A great day for minorities

[blink138 (Pat)]

[QUOTE=csb;1130469]So true. Guns don't kill, people do.

so you think that if everybody in the world owned a gun people would not use them to kill another? that is by far the worst and most overworked (american) exscuse for a sick society EVER!!.................... make no mistake friend, guns do kill people!!
pat

[csb (Craig)]

Pat, why such an argumentive tone?

You seem to misunderstand my use of the cliche. It was to highlight what xelasnave said - religion is not the problem, people are.

(So, guns do not kill without someone to pull the trigger. If we had similar laws to USA then gun use and death would probably increase.)

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by MortonH

Yes, the progress we've made so far represents only a few small steps in the right direction. But at least we've taken those steps and there is legislation designed to protect minorities in this country. In other parts of the world we could be thrown in jail just for having this debate.

The legislation you speak of is social engineering. If I speak my mind in such a way that it is contrary to the political pressure, I would lose my job in 10 minutes and could be heavily fined or imprisoned.
Progress? Nope.

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

Spears don't kill people.....
Inanimate objects do not by definition have a life of their own.
I owned various guns of many calibres; not one managed to pull its own trigger whilst loaded and pointed at someone.
Though I did manage to feed myself and my family.
Whilst in the services, I was qualified to the highest level with 9mm and 308.


Being shot is a great deterrent when you try to rob someone.
In Australia we are lucky to have a peaceful population.
This may not last. Keep you fingers crossed.

[chiaroscuro (Luke)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

The legislation you speak of is social engineering. If I speak my mind in such a way that it is contrary to the political pressure, I would lose my job in 10 minutes and could be heavily fined or imprisoned.
Progress? Nope.

Laws reflect the the evolution of attitudes in society, and if you want to call that social engineering, then so be it.
But I, for one, am all for it if it means that people no longer feel the "have the right" to inflict racial abuse on public transport, or beat up gays.
No-one is going to lose their job for arguing against a law they feel is unjust, but you deserve to lose your job for vilifying someone because of the sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.. The right to free speech does not extend to vilifying anyone.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by jenchris

Spears don't kill people.....
Inanimate objects do not by definition have a life of their own.
I owned various guns of many calibres; not one managed to pull its own trigger whilst loaded and pointed at someone.
Though I did manage to feed myself and my family.
Whilst in the services, I was qualified to the highest level with 9mm and 308.


Being shot is a great deterrent when you try to rob someone.
In Australia we are lucky to have a peaceful population.
This may not last. Keep you fingers crossed.

Spot on.

When guns are removed entirely from a society, people adapt to use what they need to use to get the "job" done - there have been some absolutely abhorrently sickening murders where guns were not involved including sticks, rocks, knives, fists... There was a young girl recently here bludgeoned and tortured to death with a tree branch, after that tree branch was first used to inanimately rape her. IF there was a gun involved, at least her death may have been quick and less torturous.

Saying guns kill is the same as saying a spectacle frame can kill - both still need someone with the "right" mindset to actually perpetrate the crime, both will achieve the "goal".

The statistics on Australian death by firearms is unnaturally skewed BECAUSE of the relative lack of availability of firearms. I did an entire research project at university, involving more than just myself - that PROVED the statistics are skewed - in reality, guns death in Australia is almost exactly equal to that of gun death in the USA taking proportions of population etc into account - it varied by as little - if I recall correctly - as 1.7%, which showed the anti-gun statistics are artificially skewed, and the government "official" figures are too, especially when correlated against the actual state by state forensic records.

What it comes down to is this - the change of gun laws here did VERY VERY VERY little to reverse the trend on crime or suicide by firearm (and a few state Police officials recognise this fact and have OPENLY criticised the erroneous official figures) and only served the purpose of increasing revenue for the states and territories. Firearm ownership is UP (legal ownership and illegal ownership). Death by firearms remains steady.

What it boils down to is, humans will always find a way to hurt another human.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

[QUOTE=blink138;1130480]

Originally Posted by csb

So true. Guns don't kill, people do.

so you think that if everybody in the world owned a gun people would not use them to kill another? that is by far the worst and most overworked (american) exscuse for a sick society EVER!!.................... make no mistake friend, guns do kill people!!
pat

Switzerland - every adult male of service age has a high powered assault rifle in his house by law. When they are passed the age that they are required to keep a rifle, they can elect to keep it or hand it back.

I felt especially safe driving around Switzerland.
Regards,
Renato

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Spot on.

When guns are removed entirely from a society, people adapt to use what they need to use to get the "job" done - there have been some absolutely abhorrently sickening murders where guns were not involved including sticks, rocks, knives, fists... There was a young girl recently here bludgeoned and tortured to death with a tree branch, after that tree branch was first used to inanimately rape her. IF there was a gun involved, at least her death may have been quick and less torturous.

Saying guns kill is the same as saying a spectacle frame can kill - both still need someone with the "right" mindset to actually perpetrate the crime, both will achieve the "goal".

The statistics on Australian death by firearms is unnaturally skewed BECAUSE of the relative lack of availability of firearms. I did an entire research project at university, involving more than just myself - that PROVED the statistics are skewed - in reality, guns death in Australia is almost exactly equal to that of gun death in the USA taking proportions of population etc into account - it varied by as little - if I recall correctly - as 1.7%, which showed the anti-gun statistics are artificially skewed, and the government "official" figures are too, especially when correlated against the actual state by state forensic records.

What it comes down to is this - the change of gun laws here did VERY VERY VERY little to reverse the trend on crime or suicide by firearm (and a few state Police officials recognise this fact and have OPENLY criticised the erroneous official figures) and only served the purpose of increasing revenue for the states and territories. Firearm ownership is UP (legal ownership and illegal ownership). Death by firearms remains steady.

What it boils down to is, humans will always find a way to hurt another human.

Fair points, but it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or a stick. You can shoot someone from a distance, almost like you're playing a video game. And you can shoot multiple people very quickly. Very different to walking up to someone and stabbing them.

[tonybarry (Tony)]

Originally Posted by PCH

Hey Tony,

On the subject of slavery alone, I recently saw that film "12 Years A Slave", and in a footnote at the end, it said there were currently around 140 million people in slavery around the world - more than at any other time in history.

So we may not be doing as well as you thought - sorry !

Hi Paul,

Yes, we are not there yet. But now slavery is seen as a crime, rather than being OK.

That is a big step forward.

In the same way, being gay was once seen as a crime. Now it's no longer criminal to be gay (at least in Australia). We're gradually getting there. To be sure, the road is littered with corpses, and that is a horrible tragedy. But we owe it to those who died for no good reason to press on.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[OzStarGazer]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Spot on.

When guns are removed entirely from a society, people adapt to use what they need to use to get the "job" done - there have been some absolutely abhorrently sickening murders where guns were not involved including sticks, rocks, knives, fists...

That's very true, but I am a girl for example, and not huge (say the size of the Minogue sisters?) and I have often mentioned I would like a house and a garden (I now live in an apartment with a balcony), BUT I also worry about possible robbery/assault etc. if I have a house, particularly if some criminal notices me in the garden with a telescope at 3am!!! I would feel better if I could have a gun even if I would most probably never have to use it. I don't think I could stab an intruder for example... Maybe I should start a self-defense course...

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by OzStarGazer

That's very true, but I am a girl for example, and not huge (say the size of the Minogue sisters?) and I have often mentioned I would like a house and a garden (I now live in an apartment with a balcony), BUT I also worry about possible robbery/assault etc. if I have a house, particularly if some criminal notices me in the garden with a telescope at 3am!!! I would feel better if I could have a gun even if I would most probably never have to use it. I don't think I could stab an intruder for example...

But if we go the US route the robber will have a gun too...

[OzStarGazer]

Originally Posted by MortonH

But if we go the US route the robber will have a gun too...

I know, but at least we would be sort of equal... As it is a robber would most probably be stronger than I am, so he could use his arms, fists etc. to bash me...

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by OzStarGazer

I know, but at least we would be sort of equal... As it is a robber would most probably be stronger than I am, so he could use his arms, fists etc. to bash me...

Understand your concern but I'd rather we used things like loud personal alarms, capsicum spray, etc before arming everyone.

And your gun is no use if he sneaks up on you.

Jeez, how did a thread about Tim Cook coming out turn into a debate over gun control and personal safety?

Clear skies and safe observing!

[torana68 (Roger)]

gee hasnt this one gotten lost but I suppose licenced firearm owners are a minoritie group often misunderstood and have to put up with being ostrized by the press and Government. They are marked as "persons of interest" on Police computers..... but perhaps this is way off the original post's intentions.

[rrussell1962]

The thread has certainly ranged far and wide. But it has been a very interesting discussion on personal and civic rights and responsibilities. Some very interesting and thought provoking points have been made. It would be nice to think we could all have the same discussion over a beer without coming to blows!

[h0ughy (David)]

Originally Posted by rrussell1962

The thread has certainly ranged far and wide. But it has been a very interesting discussion on personal and civic rights and responsibilities. Some very interesting and thought provoking points have been made. It would be nice to think we could all have the same discussion over a beer without coming to blows!

sorry but not all beers are made equal

and you would be discriminating against the white wines, red whines, green wines and fortified wines - they are the one to watch out for. remember when a beer and a lemonade get together they make a shandy then it also stands to say what cider do you support?

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by h0ughy

sorry but not all beers are made equal

and you would be discriminating against the white wines, red whines, green wines and fortified wines - they are the one to watch out for. remember when a beer and a lemonade get together they make a shandy then it also stands to say what cider do you support?

Oooooh....!! now it's really started ..

Col...

[rrussell1962]

Look, if people want to drink rose sparkling wine in the privacy of their own home - it's none of my business. Just don't expect me to drink it with them.

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by rrussell1962

Look, if people want to drink rose sparkling wine in the privacy of their own home - it's none of my business. Just don't expect me to drink it with them.

I think Sparkling Rose fanciers should feel free to order their favourite tipple at a Public Bar without being exposed to ridicule; indeed, I would extend that as a basic human right for ALL alcoholic beverages.

(Although I have to draw the line at people who choose those weird fruit-flavoured beers! At a recent session with some mates at the Belgian Beer Cafe, a young woman came up to the bar and declared that the raspberry beer she'd just had was quite nice, but asked the barman "Do you have anything with a bit more passion-fruit?" I almost choked on my Chimay Bleu - people like that should be deported - it's positively un-Australian!)

[rrussell1962]

Take it easy with the Chimay Bleu - it needs a warning "not to be taken internally!"