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

[Jabiru658]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?featur...gsKzdKNAmo#t=0








L

[Louis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...gsKzdKNAmo#t=0

[Lovey80]

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]

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]

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.