Apathetic Australians?
Recently, a 15 year old boy was shot dead by police in Athens leading to massive riots which have been going on for a week now.
Recently, a 15 year old boy was shot dead by police in Australia leading to a discussion about tazers...and no riots.
Does that mean Australians care less about their children than Greeks do?
Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well.
Perhaps more training with a lethal weapon might be in order...along with tazers.
btw, the boy in Australia did not have a gun, only a couple of knives.
Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well.
I think cops should leave their guns holstered until they are forced to kill someone. And then they should shoot to kill.
Well that's exactly what they are supposed to do here apparently.
I happen to disagree with that philosophy.
I have heard it's very difficult to shoot someone in the knee or elbow or similar bits. If you're going to shoot...
Well the Terminator could do it...
Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well.
Despite what the Cisco Kid may have shown us, pistols even in the most competent hands are not accurate enough to target extremities. You'd have a lot of cop killings if they tried.
From a distance, Greek society looks a lot less stable than Australian. Lots of hard core communists, a future that looks less appealing than the past, and nearby countries with limitless cheap labor are quite a cocktail for despair.
...Greek society looks a lot less stable than Australian. Lots of hard core communists, a future that looks less appealing than the past, and nearby countries with limitless cheap labor ...
...and lots a hot bodies covered in oil baby!
hey...we have lots of hot bodies here too.
Don't forget we lay claim to 'the sexiest man alive'. ;)
You're no Sweden but we should give you credit down there.
hey...we have lots of hot bodies here too.
Don't forget we lay claim to 'the sexiest man alive'. ;)
Hey! I didn't know Daniel Craig was an Aussie! ;)
No, you're right. There are plenty of hot Aussies---Kagen and Zen come immediately to mind...
I was talking about Hugh Jackman as voted by the readers of 'People'.
Recently, a 15 year old boy was shot dead by police in Athens leading to massive riots which have been going on for a week now.
Recently, a 15 year old boy was shot dead by police in Australia leading to a discussion about tazers...and no riots.
Does that mean Australians care less about their children than Greeks do?
Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well.
Perhaps more training with a lethal weapon might be in order...along with tazers.
btw, the boy in Australia did not have a gun, only a couple of knives.
It was a different scenario. I haven't really looked into it but it seems that it is ILLEGAL for a cop in Greece to go on a college campus and the 15 year old boy was shot on a college campus. The Australian scenario was a lot different.
It would be like saying that since the shooting of Bobby Kennedy in the United States didn't start another WWI, that Franz Ferdinand was more important.
Plus, Greek is known for its anarchist riots. I haven't heard any in Australia.
The Greek riots were an expression of deep political anger; the police shooting was just the spark that ignitied it. Australia lacks that anger, so the spark did not ignite.
The Victorian Police (whose badge consists of an inverted pentacle and the motto "uphold the right", btw) have different gun-handling rules to most Australian states. 10 or 15 years ago two officers were shot and killed in a deliberate trap, and the police got the FBI to assess their procedures, and the Victorian police adopted the shoot-to-kill procedure, i.e. if you need to start shooting, continue shooting until the situation has been resolved.
In South Australia they use minimal shots. Recently a chap aimed a (replica) gun at police and one of the four officers present fired one shot (which was fatal). There was a case a few years ago when the specialist snipers did actually shoot the gun out of someone's hand with a single shot.
That kid was a perfect case for a taser.
If it's a situation that justifies firing a shot, multiple body shots are the only way to go. assuming living cops and dead/incapacitated bad guys is the desired outcome.
This whole tragedy puts a great case for the use of tasers, but it's not a case of insensitivity or "not caring". Like Zengum says, the death is the spark to the powderkeg.
We've had our fair share of recent riots, and generally they've happened in areas where the general population WASN'T warm, well fed, well housed, well protected and well represented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Redfern_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Macquarie_Fields_riots
The Palm Island and Cronulla riots also spring to mind...
You forgot the riots touched off by sunglasses dude
-Kagen and Zen come immediately to mind...
Kagen! Where is he, anyway?
You forgot the riots touched off by sunglasses dude
which riots?
Well it wasn't a riot but he had 500 partygoers spill out into the street and cause damage.
the original yt was a minor hit
[youtube]FcOXf-U1ZRA[/youtube]
He's just a wanker that kid. Needs to good belting if you ask me.
Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well.
The idea that anybody can reliably hit a limb with small arms is false. In point of fact, one is rather lucky to land a hit anywhere at all under combat stress and its frantic, hasty conditions. Add to this the marginal killing power of any handgun cartridge (especially the controllable midpower ones, e.g. .455 Webley, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 9mm PB inter alia), and the only way to "shoot to disable" or shoot to stop, is with center-of-mass hits -- the torso is the one place worth firing at when the other chappie has deadly weaponry, which is why the guns come out in the first place. To stop somebody
right now, when stopping him is even more important than keeping him alive, means you have to smack him hard enough in something important. Those policemen shot exactly as they must.
btw, the boy in Australia did not have a gun, only a couple of knives.
Criminal assault with lethal weaponry justifies lethal force in defense of self and other. Add in factors of insanity or drugs as may be eventuated, and this is when guns talk in a civil environment. None of this is happy or nice, but isn't it worse to submit to murder? Isn't it worse to allow others to be wrongfully slain? I think, Ali, you've always preferred to submit to murder. As you know, I don't think that's good, and bitterly oppose those who say I must, or even hint at it. If you did not prefer to submit to being murdered, you'd sound rather more like me.
Nope, I don't 'prefer to submit to murder'.
I just think it's wrong that a 15 year old boy was killed by police. I understand that the police were stymied, but it's very hard for me to understand that they had no other alternative.
He was a scawny looking 15 year old. Not much to him at all.
In the days of old (in a time where there was respect and you didnt have to worry about having a gun waved in your face after you cut someone off in traffic...), I would of been mortified about a 15yr old being shot...but now I automatically think that there must of been circumstances that meant a fatal shot was called for.
That said, the boys in blue should play more bond games....I could so cap some scrawny teenager in the knee cap....8 times outta 10.
We can only guess what lead to the circumstances that they felt they needed to shoot the kid. Don't be fooled by the age. I have seen plenty of 15 year olds with Ak's and age means nothing when it comes to intent. But say the kid had two big assed knifes. Why couldn't 8 cops with shields surrounded the kid and rushed him right after a pepper spray down. Throw a net on him. So many non-lethal possibilities. Spray him with a high powered fire truck water hose. Or just called in Dr. No and had him transported to a different place and time and not even worry about it. So many possibilities. If none of that works, then shoot his sorry ass.
You forgot the riots touched off by sunglasses dude
That kid was a total douche bag.
That kid IS a total douche bag.
Fixed it for ya.
Nope, I don't 'prefer to submit to murder'.
Then it's about time your views on private arms reflected that. They do not, at present. Mine, of course, clearly do -- and yours could. That would be fortunate.
Quite right. Well said UG. If we all just had the same views as you then the world would be such a nice place.
Then it's about time your views on private arms reflected that. They do not, at present. Mine, of course, clearly do -- and yours could. That would be fortunate.
Once again, I've never advocated against private firearms, in fact I support people's right to have private firearms (mainly to shoot snakes and feral cats and dogs with, but my reasons are still valid). We have these rights in Australia as you are surely aware.
I don't support the ease with which they're obtainable, and I don't support people carrying them around the streets. It's pretty simple really.
We don't live in the wild wild west anymore. I don't see why people need to continue to glorify this ideoligy.
Because the "wild west" was relatively safe, compared to modern cities. Much of it is probably due to population densities increasing, creating more friction, at least until it's so dense it's impossible for any bad behavior to go unwitnessed.
Is that opinion or fact Bruce? (I'm assuming you're giving me a reason for the continued glorification?)
I'd be interested in your sources because there are quite clearly a lot of sources that suggest people can expect a much longer lifespan now than back in 'the good old days'.
The increase in lifespan has nothing to do with danger, it's improvement in nutrition, sanitation, medicine, etc.
So you don't think the fact that dealing with the conflict between indigenous people of the US now being less violent has anything to do with it? Or people being so isolated that they felt the need to shoot first and ask questions later in order to protect their property and family?
Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then.
On the other hand, you could argue that in place of the dangers of the past, new dangers have become apparent. I agree with that even, but the point is that the mentality of the wild west is still apparent even in many of the posters here.
ETA: This is my perspective as an outsider. Perhaps citizens of the US don't see it that way, but I can guarantee that I'm not in the minority with my thoughts on this as far as non-US citizens go.
The conflict between indigenous people has been pretty much over since they were separated into different reservations over a hundred years ago.
The conflict between indigenous people and the settlers, although bloody, was really quite rare. Partially because of the extremely low population density and partly because most of the conflict took place between the indigenous people and the US calvary.
Of course in the "wild west", and the rest of the country for the most part, everyone assumed (and rightly so) that everyone else was armed. This tempered peoples behavior, especially the criminals.
Today, most people are unarmed and the criminals know that... btw, they're armed. Unlike Wolf, most of the time when I leave the house I'm unarmed, because even though I have a concealed carry permit, I'm going somewhere I can't be armed.
I'm well aware that you furriners have a skewed perspective of us... we cultivate it.
It would be almost impossible to make an unbiased availability of guns versus death ratio because of the tremendous amount of factors involved. Number of deaths from guns can be determined by gun culture, gang numbers, poverty, homelessness, graduation rate, parenting, how a neighborhood is perceived by rest of city, etc.
Guns can be safer in some instances and more dangerous in others.
Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then.
So explain why an Africa that has clearly become less safe also has a massive population explosion? Some of the world's greatest and most recent genocides are Africa. The entire central Africa is in constant conflict every decade. It's not unusual for a million to die. That is a safer continent? Hardly. But then studies on this topic defined what the populations in Africa have recently exploded. Better human services, nutrition, and medical treatment.
Meanwhile, and in contradiction of Hollywood fiction, large numbers of families trekked across the American frontier without guns. A typical family might have had one gun. Are more people alive in the western US now that more guns are available? Hardly. Violence has played a minor part in causing or suppressing a population explosion.
So what does that say about boy genius with sunglasses in Australia?
So explain why an Africa that has clearly become less safe also has a massive population explosion? Some of the world's greatest and most recent genocides are Africa. The entire central Africa is in constant conflict every decade. It's not unusual for a million to die. That is a safer continent? Hardly. But then studies on this topic defined what the populations in Africa have recently exploded. Better human services, nutrition, and medical treatment.
Meanwhile, and in contradiction of Hollywood fiction, large numbers of families trekked across the American frontier without guns. A typical family might have had one gun. Are more people alive in the western US now that more guns are available? Hardly. Violence has played a minor part in causing or suppressing a population explosion.
So what does that say about boy genius with sunglasses in Australia?
What?
Who is the "boy genius" to whom he is referring?
I'm just wondering why tw brought Africa into it. I wouldn't say that it's clear Africa has been a 'safe' place ever by western standards. Up till a couple of hundred years ago (or less) tribes were being captured by whites and sold as slaves still. To this day tribal nations kill each other off indiscriminately as we've seen throughout what history we know of Africa. Not a lot has changed when the continent is taken in a broad view.
As for the boy genius, I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.
He's talking about the douchbag with the sunglasses who threw the party in his parents' house, the one in the YouTube video. But what that has to do with the rest of what he was talking about, there's no telling.
Hmmm...things become curiouser and curiouser...:)
Maybe he's suffering from old-timers
Meanwhile, and in contradiction of Hollywood fiction, large numbers of families trekked across the American frontier without guns. A typical family might have had one gun.
All the people who lived here and decided to move west had guns, at least one per family and usually one for each boy over ten years old. Hunting was an important part of their food supply. The few that were unarmed would be the ones fresh off the boat headed to the midwest, and that was not exactly the frontier, at that point.
Up till a couple of hundred years ago (or less) tribes were being captured by whites and sold as slaves still.
The white slavers didn't capture tribes, they bought slaves from the Black and Arab slave traders that had operated in Africa for a thousand years. Slavery is not dead in Africa even today... or the rest of the world.
I think the "sunglasses dude" is referring to post 16, but no idea what it has to do with the price of beans.
The white slavers didn't capture tribes, they bought slaves from the Black and Arab slave traders that had operated in Africa for a thousand years. Slavery is not dead in Africa even today... or the rest of the world.
Nope, slavery happens all over the place still. It's just not demonised as much when it happens in western nations because most of us prefer to believe it doesn't happen.
I think it's probably arguing semantics as to who actually did the catching of African people. Ultimately, in western history it's white people who've been the masters.
In western history, yes. I was just pointing out the white slavers didn't invent it, just took advantage of an established trade. They probably did escalate it, however, through the laws of supply and demand.
Oh wait, natives of both North and South America had slaves, but that could be considered pre-western history I suppose.
The typical family heading to the west had at least one gun ... or they didn't make it to the promised land - Period. A gun was their defense, their security and in virtually all cases their only way to eat meat.
Nope, slavery happens all over the place still. It's just not demonised as much when it happens in western nations because most of us prefer to believe it doesn't happen.
I think it's probably arguing semantics as to who actually did the catching of African people. Ultimately, in western history it's white people who've been the masters.
You are quite correct that slavery remains a modern problem in many places of the world. You are incorrect that whites captured slaves, they mostly bought them from other blacks for export tot he the US. If you look at the period when Europe dominated Africa, sure they whites were heavily involved in the slavery of Africans. This was a great read on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold's_Ghost
As I mentioned, regardless of who did the catching, white people did the purchasing and also as previously mentioned, indigenous tribes have been enslaving each other throughout the ages.
He's just a wanker that kid. Needs to good belting if you ask me.
That kid - also described as boy genius.
We don't live in the wild wild west anymore. I don't see why people need to continue to glorify this [firearms] ideoligy.
Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then.
The reply was in response to the wide ranging and otherwise diluted posts by Aliantha. Aliantha who claims population increases are due to safer environements. Well, the post contracted that Aliantha supposition. But Aliantha did not even read the post correctly.
I'm just wondering why tw brought Africa into it. I wouldn't say that it's clear Africa has been a 'safe' place ever by western standards. ...
As for the boy genius, I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.
How curious. My post did not suggest Africa was safer. It obviously suggested Africa is less safe - and still a population boom has occurred. In short, Africa is a perfect example of Aliantha's erroneous conclusions and supporting facts for xoxoxoBruce's reply to that erroneous Aliantha conclusion.
Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above.
Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again?
Whats the title of this thread again?
tw's rambling posts? :lol2:
The typical family heading to the west had at least one gun ... or they didn't make it to the promised land - Period.
Rarely did a family have more than one rifle. One reason for wagon trains was defense because so few guns were available AND were most often single shot rifles. Better organized groups always planned so that when someone shot, another always still had a loaded gun. Contrary to the Hollywood version, guns were not so plentiful The west was not as dangerous as Hollywood (and Aliantha) would have us believe.
Even after the Civil War, Custard's company only had single shot rifles at Little Big Horn. One would never know that if educated in Wild West gun myths from Hollywood that insist the West was so dangerous. Guns were never as plentiful as popular myths would have us believe because the west was not as dangerous as those myths also promote.
He's just a wanker that kid. Needs to good belting if you ask me.
That kid - also described as boy genius.
We don't live in the wild wild west anymore. I don't see why people need to continue to glorify this [firearms] ideoligy.
Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then.
The reply was in response to the wide ranging and otherwise diluted posts by Aliantha. Aliantha claims population increases are due to safer environements. A reply contracted that Aliantha supposition. But Aliantha did not even read that post correctly.
I'm just wondering why tw brought Africa into it. I wouldn't say that it's clear Africa has been a 'safe' place ever by western standards. ...
As for the boy genius, I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.
How curious. My post did not suggest Africa was safer. Why does Aliantha read so erroneously? It obviously suggested Africa - especially Central Africa - is less safe. And still a population boom has occurred - contradicting what Aliantha has posted. Africa is a perfect example of Aliantha's erroneous conclusions and supports xoxoxoBruce's reply to that erroneous Aliantha conclusion.
Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above.
Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again?
Originally Posted by Aliantha
He's just a wanker that kid. Needs to good belting if you ask me.
That kid - also described as boy genius.
Originally Posted by Aliantha
We don't live in the wild wild west anymore. I don't see why people need to continue to glorify this [firearms] ideoligy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then.
The reply was in response to the wide ranging and otherwise diluted posts by Aliantha. Aliantha claims population increases are due to safer environements. A reply contracted that Aliantha supposition. But Aliantha did not even read that post correctly.
Originally Posted by Aliantha
I'm just wondering why tw brought Africa into it. I wouldn't say that it's clear Africa has been a 'safe' place ever by western standards. ...
As for the boy genius, I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.
How curious. My post did not suggest Africa was safer. Why does Aliantha read so erroneously? It obviously suggested Africa - especially Central Africa - is less safe. And still a population boom has occurred - contradicting what Aliantha has posted. Africa is a perfect example of Aliantha's erroneous conclusions and supports xoxoxoBruce's reply to that erroneous Aliantha conclusion.
Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above.
Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again?
wtf?
wtf?
As a supporter of George Jr and Rush Limbaugh, are you so low in class as to only post profanity? Do you have any kids under the age of 5? Just worried for the kids.
Rarely did a family have more than one rifle. Contrary to the Hollywood version, guns were not so plentiful The west was not as dangerous as Hollywood would have us believe.
Custard's company only had single shot rifles at Little Big Horn. Guns were never as plentiful as popular myths would have us believe because the west was not as dangerous as those myths also promote.
Why don't you look up some statistics on how many perished getting to CA from the east and then tell us it wasn't that dangerous. You are completely wrong. not 85%,
100% wrong.
Repeating rifles were not being manufactured long enough, nor in great enough numbers and were EXTREMELY expensive when compared to the single shot competitors. Many in the army also refused to use anything, but their own rifles which they were more comfortable with. There were also contracts that the army had for the single shot rifles, cost, availability, reputation, reliability, availability...
You are so wrong on so many levels here - stick to something you know something about. This certainly isn't it.
As a supporter of George Jr and Rush Limbaugh...
WTF? :lol2:
As a supporter of George Jr and Rush Limbaugh, I am so low in class as to only post profanity. Do you have any kids under the age of 5? Just worried for the kids.
Still doing the name calling thing eh? Yet when done to you, you cry foul. Interesting.
By the way what do the name calling age of children and your assumptions about Rush and GWB have to do with anything on topic here?
Why don't you look up some statistics on how many perished getting to CA from the east and then tell us it wasn't that dangerous. You are completely wrong. not 85%, 100% wrong.
Repeating rifles were not being manufactured long enough, nor in great enough numbers and were EXTREMELY expensive when compared to the single shot competitors. Many in the army also refused to use anything, but their own rifles which they were more comfortable with. There were also contracts that the army had for the single shot rifles, cost, availability, reputation, reliability, availability...
You are so wrong on so many levels here - stick to something you know something about. This certainly isn't it.
tw obviously failed US history. Now we get to hear how he is all right and everything everyone else knows of the history of the exploration of the West is false. Are tw and Radar related?
WTF?
Amazing the class of people who find profanity amusing. Are those kids under 5 - and therefore at risk? Kids are at greater risk with lower class parents.
Amazing the class of people who find profanity amusing. Are those kids under 5 - and therefore at risk? Kids are at greater risk with lower class parents.
Do you quote Time magazine and UFO as well? :lol2: WTF?
Still doing the name calling thing eh? Yet
You too can be low class. All one need do is post profanity and find it amusing. That's not name calling. That is simple reality. A characteristic of low class and poorly educated people who would attack the messenger rather than deal with facts.
Profanity is a strong indicator of low class people who are also easily subverted by wacko extremist ideals. No insult. Just hard reality. Posting profanity with intent only to disparage is routine from TheMercenary.
The accuracy is stunningly obvious by so manyTheMercenary replies. He apparently has trouble with his class status. A inferiority made obvious because he so routinely posts profanity. Makes me wonder if he too was a boy genius. There is a similarity in attitude. Not personal attacks. Just a logical speculation.
You too can be low class. All one need do is post profanity and find it amusing. That's not name calling. That is simple reality. A characteristic of low class and poorly educated people who would attack the messenger rather than deal with facts.
Profanity is a strong indicator of low class people who are also easily subverted by wacko extremist ideals. No insult. Just hard reality. Posting profanity with intent only to disparage is routine from TheMercenary.
The accuracy is stunningly obvious by so manyTheMercenary replies. He apparently has trouble with his class status. A inferiority made obvious because he so routinely posts profanity. Makes me wonder if he too was a boy genius. There is a similarity in attitude. Not personal attacks. Just a logical speculation.
WTF?
Amazing the class of people who find profanity amusing. Are those kids under 5 - and therefore at risk? Kids are at greater risk with lower class parents.
I find your diversionary tactics rather amusing. It's what you are good at. You completely ignored the discussion when you were challenged and decided to go on a witch hunt.
Merc may not be used to you doing this, but you've been called out numerous times with the same result. Diversions. Can you link one post where you admitted you were wrong? Just one.
If find it appalling that you hide under the guise of "I'm simply posting facts" - Bullshit.
Get back on topic.
You too can be low class. All one need do is post profanity and find it amusing. A characteristic of low class and poorly educated people who would attack the messenger rather than deal with facts.
Or one (in general) could just regurgitate a magazine ([COLOR="White"]the Economist[/COLOR]) on a daily basis and act as if one was superior to other posters. That's pretty low class too.
Whatever floats yer boat . . .
That kid - also described as boy genius.
That kid who has been denigrated by most of Australia you mean? The one who seems to have a very very low approval rating right here in his own back yard?
The reply was in response to the wide ranging and otherwise diluted posts by Aliantha. Aliantha who claims population increases are due to safer environements. Well, the post contracted that Aliantha supposition. But Aliantha did not even read the post correctly. How curious. My post did not suggest Africa was safer. It obviously suggested Africa is less safe - and still a population boom has occurred. In short, Africa is a perfect example of Aliantha's erroneous conclusions and supporting facts for xoxoxoBruce's reply to that erroneous Aliantha conclusion.
Not once did I suggest that population increases are due soley to safer environments, but thanks for trying to imply what you think I was thinking. Also, I'm pretty sure Bruce doesn't need you of all people defending him. lol
Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above.
Oh the irony. :D
Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again?
I haven't had a drink in about 7 months. I don't think the same can be said for you after reading this load of tripe! (and re-reading a number of times in order to try and find some 'common meaning or attempt to 'stay on message' rather than simply making a personal attack which I'd always thought you considered beneath you)
Also, I'm pretty sure Bruce doesn't need you of all people defending him. lol
I didn't know I was in a fight? :confused:
No, you just got mentioned in another rambling tw post.
Yeah, I HATE it when someone just regurgitates articles. :eyebrow:
And Ali, the ease of availability that you decry is necessary for getting the private arms in the first place, for snake shooting or for checks and balances against insensate governmental power, however paranoid you want to get about it. They are all in the same parcel.
You've been conned if you think otherwise, I'm afraid.
See, where the hoplophobes have it wrong is that "ease with which" doesn't work only one way. The 'phobes (and believe you me, they are quite nutty) only see the bad guys having the "ease with which," when actual ease-with-which is just as available to the good guys. The 'phobes dodge this reality, as set forth eloquently in
Raging Against Self Defense -- an article so sensible no antigunner ever reads it. It has to do with their emotional immaturity combined with an intense suppressed rage. To suppress it, essentially the 'phobes insist they are pacifists -- while underneath, they have a pretty clear understanding of what they themselves would do if they take up a gun -- essentially, all their suppressed rage comes out in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre should they ever have to do lethal battle. Where they fuck up is they think everyone else out there would do the same; and it just ain't so, as the total concealed carry experience demonstrates and which several data they rigidly, absurdly ignore.
And which several data I don't.
No, DanaC, you are so very very profoundly ignorant of all things gun that your own opinions should carry no weight with you. Had you understanding of arms and men -- I do, and you'd sound more like me if you did also -- you would have some idea how correct my views are. You're ignorant enough to think I pull my views on this out of my ass, which is one short step on the ignorance ladder above not knowing how to spell "gun." Fact is, O my patronizable opponent, I draw a lot from the site I linked above: the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a civil rights organization with few peers. Among those few peers is the NRA-ILA. Get athwart such as these only at your considerable peril. You end up getting outed as either a tyrant or a tyrant-in-waiting.
Anyone managed that trick upon me? No. Would they like to? Probably, since I make them feel terrible for supporting crime, tyranny, oppression and genocide. And the poor suckers won't fix it. Shall they ever manage? Not a clay pigeon's chance.
Rarely did a family have more than one rifle.
I don't think tw has a source for this one -- and speedily enough, new hardware stores in new towns filled any lack in any event. There was not at any point a huge surplus of supply to demand on the frontier, either. Among rifles, the Spencers, Winchesters, and Henrys (really, the proto-Winchester lever-action) were available at army-surplus prices to both traders and emigrants -- but this is the overall, nationwide picture.
Even after the Civil War, Custard's company only had single shot rifles at Little Big Horn.
Spelling Custer's name that badly in that fashion
and being unaware of it reduces the entire post to a childish joke -- or else should be a datum about the perils of relying on the spellchecker in the machine instead of in the wetware. This is why tw can't claim a mighty intellect when he's up against me. The man
cannot write well, yet through some florid madness persists in writing nonetheless, with never a scintilla of improvement in either copy or commonsense.
The Army at the time of Little Big Horn (1876) did have the rather peculiar idea that breechloader cartridge conversions of the Springfield rifle musket would make logistics less trouble through being single-shot. The real reason was funding -- and tens of thousands of rifle muskets available for a conversion kit that was undeniably cheaper than buying cartridge repeaters new. Hence, the trapdoor Springfield, which stayed in at least reserve service up through the Spanish-American War. Call it thirty-five years. Perhaps the most extravant portion of the conversion was the rebarrelling to .50 and .45 calibers and the creation of two new cartridges, the .50-70 and the .45-70 Government. (And England did something equivalent with its 1853 Enfield -- it became the Snider.)
And come on -- everybody knows too much eggnog gets you under reindeer hooves, not in trouble with the Cellar! Eesh.
By the way what do the name calling age of children and your assumptions about Rush and GWB have to do with anything on topic here?
I don't think he'd know. He's not, I think, a father -- and what's the likelihood of anyone wanting his babies?
.
Had you understanding of arms and men -- I do, and you'd sound more like me if you did also -- you would have some idea how correct my views are. .
I particularly liked that bit.
lol...well he's not overly apathetic if you judge him only by his words, but I'll bet he doesn't do much more than sit at his computer and bitch about the stuff he doesn't like. ;)
Angioplastic Anglicans...oh noes.
Anaphlactic Azerbajanians
Acrophobic Aviators [COLOR="White"]missing the point[/COLOR]
Great job for an extrovert.
Promoting the pristine island, to attract foreign tourists, to come and make it less pristine. :haha:
You mean be Chris Whatsisname from Total Drama Island?
Where did that bear suit come from anyway??
Actually, they have to promote Qld tourism in general, so they're required to go from island to island sampling the sites and then blogging about them. It'll have to be someone articulate and I assume well travelled in order to make it worth the while.
It's a great opportunity for someone to have a 6 month holiday on the Qld government.
Alienated Aboriginals?
...Oh great. Now I'm imagining a guy with a didgeridoo wearing Deely-Bobbers. And pigeonwing sunglasses.
He's a real disgrace to the Aboriginal race. I bet his boomerang won't come back.
Aboriginal people have been alienated since white people first arrived here. Things are looking up for them now though, so that's good.
Austrian Australian Armigers?
I'm feeling a bit apathetic right now but that's not surprising given how bloody hot it's been here for the last few days.
He's a real disgrace to the Aboriginal race. I bet his boomerang won't come back.
oh my god, how do you know that song?
Today I drove over the Westgate bridge and couldnt help but think...how the fuck did that guy throw his daughter off this bridge? why her? the other 2 kids were left in the car?
It was a horrid experience [/off topic]
Let's just give it all to the UN. What do you say?
Time for a new world order: PM
KEVIN RUDD has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of "social capitalism" in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.
In an essay to be published next week, the Prime Minister is scathing of the neo-liberals who began refashioning the market system in the 1970s, and ultimately brought about the global financial crisis.
"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes," he writes of those who placed their faith in the corrective powers of the market.
"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself."
Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day "social democrats" such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that "minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do" and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.
"A system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate," he writes.
He urges "a new contract for the future that eschews the extremism of both the left and right".
He mocks neo-liberals "who now find themselves tied in ideological knots in being forced to rely on the state they fundamentally despise to save financial markets from collapse".
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/01/30/1232818725574.htmlIt's disappointing that that's what you get out of that article Merc.
There is a lot written about anti-protectionistic practices being floated by various countries, including the US. IMHO, the global economy has fueled much of this mess we are in now. Making things more global is not going to help.
Yes but why the comment about the UN? What's that got to do with it? I don't get why you'd think KRudd would be suggesting we hand over regulatory powers to the UN.
What he's calling for are tighter restrictions on the free market economy that we've been operating under over the last 30 years in order to try and stop banks from collapsing in the future, to name just one major issue connected to this situation.
oh my god, how do you know that song?
My brother and I had a bunch of "novelty song" albums when we were kids.
But I thought it was pretty well known anywhere.
Yes but why the comment about the UN? What's that got to do with it? I don't get why you'd think KRudd would be suggesting we hand over regulatory powers to the UN.
What he's calling for are tighter restrictions on the free market economy that we've been operating under over the last 30 years in order to try and stop banks from collapsing in the future, to name just one major issue connected to this situation.
The UN is one of the greatest supporters of global free market economies. It was a flippant remark drawing a comparison.
Rudd's out of his mind. The market is presently performing that correction, and will manage it if political power doesn't fuck with the market's workings.
There will be a considerable flurry in Washington and among other capitals, which certain pols will spin as "a/the solution." I'll remain skeptical, thanks. The "Economic Stimulus and Recovery" bill is being shredded by the minority party and sundry commentators as not a reconstruction, but a spending bill with every major Democratic-Party wishlist item featured, and its capacity to do any recovery or stimulus at all is being called extensively into question. There had been talk of applying it to the financial sector and to national infrastructure such as upgrading and repairing transportation; this is no longer heard. Huh?
Australia had a stimulus package for lower income earners before Christmas. It's done nothing to save our economy.
They're now talking about tax cuts and what would be the best solution that way. One of the best ideas put forward so far IMO is to reduce or even remove the GST which has been the bain of small business for many many years now.
I think what Rudd is talking about are banking regulations (among other things) which so far seem to have kept our banks from collapsing here in comparison to those of other countries with lower or less regulations which has allowed them to trade with insufficient safeguards on loans etc. I'm sure our system here is not perfect, but so far it's doing ok and although we still have had a larger number of foreclosures than usual, these bad debts are currently being absorbed much more easily.
It is not only about banking. The idea that Obama stated in a recent speech to, "Buy American", which I am not sure we can really do with most goods due to the volume we import, has raised the hackles of many of those around the world. That combined with bailout funds and other pork barrel spending for votes in respective states in Pelosi's bill has made the rest of the world sit up and notice, and they are worried about protectionist practices.
This was a pretty good article about the whole issue:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/01/business/webglobal-420859.phpI think most governments are employing 'protectionist practices'. After all, they're meant to protect the people as best they can whether it be from physical attacks or otherwise. In this case it's economic. I've not noticed any comments in the media or in parliament denegrating the US for doing what they can to help its people.
I think it'd be strange if the US government was more concerned about what the rest of the world thought.
FWIW, banking regulation was just an example. Obviously there are other issues.
Oh Ali - the Us has been getting slammed for its "protectionist policies" all week. Many world leaders are concerned about this.
Well, none of that has hit the Australian mainstream media. Maybe next week. We're a bit slow here. ;)
But even so, I'd stand behind my point anyway. It's the governments job to care for it's own citizens first. I'd expect it of my own government, and so should the citizens of the US in my opinion.
Well, none of that has hit the Australian mainstream media. Maybe next week. We're a bit slow here. ;)
But even so, I'd stand behind my point anyway. It's the governments job to care for it's own citizens first. I'd expect it of my own government, and so should the citizens of the US in my opinion.
I so totally agree, I say fuck the rest of the world, close the borders, cut off all aid for 5 years, and lets just see where we stand.
You joining radar and I merc? Is there room for him in the bunker?
Sorry bro, Radar will never be in my bunker.
but you said ...... "I say fuck the rest of the world, close the borders, cut off all aid for 5 years, and lets just see where we stand."
Radar says open all the borders. I think that's the key difference...among many others.
ohhh you mean reality - gotcha!
Who asked you anyway - Aren't you supposed to be apathetic?
Yes, and to be honest I'm feeling that way today. lol
I really think it would be a significant and important move for the US. Let's just shut down and see who are friends really are. Some will win, some will lose. No big deal. Unlese we have a Re-start, Re-boot, the same ole stuff is going to go on. JMHO.
So you want to hit Ctrl+Alt+Del on the world eh?
Yea, basically. I think it is time to see what our true worth is.
Some economists are saying this is the equivalent of a reboot anyway.
But even so, I'd stand behind my point anyway. It's the governments job to care for it's own citizens first. I'd expect it of my own government, and so should the citizens of the US in my opinion.
I so totally agree, I say fuck the rest of the world, close the borders, cut off all aid for 5 years, and lets just see where we stand.
But this is a situation where the solution is to be found through cooperation, not selfishness. Yes, each government should care for its own citizens first, but the best way to do that is to make sure the world economy doesn't crash. Keep your trading partners healthy. "Beggar thy neighbour" policies will just mean that it will be longer before they can afford your exports again. So-called "protectionism" will hurt trade and cause more economic contraction.
Mind you, I am not convinced that these bail-out/stimulus packages will be very effective. They will have the best chance if all countries bring their stimuls packages online at around the same time. This will take trust and international cooperation. These commodities being in short supply, I have doubts.
My general point is the same one I make against strong libertarianism. Yes, each person can reasonably put their own interests first, but very often the best way to advance your own interest is to form a cooperative alliance. Selfish individualism, or selfish nationalism, is sometimes the best way to advance your interests, but often not.
Fair enough Zen. My point is more along the lines of being injected into conflicts or other situations which cost a lot of money that the taxpayers can't afford anyway.
From my own Australian perspective I'd certainly be against us becoming involved in any other conflicts while many people are starting to have trouble paying their bills. Yes we have to co-operate with our allies and trading partners, but not at the expense of our own people.
I quite agree, although making what contribution we can to world stability is important. I'm thinking things like our deployments to East Timor, Cambodia, Bouganville, Solomon Islands etc.
My general point is the same one I make against strong libertarianism. Yes, each person can reasonably put their own interests first, but very often the best way to advance your own interest is to form a cooperative alliance. Selfish individualism, or selfish nationalism, is sometimes the best way to advance your interests, but often not.
I can't disagree with this statement. But since we are in such dire straights, as is the rest of the world, there is nothing wrong with looking hard at where we throw excess funds for little gain and keeping more of it at home. Face it, there are a lot of countries that hate our guts but yet we send them millions, in some cases billions, and all we do is get beat up over it. It is about time to call in some of those cards, and redirect to those who want to give us a hand. The recent events in Kyrgyzstan come to mind. I say let's look around the neighborhood, find someone who wants to give us a hand and close the damm base immediately. Surprise! Kiss our ass. I am tired of it. They can't have it both ways.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/kyrgyzstan-us-base-afghanistan