 1m people out of 27m that have a gun, or 1m people out of an estimated 10.9m residential dwellings.

So in essence to promote guns as a form of self defence for the vast majority of the population that means acquiring guns. Ergo increasing the volume we have in circulation which would be a shift in ideology that most Australians would disagree with. 1996 was a watershed moment in our history and we aren't turning back.

When we have house invasions here i'd quite like to have the option to be able to to greet them with pistol in hand to drop them as they stepped through the window/door.

Except in our society we're supposed to just be willingly the victims of crimes with very little to protect ourselves.

The same campaigners that won't even let people have pepper spray to protect themselves.

People like you are more than happy with the status quo of regular people getting ****ed up without any proper equipment to protect themselves while the crims can carry whatever they want.

If I'm trained and registered with that firearm, easy access to the weapon is desirable.

Except you and I aren't allowed to own anything to counter that weapon.

There's more guns out there now than there was before Port Arthur. Have we seen any massive rise in gun crimes with that rise in gun ownership?

You're very fortunate or have lived a very sheltered life.

Plenty of violence getting around in Australia, thankfully very little with guns though.

How often have you two seen a shooting or stabbing happen right in front of you?

The odd punch on mostly drunk dudes throwing hay makers, or a chick fight. Sure.
Violence involving a weapon of any nature. Thankfully never.

I guess the worry is if guns become easier to get again they are just going to end up in the wrong hands. They'll replace machetes as the weapon of choice.

 

[SSSSSS]

I'm out of the loop here.

Is this numpty seriously floating the idea of a Second Amendment style provision for Australia just days after one of their Second Amendment loving nut jobs got shot in broad day light?

 

[Bostonian]

To bring up your first few comments. Your point about ease of access for people already with guns is not exactly clear. As evidenced below with chef talking about them being easier to access again in the context of more guns in society. Ala pre-1996.

I absolutely do not want to see citizens in this country, even if registered and trained carrying guns in public. We do not need that or want that in society.

Nobody mentioned anything about carrying guns in public?

The conversation was about people in their homes.

As for home. ABS census data. 2.1% of homes experienced and break-in. 2.1% an attempted break-in. As of 23/24. This is down from 13/14 census data at 2.6%

But you'd have to query what % of break-ins occurred with the occupant at home. You'd hope criminals are smart enough that the number wouldn't be high.

Assault victims sits at 1.7%. Down from 2.25%

The LGA you and I are both in 12 months to March 2025 (est pop 300,000) had a total of 4276 homicides, assault variations, robberies, break and enter (not in attendance) and sexual violence. That's 1.42% of residents.

As for guns, there are estimated to be over 4m guns in circulation with the average person owning 4-5. So that's roughly 1m people out of 27m that have a gun, or 1m people out of an estimated 10.9m residential dwellings.

So in essence to promote guns as a form of self defence for the vast majority of the population that means acquiring guns. Ergo increasing the volume we have in circulation which would be a shift in ideology that most Australians would disagree with. 1996 was a watershed moment in our history and we aren't turning back.

Anyone who wants a gun for home protection can own one now under the guise of being a hunter.

I think anyone who wants one for such a purpose already has one.

Thus there will not be some large rush of people running out to arm themselves.

Having said that if people start to feel more and more unsafe in their homes some may well do.

People don't care about stats, people care about how they feel emotionally.

When ******* politicians quote their statistics it has zero relevance to how people actually feel when it comes to their own safety.

If you feel unsafe, you feel unsafe.

The odd punch on mostly drunk dudes throwing hay makers, or a chick fight. Sure.
Violence involving a weapon of any nature. Thankfully never.

The reality of it is far worse than those situations.

 

[Bostonian]

I'm out of the loop here.

Is this numpty seriously floating the idea of a Second Amendment style provision for Australia just days after one of their Second Amendment loving nut jobs got shot in broad day light?

You would be the numpty then given nobody has suggested that.

 

[SSSSSS]

The only acceptable guns to open or conceal carry.

 

[RPCB]

If ever Tool of the Week needed to return

 

[bok_party]

Curious where you would keep your gun in your home Bostonian ?

 

[Bostonian]

Curious where you would keep your gun in your home Bostonian ?

In a safe. Where it's supposed to be.

That's not the issue.

The issue is ammunition is locked in a container seperate from the gun safe.

Thus making the process of being able to use it for self defence far less viable.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Might go watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

 

[RPCB]

Might go watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Robert died in his sleep in Sundance, Utah.

 

[RPCB]

Of course the most triggered man in the world would have his say.

Cancel culture is alive and well in the land of the free speech.

 

[SM]

Of course the most triggered man in the world would have his say.

Cancel culture is alive and well in the land of the free speech.

It's beyond cancel culture, it's censorship. Just another nail in the coffin of American democracy.

 

[Jatz]

Besides the point really but does anyone actually watch these talk shows for their political opinion? I’ve got no issue with him being able to say it, I just don’t know why anyone would care apart from Donald).

Just reminds me of the Ricky Gervais monologue at the Golden Globes.

 

[SM]

Besides the point really but does anyone actually watch these talk shows for their political opinion? I’ve got no issue with him being able to say it, I just don’t know why anyone would care apart from Donald).

Just reminds me of the Ricky Gervais monologue at the Golden Globes.

You'd be surprised how many younger people would have these sorts of shows as their primary source of news for current events. No doubt the right is pretty concerned with the ability for these talk shows to influence a generation's political opinions.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I just find the irony of the MAGA crowd advocating for free speech then denying they're cancelling free speech.

 

[bok_party]

I just find the irony of the MAGA crowd advocating for free speech then denying they're cancelling free speech.

They are now claiming “free speech doesn’t prevent you from zero consequences” like the left hasn’t been saying that for years.

The difference being that the left are against hateful speech and the MAGA crowd are against speech that they don’t like.

 

[Bostonian]

I just find the irony of the MAGA crowd advocating for free speech then denying they're cancelling free speech.

The irony is it was certain section of the left that told them you can have your free speech, but it's not free from consequences.

So they took that and ran with it.

 

[SM]

They are now claiming “free speech doesn’t prevent you from zero consequences” like the left hasn’t been saying that for years.

The difference being that the left are against hateful speech and the MAGA crowd are against speech that they don’t like.

But it's not even consequences. If there were TV guidelines that Kimmel had breached, then he would have been removed naturally, there would have been no need for the MAGA crowd to wail and teeth gnash and force his employer to remove him. The fact they had to put the pressure on means it's not a natural consequence of his actions but just flat out censorship.

I'm actually amazed they didn't take issue with Kimmel later in the piece basically saying Trump was in the Epstein files in a sketch, if they're so intent on not letting him say things as facts that aren't true. Of course, there could be another answer to that..

 

[SM]

The irony is it was certain section of the left that told them you can have your free speech, but it's not free from consequences.

So they took that and ran with it.

See above.

 

[Bostonian]

See above.

I don't agree with their decision on Kimmell.

In fact I've stated elsewhere on BF Disney should say shove it and fight it if it comes to that.

 

[SM]

I don't agree with their decision on Kimmell.

In fact I've stated elsewhere on BF Disney should say shove it and fight it if it comes to that.

I didn't suggest you did agree with it, I'm suggesting that the notion of 'you're not free of consequences' doesn't apply to this situation.