Thread: we are up against stupidity

Originally Posted by MarkN

Whilst what I am about to say will be unpopular, c'est la vie....
______

I paraphrase:

If we own and possess the ability to make fire in our backyards for BBQ's and fire pits and incinerators and such, and people across the land, foolishly burn down houses and sometimes kill people by the indiscriminate use of such:

Instead of screaming about our "rights" or "privileges" to continue doing so and opposing any moves by society to reign in the damage and injury cause by such use of fire:

Why don't we come to the party and propose workable and sensible solutions to the problems, instead of bleating loudly on internet forums with all the logic and aforethought of a toddler having his best toy taken away for repair.

______

My solution to this is get down the all the meetings that politicians hold and express a polite and well thought out view point.

______

the play book that goes:

"they are lying". "they are evil"
"what about that person who did something bad?" "leave me alone"
"remember that guy who was innocent"
"what about that time that the (insert authority here) didn't prevent a crime before it happened"
"there're places in the world that are much worse than us"

is the playbook of dolts
______

We'd be better off, if we all tried to work together, not complaining, every time an idea we don't like surfaces.

This is a democracy and if the changes to laws, are something we don't like, there's a polling booth coming up, just around the corner.
______

Lastly - in this world of reality TV, the viewpoints of the Karens and Man-babies in such programmes, is fast becoming the thinking of our younger society.

I think your bang on the money, to beat the system, you've got to work WITH it not AGAINST it. You look at America and most non firearms holders think the NRA are a group of right wing gun toting lunatics, in no small part because there spokesmen consistently come across with not much credibility and that doesn't help our cause. To fight fire with fire we need to be able to present consistently accurate and plausible arguments to counter the anti-gun lobby. To my mind that maybe looks like questioning the rhetoric of the likes of Cahill where he makes claims that he can't substantiate and all the others and asking how can 26 known gang members be licensed firearms holders, given that one of the qualifiers for obtaining a FAl is to be a fit and proper person....and I don't see that aligning with gang membership.

My experience of working WITH the system (as in operating at a level they can comprehend rather than just throwing a tanty) stems from many years of being involved with the riders rights movement in UK/Europe in the 90's. So much legislation was stopped in it's tracks by our representatives making reasoned arguments backed up with facts that proved our position and disproved the position of the morons that were trying to insist that motorbikes should be fitted with airbags and leg protectors, to name just a couple

Originally Posted by No.3

If I have the right of it, mass killing by definition in aus is 4 killed or more and does not include Govt workers such as Police. That's by any method not just homicide by firearms. They skewed the accounting on it to improve the figures and to my mind it's quite blatant.

If you look back through the Aussie gangland related crime over there, it's heavily populated with targeted assassinations perpetrated with guns. But hey, much safer than NZ...

A mass shooting in Aussie is 5 dead not including the shooter. Have a look here and see how many shootings they have had up to 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Originally Posted by Percy Jones

A mass shooting in Aussie is 5 dead not including the shooter. Have a look here and see how many shootings they have had up to 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

Originally Posted by No.3

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

It is 4 casualties, excluding the shooter according to the articles criteria.