PDA

View Full Version : the lucky country? .... "Just value what you have and don't give it away"



uripper
01-04-2014, 02:46 PM
Here is an interesting set of observations from a visitor from the other side of the Pacific.'Value what you have and don't give it away.'
There's a lot to admire about Australia, especially if you're a visiting American, says David Masona US writer and professor, and poet laureate of Colorado.
.
More often than you might expect, Australian friends patiently listening to me enthuse about their country have said, ''We need outsiders like you to remind us what we have.'' So here it is - a small presumptuous list of what one foreigner admires in Oz.

1. Health care.
I know the controversies, but basic national health care is a gift. In America, medical expenses are a leading cause of bankruptcy. The drug companies dominate politics and advertising. You can't turn on the telly without hours of drug advertisements - something I have never yet seen here. And your emphasis on prevention - making cigarettes less accessible, for one - is a model.

2. Food.
Yes, we have great food in America too, especially in the big cities.
But your bread is less sweet, your lamb is cheaper, and your supermarket vegetables and fruits are fresher than ours.
Too often in my country an apple is a ball of pulp as big as your face.
The dainty Pink Lady apples of Oz are the juiciest I've had. And don't get me started on coffee.
In American small towns it tastes like water flavoured with burnt dirt, but the smallest shop in the smallest town in Oz can make a first-rate latte.
I love your ubiquitous bakeries, your hot-cross buns. Shall I go on?

3. Language.
How do you do it?
The rhyming slang and Aboriginal place names .
Words that seem vaguely English yet also resemble an argot from another planet.
I love the way institutional names get turned into diminutives - Vinnie's and Salvos - and absolutely nothing's sacred.
Everything's an opportunity for word games and everyone's a nickname.
Lingo makes the world go round.
It's the spontaneous wit of the people that tickles me most.
Late one night at a barbie my new mate Suds remarked, ''Nothing's the same since 24-7.'' Amen.

4. Free-to-air TV.
In Oz, you buy a TV, plug it in and watch some of the best programming I've ever seen - uncensored.
In America, you can't get diddly-squat without paying a cable or satellite company heavy fees.
In Oz a few channels make it hard to choose.
In America, you've got 400 channels and nothing to watch.

5. Small shops.
Outside the big cities in America corporations have nearly erased them.
Identical malls with identical restaurants serving inferior food.
Except for geography, it's hard to tell one American town from another.
The ''take-away'' culture here is wonderful.
Human encounters are real - stirring happens, stories get told.
The curries are to die for. And you don't have to tip!

6. Free camping.
We used to have this too, and I guess it's still free when you backpack miles away from the roads.
But I love the fact that in Oz everyone owns the shore and in many places you can pull up a camper van and stare at the sea for weeks.
I love the ''primitive'' and independent campgrounds, the life out of doors.
The few idiots who leave their stubbies and rubbish behind in these pristine places ought to be transported in chains.

7. Roads.
Peak hour aside, I've found travel on your roads pure heaven.
My country's ''freeways'' are crowded, crumbling, insanely knotted with looping overpasses - it's like racing homicidal maniacs on fraying spaghetti.
I've taken the Hume without stress, and I love the Princes Highway when it's two lanes.
Ninety minutes south of Bateman's Bay I was sorry to see one billboard for a McDonald's.
It's blocking a lovely paddock view. Someone should remove it.

8. Real multiculturalism.
I know there are tensions, just like anywhere else, but I love the distinctiveness of your communities and the way you publicly acknowledge the Aboriginal past.
Recently, too, I spent quality time with Melbourne Greeks, and was gratified both by their devotion to their own great language and culture and their openness.

9. Fewer guns.
You had Port Arthur in 1996 and got real in response. America replicates such massacres several times a year and nothing changes.
Why?
Our religion of individual rights makes the good of the community an impossible dream.
Instead of mateship we have ''It's mine and nobody else's''.
We talk a great game about freedom, but too often live in fear.

There's more to say - your kaleidoscopic birds, your perfumed bush in springtime, your vast beaches.
These are just a few blessings that make Australia a rarity.
Of course, it's not paradise - nowhere is - but I love it here.
No need to wave flags like Americans and add to the world's windiness.
Just value what you have and don't give it away.

cheers, Mal

Da-Jew-Man
01-04-2014, 03:57 PM
Hi,
Having spent quite a reasonable time in the US and travelled over 9000 miles through 30 states I would question a couple of points.
1. Health Care - Look at the cost of Private Health in Aus and what the Government is discussing at present
2. Food - Unbelievably cheaper in the US where there is competition not as 2 giants here.
3. Roads - Most roads are excellent, highways and off the highways. They build better roads and they have more extreme weather for the roads.
4. TV - More channels yes some pay but much more variety.
Having said the above we still are in the best country in the world but the pollies are slowly stuffing it up.

Jabiru658
01-04-2014, 04:39 PM
I'd take issue with the 'got real' response to Port Arthur as well.

The legislation changes were rushed, poorly thought out and were instituted without consultation or any thought of the negatives that they'd cause along side so called positives.

Australia already had some of the strictest gun laws in the 1st world BEFORE Port Arthur, post Port Arthur we've now got sports shooters who can't legally buy the same gun for target shooting that's used to win gold medals in the Olympics every 4 years, we've got farmers who can no longer adequately control vermin, we've got small business that have gone broke from the changes and many other bad outcomes.

The aims? Reducing crime.

And the outcome? Zero reduction in crime statistics, in fact some figures actually show an increase.

So now governments are legislating against knives, I can no longer carry a multi-tool on various railway platforms without running the risk of being searched and charged.

The justification? Oh reducing crime again.

I wait with baited breath for the next set of figures to show another increase, another failed policy and what the government will ban next (for our own safety of course).

Maybe it'll be motorbikes next time (people use helmets during robberies after all) or perhaps spear fishing (someone used a spear gun in a robbery didn't you hear!)

TheRealAndy
01-04-2014, 06:44 PM
If you have never stepped out of this country, you don't know how good you have it. IF you live in Queensland and get to explore the east coast, you have it just a little better than the rest of those in this country!! I love the place, I have not traveled extensively, but I have spent enough time overseas to realise we are in the best place in the world, without a doubt.

FWIW, NZ is a close second.

Jabiru658
01-04-2014, 08:53 PM
I have spent enough time overseas to realise we are in the best place in the world, without a doubt.

I have traveled over seas...

when I took my bike to the Isle of Mann I could ride at whatever speed I liked outside of town and the police where sitting there admiring the sounds of the bikes going past.

In the UK I could sit on 130kph on the motorways and not get booked, in Europe nowhere was less than that.

In Victoria I got booked for 3 kph over the limit and sent for a noise test for a HD muffler thats legal in the US but is evidently a few db too dangerous for anyone to use here.

Australia's nanny state mentality has gone past being a joke.

I could retire over seas in many countries and live better than I live here working 60 hours a week to be totally honest.

TheRealAndy
01-04-2014, 10:05 PM
I have traveled over seas...

when I took my bike to the Isle of Mann I could ride at whatever speed I liked outside of town and the police where sitting there admiring the sounds of the bikes going past.

In the UK I could sit on 130kph on the motorways and not get booked, in Europe nowhere was less than that.

In Victoria I got booked for 3 kph over the limit and sent for a noise test for a HD muffler thats legal in the US but is evidently a few db too dangerous for anyone to use here.

Australia's nanny state mentality has gone past being a joke.

I could retire over seas in many countries and live better than I live here working 60 hours a week to be totally honest.

On your way then.

I will live with the those small things that piss us off, but on the grand scale, I have the blinkers off. I suggest you take a good look around you.

Lovey80
02-04-2014, 01:33 AM
On your way then.

I will live with the those small things that piss us off, but on the grand scale, I have the blinkers off. I suggest you take a good look around you.

So thats your answer is it? He tell's you he could live better overseas and your response is to piss off?

How about we emulate the little things that others are doing better than us?

I have lived in some pretty poor third world countries and I can certainly say that while we currently still have the best country on earth we have a shit load of improving to do.

Jabiru you are spot on on the gun crime comments. All the Port Arthur knee jerk laws did was give a duopoly of power to the police and the criminals. Of course it is highly rare that the police ever stop a crime of violence when it is happening. They're more a mop up and prosecute service 99.99999% of the time. The attack on an Ausfish member in his home this week is a perfect example of this. Those gun laws did nothing but make every state go out of their way to disarm law abiding citizens that would never had been a threat of another Port Arthur incident anyway. It was a farce.

TheRealAndy
02-04-2014, 08:41 AM
So thats your answer is it? He tell's you he could live better overseas and your response is to piss off?

How about we emulate the little things that others are doing better than us?

I have lived in some pretty poor third world countries and I can certainly say that while we currently still have the best country on earth we have a shit load of improving to do.

Jabiru you are spot on on the gun crime comments. All the Port Arthur knee jerk laws did was give a duopoly of power to the police and the criminals. Of course it is highly rare that the police ever stop a crime of violence when it is happening. They're more a mop up and prosecute service 99.99999% of the time. The attack on an Ausfish member in his home this week is a perfect example of this. Those gun laws did nothing but make every state go out of their way to disarm law abiding citizens that would never had been a threat of another Port Arthur incident anyway. It was a farce.

What, emulate the US gun laws?? Yeah, much better.

rexwatto
02-04-2014, 12:38 PM
Yea sorry - I agree with TheRealAndy on this one.

I have no issue with the gun laws in this country. I just did my firearms safety course, and I now have to wait until May before I can even try to buy a firearm.... And I have no issue with that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jabiru658
02-04-2014, 01:21 PM
What, emulate the US gun laws?? Yeah, much better.

No but how about emulating the New Zealand gun laws instead?

They are if anything safer than the ones we have here but without the stupid inconsistencies that we have in our gun law legislation.

Gimme5
02-04-2014, 09:44 PM
And how are gun laws in NZ safer?


No but how about emulating the New Zealand gun laws instead?

They are if anything safer than the ones we have here but without the stupid inconsistencies that we have in our gun law legislation.

Russ B
02-04-2014, 11:50 PM
Uripper I appreciate what you are saying. We live in a country that's second to none with freedom and wealth that so many other people from around the world will never get to know. We have so many different cultures withing our country that let us sample different lifestyles in our own back yard as well as the original land owners that have an understanding of Australia that we are only just starting to recognize.
a
Yes we have our problems with things like guns and violence but i'm guessing if you looked into most other countries around our planet they too are dealing with similar issues. People around the world are just like us. They may appear different but they just want to raise a family and have the same basic needs that we do.

The food we have in this country is some of the best produce you will find. Food might cost more but if you take the time and look around and get to know the right people and don't assume that the big corporations are looking after you the quality of what you eat can rival anything else around the globe. I for one know that if I had a choice between eating at a restaurant controlled by a multi national company or privately owned the multi national company would miss out on the sale.

The people here in Australia that i have grown up with usually have a great sense of humor and if you were stuck on the side of the road in trouble they wouldn't give a second thought to offering assistance.

Even though we bag the government for all it's not doing and that goes for any of the political parties that are in power if you do some damage to yourself you'll get patched back up at no charge.

I think we have it pretty good here and with the traveling iv'e done as exciting as it is to see other places getting home onto Australian soil is still one of the best parts of the trip.

Jabiru658
03-04-2014, 09:59 AM
And how are gun laws in NZ safer?

The government are fond of quoting the statistics for the 'number of guns in circulation' vs 'number of gun related crimes, deaths and injuries'.

NZ has more guns yet less gun related crime, death and injuries therefore their legislation is by the governments own statistical criteria MORE effective and yet it also lacks the silly inconsistencies that Australian gun legislation has. We can't even agree what's legal and what isn't between the various states.

TheRealAndy
03-04-2014, 11:31 AM
The government are fond of quoting the statistics for the 'number of guns in circulation' vs 'number of gun related crimes, deaths and injuries'.

NZ has more guns yet less gun related crime, death and injuries therefore their legislation is by the governments own statistical criteria MORE effective and yet it also lacks the silly inconsistencies that Australian gun legislation has. We can't even agree what's legal and what isn't between the various states.

At the end of the day, the number of deaths by firearm is on a steady downward trend and has been since the changes to gun ownership laws, regardless of what anyone says. You can cherry pick as much data as you want, but the numbers are there in black and white. I dont think tight gun controls are a bad thing. If you want to use a firearm, you still can. I dont see the problem. Sure, you cant use semi or fully automatic weapons, but outside of the military why would you need one anyway?

snapperbasher
03-04-2014, 02:17 PM
Regardless of what anyone says.....I’m never leavingAustralia again...... I have only ever done a little bit of overseas travel buthave no inclination to ever leave Australia again.....

I have spent a lot of time travelling to remote and not soremote places of Australia and loved every bit of it.... The way I see it isthere is not enough time in a life time to see all of Australia so why waste ittravelling abroad..... Every spare chance I get I go somewhere differenthere.... try to never travel the same road twice (within reason).

People complain about how our country is run but I justswitch off to that and do what I do...Lifes to short to worry about thatcrap......get out and enjoy yourself! We have the best country in the world!!

Jabiru658
07-04-2014, 10:13 AM
Sure, you cant use semi or fully automatic weapons, but outside of the military why would you need one anyway?

Vermin control on farms is MUCH easier with a semi-automatic than with a bolt action rifle (seriously), our family no longer has a farm so it doesn't effect me personally but that doesn't change the facts for a large number of disadvantaged farmers with vermin issues.

And there are a number of international sporting events that require semi-automatic guns to compete in, sporting shooters wishing to compete in those events cannot normally purchase the guns to do so which has wiped out whole sections of the target shooting market hurting sales and jobs.

That's just two reasons.

On top of these there is the whole 'divide and conquer' problem, by politically isolating hunters from fishers and from 4 wheel drivers and dirt bike riders (and from each other) and splitting the 'outdoor lobby' into smaller groups the government (and more worryingly the Greens) can 'manage' us easier, that's not a good outcome in the long run for any of us.

Lovey80
07-04-2014, 11:32 AM
At the end of the day, the number of deaths by firearm is on a steady downward trend and has been since the changes to gun ownership laws, regardless of what anyone says. You can cherry pick as much data as you want, but the numbers are there in black and white. I dont think tight gun controls are a bad thing. If you want to use a firearm, you still can. I dont see the problem. Sure, you cant use semi or fully automatic weapons, but outside of the military why would you need one anyway?

This is always the same attitude and argument of someone who's liberty isn't being trampled all over. It is you who cherry picks data by only looking at gun crime statistics from the Port Arthur tragedy onwards. You are right the numbers are there in black and white and they prove you wrong. Gun crime statistics were falling well before the anomaly that started all this and take away the 1996 tragedy from the stats and you have a very clear downward trend going back well before that day.

There are many sports shooting activities that required semi-automatic weapons before the ban. Even sports pistol shooting has become prohibitive with ridiculous regulations that make no one safer. The regulations aren't there to simply ensure that firearms don't end up in the wrong hands they are there to try to make it so these firearms end up in no ones hands.

Louis
07-04-2014, 02:55 PM
"On top of these there is the whole 'divide and conquer' problem, by politically isolating hunters from fishers and from 4 wheel drivers and dirt bike riders (and from each other) and splitting the 'outdoor lobby' into smaller groups the government (and more worryingly the Greens) can 'manage' us easier, that's not a good outcome in the long run for any of us."

Spot on Jabiru. We need to stick together


Louis

snapperbasher
07-04-2014, 03:09 PM
Jabiru...

Primary Producers can still own Semi automatic weapons undera category R licence. Vermin control on a rural property is a genuine reason toapply for a category R licence.

People who need them can still legally own them if you canshow “genuine reason”

I am a gun owner and avid hunter. There is no need for semiautomatic weapons for general hunting and or sports.... even though it would benice!! J

Louis
07-04-2014, 03:20 PM
I wonder how many lives could have been saved and how much misery to families and patients could have been avoided if the Howard Government had put that money they used to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens to the study for a cure for cancer and other illnesses instead?


Louis

snapperbasher
07-04-2014, 03:28 PM
I agree Louis.... I don’t believe the Introduction of theGun laws after Port Arthur has saved any lives.....bloody great big waste ofmoney...... and I lost my favourite pump action shotty!!

Money could have been much better spent.... however I stilldon’t believe anyone needs a Semi Auto or Auto firearm for generalhunting/Sports....I don’t see the banning of them as a negative.

The whole Pump Action Shotgun thing is ridiculous.....ConsideringPump Action Rifles are still legal??? Go figure..... shows the misunderstandingof firearms of those who designed and implemented the laws....

Louis
07-04-2014, 03:29 PM
We should also remember that we were not invaded by the Japanese during WW2 due to the fact that "Australians are well armed and well trained in the use of their arms and that it is predicted that any occuping troops would come under sustained and prolonged sniper attack".

This was obviously written in Japanese. But this is a rough translation of intellingence reports which were tendered to the Japanese Government by Japanese Inteligence Officials.

L

Louis
07-04-2014, 03:31 PM
If the USA suffers an economic collapse, or perhaps rather when the USA suffers an economic collapse, and we no longer have them to protect us, will the Indonesian Government feel the same way about the Australia of today I wonder?


L

Lovey80
07-04-2014, 07:46 PM
Jabiru...

Primary Producers can still own Semi automatic weapons undera category R licence. Vermin control on a rural property is a genuine reason toapply for a category R licence.

People who need them can still legally own them if you canshow “genuine reason”

I am a gun owner and avid hunter. There is no need for semiautomatic weapons for general hunting and or sports.... even though it would benice!! J


Just being a primary producer isn't enough for a category R licence for a semi-automatic centre fire rifle. Pump Action shotgun yes. You need to be on massive land with a huge feral animal population OR be in feral animal eradication as a profession to get a semi-auto rifle.

This argument about what the "need" is for a semi-auto is what angers me the most. The anti-gun lobby has all of us having the debate right where they want it. Just the fact that avid hunters are even going down the "need" conversation means that they have won and will continue to win and enforce stronger regulations on everyone.

The facts are that had the Tasmanian gun laws that were already been on the books, been enforced, Port Arthur would never have happened. Law abiding, sane minded citizens don't go on murderous high body count rampages in Australia on a regular basis. For the same reasons that those same people (with the new laws) don't go on low body count murderous rampages on a regular basis. Yet, bikies, drug dealers and anyone who already has the utmost disregard for the law have no restriction on them what so ever. Laws like this don't stop what they were designed to stop. I would have loved to have seen the backlash energy go more towards screening for mental issues etc than curbing the rights of people who were never going to be a problem.

Right now with a bit of cash anyone could obtain a semi-auto weapon to go on a killing spree in pretty short time. So what have we really achieved?

Lovey80
07-04-2014, 07:49 PM
If the USA suffers an economic collapse, or perhaps rather when the USA suffers an economic collapse, and we no longer have them to protect us, will the Indonesian Government feel the same way about the Australia of today I wonder?


L

Lets say the answer is no. What are they going to do about it?

nathank
07-04-2014, 08:17 PM
I will take our gun laws and health care over america anyday of the week.. the thing i really really hate about australia though is the way we constantly whinge and whinge about how hard done by we are, also the way a lot of us want our Aussie stars to fail.. I had a mate put on facebook a little while ago how he couldnt wait to see federra smash Hewit in the tennis final and so many others got on the bandwagon..makes me sick. Harry Kewel had a tribute page for his retirement the other day also and about 80% we saying how useless he was etc.. Im gunna stop now because i could write a book...

Jabiru658
08-04-2014, 07:48 AM
Jabiru...

Primary Producers can still own Semi automatic weapons undera category R licence. Vermin control on a rural property is a genuine reason toapply for a category R licence.



Not one of my grand fathers dairy farm neighbours were able to obtain one despite the endemic vermin issue in the area, that suggests strongly to me that the requirements are out of sync with the needs of farmers (at least ones on small farms around here).

Louis
08-04-2014, 03:02 PM
Lets say the answer is no. What are they going to do about it?


Lovey, they could have every town and city in Australia under their total control within 48hrs if they wanted to.

Thank God for the Americans protecting us. And when the USA collapses hopefully China will step up and protect us.


Louis

uripper
08-04-2014, 10:08 PM
Hey fellas,

As the initial poster of this thread I respect your thoughts as I do anyone in this Oz democracy, though I suggest if you want to have an argy-bargy about gun control or other political difference ... this is not the place. Post your own thread pls.

The thread was about a whole lot more. It was about stuff like this ... places where kids /families, & lovers can stroll freely enjoying the sunshine, surfers blending with the sea, fishos returning to harbour after a morning offshore, elders sitting quietly in morning reflection of life ... all in relative safety ... yes, there are many places more or less like this in the world ... but none quite like the land I call home.

These pics were taken in the last 4 days at Pt Danger and Shorncliffe ... food for thought.

cheers, Mal

102367102368

sparkyice
08-04-2014, 11:32 PM
an interesting read for sure, from my perspective as a yank. i admire austrailians for all of the reasons put forth in this thread, and for the way you can carry on an intelligent discusion without allowing the tone to degenerate into mindless rants about one anothers character.

hope you don't mind if i post a link to this thread onto a fishing forum here at home, " lake ontario united". i want to share your perspective with some of my neighbors. we have a lot more in common than many might realize.

thank you.

http://www.lakeontariounited.com/fishing-hunting/topic/42778-an-aussie-perspective/

Lovey80
10-04-2014, 01:25 AM
Lovey, they could have every town and city in Australia under their total control within 48hrs if they wanted to.

Thank God for the Americans protecting us. And when the USA collapses hopefully China will step up and protect us.


Louis

Louis someone has been telling you porkie pies. They couldn't have Darwin under control in 48 hours.

NAGG
10-04-2014, 06:36 AM
We should also remember that we were not invaded by the Japanese during WW2 due to the fact that "Australians are well armed and well trained in the use of their arms and that it is predicted that any occuping troops would come under sustained and prolonged sniper attack".

This was obviously written in Japanese. But this is a rough translation of intellingence reports which were tendered to the Japanese Government by Japanese Inteligence Officials.

L

We never got invaded because their invasion force was turned back during the battle of the coral sea - Had the Americans not intercepted their messages the Japanese would have taken Pt Moresby & have their staging point for an invasion.
Taking nothing away from the efforts of the Australian malitia / PIB & later the Australian AIF in defending Pt Moresby during the Kokoda campaign - if it wasn't for the battle of the Coral sea & the long & difficult Japanese line of communication of the Kokoda Track ...... you can bet your balls that Darwin would have been invaded and probably taken. - It had effectively been nullified as a base & at the time most of our trained soldiers were either fighting in the middle east or taken prisoner at Singapore.
Australia was under prepared & ill equipped ..... The Japanese troops were extremely well trained as they were the cream of the crop (early in the Pacific campaign).

We had some damn good fortune & Japan had bitten off more they could chew by taking the whole of SE Asia & most of the Pacific Islands . But it was the battle of the Coral sea that saved our bacon.

Chris

NAGG
10-04-2014, 07:15 AM
There is nothing wrong with our gun laws - plain and simple ...... we don't need military assault rifles in society or automatic shot guns . The laws created were to eliminate the the legal supply into this country.... & hence access.

We are never going to stop illegal fire arms or firearms getting into the hands of criminals ..... it was never about that. the less number of guns out there - the less likely that someone can just go to their closet a pull out a gun to shoot someone.

I'm not against guns ( I did own a couple). When I looked at getting a hand gun licence ( I thought it would be cool to do competitions) & went though what was involved ..... the accreditation , the process of moving from rim fire to center fire to holster etc - storage & transportation = Nah forget that ..... too difficult . But yet if I was keen enough I could have still eventually got an automatic handgun . So the pathway exists.

It is no coincidence that America has the gun problem that it has - due to their civil right to bare arms . Unfortunately this dates back to the 1700's under the guise of



enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.


There are still redneks out their that think that the US will be invaded and it will fall on the people to defend the country - these people train for it - stockpile weapons etc .

Chris

Louis
10-04-2014, 02:27 PM
Chris, this reference regards miltary files found which were written by Inteligence Officers in the Japanese Army that were submitted to the Japanese Government.


(We should also remember that we were not invaded by the Japanese during WW2 due to the fact that "Australians are well armed and well trained in the use of their arms and that it is predicted that any occuping troops would come under sustained and prolonged sniper attack".

This was obviously written in Japanese. But this is a rough translation of intellingence reports which were tendered to the Japanese Government by Japanese Inteligence Officials.)



Louis

Louis
10-04-2014, 02:34 PM
There is nothing wrong with our gun laws - plain and simple ...... we don't need military assault rifles in society or automatic shot guns . The laws created were to eliminate the the legal supply into this country.... & hence access.

We are never going to stop illegal fire arms or firearms getting into the hands of criminals ..... it was never about that. the less number of guns out there - the less likely that someone can just go to their closet a pull out a gun to shoot someone.

I'm not against guns ( I did own a couple). When I looked at getting a hand gun licence ( I thought it would be cool to do competitions) & went though what was involved ..... the accreditation , the process of moving from rim fire to center fire to holster etc - storage & transportation = Nah forget that ..... too difficult . But yet if I was keen enough I could have still eventually got an automatic handgun . So the pathway exists.

It is no coincidence that America has the gun problem that it has - due to their civil right to bare arms . Unfortunately this dates back to the 1700's under the guise of



enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.


There are still redneks out their that think that the US will be invaded and it will fall on the people to defend the country - these people train for it - stockpile weapons etc .

Chris


They main part of the second amendment to the Constitution was to stop a Tyranical Government suppressing the people.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned with this issue.

History has taught us that peoples' freedoms are often taken away by Tyranical Governments.

Remeber what Thomas Jefferson once said:

"When the Government fears the people, that is democracy. When the people fear the Government, that is Tyranny".

as well:

"He who governs least, governs best"

If only we had politicians like him around these days.



Louis

Louis
10-04-2014, 02:57 PM
an interesting read for sure, from my perspective as a yank. i admire austrailians for all of the reasons put forth in this thread, and for the way you can carry on an intelligent discusion without allowing the tone to degenerate into mindless rants about one anothers character.

hope you don't mind if i post a link to this thread onto a fishing forum here at home, " lake ontario united". i want to share your perspective with some of my neighbors. we have a lot more in common than many might realize.

thank you.

http://www.lakeontariounited.com/fishing-hunting/topic/42778-an-aussie-perspective/




Good to see you with us on Ausfish.

Always nice to have someone from another country on board.

If you bleed red and you fish your my brother.



Louis

Jabiru658
10-04-2014, 04:39 PM
There is nothing wrong with our gun laws - plain and simple ...... we don't need military assault rifles in society or automatic shot guns

Nobody in this thread has suggested that we need military assault rifles (even the ones like me who have pointed out the flaws in Howards knee jerk gun regulations).

But pump action shot guns should either be allowed (my view) because other pump action guns are allowed or if one is anti-gun then they should be banned (allowing one and not the other is stupid), oh and I lost my Winchester 1200 pump shotgun due to the changes also.

And semi-automatic sporting rifles (not assault rifles) should be available to everyday recreational shooters, it's sufficient to restrict magazine size and it doesn't require a total ban (as per the Howard knee jerk laws).

Louis
10-04-2014, 04:50 PM
Nagg, wouldn't you agree that the government would have saved many more lives if they had spent the money they used for the buy-back and the follow-up compliance issues on funding research into illness or on healthcare etc.?



Louis

NAGG
10-04-2014, 06:34 PM
They main part of the second amendment to the Constitution was to stop a Tyranical Government suppressing the people.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned with this issue.

History has taught us that peoples' freedoms are often taken away by Tyranical Governments.

Remeber what Thomas Jefferson once said:

"When the Government fears the people, that is democracy. When the people fear the Government, that is Tyranny".

as well:

"He who governs least, governs best"

If only we had politicians like him around these days.



Louis

That was all fine and good ........ 250 years ago
I think times have changed & it is hardly likely a tyrant would ever take control of the US ...... & they certainly dont need the Minutemen anymore or be worried about the slaves

Hell I wouldn't even call tony abbott a tyrant ...... though he is trying .

chris

NAGG
10-04-2014, 06:41 PM
Chris, this reference regards miltary files found which were written by Inteligence Officers in the Japanese Army that were submitted to the Japanese Government.


(We should also remember that we were not invaded by the Japanese during WW2 due to the fact that "Australians are well armed and well trained in the use of their arms and that it is predicted that any occuping troops would come under sustained and prolonged sniper attack".

This was obviously written in Japanese. But this is a rough translation of intellingence reports which were tendered to the Japanese Government by Japanese Inteligence Officials.)



Louis


That may have been the case - but have no doubts the japanese were going to invade ..... do you really think that a nation who made such an audacious attack against the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor would be worried about a few crack shot cockies armed with WW1 vintage lee enfield rifles ?
Hell they even printed a new currency for us

chris

Jabiru658
10-04-2014, 07:55 PM
That may have been the case - but have no doubts the japanese were going to invade

And the Australian government of the day had plans for conceding the northern half of Australia and concentrating their land defense along a line somewhere north of Sydney.

NAGG
10-04-2014, 08:49 PM
Nagg, wouldn't you agree that the government would have saved many more lives if they had spent the money they used for the buy-back and the follow-up compliance issues on funding research into illness or on healthcare etc.?



Louis


I wasn't for the gun buy back ...... & besides wasn't it done as a additional tax (levy)

Chris

nathank
10-04-2014, 11:30 PM
Anyway, as per the thread starter... We live in a beautiful, beautiful place and all is not so bad in the land of Aus....

Lovey80
11-04-2014, 01:41 AM
It is no coincidence that America has the gun problem that it has - due to their civil right to bare arms .

American violence problems have absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of firearms that are in the country. There are many countries with high amounts of semi-automatic weapons that don't have the same problems as the USA. So yes it is a coincidence.

NAGG
11-04-2014, 06:22 AM
American violence problems have absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of firearms that are in the country. There are many countries with high amounts of semi-automatic weapons that don't have the same problems as the USA. So yes it is a coincidence.

Do you have examples ?

Then we can see how they compare on this .


http://visual.ly/gun-ownership-and-gun-homicides-murder-map?view=true

Louis
11-04-2014, 02:42 PM
Take Switzerland for example.

Very low crime very high ownership of firearms.

Take Australia of yesteryear.

Very high ownership of firearms. Very low crime.


Crime Control. Not Gun Control.

If you Outlaw Guns only the Outlaws will Have Them.


I like those two sayings



Louis

Louis
11-04-2014, 02:53 PM
With America you have a country with massive drug problems and massive crime problems as a result.

People should be aware that in the USA over half of those killed by firearms, (other than suicides and accidents), have actually been killed lawfully in self defense.

If they didn't have the firearm they would be dead themselves.

The crims will always have firearms so to level the playing field honest people need to have the right to firearms as well.

Laws that allow honest people the right to firearms and the right to defend themselves adequately actually make society safer for honest people.


Bullies bully those that they know they can beat or will back down to them. Same with criminals. Disarming the honest citizens and taking their rights to self defense away from them only encourages more criminality in society.

We need to empower the honest people again. And that means the right to own firearms and the right to adequate self defense.



Louis

NAGG
11-04-2014, 04:58 PM
Take Switzerland for example.

Very low crime very high ownership of firearms.

Take Australia of yesteryear.

Very high ownership of firearms. Very low crime.


Crime Control. Not Gun Control.

If you Outlaw Guns only the Outlaws will Have Them.


I like those two sayings



Louis

Really ..... In Switzerland 72% of all homicides are with a firearm / Australia has 11.5%

Switzerland has a murder rate by firearm of 0.77% per 100,000 / Australia has 0.14% / 100,000 people

Switzerland has 3 times the guns per 100 people (45) / Australia has 15 / 100 people

so what does this show ..... Well 1) 3 times the guns 2) 5 times more gun related murders x 100,000 people & 3) 6 times more murders are committed with a gun.


Sorry Louis but that Kind of flys in the face of what you were saying .

Chris

NAGG
11-04-2014, 05:15 PM
With America you have a country with massive drug problems and massive crime problems as a result.

People should be aware that in the USA over half of those killed by firearms, (other than suicides and accidents), have actually been killed lawfully in self defense.

If they didn't have the firearm they would be dead themselves.

The crims will always have firearms so to level the playing field honest people need to have the right to firearms as well.

Laws that allow honest people the right to firearms and the right to defend themselves adequately actually make society safer for honest people.


Bullies bully those that they know they can beat or will back down to them. Same with criminals. Disarming the honest citizens and taking their rights to self defense away from them only encourages more criminality in society.

We need to empower the honest people again. And that means the right to own firearms and the right to adequate self defense.



Louis

Louis - I appreciate you are trying to make a point ...... but hey stick with reality .
the list of mass murders with a firearm in the US is as long as my arm - 13 in which over 10 people were killed / 25 which saw 8 or more ...... these are not examples of self defence mate. .... they are shooting sprees -

If guns are at hand ...... people will use them (& I'm not talking some gang banger)

Chris

Louis
11-04-2014, 09:26 PM
Really ..... In Switzerland 72% of all homicides are with a firearm / Australia has 11.5%

Switzerland has a murder rate by firearm of 0.77% per 100,000 / Australia has 0.14% / 100,000 people

Switzerland has 3 times the guns per 100 people (45) / Australia has 15 / 100 people

so what does this show ..... Well 1) 3 times the guns 2) 5 times more gun related murders x 100,000 people & 3) 6 times more murders are committed with a gun.


Sorry Louis but that Kind of flys in the face of what you were saying .

Chris




This is some weird logic Chris.

Ok let’s start with the first:

(1) “Really ..... In Switzerland 72% of all homicides are with a firearm / Australia has 11.5% “

Answer:

Of course Switzerland is going to have more homicides with a firearm. Firearms are readily available. Most houses have got them. Many are high powered assault rifles. Some houses have machine guns. Some have handguns. Some have all three. But the question is how many homicides occurred in Switzerland last year? England has extremely hard gun ownership laws. In England they often hunt with air-rifles because they aren’t able to get permission from their government to have normal firearms. Yet they have far more homicides and attempted homicides than Switzerland. And England isn’t even that bad when you compare it to many of the other countries in the World that have unbelievable homicide levels and yet very strict gun laws. It’s just they have other means to do so. They use knives etc.

I am reminded of the saying, “If someone comes at you with a knife and he is within 2 meters of you and you have a gun. He is the one with the more effective weapon”.


(2) “Switzerland has a murder rate by firearm of 0.77% per 100,000 / Australia has 0.14% / 100,000 people”

Answer:

Please refer to answer 1.


(3) “Switzerland has 3 times the guns per 100 people (45) / Australia has 15 / 100 people”

Answer: Spot on. They do. Maybe even more than that. And guns that are usually semi-automatic and machine guns. Again, read and construed with answer number 1.


This reminds me of a quote from ‘Yes Minister’. “All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog”.


Louis

Louis
11-04-2014, 10:06 PM
Louis - I appreciate you are trying to make a point ...... but hey stick with reality .
the list of mass murders with a firearm in the US is as long as my arm - 13 in which over 10 people were killed / 25 which saw 8 or more ...... these are not examples of self defence mate. .... they are shooting sprees -

If guns are at hand ...... people will use them (& I'm not talking some gang banger)

Chris






Chris, we are talking about a country with a population of over 300 million people. How many died in these style mass shootings? How many people were saved by their firearms? How many people were even not attacked in the first place because the perpetrators knew they may be packing? A woman about to be raped in a car park or elsewhere simply has to pull a small handgun from her purse and the scum who had intentions of raping her will back off.

There was one part of the USA that brought in laws that allowed homeowners the right to shoot anyone trying to break in. Break and enters went down by 97percent that year.

It is about freedom. A person should be able to walk anywhere in safety, night or day. A person should have the right to sleep at night in their home without the threat of someone breaking in and raping them etc. I have a couple of friends in the Police Service. It is not common but both men and women do get raped in their own homes sometimes by people who break in. You don’t hear about it on the news but it does happen. Also when someone does break in they usually aren’t alone and they have a crow bar that the used to pry open your front door. This is a formidable weapon.

Ask most women and they will tell you that they are frightened to be home alone of a night time. Sadly they should be. Men too. I haven’t looked up the statistics but I’m guessing that there are probably a couple of hundred or more break and enters every day in Queensland. I know I’ve been done over 3 times.

I know that I cannot walk through certain parks of a night time. Or it would be foolish to anyway. Yet if I had a handgun on my side and the right in law to use it in self defense I could.

It is crime control not gun control that is the issue. Again to Switzerland. Switzerland has a bit more crime than us per capita just like most European Countries. Yet they have far less crime than the USA. Remember the USA has at any time about 2.5 million people in jail. And Lord knows how many that have just got out. Why have they got so much crime. Mostly because they got such a drug problem.

However Switzerland has very few murders compared to the USA, by firearm or otherwise per capita, even though Switzerland’s gun ownership is almost on a par. The reason? They haven’t got the crime.

The criminals will always get guns. We need to make it harder for criminals to carry guns. To do this we need tough penalties for those who carry guns and are not licensed to do so. This is where the USA falls down. Criminals have guns and when they get caught for it they get a slap on the wrist. This needs to change. But let law abiding people have guns to protect themselves. Although I do agree that everyone who wishes to have a firearm should have to go to a Psychiatrist and be assessed first before being allowed to have a firearm.

I would like to point out one other thing. Have you noticed that when these nut jobs in the USA go on a shooting spree it is usually at a school or somewhere else where everyone is totally disarmed. Have you asked yourself why? It is because if they tried the same thing in downtown Texas they would get shot dead within seconds by armed decent members of society.

Guns keep countries free. Guns make society safe. Guns provide freedoms.


Louis

Louis
11-04-2014, 10:21 PM
Actually to the Mods.


If other Ausfishers agree, maybe this thread should now be sent to the Bilge section?


Louis

NAGG
12-04-2014, 08:03 AM
This is some weird logic Chris.

Ok let’s start with the first:

(1) “Really ..... In Switzerland 72% of all homicides are with a firearm / Australia has 11.5% “

Answer:

Of course Switzerland is going to have more homicides with a firearm. Firearms are readily available. Most houses have got them. Many are high powered assault rifles. Some houses have machine guns. Some have handguns. Some have all three. But the question is how many homicides occurred in Switzerland last year? England has extremely hard gun ownership laws. In England they often hunt with air-rifles because they aren’t able to get permission from their government to have normal firearms. Yet they have far more homicides and attempted homicides than Switzerland. And England isn’t even that bad when you compare it to many of the other countries in the World that have unbelievable homicide levels and yet very strict gun laws. It’s just they have other means to do so. They use knives etc.

I am reminded of the saying, “If someone comes at you with a knife and he is within 2 meters of you and you have a gun. He is the one with the more effective weapon”.


(2) “Switzerland has a murder rate by firearm of 0.77% per 100,000 / Australia has 0.14% / 100,000 people”

Answer:

Please refer to answer 1.


(3) “Switzerland has 3 times the guns per 100 people (45) / Australia has 15 / 100 people”

Answer: Spot on. They do. Maybe even more than that. And guns that are usually semi-automatic and machine guns. Again, read and construed with answer number 1.


This reminds me of a quote from ‘Yes Minister’. “All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog”.


Louis


What's weird ? -

you were trying to say that say that a country like Switzerland (with a high rate of gun ownership) has a low rate of gun crime ....... well the statistics show that per 100,000 people their rate of gun crime is significantly higher
Then take a country like Japan where gun ownership is extremely low - & so are gun related murders (1.8%) take the guns out of the equation & people wont be shot.

NAGG
12-04-2014, 08:38 AM
Chris, we are talking about a country with a population of over 300 million people. How many died in these style mass shootings? How many people were saved by their firearms? How many people were even not attacked in the first place because the perpetrators knew they may be packing? A woman about to be raped in a car park or elsewhere simply has to pull a small handgun from her purse and the scum who had intentions of raping her will back off.

There was one part of the USA that brought in laws that allowed homeowners the right to shoot anyone trying to break in. Break and enters went down by 97percent that year.

It is about freedom. A person should be able to walk anywhere in safety, night or day. A person should have the right to sleep at night in their home without the threat of someone breaking in and raping them etc. I have a couple of friends in the Police Service. It is not common but both men and women do get raped in their own homes sometimes by people who break in. You don’t hear about it on the news but it does happen. Also when someone does break in they usually aren’t alone and they have a crow bar that the used to pry open your front door. This is a formidable weapon.

Ask most women and they will tell you that they are frightened to be home alone of a night time. Sadly they should be. Men too. I haven’t looked up the statistics but I’m guessing that there are probably a couple of hundred or more break and enters every day in Queensland. I know I’ve been done over 3 times.

I know that I cannot walk through certain parks of a night time. Or it would be foolish to anyway. Yet if I had a handgun on my side and the right in law to use it in self defense I could.

It is crime control not gun control that is the issue. Again to Switzerland. Switzerland has a bit more crime than us per capita just like most European Countries. Yet they have far less crime than the USA. Remember the USA has at any time about 2.5 million people in jail. And Lord knows how many that have just got out. Why have they got so much crime. Mostly because they got such a drug problem.

However Switzerland has very few murders compared to the USA, by firearm or otherwise per capita, even though Switzerland’s gun ownership is almost on a par. The reason? They haven’t got the crime.

The criminals will always get guns. We need to make it harder for criminals to carry guns. To do this we need tough penalties for those who carry guns and are not licensed to do so. This is where the USA falls down. Criminals have guns and when they get caught for it they get a slap on the wrist. This needs to change. But let law abiding people have guns to protect themselves. Although I do agree that everyone who wishes to have a firearm should have to go to a Psychiatrist and be assessed first before being allowed to have a firearm.

I would like to point out one other thing. Have you noticed that when these nut jobs in the USA go on a shooting spree it is usually at a school or somewhere else where everyone is totally disarmed. Have you asked yourself why? It is because if they tried the same thing in downtown Texas they would get shot dead within seconds by armed decent members of society.

Guns keep countries free. Guns make society safe. Guns provide freedoms.


Louis


Sorry Louis

i cant agree that making it legal to carry guns / have easy access to guns is ever going to be a good thing

You talk about law abiding citizens having a fire arm to ward off crime - All that will happen is that the criminals will pack heat ..... so your break in or potential rape victim will probably be facing down the barrel of a gun. It's just like those that rob security guards do so with a gun ..... not a base ball bat.
we may not have the drug problem of the US -but we do have an alcohol problem ...... add a gun & we wont be just talking of glassings at a pub. We have laws stopping people from carrying knives in public - why would that be ? we dont allow drink driving - why would that be ?
yes these measures all impinge on peoples rights ..... unfortunately at times you have to .

As I said earlier - I quite like guns & used to do a bit of shooting in my early years ...... I would probably own some today if it wasn't so restrictive.... but it would never be under the guise of personal protection .

Chris

Louis
12-04-2014, 12:36 PM
What's weird ? -

you were trying to say that say that a country like Switzerland (with a high rate of gun ownership) has a low rate of gun crime ....... well the statistics show that per 100,000 people their rate of gun crime is significantly higher
Then take a country like Japan where gun ownership is extremely low - & so are gun related murders (1.8%) take the guns out of the equation & people wont be shot.



"What's weird ? -

you were trying to say that say that a country like Switzerland (with a high rate of gun ownership) has a low rate of gun crime ....... well the statistics show that per 100,000 people their rate of gun crime is significantly higher
Then take a country like Japan where gun ownership is extremely low - & so are gun related murders (1.8%) take the guns out of the equation & people wont be shot.​"



There is usually about 80 to 90 homicides per year in Switzerland. Not many really. A bit over half are committed by firearms. Some of them are criminals killing each other. But that is not the point I’m trying to make. The point I’m trying to make is that it makes no difference whether someone kills someone with a gun or by other means. Murder is murder. People with the intent to kill another will do so. Every house in the world usually has a very large kitchen knife lying on the counter in their respective kitchens. This is actually a more effective weapon than a firearm in close proximity. Should we now start banning these.

After Howard brought in the gun laws, violence didn’t go down, armed hold-ups didn’t go down, murder didn’t go down, crime in general didn’t go down. People just used difference means. People started using knives, machetes, lumps of wood with nails hammered into them etc.

You said, “take the guns out of the equation & people wont be shot”. What is the difference between being shot and stabbed. Personally, as a general rule, I would rather be shot than stabbed.

Another point to note is this ridiculous view that ‘military style’ rifles and ammunition are so dangerous to people. They are not more dangerous than hunting rifles. In fact the opposite is the general rule. There are people alive today because they were shot by ‘military style’ rifles and ammunition rather than by a hunting rifle and ammunition.

Military style rifles are designed to hopefully wound. Armies wish to wound their enemy, not kill them as a general rule, because this takes so many other soldiers to take them off the battle field and care for them and nurse them back to health etc.

I would rather be shot with an M16 firing a tiny little .22calibre bullet with a ‘solid’ projectile than with a high powered hunting rifle which fires a much larger bullet at a lot faster speed and with a bullet designed to open up on impact and drop big animals dead instantly.

However this is the trend in the USA with the anti-gun lobby at the moment.


http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns



Louis

Louis
12-04-2014, 01:10 PM
Sorry Louis

i cant agree that making it legal to carry guns / have easy access to guns is ever going to be a good thing

You talk about law abiding citizens having a fire arm to ward off crime - All that will happen is that the criminals will pack heat ..... so your break in or potential rape victim will probably be facing down the barrel of a gun. It's just like those that rob security guards do so with a gun ..... not a base ball bat.
we may not have the drug problem of the US -but we do have an alcohol problem ...... add a gun & we wont be just talking of glassings at a pub. We have laws stopping people from carrying knives in public - why would that be ? we dont allow drink driving - why would that be ?
yes these measures all impinge on peoples rights ..... unfortunately at times you have to .

As I said earlier - I quite like guns & used to do a bit of shooting in my early years ...... I would probably own some today if it wasn't so restrictive.... but it would never be under the guise of personal protection .

Chris





Thanks for you reply Chris,



"Sorry Louis

i cant agree that making it legal to carry guns / have easy access to guns is ever going to be a good thing

You talk about law abiding citizens having a fire arm to ward off crime - All that will happen is that the criminals will pack heat ..... so your break in or potential rape victim will probably be facing down the barrel of a gun. It's just like those that rob security guards do so with a gun ..... not a base ball bat.
we may not have the drug problem of the US -but we do have an alcohol problem ...... add a gun & we wont be just talking of glassings at a pub. We have laws stopping people from carrying knives in public - why would that be ? we dont allow drink driving - why would that be ?
yes these measures all impinge on peoples rights ..... unfortunately at times you have to .

As I said earlier - I quite like guns & used to do a bit of shooting in my early years ...... I would probably own some today if it wasn't so restrictive.... but it would never be under the guise of personal protection .

Chris"









“All that will happen is that the criminals will pack heat ..... so your break in or potential rape victim will probably be facing down the barrel of a gun.”


In places where people are given the right to defend their homes from breaking and entering by use of firearms and given adequate self defense laws break and enters drop[ overnight. Criminals are now playing on a level playing field and don’t like it. Remember that place in the USA I mentioned that had a 97% drop in break and enters after these style laws were brought in.

Also I have yet to hear of any man try and rape someone once he has been shot in the stomach.


“It's just like those that rob security guards do so with a gun ..... not a base ball bat.”



Yes that is true. But how many would be robbed if they didn’t carry firearms. They don’t get robbed often because criminals know they can fight back. Without the guns guys with knives would rob them every day.



“may not have the drug problem of the US -but we do have an alcohol problem”


Again, every kitchen in every home has a large kitchen knife sitting on the counter. Just as effective to kill someone as a firearm.


“have laws stopping people from carrying knives in public - why would that be ?”


This is just one of the thousands of foolish laws brought in by the former Wayne Goss government and which no government since has been smart enough to change.

This law has caused more problems than it solved. More people wound up getting stabbed because of this law and now us anglers have to be careful we don’t forget to leave our pocket knife in the tackle box instead of our pocket when we walk away from our fishing spot lest we wind up standing in front of a Magistrate on charges.

Up until this silly law was brought in anyone could carry a pocket knife providing they did so in a discreet fashion so as not to cause alarm. It gave people a sense of safety and freedom. It allowed them, if they were attacked to defend themselves and usually just pulling it out when in danger was enough for would be attackers to back off.

Now the scum of society still carry them and the honest people don’t and more stabbings have resulted.

Maybe a bit like the “That’s not a knife. Now this is a knife” segment from the movie Crocodile Dundee.


Louis

Mike Delisser
12-04-2014, 04:07 PM
Up until this silly law was brought in anyone could carry a pocket knife providing they did so in a discreet fashion so as not to cause alarm. It gave people a sense of safety and freedom. It allowed them, if they were attacked to defend themselves and usually just pulling it out when in danger was enough for would be attackers to back off.

Louis

I can't agree with that bit Louis. I don't you think that it would be a good thing if everyone was carrying knifes and pulling them out if they thought they could be in danger?

I remember a big session at the Normanby once where there was a lot of argey-bargey, about 4 or 5 blues during the day. That could have been 4 or 5 knife fights. Just today my daughter told me there were 2 blues outside and 1 inside the Ferny Grove Tav just last night.

Louis
12-04-2014, 05:11 PM
But Mike that is the thing.

Up until 1995 or so it was completely lawful to carry a knife on you providing you did so discreetly.

Why did stabbings go thru the roof once they made it unlawful.

Likewise people forget that years ago (circa 1900) it was lawful to carry a handgun on you.

There was less violence and crime then even with the poverty of the day then there is now.

However I do believe that drinking in pubs and night-clubs etc with weapons is a bad idea. Alcohol, public places and things that can be used as a weapon don’t mix.

These items should be taken from a person as they enter these establishments.

However it is of interest to note that years ago people did drink in these establishments with knives.

People did get stabbed from time to time.

But not as many as now as the type that will use them still take them into these places regardless of the laws.



Louis

TheRealAndy
12-04-2014, 06:27 PM
Wow, still on the gun debate.

As I sit here on my deck beer in hand, overlooking Moreton bay I just confirm how much I love this place. TO be honest, I am spoilt. I live on Moreton Bay, just an hour by boat and I am on an almost unmolestered sand island, I can race my yacht in arguably one of the best bays for sailing in Australia, if not the world. This morning I went flying over Bribie Island and Pumice Stone Passage and tomorrow night I will probably going fishing in walking distance from my house. And you lads thing that because there is some strict gun laws this place is the pitts? Well I guess you cant please everyone I guess.

NAGG
12-04-2014, 07:31 PM
"What's weird ? -

you were trying to say that say that a country like Switzerland (with a high rate of gun ownership) has a low rate of gun crime ....... well the statistics show that per 100,000 people their rate of gun crime is significantly higher
Then take a country like Japan where gun ownership is extremely low - & so are gun related murders (1.8%) take the guns out of the equation & people wont be shot.​"



There is usually about 80 to 90 homicides per year in Switzerland. Not many really. A bit over half are committed by firearms. Some of them are criminals killing each other. But that is not the point I’m trying to make. The point I’m trying to make is that it makes no difference whether someone kills someone with a gun or by other means. Murder is murder. People with the intent to kill another will do so. Every house in the world usually has a very large kitchen knife lying on the counter in their respective kitchens. This is actually a more effective weapon than a firearm in close proximity. Should we now start banning these.

After Howard brought in the gun laws, violence didn’t go down, armed hold-ups didn’t go down, murder didn’t go down, crime in general didn’t go down. People just used difference means. People started using knives, machetes, lumps of wood with nails hammered into them etc.

You said, “take the guns out of the equation & people wont be shot”. What is the difference between being shot and stabbed. Personally, as a general rule, I would rather be shot than stabbed.

Another point to note is this ridiculous view that ‘military style’ rifles and ammunition are so dangerous to people. They are not more dangerous than hunting rifles. In fact the opposite is the general rule. There are people alive today because they were shot by ‘military style’ rifles and ammunition rather than by a hunting rifle and ammunition.

Military style rifles are designed to hopefully wound. Armies wish to wound their enemy, not kill them as a general rule, because this takes so many other soldiers to take them off the battle field and care for them and nurse them back to health etc.

I would rather be shot with an M16 firing a tiny little .22calibre bullet with a ‘solid’ projectile than with a high powered hunting rifle which fires a much larger bullet at a lot faster speed and with a bullet designed to open up on impact and drop big animals dead instantly.

However this is the trend in the USA with the anti-gun lobby at the moment.


http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns



Louis


Agree - murder is murder

as for gun availability - miltary type etc ...... semi automatic (which can be converted) gives somebody the opportunity to unload a hell of a lot of rounds & reload in a few seconds with a 30 round magazine ..... who cares if it is 7.62 full metal jacket , 5.56mm or 9mm or even a .22 when it is at close range .

a nut job with a military assault rifle ..... not good

Chris

Louis
12-04-2014, 07:42 PM
Years ago Governments provided land for the purposes of rifle ranges as they realized that an armed populace was a deterrent to being invaded and also because if there was another war the men being sent off would be better at using firearms than those just given basic training and sent off to the slaughter.

Remember that it is best for a soldier not to die for his country but instead make his enemy die for his.



Louis



PS: “provided land” I wish governments realized that crown land should not belong to them. It really belongs to the citizens of the country. We are the shareholders of this company called Australia. The assets and the profits should belong to the people.

NAGG
12-04-2014, 07:51 PM
But Mike that is the thing.

Up until 1995 or so it was completely lawful to carry a knife on you providing you did so discreetly.

Why did stabbings go thru the roof once they made it unlawful.

Likewise people forget that years ago (circa 1900) it was lawful to carry a handgun on you.

There was less violence and crime then even with the poverty of the day then there is now.

However I do believe that drinking in pubs and night-clubs etc with weapons is a bad idea. Alcohol, public places and things that can be used as a weapon don’t mix.

These items should be taken from a person as they enter these establishments.

However it is of interest to note that years ago people did drink in these establishments with knives.

People did get stabbed from time to time.

But not as many as now as the type that will use them still take them into these places regardless of the laws.



Louis


why does anyone need to carry a knife ? .... not unless you had the intention to put yourself in a situation where you might use it .
I really can understand the need to carry a bottle opener ;)

NAGG
12-04-2014, 07:58 PM
Years ago Governments provided land for the purposes of rifle ranges as they realized that an armed populace was a deterrent to being invaded and also because if there was another war the men being sent off would be better at using firearms than those just given basic training and sent off to the slaughter.

Remember that it is best for a soldier not to die for his country but instead make his enemy die for his.



Louis



PS: “provided land” I wish governments realized that crown land should not belong to them. It really belongs to the citizens of the country. We are the shareholders of this company called Australia. The assets and the profits should belong to the people.

they also provided hitching rails for your horse .
Shooting is a legitimate sport ..... but I doubt too many do it to keep an eye in for taking out the next invader .... and if they are , maybe they shouldn't be able to own a gun .

Chris

Louis
12-04-2014, 08:27 PM
they also provided hitching rails for your horse .
Shooting is a legitimate sport ..... but I doubt too many do it to keep an eye in for taking out the next invader .... and if they are , maybe they shouldn't be able to own a gun .

Chris




No of course not.

The right to self-defense is ridiculous.


Louis

Louis
12-04-2014, 08:28 PM
why does anyone need to carry a knife ? .... not unless you had the intention to put yourself in a situation where you might use it .
I really can understand the need to carry a bottle opener ;)





Honest people, if the law provides for it, carry weapons for self defense. They are tools. Sadly criminals carry them whether the law provides for it or not. A gang of drunken thugs on a train station at night might try and attack someone to rob, rape or just bash for some fun.

An armed person can prevent themselves becoming a victim.

Should we now stop travelling home by train or bus of a night from work.

Maybe an affluent person can have a limousine pick him up. A lady or man working the afternoon shift and knocking off at 11pm may have to use these services. And why shouldn’t they be allowed to without fear.


Louis

nathank
12-04-2014, 11:15 PM
wow.. after reading these last few pages it becomes apparent just how different people are.. I think if you want to exercise ur right to bear arms.. onya plane to america, move to texas and dont come back. Superize some chips, drink a gallon of coke and eat some ribs...

NAGG
13-04-2014, 07:46 AM
Honest people, if the law provides for it, carry weapons for self defense. They are tools. Sadly criminals carry them whether the law provides for it or not. A gang of drunken thugs on a train station at night might try and attack someone to rob, rape or just bash for some fun.

An armed person can prevent themselves becoming a victim.

Should we now stop travelling home by train or bus of a night from work.

Maybe an affluent person can have a limousine pick him up. A lady or man working the afternoon shift and knocking off at 11pm may have to use these services. And why shouldn’t they be allowed to without fear.


Louis


Louis

Yes mate - avoid the situation in the first place & then there is no need to carry any kind of weapon ...... As I said if people were allowed to carry weapons - criminals would just escalate the situation. "that's not a knife" or "my uzi beats your .38" . ....... what do we end up going out with an arsenal .
sorry Louis - Australia is not Johannasberg or Port Moresby ...... & we certainly dont need to see our very own versions of Oscar Pistorius .
I've never carried a knife , and the amount of times when I've been out and wished I had one would hardly register on lifes calendar ...... as I said & I'm not joking I've had more need to carry a bottle opener .

Chris

NAGG
13-04-2014, 08:13 AM
Back to the original post - we are the lucky country & whilst I haven't traveled that much , my brother & sisters have traveled extensively ..... two of 3 would never live anywhere else -
Australia is a great place to grow up , get educated , have a career , start a family , live life & retire ..... as long as you have a bit of a go , Australia offers it all & in relative safety . The cost of housing is the single biggest hurdle we face .... particularly with our love of centralisation & the coast - it is one area that needs redress .

I think the person that penned his thoughts in post 1 pretty well got it right!

God bless"ed" Australia

chris

Louis
13-04-2014, 12:22 PM
wow.. after reading these last few pages it becomes apparent just how different people are.. I think if you want to exercise ur right to bear arms.. onya plane to america, move to texas and dont come back. Superize some chips, drink a gallon of coke and eat some ribs...


So someone has a different opinion and you tell him to leave the country.

We will just have to keep our mouths shut lest we disagree with you.





Louis

nathank
13-04-2014, 04:23 PM
Not at all Louis, it was my opinion that if you want the "right" and not you specifically, to bear arms i think yes you should p#@s off to America.. The thread starter was talking about what a beautiful place it is we live in and some great points why.. If you want to have a go at me also i would ask yourself the reasons that you actually come onto this site.. in the last 2 years plus you have started threads only in the bilge and politics bar two about stocking fish or something.. then in the last 7 years you have not once put up a report on catching some fish... Not having a go but i think this place is awesome :)

Louis
13-04-2014, 04:55 PM
I would just like to see the rights Australians’ used to have back. These laws that we are discussing are relatively new.

You seem to be authoritarian in your approach.

I am not obliged to follow your dogma.

I do not have to agree with you.

This is what debate is about.

Debating topics

An opportunity to put ones ideas forward for scrutiny and an opportunity to learn from others.

I’m not going to tell you to leave Australia because you disagree with me.

If you disagree with me I simply will challenge your ideas and I welcome you to challenge mine.

I welcome your debate.


Louis

Jabiru658
13-04-2014, 08:04 PM
why does anyone need to carry a knife ? .... not unless you had the intention to put yourself in a situation where you might use it .
I really can understand the need to carry a bottle opener ;)

I have a multi-tool which cost me about $150, it's useful and I need to carry it because it's got a phillips screwdriver, a flat blade screwdriver, a can opener, a bottle opener, a couple of knife blades and I use it for quick fixes at work.

Because it has a knife blade (well 2) I can't legally carry it when I travel by public transport so now I don't travel via train for work (I stopped when they changed the laws).

Jabiru658
13-04-2014, 08:07 PM
wow.. after reading these last few pages it becomes apparent just how different people are.. I think if you want to exercise ur right to bear arms.. onya plane to america, move to texas and dont come back. Superize some chips, drink a gallon of coke and eat some ribs...

Why should I leave?

Why don't you travel to France and practice eating gourmet food and looking down on other countries instead of trying to change Australia into something different to what it's always been?

(that's about as sensible as what you're suggesting after all)

NAGG
13-04-2014, 09:02 PM
I have a multi-tool which cost me about $150, it's useful and I need to carry it because it's got a phillips screwdriver, a flat blade screwdriver, a can opener, a bottle opener, a couple of knife blades and I use it for quick fixes at work.

Because it has a knife blade (well 2) I can't legally carry it when I travel by public transport so now I don't travel via train for work (I stopped when they changed the laws).


You need to carry it ? .... Need !

buy a multi tool without the knife then ...... problem solved

besides if someone attacked you & you had a multitool you'd be in hospital before you could get the blade out - I cant imagine how you would feel safe with a multi tool ?
chris

chisel
13-04-2014, 10:55 PM
To Mal, the OP, well said!!

Volvo
14-04-2014, 11:34 AM
How a post can change from the original posters concern to where it is , is a concern in itself lol... Gun laws were introduced for the mentaly unstable who may think the way to resolve their worry is by use of a "Gun & Bullet " and takes the abillity away or mostly the abillity away from them...
Crims who wish to use a firearm for whatever reason they wish can still purchase them so the Gun laws do zilch in that arena.
For those who wish to use forearms for sport or vermin control etc can still purchase them via the legal channels so nuno problemo there..
If one sees whats happening overseas via the useof GUNS!!!Firearms it does create concern hoping it never gets to that stage here , does it not??, so the answer may be yes we do need gun control and that is what our gun laws are for "Gun Control " and doesnt need explaining further..
And as for the original post maybe the debate can trend towards that direction..
I have a worry personally for those who cant or cannot get into the high paying jobs which provide high end Super Schemes and have to rely on a pension , and asthe concern is they may just have to wait to a good old age of seventy years of age (if that age is not raised between then and now) and if the pension or the purchase value of the pension is not reduced between then and now and cost of living raises..
These are the areas people should be getting concerned with and not distracted by gun laws or other issues not worthy of debate which may take ones mind away from real issues..
As jobs trend to go offshore and and one has to pass through so many hoops to get into employment , or one is made redundant at an ageof say 55-59 years of age and havent got a high degree or trade thats in demand , then who is going to employ them till they reach 70!!????....
Now i am thinking these areal concerns to be getting involved in personally and the Gov has made a website available for people to voice/ write their concerns ..Do So!!!...
One of several concerns ,

Jabiru658
14-04-2014, 05:38 PM
You need to carry it ? .... Need !

buy a multi tool without the knife then ...... problem solved

besides if someone attacked you & you had a multitool you'd be in hospital before you could get the blade out - I cant imagine how you would feel safe with a multi tool ?
chris

I'm not carrying the multi-tool to 'feel safe', I carry it because I use the tools in it (including the blade) for work.

I use the blade to strip wires (wire strippers are too bulky to carry in my pockets). I use the screw drivers for screwing screws and I use the pliers for gripping stuff.

Jabiru658
14-04-2014, 05:42 PM
I have a worry personally for those who cant or cannot get into the high paying jobs which provide high end Super Schemes and have to rely on a pension

I'm self employed and I'll be self supporting after I retire, why should I care about someone who didn't make adequate provision for their own retirement?

Include the family home in the asset test and you might have a case, as it is at the moment pension eligibility is nonsensical.

Volvo
14-04-2014, 06:06 PM
I'm self employed and I'll be self supporting after I retire, why should I care about someone who didn't make adequate provision for their own retirement?

Include the family home in the asset test and you might have a case, as it is at the moment pension eligibility is nonsensical.

Thats like i'm okay Jack n let everyone else fend for themselves is it???, yes its good if you can be self employed and congat you on that but like i previousely mentioned ..Not everyyone can be in that same position and how does someone make adaquate provisions for retirement if they are on a low paying end job..Lets use retail for instance??...
Should we care for the lower end of the chain paywise and in retirement wise???...Answer for me is yes we should otherwise this might be the soft end of the stick that comes back to bight us in some way or other and like it or not it will!!..
Anyhow my thoughts only and up to each individual which way they think:)..

FishermanEd
14-04-2014, 06:26 PM
Yep.


Good to see you here with us in Australia


oops


see next post

FishermanEd
14-04-2014, 06:30 PM
Good to see you with us on Ausfish.

Always nice to have someone from another country on board.

If you bleed red and you fish your my brother.



Louis




Yep.

Good to see you here.

NAGG
14-04-2014, 06:47 PM
I'm self employed and I'll be self supporting after I retire, why should I care about someone who didn't make adequate provision for their own retirement?

Include the family home in the asset test and you might have a case, as it is at the moment pension eligibility is nonsensical.

I've had a couple of speed bumps in life ...... (property settlements .... give the house to the ex) - I provided for my children but because I did - home ownership is not likely . I earn a decent wage & because I do .... I pay more in child support ( 27% in the dollar) Where do I fit in the equation ?

Chris

TheRealAndy
14-04-2014, 10:47 PM
I'm self employed and I'll be self supporting after I retire, why should I care about someone who didn't make adequate provision for their own retirement?.

Just thing about those people on minimum wage doing the small things that you dont acknowledge, like operating supermarkets checkouts and doing labor work in factories. These people are still needed in a functioning society but simply dont earn enough to put money away for retirement etc. This is the great thing about a social democracy, sure those of us who earn ok money have to cough up a bit more tax, but I am happy to do so to maintain my lifestyle. I actually appreciate the work of those low income earners and am happy to help them along. Its just one more of those little things that makes this place such a great country.

NAGG
15-04-2014, 05:33 AM
Just thing about those people on minimum wage doing the small things that you dont acknowledge, like operating supermarkets checkouts and doing labor work in factories. These people are still needed in a functioning society but simply dont earn enough to put money away for retirement etc. This is the great thing about a social democracy, sure those of us who earn ok money have to cough up a bit more tax, but I am happy to do so to maintain my lifestyle. I actually appreciate the work of those low income earners and am happy to help them along. Its just one more of those little things that makes this place such a great country.

Nice to hear someone who is not all about me & acknowledges that there are people out there doing a job that we all expect to be done ..... but will never earn the big dollars . I dont know about anyone else but I much prefer using the checkout chick than those self scanners at the super market or Table service at a restaurant ..... & thankfully there are people wiling to do that work for minimal wage ( not talking about school kids either).

some people will never have the capacity to earn a decent (honest) wage - having started my working life in heavy industry .... I got to see & employ the types of people who were willing to stand at a steam heated press producing boat rollers or pipe rings .... 40-45 deg in Summer - many struggled to fill out their job application forms. Without over time and penalty rates..... life would be a struggle. What sort of future could these types expect when their super contributions are 9% of SFA and home ownership is beyond them .

Chris

FishermanEd
15-04-2014, 07:52 AM
but I much prefer using the checkout chick than those self scanners at the super market


Yep we should try and support our felow workers.

NAGG
15-04-2014, 08:21 AM
but I much prefer using the checkout chick than those self scanners at the super market


Yep we should try and support our felow workers.







Those scanners suck - specially when you do fruit and veges .
we've actually got some pretty decent checkout girls at my local(s) .... keep stuff sorted , fast & pleasant ....... makes the crap task of shopping a bit bearable.

I did notice that once the self serve scanners were installed - there we less registers open & the lines were longer ......

yep keep those people in a job ....

Chris

hainsofast
15-04-2014, 10:35 AM
I'm self employed and I'll be self supporting after I retire, why should I care about someone who didn't make adequate provision for their own retirement?

Include the family home in the asset test and you might have a case, as it is at the moment pension eligibility is nonsensical. that is liberal supporters for you

Louis
15-04-2014, 12:25 PM
Those scanners suck - specially when you do fruit and veges .
we've actually got some pretty decent checkout girls at my local(s) .... keep stuff sorted , fast & pleasant ....... makes the crap task of shopping a bit bearable.

I did notice that once the self serve scanners were installed - there we less registers open & the lines were longer ......

yep keep those people in a job ....

Chris



I really question if the whole 'computer age' has actually made things better over-all?

I'm sure it has in some ways but I'm sure it's made things worse in others.



Louis

NAGG
15-04-2014, 12:57 PM
I really question if the whole 'computer age' has actually made things better over-all?

I'm sure it has in some ways but I'm sure it's made things worse in others.



Louis

I've had that conversation over a beer or 10 :) - I reckon we are ahead but not when you need personal service ( modern call centers ... in some other locale .... or automated systems absolutely suck). .... some have gone too far - I nearly always hang up when I hear that American Filipino accent ....arrrg or the good old press 1 now >:(
Things like online banking , shopping or other financial transactions are a good thing. they just need to get the balance right ......

chris

Jabiru658
16-04-2014, 08:58 PM
I've had a couple of speed bumps in life ...... (property settlements .... give the house to the ex) - I provided for my children but because I did - home ownership is not likely . I earn a decent wage & because I do .... I pay more in child support ( 27% in the dollar) Where do I fit in the equation ?

Chris

I'm divorced too, I lost over 75% of my assets at age 40, I started again and I'm now again at the point where I'll be able to retire self funded. A divorce (unless it happens less than about 10 years before retirement) isn't a get out of jail free card (and yes I've provided help to my kids too and support).

I'll say it again, the government needs to include the family home in pension asset tests for it to be fair and if that's the only asset then sell it up and move to a smaller place like my current wifes father did recently (he took responsibility for himself and didn't leech on society even though with the current rules he could have, that's why the man has my respect).

But if people genuinely have minimal assets and no genuine way to support themselves (really truly unable to work due to age or disability) then society owes them support but people who aren't in those groups (and lots of people currently getting benefits aren't) shouldn't get anything other than short term transitional help (say benefits for 12 months max between jobs).

Jabiru658
16-04-2014, 09:08 PM
that is liberal supporters for you

I voted labor in the lower house actually, although I'm more of a Keating tough love Labor type than the current bunch of Labor incompetents. The religious conservatives currently infesting the Liberal party aren't really a palatable option. And in the upper house I voted for the Shooters and Fishers party (although I wasn't totally happy with their votes heading towards some of the senate religious conservatives). There are good reasons for the separation of church and state.

I believe in a fair go for everyone but I don't believe in hand outs to those who refuse available employment and I'm just as happy to see dodgy business owners brought down (as an honest business owner doing things by the book I lose too much work to the shonky operators not to see that). As for unions I reckon they're a necessary evil, some reps are good, some are so so and some are idiots but you get that everywhere *shrug*, I don't have many issues with the union because (unlike some) I'm actually trying to do the right thing (and if I get it wrong occasionally then it's because it's a mistake not because it's deliberate and I fix it).

So yeah I believe in outcome, not method and Howards gun laws are NOT working, they aren't doing what he claimed they would do so they should be changed... and yes it IS as simple as that.

TheRealAndy
16-04-2014, 10:34 PM
I voted labor in the lower house actually, although I'm more of a Keating tough love Labor type than the current bunch of Labor incompetents. The religious conservatives currently infesting the Liberal party aren't really a palatable option. And in the upper house I voted for the Shooters and Fishers party (although I wasn't totally happy with their votes heading towards some of the senate religious conservatives). There are good reasons for the separation of church and state.

I believe in a fair go for everyone but I don't believe in hand outs to those who refuse available employment and I'm just as happy to see dodgy business owners brought down (as an honest business owner doing things by the book I lose too much work to the shonky operators not to see that). As for unions I reckon they're a necessary evil, some reps are good, some are so so and some are idiots but you get that everywhere *shrug*, I don't have many issues with the union because (unlike some) I'm actually trying to do the right thing (and if I get it wrong occasionally then it's because it's a mistake not because it's deliberate and I fix it).

So yeah I believe in outcome, not method and Howards gun laws are NOT working, they aren't doing what he claimed they would do so they should be changed... and yes it IS as simple as that.

Interesting, cause I am more right wing, but am a union man at the same time, how is that possible? I am an atheist, and I detest the greens, but I like some of their left wing policies. I typically vote labor, but they lost me in QLD with the QLD rail selloff, and they lost me at federal level when they pandered to the religious nutjobs. Labor also lost me at both state and federal levels because they were pandering to the greens.... Go figure. I guess that might mean I am maybe balanced when it comes to politics, maybe neither left or right, maybe just in the middle.

I think most Australians would be similar. Sure, you get your hard left and right, but I dont think its as severe as in the US where its a religion in itself (ie, if you were born with right parents, you will always vote right).. I think most folks in Australia whilst leaning one way or the other are actually fairly neutral. Once again, just another great thing about this country.

Louis
17-04-2014, 09:15 PM
I have a pretty simply way of looking at things. I prefer not to talk about right and left if possible because it can mean so many things to so many people. Also someone may be ‘right’ economically but ‘left socially’, for lack of better words.

I just like to think that as a general rule, if something doesn’t hurt other people then it should be lawful. (That’s the social side of it).

Economically I believe in as small a government as possible and with as little regulation as possible to ensure continued and strong economic growth. However I do understand that some safety nets do need to apply. (That’s the economic side to it).

So what would you call me for those that need to label me. Well diminutionistic, both socially and economically, (I don’t think such a word exists yet, but it could best be described as relating to the act of believing in government diminution policies). So a Diminutionist, perhaps, (again I don't think this word exists). Libertarian. But not the full-hog either. I’ve seen to many academic morons who extrapolate these ideas to the point of what I consider to be absurd.

I don’t have a label for myself although I would welcome one so if anyone has any ideas please name away.



Louis

Lovey80
18-04-2014, 12:28 AM
Louis - I appreciate you are trying to make a point ...... but hey stick with reality .
the list of mass murders with a firearm in the US is as long as my arm - 13 in which over 10 people were killed / 25 which saw 8 or more ...... these are not examples of self defence mate. .... they are shooting sprees -

If guns are at hand ...... people will use them (& I'm not talking some gang banger)

Chris

And every single one of them were in a "Gun Free" zone. Try to pull that crap in a concealed carry county and see what happens. Harvard and other elite university studies prove that violent crime in areas where gun laws allow citizens to protect themselves lawfully in the US are multiples lower than in areas where guns are restricted much more heavily.

"take guns out of the equation and less people will be shot". Take guns out of the equation and the only people getting shot are the innocent ones. Aka what we have today. Bring guns into the equation and sure, more people get shot. Why do you care? If more people are getting shot because more law abiding citizens are armed it means that more criminals are getting shot. Your lefty (and quite badly thought out) assertion that if more people are armed then crimes are more likely to pack "heat" is shot down in flames in every serious study on the subject. It's plain false.

Its pointless to compare a great example like Switzerland, a fantastic country with fantastic gun laws and Australia. You have to compare apples with apples. For a start, Australia had always had Ridiculously low gun crime stats that were falling well before we banned guns and continued to fall. It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing. Compare violent crime in Switzerland and that of the USA. Both countries have always had a gun culture. America has a second amendment in their constitution for a fantastic reason. But even with both countries always having an ingrained gun culture, Switzerland's violent crime rate is far far lower, even though every household has an Automatic in it. Look at the stats with gun "ownership" in Switzerland and you see a very high rate compared to the rest of the world. Those stats don't even take into account the "militia" or government owned weapons the citizenry take home after their compulsory military service.

If Australia allowed soldiers to take home their weapons after their service finished, people would lose their minds. All you would hear on the ABC, no matter how small or irrelevant the group, would be their words sprucing "why do they need to have them".

Lovey80
18-04-2014, 12:45 AM
I have a pretty simply way of looking at things. I prefer not to talk about right and left if possible because it can mean so many things to so many people. Also someone may be ‘right’ economically but ‘left socially’, for lack of better words.

I just like to think that as a general rule, if something doesn’t hurt other people then it should be lawful. (That’s the social side of it).

Economically I believe in as small a government as possible and with as little regulation as possible to ensure continued and strong economic growth. However I do understand that some safety nets do need to apply. (That’s the economic side to it).

So what would you call me for those that need to label me. Well diminutionistic, both socially and economically, (I don’t think such a word exists yet, but it could best be described as relating to the act of believing in government diminution policies). So a Diminutionist, perhaps, (again I don't think this word exists). Libertarian. But not the full-hog either. I’ve seen to many academic morons who extrapolate these ideas to the point of what I consider to be absurd.

I don’t have a label for myself although I would welcome one so if anyone has any ideas please name away.



Louis

Louis, there is already a label for you and I think I come into the same basket. The term is a Minarchist. Think libertarian but without going all the way down the rabbit hole to an Anarchist.

I've intellectually gone right down the anarchist rabbit hole to its final resting place. And while intellectually it rests in some sort of Utopian fantasy land in the opposite of the utopian fantasy land that is full blown fascism/communism, it's not a feasible reality to go to from where we are now(Socialist-Crony-Capitalism).

Every step we could take towards the Minarchist-Libertarian path is certainly a good one. If we ever got there for long enough it would be interesting to see how any wanted to take it that step further.

for info, if you're looking to vote for a party that best represents your interests, the LDP is certainly the only current party that fits the most of your criteria. But of course when they win another seat, the ABC won't have a ticket tape describing them with the hot topic of today as a "pro-gay-marriage" party like they would anyone on the left. They'll have another ticker tape that says "Pro-Gun LDP wins another seat".

Louis
18-04-2014, 12:58 AM
Thanks for the input Lovey.

I'll have to look that up.

It's late at the moment so I'm off to bed but when I get the chance I'll look up the LDP.



Many Thanks


Louis

Lovey80
18-04-2014, 01:10 AM
I've been away from this topic for a bit but I'd love to know what Nag has to think about this question.

Nagg, you and I are poles apart ideologically on almost everything. You know I'm an ex military member and you'd probably describe me as a "gun nut" to your mates just from what you've read on this and other threads. So my question is:

If you had the power to make the choice between leaving history as it is or sending me back in time, with a concealed weapon to the cafe in Port Arther 5 minutes before Martin Bryant walked through the door. What would you chose?

Lovey80
18-04-2014, 01:37 AM
I have a multi-tool which cost me about $150, it's useful and I need to carry it because it's got a phillips screwdriver, a flat blade screwdriver, a can opener, a bottle opener, a couple of knife blades and I use it for quick fixes at work.

Because it has a knife blade (well 2) I can't legally carry it when I travel by public transport so now I don't travel via train for work (I stopped when they changed the laws).

Maybe I read the law changes differently and I'd like to stand corrected. But carrying a leatherman utility or a Swiss Army knife on your belt is not a crime in Queensland. I've had a leatherman in it's leather pouch on my belt on many an occasion, including public transport (trains) in plain view of police officers and never been pulled up for it.

Louis
18-04-2014, 01:38 AM
I've been away from this topic for a bit but I'd love to know what Nag has to think about this question.

Nagg, you and I are poles apart ideologically on almost everything. You know I'm an ex military member and you'd probably describe me as a "gun nut" to your mates just from what you've read on this and other threads. So my question is:

If you had the power to make the choice between leaving history as it is or sending me back in time, with a concealed weapon to the cafe in Port Arther 5 minutes before Martin Bryant walked through the door. What would you chose?



Spot on.

If you had been armed Martin Bryant would have been down before he fired a second shot.

Like I said before. All these lunatics always attack schools etc where nobody is armed.

If they tried the same thing in down town Texas they would be immediately shot themselves and they know it.



Louis

Louis
18-04-2014, 01:43 AM
Maybe I read the law changes differently and I'd like to stand corrected. But carrying a leatherman utility or a Swiss Army knife on your belt is not a crime in Queensland. I've had a leatherman in it's leather pouch on my belt on many an occasion, including public transport (trains) in plain view of police officers and never been pulled up for it.



Lovey I'm not sure. You can find out for sure by ringing the weapons licencing section at the Police Service on 131 444 (ask to be transferred). But I think if you are carrying it for 'self-defense' purposes then it becomes illegal.

Ridiculous I know.

Again I'm not sure of this but I think that is how it works.



Louis

Louis
18-04-2014, 01:48 AM
I thought I would put this in here for those that don’t have access to the ‘Bilge’ section.

And besides I love these videos.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ngsKzdKNAmo#t=0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPwZeWOZ8JU&list=RDngsKzdKNAmo





L

Louis
18-04-2014, 01:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ngsKzdKNAmo#t=0

Lovey80
18-04-2014, 01:54 AM
Lovey I'm not sure. You can find out for sure by ringing the weapons licencing section at the Police Service on 131 444 (ask to be transferred). But I think if you are carrying it for 'self-defense' purposes then it becomes illegal.

Ridiculous I know.

Again I'm not sure of this but I think that is how it works.

Louis

You can not carry anything for "self defence" purposes. But if you use a leatherman on a daily basis during your employment in a lawful manner, then the carriage of such a tool is not considered the same as carrying a weapon. So going to work on the train with your leatherman on your belt is not a crime. Get caught with your duds halfway over your ass and a Bowie knife in your backpack next to your six pack of spray paint cans and you may have a problem.

Jabiru658
18-04-2014, 10:32 AM
Maybe I read the law changes differently and I'd like to stand corrected. But carrying a leatherman utility or a Swiss Army knife on your belt is not a crime in Queensland.

However in Victoria the laws have recently changed (I'm glad QLD hasn't).

Jabiru658
18-04-2014, 10:35 AM
So going to work on the train with your leatherman on your belt is not a crime.

Except that they are a prohibited item on various train platforms in Victoria so yes I can carry it to the train station and from the train station and on the train but at the station it'll get you booked if you're caught.

Louis
18-04-2014, 04:03 PM
Ever get the feeling there are too many laws?

There was a time when if you were breaking the law you dam well knew you were breaking it and as a result law abiding people like myself didn't break the law and we didn't have to worry about getting arrested.

Now, who knows if you're breaking the law or not.

Unless you're a lawyer you've got no idea.



Louis

TheRealAndy
18-04-2014, 05:11 PM
Ever get the feeling there are too many laws?

There was a time when if you were breaking the law you dam well knew you were breaking it and as a result law abiding people like myself didn't break the law and we didn't have to worry about getting arrested.

Now, who knows if you're breaking the law or not.

Unless you're a lawyer you've got no idea.



Louis

Nah mate, its not rocket science.

Anyway, reading this thread is depressing. Shame some people cant see the forest for the trees. Perhaps we should change the title to gun control and create a new thread for those who appreciate what we have.

Jabiru658
19-04-2014, 11:32 AM
create a new thread for those who appreciate what we have.

The issue isn't only what we have, it is also what we've lost in the last couple of decades.

I appreciate what we still have (even though it's less than it was) but I am realistic about how much we've lost and worried about what we face losing in the near future unless certain trends are reversed.

Louis
19-04-2014, 01:34 PM
The issue isn't only what we have, it is also what we've lost in the last couple of decades.

I appreciate what we still have (even though it's less than it was) but I am realistic about how much we've lost and worried about what we face losing in the near future unless certain trends are reversed.







Exactly right.

You used to hear people say, “It’s a free Country.” When was the last time you heard someone say that?

We have lost so many freedoms, freedom of speech , freedom of expression and now basically everything is either unlawful or compulsory. No choice anymore. The government controls every aspect of our lives.

It is time to turn the clock back a couple of decades or so when Australians' enjoyed a free society.

Remember if the Government makers everything unlawful, then everyone is subject to arbitrary arrest.

The only winners are the Government who are control freaks and who the laws in practice don’t apply to anyway and the Lawyers who are getting rich off them.

In 1990 there were more people studying law than there were practicing solicitors and barristers and many solicitors and barristers at the time were out of work.

I believe that there is still more people studying law than there is practicing solicitors and barristers even now. That paradigm hasn’t changed. What has changed is that even though there are so many more solicitors and barristers in our society now, there is actually a shortage of them in the profession. Why? Because everything is now either unlawful or compulsory.

Pretty soon you’ll need to get permission from a lawyer to scratch your backside.



Louis

TheRealAndy
20-04-2014, 10:24 PM
Check this out for the lucky country. Went up with an instructor today for some instrument flight training (wearing a special hood so I cant see out of the plane, can only see the instruments) and this is where we ended up:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-U5FKNtsBgVI/U1O45rjk8gI/AAAAAAAABXM/f8E0VzyLSBQ/s912/IMG_20140420_094611.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3Ac67IWc8H0/U1O5SeGrOgI/AAAAAAAABXU/BTfq9VaTn8w/s1280/20140420_094746.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zW02_Z80XW4/U1O5dPvwBkI/AAAAAAAABXc/0j6uo-CvWlw/s1280/20140420_094732.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kpIY8LV02W8/U1O5pce9VoI/AAAAAAAABXk/cVcL-EbF4Gg/s1280/20140420_094706.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_9TGB5tMp9Y/U1O5v8qW9kI/AAAAAAAABXs/CI_eDEsLv5I/s1280/20140420_094631.jpg

Like I said, if you live on the east coast, you are especially spoiled. It is hard to take a lot of photos when you are flying a plane, but trust me, these photos dont do it justice at all. For you folk in Brisbane, you are just a mere 1 hour by boat from one of the most pristine, unmolested sand islands in the world. I have seen some others from the air in the south pacific, and trust me, we have it good.

lee8sec
21-04-2014, 07:20 AM
We do have and live in a very lucky country. While its not perfect, its probably the best overall. Leigh

Louis
22-04-2014, 06:08 PM
You can not carry anything for "self defence" purposes. But if you use a leatherman on a daily basis during your employment in a lawful manner, then the carriage of such a tool is not considered the same as carrying a weapon. So going to work on the train with your leatherman on your belt is not a crime. Get caught with your duds halfway over your ass and a Bowie knife in your backpack next to your six pack of spray paint cans and you may have a problem.


"You can not carry anything for "self defence" purposes."



If you had told someone 30 years ago that this is the way Australia would go they would have thought you were bonkers.

Makes you wonder how it will be in another 30 years from now.

With a bit of luck I'll be dead by then and won't have to see my beloved country go to Sh%$.


Louis