I frequent those shops at least twice a week. It's a nice feeling knowing while you go to your local eating holes you could get shot. Fuck yeah south side.
Crazy, both of those shootings sound like they must be organised crime or similar related. Peeps don't just straight up execute other peeps for no reason.
You don't just randomly drive by and shoot one person in a crowded area. You either drive by and attack one random person who's on his own, or you drive by and shoot indiscriminately when there's a crowd.
Uhhh... hypothetically. I mean, IF I were a drive-by shooter. Of course :P
Good to see the gun buy back and tightening of the gun laws has made such a big difference
I thought the purpose of tightened gun laws was to reduce the occurrences of average Joe having a gun at home for no reason, getting emotional during a fight/break-up and shooting his girlfriend/family/kids/randoms only because he happened to have easy access to a gun when he wasn't thinking straight.
Taken out of context. I was saying if this is a "carl williams" style saga a Brisbane based tv show would be interesting to watch (just any story wasn't really saying it had to be this one). Condolences to all the parties involved in dealing with the loss of a loved one...
I thought the purpose of tightened gun laws was to reduce the occurrences of average Joe having a gun at home for no reason, getting emotional during a fight/break-up and shooting his girlfriend/family/kids/randoms only because he happened to have easy access to a gun when he wasn't thinking straight.
Kind of. It was also originally a knee-jerk to the Port Arthur massacre and intended to decrease the ability of your average Joe having access to auto and semi-auto weaponry. So at least if someone does go nuts and head out on a killing spree, the body count won't be as high.
I was nearly going to stop there as i drove past there yesterday and grab some sushi. Now i know that the sushi there is to die for. I most certainly will check it out.
I frequent those shops at least twice a week. It's a nice feeling knowing while you go to your local eating holes you could get shot. Fuck yeah south side.
I had a similar experience about 3 weeks ago. Went to a shopping area (Camberwell Junction) that used to be my local shops before moving. We still go there a lot and someone just robbed the NAB with a shotgun about 5 minutes before we walked past it.
Yes and no. I still think the gun buy back was a massive fucking joke that never really dealt with the core problem which is nutbags or criminals getting their hands on guns.
I thought the purpose of tightened gun laws was to reduce the occurrences of average Joe having a gun at home for no reason, getting emotional during a fight/break-up and shooting his girlfriend/family/kids/randoms only because he happened to have easy access to a gun when he wasn't thinking straight.
Well considering all the changes happened after the Port Arthur massacre I would say your point was probably a secondary consideration. We still see families being murdered by pissed of members so personally don't don't think its helped much in that area.
Criminals will have guns regardless of any laws.
Yep you've got that right it's just a shame the anti gun lobby can't seem to wrap their pinheads around that fact.
do I really have to spell it out for you...seriously?
The bulk of firearm related deaths in Australia have always been comitted by criminal elements within the community. No amount of regulation ie laws will stop criminals from obtaining firearms however the anti gun fucksticks would have you believe otherwise. Sure you can attempt to make things more difficult for them but they still get them and will continue to do so.
Anti gun lobbyists are no better than their buddies that are anti violent games, two fucking peas in a pod.
Well yeah, you kinda do have to spell it out. I agree - the criminal elements are the big problem, and they'll get hold of guns regardless of what the laws are. So gun laws or no gun laws, organised crime get their guns regardless.
So how is giving another gun to random Joe who just got laid off or lost his custody battle for the kids a good idea?
I really do need you to spell it out: How is more guns a solution to guns?
I really do need you to spell it out: How is more guns a solution to guns?
I'm not a gun supporter, but the answer is that if everyone had a gun, people would be less likely to use their gun unlawfully because of the potential instant retaliation.
I'm not a gun supporter, but the answer is that if everyone had a gun, people would be less likely to use their gun unlawfully because of the potential instant retaliation.
yeah faceman, if I was out eating sushi I'd be doing it with my gun loaded and drawn, and I wouldn't be sitting there idly chatting with friends - I'd be sitting there completely vigilant, ready for someone in a car to pull up and take a shot at me
I used to go to school just down the road from where the last shooting happened on Priestdale Road at Rochedale South.
Glad to see the neighbourhood has stayed classy.
Yes and no. I still think the gun buy back was a massive fucking joke that never really dealt with the core problem which is nutbags or criminals getting their hands on guns.
Cost a lot of money and won a lot of votes, that made it near perfect as a government solution.
I'm not a gun supporter, but the answer is that if everyone had a gun, people would be less likely to use their gun unlawfully because of the potential instant retaliation.
Or use it for fucking any potential violence, as someone said it really works so well for America. Fucking dumbest statement.
...............Hey guys everyone can wear brass knuckles but if you get in a fist fight DON'T YOU DARE FUCKING USE THOSE BRASS KNUCKLES IT'S A SAFETY THING ONLY!
I'm not a gun supporter, but the answer is that if everyone had a gun, people would be less likely to use their gun unlawfully because of the potential instant retaliation.
are you fucking serious? That's the most fail retardo logic ever.
there was a doco/info-thingy recently from the uk called "Current : Tim Shaw on Guns" which showed that perhaps americas take on gun laws is working for them. in the doco they raised stats that seemed to indicate that although america has a much higher rate for gun-related fatalities than the uk (tight gun control), america has a lower rate of victim type crimes such as rape, assault & robbery. the american fatality stats include criminal perpetrators that were shot & killed by their intended victims.
so they made the argument that in america there was less suffering by innocent victims. there was also some other interesting comparisons... such as ireland where it's legal to own a handgun for self protection.
I was nearly going to stop there as i drove past there yesterday and grab some sushi. Now i know that the sushi there is to die for. I most certainly will check it out.
A+ 1st post, I look forward to many more.
Anti gun lobbyists are no better than their buddies that are anti violent games, two fucking peas in a pod.
Agreed on the anti-violent video games, but seriously... fucking video games don't kill people (well those that aren't in Korean internet cafes anyway)
I'm down for a 'common sense' approach, but seriously, just considering the way people 'legally' drive... I'd fucking shudder to think of what Australia would be like if firearms took a much bigger role in the greater community...
What is a good reason to own a gun, outside of the current lawfully allowed reasons?
If you own a firearm that isn't registered, or legally allowed, it's more than likely for dubious reasons or the minority perhaps because you own a collectors item, or maybe even an item of historic (even if personally) value; in which case, as Indy said, "It belongs in a Museum".
I really do need you to spell it out: How is more guns a solution to guns?
It certainly fucking isn't, and it's good to see some people get how having a gun only makes it easier to make a mistake, rather than 'to claim vengeance'.
I'm not a gun supporter, but the answer is that if everyone had a gun, people would be less likely to use their gun unlawfully because of the potential instant retaliation.
Citation needed. Whilst there's potential in your answer, as I see it, all that 'giving everyone a gun' would do is increase the number of news stories where some famous footballers son shot himself playing with daddy's gun (instead of the whole car in driveway arrangement currently). That or it would put additional strain on the prisons and hospitals systems with illegal/idiotic use of, or increased rate of 'darwinism' within the greater population.
In fact... maybe on the darwinism front, we could start a 'guns for the dole' scheme?
People who 'open carry' dont eat Sushi.
My god, what's the world coming to Faceman, I think you're becoming a normal person. This is twice in two days you've nailed a thread with a simple and true witticism.
it hardly matters whether you're armed or not - the hunter/predator will have the upper hand more of the time due to the element of surprise
if laws were changed, and people started arming themselves today in brisbane for example, the tables might turn in a large percentage of cases initially - but a few years down the track and perps will simply be more conditioned/ready to deal with armed victims
the only thing you can be sure of, is that introducing more guns into the population will mathematically increase the potential for people to be shot
My god, what's the world coming to Faceman, I think you're becoming a normal person. This is twice in two days you've nailed a thread with a simple and true witticism.
Whilst there's potential in your answer, as I see it, all that 'giving everyone a gun' would do is increase the number of news stories where some famous footballers son shot himself playing with daddy's gun (instead of the whole car in driveway arrangement currently). That or it would put additional strain on the prisons and hospitals systems with illegal/idiotic use of, or increased rate of 'darwinism' within the greater population.
In fact... maybe on the darwinism front, we could start a 'guns for the dole' scheme?
Those are real concerns about having more guns, but I think that's peripheral to the issue "how do more guns solve the gun problem" which I take to mean these intentional criminal shootings. The idea is that if everyone on the 9/11 plane had a gun, or everyone in a school massacre had a gun, the intentional crime would have been a lot harder to commit. It puts people on an even playing field. Perhaps if guns weren't so taboo and there was more education, we wouldn't have so many accidental firearm discharges, or irresponsible usage.
The idea is that if everyone on the 9/11 plane had a gun, or everyone in a school massacre had a gun, the intentional crime would have been a lot harder to commit. It puts people on an even playing field.
dunno how people come to that conclusion. well actually I do know - it's cos they generally have unrealistic imaginations when it comes to playing out potential scenarios in their mind
if they knew all the students might have guns on them, dylan klebold and eric harris would've just used snipier guns from more concealed positions or maybe placed more emphasis on their bombs being more reliable.
re: sniper guns - well now we've made it harder for them to manoeuvre and shoot many people, they may get one or two, but not a massacre, not to mention obtaining, carrying, and using a sniper gun will be more challenging.
On Firearms control in general (but using America as the source of information):
I hate to use quotes from a Michael Moore Doco (because they're never impartial) but he creates an EXCELLENT argument in Bowling for Columbine.
When interviewing John Nichols, one of two brothers linked to Timothy McVeigh (The Oklahoma Bomber) and bomb-making,
John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution.
Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected?
JN: No, gun. We should...
MM: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms".
JN: Arms. What is "arms"?
MM: Could be a nuclear weapon.
JN: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon.
MM: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field?
JN: We should be able to have anything...
MM: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium?
JN: I don't want it.
MM: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it?
JN: [thinking about it] That should be restricted.
MM: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions?
JN: Well, there's wackos out there.
Video link below (Apologies the audio is massively out of sync, but it's the best I could find at short notice):
See 1:30-4:30 for the 'introduction' to John Nichols and the rest of the interview I'm citing is 7:56-9:50 in this doco but the quote above is specifically from 9:10-9:50. (moments after he has pointed a fully loaded and in no way mechanically 'saftied' .44 magnum at his own head)
Also from the same Doco; Chris Rock pretty much squarely nails the topic square when it comes to 'illegal firearms use' with the following:
if they knew all the students might have guns on them, dylan klebold and eric harris would've just used snipier guns from more concealed positions or maybe placed more emphasis on their bombs being more reliable.
That would have made it tougher to train for though - Counter Strike with the AWP didn't come out until a few months later so they had to make do with Doom. :)
If one of you wanted to kill the other you could do it with or without guns.
If you know you both have guns, there is more of a chance of aversion knowing that regardless of the strength of the other person they could defend themselves. I'm not talking about someone having to be shot, just knowing you could be shot is a reason to avoid reckless violence.
I hate to use quotes from a Michael Moore Doco (because they're never impartial) but he creates an EXCELLENT argument in Bowling for Columbine.
Yeah making a strawman argument to win an argument sure makes you seem more legitimate because you totally won that fight which was not about guns at all!
In fact - he never in that quote tackles the problem of is a handgun or a semi-automatic or a bazooka too much. He just makes a guy agree that at some point there's too much power. But never is that agreed that guns are that point.
If you know you both have guns, there is more of a chance of aversion knowing that regardless of the strength of the other person they could defend themselves.
No there isn't. All I have to do is pull the trigger before her. There's no 'strength' there's just a battle of wills and raging conflicting emotions because it's managed to escalate to this point. It's not an uncommon thing, but instead of it being a knife or throwing plates, instead it's guns. There is no pre-meditated murder here, it's just anger and voilonce spilling over but I know i'll shoot her a long time before she'll get to the point of shooting me.
Those are real concerns about having more guns, but I think that's peripheral to the issue "how do more guns solve the gun problem" which I take to mean these intentional criminal shootings. The idea is that if everyone on the 9/11 plane had a gun, or everyone in a school massacre had a gun, the intentional crime would have been a lot harder to commit. It puts people on an even playing field. Perhaps if guns weren't so taboo and there was more education, we wouldn't have so many accidental firearm discharges, or irresponsible usage.
The above is actually kind of frightening when you consider the reality of what you've said, however, what I believe to be the truth is sitting right there, ready to be attached to a more rational statement.
...and there was more education...
This is heading in the right direction.
re: sniper guns - well now we've made it harder for them to manoeuvre and shoot many people, they may get one or two, but not a massacre, not to mention obtaining, carrying, and using a sniper gun will be more challenging.
Tell that to the victims of the Port Arthur Massacre. 'Long arms' were used in that shooting, and even so, at essentially point blank range.
In the states as I understand it, there is a longer 'waiting period' whilst appropriate paperwork is processed for pistol purchases than Rifles.
Having been trained in the use (and respect) of firearms, I appreciate the experience I have gained from it.
I certainly don't think it's a 'right' to allow people to arm themselves against other citizens.
Have you ever played with any serious firepower Thermite?
The one thing that rings so true to me from my use of firearms is just how easy and impersonal the reality of shooting someone would actually be.
re: sniper guns - well now we've made it harder for them to manoeuvre and shoot many people, they may get one or two, but not a massacre, not to mention obtaining, carrying, and using a sniper gun will be more challenging.
re: bombs - gun problem solved.
I think your one or two is incredibly naive. you're probably picturing a scenario where they're using single shot rifles from a great distance or something, instead of something between that and what actually happened at columbine high for example
you're missing the point anyway, or sidestepping it, I dunno - that being, that people who do this shit will just adjust to whatever the playing field is. meanwhile, you've upped the ante and instead of getting bashed or knifed for your wallet or whatever, you just get shot in the back of the head cos the perp aint taking no chances now
Or she could pull the trigger first - you don't know for sure. You could fuck it up and miss, or it might take time for her to die, and then she'll shoot you back!
If you had that stand off with fists, knives, throwing plates, you would probably have the upper hand. With guns, it could go either way. A gun can be countered with a gun moreso than other things.
Are you married BTW?
No I was providing some input on 'gun control' measures, and as the USA has largely been quoted as the 'place to be' as far as gun control, that footage seemed appropriate to illustrate an example of how badly wrong I think it would be to 'follow in their footsteps'.
Have you ever played with any serious firepower Thermite?
Apart from on a cop's belt, I have never even seen a gun in real life. I just think this is an interesting theory that I've heard in those gun debates in America.
It seems that banning guns means good citizens don't have guns, criminals still somehow have guns.
It's like banning drugs - the blackmarket still has drugs and it's hella dodgy.
As much as I hate guns, legalising stuff does appear to be a good argument, not to mention for more freedom and liberty.
"If you can just convince the dope people that the gun people are right and the gun people that the dope people are right, we could actually live in a lot more freedom." - Penn Jillette
Just testing something to see if I can post pics of some (and I mean only some) of the guns I have in this house.
I hunt and shoot almost on a daily basis and have access to guns of almost any shape and size in an instant. Even though I have had people lean on me to get a conceal and carry licence here I really am in two minds as to there usefulness. I personally wouldn't go armed anywhere until I am satisfied that I have done some quality training and yeah I did my time in the army with many weapons but that doesn't make anyone an expert. Understanding and being realistic about your possible limitations it pretty important.
Guns are made to kill, simple as that. You want to reduce the chance guns are used to kill humans as much as possible and only allow them for hunting animals. To do that you prevent them from being carried and used around other humans as much as possible. Not the other way around by letting all humans carry a gun around other humans.
like the ruger 10/22 too.. i've fired one of them at the local pistol club.. very nice. the one i fired was limited to the 10round mag which sucks for a 22 pistol. i spose you can have the full capacity mags in the us of a?
guns are a tool, and most tools with used with indent can kill
car, kitchen knife, plastic spoon, ball point pen, all of these are also killers, infact cars kill more people than guns, yet guns are more heavily controlled, (just look at some of the people on the road,)
I think taipan has more than nailed the issue
I personally wouldn't go armed anywhere until I am satisfied that I have done some quality training and yeah I did my time in the army with many weapons but that doesn't make anyone an expert. Understanding and being realistic about your possible limitations it pretty important.
there are plenty of people that really have no idea of their limits, or even about having the sense to but as many safe practices as you can into your actions,
ie, yes you might be able to jump a fence with a load gun, but breaking it down as much as practical removes many risks,
there is also alot of people that really cant deal (or manage) their angry, which I think is a bigger issue, and really, and un liberal as it might be, national service (or something akin) might be a good idea, train people in body mind, and teach control, might not be popular but certainly would be a good start, and means that the community has people that have a set level of skill that will help in many aspects, (like simple shit, tying a rope to secure a load, changing a flat tyre, climbing a ladder to clear gutters etc)
what possible reason do you own a Mac-10 with what looks like a suppressor on it Taipan? let alone all the handguns
Well the Mac 10 actually belongs to my father in law, while its fun to mess arouns with it's not very practical since it dumps a 30 round mag in less than two seconds then you take 5 minutes reloading it again lol. Btw thats not a supressor it just functions as a place to hold to keep control of it.
I am planning on getting myself an FNP .45 when I get back here and it comes with a silencer which is legal in this state provided you file the correct paper work. The FNP .45 should cost me about $1200 USD. I am also considering a Sig p226 tactical which is cheaper but an extremely well made handgun.
This video might answer the "why" people would want to own these kinds of weapons. Sure it might not be everyones cup of tea just like sitting on your ass all day playing wow wouldn't be considered everyones cup of tea.
swoit looking crossbow taipan :)
thanks mate, that my wifes and thats all she'll use when hunting deer as she doesn't like to hunt with rifles (each to their own). I just picked up a compound bow a couple of months back (a 2011 Hoyt Prohawk) which I was hanging out very badly to use in September for the start of the deer bow hunting season. Sadly I won't be here for it so I'll have to wait till the 2013-14 season.
Hardly a bias in the sense that I have no trouble at all getting what I want is it? If anything I am probably in a more neutral position since Australias laws don't have any bearing on my ownership and use of firearms.
My entire point about aussie gun laws is that they don't do shit except restrict decent people because they sure as fuck don't prevent criminals from getting firearms do they?
I am just as concerned about stupid dumb regular people getting guns for 'home defense' then I am with criminals having guns. Gun laws prevent regular dumb people from getting guns which is why I am all for them.
If you want to even come close to making a point and not sound like a little whiney baby who is crying about gun laws, you should actually propose something that will limit the chances of guns getting in the hands of criminals, rather than whinging like a whiney little baby.
it's a typical logic fail of the left, that particular anti-social behaviour by isolated individuals constitutes sufficient grounds to infringe on the general liberties of the populace.
they did it with gun-control and with the anti-terror laws and with the TSA over in America.
the TSA episode of South park is brilliant in articulating just how ridiculously authoritarian we have become. and we take it like a bitch.
On Firearms control in general (but using America as the source of information):
I hate to use quotes from a Michael Moore Doco (because they're never impartial) but he creates an EXCELLENT argument in Bowling for Columbine.
The fucked up thing about the way Americans go on about "it's a constitutional right" is that the intent of why it was there in the first place has been so far warped it's no longer relevant.
It was there to ensure that when another government came in and started oppressing people, getting overly controlling, etc, the people had the means to overthrow the government.
It was NEVER there to ensure that you can protect yourself when someone enters your home, or you get attacked, or someone goes postal in the mall, yada yada yada.
More importantly the weaponary the US Government, be it police, military, or whomever, is now so powerful that for this amendment to be effective, you'd need to allow private citizens to have tanks, flashbangs, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-submarine missiles and possibly UAVs.
The amendment is no longer relevant in modern society. But they cling to it, like their stupid "freedom of speech" amendment which has been so equally butchered to serve a political adgenda.
Hey, it's the guy who thinks Gitmo is just fine because they are just brown savages who are all terrorists talking about how ridiculously authoritarian we have become.
Ok fpot I'll do that the day you stop making your petty personal attacks like a butt hurt little girl carrying a grudge. But hey if you think that serves you well keep it up.
because banning automatic weapons clearly stopped illegal guns coming into the country
I think if you remove guns from circulation you decrease accessibility to guns for criminals and non-criminals. I think that is a fair trade off and pretty obvious intention. it may not have stopped illegal guns coming in, but it would be a very naive position to say it has had no effect on accessibility.
So the reason you won't enlighten us all with an actual point about gun laws is because you think I act like a butthurt (I feel slightly gay even quoting somebody using that word) little girl?
I have a sneaking suspicion the actual reason is because you don't have a point.
guns are a tool, and most tools with used with indent can kill
car, kitchen knife, plastic spoon, ball point pen, all of these are also killers, infact cars kill more people than guns, yet guns are more heavily controlled, (just look at some of the people on the road,)
a gun is a WEAPON that has been designed to injure, maim, kill whatever you're aiming at, not to be used to eat your fucking lunch.
This is what needs to be emphasised. It always brings my mind back to what Avner Kaufma has to say about them, paraphrasing, but basically, that a gun is not for intimindation or to be seen as threatening, and a gun is not to wound - you only draw your if you intend to use it, and you only use your gun with the intent to kill. And that you never shoot once - always two taps.
In other words, if you draw your gun, it is for the sole reason that you intend to kill someone.
i don't really care what your reasoning is, i will never be convinced that joe blow needs to have access to automatic weapons/handguns. not necessary for anything.
you hunt? good on you, i've been roo and pig shooting myself on a couple of occasions, i can definitely see the appeal. I did it post gun law changes and didn't need access to an AR-15, MAC-10 or Desert Eagle to do it, either.
a gun is a WEAPON that has been designed to injure, maim, kill whatever you're aiming at, not to be used to eat your fucking lunch. last edited by ravn0s at 15:41:01 13/Apr/12
"A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings - physical or mental -, artificial structures, or systems. In human society, weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, offence, defence, crime, law enforcement, and conflict."
first line of wiki, it is a tool, dart guns are far better that asking a pissed of rhino if you can stick your arm up its arse
I don't agree with the government restricting the freedom of the average person in anyway because of a knee jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Why should the average aussie lose the privilege of owning a certain type of firearm because of a handfull of dickheads through the 80's and 90's? The government took the route it did because it was the easiest solution for them. How many booze related deaths through violence, stupidity or drink driving has there been over the past 100 years? I'll take a bet that its much higher than firearm related deaths over the same period. We wouldn't dream of resitricting booze like we have firearms though would we.
Like I mentioned before though it's not an issue that affects me directly since those laws have no bearing on what I can own or obtain.
Because everyone knows whatever Wikipedia says is the definition of something should be considered the definitive truth.
The premise of wikiality is that reality is what the wiki says it is.
... "any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true."
put into context just about any TOOL can be a weapon,
a weapon is basically an item that could cause harm, kitchen knife, cricket bat, gold club, glass bottle (un broken or broken) pen, axe, rusty pastic spoon, it comes mostly down to intent
for people than are so fucking quick to hammer me on mis use of words, grammar, etc, some of you really don't have an understanding of words
to an AR-15, MAC-10 or Desert Eagle to do it, either.
Odd how you can clear read that I said I hunt and while talking about hunting I mentioned I use bows as well as rifles. You saw the pic of the 7mm magnum not doubt yet you chose to highlight the best examples of my guns to try and make your point. Pretty disingenuous mate.
I do use the AR 15 for coyotes though since the calibre is good for the job and given I shoot out to 300 a quick follow up shot maybe needed. Once I get back here I'll be getting a Savage .17 HMR bolt action rifle or the equivelant Ruger and I won't take out the AR 15 anymore once I do. Since I want to move in slightly more thickly wooded areas anyway and don't need as much range (max of 150m)
As for the Mac 10 it's completely impractical for anything other than a bit of fun and in all honesty if someone did a drive by on your house this is what you should be hoping they are using. It has horrid accuracy and is not easy to control. The Deagle is pretty impractical aswell and I use it only as a bit of fun when I go out shooting targets. I will say this much though it is frigging awesome for picking off shit at 50m or more and is very reliable.
(edit) Sorry Copius the Deagle is a .44 Magnum. if you look at the pics you can see it marked on the side pretty clearly. This is my number one favourite handgun for target shooting as it is genuinely a lot of fun to use.
put into context just about any TOOL can be a weapon,
a weapon is basically an item that could cause harm, kitchen knife, cricket bat, gold club, glass bottle (un broken or broken) pen, axe, rusty pastic spoon, it comes mostly down to intent
Can't work out if this is a red herring or something else.
Those other tools have non-lethal uses they were actually designed for.
Firearms are extraordinarily powerful weapons first and foremost. You can't dodge that fact and comparing a luger to a knife is a bit dumb, there's a reason the "bring a knife to a gunfight" meme/expression exists.
thanks hoggy, that's exactly the point i was going to expand on from my previous post. for some reason copious thought i was arguing about definitions.
Can't work out if this is a red herring or something else.
Those other tools have non-lethal uses they were actually designed for.
Firearms are extraordinarily powerful weapons first and foremost. You can't dodge that fact and comparing a luger to a knife is a bit dumb, there's a reason the "bring a knife to a gunfight" meme/expression exists.
not a red herring it is a tool, all weapons are tools, and most tools can be weapons. I guess i took offence in this case because it rather felt like, "nar copuis said it, there for he is wrong",
I'm not denying that as a weapon it is in fact very effective, how to write off the comment that it is a tool, based on the argument that you dont eat with it, is a little fuck, and show little understanding on the usefulness of a gun in activies other than killing people
I don't agree with the government restricting the freedom of the average person in anyway because of a knee jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Why should the average aussie lose the privilege of owning a certain type of firearm because of a handfull of dickheads through the 80's and 90's? The government took the route it did because it was the easiest solution for them. How many booze related deaths through violence, stupidity or drink driving has there been over the past 100 years? I'll take a bet that its much higher than firearm related deaths over the same period. We wouldn't dream of resitricting booze like we have firearms though would we.
The real question is why should the public have the right to own guns in the first place.
And you've made an excellent point there with booze. The answer to this gun laws problem is to restrict the sale of alcohol! Oh wait it isn't. They are two completely different things. Have a read of this helpful website.
The only legit use of guns by the public is for hunting. I am not a hunting expert by any means so please correct me if I am wrong here, but all you would need for that is a smaller caliber weapon for small game and a larger caliber weapon for the bigger game (???). If you have walls full of guns then you are a fucking weirdo and are most likely some sort of strange redneck from Alabama.
all weapons are tools
This isn't true because a gun is a weapon and not a tool. And please don't go full retard and post
tool/toÍžol/
Noun:
A device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
And say hurr a gun carries out a particular function of killing something hurrrrrrrr.
You can't dodge that fact and comparing a luger to a knife is a bit dumb,
How about a car, truck or bus for example? If I remember correctly you can be charged with assualt with a deadly weapon if you try and or do run someone down with your car. On that topic there are more drunk drivers on the roads each weekend taking the publics safety into their hands than there is dumb gun owners waving their firearms around with no respect for public safety. I suspect there always has been more drunks causing more shit and costing the community more each week than guns and their owners ever have actually.
How have we been combating the drink driving issue.... anyone? It wasn't a knee jerk response was it or something equally stupid was it?
you>> unless copuis' says it, then it is a boat, because schooner have are different because a schooner is a type of sailing vessel characterized by the use of fore-and-aft sails on two or more masts with the forward mast being no taller than the rear masts, but most sailing boats don't
tool/toÍžol/
Noun:
A device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
unless its a gun, (ps, not all guns are for killing, just most of them)
also, how am I going full retard in this?,
fpot the size of the game isn't all that matter when choosing what firearm to use. I would actually expect a simple concept like that to be something you would already be aware of since it really isn't rocket science. I guess your ignorance of firearms goes some way to explaining your stance.
(edit) Btw saying all guns are made to kill is abit like saying all things that get shot die. Its stupid and pretty ignorant since there are a massive number of guns purely built for target shooting and recreation. Is a paint ball gun made to kill, can is cause injury? well yeah it can hurt you much like a .17 air rifle for target shooting can.
Well if you want to kill a bird and eat it and you use a large caliber bullet then there isn't gonna be much bird left to eat is there? And if you want to kill a wild pig you'd want to use something a little larger than a .22 otherwise you'll probably end up with a tusk in your leg right? How exactly am I getting this wrong?
what is wrong with a gun?, if you live somewhere other than the city they are useful,
how would you say, control wild animals on your land, shoot them, which is a method that target the problem you wish to control, or poison which while killing the targeted animal, also kills other animals,
would you prefer you meat to be killed in a kind(ish) fashion with a bolt gun, or their neck slit while still alive and kicking?
a wild dog attacks your child, would you prefer to beat it to death with a hammer, or shoot it
then there are other factors,
if you go to a military event for people that have lost their lives, there is alot of emotion in the firing of those guns
it is also a very valid and highly skilled sport
and there is entertainment as well, or will a light gun kill too many pixels???. lethal weapon would look very different as a movie without a gun or 700
sure gun ownership should be controlled in some cases, however it really is overkill in this country atm, education and respect for this TOOL would go alot further than banning it., there are many people still walking the earth that would have carried a rifle openly on a Queensland train, however fear, and understanding akin do what you are displaying has made that impossible and unlikely any time soon
same can be said for cars, teach respect of the car, learn to use it correctly (many people don't despite them thinking they do) and booze, (respect the drink, and proper non fear based education)
What is a good reason to own a gun, outside of the current lawfully allowed reasons?
their isn't one.
To be honest the only necessary reason for a civilian(non military/security/police) to have a gun license is for recreational shooting ie. sport or hobby and of course culling. They are all genuine reasons.
You need a class A/B gun license to own a paintball marker.
Hence why I have an Gun license.
I must keep my marker in the exact same way you would keep a .22/.308. any other class A/B.
in a locked safe bolted to the ground with the action removed.
So you don't think range might figure into that fpot? Or in the case of where I am living right now I can only use certain types of firearms at certain times of the year. If I want to give myself the best chance at all stages of the deer season I need a Bow, A muzzle loader and a modern rifle (for deer must be larger than .22 although I believe it's actually ment to be much bigger). or hunting coyotes ect there is another set of rules again.
All these rules are based on what is believe to be 1) the most humane equipment to use and 2) what is considered to be the best way to manage wildlife that is hunted (legnth of season and bag limits also fit into this.
When I hunt coyotes which are vermin I generally use the AR 15 and there are a number of reasons for it. Firstly you can often see more than one thus wanting to get more shots off faster. Also and very important is that if you don't make a good shot you want to put that animal down as quickly as possible with a follow up shot.
Take the buck I got for example I took a 180m shot and it bolted just as I squeezed the shot off. This ment the deer loaded his legs take off which drops him lower which inturn caused my shot to hit him in the spine spinning him 180 degrees. He instantly popped his head up while laying on the ground and I put a follow up shot through his neck which with a 7mm magnum is pretty much insta death. The time from first shot to death was about 3 seconds, thats some indication of the advantage of a semi auto rifle.
fpot response>> This isn't true because a gun is a weapon and not a tool. And please don't go full retard and post
had me confused so you are now saying a gun is a tool?, (not i'm not saying that it isn't used as a weapon, but any weapon is a tool, be that a tool for firing a dart to sedate and animal, or a tool used to kill another person, or a tool used in a sporting event, or to kill a feral animal to protect the landscape)
It might pay to not confuse the issues of firearm ownership with the ability to carry one around legally in public. Just because you own one doesn't mean you should be able to carry it around where ever the hell you feel like it. I just want to make sure people are clear on my attitude toward this. This is one issue that I am actually very conflicted on when it comes to firearms.
It might pay to not confuse the issues of firearm ownership with the ability to carry one around legally in public. Just because you own one doesn't mean you should be able to carry it around where ever the hell you feel like it. I just want to make sure people are clear on my attitude toward this. This is one issue that I am actually very conflicted on when it comes to firearms.
should be ruled like knifes, unless you have a true and fair reason, there is no reason (ie, policing....................................................................................................... and gangsta raper prop guns for halloween costumes (note the word prop, no real gun should be used for this), are about the only true reasons I can think of. The whole argument about needing it for protection and "just in case i get attacked" doesn't feel right with me)
edited because it might not have been as clear as it should have been
about the only true reasons I can think of, the whole argument about protection and "just in case i get attacked" doesn't feel right with me)
I would say that in Australia for the most part having a firearm as a civilian for protection is unnecessary. Lets hope it stays that way and bullshit like the op does not become more prevalent.
How about a car, truck or bus for example? If I remember correctly you can be charged with assualt with a deadly weapon if you try and or do run someone down with your car.
You continue to compare weapons designed to be weapons with mundane tools that can be used as weapons. Why is that?
You continue to compare weapons designed to be weapons with mundane tools that can be used as weapons. Why is that?
You continue to play dumb and not acknowledge the fact that the guts of the entire problem is irresponsible people not the object in question. Why is that?
With the exception of the restriction of calibre, Aussie guns laws are pretty spot on.
I can own any gun I want, as long as I have a genuine reason and the proper storage. I know there are lots of .45's out there purchased for metallic silhouette, but at least those guys have to go to the range at least 4 times a year and embarrass themselves.
Further tightening of guns laws in Australia would do nothing to get the illegal firearms out of the hands of dickheads.
The only aspect of gun ownership in Australia that needs addressing is the fact that on a standard H class license, I can buy a .308 or a .223 handgun but not a .45. Calibre restrictions have done some real damage to Australia's international competitiveness in IPSC.
As for concealed carry in Australia - how many people here have ever been in a position where carrying a firearm would have kept them from harm to themselves or others?
Yes, but I would also go on to say that there is nothing inherently bad or wrong about carrying firearms for self defense, just that is it unnecessary.
As for concealed carry in Australia - how many people here have ever been in a position where carrying a firearm would have kept them from harm to themselves or others?
I am pretty sure I am about the only person really talking about conceal and carry as I am probably about the only person in the thread thus far that lives in the US. My attitude toward conceal carry is if you have any doubt simply don't carry one, I have lived this long and not needed it so no need to rush off and get my licence just because I can.
Personally I don't think the average person on the street is well trained enough to know when and when not to use a firearm in a crisis. Shit I really don't believe most police are well trained enough. I have done plenty of training but still don't consider myself worthy of carrying a firearm publicly.
You continue to play dumb and not acknowledge the fact that the guts of the entire problem is irresponsible people not the object in question. Why is that?
No he hasn't.
The whole problem is a highly dangerous and mostly unnecessary object being placed in the hands of irresponsible people. So now that is answered, maybe you can say why you keep talking about booze and cars in a thread about guns.
skythra: No I was providing some input on 'gun control' measures,
Not you, your quoted person, what's his fat face's name. That guy who made that shitty movie. When i say "you're" i mean if you (theoretically you, not that you did, i'm describing a situation, but i use the word you or you're to get your attention to put you into the situation) go to someone to prove that GUNS are bad and say "Do you believe you should have a gun" and they say "yes" and then you say "why" and they reply with "Oh well, the constitution says so and I agree with the constitution". Then instead of saying guns are bad, you get the person you're arguing with to say "the constitution maybe is flawed" you never actually supported your original point.
You only changed the argument from what you couldn't have (someone to admit guns were bad) to being that the constitution probably is a little too leniant and maybe not everyone should have nuklear warheads on standby.
That's not helping the "guns are bad" argument, that's just you arguing a point to win, but an irrelevant point. It won the argument but it didn't change what you wanted to change. Which is peoples opinion of guns.
Only read first few pages, holy shit Taipain, do you really need automatic rifles (motherfucking machine guns yo) for hunting deer!? How many deer are you killing?
Likewise, can't believe that vid, random peeps actually have heavby machine guns and small artillery pieces?
Lets not use America's gun control rules or lack of control etc as any kind of benchmark - there is something fatally flawed in the way those yanks are wedded to their weapons
"Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home"
"In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[9]"
"After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit (so-called "free arms"). Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles."
"Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book."
"200,000 people attend the annual Feldschiessen weekend, which is the largest rifle shooting competition in the world.[4][13] Hunting rifles have special exemptions under Swiss law. Purchases from dealers of hunting long guns and of small bore rifles are not even recorded by the dealer"
"Police statistics for the year 2006[14] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[15]"
I am pro-gun btw but i dont think people need to wandering around carrying concealed etc - guns need to be held for a specific use, whether that be sport, hunting, etc, stored appropriately, regularly checked for compliance by a legislative authority etc... oh wait, thats just what happens now in Australia!
Only read first few pages, holy shit Taipain, do you really need automatic rifles (motherfucking machine guns yo) for hunting deer!? How many deer are you killing?
Heh, if you find that slightly creepy, I recently had a painful discussion with these guys (a few of their profile pics, all american) about the need for (and apparent outright obsession with) such guns, to which their responses were essentially that they are for when americah collapses and they have to take back society. Fairly sure that faceman has been reading some of their fox-news-like sources (hence his odd obsession with open-gun carrying licenses, a pressing concern for oppressed australians).
American guys and their guns, I find it pretty damn creepy. Definitely don't want it here - and yes I know that the Swiss do it right somehow, but I'd wager that we're much more like Americans than Swiss.
I had to leave a shit tonne of rifles with my uncle in nz because of Australia stupid fucking gun policy and you have to understand some of them have been in my family for over 100years and from about 30 members of family who enlisted in everything from the Boer war to Vietnam war
My younger brother an I are the only ones to inherent them at this stage and give my brothers rather questionable police record they will mostly fall to me. It would be sad to see them crushed or have the pins ground down considering the amount of hunting we used to do not that I would attempt to use the Mauser
Here is what I can remember
1 x Sako 306 hunter
1 x bruno 223
2 x browning 22 semi autos
1 x 22 auto ruger
1 x M30 Luftwaffe drilling
2 x 303 Lee-Enfield Carbines no idea which models
A few Lee-Metford 303's fucked if I remember how many its about 5
Two blunderbuss's fuck knows how old but I would gather in the 150+ year range
Couple of Winchester over under shotguns
Twin trigger double barrel of some type can't remmeber fucker has some kick
1 x 357 Magnum
Fucking heaps of Lugers
3 x compound bows 2 holt 1 browning
2 x crossbows
1 x Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr
A few Bergmann MP18's
If its dangerous pointy things you are after then we have pikes spears and swords which are hundreds of years old too
There is roughly about 50 guns + my uncles
Keeping in mind I am a
Fully qualified Butts Officer
Bisley Target Shooting maker for good will games
QRA fullbore marker for UQ UNI rifle club
New Zealand Deerstalkers Association member since 1994
So its not like I don't know gun safety. I think that if you wish to purchase a gun go through the police check join a rifle club do a safety course and go hunting then do it. Is there a reason to have semi auto (yes I have them technically) no I am going to eight mile plains no. I do enjoy going deer hunting and I normally skin and carry it out and eat it. Same for duck and pheasant and we would bring the dogs out and buy a lic in nz but in aus the govt has a stick up its arse on the subject
Heh, if you find that slightly creepy, I recently had a painful discussion with these guys (a few of their profile pics, all american) about the need for (and apparent outright obsession with) such guns, to which their responses were essentially that they are for when americah collapses and they have to take back society.
Nerfy, what was painful about it? Have you ever encountered this before:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Because it quickly turned into hysterical conspiracy shit and excitement for the shooting-revolution like this -
and this is why every American citizen should own a rifle and a handgun because when the scales are tipped and people start fighting those without guns will be killed
Only read first few pages, holy shit Taipain, do you really need automatic rifles (motherfucking machine guns yo) for hunting deer!?
You sure you understand what an automatic is? When you say automatic anyone reading it will think fully automatic which is misleading and of course as usual paints the worse possible picture of the topic. I use semi auto rifles for the most part when I hunt although that will change depending on where I am going and what I will be hunting.
The AR15 is semi auto btw and if you didn't both reading my comments on its use then why'd you bother commenting at all?
Switzerland isn't all it's cracked up to be. For starters, most of those army issued guns do not have ammo
It use to be that there was strong reporting requirements for the ammo stored with army guns, which is probably why non-domestic gun crime with army weapons was low.
“In Switzerland, firearms are like pesticides in developing countries. They are accessible,” Ajdacic-Gross explained. “Many suicides are impulsive. In other words, the decision is taken very quickly.”
At such moments, availability – or a lack of it – is crucial. “If somebody has to make a lot of effort to find something that will kill them, that’s a strong preventative factor.”
..snip..
Ajdacic-Gross says that between half and two-thirds of people who are unable to access their method of choice, will fall back on another.
“Preventative measures certainly cannot prevent all suicides, but a large number,” he said.
List of Countries by Suicide Rate puts them at double Australia. Based on that quote above, if guns weren't so prevalent then their rate of suicide would be closer to ours.
Interesting about the ammo, and yeah it's a whole spectrum of impulsive thoughts in which I see guns as making it too easy to flip the wrong way. I had some fucked up brief stormy moments with depression a few months back (which made me stop over-working, and thus has stopped the problems), and if it takes effort or risk of failure, you probably thankfully have time to think your way back from anything particularly impulsive.
Only read first few pages, holy shit Taipain, do you really need automatic rifles (motherfucking machine guns yo) for hunting deer!? How many deer are you killing?
When you absolutely positively gotta kill every deer in the forest, accept no substitute.
Holy shit Taipan, do you eat everything you hunt? Or do you just love the feeling of power you get by killing something that has absolutely no chance for no other reason then fun?
lol, you may as well get horses and a stack of dogs too.
No I don't go fishing. You won't dignify it because you can't.
If you make a living from it, selling the furs, meat and whatever else you get from the carcass then I guess that is acceptable, at least the kill isn't going to waste.
ok weapons not intended to be weaopns hey are not counted? then why is the supply of fertiliser restricted and monitored? it's a bs argument.
No its not. Most people don't get any utility out of bulk fertiliser (unless they are making bombs), so the controlled supply is appropriate. People get day to day utility out of knives and cars, and the impact of their irresponsible use is limited. When was the last time someone managed to kill 30 people in a deranged knife/car episode?
99.99% of the pop doesn't have a regular need to kill things (same with large quantities of fertiliser, wow isn't it amazing how those things lined up like that?!). You also can't carry a knife in NSW for no good reason, another reasonable law.
You continue to play dumb and not acknowledge the fact that the guts of the entire problem is irresponsible people not the object in question. Why is that?
Because its not a fact. An irresponsible person with a firearm is an order of magnitude worse than an irresponsible person with a car, knife, cricket bat that you've held up as examples. Gun massacres are worse than knife or cricket bat massacres (that's an actual fact). This is the 'entire problem' of gun control and gun access.
A society with free access to firearms makes it easier for irresponsible people to get them, which in turn provides a strong motive for responsible people to start carrying them in a stupid arms race.
More guns means more opportunity for gun death. That's also a real and true fact.
I am not even going to dignify this dribble with an answer, seriously how old are you?
I have a question for you though, do you go fishing? And no I am not talking about the type you do on forums.
I'm a very bad fisher, but the general rule I've observed is catch and release unless its for dinner? What do you do with the stuff you kill?
holy shit Taipain, do you really need automatic rifles
Ever been rabbit / possum / pest shooting yeah a bolt action is a fucking pain in the arse
If you are knocking off a deer then its going into the freezer. Deer hunting requires some effort, wild deer tend not to mill about like cows in a field. Its nothing like roo shooting off the back of a truck. You are on foot with a rifle and a pack and about 20rounds of ammo you are setting out to kill something and hopefully eat it.
How often do you buy maybe even half a beast for the deep freeze, you checked the price they are not giving that shit away I can assure you.
Just because most of us find it convenient to have our shit killed by someone else with your choice of cuts from woolies. It goes without saying, it goes into the freezer all the same. Chances are very very high that you are eating something that has been farmed and poorly treated and dies on a slaughter room floor.
Bagging Taipan out for owning using and hunting with rifles is just dumb its not like its a fucking rpg or a full auto mowing down deer like rambo
If someone's getting gunned down in eight mile plains in a restaurant then chances are pretty high they are into some dodgy shit getting shot by some other dodgy cunt for being well... dodgy. Whats to say someone doesn't get beaten to death with a frying pan down the failcoast tommrow..... are you going to scream QUICK BAN TEFAL, kitchen knives and pink fluffy unicorns, then question everyone that likes cooking
Toll I don't waste anything it is a personal standard I guess you could say. As it is anyway it is considered extremely bad form I guess you could say for anyone that hunts to waste what they kill. There are actually some very hefty fines for hunting and then wasting what you've killed. Genuine hunters here stick to some very strict standards both personal and ones set down by their states fish and game. When I hunt coyotes it's slightly different I utilize the skins and thats it. I hunt coyotes on a farm that has issues with them and live stock.
People need to understand hunting things like coyotes and deer is anything but a slam dunk. When it comes to deer you might only see 1 on a given day and if it doesn't fit the standards laid out then you don't touch it. In my zone I got 6 tags to fill this past season allowing me to take 2 bucks and 4 does. I only filled 3 tags taking 1 buck and 2 does. I spent many many many weeks out scouting and hunting between October (begining of the season) and the end of February (end of the season) I seriously couldn't count the time i spent trying to get on to some good deer. Most hunters will pass over many many more deer than they ever put their crosshairs on.
The next season I able to take part in I am going to up the ante and use my compound bow from a hanging stand (20 foot up a tree). The max range I'll be able to take my shots at will be under 40m and you really have to have your shit together not to get busted by the deer and thats the bulk of the challenge. Scent control is probably the biggest issue since if a deer gets even the slightest wiff of something unfamiliar its gone in a flash. So knowing the area and where to set up to use the wind to your advantage is critical. Not to mention doing crap like washing your cloths in scentless soaps ect using good boots that don't track your scent through the entire area or at least spraying them with a scent blocker.
You can bust your ass getting everything right and there is still no garentees you'll get a good deer.
The common thought process amongst pro-gunners is that if everyone has guns, we'll all be safer because everyone will be unwilling to do anything risky for fear of getting blown away. To paraphrase this guy, that is not a society - it's just an uneasy truce.
Good Free Men(and Women) have earned the right in Society to be able to defend themselves and their Families.
Criminals do not fall in to that category.
Its not about Guns for all.
Of course I do trog in the freezer down stairs we have just over 150 lbs of hamburger alone which will likely last us through to around August/September and the next deer season starts in October. Thats actually a lot of hamburger for only 3 deer but the buck I got was a pretty big boy so he certainly had alot on him.
It might sound odd but I have mixed feelings when I pull the trigger and thats one of the reasons why I do my absolute best to ensure a quick humane kill. I absolutely love hunting as a package and like I said before making the shot is 1% or less of the whole picture.
Sorry,
Little jonnie road the polarized bandwagon to get this one through and it was aided by media beatup.
I don't own a firearm as I live in the suburban part of a city and don't get to go anywhere to use them.
I grew up on a farm where we hunted and did target shooting. After the above laws came in, My Dad and I had to surrender my 15 shot semi auto .22 and a bunch of unique heirloom weapons because of some other dick's action.
Fuck off that's fair and definitely not equitable.
To me that sounds like complaining that your freedoms are being impinged upon if government (i.e. the country) decides that you can't have your own personal nuclear reactor when somebody else's has had a melt down. Guns are designed to kill with unparalleled ease, it's impinging on everybody else's ultimate freedom of safety if every tom, dick, and harry has one, as I see it.
Despite the creepy looking collection, Taipan seems to be one of the few people who sounds mature enough that I'm not really concerned with him having the weapons - it's the many other examples like the ones who I linked earlier that I'm less than enthusiastic about... (though showing off your collection of killing machines does seem a bit fetishtic with power...)
I put that the onus is on government to prove an individual is NOT fit to own a gun, not for the individual to prove they ARE.
Liberty is inherent in each person as a human right, and therefore the government must prove there is a need for them to curtail someone's freedom.
Why are some people so willing to place their faith in government - government will not save you (it is politically driven, and inherently selfish) - a social culture of individual responsibility, and community enforced standards will.
oh yeah, if those guns were banned, Martin Bryant wouldn't have gone on a massacre. thanks captain hindsight!
Hey, you asked the (stupid) question with the utterly obvious answer.
What law would have prevented the 8 mile plains shooting?
Arguably, the current laws made it possible for the 8 mile plains shooting, and other shootings, to not turn into mass shooting sprees because the availability of fully automatic or semiautomatic weapons is much lower than it otherwise would be.
When one fuckhead goes off the rails and manages to get his hands on a gun, the chances are much better here in Australia that the damage will be greatly reduced because said fuckhead doesn't have a much more dangerous weapon.
legislating our freedoms away to prevent disasters that have already occurred one at a time. pathetic...
Werl, there's two sides to that - there's the freedom for people to own guns, and the freedom proffered by living in a society where you don't have to worry about getting gunned down in a shooting incident because of the ready availability of dangerous weapons.
I am a big believer in civil liberties and would really like to include owning guns in there somewhere, but ultimately I think it is too great a risk to society in general to give people access to such devices, because it too greatly simplifies the process of easily (and remotely) killing or maiming someone else.
Your right to freedom necessarily ends when it infringes on the freedom of others. In this case I think guns meet that definition - certainly not in all cases; there are many people who legitimately (can|would|do) own guns and use them safely - but unfortunately I think it is a necessary sacrifice that those people have to dip out in the interests of maintaining a society where people can more freely walk the streets without having to worry about getting randomly shot but some asshole with a gun.
I think this perspective is a little easier to swallow walking up the weapon tree - i.e., if I can responsibly own a gun, why can't I also responsibly own a hand grenade or a rocket launcher or a carton of C4? Unless you a an absolute civil libertarian extremist there's almost no way you'd be happy for people to own those sorts of weapons, because of the risk they carry.
So the question sort of becomes "where you draw the freedom line?" As always, people have brought up things like knives, hammers, etc (cars). They have primary purposes that are not "killing things", but the main thing is in pretty much all those cases it is much much harder to actually kill someone with them.
I feel bad for people like Taipan who I'm sure use guns responsibly and carefully but at the end of the day I would rather people find a new hobby than live in a society like the US.
I've been (target) shooting a couple times (the most recently a couple months ago when I went to the Sydney Olympic Shooting Centre which was awesome) and really enjoyed it; it a challenging thing to do and I can appreciate the skill of it. I'd love to be able to own a gun and go out shooting targets - I've considered getting a license for this purpose - but will lose no sleep if I can't do it.
I put that the onus is on government to prove an individual is NOT fit to own a gun, not for the individual to prove they ARE.
Liberty is inherent in each person as a human right, and therefore the government must prove there is a need for them to curtail someone's freedom.
Ummm. There really are no such things as "human rights". You are not born with any magical right to do anything. Any rights you have are afforded to you by the society you are born in.
That is why some people have more rights than others - different societies respect different values, and thus provide their citizens with legislation and protection to support those rights.
Lines /must/ be drawn around some individual liberties. I understand you consider yourself a libertarian - and so do I - but you simply have to acknowledge that giving people unlimited liberty to do whatever they want is not feasible, and the line that must not be crossed is at the point where your Doing Stuff infringes on the liberty of others.
I put that the onus is on government to prove an individual is NOT fit to own a gun, not for the individual to prove they ARE.
And you have the gall to call nerfy retarded? Guns are dangerous and with the slightest mishandling they can kill someone in an accident, or be stolen and used in a crime.
This is a situation where the car/gun argument can actually come in to play. To earn the privilege of driving a car you have to prove that you are a competent driver. Then you have to consistently drive according to the rules otherwise you will have your license taken away and you will be unable to drive. This is a Good Thing because cars are dangerous and can easily kill someone.
Guns are magnitudes more dangerous and also serve a lot less practical use than cars. In fact they are so different to cars and so much more deadly that I debated whether I should make this comparison, but it's you I am dealing with so I thought I better use something simple. For something as dangerous as a gun a person should have to undergo examination with a fine-tooth comb and also explain exactly why they need the gun or guns. If they claim they go hunting with it they should have to prove that they actually do use it for that purpose. They should be checked on all the time. Maybe even spot-checks by the police to check to see if the gun is stored properly. The means testing should be incredibly invasive and annoying so people are really put off the idea of ever getting a gun.
But what you believe is that the government should have to prove that people aren't fit to own a gun after someone has obtained one? What was that you were saying about hindsight again?
I'd love to be able to own a gun and go out shooting targets - I've considered getting a license for this purpose - but will lose no sleep if I can't do it.
Come on now trog we all know you'd never be happy until you got your very own railgun :P
Ummm. There really are no such things as "human rights". You are not born with any magical right to do anything. Any rights you have are afforded to you by the society you are born in.
This is 100% ass-backwards. You either hold that people are born with inalienable human rights or you do not. Your argument is nothing more than a rephrasing of might-makes-right. Like I said, the entire point of the USA is that precise opposite is the case - government has no rights, NONE, other than those granted to it by the people. Moreover, some rights simply cannot be ceded to society, no matter what the democratically elected law makers of the day might want to do. This model produced on of the most astounding chapters in the history of human civilisation, the USA. Since careening away from the model for last 50+ years they have not coincedentally lost their way...
That is why some people have more rights than others - different societies respect different values, and thus provide their citizens with legislation and protection to support those rights.
Nonsense, we are all born with the same rights. Some societies are oppressive and refuse to acknowledge the freedom of their people. This does not mean they are born without rights. I don't think you really understand what a right means. It is not something granted to you by some other arbitrary set of people. It is inherent. Society, or in reality a group of people with guns (police, army, whatever) can refuse to acknowledge your rights because they have might.. this is a very different thing.
Lines /must/ be drawn around some individual liberties. I understand you consider yourself a libertarian - and so do I - but you simply have to acknowledge that giving people unlimited liberty to do whatever they want is not feasible, and the line that must not be crossed is at the point where your Doing Stuff infringes on the liberty of others.
I'm shocked you consider yourself libertarian. You need to hit up a dictionary sometime. Lines (laws) are certainly drawn up around a vast array of activities that are unacceptable. It is illegal to rape someone. Good! Guess what, you are not born with the human right to rape people! There is NO CONTRADICTION here. Lines are drawn around things that are not human rights. This gets to the heart of what human rights mean.
So much for the philosophy, on the issue of guns it is debatable and some people come down on one side or the other. The second ammendment to the US constitution, written by a group of people that had just thrown off the yoke of government tyranny, decided that it is more important for people in a free society to have the means to defend their rights from being taken by possible future malevolent governments. It is stated explicitly... your right to not be scared at the thought of other people owning guns is trumped by the right of people to retain a means to defend their freedom from the tyranny of oppressors. This is a legitimate point of disagreement in my opinion, but to deride people that agree with this line of reasoning as gun freaks and psychos (like the usual idiots, fpot, nerf etc) do, simply shows a deep lack of understanding on the issue and a dangerously naive view of what government is and what it might be.
Holy shit Taipan, do you eat everything you hunt? Or do you just love the feeling of power you get by killing something that has absolutely no chance for no other reason then fun?
lol, you may as well get horses and a stack of dogs too.
I think you'll find that there is a fair amount of pest control going on, (wild animals etc) also, pest control (be that pigs, horses, camels, goats or rabbits are most likely the many reasons a gun is fired in this country)
has anyone thought of the reason the swiss system works? is that all able men are in effect army reservists so all people get correct training, and drills, learn to respect these tools and are aware of their proper use?
yes there have been changes now (after one event, and the EU trying for blanket gun laws) but put that into context, ALL ABLE MEN under 34 have an army issue weapon in their home, so in theory close to 100% of all homes have a gun in them, yet there is no massive shoot out every other day , is it a culture thing, or a training thing?, maybe more could be done if we learnt what they have been doing right?.
maybe having to do three months of army training then a couple of weeks a year every year helps the government identify people whom may not be suited to own/carry a weapon, maybe the training, with a yearly follow up instills a basic respect that they are tools there for use in protecting their state?, there has got to be a factor we haven't accounted for, and could used to create a well thought law that every understand and respects
people need to know however that guns not are the cause of all this bloodshed, but other underlying issues, that might be in some way our culture, how people perceive guns (like, "they are weapons not tools, there is no reason to own a gun" which is not correct), maybe there is a lack of understanding in not only their use, but even how to use them, maybe people don?t fully understand the damage a gun can do, guns are being used to vent angst, much like many joyriders who steal cars dont themselves drive (or own a car) maybe that lack of understanding makes them fun and risky, because clear being told that something is bad and controlling it has worked so well for, drinking, smoking, drug use, STD's, and the list goes on.
Also when people panic, it causes mayhem.
If you saw a person in Switzerland carrying a gun (and you had an understanding of their culture) into a 7/11 there would be an understanding, if the guy was nervous, edgy and and not at all calm and comfortable, he would be easily identify as maybe being a little unhinged, and possibly helped in a not confrontation manner
if a man openly walked into a 7/11, with that same a gun in brisbane or any major city in this country, there would be a panic, with that panic you would be unable to tell if the guy carrying the gun was in need of help,or was there for a completely innocent reason, and because of the panic caused no doubt the situation would go downhill fast, and someone would more than likely be shot. (be that a misunderstanding cause by the panic, or the panic causing the gun carrier fear to push him to react on ill thoughts)
this is only one of many factors that I think some people over look when arguing this topic,
(I've re-read this, a few times before posting, so there maybe some misused words, and will likely have gramatical error, but i think my point is clear)
And your idea on 'community enforcement' will land you precisely in a 'need of government' situation was my point, to work out all the details.
why do some communities have lower crime rates? mostly because of the community cohesiveness and cultural values.
a community which does not accept anti-social behaviour will ostracise those who do not comply. a lot of social norms are enforced through community reaction and not by government compulsion.
fpot why do you link a person's race to terrorism? terrorist acts are performed by all kinds of people and it is unfair to brand any specific race as being terrorists. please stop being so bigoted.
infi: unfortunately, savage treatment is all the savages understand. it is part of the middle-eastern culture which for some bizarre reason david hicks sought to ascribe to.
You can't. It is still funny watching you use the word ascribe in the completely wrong place in an effort to look smart.
Calling a culture savage and saying that they should be treated like savages is bigotry infi. I guess you are going to go all bloo bloo bloo now about me bringing this old thing up? I just like to keep people reminded that you are a bigoted little douche.
why do some communities have lower crime rates? mostly because of the community cohesiveness and cultural values
that comment was made in relation to a specific context relating to a community of afghanistanis who exploded a local police officer up because they did not agree with his law enforcement decisions, and then in the wider context of people who engage in terrorist acts. at no time did i refer to a racial grouping.
any community that did that to their police officers would be called savages. so as much as you would love to have a "smoking gun" fpot (need to stay on topic) you failmax yet again :)
allegations of racism is the ultimate in left-wing hysteria.
if you don't think social and cultural cohesiveness have an impact on crime rates then you're an idiot.
that comment was made in relation to a specific context relating to a community of afghanistanis who exploded a local police officer up because they did not agree with his law enforcement decisions.
You are absolutely full of shit. The conversation was about gitmo and gitmo only. After you spoke about the savages in gitmo deserve savage treatment, you then went on about your little RPG story.
You either hold that people are born with inalienable human rights or you do not.
What sort of things are you talking about when you mean "rights"? What good is having these inherent, inalienable rights if you're born in a society where those rights are not protected?
I don't see the point in talking about these "inherent human rights" when a significant proportion of the planet live in places where rights that seem reasonable to me (eg, free speech, voting, women are the same as men) are clearly not available to every human. I get them as a theoretical construct, which seems to be the only way you're talking about them, but I don't see how anyone can believe in them when these sorts of "basic rights" are constantly violated day in, day out by many nations all over the planet.
This model produced on of the most astounding chapters in the history of human civilisation, the USA. Since careening away from the model for last 50+ years they have not coincedentally lost their way...
Can't ...tell ...if sarcastic? The USA was born on the model of freedom and liberty - creating a society to help enforce a set of constitutionally mandated rights for every citizen, and then other rights depending on how the individual states wanted to do things. I won't speak for the last 50 years, but the last 10 years have certainly seen more erosion of those rights and liberties in the US than any other time in its history, and I cannot believe anyone would seriously say they have not "lost their way" when you look at the state of the USA as it stands now.
I agree with your last paragraph, but as should be obvious from what I wrote above I come down on the side of no guns. The rest of your post makes no sense to me without some sort of examples of what rights you're talking about.
Government serves the people, disarming the people is something an enemy of the people would do.
We know it is the path to Tyranny because we saw it happen often last century.
The Free men who crafted the US Constitution knew it 200 years ago.
The men at The Eureka Stockade knew it.
Once you have no weapons the Government can do what it likes to you.
The goal of government is to make itself stronger, more powerful.
Its all good to say that that would never happen here because times are good, but a Government is at its most shiftiest when things are good because it is always planning for when things turn bad.
The Government is not your Friend.
It is a beast that must always remain on the leash preferably muzzled.
that is my opinion. some communities have residents which keep their streets and neighbourhoods clean and take pride in their homes and parks, and it shows in the resulting levels of anti-social behaviour.
other communities have filthy neighbourhoods, littered with grafitti and drugs, and that also shows accordingly.
I believe community has a large role to play in crime rates. or maybe we just blame the government as per usual...
Going back for a second to my post on Switzerland...
I forget who asked about the availability of ammunition but the answer is technically you can only get ammo when its released to you in times of potential war, or at the authorised rifle ranges for practice (encouraged :P) and this:
"Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book."
To whom ever it was that referenced the decrease in suicides in australia resulting from Howards knee-jerk gun control laws, i suggest you take a sneak at this:
Talking about statistics etc, some of you in this thread have spouted all kinds of stuff with out any citation at all. If you read nothing else from my post, I would recommend this study - "A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE - DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**"
On a side note and relating to the numbers of so suicides - every week in my job i get handed at least 1 or 2 exhibits relating to a suicide. I reckon 90% of those suicides were done with a noose and the remainder were either pills or carbon monoxide. In 5 years in my role i have had 1 only gun suicide (and omg what a mess he made, i wont even go into the details of how much work that bastard caused me :P)
The good citizens guns are out there, well stored, regularly checked by police for compliance etc - these arent being used for suicides or bank robberies.
To quote from that study above "Criminals have no trouble finding them (guns) and exhibit a new willingness to use them"
Criminals will always find a way to get guns (look at Martin Bryant for example), and denying the use of them (whether you like guns or not) based on teh actions of a few smacks of a nanny state that i want no part of.
Oh and Fpot, i always like to read your posts because I know i will see an opposite view point to mine and i think its good to be challenged in your thinking. My only comment on your viewpoints is that too often they are full of vituperation and I find that it detracts from the overall message. Just a thought.
Last but not least... type "murder by vehicle" into google and see how many matches you get - who ever said there was no correlation needs to rethink
(not edited for ease of reading, dinner nearly ready :P)
I don't really think you need to go into specifics about some places being more violent than others you just have to pull your head out of your ass for five minutes and check out the news.
Cultural differences would be the prime thing I'd look at between two countries with wildly differing crime rates. Just for the sake of arguement how do you think a country like Japan would stack up against somewhere like South Africa?
A great example of how cultural differences can have a big impact on peoples behaviour is to look at New Orleans after Katrina and then Japan after the tsunami. There couldn't be a more dramatic comparison than those two and I don't believe you could for a second deny culture was a big a huge part of the reason for the difference.
i haven't read the second page of the thread (100 posts per page ftw) but just wanted to say, Taipan, I wasn't being disingenuous at all, in my opinion, because i was drawing attention to the weapons that you/your family own that you do not need to go hunting.
i didn't mention the 7mm magnum rifle and bow/crossbow because i can understand you using them for hunting and owning them, but i referred to a mac-10 because using your stated example of needing weapons to hunt, a mac-10 is unnecessary and quite useless.
anyway, carry on, we'll be on opposite sides of this disagreement forever i imagine :). I have no problem with guns or hunting, i just don't see the need for access to automatic weapons and handguns, that's all.
Mate youre right the Mac 10 is useless and I mean useless for everything with the exception of having a little bit of fun out where we shoot. It's not mine as I pointed out earlier and I wouldn't even consider getting one as they are a complete waste of money.
In saying that though I really have no issue with responsible people having what ever fire arm they want. Shit if I had a lazy 10k laying about I'd get myself a barrett and for no other reason than I really love long range shooting. Mind you there isn't a range I don't like shooting at.
The deal with me is though that I really really enjoy shooting I have been doing it since I was 5 years old and of course through my time in the army. It really pisses me off 1) that some fucking idiot that probably should never been allowed to lay a hand on a firearm managed to fuck up bad enough to get every shooter penalized. 2) that narrow minded dickheads that have no interest in the sport and no real knowledge of shooting in general can sit back and run the sport down and basically tar all shooters as raving lunatics.
You know I'd really love to see some of the guys here that have never been on a range come out for a shoot some day. I think some perceptions might be changed particularly when they see how seriously the average shooter takes education and safety.
As for hunting well for me when I first went out I was really in two minds as to how I would handle it. I had never cleaned a mamal so that concerned me alot as I don't always have the strongest stomach. To top it off I actually do have a great love of animals and really don't like to see anything suffer. As it turned out though when everything came together and I got my first deer I was completely hooked. I still feel a pit in my stomach when I think of the deer but thats part of being a human that actually gives a shit about the animals we hunt.... I know it seems contradictory and it's actually hard to get my head around sometimes. But I'll make this perfectly clear I would rather eat what I hunt and kill than what I can buy at a butchers, but thats just me.
Oh in case you are wondering skining and cleaning a deer is bloody but not real hard, just like a big fish but with fur.
years ago (before all the Port Arthur silliness) my friends and i used to go fishooting - this is indeed a word i made up :P
We would go out fishing and set lines etc and wait for the fish to bite. Of course periodically we would catch those bloody toadfish.
What we would then do was to get out our weapon of choice (.22 BSA Super Meteor with sights or the .410 ratgun or occasionally the 12guage) and get the person who caught the toad to throw it back out (still hooked) and then to wind it in like a mad man... the other 2 of us would try to shoot it off the line as it came flying in...
Actually it was more fun than it sounds written there hehe
One day we were at our spot (yes it was all safe and secure and all that stuff for you lefty watermelons) when the police turned up! Since we all were licensed etc we were of course not worried (too much) but wondered why they were there. The guys were friendly and just noted that they had been patrolling and heard the weapon fire and came to see what was happenning. They couldnt stop laughing once we told / showed them and both of them had to have a go!
If it was now i would have smartphone pictured that shit and posted it here for you but this is a long time ago :)
I regret that they didnt pull out their pistols and try to toast the toadfish but i guess there were some kind of rules for them then too with respect to official use of the pistols.
i agree - if you are seriously going to top yourself, you WILL find a way and if you ask me, suicide by shooting yourself would most likely be the quickest and least painful (?) way to do it
however i was merely responding to a previous poster who claimed that if there were no weapons, people wouldnt be able to commit suicide with them
Please allow me to share with you how “The Secret” changed my life and in a very real and substantive way allowed me to overcome a severe crisis in my personal life. It is well known that the premise of “The Secret” is the science of attracting the things in life that you desire and need and in removing from your life those things that you don’t want. Before finding this book, I knew nothing of these principles, the process of positive visualization, and had actually engaged in reckless behaviors to the point of endangering my own life and wellbeing.
At age 36, I found myself in a medium security prison serving 3-5 years for destruction of government property and public intoxication. This was stiff punishment for drunkenly defecating in a mailbox but as the judge pointed out, this was my third conviction for the exact same crime. I obviously had an alcohol problem and a deep and intense disrespect for the postal system, but even more importantly I was ignoring the very fabric of our metaphysical reality and inviting destructive influences into my life.
My fourth day in prison was the first day that I was allowed in general population and while in the recreation yard I was approached by a prisoner named Marcus who calmly informed me that as a new prisoner I had been purchased by him for three packs of Winston cigarettes and 8 ounces of Pruno (prison wine). Marcus elaborated further that I could expect to be raped by him on a daily basis and that I had pretty eyes.
Needless to say, I was deeply shocked that my life had sunk to this level. Although I’ve never been homophobic I was discovering that I was very rape phobic and dismayed by my overall personal street value of roughly $15. I returned to my cell and sat very quietly, searching myself for answers on how I could improve my life and distance myself from harmful outside influences. At that point, in what I consider to be a miraculous moment, my cell mate Jim Norton informed me that he knew about the Marcus situation and that he had something that could solve my problems. He handed me a copy of “The Secret”. Normally I wouldn’t have turned to a self help book to resolve such a severe and immediate threat but I literally didn’t have any other available alternatives. I immediately opened the book and began to read.
The first few chapters deal with the essence of something called the “Law of Attraction” in which a primal universal force is available to us and can be harnessed for the betterment of our lives. The theoretical nature of the first few chapters wasn’t exactly putting me at peace. In fact, I had never meditated and had great difficulty with closing out the chaotic noises of the prison and visualizing the positive changes that I so dearly needed. It was when I reached Chapter 6 “The Secret to Relationships” that I realized how this book could help me distance myself from Marcus and his negative intentions. Starting with chapter six there was a cavity carved into the book and in that cavity was a prison shiv. This particular shiv was a toothbrush with a handle that had been repeatedly melted and ground into a razor sharp point.
The next day in the exercise yard I carried “The Secret” with me and when Marcus approached me I opened the book and stabbed him in the neck. The next eight weeks in solitary confinement provided ample time to practice positive visualization and the 16 hours per day of absolute darkness made visualization about the only thing that I actually could do. I’m not sure that everybody’s life will be changed in such a dramatic way by this book but I’m very thankful to have found it and will continue to recommend it heartily.
Lulu Campbell, 57, told the Macon Telegraph she was approached by two men carrying guns as she dropped her 15-year-old grandson home after finishing work early Saturday morning (local time) at a Shell service station she owns in Macon, Georgia, about 128km southeast of Atlanta.
The two men - identified by police as 32-year-old Brenton Lance Spencer and 30-year-old Dantre Horatio Shivers - demanded that Ms Campbell open the car door and give them her money.
Ms Campbell, who regularly carries a gun on her hip, said she told one of the men, "Baby, you're going to kill me anyway, so I don't have to open it".
She said as Spencer fired at her, she reached for her 38-calibre revolver and fired back - hitting him in the chest.
"I saw the guy in front of me, and I said, 'Oh my God, there are two of them'. I said I'm going to take one of them with me. That's what was in my head," Ms Campbell told the Telegraph.
Police said Shivers then started shooting at Ms Campbell, who continued firing back at him until he fled from the scene.
I'd be interested to know the stats for crimes where the intended victim is armed how often they actually come out on top in a confrontation. I think to many people get a false sense of security by carrying a gun. There is so much that goes into knowing when and where to use it and then timing any move you make has to be pretty much spot on.
Personally I simply would carry one unless I had spent a ton of time training for a possible shit situation or I was left with no choice. But thats just me
more like freedom comes from the complete ineptitude of would-be armed robbers
Her car remains riddled with bullet holes from the wild shootout, but Ms Campbell somehow managed to escape the ordeal without being shot.
Ms Campbell has some form with guns, having shot her husband and his mistress 35 years ago, the newspaper reported.
where's their freedom faceman?
the worst thing about this is that next time, out of concern for their own safety, the scumbags will just shoot first without even bothering to demand the store owners open the door - and store owners that might've had a chance at escaping with their lives, will die over a small bagful of cash or less
Nice spot Jim, regarding the husband and mistress, jesus.
lol copuis. (on a side note, I can't believe that a simpson's clip actually exists on youtube, it seems that they've been so set against any sort of online advertisement for years)
If you got a grouping like that you should proabbly save the last bullet for yourself. Particularly since the guy was probably only standing a couple of feet from the impact point of those rounds.
Seems if anything its either crime related or mental health related (cognitive behaviour therapy would be warranted and with the free trade agreement -- generic medicines.)
Mainstream News never reports of good gun defense stories anyhow. It is always shock, awe and disappoint. There was a really good talk by one of Swedish's retiring generals on TED (I think it was some Swedish military general who was retiring) about the use of guns and usage in defense power, can't remember the name of the talk, but it was really good.
One thing about the media that really shits me is their desire to sensationalize any story but recently the job they have been doing covering aparent random shooting is pretty fucking ridiculous.
I have seen two shootings in recent times that have both been reported as execution style killings. This of course conjures up images of the darkest and most brutal criminal activity where some dude is on his knees with a gun pressed against the back of his head. The reality of both of those reported shootings was vastly different but obviously wouldn't sell papers. One of them a guy was shot through his bedroom window (hardly a big crime execution style shooting) and the other was a outright drive by. I fucking hate cheap grabs for attention by the media
PM
WWW
