What kind of country is australia?
-
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 -- Samuel L. Jackson in Die Hard 3 My really out-of-date homepage Sonork - 100.10414 AcidHelm Big fan of Alyson Hannigan.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.
-
>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.
f1shlips wrote: 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." Dunblane is in the UK, Montreal is in Canada. We've had two incidents ( close to each other ) about 12 years ago, in Melbourne, but hardly the sort of frequency you guys have. Port Arthur happened here obviously, but my news is full of similar events in the US, with alarming regularity. Proving that these things happen more often when guns are more freely available. f1shlips wrote: >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? At risk of being insensitive ( and I am not ), if someone threatened me with some box cutters, I'd tell them to get stuffed. Explosives can be made from household goods, but they cannot kill over the area that a gun can. f1shlips wrote: 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. I agree that we're getting out of hand here, so lets agree to differ. However, I disagree that you will ever repeal an ammendment that in it's current interpretation is almost a religion to many in the US. 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
Illogical by what or who's standards ? I will not go into the founding fathers view on why the right to bear arms is sancosect and central to the Constitution as I am sure that all the relevant details can be ascertained by anyone interested. However it would behoove those who are ignorant of the historical record to refresh their memory. The function of a Gov. should be at best minimalist in removing ANY personal freedoms. The consequences of a steady drain on the indiviuals right to make descisions and live with the results of said descisions can be seen today in Europe and from what I have seen in these enlightening missives Australia also. To paraphrase old Ben Franklin "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Bash us ( The US ) if you must but first please look at how our country has managed to muddle thru in spite of an antiquated constitution, a plethora of weapons, and the old fashioned idea that Liberty and Freedom is central to what we as a nation are determined to be. I know that argument in these areas ( gun control etc.. ) is usually a silly exercise in statistics but do you not find it funny that you can find no real stats on how many crimes/deaths are PREVENTED because someone had a weapon ? A gun is much like a parachute - you can probably go thru several lifetimes without needing one but if you ever do need one there is nothing else to take its place and a lack thereof will probably kill you. Richard ( 357 S&W Model 19 6" barrel and laser sights ) If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Illogical by what or who's standards ? I will not go into the founding fathers view on why the right to bear arms is sancosect and central to the Constitution as I am sure that all the relevant details can be ascertained by anyone interested. However it would behoove those who are ignorant of the historical record to refresh their memory. The function of a Gov. should be at best minimalist in removing ANY personal freedoms. The consequences of a steady drain on the indiviuals right to make descisions and live with the results of said descisions can be seen today in Europe and from what I have seen in these enlightening missives Australia also. To paraphrase old Ben Franklin "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Bash us ( The US ) if you must but first please look at how our country has managed to muddle thru in spite of an antiquated constitution, a plethora of weapons, and the old fashioned idea that Liberty and Freedom is central to what we as a nation are determined to be. I know that argument in these areas ( gun control etc.. ) is usually a silly exercise in statistics but do you not find it funny that you can find no real stats on how many crimes/deaths are PREVENTED because someone had a weapon ? A gun is much like a parachute - you can probably go thru several lifetimes without needing one but if you ever do need one there is nothing else to take its place and a lack thereof will probably kill you. Richard ( 357 S&W Model 19 6" barrel and laser sights ) If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: Illogical by what or who's standards ? I will not go into the founding fathers view on why the right to bear arms is sancosect and central to the Constitution as I am sure that all the relevant details can be ascertained by anyone interested. I looked - the origins of the idea appear to be British. Richard Stringer wrote: The function of a Gov. should be at best minimalist in removing ANY personal freedoms. The consequences of a steady drain on the indiviuals right to make descisions and live with the results of said descisions can be seen today in Europe and from what I have seen in these enlightening missives Australia also. So you support the right of the Induh-vidual to buy a gun and kill people ? I don't see any other way to read this. My government would deny me the right to arm myself unnecessarily, and to take reasonable steps to prevent me from killing someone, be it because they invade my home, or because I'm nervous in a bus stop late at night, the other person looks a bit rough, and I make a wrong assumption. Richard Stringer wrote: Bash us ( The US ) if you must but first please look at how our country has managed to muddle thru in spite of an antiquated constitution, a plethora of weapons, and the old fashioned idea that Liberty and Freedom is central to what we as a nation are determined to be. I'm not looking to bash anyone, but the above statement is pathetic. You're building up a straw man to knock it down. I do not deny that the US has done and does great things ( and some pretty shabby ones, but I think you're ahead on aggregate ). I don't see liberty or freedom defended by the arming of the populace. You think if the government wanted to control you that their arsenal would fold in the sight of your rifles ? Do you think that your rifle is more of an issue to a potential invader than the billions of dollars worth of hardware your army/navy/air force could bring to bear before anyone got within cooee of the US ? Richard Stringer wrote: but do you not find it funny that you can find no real stats on how many crimes/deaths are PREVENTED because someone had a weapon ? Close to none in Australia, at least in this century. Such things are hard to quantify, in any case. Richard Stringer wrote: you can probably go thru several lifetimes without needing one but if you ever do need one there is nothing els
-
****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: 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 Generally speaking things are fairly democratic. Things are banned when there is good reason not to have them out and about in the general populace. Oftimes it seems that people complain about something being banned merely because it's being banned, not because they actually want it. It also works the other way too though: some things that weren't possible/available now are. The law is fluid and responds to the general populace's views. Maybe it just works faster in Australia because we have a smaller population, we're not so hung up on dragging things through courts, and becuase we don't have a constitution (and amendments) in the same vein as the States. Maybe we just truly don't care as much about percieved personal freedom becuase people generally do pretty much what they want to anyway. Many of our laws are more of a guideline or etiquette than anything else ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
-
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 Generally speaking things are fairly democratic. Things are banned when there is good reason not to have them out and about in the general populace. Oftimes it seems that people complain about something being banned merely because it's being banned, not because they actually want it. It also works the other way too though: some things that weren't possible/available now are. The law is fluid and responds to the general populace's views. Maybe it just works faster in Australia because we have a smaller population, we're not so hung up on dragging things through courts, and becuase we don't have a constitution (and amendments) in the same vein as the States. Maybe we just truly don't care as much about percieved personal freedom becuase people generally do pretty much what they want to anyway. Many of our laws are more of a guideline or etiquette than anything else ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Maybe we just truly don't care as much about percieved personal freedom becuase people generally do pretty much what they want to anyway. Well said - I think we are freer because we're not hung up on the illusion of freedom. 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
-
The only thing the Commonwealth is good for is the games every four years. You rebel yanks aren't invited ;P --- Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.
ROFL! :laugh: What more can I say...? ;P Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul Watson -
****Christian Graus wrote: Stan Shannon wrote: That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? About zero. You need to go back 40-50 years for that Wow! Does that mean the british queen means shit to the average aussie? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Wow! Does that mean the british queen means sh*t to the average aussie? I hate to shatter your illusions Nish, but I'm afraid the Royal Family means about the same to the average Brit these days too... IMHO the UK is full of cynics anyway these days - the Yuppie era pretty much split the country, and as far as can tell, it hasn't really recovered yet. :( Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul Watson -
f1shlips wrote: Well, thats just for television Not so. Movies here often contain scenes banned in the US. I get the impression the US is on the one hand permissive of porn to a degree we are not, and on the other ridiculous in the manner Hollywood movies are rated and cut. f1shlips wrote: So Australia doesn't actually block the import of movies? That's the way I understood the article. Only movies that are illegal - i.e. a film which depicts underage sex or bestiality would not get in. In answer to the main question, I forgot to say - best bloody country in the world. :-) 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: Not so. Movies here often contain scenes banned in the US. I get the impression the US is on the one hand permissive of porn to a degree we are not, and on the other ridiculous in the manner Hollywood movies are rated and cut. I agree Christian. I think the UK and Australia are pretty close in that regard. IMHO censoring sex and nudity is nonsensical when you permit explicit violence to be shown. I suspect that most of the UK population feels the same way, though hardcare pr0n is still mostly banned here. Ironically, it seems that the UK censors are more liberal than the Government when it comes to sex in movies or on TV!. One good thing here is that the "watershed" is pretty rigidly enforced - i.e. the content of TV channels is more strictly regulated during daytime/early evening hours, so programming with more violent/sexual content can only be shown after 8 or 9pm (depending on the channel). Personally, I suspect the US could learn a few things from Australia and Europe when it comes to social attitudes. :) Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul Watson -
****Christian Graus wrote: Not so. Movies here often contain scenes banned in the US. I get the impression the US is on the one hand permissive of porn to a degree we are not, and on the other ridiculous in the manner Hollywood movies are rated and cut. I agree Christian. I think the UK and Australia are pretty close in that regard. IMHO censoring sex and nudity is nonsensical when you permit explicit violence to be shown. I suspect that most of the UK population feels the same way, though hardcare pr0n is still mostly banned here. Ironically, it seems that the UK censors are more liberal than the Government when it comes to sex in movies or on TV!. One good thing here is that the "watershed" is pretty rigidly enforced - i.e. the content of TV channels is more strictly regulated during daytime/early evening hours, so programming with more violent/sexual content can only be shown after 8 or 9pm (depending on the channel). Personally, I suspect the US could learn a few things from Australia and Europe when it comes to social attitudes. :) Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul WatsonAndy Metcalfe wrote: Personally, I suspect the US could learn a few things from Australia and Europe when it comes to social attitudes. Oops! I forgot the Kiwis...;) Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul Watson -
Andy Metcalfe wrote: Personally, I suspect the US could learn a few things from Australia and Europe when it comes to social attitudes. Oops! I forgot the Kiwis...;) Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul WatsonAndy Metcalfe wrote: Oops! I forgot the Kiwis... Don't worry, it's a pretty common problem :-) (Hi, Colin...) 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
-
Illogical by what or who's standards ? I will not go into the founding fathers view on why the right to bear arms is sancosect and central to the Constitution as I am sure that all the relevant details can be ascertained by anyone interested. However it would behoove those who are ignorant of the historical record to refresh their memory. The function of a Gov. should be at best minimalist in removing ANY personal freedoms. The consequences of a steady drain on the indiviuals right to make descisions and live with the results of said descisions can be seen today in Europe and from what I have seen in these enlightening missives Australia also. To paraphrase old Ben Franklin "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Bash us ( The US ) if you must but first please look at how our country has managed to muddle thru in spite of an antiquated constitution, a plethora of weapons, and the old fashioned idea that Liberty and Freedom is central to what we as a nation are determined to be. I know that argument in these areas ( gun control etc.. ) is usually a silly exercise in statistics but do you not find it funny that you can find no real stats on how many crimes/deaths are PREVENTED because someone had a weapon ? A gun is much like a parachute - you can probably go thru several lifetimes without needing one but if you ever do need one there is nothing else to take its place and a lack thereof will probably kill you. Richard ( 357 S&W Model 19 6" barrel and laser sights ) If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: I will not go into the founding fathers view on why the right to bear arms is sancosect and central to the Constitution as I am sure that all the relevant details can be ascertained by anyone interested. However it would behoove those who are ignorant of the historical record to refresh their memory. or those who don't know. The Constitution states that the public has the right to bear arms in order to form a militia. America didn't have a standing army in those days, so it was essential that the public train with guns for the defence of the company. Obviously that doesn't apply anymore. Kevin
-
f1shlips wrote: 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." Dunblane is in the UK, Montreal is in Canada. We've had two incidents ( close to each other ) about 12 years ago, in Melbourne, but hardly the sort of frequency you guys have. Port Arthur happened here obviously, but my news is full of similar events in the US, with alarming regularity. Proving that these things happen more often when guns are more freely available. f1shlips wrote: >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? At risk of being insensitive ( and I am not ), if someone threatened me with some box cutters, I'd tell them to get stuffed. Explosives can be made from household goods, but they cannot kill over the area that a gun can. f1shlips wrote: 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. I agree that we're getting out of hand here, so lets agree to differ. However, I disagree that you will ever repeal an ammendment that in it's current interpretation is almost a religion to many in the US. 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 my mind, the whole argument is wrong. We shouldn't be arguing about whether guns should be used, but whether they should even be made in the first place. Someone sat down and designed a object which is for killing. I think there is something wrong with the sort of person who would actually do that. Kevin
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Wow! Does that mean the british queen means sh*t to the average aussie? I hate to shatter your illusions Nish, but I'm afraid the Royal Family means about the same to the average Brit these days too... IMHO the UK is full of cynics anyway these days - the Yuppie era pretty much split the country, and as far as can tell, it hasn't really recovered yet. :( Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories." - Paul WatsonI actually think that's a little unfair. Their are still a hell of a lot of royalists in britain but they tend to be the older generations. The royal family has far less power over the state now than they used to with us becoming more like America or Austrialia with a kind of president. Whether this is a good thing is down to personal opinion but I must say I'm getting a little sick of Tony Blair's arse tonguing of whomever is in power in the US at any one time. However you look at it, the majority of British people accept the royal family as being a 'good thing' - for tourism, history etc. Let's not forget what happened when Princess Diana died or that when William goes out he gets mobbed like a pop star - patriotism is kind of a part-time thing for most brits but when we decide to get patriotic, it does get a little extreme. James Spibey I love the word naked, it's brilliant isn't it, 'naked'. When I was a kid I used to write the word naked on a bit of paper hundreds of times and rub my face in it - Jeff, Coupling, BBC2
-
I actually think that's a little unfair. Their are still a hell of a lot of royalists in britain but they tend to be the older generations. The royal family has far less power over the state now than they used to with us becoming more like America or Austrialia with a kind of president. Whether this is a good thing is down to personal opinion but I must say I'm getting a little sick of Tony Blair's arse tonguing of whomever is in power in the US at any one time. However you look at it, the majority of British people accept the royal family as being a 'good thing' - for tourism, history etc. Let's not forget what happened when Princess Diana died or that when William goes out he gets mobbed like a pop star - patriotism is kind of a part-time thing for most brits but when we decide to get patriotic, it does get a little extreme. James Spibey I love the word naked, it's brilliant isn't it, 'naked'. When I was a kid I used to write the word naked on a bit of paper hundreds of times and rub my face in it - Jeff, Coupling, BBC2
James Spibey wrote: arse tonguing Love this saying. I thought I was the only person left using it. Michael Martin Australia mmartin@netspace.net.au "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Illogical by what or who's standards ? I will not go into the founding fathers view on why the right to bear arms is sancosect and central to the Constitution as I am sure that all the relevant details can be ascertained by anyone interested. I looked - the origins of the idea appear to be British. Richard Stringer wrote: The function of a Gov. should be at best minimalist in removing ANY personal freedoms. The consequences of a steady drain on the indiviuals right to make descisions and live with the results of said descisions can be seen today in Europe and from what I have seen in these enlightening missives Australia also. So you support the right of the Induh-vidual to buy a gun and kill people ? I don't see any other way to read this. My government would deny me the right to arm myself unnecessarily, and to take reasonable steps to prevent me from killing someone, be it because they invade my home, or because I'm nervous in a bus stop late at night, the other person looks a bit rough, and I make a wrong assumption. Richard Stringer wrote: Bash us ( The US ) if you must but first please look at how our country has managed to muddle thru in spite of an antiquated constitution, a plethora of weapons, and the old fashioned idea that Liberty and Freedom is central to what we as a nation are determined to be. I'm not looking to bash anyone, but the above statement is pathetic. You're building up a straw man to knock it down. I do not deny that the US has done and does great things ( and some pretty shabby ones, but I think you're ahead on aggregate ). I don't see liberty or freedom defended by the arming of the populace. You think if the government wanted to control you that their arsenal would fold in the sight of your rifles ? Do you think that your rifle is more of an issue to a potential invader than the billions of dollars worth of hardware your army/navy/air force could bring to bear before anyone got within cooee of the US ? Richard Stringer wrote: but do you not find it funny that you can find no real stats on how many crimes/deaths are PREVENTED because someone had a weapon ? Close to none in Australia, at least in this century. Such things are hard to quantify, in any case. Richard Stringer wrote: you can probably go thru several lifetimes without needing one but if you ever do need one there is nothing els
****Christian Graus wrote: Personally, I'm not insecure about my penis size... But if you start to become insecure I know where you can get some magic pills. :-D Michael Martin Australia mmartin@netspace.net.au "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
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
Well without going into scientific shit as I don't know any I will offer this. I can hop in a boat and sail all the way around Australia without travelling around another country or island and without travelling through a man-made canal. Therefore we are an island, end of story. We are also a continent this has something to do with tectonic plates and other technical stuff. Michael Martin Australia mmartin@netspace.net.au "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
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 Generally speaking things are fairly democratic. Things are banned when there is good reason not to have them out and about in the general populace. Oftimes it seems that people complain about something being banned merely because it's being banned, not because they actually want it. It also works the other way too though: some things that weren't possible/available now are. The law is fluid and responds to the general populace's views. Maybe it just works faster in Australia because we have a smaller population, we're not so hung up on dragging things through courts, and becuase we don't have a constitution (and amendments) in the same vein as the States. Maybe we just truly don't care as much about percieved personal freedom becuase people generally do pretty much what they want to anyway. Many of our laws are more of a guideline or etiquette than anything else ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Maybe we just truly don't care as much about percieved personal freedom becuase people generally do pretty much what they want to anyway. Many of our laws are more of a guideline or etiquette than anything else So, are you saying that many Australians still own guns even though they are banned? If so, then all of the arguments about the "right not to be shot" are completely worthless. If not, then maybe the Australians aren't doing "pretty much what they want to anyway". You're doing what the government tells you to do. Maybe you agree with the government in this case, but then again maybe you don't.
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
****Christian Graus wrote: So some items in the consitution are upheld and others are not ? That wasn't my point. My point was that if someone is denied bail or imprisoned without a speedy trial, that person's rights are being violated and they have a course of action available to them to protest. As opposed to a government making a law (banning guns) that "legally" takes the rights of everyone away. ****Christian Graus wrote: 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 ? Why can't you read between the lines? I didn't imply that driving a car is the same as using a gun. I just find it humourous when people use the argument that guns need to be banned because X number of people were killed by guns last year. Yet X * 1000 people were killed in automobile crashes in the same year and nobody is screaming about banning them. Here in the US the common age to start driving legally is 16 years old. A 16 year old is still a child. Not old enough to legally smoke, drink, vote or join the military, yet we sit them in a 2 ton piece of steel capable of moving at 100+ mph on 2 lane roads less than 20 feet wide. Yeah, a car is designed for transportation, not for killing like a gun, but at least a teenager knows that a gun is used for killing and takes it seriously. Do you know how many teens are killed or crippled in car crashes due to carelessness? It's obvious that you do not like guns and feel that nobody should be able to own one. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. All I would say is: Be careful how many rights and freedoms you give away, sooner or later they are gonna take away one that you do care about and you won't have the means to stop them. (NO, I don't mean that you could/would use guns to stop them, it was just a general statement completely non-gun related.)
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
