[QUOTE=Zyler;48578178]I'd like to hear exactly how that is. I never said that America should take up Australian cultural values and neither I nor AntDawg was suggesting that America should take up Australian gun control regulation.[/QUOTE]You are missing the point and it is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578178]I'd like to hear exactly how that is. I never said that America should take up Australian cultural values and neither I nor AntDawg were suggesting that America should take up Australian gun control regulation. His argument was that gun control should be privatized (i.e. taken out of government hands) and gun dealers should self-regulate and do their own background checks as a part of registration to a gun club, which as far as I know is not how it works in Australia or anywhere else in the world. I was arguing against that solution and stating why I thought it wouldn't work. Neither of us were ever arguing that America should take up Australian gun regulation laws, as both of us agree that it wouldn't work.[/QUOTE]
It's an American thing, I wouldn't expect you to understand.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48578182]You are missing the point and it is hilarious.[/QUOTE]
What's the point, then? Are you saying that I sound like a 'SJW' or that I sound like an American arguing about gun control? The reason I might sound like an 'SJW' is that I'm criticizing someone for being judgemental of other cultures and the reason I might sound an American arguing about gun control is that I'm arguing about American gun control.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48575740]and i don't have to be australian to see that your citizens are defenseless and your government has you by the balls even more so than the united states[/QUOTE]
I like that you believe that guns would help you against 'the government' if they decided to turn against the civilian population. As long as the government retained control of the military you wouldn't stand a fucking chance against your government turning tyrannical on you; having hand guns isn't going to do shit against tanks, fighter jets and drones. We're kind of past the point of being able to physically defend ourselves against our governments in the western world; the technological advantage is far too great in their favour.
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48578190]It's an American thing, I wouldn't expect you to understand.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I've ever made that point. All I stated is that it's fundamentally flawed to apply laws, cultures and solutions from one country onto another. I never said that it's impossible to 'understand' those laws, cultures and solutions, just that the argument 'it works here so it must work everywhere else in the world' is a fundamentally flawed argument. We don't need guns to solve our problems in Australia, this is a fact. The situation is different in America to the unique historical and cultural situation surrounding it in comparison to Australia. I don't know how I could be more reasonable in this.
If an Australian guy said that Americans should take on Australian gun laws for no other reason than that it worked here, I'd respond in exactly the same way to them.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578208]What's the point, then? Are you saying that I sound like a 'SJW' or that I sound like an American arguing about gun control? The reason I might sound like an 'SJW' is that I'm criticizing someone for being judgemental of other cultures and the reason I might sound an American arguing about gun control is that I'm arguing about American gun control.[/QUOTE]No, that you two were discussing how to change laws regarding firearms in the U.S. and with respect to it culture. Then someone pulls turnabout on you and the first defense is "You don't understand our culture, don't try to talk about how we should handle it."
Whether or not you were discussing implementing Australia's method is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=sltungle;48578221]I like that you believe that guns would help you against 'the government' if they decided to turn against the civilian population. As long as the government retained control of the military you wouldn't stand a fucking chance against your government turning tyrannical on you; having hand guns isn't going to do shit against tanks, fighter jets and drones. We're kind of past the point of being able to physically defend ourselves against our governments in the western world; the technological advantage is far too great in their favour.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency[/url]
go back to history class
western governments are already tyrannical
you've proven your fear in your own governments monopoly of lethal force
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48578232]No, that you two were discussing how to change laws regarding firearms in the U.S. and with respect to it culture. Then someone pulls turnabout on you and the first defense is "You don't understand our culture, don't try to talk about how we should handle it."
Whether or not you were discussing implementing Australia's method is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Because our argument was based around facts and information and what American culture actually is. His argument was basically just 'You damn Australians live in an authoritarian regime and should change your gun laws to be more like ours because I said so'. Are you telling me there's no difference between the two arguments? That there's no such thing as a nuanced discussion as opposed to simply flaming someone for belonging to a different country, which was also never brought up before now?
I don't make judgements about people based on what country they come from, I make judgements based on people's ideas. If someone states an idea that I think is logically wrong, then I'm going to point that out regardless of where they come from.
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578242][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency[/url]
go back to history class[/QUOTE]
We don't have those problems here.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578247]Because our argument was based around facts and information and what American culture actually is. His argument was basically just 'You damn Australians live in an authoritarian regime and should change your gun laws to be more like ours because I said so'. Are you telling me there's no difference between the two arguments? That there's no such thing as a nuanced discussion as opposed to simply flaming someone for belonging to a different country, which was also never brought up before now?
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
We don't have those problems here.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis[/url]
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting[/url]
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack[/url]
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578254][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis[/url]
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting[/url]
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack[/url][/QUOTE]
Are you talking about terrorist attacks or civil unrest/revolution? Because those are two completely different things.
terrorism is a symptom of civil unrest
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
you said you don't have the problems of insurgency or 4th generation warfare
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
your nation is in the midst of just that
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline][editline]30th August 2015[/editline][editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
"While not every insurgency involves terror, most involve an equally hard to define tactic, subversion. "When a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; it is being out-administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front."[17] The exceptional cases of insurgency without subversion are those when there is no accepted government that is providing administrative services."
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578278]terrorism is a symptom of civil unrest
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
you said you don't have the problems of insurgency or 4th generation warfare
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
your nation is in the midst of just that[/QUOTE]
The Australian public is not rebelling against the government. There's a big difference between a few idiots with guns shooting up a Cafe and a full-blown civil war. Don't you think that it's a little bit disingenuous to conflate the two? There's making a mountain out of a mole hill, and then there's hitting the mole hill with a nuclear bomb, and I think you're closer to one of those than the other.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578312]The Australian public is not rebelling against the government. There's a big difference between a few idiots with guns shooting up a Cafe and a full-blown civil war. Don't you think that it's a little bit disingenuous to conflate the two? There's making a mountain out of a mole hill, and then there's hitting the mole hill with a nuclear bomb, and I think you're closer to one of those than the other.[/QUOTE]
you can't tell me that the australian public isn't rebelling against the government when there are a minority of australian citizens living in that country that have been and could be radicalized to engage in acts of terrorism
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578321]"While not every insurgency involves terror, most involve an equally hard to define tactic, subversion. "When a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; it is being out-administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front."[17] The exceptional cases of insurgency without subversion are those when there is no accepted government that is providing administrative services."[/QUOTE]
That doesn't really answer my question. Don't you think there's a bit of a difference in comparative scale here? Am I an insurgent trying to take over the country if I rob a liquor store? Am I causing a civil war if I shop lift from the Gap?
[QUOTE]you can't tell me that the [b]australian public[/b] isn't rebelling against the government when there are a [b]minority[/b] of australian citizens living in that country that have been and could be radicalized to engage in acts of terrorism[/QUOTE]
Yes I am saying that. The entire Australian public isn't in a civil war because a few individuals decide to be idiots. That's like saying all Americans are fundamentalist Christians who vote for Republicans because a certain subset of them do that (which is a much LARGER minority or even half of the population, much more than the amount of Australians who engage in terrorist activities).
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578332]That doesn't really answer my question. Don't you think there's a bit of a difference in comparative scale here? Am I an insurgent trying to take over the country if I rob a liquor store? Am I causing a civil war if I shop lift from the Gap?
Yes I am saying that. The entire Australian public isn't in a civil war because a few individuals decide to be idiots. That's like saying all Americans are fundamentalist Christians who vote for Republicans because a certain subset of them do that (which is a much LARGER minority or even half of the population, much more than the amount of Australians who engage in terrorist activities).[/QUOTE]
yes
your a terrorist
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578356]yes[/QUOTE]
So I'm a terrorist if I shoplift from the gap? Alright. Your definition of terrorism is very different from my definition of terrorism. It also changes the definition of everything you've argued. If 'country-wide civil war' means 'people can shop-lift' then I guess you're right and every country in the world is in a civil war and everyone on earth lives in total anarchy. Which begs the question of why it's worth bringing up such an obvious point to begin with. You've essentially applied the [url=slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]'motte and bailey'[/url] approach to argument, where you've stated something that sounds really bad but really is something entirely different and inconsequential by comparison. When you say 'Terrorist', people think you mean 'big, scary person who's going to blow up the World Trade Centre', but what you actually mean is 'adolescent valley girl who shoplifts clothes from the Gap'.
another american revolution would be a very long, bloody affair. it would most certainly not be the government steamrolling because the government would still need to play the propaganda game, and it is a bit more difficult for the american people to swallow sally and jimmy, aged 4 and 6 respectively, getting blown to bits in a drone strike on hometown alabama than ahmed and mahmoud, age 2 and 10 respectively, getting decimated in pakistan by the same drone
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
and if they decided to pull an assad or a gadhaffi and declare full out war on the people, you'd see a lot of defection to the people
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48575072]Increasing the waiting period won't do shit.
Canada is [B]very[/B] different from the US. [B]So if you guys not having guns works out so well, tell me why in areas/states in the US where guns are the least restricted, crime is significantly lower?[/B][/QUOTE]
Because gun restrictions in the US are a response to crime rate and not the other way round.
Now, are gun restrictions effective at countering high crime rates? Maybe, maybe not (IMO probably not), but you certainly can't say they cause or increase crime.
[QUOTE=sltungle;48578221]I like that you believe that guns would help you against 'the government' if they decided to turn against the civilian population. As long as the government retained control of the military you wouldn't stand a fucking chance against your government turning tyrannical on you; having hand guns isn't going to do shit against tanks, fighter jets and drones. We're kind of past the point of being able to physically defend ourselves against our governments in the western world; the technological advantage is far too great in their favour.[/QUOTE]
Something tells me if the government ever were to become tyrannical and order soldiers to fire upon our own nation, a majority of the military would go AWOL / fight against the government, and take a lot of equipment with them too.
[QUOTE=Toro;48578575]Something tells me if the government ever were to become tyrannical and order soldiers to fire upon our own nation, a majority of the military would go AWOL / fight against the government, and take a lot of equipment with them too.[/QUOTE]
This is absolutely true and it's why I don't delude myself with the "in case of tyranny" argument. :v:
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48578391]another american revolution would be a very long, bloody affair. it would most certainly not be the government steamrolling because the government would still need to play the propaganda game, and it is a bit more difficult for the american people to swallow sally and jimmy, aged 4 and 6 respectively, getting blown to bits in a drone strike on hometown alabama than ahmed and mahmoud, age 2 and 10 respectively, getting decimated in pakistan by the same drone
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
and if they decided to pull an assad or a gadhaffi and declare full out war on the people, you'd see a lot of defection to the people[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly why it won't happen. An armed populace is no protection against governmental oppression. A strong democracy and rule of law are.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578356]yes
your a terrorist[/QUOTE]
Bad trolling you should feel bad.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48578544]Because gun restrictions in the US are a response to crime rate and not the other way round.
Now, are gun restrictions effective at countering high crime rates? Maybe, maybe not (IMO probably not), but you certainly can't say they cause or increase crime.[/QUOTE]
Probably not? Um... I'd have to disagree. Why is the mayor of Detroit telling people to carry then? Crime's out of control.
Think about it... If you're a criminal, are you going to hang around places where people are armed, or unarmed? Criminals don't follow laws, so "gun free" zones mean nothing more than an area full of targets for them. At least here in the US.
I'll gladly give up my guns as soon as the police and government become responsible for my safety. As long as the Supreme Court says that police can't be held liable for actually defending the people, I'll defend myself.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48584344]I'll gladly give up my guns as soon as the police and government become responsible for my safety. As long as the Supreme Court says that police can't be held liable for actually defending the people, I'll defend myself.[/QUOTE]
I would't even give up my guns then.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48584344]I'll gladly give up my guns as soon as the police and government become responsible for my safety. As long as the Supreme Court says that police can't be held liable for actually defending the people, I'll defend myself.[/QUOTE]
They ruled that because if they said said otherwise, it'd essentially be implying law enforcement are available to be your personal bodyguards. If someone calls 911 and says she thinks someone's after her, they'll do what they can to help, for sure. But they won't be posted outside her home 24/7, because that's unfeasible.
From what I've gathered from pro-gun enthusiasts from this thread:
1. Mental health backgrounds should be completed when purchasing a firearm to restrict dangerous people from getting it
2. It doesn't matter if they don't have a firearm because they will murder anyway
3. More people should have firearms as to stop dangerous people from using their firearm
4. People should be detained as soon as they show any signs of mental unstableness or aggression
[QUOTE=Badballer;48597849]From what I've gathered from pro-gun enthusiasts from this thread:[/QUOTE]
"You know that thing you like? It sucks, and here's why"
Of course people are going to argue. Not every place in the world has to be exactly the same. If we don't want to be Australia, we won't.
[QUOTE=Badballer;48597849]From what I've gathered from pro-gun enthusiasts from this thread:
1. Mental health backgrounds should be completed when purchasing a firearm to restrict dangerous people from getting it
2. It doesn't matter if they don't have a firearm because they will murder anyway
3. More people should have firearms as to stop dangerous people from using their firearm
4. People should be detained as soon as they show any signs of mental unstableness or aggression
I'm done with gun debates.[/QUOTE]
1. Mental health background checks already exist and if you are diagnosed with anything like schizophrenia, you need to be signed off as mentally stable[B]*[/B] or you'll just outright not be allowed to purchase firearms.
[B]*[/B] I was actually required to do this after a review of my mental health came up with schizotypal personality disorder.
2. It doesn't matter that much, even countries with great deals of control and regulations regarding weapons still have incidents in which people have them. Charlie Hebdo Shooting comes to mind, but at the moment several countries in the EU are experiencing a massive surge of machine pistols of the Luty and a Croatian design coming forward. The only reason you do not really hear about it all that much is because people in those areas are not stupid. Murder with a knife gets you 15 years, murder with a gun gets you 30 years or more.
3. Most people do not argue this. We argue that areas like "Gun Free" zones are bad in nature as they can be easily selected as target for mass-shooters. Not to mention the current laws regarding gun free zones are gray at best, and usually enforced from locality to locality.
4. If you owns weapons and begin to show signs of mental deterioration the least that should be done is that you are required to hand over the firing pins for your firearms as well as the ammo. It won't prevent mass shooters with clean records, but it's a necessary step to give everyone equal rights, even those with mental health problems.
I'm unsure as to why you even made your post, but if you really want I can try to give you an idea on how weird the laws in the United States are at the moment.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48598027]"You know that thing you like? It sucks, and here's why"
Of course people are going to argue. Not every place in the world has to be exactly the same. If we don't want to be Australia, we won't.[/QUOTE]
*inserts random straw man from out of nowhere*
*states a stern condemnation against it*
*pretends he accomplished something*
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.