News Another Shooting In The Us

[The Albatross]

Sticking your head in the sand in any area is kind off silly IMHO. You may not be able to change something, though being in denial about an issue and its realistic attributes is a bit silly in my view.

I like Michael Moore... he does some good shows that bring relevant topics to the forefront for discussion.

It is like here in Australia, where refugees are given better medical health than low-income Australians born in the country, [snip] trying to bypass the refugee system.

Personally Anthony I'm willing to appear a bit silly in certain circles... in order to protect and defend my unalieanable right as an American citizen under my Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We are oppositional though I find you immensely likable because I abhor Michael Moore and prefer my journalists not to be self serving elitists. I, coincidentally was one of those who called for him (illustrious Mr. Moore) to go back to Canada when President Bush was re-elected. He and many others said if Bush was re-elected he'd go back to Canda Imagine my surprise, when he stayed.

Being from San Diego I have first hand experience with illegal immigrants... and the desperation of the people that try and keep trying to get IN to our country. I grew up with illegal classmates, and we had family friends of hispanic origin. I got no problem with immigrants, I have a problem funding and educating immigrants who do not pledge allegience to my country. Straight up. Other immigrants though are posing as hispanics. A serial bank robber in San Diego for instance was found to be Iranian. Indentured servitude and human trafficking are becoming crimes of opportunity for a certain segment of undesirables in our society.

Hey at least Oz has defensable boarders, eh mate? No worries for you.

 

[The Albatross]

I'm honestly not having a go at any individual, or any nation. But I do think it's very sad that anyone feels they need to carry a weapon of any kind in order to feel safe.

I don't carry a weapon, but I own one and in circumstances that bring out the worst in people am prepared to protect and defend. It is woeful, yeah sure, but I remember when in San Diego our garage was robbed three times in about 1972 by neighborhood teenagers... the garage and doors locked at night started then. Civil society died, when good citizenship and ethics/morality were no longer part of the ciriculum at school. When this was no longer taught... our society has suffered because a certain segment of parents, can't seem to be bothered to feed or help their children with there education... let alone model for them how to be good citizens.

Got to go.

 

[Queen Boudica]

I've been thinking about this and I am interested in what the response is going to be. And I'd like to propose a hypothetical question I stress hypothetical:

If, in America, the majority of the nation decided to support tighter gun controls, such as those in Australia or the UK, where people can still used guns for sport and recreation and hunting and a new law was approved, (hypothetically as I suspect, from what I read on here it will never happen). Would you abide by that law? Or is that going so against the constitution that you would feel the need to disobey it or even rise up and rebel? And to what extent? Would some use guns to enforce your view against the new law?

Sorry not meant to be bashing or criticising or anything just wondering.

 

[Loner]

I've been thinking about this and I am interested in what the response is going to be. And I'd like to propose a hypothetical question I stress hypothetical:

If, in America, the majority of the nation decided to support tighter gun controls, such as those in Australia or the UK, where people can still used guns for sport and recreation and hunting and a new law was approved, (hypothetically as I suspect, from what I read on here it will never happen). Would you abide by that law? Or is that going so against the constitution that you would feel the need to disobey it or even rise up and rebel? And to what extent? Would some use guns to enforce your view against the new law?

Sorry not meant to be bashing or criticising or anything just wondering.

So should I reply to this? You're really lame to debate with as you don't respond to any of the valid points I raise.

That will never happen because the politicians know it is a no win. If it were to happen, it woudln't happen in a vacuum. There would be other things going on politically and socially as well, and my actions would be determined by the circumstances. There have been various pieces of gun control legislature that have not met with armed resistance though, so take a guess.

Whats your point anyways?

 

[Queen Boudica]

?

I'm lame to debate with? You are hostile and agressive that is lame. I have responded plenty you just don't want to hear anything except your own point of view. And you insult first and then expect a debate. Jesus, I posted a question I was interested in the answer. Sorry if that is lame to you but I don't think it is.

 

[anthony]

Australia isn't like America or the UK, to be perfectly honest. The UK is monarch mad... it is part of who they are, like guns are part of who America is. Australia keeps the monarch representation because it is part of our history. Nobody really cares a great deal about the royal family here, it is more about the history. If it ain't broke, then why fix it. Our Governmental structure of them answering directly to the people works, and it works well to keep the country in balance. Compulsory voting, low crime, low unemployment, you don't get sent to jail at the drop of a hat like you do in the US... instead you endup doing community service and you pay lots of fines here. People take offence to fines... but it works and is working well, especially because near every system here is tied together, ie. don't pay a fine somewhere and you can't get your license or registration renewed, or other things accomplished, until the fine is paid. The system shuts you down here to a good degree. Jail breeds criminal activity... hence jail here is reserved for the worst of crimes and after lots of warnings for anything lesser.

Phillipa... you're speaking for a minority of the country when you say things like, Australia is trying to become something else. The votes on this issue time and time again state differently from your words. The main reason for that is because what we have works. What happens in countries where there are presidents, take a look, and it isn't a pretty Governmental structure. Put too much power in any specific person/s or groups hands, and you endup with corruption, just like the US, Russia, most of the European countries, etc, where they have steered into their own little nations, so to speak. It gets ugly.

Albatross cited in the US constitution the right to bear arms to stand up against your own Government. Kind of says a lot about issues being present, hence guns present, hence high crime. Would you really want that type of silliness here due to putting too much power into a persons hands via presidency? I know I wouldn't, and it seems most of the country agrees each time a vote is done on this issue.

It isn't ugly here from a Governmental perspective, hence we also have two cities in the worlds top 10 places to live, Melbourne being #1 in the world for two years running now, and Sydney down about 8th or 9th, in the entire world. That tends to reflect the Government and structure of the Australian country and economy is in a good balance. Yes, Julia Gilliard is an idiot, no doubt about that... so is Tony Abbott. Both need to go and both parties need to get structured back to their roots, with more honest leaders who don't look guilty before they open their mouths... or like imbeciles before opening their mouth. Both fall into this category at present, unfortunately.

Albatross... I wasn't reflecting Australia is like the US in any way, but more we had a gun issue back decades ago which reflected a similar situation that the US continues to endure. We corrected it by removing guns, which people said the same nonsense, that all the criminals would have them. The problem though is that guns have nearly dried up in this country. Sure, motorcycle gangs (about two or three that exist) may have a small supply, though they get raided and searched here often enough to keep their supply down to near nothing... which they reserve for use against only another gang / rival issue that occurs, which means innocent people aren't being killed. It is extremely rare that some innocent civilian is killed in Australia by a gun when you remove gang to gang death. You're literally talking about 100 - 200 or less from 28 million residents per annum when you remove the gang to gang / corruption paybacks, if that.

Gun Control

This is, IMHO, what will help reduce the issue in America. Very strict rules applied nationally to everyone who wants to own a gun.

There was a member here who had pistols all round her house, yes has severe PTSD... then went on a anger rampage and shot up her house, shot out all the windows, etc. If those pistols weren't there, that couldn't of happened. It was purely because they existed in her presence that they got used.

Why is anyone with a mental health disorder even allowed to have a weapon in the first place? Back to gun control.

 

[Loner]

I'm lame to debate with? You are hostile and agressive that is lame. I have responded plenty you just don't want to hear anything except your own point of view. And you insult first and then expect a debate. Jesus, I posted a question I was interested in the answer. Sorry if that is lame to you but I don't think it is.

Actually, no I posted a BUNCH of valid points very respectfully which you didn't reply to. Thats whats lame about debating with you. I was actually looking forward to hearing what you had to say about those things, but nope, nothing. Thats why its lame, because its a one sided debate, not because I'm not interested in hearing opposing viewpoints, but because every time we get a good debate going it fizzles cus you don't follow through. YOU are the one who insulted ME by sarcastically making fun of my debating skills instead of debating with me. Its fine, I'm not insulted. If you want to start interesting debate topics then not follow through on them, its no skin off my back, its just kind of lame and boring to debate with someone who doesnt actually debate back once things get interesting.

You hypothetical point was obviously aimed at me, as I and albatross are the only ones who raised the point of protection against tyranny. I do find it kind of pointless to reply as you arent going to actually debate with me, youre just going to use sarcasm or not reply at all, so yea, thats kinda lame.

Prove me wrong, tear my arguments to shreds. I'm waiting. See if you can do it by attacking my arguments not making fun of my debating skills.

Anthony, thats all well and good, but it violates the whole premise of the 2nd amendment, which is protection from tyranny. Yes, I know how ridiculous a notion that must seem to a great many people, after all, government is ALWAYS our friend right, and what is true today is always going to remain true right?

You know what would actually drastically reduce the numbers of murders in the US? Ending the war on drugs. The vast majority of the murders in the us are related to organized crime that thrives on the illegal drug trade, and the murders are a direct result of competition, they are business. This is a solution that gives more freedom and civil liberties while also making our country safer, but its not going to happen any time soon. Illegalizing guns would be a horrible idea because the same criminal elements would still be around, and just as well armed.

 

[cherryblossom]

1. Because the right to bear arms in america has nothing to do with sporting purposes. It has to do with protection from tyranny. I know this seems silly and paranoid to many foreigners, but study some history, all stable societies fall victim to anarchy, tyranny, or invasion followed by tyranny eventually.

I am happy to admit that I'm probably very naive and un-educated in this matter, but how is the US more likely to suffer tyranny, than the UK, the rest of Europe, Australia etc. Are you suggesting that every citizen, the world over should carry a firearm?

but fear is almost never a valid reason for anything.

So fear is not a valid reason to own a firearm? Your reason for carrying a firearm doesn't make much sense to me. If fear of being a victim isn't the reason, what is the reason? If people don't want to use a gun, I don't understand why they would carry one. So fear for your own life wouldn't be a reason to take another's life?

I still believe that this is cultural differences in what we believe. And I believe that cultural belief's can be changed with the right education.

they simply do not want to be the victims of the kind of people who either enjoy or dont care about hurting others, which is something I think the posters on this forum should be able to relate to. I really wish every person on this forum who has been the victim of violence had been well armed enough to defend themselves at the time.

I was brutally and repeatedly raped at knife point. It was the most horrendous experience ever. However, I seriously can't imagine having a hand gun and shooting him. I really can't picture that. Probably because gun culture is no-where to be found in my brain. I simply can't imagine shooting another human being..... ever. I really can't. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, I just honestly can't see myself (past, present or future) shooting someone.

He threatened to cut my throat with a knife - I can visualise me cutting him. Maybe if he'd held me at gun point I would be able to visualise me shooting him. Perhaps I can only cope with violence 'tit for tat'. I wasn't armed to defend myself at the time. And please don't underestimate the amount of hatred I still have for him, but I'm not sure I could have lived with myself if I'd have killed another human being.

 

[Queen Boudica]

You hypothetical point was obviously aimed at me, as I and albatross are the only ones who raised the point of protection against tyranny. I do find it kind of pointless to reply as you arent going to actually debate with me, youre just going to use sarcasm or not reply at all, so yea, thats kinda lame..

No I am not going to debate with you, You do not debate you bully. And no the question was not aimed at you or albatross it was a question that I was interested in the answer, not that you will believe that because you are just intent on your bullying tactics and trying to read my mind and tell me what I have intended when you have no idea. I am very familiar with that kind of controlling and bullying and I am not responding to you anymore. You are not debating, you are just attacking continuously

 

[anthony]

Anthony, thats all well and good, but it violates the whole premise of the 2nd amendment, which is protection from tyranny. Yes, I know how ridiculous a notion that must seem to a great many people, after all, government is ALWAYS our friend right, and what is true today is always going to remain true right?

Doesn't sound silly, I get the history of a country and respect it. I don't disagree guns have some place in the US... I just think there needs to be much tighter controls. You added an integral aspect you believe to be a major issue in the US with gun crime, drugs. No disagreement there.

I've looked at the makeup of the US many times, and the biggest issue I have always found is its military force. The budget just doesn't balance, nor does such expense and size for a military force help within a country, as militaries are not deployed internally unless there is some serious shit beyond the scope that law enforcement simply can't handle.

The US need to cut their military by about 60%, if not slightly more, for starters. That stops the issue of the US being a bully to other countries, and it stops such an enormous financial strain being placed on the US economy for something that doesn't impact internally as much as if that money was funnelled all internally. Some could be used to strengthen intelligence (CIA) to keep that area strong, ie. keeping the bad guys off your shores, along with the FBI and local law enforcement, pumping more money into employing more so you have significant numbers to do exactly what you see as the major internal issues, drugs and other crimes.

Money is then internalised within the country, jobs are boosted, the world finds more stability then in the US as a result, thus they pump more money into the economy of the US. It is win win for the US then. Everyone outside the US can see the majority of big issues... it seems inside the US they can't be seen, are being ignored, or maybe both. Too much focus from the US on what is going on outside its borders, instead of inside. Boosting the CIA keeps the real threat at bay, being foreign. Boosting the FBI heightens internal country issues, and boosting local law enforcement gets specific to cut more crime at the local level.

I also think the US should review its jail system, and instead put them to work in community projects instead of sending them to jail. It is proven around the world to lessen a person becoming a better criminal, or jumping to the next level. Usually when you give a person something to take pride in, they will embrace that and often do more / give themselves to more versus giving themselves to more crime. There is a huge history of this in many countries globally... a simple search shows such impressive data.

The biggest drain though on the US economy is its Military. It is crippling the country at over 20% of its total budget. Most countries militaries are a few percent of their budget, not nearly a quarter of it.

 

[cherryblossom]

The UK is monarch mad...

The UK isn't monarch mad. Global press may present it that way, but it's far from the truth. Whilst the UK may be patriotic, it's politics fall very much short of monarchy. The UK vote for a parliament, in much the same way as a parliament, and a prime minister is voted for in Australia, and a lot of European countries (and probably the US, just with different wording). To say that the UK is monarch mad is grossly out of context in this debate. The monarch have very little influence over the politics of the UK. I'm not saying it works, the UK have all sorts of huge problems to deal with, but the monarch aren't the issue, the politicians are.

 

[Philippa]

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment of this comment, it doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you own a gun, if you didn't intend to use it?

The point was that no one would need a gun if they respected themselves and each other more!

I guess I was saying that it wouldn't matter if you had one or not...you still wouldn't need to use it.

Like, if people woke up tomorrow and everyone respected each others belongings and personal space and property, no one would use a gun in a hostile situation...so it would therefore not be needed. They could all still have their guns (I wasn't saying go out and buy a gun but never use it, of course that makes no sense.), it would just become a non-issue overnight...but obviously that's not gonna happen.

It was more a hypothetical comment...hence why I threw in the bit about having a gun but not needing to use it. It wasn't supposed to be taken that seriously.