What kind of country is australia?
-
f1shlips wrote: >banned in the US. For Instance? Gosh, I dunno. I don't go to the movies often. But it is for sure that when I got the X Files taped for me movie shorts coming from the US had a higher rating than they did when they came here. f1shlips wrote: 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. True. f1shlips wrote: . 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...). The only total freedom is anarchy. We're about as 'free' as you could hope to be IMO. I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Australia is a country. It is also a continent. It is also an island. Funny huh? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Sorry to spoil your fun, Nish, but... Generally, continent and island are considered mutually exclusive. Check out this link for more info: http://users.erols.com/jcalder/CONTISLAND.html Besides, and I'm sure Christian will back me up here, Tasmanians tend to get very annoyed when you forget that Tasmania, one of Australia's states, is a completely separate island. Australia (as a country) also contains a large number of other islands. ------------------------ Derek Waters derek@lj-oz.com
-
f1shlips wrote: >banned in the US. For Instance? Gosh, I dunno. I don't go to the movies often. But it is for sure that when I got the X Files taped for me movie shorts coming from the US had a higher rating than they did when they came here. f1shlips wrote: 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. True. f1shlips wrote: . 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...). The only total freedom is anarchy. We're about as 'free' as you could hope to be IMO. I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
****Christian Graus wrote: I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
-
f1shlips wrote: >A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. I dunno, and apparently neither do the courts. Typically the courts give great deference to the intent of the people who passed law. The purported intent of the law is to prevent minors from being harmed. However, in the case of "virtual kiddie porn" no children were harmed, so a virtual kid porn-o may not be a crime. I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Is there such a thing ? I'd still contend that the child is harmed, by virtue of being required to simulate sex. To put it another way, if someone got my daughter to simulate sex, regardless of if she was willing ( she'd probably think it was hilarious ), I would find that person and kill them. Of course, here in Australia it would be harder than in the US because I would have trouble getting a decent gun. :-) f1shlips wrote: However the voyurestic pettifile(? little help here Spell-O-Matic) gets stasifaction from it (I guess), which seems just as wrong. The actual decision from the court should be quite interesting. To me the issue is that a/ anyone who watches this stuff is obviously a pedophile, and therefore deserves to die. b/ any child involved in making it, simulated or not, is being exposed to things that they should not be ( and I'm thinking more of the idea of exploitative sex than sex in general ) c/ any child in such an environment seems unlikely to be being nurtured or loved by anyone in the vicinity. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Ever look at naked pictures of Britney Spears or Cristinia Agulera? How hard would it be to take that cute picture of a child taking a bath and mangle it into something sinister? Given the fact that technology will advance, the day will come when the average sick-o could use technology to simulate an entire movie. >To me the issue .... I'm not arguing with you about the sanity or quality of person who buys this crap. However, I'm not convinced that any law has been broken, or even if a law limiting the ability to create and view that kind of stuff could even be constitutionally upheld in this country.
-
****Christian Graus wrote: I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
Mike Mullikin wrote: There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. 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. What does 'regulated' mean ? Is it reasonable to suggest in this day and age that the average american owning an automatic rifle is more of a deterent to invasion than your army, navy and air force ? War has changed. Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? You see, the thing is that here in Australia we have half a brain. Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. Guns are designed to kill people, they serve no other purpose. Cars, planes, etc are means of transport, and can obviously result in accidents if used without care, but are designed for useful purpose. So we have laws regulating the state in which one can drive, the age at which one can drive, what one must know about road laws in order to drive, etc. I believe there are laws regarding the carrying of knives obviously designed to hurt people, and your comments regarding buildings and TV's are not even worth responding to. Mike Mullikin wrote: It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such. It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important and that somehow a constitution written a long tim
-
>I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Ever look at naked pictures of Britney Spears or Cristinia Agulera? How hard would it be to take that cute picture of a child taking a bath and mangle it into something sinister? Given the fact that technology will advance, the day will come when the average sick-o could use technology to simulate an entire movie. >To me the issue .... I'm not arguing with you about the sanity or quality of person who buys this crap. However, I'm not convinced that any law has been broken, or even if a law limiting the ability to create and view that kind of stuff could even be constitutionally upheld in this country.
f1shlips wrote: Ever look at naked pictures of Britney Spears or Cristinia Agulera? Nope, but I realise if I did they would be virtual. f1shlips wrote: How hard would it be to take that cute picture of a child taking a bath and mangle it into something sinister? Given the fact that technology will advance, the day will come when the average sick-o could use technology to simulate an entire movie. you're right, of course. f1shlips wrote: >To me the issue .... I'm not arguing with you about the sanity or quality of person who buys this crap. However, I'm not convinced that any law has been broken, or even if a law limiting the ability to create and view that kind of stuff could even be constitutionally upheld in this country. Which goes to show that your constitution was a great document for it's time, but does not really cover the realities of the 21st century. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Sorry to spoil your fun, Nish, but... Generally, continent and island are considered mutually exclusive. Check out this link for more info: http://users.erols.com/jcalder/CONTISLAND.html Besides, and I'm sure Christian will back me up here, Tasmanians tend to get very annoyed when you forget that Tasmania, one of Australia's states, is a completely separate island. Australia (as a country) also contains a large number of other islands. ------------------------ Derek Waters derek@lj-oz.com
Derek Waters wrote: Besides, and I'm sure Christian will back me up here, Tasmanians tend to get very annoyed when you forget that Tasmania, one of Australia's states, is a completely separate island. Australia (as a country) also contains a large number of other islands. Yes, people in Tassie have a real us and them mentality regarding the mainland. I'm from the mainland originally myself, so I don't suffer from it as much. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Sorry to spoil your fun, Nish, but... Generally, continent and island are considered mutually exclusive. Check out this link for more info: http://users.erols.com/jcalder/CONTISLAND.html Besides, and I'm sure Christian will back me up here, Tasmanians tend to get very annoyed when you forget that Tasmania, one of Australia's states, is a completely separate island. Australia (as a country) also contains a large number of other islands. ------------------------ Derek Waters derek@lj-oz.com
Thanks for enlightening me Derek. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
f1shlips wrote: Ever look at naked pictures of Britney Spears or Cristinia Agulera? Nope, but I realise if I did they would be virtual. f1shlips wrote: How hard would it be to take that cute picture of a child taking a bath and mangle it into something sinister? Given the fact that technology will advance, the day will come when the average sick-o could use technology to simulate an entire movie. you're right, of course. f1shlips wrote: >To me the issue .... I'm not arguing with you about the sanity or quality of person who buys this crap. However, I'm not convinced that any law has been broken, or even if a law limiting the ability to create and view that kind of stuff could even be constitutionally upheld in this country. Which goes to show that your constitution was a great document for it's time, but does not really cover the realities of the 21st century. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>Which goes to show that your constitution was a great document for it's time, but does not really cover the realities of the 21st century. Well, since I'm not so sure its a crime or even should be a crime, I think it better highlights the difficulty in trying to get 2 or more people to agree on anything. The beauty of the constitution is that it can be modified, no matter how difficult that modification may be. Although there are people who agree with your thinking, they claim that free speech (as American's know it) is an antiquated notion.
-
>Which goes to show that your constitution was a great document for it's time, but does not really cover the realities of the 21st century. Well, since I'm not so sure its a crime or even should be a crime, I think it better highlights the difficulty in trying to get 2 or more people to agree on anything. The beauty of the constitution is that it can be modified, no matter how difficult that modification may be. Although there are people who agree with your thinking, they claim that free speech (as American's know it) is an antiquated notion.
f1shlips wrote: Well, since I'm not so sure its a crime or even should be a crime, I think it better highlights the difficulty in trying to get 2 or more people to agree on anything. What don't you think should be a crime ? f1shlips wrote: The beauty of the constitution is that it can be modified, no matter how difficult that modification may be. When was the last time this happened ? You see, regardless of the illogical nature of the Us position on guns, regardless of the disparity between gun related deaths in the US and in countries that don't take such a position, the gun lobby in the US is too powerfulk for any sort of common sense to ever prevail. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. 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. What does 'regulated' mean ? Is it reasonable to suggest in this day and age that the average american owning an automatic rifle is more of a deterent to invasion than your army, navy and air force ? War has changed. Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? You see, the thing is that here in Australia we have half a brain. Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. Guns are designed to kill people, they serve no other purpose. Cars, planes, etc are means of transport, and can obviously result in accidents if used without care, but are designed for useful purpose. So we have laws regulating the state in which one can drive, the age at which one can drive, what one must know about road laws in order to drive, etc. I believe there are laws regarding the carrying of knives obviously designed to hurt people, and your comments regarding buildings and TV's are not even worth responding to. Mike Mullikin wrote: It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such. It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important and that somehow a constitution written a long tim
****Christian Graus wrote: What does 'regulated' mean ? Is it reasonable to suggest in this day and age that the average american owning an automatic rifle is more of a deterent to invasion than your army, navy and air force ? War has changed. I agree that assault rifles are "over the top", but what about normal hunting rifles and shotguns? I agree that Uzis and other exotic machine guns are "too much" but what about a small caliber pistol to defend your home against robbers? You choose your line, we'll choose ours. ****Christian Graus wrote: Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Those are individual cases of rights being violated not unconstitutional laws being made. Completely different circumstances. ****Christian Graus wrote: You see, the thing is that here in Australia we have half a brain. Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. Guns are designed to kill people, they serve no other purpose. Cars, planes, etc are means of transport, and can obviously result in accidents if used without care, but are designed for useful purpose. Although I personally don't smoke and don't see much of a purpose in it, the folks that "do" smoke obviously see a purpose. I believe they enjoy it even though it's killing them slowly. So "their enjoyment" is it's purpose. Now before you start ranting about this, think about it. I like to drink. Sometimes to excess. It certainly isn't good for me or my liver. While intoxicated, I could certainly hurt someone else, either by assault or by driving drunk. Should alcohol be banned? We tried that here in the 1920's. It failed miserably. As for your crack about Australians having half a brain... yeah, I'd agree.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. 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. What does 'regulated' mean ? Is it reasonable to suggest in this day and age that the average american owning an automatic rifle is more of a deterent to invasion than your army, navy and air force ? War has changed. Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? You see, the thing is that here in Australia we have half a brain. Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. Guns are designed to kill people, they serve no other purpose. Cars, planes, etc are means of transport, and can obviously result in accidents if used without care, but are designed for useful purpose. So we have laws regulating the state in which one can drive, the age at which one can drive, what one must know about road laws in order to drive, etc. I believe there are laws regarding the carrying of knives obviously designed to hurt people, and your comments regarding buildings and TV's are not even worth responding to. Mike Mullikin wrote: It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such. It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important and that somehow a constitution written a long tim
Wow, I'm glad your in Australia :) > Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. I don't smoke, I hate smoking, I hate people smoking near me. However, For every study that links smoking and cancer, I can point you to one that negates that link, including a 20 year study by the world health organization. Most freedoms don't serve a usefull purpose, I like to skydive and ride motorcycles, not exactly usefull in most peoples minds, but the right to do those things should me mine. My body, my life is the ultimate form of personal propery and tolerating governmental intrusion that dictates what I can do with that property is agains t my fundamental beliefs. As far as your recitation of the 2nd Amendment is concerned, you can't be a constitutional literalist AND make any sense of the courts interpretation of the constitution. It's generally accepted that the constitution doesn't address every issue nor any issue in significant detail, the constitution is a document of intent, not fact. Although I'm sure you've seen and dismissed this, but the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) presents data that indicates crime increased drastically in the two years after the ban (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf). The NRA presents the same information in an easier to swallow pill (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html#update). There are a few towns in America where the crime rate is zero and coicidentally those towns require to the head of household to own a gun and can even carry a gun in public. I personally would like to live in a utopian world without guns, and I used to consider myself anti-gun until I started reading facts about issues instead of having reactions to them. Fundamentally it breaks down to the fact that criminals will always find a way to overpower the people and disarming the people makes that job easier. I don't know how to solve gun massacres, but if someone is mentally ill or sucidal they'll find a way to kill. > It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important You're generalizing 280 million people and trivialising deep issues, but I'm sure you know that... it's just that Australian love for Americans showing through :)
-
****Christian Graus wrote: What does 'regulated' mean ? Is it reasonable to suggest in this day and age that the average american owning an automatic rifle is more of a deterent to invasion than your army, navy and air force ? War has changed. I agree that assault rifles are "over the top", but what about normal hunting rifles and shotguns? I agree that Uzis and other exotic machine guns are "too much" but what about a small caliber pistol to defend your home against robbers? You choose your line, we'll choose ours. ****Christian Graus wrote: Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Those are individual cases of rights being violated not unconstitutional laws being made. Completely different circumstances. ****Christian Graus wrote: You see, the thing is that here in Australia we have half a brain. Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. Guns are designed to kill people, they serve no other purpose. Cars, planes, etc are means of transport, and can obviously result in accidents if used without care, but are designed for useful purpose. Although I personally don't smoke and don't see much of a purpose in it, the folks that "do" smoke obviously see a purpose. I believe they enjoy it even though it's killing them slowly. So "their enjoyment" is it's purpose. Now before you start ranting about this, think about it. I like to drink. Sometimes to excess. It certainly isn't good for me or my liver. While intoxicated, I could certainly hurt someone else, either by assault or by driving drunk. Should alcohol be banned? We tried that here in the 1920's. It failed miserably. As for your crack about Australians having half a brain... yeah, I'd agree.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
Mike Mullikin wrote: I agree that assault rifles are "over the top", but what about normal hunting rifles and shotguns? I agree that Uzis and other exotic machine guns are "too much" but what about a small caliber pistol to defend your home against robbers? You choose your line, we'll choose ours. That's fine. I agree. You arm everyone and hope that no-one gets nervous and shoots someone by accident, and we'll make sure people don't have guns to shoot each other with. It's pretty much a given that if guns are freely available, anyone who breaks into your home will have one. That is not the case here. Mike Mullikin wrote: Christian Graus wrote: Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Those are individual cases of rights being violated not unconstitutional laws being made. Completely different circumstances. So some items in the consitution are upheld and others are not ? Mike Mullikin wrote: Although I personally don't smoke and don't see much of a purpose in it, the folks that "do" smoke obviously see a purpose. I believe they enjoy it even though it's killing them slowly. So "their enjoyment" is it's purpose. Now before you start ranting about this, think about it. I like to drink. Sometimes to excess. It certainly isn't good for me or my liver. While intoxicated, I could certainly hurt someone else, either by assault or by driving drunk. Should alcohol be banned? We tried that here in the 1920's. It failed miserably. I don't drink or smoke at all, but I would certainly defend your freedom to do both, so long as in both cases it does not affect me. Mike Mullikin wrote: As for your crack about Australians having half a brain... yeah, I'd agree. Which puts us ahead by about 7/16's over people who think that letting people drive a car is the same as letting them pack heat, doncha think ? Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
f1shlips wrote: Well, since I'm not so sure its a crime or even should be a crime, I think it better highlights the difficulty in trying to get 2 or more people to agree on anything. What don't you think should be a crime ? f1shlips wrote: The beauty of the constitution is that it can be modified, no matter how difficult that modification may be. When was the last time this happened ? You see, regardless of the illogical nature of the Us position on guns, regardless of the disparity between gun related deaths in the US and in countries that don't take such a position, the gun lobby in the US is too powerfulk for any sort of common sense to ever prevail. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>What don't you think should be a crime ? Just to put it in context: I am not yet convinced that creating virtual kiddie porn is or can be a crime because it doesn't involve minors, just the private actions of very disturbed adults. It's definaly not a crime to be a disturbed or mentally ill individual, provided you pose no harm to you or yourself.
-
Wow, I'm glad your in Australia :) > Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. I don't smoke, I hate smoking, I hate people smoking near me. However, For every study that links smoking and cancer, I can point you to one that negates that link, including a 20 year study by the world health organization. Most freedoms don't serve a usefull purpose, I like to skydive and ride motorcycles, not exactly usefull in most peoples minds, but the right to do those things should me mine. My body, my life is the ultimate form of personal propery and tolerating governmental intrusion that dictates what I can do with that property is agains t my fundamental beliefs. As far as your recitation of the 2nd Amendment is concerned, you can't be a constitutional literalist AND make any sense of the courts interpretation of the constitution. It's generally accepted that the constitution doesn't address every issue nor any issue in significant detail, the constitution is a document of intent, not fact. Although I'm sure you've seen and dismissed this, but the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) presents data that indicates crime increased drastically in the two years after the ban (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf). The NRA presents the same information in an easier to swallow pill (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html#update). There are a few towns in America where the crime rate is zero and coicidentally those towns require to the head of household to own a gun and can even carry a gun in public. I personally would like to live in a utopian world without guns, and I used to consider myself anti-gun until I started reading facts about issues instead of having reactions to them. Fundamentally it breaks down to the fact that criminals will always find a way to overpower the people and disarming the people makes that job easier. I don't know how to solve gun massacres, but if someone is mentally ill or sucidal they'll find a way to kill. > It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important You're generalizing 280 million people and trivialising deep issues, but I'm sure you know that... it's just that Australian love for Americans showing through :)
f1shlips wrote: Wow, I'm glad your in Australia Me too. :-) f1shlips wrote: However, For every study that links smoking and cancer, I can point you to one that negates that link, including a 20 year study by the world health organization. I find that very hard to believe. I don't see how any unbiased study can fail to find a link that is pretty much established fact. f1shlips wrote: My body, my life is the ultimate form of personal propery and tolerating governmental intrusion that dictates what I can do with that property is agains t my fundamental beliefs. I agree totally. It is your right to smoke and mine not to be poisoned by it. These rights only conflict if you want to smoke in a restaurant or other public place where I am. f1shlips wrote: Although I'm sure you've seen and dismissed this, but the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) presents data that indicates crime increased drastically in the two years after the ban (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf). It has been almost two years since each State and Territory in Australia implemented the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. In 1997, Australia recorded 85 fewer firearm-related deaths than in 1996 (50 fewer if one excludes the victims of Port Arthur from the 1996 total). However, as a result of the many issues associated with evaluation research, it is still too soon to deter-mine definitively whether Australia’s uniform firearms laws have achieved their aim in reducing firearm-related violence and misuse. The findings outlined in this paper from a preliminary analysis of data on causes of death and official crime statistics seem to indicate that, nationally, there has been a decline in firearm-related deaths in 1997, mostly due to a decline in the rate of suicides and accidents. This reduction has occurred in each State and Territory, with the exception of NSW and Victoria. There is also preliminary evidence that in some cases, for example suicide and armed robbery, firearms may be being displaced by other methods or weapons. Without an outcome evaluation that also takes into account socio-demographic factors, we cannot determine more conclusively the impact of the new firearms restrictions. In the meantime, the Australian Institute of Criminology will continue to monitor firearm-related violence and misuse. The conclusion basically states that it will take fi
-
>What don't you think should be a crime ? Just to put it in context: I am not yet convinced that creating virtual kiddie porn is or can be a crime because it doesn't involve minors, just the private actions of very disturbed adults. It's definaly not a crime to be a disturbed or mentally ill individual, provided you pose no harm to you or yourself.
f1shlips wrote: Just to put it in context: I am not yet convinced that creating virtual kiddie porn is or can be a crime because it doesn't involve minors, just the private actions of very disturbed adults. If no adults are involved it is probably not a crime, just a sign someone needs to be given some sort of help, which IMO should include chemical castration. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Wow, I'm glad your in Australia :) > Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. I don't smoke, I hate smoking, I hate people smoking near me. However, For every study that links smoking and cancer, I can point you to one that negates that link, including a 20 year study by the world health organization. Most freedoms don't serve a usefull purpose, I like to skydive and ride motorcycles, not exactly usefull in most peoples minds, but the right to do those things should me mine. My body, my life is the ultimate form of personal propery and tolerating governmental intrusion that dictates what I can do with that property is agains t my fundamental beliefs. As far as your recitation of the 2nd Amendment is concerned, you can't be a constitutional literalist AND make any sense of the courts interpretation of the constitution. It's generally accepted that the constitution doesn't address every issue nor any issue in significant detail, the constitution is a document of intent, not fact. Although I'm sure you've seen and dismissed this, but the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) presents data that indicates crime increased drastically in the two years after the ban (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf). The NRA presents the same information in an easier to swallow pill (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html#update). There are a few towns in America where the crime rate is zero and coicidentally those towns require to the head of household to own a gun and can even carry a gun in public. I personally would like to live in a utopian world without guns, and I used to consider myself anti-gun until I started reading facts about issues instead of having reactions to them. Fundamentally it breaks down to the fact that criminals will always find a way to overpower the people and disarming the people makes that job easier. I don't know how to solve gun massacres, but if someone is mentally ill or sucidal they'll find a way to kill. > It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important You're generalizing 280 million people and trivialising deep issues, but I'm sure you know that... it's just that Australian love for Americans showing through :)
Here's a link http://www.sptimes.com/News/041900/Worldandnation/Charlton\_Heston\_s\_gun.shtml and a part of the article: Heston: "In Australia, the gun bans came as a knee-jerk reaction to one isolated tragedy. But in the aftermath, crime with guns went up, not down." Response: This claim so outraged the Australian government that it has demanded a retraction from the NRA. Since Australia tightened its gun laws after the 1996 slaying of 35 people in Port Arthur, the number of murders and armed robberies involving guns has dropped. Moreover, in 1998 Australia's gun-related homicide rate was just 0.28 per 100,000 people compared with four per 100,000 in the United States. "There are many things that Australia can learn from the United States," Australia's attorney general wrote the NRA. "How to manage firearm ownership is not one of them." I can't find the whole letter online anymore, but the above is taken from it. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
****Christian Graus wrote: I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
Mike Mullikin wrote: There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. except, of course for the entire state of California's ban on smoking in enclosed places of employment: http://www.cigargroup.com/calif.htm, which includes bars restaurants or anyplace else people might want to get together while other people bring them food or drinks. -c
-
Australia is a country. It is also a continent. It is also an island. Funny huh? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
A continent is big and an island is small, where "big" and "small" aren't concrete measurements, just general sizes. Same difference as cape/peninsula, lake/sea, hill/mountain, and so on. --Mike-- "Why you keep calling me Jesús? I look Puerto Rican to you?" -- Samuel L. Jackson in Die Hard 3 My really out-of-date homepage Sonork - 100.10414 AcidHelm Big fan of Alyson Hannigan.
-
Here's a link http://www.sptimes.com/News/041900/Worldandnation/Charlton\_Heston\_s\_gun.shtml and a part of the article: Heston: "In Australia, the gun bans came as a knee-jerk reaction to one isolated tragedy. But in the aftermath, crime with guns went up, not down." Response: This claim so outraged the Australian government that it has demanded a retraction from the NRA. Since Australia tightened its gun laws after the 1996 slaying of 35 people in Port Arthur, the number of murders and armed robberies involving guns has dropped. Moreover, in 1998 Australia's gun-related homicide rate was just 0.28 per 100,000 people compared with four per 100,000 in the United States. "There are many things that Australia can learn from the United States," Australia's attorney general wrote the NRA. "How to manage firearm ownership is not one of them." I can't find the whole letter online anymore, but the above is taken from it. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>in 1998 Australia's gun-related homicide rate was just 0.28 per 100,000 people compared with four per 100,000 in the United States. Whats the overall homicide rate comparison? I'll look tomorrow, just curious (I'm sure its lower). I read the AIC document (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf) and discovered that the same kinds of things happen with you folks as do us: "On 6 December of the same year [1994], at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique, 14 women were shot dead." "On 13 March 1996, a few weeks before the Port Arthur incident, the Dunblane Primary School massacre occurred, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 children and their teacher." I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that removing guns solves the problem, I do not. I believe solving the problem (ie: reducing the number of fire arms related crimes to near zero) involves abolishing their use entireley. >The conclusion basically states that it will take five years to evaluate properly the end result of the gun buyback. Yes, governmental institutions typically state that it takes five years to spot a trend. >The correlation is an assumption. How many of these are small country towns ? Define small? They were towns with the population was in excess of 10,000. I'll find 'em as soon as I can.... > >Yeah, and all those school shootings in the US would have identical body counts if all these disturbed people could get their hands on was a knife... How about boxcutters and some airplanes? Explosives in their shoes? I want to back off from attacking your viewpoint, that is not my intent. I simply wish to point out that there may be another way and that your way may not be the best or even the right way to accomplish your goals. I think if Australia's 5/10/15 year data a indicates a very (repeat: very) successful reduction in fire arms related crimes, this country will eventually repeal the 2nd amendment.