Australian Politics Forum - How do you define liberty?

Lafayette

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 316
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #195 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

Can you show me any data that indicates there are more guns in Australia now than just after the buyback?

Sorry, it's kinda hard to get those criminals to register illegal firearms.

But guns still do come in, which unless other guns are being destroyed for no reason, indicates that there are more firearms now than at that time.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39696
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #196 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:19pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:12pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:42am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Since we have established that gun laws reduce gun crime and gun deaths, we get back to my original point - that your argument can only amount to saying that an increased threat to innocent people to becoming a victim of gun crime is worth the price for your liberty. Thats an ideological position that I can't really argue against - but lets not persist with the lie that putting guns in people's hands makes them more safer.

So what you're saying is that putting guns in the hands of innocent civilians who have no inclination to break the law or harm other people and giving them the training necessary to properly use a firearm to defend themselves means that they will be less safe against criminals that could be armed with guns or knives? Than them being unarmed in the first place?

If you want to put it that way - then yes.

But a more honest way to put it is simply stating the established fact that reducing the number of guns in society makes innocent people safer from gun crime.

But if you really need to rationalise this in the terms you prefer to see it in - think of it like this: giving guns to innocent people who would only ever use them to defend themselves from armed criminals, makes it a) more likely a law-abiding "innocent" person will "flip out" and resort to gun crime b) easier for a person with criminal intent, but who has no criminal record, to acquire a gun for their sinister purposes and c) more likely a criminal will be able to steal or otherwise acquire illegally the legally acquired gun of a law-abiding person.

So long story short - yes, absolutely, arming innocent law-abiding citizens so they can defend themselves against criminals, will in the end make them more vulnerable to becoming victims of gun crime.

The other element which that NRA argument ignores is.............how many home invasions have been defeated because the innocent occupier had an arsenal in the house?

I noticed one the the many NRA furfies up there ^^^^ about the 4 foot nothing white virgin female being monstered by some huge bloke about to rape her...and how better able she would be to defend herself if she had a pistol. You always read the jargon, but you never read the answer. How many were able to beat the baddie off in that situation?

(Don't we have a 'gun' Board here where this stuff could be split off to?)

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #197 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:24pm

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:49pm:

its just voting twit. once or twice every three years. hardly an onerous obligation.

You really don't have to vote, either. Just get your name crossed off the Electoral Roll ... or get charged 20 bucks for being complacent. Grin

I have turned up and found my name missing off the Rolls, several times over the years and I have been living at the same address for 30 years. I just shrugged and wandered off. No fine was forthcoming. Grin

The only time I tried it on was for a "local" by-election here in Canberra. YAWN. No Liberal on the card, so I rang the Liberals and complained, they told me to vote for such and such Independent because she "used to be a Liberal". So I didn't show ... got fined $20.

I WILL be trying this at next Federal Election. Paying a HUGE 20 bucks NOT to vote for Turncoat will be very satisfying. I no longer have a cheque book ... does the AEC take BPay or Mastercard? Cool

For those that care. I really, truly, don't care what our Government does. I certainly don't get myself in a lather about it. In fact, I can't recall EVER complaining about The Government because mostly, what they do doesn't "affect me" or if it does, I find a way around it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39696
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #198 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:30pm

Neferti wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:49pm:

its just voting twit. once or twice every three years. hardly an onerous obligation.

You really don't have to vote, either. Just get your name crossed off the Electoral Roll ... or get charged 20 bucks for being complacent. Grin

I have turned up and found my name missing off the Rolls, several times over the years and I have been living at the same address for 30 years. I just shrugged and wandered off. No fine was forthcoming. Grin

The only time I tried it on was for a "local" by-election here in Canberra. YAWN. No Liberal on the card, so I rang the Liberals and complained, they told me to vote for such and such Independent because she "used to be a Liberal". So I didn't show ... got fined $20.

I WILL be trying this at next Federal Election. Paying a HUGE 20 bucks NOT to vote for Turncoat will be very satisfying. I no longer have a cheque book ... does the AEC take BPay or Mastercard? Cool

For those that care. I really, truly, don't care what our Government does. I certainly don't get myself in a lather about it. In fact, I can't recall EVER complaining about The Government because mostly, what they do doesn't "affect me" or if it does, I find a way around it.

There may have been a miscount, but.................12 times.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lafayette

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 316
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #199 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:38pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:12pm:

If you want to put it that way - then yes.

But a more honest way to put it is simply stating the established fact that reducing the number of guns in society makes innocent people safer from gun crime.

But if you really need to rationalise this in the terms you prefer to see it in - think of it like this: giving guns to innocent people who would only ever use them to defend themselves from armed criminals, makes it a) more likely a law-abiding "innocent" person will "flip out" and resort to gun crime b) easier for a person with criminal intent, but who has no criminal record, to acquire a gun for their sinister purposes and c) more likely a criminal will be able to steal or otherwise acquire illegally the legally acquired gun of a law-abiding person.

So long story short - yes, absolutely, arming innocent law-abiding citizens so they can defend themselves against criminals, will in the end make them more vulnerable to becoming victims of gun crime.

Arming innocent people and giving them the training to defend themselves will mean that they're more likely to be able to defend themselves against an criminals armed with knives, guns and a disparity of force that would justify using self defense, such as multiple attackers.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39696
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #200 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:41pm

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:12pm:

If you want to put it that way - then yes.

But a more honest way to put it is simply stating the established fact that reducing the number of guns in society makes innocent people safer from gun crime.

But if you really need to rationalise this in the terms you prefer to see it in - think of it like this: giving guns to innocent people who would only ever use them to defend themselves from armed criminals, makes it a) more likely a law-abiding "innocent" person will "flip out" and resort to gun crime b) easier for a person with criminal intent, but who has no criminal record, to acquire a gun for their sinister purposes and c) more likely a criminal will be able to steal or otherwise acquire illegally the legally acquired gun of a law-abiding person.

So long story short - yes, absolutely, arming innocent law-abiding citizens so they can defend themselves against criminals, will in the end make them more vulnerable to becoming victims of gun crime.

Arming innocent people and giving them the training to defend themselves will mean that they're more likely to be able to defend themselves against an criminals armed with knives, guns and a disparity of force that would justify using self defense, such as multiple attackers.

In theory...yes. In practice, there seems to be little evidence. You have seen the Australian figures, and they all go to debunk your (NRA) bullshit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39696
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #201 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:44pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:12pm:

If you want to put it that way - then yes.

But a more honest way to put it is simply stating the established fact that reducing the number of guns in society makes innocent people safer from gun crime.

But if you really need to rationalise this in the terms you prefer to see it in - think of it like this: giving guns to innocent people who would only ever use them to defend themselves from armed criminals, makes it a) more likely a law-abiding "innocent" person will "flip out" and resort to gun crime b) easier for a person with criminal intent, but who has no criminal record, to acquire a gun for their sinister purposes and c) more likely a criminal will be able to steal or otherwise acquire illegally the legally acquired gun of a law-abiding person.

So long story short - yes, absolutely, arming innocent law-abiding citizens so they can defend themselves against criminals, will in the end make them more vulnerable to becoming victims of gun crime.

Arming innocent people and giving them the training to defend themselves will mean that they're more likely to be able to defend themselves against an criminals armed with knives, guns and a disparity of force that would justify using self defense, such as multiple attackers.

In theory...yes. In practice, there seems to be little evidence. You have seen the Australian figures, and they all go to debunk your (NRA) bullshit.

It just sprang to mind.....and is 100% anecdotal, I agree in advance.

Gee, I wonder if Oscar's fiancée would still be alive if he did not have a gun to grab?

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #202 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:57pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:14am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 11:11pm:

There is no evidence the gun laws are responsible for decline in firearm deaths

But Baron you just admitted it:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:46pm:

We bought back 640,000 shotguns and rimfires for around a billion dollars to reduce our firearm homicides by 15-30 a year.

And we have replaced every single one of them since, with a continued reduction in gun deaths.

So how does that happen, increase in guns and a decrease in gun deaths.

Must be magic, because the hysteria states more guns = more death when that is patently untrue.

Sounds like BS to me bigol.

Can you show me any data that indicates there are more guns in Australia now than just after the buyback?

I wish geniuses would learn to google instead of demanding other people do it for you. Being an ignorant and petulant adult is no way to go through life.

A study has found Australians now own as many guns as they did at the time of the Port Arthur shootings in 1996.

More than 1 million guns were destroyed in the aftermath of the massacre, but research shows Australians have restocked over the past 10 years, importing more than 1 million firearms.

Despite that, the number of gun-related deaths has halved since the gun buyback.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/44...

But feel free to remain a hysterical little b1tch if that suits your personality

Back to top

IP Logged

Lafayette

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 316
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #203 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:29pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

In theory...yes. In practice, there seems to be little evidence. You have seen the Australian figures, and they all go to debunk your (NRA) bullshit.

So what you are saying is that armed and trained innocent civilians won't be able to defend themselves against criminals also armed with guns or knives or a disparity of force?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39696
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #204 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:37pm

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

In theory...yes. In practice, there seems to be little evidence. You have seen the Australian figures, and they all go to debunk your (NRA) bullshit.

So what you are saying is that armed and trained innocent civilians won't be able to defend themselves against criminals also armed with guns or knives or a disparity of force?

I'm saying they have no need to have a gun. Just another anecdote.

Link.

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #205 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:50pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

In theory...yes. In practice, there seems to be little evidence. You have seen the Australian figures, and they all go to debunk your (NRA) bullshit.

So what you are saying is that armed and trained innocent civilians won't be able to defend themselves against criminals also armed with guns or knives or a disparity of force?

I'm saying they have no need to have a gun. Just another anecdote.

Link.

IGNORE Aussie the fake lawyer. He only has a handle on Queensland Law ....... the rest of Australia tends to disagree. Grin

IF Americans want GUNS, sobeit. It's the LAW over there. IF they want to shoot in "self defence" let them. The World (outside the USA) still calls it MURDER.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lafayette

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 316
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #206 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:51pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

I'm saying they have no need to have a gun. Just another anecdote.

Link.

If they are being victimized by criminals and their lives are being put in danger then they most certainly need a gun to defend themselves.
Using your hands against a robber is a risk we shouldn't have to take.. Usually criminals will make sure the odds are in their favor by a disparity of force ie using weapons, having multiple people etc.
This is an example of someone using a firearm to defend their life against two armed offenders.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lafayette

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 316
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #207 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:54pm

Neferti wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

IGNORE Aussie the fake lawyer. He only has a handle on Queensland Law ....... the rest of Australia tends to disagree. Grin

IF Americans want GUNS, sobeit. It's the LAW over there. IF they want to shoot in "self defence" let them. The World (outside the USA) still calls it MURDER.

No, the rest of the world doesn't. Australia calls it common law self defense. That is, when you are faced with the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death, you may respond by using deadly force. That is with a gun, a knife, a brick, your hands etc. That right is well established.

Murder is when you take someone's life without just cause.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39696
Gender: male

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #208 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 4:00pm

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Neferti wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

IGNORE Aussie the fake lawyer. He only has a handle on Queensland Law ....... the rest of Australia tends to disagree. Grin

IF Americans want GUNS, sobeit. It's the LAW over there. IF they want to shoot in "self defence" let them. The World (outside the USA) still calls it MURDER.

No, the rest of the world doesn't. Australia calls it common law self defense. That is, when you are faced with the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death, you may respond by using deadly force. That is with a gun, a knife, a brick, your hands etc. That right is well established.

Murder is when you take someone's life without just cause.

Rubbish. In every State, the Law on this stuff is codified by Statute.

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: How do you define liberty?
Reply #209 - Dec 26^th, 2015 at 4:11pm

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Neferti wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

IGNORE Aussie the fake lawyer. He only has a handle on Queensland Law ....... the rest of Australia tends to disagree. Grin

IF Americans want GUNS, sobeit. It's the LAW over there. IF they want to shoot in "self defence" let them. The World (outside the USA) still calls it MURDER.

No, the rest of the world doesn't. Australia calls it common law self defense. That is, when you are faced with the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death, you may respond by using deadly force. That is with a gun, a knife, a brick, your hands etc. That right is well established.

Murder is when you take someone's life without just cause.

Murder is Murder. You kill another person it is a Homicide. It is the Lawyers that get you off doing LIFE. Why Americans kill/murder their spouse to avoid Divorce Settlements is beyond me. Then try to cover it up .... PATHETIC.

Back to top

IP Logged