SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Australia has announced national gun amnesty, allowing people to hand in illegal or unregistered firearms to authorities. The move is aimed at curbing growing numbers of illegal weapons and comes amid an increased terrorist threat.
[...] The program starts on July 1 and within three months – until September 30 – anyone who possesses an unwanted or unregistered firearm, or a firearm-related item such as ammunition, can legally dispose of or register their firearm at "approved drop-off points in each State and Territory", without fear of being prosecuted, Justice Minister said.
Outside the amnesty period, however, those who are caught with illegal guns could face a fine of up to AU$280,000 (US$212,000), up to 14 years in prison and a criminal record.
“My expectation is it will probably not be the case that we will have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hold on illegal guns would necessarily hand them in. The purpose is to reduce the number of unregistered and illicit firearms in the community,” Keenan said, as cited by AAP.
[...] Earlier this month, the authorities announced plans to build its first prison solely for militants with extreme views to prevent the radicalization of other inmates.
Source: RT
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @05:13AM (62 children)
Australia is apparently a nation of sheep who like the taste of the bottom of a government boot.
I've never been more glad I live in the US. With all the problems in the US, at least we haven't allowed the government to take guns away. And we
never will, because millions of Americans will use all available means to prevent this happening.
Spare me comments which try to convince me the police can protect me. The last time I called 911 it took the police 20 minutes to arrive. If anything serious was happening, in 20 minutes it would have been all over.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:01AM (10 children)
Shit, America's gun owners aren't going to do anything to preserve freedom. When the pols rammed the "Patriot" Act through, America's gun owners didn't make a peep. It's like Herr Goering said, if you can keep people afraid, you can get them to do whatever you want, even if it's against their own interests. Guns or no guns.
(Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @09:45AM (8 children)
An armed populace is a deterrent to illegitimate tyrannical suppression of civil freedom, not to legitimate elected bodies making terrible laws.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 19 2017, @10:06AM
It's both, just not to the same extent.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @01:01PM (6 children)
Is there any difference between the two? 'Cause I don't see any in the effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @01:51PM (5 children)
The difference is that the later is done with the consent of the governed, begrudging as it may be. Violence is never an acceptable response to a political force acting in such a way.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @02:01PM (4 children)
Neither in the first case. Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @02:32PM (2 children)
It didn't work for the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam conflict. I don't object to the notion that civil disobedience is preferable to civil war, but the former is not always a viable solution.
Oh really? So suppose ikanreed's paranoid delusions are true and the United States is overtaken by literal jackboots-and-gaschambers nazi types in the near future. Authoritarians being what they are would have no problem marching down your streets and kidnapping some your friends over arbitrary criteria such as skin color, and shipping them off to some camp and never to be seen again.
Would you contest that this would be an extremely tyrannical action? And if you don't, would you say that violence is unacceptable in this circumstance?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @03:24PM
I believe it did. In any case, even letting aside some remarkable music festivals and exquisite cuisine massacrees [wikipedia.org], it had more effects than the Weather Underground.
Yes. Because it will achieve nothing but more deaths.
A general strike will, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @01:29PM
We already do that. Naura and PNG. Don't enter our country without notice and agreement. Or be shipped to somewhere safe outside our border.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @02:55PM
Tell that to the French.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @05:29PM
it may depend on what happens with trump. i didn't vote for trump but he has "the right" convinced that he is trying to MAGA. if he is obstructed enough, impeached, assassinated, too much rioting, etc. you may see a serious reaction. the people with the largest caches of weapons, the groups with the most organization and training are also sympathetic to the gov. if they finally become aware that the gov is the enemy/beyond repair, or the marxists tear up too much shit, all bets are off.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Monday June 19 2017, @06:07AM (35 children)
The government will lay waste to your pathetic civilian arsenal. You would be absolutely flattened by heavy infantry with real military equipment, logistical support, air support, and training. The idea that your guns make you safe from this is a pathetic fantasy.
Our civilization can't survive revolution. This was true when the first nuclear reactors turned on. We either navigate social change peacefully or we go back to hunting dear and telling stories by firelight.
Fuck gun owners who think they stand for civilization. You're a speedbump to all the potential better futures humanity has. Fuck off and die, and I say that as a gun owner myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:22AM (4 children)
... and that was the U.S. military, which makes the Australian military look like a ragtag militia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:57AM (3 children)
Oh, come on now. You're posting as AC, you have nothing to fear from moderators and the politically correct crowd. They aren't known as "sand people". Use the common vernacular. Sand niggers. Try it, "sand niggers". "camel jockies", "ragheads", try them all. It's one thing to act like a pussy if you're worried about moderators, but as AC you have no worries. Stop being a pussy. Fuck the politically correct crowd.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19 2017, @08:34AM (2 children)
Clearly you have never actually been to Australia. You know... those guys who had that "white Australia policy" not so long ago?
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Monday June 19 2017, @10:44AM (1 child)
Q. How was the "White Australia Policy" enforced?
A. A strict English test for potential immigrants.
Q. What has the Australian Federal Government just (re)introduced?
A. A strict English test for potential immigrants.
But this time it's not going to be used to target non-whites for refusal. Promise.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19 2017, @11:32AM
Yeah, sure; I get that. My point was that the GP seemed to have mistaken Australia for somewhere in the middle east with distinctly different demographics.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19 2017, @06:51AM (14 children)
Once again, the tired old argument. "The army will defeat you!"
In a civil war, it isn't a matter of the people rising up against the army, to be flattened. Instead, you start off with an information and propaganda war. Each individual soldier, sailor, and airman is exposed to all the propaganda, from both sides. Each individual considers all the bullshit, and makes his own decisions. Pretty much all servicemen will work to keep the peace, but when the shit hits the fan - well, sometimes the movies get it half-right. Everyone will make his own decision, for his own reasons, which side he supports. That goes for high ranking officers, and the private grunt in the trenches. Tank commanders, and wing commanders alike will make their own personal decisions.
It can't be your belief that everyone in the service, on any given day/month/year has complete faith in the government? That all of them have been brainwashed to believe one ideology, or another?
Put yourself in their places. People in your own hometown are squawking, bitching, and working themselves up to open rebellion. Your company commander tells you that you are going into your hometown, to put down the rebellion. Are you willing to shoot at your own kinfolk? The people you went to school with? Maybe your own teachers? The cop who gave you a break when he caught you doing something stupid?
Maybe you need to read up on the Civil War, and how it tore families apart.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/CNGR_General-Flag-Officer-Authorizations.pdf [loc.gov]
Current General/Flag Officer Authorizations: Number Ceilings In prescribing the DOD-wide ceilings for G/FOs for both the active and reserve components, Title 10 gives the basic total of senior officers that each component is not to exceed, plus certain exemptions that do not count against the authorized officer end strength for that component. As described below, these exemptions from end strength counts mainly involve, in the active components, joint-duty positions and, in the reserve components, positions that entail responsibilities prescribed under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. The current basic authorization for active-duty G/FOs, minus exemptions, is 877 (10 U.S.C. 526(a)). This number was first established when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 slightly raised the DOD-wide ceiling by incorporating the 1996 authorization of 12 additional G/FO positions for the Marine Corps.11 The current authorization for reserve component G/FOs is 422
It is possible that you actually believe that congress is a united body of people, with no differences in opinions and political views. I don't know HOW you could have such a belief, but I guess some people could be that naive. Every issue that comes before congress has it's proponents and opponents, within congress. Given that fact, how could you believe that among about 1200 flag officers in the active and reserve military, all of them would be in agreement over a major rift in American politics? Roughly 1200 flag officers, all in lockstep, and willing to turn their forces against the civilian populaiton? Really? What is it that makes you believe such a thing is possible?
Stepping down a step from flag officers, what makes you believe that every officer from Navy Captain or Army Colonel on down will support firing on lightly armed civilians?
Now, just fuck all the officers - let's consider the enlisted men and women. Officers don't get shit done - they are only there to tell the troops what needs to be done. Do you believe that every single gnarly assed old Gunnery Sergeant will blindly follow illegal orders to fire on his fellow Americans? Or, do you suppose that Gunny might turn his troops on the half-wit lieutenant who gave those orders?
Julian, if the shit hits the fan, you are in for a lot of very big surprises. And, few of them are likely to be pleasant.
Now, finally, consider that the US Military often allies itself with, and makes use of, all sorts of armed groups of people in it's overseas campaigns. If there were little or no value in armed civilians and militias, why would the army even take notice of them overseas? At the same time, our military often sees actian against armed civlians and militias. Again, if they had little or no value, why would the military even take notice of them?
Maybe you've heard of these people? https://www.oathkeepers.org/ [oathkeepers.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @07:26AM (4 children)
We have these things call planes now. You can deploy troops quite aways from their hometowns.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19 2017, @08:10AM (2 children)
And, you're holding out some bit of technology, hoping that it will trump people's loyalties? Maybe you'll rely on yet another bit of technology - maybe an algorithm that prevents any individual from ever being assigned a duty station within their home state/county/city?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:01PM
The Sheeple in the US are already brainwashed idiots. It's not hard to get a bunch of soldiers riled up and point them in the right direction.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @01:24PM
How easy is to sort this things out. You know where they were born, you know where their next of kin lives. Order them to fill in a form with the 5 states most of their relatives are in. Transfer them in states where they don't know anyone.
It worked under the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe (and most probably in USSR), in times when army service was compulsory.
One was never assigned to serve in the army close to home. Took generalized uprising for the army to refuse to intervene - many small uprisings you never heard of were smothered by secret police and the army.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:56AM
Yes. And the internet. And those phones have video recorders. And so when some Ohio kid stationed in Wyoming sees he's his compatriots blowing up Ohio, he might think about things.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @08:13AM (2 children)
You forget that robot armies are on their way. Not many will need to be convinced to fire on some armed militia. Orders will be given to clear an area, and the robot armies will do it effectively. No conscience to worry about.
It is quite easy to see actually, when you connect the dots. David Icke tells about this all the time ... Oops ... I forgot that you don't like Icke any longer. But the truth he tells still matters.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19 2017, @08:37AM
+1 depressing truth
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19 2017, @12:12PM
Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in your post. Robot armies are coming, drones are here already. Robot soldiers will change things, but none of us can say exactly how things will change. But, it's worth keeping in mind that much of the government does a pretty crappy job of security. The rebel side may very well turn the robots on their owners. Or, they may run amok, and kill both sides. The most likely scenario is, the flag officers will be divided, as well as junior officers. Some will have command of some of the robots, others will have command of the rest, and the robots will be battling each other.
So, even with robots, the government's victory isn't assured.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 19 2017, @04:16PM (4 children)
It's not impossible that things could slowly worsen to the point that the military really would be willing to kill their own civilians though, right? North Korea happened, after all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19 2017, @05:31PM (1 child)
If we get to that point - then we deserve whatever. We've had generations of forefathers who warned us to safeguard our liberties. If we permit the government to bring us to the point you describe, then we simply deserve what they dish out to us.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:37AM
Maybe so, but it's not really the point. Americans already voted in a man who lies constantly (with all the skill of a toddler) who idolises Putin. It's been a pretty poor show recently, on the eternal vigilance front.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 19 2017, @10:39PM (1 child)
Your right, it is not impossible, and anyone who thinks it is needs to remember that Kent State [wikipedia.org] already happened. And as you point out it is just a matter of time before it happens again.
We need to keep in mind that theo soldiers at Kent State where National Guard, aka "Weekend Warriors", and they still carried out the order to fire. Army and other career military personal will be even more likely to follow an order to open fire on peaceful, unarmed civilians due to the constant exposure and adherence to the ridged command structure of the military services. That same ridged structure is what has ensured It just hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:29AM
Except that in the Kent State shootings, there was likely no order to fire, [wikipedia.org] it was just poorly disciplined National Guard troops.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday June 19 2017, @05:22PM
Oh, those> people! Here is one of them, explaining why he won't be home for Christmas, because he needs to go join a bunch of Jolly Ranchers with a plethora of sex toys:
"Daddy took an Oath!" [youtube.com]
Started quite the meme outbreak.
Even Jesse Ventura [youtube.com] thinks they may be a bit too, um, extreme.
And, End Scene [youtube.com]
Nothing like fomenting treason under the cover of patriotism! The South will Lose Again.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday June 19 2017, @07:12AM (5 children)
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/ [mintpressnews.com]
(Score: 2) by J_Darnley on Monday June 19 2017, @11:12AM (2 children)
Ah the UK. The country where throwing your pint at the charging islamist radical is supposed to stop them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:55AM
It might?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @01:39PM
Never ever. If you throw your pint of beer at them, the terrorist have won!
I kid you not, the pure-at-heart Englishman will always take the pint of beer with him, as an act of defiance against terrorism [businessinsider.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by j-beda on Monday June 19 2017, @03:12PM (1 child)
Australia does seem to have had a pretty big drop in large scale/spree shootings however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:31AM
Don't worry. Everyone is figuring out that cars and trucks are dangerous.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 19 2017, @10:12AM (7 children)
You never served, did you? I have and I tell you right now there is no way in hell the US military could take US gun owners. For starters they'd be at a 100:1 numerical disadvantage. For another they'd be shooting at their fathers and brothers. For another, their adversaries look precisely like peaceful citizens, right until they don't. Go around a corner and they're peaceful citizens again. No, we do not have a military capable of subjugating its populace if said populace does not want to be subjugated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @01:46PM (3 children)
Don't kid yourself.
Deploy Alaskan troops in California, Massachusetts troops in fly-over-country, and Arkansas troops in New York, and tell them "They voted Hillary/Trump, they mocked Palin; they are responsible for the mess we are in and look, the fools a rebelling now, teach them a lesson".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 19 2017, @02:50PM (2 children)
Have to jump in here. The (Active) US Army isn't organized by state. A "unit" is made up of people from potentially all States and Territories. The Army considers it good to have diversity and different view points. Reserve and National Guard are inactive parts of the US Army that are organized by state. The National Guard is controlled by each State's Governor, not the President. I have no idea how fighting ready the Reserves are, tbh. But they would fit your criteria.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 19 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
Actually the POTUS can take control of the National Guard "in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies" and override a Governor's authority.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/governors-lose-in-power-struggle-over-national-guard/ [tenthamendmentcenter.com]
So if the POTUS had to declare martial law due to "continuing terrorist threats" after something like, say a series of coordinated bombings across the US, he could do whatever he wanted with the NG units, including move them to different states.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:24AM
S'true but expect at least a quarter of the governors to refuse at least initially. You don't get to be governor of most states by being anti-gun.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:35AM (2 children)
It won't be a 100:1 numerical disadvantage. The way these things usually go is aprox. 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent. It'll be the army along with 1/3rd of the population against the other 1/3rd.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:30AM
I can't see how the 1/3 "against" (siding with the troops) will choose to illegally shoot and kill people in support of the government position. They will be seen by the soldiers as militants and killed on sight. If your original ratio is correct, then it will be like this:
1/3 for, and fighting; 1/3 against, sitting at home and watching TV; 1/3 neutral, helping neither side.
If the confiscation of guns is announced, a significant number of weapons will be "lost" or "destroyed" in many unverifiable accidents. For example, "man, I was so scared of my guns, I took a plasma cutter to them all, until nothing was left but glowing droplets of steel." How would a soldier prove the contrary? Many gun owners do not store the weapons where they live (because of young children, for example.) Where do they store them? That's a completely different question, and the answer won't be discovered until the soldiers search every nook and cranny of the whole country - which is not even remotely feasible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:19AM
I'm curious, how much of the Army do you think will follow orders when told to violate their oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." when doing so means shooting their friends and family? Do you think people who signed up to carry guns for their nation are anti-gun-types?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:04PM
insurgency is battle proven to be a pain in the ass for any large military to deal with. even though the US has been getting lots of practice the US civilian population is *heavily* armed. also, the military will not simply side against the american people in one organized group of traitors. a high percentage of volunteer soldiers believe in the constitution. They are just like the political right: they've just been too brainwashed to see how bad it really is. many will notice when they are asked to attack their own people/take their guns. also, you can't operate all of your military bases behind "enemy" lines and expect things to run smoothly. someone has to put fuel in the planes or plug the drones in at night. what if half of your support people are aligned with the resistance? what if everything you try to do is behind enemy lines while being attacked 24/7 because you are trying to fight 100 million gun owners? if they are smart, they will continue to try to make us self destruct with race baiting, economic problems, food shortages, etc. then we could just kill each other in large numbers until shit was bad enough to where the soldiers could easily believe they were helping when they roll in with the tanks and the people would be so hungry and tired of fighting they would just cry in relief at the mere site of them. you know, what gun dealers, banks and govs do to africa all the time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday June 19 2017, @06:50AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:19PM (1 child)
You mean "Undocumented" guns. How can a gun be illegal?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:02AM
Look up "trope" in a dictionary. Read some literature on the subject of rhetoric. Start in ancient Greece, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. Don't get back to us until you've learnt something.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:53AM (3 children)
It may not be the police that one should fear but the thugs that the police is to afraid to confront because.. racism. That seems to be the case in Melbourne and the Apex gang at least. Protecting oneself with a knife or bat is not that easy when opposed by several fight experienced and drugged thugs. So better tools, ie guns would be better. But then they are illegal in practice. Any ideas how to deter violent gangs alone?
There is a one dilemma though. If one happen to kill a home invader in Australia a lawyer says that it can still render you 10-14 years in prison for manslaughter a lesser degree of murder charge. So how to defend without being stabbed in the back by the justice system? (which is a joke when it matters according to reports)
15-129 Home Invasion - Seacombe Gardens [youtube.com]
Nine News. Hotbed Home Invasion Stats.(Multicultural Nightmare Melbourne) [youtube.com]
African Migrants on a crime spree across Australia [youtube.com]
Nine News. African Gangs Crime Sweep Melbourne Beaches Attacking Australians [youtube.com]
ACA. Enough Is Enough. (People Fight Back Black Apex Gangs) [youtube.com]
Seven + Nine News. Blacks Attack Autistic Boy On Bus. (Want Phone + Runners. Tarneit) [youtube.com]
Nine News. Fighting Back. (Attacked Autistic Boy's Family Crime Feedback) [youtube.com]
Nine News. Out Of Control. (Black African Apex Gang Attacks Melbourne) [youtube.com]
Nine News. Gang Fight. (Former Apex Gang Member Talks) [youtube.com]
Btw this former gang member says its all about being with the bad crowd at the wrong time and place to start participate in the bad activities. That they left all family and friends behind and have to start all over again. And that they need more youth workers. Of course he also think they shouldn't be put away or deported. On the other hand what's in it for Australians to keep these people around?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday June 19 2017, @07:15AM (2 children)
Apex has pretty much been shut down now. By the police. True, they did commit a spate of violent crimes, however no deaths have been linked to their activities.
The Current Affairs articles about them are a bit of a beat-up too - a ratings grab.
I would feel much less safe walking around in downtown Dallas than in Melbourne.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:52PM (1 child)
So immigrant gangs is not a big problem in Australia anymore? ie shutting down one gang only to have another one appear.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday June 19 2017, @10:53PM
Correct, immigrant gangs are not a big problem in Australia
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday June 19 2017, @07:06AM (6 children)
And yet, despite your 'Murican Freedom, you feel you must post AC to hide behind the veil of anonymity, lest you place yourself in danger...
You do realize that the time for you to take up arms against your corrupt government was decades ago? So, how's that going for you? Just when will it get bad enough for 'the people' to actually rise up? If you think the answer is 'ever', you're dreaming. The Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security are two of the most oppressive anti-citizen measures in the Western World, and you still think the 2nd Amendment gives you freedom?
Australia's a nice place - you should visit sometime. Higher median wages, lower unemployment, lower crime, better health cover, greater access to education, lower corruption, much lower death-by-cop. And much less chance of being shot. Over the past 20 years, there have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia. Sure, you might have to fend off the odd Drop Bear or two, but they help to keep the spiders and snakes under control so it's a balancing act.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday June 19 2017, @08:15AM (2 children)
Blimey, funniest thing I never saw was a drop bear chasing after a hoop snake downhill, strewth!
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19 2017, @08:38AM (1 child)
You think it's funny, but a dropbear killed my family.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday June 19 2017, @12:32PM
That's why you shouldn't pitch your tent under any trees where drop-bears might live.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by j-beda on Monday June 19 2017, @03:22PM
Not quite zero, but certainly better than before 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia [wikipedia.org]
2002, 2011, 2014 compared to 96, 96, 93, 92, 91, 90, 88, 87, 87, 87, 84, 84, 81, 76
Of course it depends on one's definition of "mass shooting". Tighten the definition to exclude the most recent few and one would also need to exculde some of the earlier ones.
Overall, I think the Australian ban was a good idea.
And the population seems to agree, even though significan number of Americans think it was a bad idea, strangely enough.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Monday June 19 2017, @04:36PM (1 child)
"you should visit sometime"
I'd love to! Can I bring my firearms? (grin)
Actually, I'd love to see the places my uncles were stationed (US 1st Cav) during WWII. I'd like to meet the descendants of the friends they made, and enjoy some REAL beer with them.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:18AM
If you want real beer keep flying stop off in New Zealand first then head back to Oz.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 1) by corey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:35PM
I've never been more glad I live in Australia. I like goimg to public places not having to worry about some looney going mental with a semi auto , and sending my kids to school knowing they won't get shot by some kid with mental health problems.
I live in Melbourne and there's nowhere on this city I can imagine going and be fearful of being shot. I've been to south LA and I certainly felt it there. We don't live with the feverish belief in kill other people in order to avoid being killed ourselves, because there aren't heavily armed wankers walking the streets. Yeah sometimes bikies shoot up eacjother or crime gangs but they usually leave the public alone.
I rather be in a place where guns are banned*, because it feels a whole lot safer on the streets.
I once looked up some stats after reading an article about Chicago people protesting about so many deaths due to guns. I read that in a day, or was it a week, can't remember, there were more homicides due to guns in the one city than in all of Australia in a year, by an order of magnitude.
How is that a good outcome?
(* except obviously for farmers, gun hobbyists etc)