Author Topic: Beet1e, you got some 'splaining to do (lucy) (Read 2674 times)

beet1e · « **Reply #90 on:** October 08, 2003, 04:24:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
so if all the people in all the countries mentioned have no use or want for firearms....

then why ban em? I mean if nobody wants em why bother to ban em? Or could it be that the people who are responding to this thread from other countries are just girly men frieghtened of an inatimate object?

Well lazs, we don't need guns around here because the local nutjobs don't have 'em because they can't get 'em. So why ban 'em? Because we want to keep it that way.

I'm not concerned about how gun control laws affect me in the sense of what weapon I can and cannot have. But I'm VERY concerned about how gun control laws limit the guns that the local villains and nutjobs can get hold of. That's the difference - and something that Miko2D is still struggling to understand.

Nashwan · « **Reply #91 on:** October 08, 2003, 05:12:06 PM »

Quote

Hehehe... I notice nobody really wants to answer these questions about life in G.B. :

1) Have there been no schoolroom massacres since the gun ban?

Not that I know of. I think there have been attempted knife attacks by a couple of psychos, but they may have been before the virtual ban on handguns.

Quote

2) Have there been fewer deaths per year every year since the gun ban?

The murder rate went down, and stayed below the pre "ban" level for four years, before passing the 1995 figure in 2000 (iirc)

Neither the fall or rise has much to do with the tighter controls on handguns, they were controlled very tightly anyway.

Quote

3) Were the bobbies allowed to carry firearms before the gun ban?

They are not "allowed" to carry firearms. Guns are issued on the authorisation of a senior officer, when circumstances demand, to officers who have recieved specialist firearms training.

A normal policeman didn't carry a gun on routine work. Certain officers, for example diplomatic protection, airport security etc have always carried guns.

Quote

4) Can bobbies carry firearms now?

The situation is the same as before. There are more specalist firearms teams, and more armed response vehicles (guns locked in the car, ready to deploy to a firearms incident at short notice), and because of the terrorist scares even more armed security at airports. The basic principles are the same, however, and in the deprived urban area where I live, I have still never seen an armed policeman.

Curval · « **Reply #92 on:** October 08, 2003, 06:09:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
so if all the people in all the countries mentioned have no use or want for firearms....

then why ban em? I mean if nobody wants em why bother to ban em? Or could it be that the people who are responding to this thread from other countries are just girly men frieghtened of an inatimate object?

"Some men get turned on by women, some men get turned on by cars, some men get turned on by guns! "

and some by all three.... at the same time or seperate. Still... nothing beter than a hot car full of guns and hot women. Unless of course..... you are a girly man...
lazs

You ask a fair question. Why ban them? I can only speak from my "neck of the woods" as guns were banned in 1970, or 1971 when the governor was shot, along with his aide de camp and his dog.

Since then..no guns.

There has been gun related crime though...with illegal weapons.

Maybe 2 or three cases in the last twenty years.

I'm willing to suggest that making guns legal here would increase that number.

One thing is for sure...there would be an increase in accidental gun deaths and injuries. Not one ever here since 1970...at least none that I know of.

MrCoffee · « **Reply #93 on:** October 08, 2003, 06:23:11 PM »

I believe poverty and other social factors are the primary causes of crime. That and sure, the laws themselves could be a conduit for a crime infested or low crime rate society. I also believe genetics has a part in it and in violent tendancies as a final solution for an individual as is the circumstance (see above).

Still I feel safer in a society with guns (with some regulation of course). A person or persons is less prone to commit a crime with a gun if it is registered. If he does, hes easier to track and catch. In a society where guns are not legal and a criminal obtains one, then he has a distinct advantage in that society. Just my opinion.

ra · « **Reply #94 on:** October 08, 2003, 09:59:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrCoffee
I believe poverty and other social factors are the primary causes of crime.

There is some evidence that the primary causes of crime are also the primary causes of poverty.

ra

Bluedog · « **Reply #95 on:** October 08, 2003, 10:05:09 PM »

Call me paranoid, but the biggest issue I have with gun control in Australia has not a lot to do with weather or not the crims can still get guns, its the fact that the Aus Govt. DESTROYED the weapons we handed in.
Considering we have relatively small defence/armed forces, it would have made a lot more sense to me if they had banned private ownership, collected all the weapons handed in, packed 'em in grease, and stuck them all in a big storage facility in the desert somewhere.
That way, if we ever needed them, it would just be a matter of handing them out again, as it is now, if we suddenly find ourselves as a nation in need of a lot of weapons, we have to either manufacture some, or import them.
I am licenced to own and keep firearms, and to carry concealed weapons while at work, so it really hasnt affected me that much, except I had to hand in all my semi auto rifles ( really, they were novelty weapons anyway, more fun than practical, as a general rule, bolt action rifles were allways a wiser choice for hunting etc.) But I would be far more comfortable knowing that should the need arise, a good percentage of our population could be armed with effective weaponry.
Consider allso that we are firmly and overtly allied to the United States, and that given the current world affairs, America and her allies are not the most popular folks with the Muslim people of the world. Now have a look at a map, and see where Indonesia is in relation to Australia. Thats right, we live on the doorstep of the largest Muslim population in the world, they outnumber us by about 100/1 .
All I can say is thank God for the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and the fact that the US send big arsed fleets of warships full of gung-ho Marines down here fairly regularly.
If I am just being paranoid, why is the ADF screaming for more funding to upgrade their equipment? Can anyone tell me that given current world affairs, there is no possibility of Australia needing her Armed Forces for her own defence?
I dont think so, and it sure would be nice to know that those 100000 or so FN-FALs, M16s, AKs, SKKs, BARs, M1s etc were safely stashed away ready for use if needed, instead of knowing they are now just metal filings and woodchip.
If the world wasnt chock full of people who blindly hate the US, her Allies and Western culture in general, maybe I would feel differantly, sadly, it is.

I may be wrong, but I think you will find that a lot of Americans stand by their right to keep and bear arms for reasons of national security more so than domestic security., something I wholeheartedly agree with.

Blue

-tronski- · « **Reply #96 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:55:57 AM »

I doubt very very much having a stockpile of rifles in the desert is much a national defence strategy. That and the masses of muslims teeming to the north don't have much in the way of a navy capable enough to invade, and then successfully supply an army assuming it was able to hold on to a usable part of the north.
I think the idea of arming the nation for fear of invasion is largely a naive idea.

Proper investment in the ADF is a far more realistic strategy

Tronsky

Bluedog · « **Reply #97 on:** October 09, 2003, 05:36:02 AM »

I agree that as a plan, it sux, but would rather know that they are there and not need 'em, than need them and not have any.
I'm not talking this year, next year or five years from now, but more ten, twenty, twenty five, fifty years. You do know we have things like tanks, artillery and aircraft that are out of date stashed away in exactly the same manner, for exactly this reason?Why did they destroy all those perfectly serviceable smallarms then, smallarms that cost them far more than market value to 'purchase'? Cost effective planning has sweet Fanny Adams to do with it, plainly. It was a hurried and rash decision made in the glaring media spotlight of post Port Arthur teeth gnashing.You think the same would have happened if the Sep 11 WTC incident had happened beforehand, not after?

The Indos dont have much of a Navy eh? Nor did the Japanese in 1941 according to popular opinion, and their naval aircraft were a joke . Hate to tell you this , but popular opinion was wrong, and while we're on the topic, WE dont have all that capable a navy if it came to defending our entire coastline either.
How do you reckon their rather sizeable armed forces move about the islands that make up their nation? Maybe they use all those Russian aircraft they have that outclass our own , I dunno.
Why has the ADF based it's tactics and strategies on a conflict with our immediate neighbours, if indeed there is no possability of such a conflict occuring? I certainly hope our Govt isnt thinking "Nah, their Navy sux, they cant even get here"
Man, we cant even stop boatloads of starving refugees, let alone an agressive force.

All Im saying is that it was stupid to destroy the weapons handed in, maybe Im way of track, and Australia will never be threatened, God I hope so, but if it ever does happen, wouldnt you rather the Govt handed you a 20~50 year old, second hand but perfectly serviceable wepon, than, say, a broomstick?(which if it happened tomorrow would be about all they could get until the Yanks sent down some hardware)
Oh, and if you think they ADF is receiving proper or even realistic investment, Id love to know what makes you think so. I agree, it would be a far more workable idea, but it sure isnt happening right now, and hasnt happened for 50 years or more. The only thing that has enabled us to maintain security with such a poorly equiped and undermanned Defence Force is our allience with the US. It's why we sent forces into Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and God knows how many other places with the Americans, even when the majority say 'no war' ,we are reliant on that alliance, and every PM so far has known it, and acted accordingly.

All this is way off topic though

Sorry Rip

-tronski- · « **Reply #98 on:** October 09, 2003, 07:22:36 AM »

I don't think the ADF is properly funded at all. Our defense spending is very low (% GNP) when compared to the major Nato nations, but is still higher than our neighbours however.
Australian forces have historically always been far more successful than their usually small deployments should allow, and so it's small size should never be underestimated.
But it could be often better served by consolidating it's assets in Australia, instead of being continually moved from theatre to theatre.

It is our reliance on ANZUS that has lead to our block obsolescence problems in the ADF in the first place, and considering the liberal govts. insistance on following the current American adminstration's shortsighted strategies will only further strain the ADF.

Tronsky

Ripsnort · « **Reply #99 on:** October 09, 2003, 07:49:44 AM »

Wooo hoo! just one more post and we got another 100 post Gun thread!

ra · « **Reply #100 on:** October 09, 2003, 07:59:56 AM »

Are you sure?

lazs2 · « **Reply #101 on:** October 09, 2003, 08:05:04 AM »

LOL... you guys crack me up... you would allow burglars to victimize you while you are in you own home... the streets filled with pickpockets and thugs and the strong bullying the weak... plus... have your government armed and you not.... just so you cluld save a bunch of criminals from shooting themselves and maybe the occassional civilian shooting of the law abiding by some nut... you would give up your right to defend yourself for this pissant little bit of so called security?

girly men... frieghtened little children and women... Scared of guns... sheesh. Next you will be scared of cars and then your own noodle.

unfortunately... Toad is probly right... the women will be running this country soon enough. population is the problem and pretty soon mommy will be telling us what we need to do for our own good.
lazs

Toad · « **Reply #102 on:** October 09, 2003, 08:24:20 AM »

As night follows day, Laz.

When the Urbs control the elections, and they're not far from it, personal freedom in general is going to take a hit. Nannyism is strongest in the urban areas, weakest in the rural.

Allow me to generally allegorize

:

Urbs think a guy that cuts off his thumb carving a steak with a sharp knife should be entitled to sue the knife maker, the cook, the restaurant and the waitress. After that, they want government regulations to make knives "safer".

Rurals read that same story and laugh their tulips off that some moron can't handle his knife at the dinner table.

Like I said, just be glad you and I are old pharts that won't live to see it in full bloom. Cripes, it's bad enough as it is!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #103 on:** October 09, 2003, 08:33:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Urbs think a guy that cuts off his thumb carving a steak with a sharp knife should be entitled to sue the knife maker, the cook, the restaurant and the waitress. After that, they want government regulations to make knives "safer".

Rurals read that same story and laugh their tulips off that some moron can't handle his knife at the dinner table.

Like I said, just be glad you and I are old pharts that won't live to see it in full bloom. Cripes, it's bad enough as it is!

Hehehehe!

lazs2 · « **Reply #104 on:** October 09, 2003, 08:40:17 AM »

Yep... but.... It's a big country. Some concession will allways be made for the urbs... some enclaves will allways exist toad. I am an opptomist...

england is a poor example... they are citified to the bone. they live shoulder to shoulder and have learned to like it.

I allways feel out of place in large cities after a few days... they all seem so dirty and worn out and desperate and needy.

The choices available in the cities are not the choices that do anything for me... least not more than occassionally.. the day to day life style is depressing to me and claustrophobic.

Mostly all the city girly men think they will get laid if they act like women in thier views... they are probly right but it is too high a price in my opinion.

Men are meant to go fast and shoot guns and breed. They aren't meant to live in cubicles and drink in bars with women in suits. or ride in taxis.

When you are frietghtened of firearms or fast cars then you know you have gone over the edge... you are indeed a girly man. Huddle on up with the rest of your girly man friends and vote for less rights... or... just ask your woman boss what to vote for and cut out all the pretension.
lazs