Guns for protection...

[straight blast]

I'm sorry sir, it appears I owe you an apology. I do sincerely apologise for the majority of my comments above. Your writing shows a decent understanding of the Port Arthur massacre and my comments regarding your intellect were a little hasty and obviously unfounded.

As one of the other forum members wrote once:
"Here is a stick. Beat me for my ignorance"

Sorry dude.

However no matter how many statistics or conspiracy theories you throw at me, if he didn't have a gun I doubt that it would have been a massacre. If he had had a baseball bat it would have been the "Port Arthur assault" perhaps. And that's the bottom line. But, each to their own I suppose.

Straight Blast- First lets get this out in the open my nutless mate from down under, christianity is an occult practice, sorry to bust your bubble but it fits the descrition, christianity is a cult movement and there followers use occult practices and rituals.

Erm...I suggest you look up the meaning of "occult" in a reputable dictionary. Particularly in relation to Christianity. Your info on Port Arthur is good. Your info on Christianity is not so good. As I said, each to their own. I guess the difference between you and me is I have been an atheist (15 years), and I am now a Christian. So I can speak with a little authority on both counts. By all means, slag off at the church. I myself have been a victim of church politics and the bullsh!t that one often finds in the institution. In fact I'd be inclined to agree that the church is too ritualistic.

But Christianity is not. Slag it when you know something about it. I would rather make peace between us (note I have not slagged atheists or other beliefs) but please don't expect me to respect the irreligious views of a man who looks in the mirror and sees God each morning? Even though he doesn't believe in God?

I don't want a religious debate. Apology offered in all sincerity.

Peace be with you

[joedoe]

Just to clarify a few things: Port Arthur is not the only massacre to have ever happened in Australia (though it is by far the worst). Remember Hoddle St?

Anyway, the difference is that gun ownership is not a constutional right afforded to Australians as it is to US citizens. Whether you view this as a restriction of freedom is really a matter of opinion. Me personally, I don't see it as a infringement on my freedom at all.

Gun owners are represented in Australia by the Sporting Shooters Association. It does not have the same political clout as the NRA has in the US, but there is representation.

Australian citizens are allowed to own guns if they pass the tests and qualify for a licence of ownership. I think this is pretty similar to what you have in the US as well. We are not allowed to own automatics or semi-automatics (I think there are some exemptions for farmers etc). I do not see that as unreasonable either.

Handgun ownership is allowed as well, but most people are required to store their handguns either at the pistol range or in a secured place like a safe. I have also been told that the police regularly inspect handgun owner's storage facilities to ensure that they are adequate.

I do not believe that any of the gun laws in Australia are unreasonable. They are stricter than those in the US in many ways, but then our constitutions are different too.

On the whole, I believe the majority of Australians agree with the gun ownership laws here. That is the fundamental difference - most Australians do not see the restriction of guns as equating to a restriction of our freedoms. The main difference is in the attitudes. We do not equate guns to our masculinity

[Black Jack]

Straight Blast, I apologize in retrospect for a few things as well, one I should not of called you nutless in defense of your anger towards me, anybody who can eat veggie mite has some big stones

Two, even though I am an aethist, I should not of insulted your faith with that degree of venom, it was not called for at that point yet, just old habits I guess.

Lets leave the christian thing alone, it will not get either of use anywhere, all that will happen is that you will feel rightly insulted, but the god in the mirror thing was more of joke/not joke, that in the respect of myself I am the higher power that makes decisions in my life, not a picture of the Christian diety, but whatever.

On the issue of Port Arthur, I would also like to point out that if any of the populace there at that time, had a firearm the tragedy might not of gone to the lengths it did and a citizen would of been able to stop the assualt instead of waiting for the police to clean up the aftermath.

What turned out to be 35 dead could of been far, far fewer.

And as always, criminals don't care about firearm laws, the only ones who really suffer in the long run are those who are law abiding.

Peace bro.

JoeDoe,

Just pointing out that there is no use in having a firearm for self preservation if one is forced to keep it at the range or in a locked safe at home.

I just hope that the grass roots gun freedom movements in Austrialia gets more ground in getting back what they had before the knee jerk reaction to the incidents listed.

[joedoe]

That is just it though - most Australians do not feel they need a gun for self preservation. I simply put it down to a difference in mindset due to the fact that most of us have lived without guns for so long.

And there is no guarantee that if Tasmanians had owned more guns that Martin Bryant might have been stopped. It is pure speculation.

I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that

[red_fists]

Joedoe & Black Jack.

I think your cultures are way too different to come an agrement that suits both sides.

Having lived in the 3 Countries I mentioned in a previus Post, I must that the mentality towards violence was very different and I doubt that either tightening or easing of gun regulation would have any major impact.

peace.

[Black Jack]

JoeDoe, I agree it is not doing any good, at least with the respect that one party does not feel inclined to debate, I will say though that speculation yes, but if some of the citizens had concealed firearms on them that day, I would place my bets, that is if we were betting on percentages, that a lot less people would of perished.

Red Fist, what the heck, if you keep making sense to me I am going to have to start thinking I am in some bizzaro verison of KFO

[red_fists]

Hehe.

Welcome, to my world.

Playing of "Hotel California" in the background.

[straight blast]

Truth be told, I can't stand Vegemite either...

Concentrated yeast extract-and people eat it.

[scotty1]

Marmite on the other hand kicks arse.

I'm impressed with the way you've managed to pull this one back from the brink, nice one lads.

I think it would be fair to say, although I don't know (and please correct me if I am way off) that guns are a part of American criminal culture, thus the American public feel that they need an equal weapon ie. another gun to defend themselves.

Australian criminal culture on the other hand does not have guns playing such a large part in it, so Australians do not feel the need to arm themselves.

However, the problem to my mind occurs in a society like England, where traditionally we have had the Australian viewpoint, where unless you're involved in some kind of serious crime where obviously guns will be used, the weapon you are likely to come up against in a mugging/ street crime / robbery is a knife. Hence, no need for a gun. Overkill, you might say.

But now we have a situation where you are seeing more and more crime involving guns affecting everyday people, so what do you do? Arm the populace? Overturn the legislation and bans put in place after Dunblane (Scottish school massacre) so that the public can defend themselves on an equal footing, American style?

Of course, the situation is nowhere near as bad as that in England YET, but I can see it happening in my lifetime. Most of the gun crime that occurs in England at the moment occurs either in nightclubs, which are places that presumably you're not allowed to take a gun into in the US anyway, and between rival drug gangs and gang members. In either case, the general public being armed with guns would not make a bit of difference to their personal safety. Once the muggers/rapists/robbers start arming themselves with shooters, I think it will be a different story.

[red_fists]

Marmite & Vegimite are evil and rank right up there with "Nattou".

[grogan]

I had a license in QLD for rifles when I turned 17 the test then was they give you a question book with the most simplest of questions I have ever seen you get to take it home and post your answers to the police whenever you wanted to and then 2 months later you could buy anything you wanted from a pellet gun to a USAS shotgun to a semi-automatic steyr, SLR, any assault rifle you wanted as long as it wasn't automatic. The rifles were not registered in your name and you could buy them off anyone go and pop someone and leave the rifle at the scene and they could never track you from it. Laws needed changing and due to the unfortunate Port Arthur massacre they certainly did the tests are still easy but the checks take longer you need a reason for the license (self defence not being one) you either have to be in a club or a farmer. The license is broken up into categories rimfire only bolt/lever action with up to 10 round capacity, centrefire these only bolt/lever action with 5 round capacity, shotguns side by side or u/o no pumpies allowed anymore, for the general public anything higher than this forget about it. I personally think that the regulations that are brought in are great and you don't need anything more. THe regulations on handguns need to be tightened up though, they are probably strict against the rest of the world but what use would you have for one of them? Hunting Caribou? I think not.

[Dark Knight]

"The main difference is in the attitudes. We do not equate guns to our masculinity "


I noticed a lot of other countries feel this way. Here in the USA we dont see it as that, it is as we have always pointed out. Many men have died for our freedoms and we dont want to give them up.

The martial arts can be seen as a way to show your masculinity, a couple guys beating each other, whats the point?

It seems to me that here in the USA we are protecting our freedom, but others are posting comments protecting their masculinity.

Maby you should look inside yourself and wonder what you have allowed your country to do to you.


"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither."
-Ben Franklin, right wing extremist

[Radhnoti]

scotty1,
I think you covered a part of why I as a U.S. citizen believe it's a good idea for our populace to be armed. But, there are several other reasons...here's a part of an article with one of those reasons:

"When you discuss the militia today on the planet earth, some of the strongest caselaw is embodied by the experience of Switzerland. The Swiss have been at peace longer than any other people on Earth, primarily because virtually every adult male (and any adult female who wants to join the effort) is a member of the militia and issued a real assault rifle.

The rifle the Swiss government issues to its citizens is a true machine gun. Picture a match-accurate M-16 rifle with a target grade trigger and a selector switch that goes from safe to semiautomatic to three-shot burst to full automatic, and you have the Sturmgewehr-90, which may be the most advanced assault rifle on earth. There’s one in almost every Swiss home, yet mass murders in public are unknown in that country. The murder rate in Switzerland is a fraction of that in the lowest-crime states in the US, despite the ubiquitous presence of machine guns and ammunition.

When their time comes to leave the militia, aging members have the option of keeping their rifles. A great many do. The Swiss army, with only a few thousand full time career members, see the retired militia people who are still armed as one more resource that keeps their country safe from war.

Barely more than half a century ago, the Nazi war machine considered invading Switzerland. It was the sort of nightmare that would make a field marshal of an army of conquest wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Every home a sniper’s nest? Mountain roads and bridges all mined, ready to be blown up and made impassable within 24 hours of an invasion? A populace unworried about embargo because every home had a year’s supply of food, not to mention a significant supply of ammunition? And why had the German spies reported that every Swiss village had a 300-meter rifle range, busily used by the citizenry every weekend?

It was Invader Motel. “They check in, but they don’t check out.” Why did field marshals who could not dissuade Adolf Hitler from invading Russia in winter manage to convince him that there was no future in attacking tiny Switzerland? Because some things are so obvious that even raving madmen can understand them.

At the time, the Japanese Empire certainly understood it as it drafted plans to invade the mainland United States. In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.

Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander’s face as he frankly answered the question. You are right, he told the Americans. We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand. "

-By Massad Ayoob

Yes, I know that currently the U.S. probably has no reason to fear any sort of invasion. But, a gun ban would eliminate the final layer of defense we as a nation have available to us. And who knows what the future may bring?

Again, this is one of many reasons...but I'll not bore you with more.

[Dark Knight]

"Personal courage is directly proportional to the restrictions we allow to be placed on our personal freedoms and privacy. We don't need more brave soldiers; we need more courageous citizens."

-Bill Kesl

I found this qoute on an article about restrictions dealing with the terrorist attacks.

A big question here is wether restrcitons and law enforcement is allowed due to our constitution. Because of this we may be opening ourselves to another attck without spotting it sooner.

But is your personal safty worth privacy and freedom?

The culture in the USA is different from the rest of the world. We recognize that we have fought and dies for our freedoms over the last two hundred plus years.

In other countries you have been brought up with the mindset that what the government decides is best for the country.

What is considerd acceptable in other countries is not here in the USA. And we will continue to fight to keep these values alive.

[Lice]

Radhnoti,

What can I say, my inner green party disagrees with your inner libertarian.

Let me state, that I think libertarian is the ideal choice, but I don't think our society is responsible enough for that amount of freedom. Mankind has not evolved enough socially.. maybe in a couple hundred years. Personally, I think we'll kill ourselves off before we get a worldwide enlightment though.

I'm not a cynic, just realistic.

Respectfully.