How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?



artemidorus said:
I imagine that the citizens of New Orleans are very happy that there are so many guns around for folks to protect themselves with....
Why are you Austrailian guys so bent on our firearms laws? :confused: Look at it from another angle, Shooting is fun.
 
C-4 said:
You don't actually believe that dying at the hands of a criminal makes you free. Or are you going to deny that there is any violent crime in Australia.

Hawaii has strict gun control laws so you'll feel right at home. Reading your Socialist psycho-babble reminds me why I left Canada. High taxes, strict gun control, a crumbling health care system. I'm sure you'd feel right at home there as well.
Life-threatening violent crime is very unusual in Australia. Gun control has little to do with capitalist vs collectivist economic policy.
Australia has one of the best health systems in the world, and it's free. In terms of quality available to all, it is vastly ahead of the UK and the US, although some of the Western European nations may be comparable.
 
dont thinkall of us are bent on firearms laws i lost my guns and my licence i will never forgot how i and my freinds got screwed
Upstroke said:
Why are you Austrailian guys so bent on our firearms laws? :confused: Look at it from another angle, Shooting is fun.
 
artemidorus said:
I imagine that the citizens of New Orleans are very happy that there are so many guns around for folks to protect themselves with....

is that whilst they are riding their bikes?
 
C-4 said:
You don't actually believe that dying at the hands of a criminal makes you free. Or are you going to deny that there is any violent crime in Australia.

Hawaii has strict gun control laws so you'll feel right at home. Reading your Socialist psycho-babble reminds me why I left Canada. High taxes, strict gun control, a crumbling health care system. I'm sure you'd feel right at home there as well.

very very few criminals in Australia have guns. You can still get hurt, even killed but very few have guns and you can travel virtually anywhere without your own gun.

I hope that you enjoy the US health system, now there's an expensive disaster!
 
jontramos said:
Don't say "typical American behaviour"



First of all AMERICA is more than just the USA... There is also S. America, Central America, and Canada. I don't think that you should categorize 3 continents of people for what one guy in the state Arizona does!



Secondly, (assuming you mean the USA) how can you grossly stereotype the people of the USA? The USA is an incredibly diverse nation, and whenever you have a population this diverse, inevitably you have people with ideas that are very different from your own.



Third. He bikes in ARIZONA. Have you ever been there? I somehow doubt it. If you had you might want a gun with you. NOT FOR SHOOTING PEOPLE! But for rattlesnakes and other dangerous wildlife that can happen upon you.



You are now the one who is coming off as ignorant. Just for clarification: I mean you, not you and the entire country of Belgium.

Australia has 9 of the 10 most venomous snakes in the world.

1 cyclist in 1000 might have seem one when they ride.

I have. I ride around them.

To be able to shoot them you would have to turn around, pull your gun and be a great shot.

As any sensible person who has had to deal with venomous snakes will tell you - the first rule is to leave them alone. Most snake bites occur to people interfering with them.

If you want to kill snakes (note I am not mentioning protection) carry a shovel.

10,000 (minor exaggeration) crazy gun carrying cyclists on this thread, all of whom are from the usa (there is no way I would cast a slur on all the sensible americans) suggest that attitudes to killing in the us are widespread - and attempts to justify carrying are gun that are a serious threat to credibility are also common. The stereotype fits.

So attach a shovel to you bike, no, carry one in your hand as you ride, just in case.

LOL :D
 
mitosis said:
Australia has 9 of the 10 most venomous snakes in the world.
1 cyclist in 1000 might have seem one when they ride.
I have. I ride around them
Ya beat me to it!!

Plenty of dangerous wildlife in Aust. It's much easier to avoid it than to start shooting at it....
 
jontramos said:
Don't say "typical American behaviour"



First of all AMERICA is more than just the USA... There is also S. America, Central America, and Canada. I don't think that you should categorize 3 continents of people for what one guy in the state Arizona does!
3 continents? Perhaps you mean 2 continents. North and South America. Central America is not a continent.

There are 7 continents - North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Antarctica and Australia.

Perhaps y'all missed geography that day at school when you were down at the shooting range. :rolleyes:
 
Why would I carry a gun cycling around in town?

You can still find me using an AR15 with a modified barrel (concealed) with lots of ammo when out of the town on bicycle. Very useful when attacked by packs of wolfs or one of the gang of bandits, flying tracer rounds look pretty when it gets dark, only when they're not flying in my direction. What a crappy world! :mad:
 
nickspeedbike said:
Why would I carry a gun cycling around in town?

You can still find me using an AR15 with a modified barrel (concealed) with lots of ammo when out of the town on bicycle. Very useful when attacked by packs of wolfs or one of the gang of bandits, flying tracer rounds look pretty when it gets dark, only when they're not flying in my direction. What a crappy world! :mad:
What cracks me up is all this talk of carrying firearms for safety and protection but how many of you don't wear helmets? The Signature in the post above is an example.
 
OzPete said:
There are 7 continents - North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Antarctica and Australia.
The distinction between Europe and Asia is cultural rather than geological. There are 6 continents, really. And please don't get our friends across the Pacific started on helmets again... :)
 
artemidorus said:
The distinction between Europe and Asia is cultural rather than geological. There are 6 continents, really. And please don't get our friends across the Pacific started on helmets again... :)
6 or 7 - there is some difference of opinion about this.......

http://geography.about.com said:


How many continents are on the earth?


A continent is one of several major land masses on the earth. There is no standard definition for the number of continents but you'll commonly find that the numbers six or seven are used. By most standards, there are a maximum of seven continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Most students in the U.S. are taught that there are seven continents. In Europe, many students are taught about six continents, where North and South America is combined to form a single America. Thus, these six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and Europe.

Many geographers and scientists now refer to six continents, where Europe and Asia are combined (since they're one solid landmass). Thus, these six continents are Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North America, and South America.
So 6 or 7. But either way, Central America isn't one. ;)
 
artemidorus said:
Life-threatening violent crime is very unusual in Australia. Gun control has little to do with capitalist vs collectivist economic policy.
Australia has one of the best health systems in the world, and it's free. In terms of quality available to all, it is vastly ahead of the UK and the US, although some of the Western European nations may be comparable.
I was born and raised in Canada and I moved to the U.S. to study and now practice medicine here.

Australia does not have free healthcare. One way or another someone is paying for it. It may not be the indigent alcoholic, the drug addict or the poor immigrant, but someone is paying for it. That someone is the taxpayer. I don't know what your total tax burden is, but I can assure you that it would be much less if your portion used for health care was instead used for health insurance.

In the province of Ontario (Canada), 46% of the provincial budget for last year was spent on health care. Despite aggressive cutbacks in services, capitation of physician reimbursement and the elimination of 50% of medical student positions (this was done 13 years ago), by 2016 fully 100% of the provincial budget will have to be spent on health care. There are more MRI machines in the greater Pittsburg area than in all of Canada. The waiting time for coronary bipass surgery can be several years.

There are many reasons why Socialized medicine always collapses but the fact that it does is as certain as death and taxes.

As far as the wonderful Australian health care system, you are so far off I'm embarrassed for you. While there are some truely impressive minds and research in your country, worldwide, 90% of new drugs and medical innovations/devices are developed by the United States every year. While the U.S. system is far from perfect, I've never seen a patient turned away from an emergency room. The largest group of uninsured people in the U.S. are young and working but choose to spend some of their money on something other than health insurance.

artemidorus said:
Life-threatening violent crime is very unusual in Australia.
It is difficult to compare violent crime in the U.S. vs. Australia as the data is collected differently. Homicide rates and violent crime rates always parallel each other closely, but comparing the homicide rates between the two countries is difficult because the U.S. homicide rates include any homicide, including all justifiable police and citizen shootings. Another distortion is the number of 'children' that are shot each year. For the purposes of homicide statistics, a 'child' is anyone under the age of 21, not 18. So a 20 year old 'child' getting shot during an armed robbery is included in the statistics.

That said, violent crime is hardly rare in Australia. As with all countries, violent crime rates per capita increase with increasing population density. It isn't a coincidence that violent crime rates are highest in those cities which have the strictest gun control laws.

Two other points: Since the introduction of stricter gun control in Australia, violent crime and homicide rates have increased. Now, they have been increasing at a steady pace since the end of WWII so it will take several more years to fully establish a relationship between stricter gun control and increased crime.

The second point is that violent crime and homicide rates have decreased (albeit only to a small extent) in all states which have introduced concealed carry permits which allow private citizens to carry a firearm. No one wants to shoot a criminal. Instead, criminals are deterred from committing crimes by the mere possibility that someone may be armed.

Dr. John Lott found in his research that the mere presence of a gun without a shot being fired is used to stop a crime between 1 and 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html and http://www.johnrlott.com/).

The chance that you will be involved in a car accident (above your deductable) or that your house will burn down is tiny, yet you still have insurance for it. No one is forcing you to buy insurance and it is the same for gun ownership in the U.S.

artemidorus said:
Gun control has little to do with capitalist vs collectivist economic policy.
Gun control has little to do with guns and everything to do with control. The U.S. wouldn't exist in its present form had the settlers not had firearms. Mao didn't say that 'Power grows out of the barrel of a gun' for nothing.

To write the above sentence, you can't be a student of history. Please read about Stalin, ******, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Again, I am embarrassed for you.
 
C-4 said:
I was born and raised in Canada and I moved to the U.S. to study and now practice medicine here.

Australia does not have free healthcare. One way or another someone is paying for it. It may not be the indigent alcoholic, the drug addict or the poor immigrant, but someone is paying for it. That someone is the taxpayer. I don't know what your total tax burden is, but I can assure you that it would be much less if your portion used for health care was instead used for health insurance.

In the province of Ontario (Canada), 46% of the provincial budget for last year was spent on health care. Despite aggressive cutbacks in services, capitation of physician reimbursement and the elimination of 50% of medical student positions (this was done 13 years ago), by 2016 fully 100% of the provincial budget will have to be spent on health care. There are more MRI machines in the greater Pittsburg area than in all of Canada. The waiting time for coronary bipass surgery can be several years.

There are many reasons why Socialized medicine always collapses but the fact that it does is as certain as death and taxes.

As far as the wonderful Australian health care system, you are so far off I'm embarrassed for you. While there are some truely impressive minds and research in your country, worldwide, 90% of new drugs and medical innovations/devices are developed by the United States every year. While the U.S. system is far from perfect, I've never seen a patient turned away from an emergency room. The largest group of uninsured people in the U.S. are young and working but choose to spend some of their money on something other than health insurance.


It is difficult to compare violent crime in the U.S. vs. Australia as the data is collected differently. Homicide rates and violent crime rates always parallel each other closely, but comparing the homicide rates between the two countries is difficult because the U.S. homicide rates include any homicide, including all justifiable police and citizen shootings. Another distortion is the number of 'children' that are shot each year. For the purposes of homicide statistics, a 'child' is anyone under the age of 21, not 18. So a 20 year old 'child' getting shot during an armed robbery is included in the statistics.

That said, violent crime is hardly rare in Australia. As with all countries, violent crime rates per capita increase with increasing population density. It isn't a coincidence that violent crime rates are highest in those cities which have the strictest gun control laws.

Two other points: Since the introduction of stricter gun control in Australia, violent crime and homicide rates have increased. Now, they have been increasing at a steady pace since the end of WWII so it will take several more years to fully establish a relationship between stricter gun control and increased crime.

The second point is that violent crime and homicide rates have decreased (albeit only to a small extent) in all states which have introduced concealed carry permits which allow private citizens to carry a firearm. No one wants to shoot a criminal. Instead, criminals are deterred from committing crimes by the mere possibility that someone may be armed.

Dr. John Lott found in his research that the mere presence of a gun without a shot being fired is used to stop a crime between 1 and 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html and http://www.johnrlott.com/).

The chance that you will be involved in a car accident (above your deductable) or that your house will burn down is tiny, yet you still have insurance for it. No one is forcing you to buy insurance and it is the same for gun ownership in the U.S.


Gun control has little to do with guns and everything to do with control. The U.S. wouldn't exist in its present form had the settlers not had firearms. Mao didn't say that 'Power grows out of the barrel of a gun' for nothing.

To write the above sentence, you can't be a student of history. Please read about Stalin, ******, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Again, I am embarrassed for you.

The only person you need to feel emabarrassed for is yourself. You sound like one of the gun-toting good ole boys who come from the US. It doesn't sound like you have to be very intelligent to study medicine in Canada. LOL
 
C-4 said:
Australia does not have free healthcare.
Thanks for your facetious observation; I am aware, as would be 100% of the readers of this forum, of the basic details of health economics. The point I was making, and that you are overlooking in specious fashion, is that the consumer doesn't pay at the time of seeking care, which is a critical point. It is a truism that insurance funded health care is cheaper, as the excesses and copayments are designed to make it that way. The point is whether a society is willing to accept these or not.
In the province of Ontario (Canada), 46% of the provincial budget for last year was spent on health care. Despite aggressive cutbacks in services, capitation of physician reimbursement and the elimination of 50% of medical student positions (this was done 13 years ago), by 2016 fully 100% of the provincial budget will have to be spent on health care. There are more MRI machines in the greater Pittsburg area than in all of Canada. The waiting time for coronary bipass(sic) surgery can be several years.
I agree; a truly dysfunctional health system. The health systems of other countries, however, demonstrate that one can't generalise from one example.
There are many reasons why Socialized medicine always collapses but the fact that it does is as certain as death and taxes.
The fact that you cite no sources for this wild statement leads me to believe that it is your own glib concoction. Glib, but indefensible and probably just plain wrong.

As far as the wonderful Australian health care system, you are so far off I'm embarrassed for you.
I suppose it's asking too much to expect debate on this forum that does not stoop to personal insult. Relax, your line of argument isn't sharp enough to make paltry insults sting, so I won't return the favour, beyond this sentence anyway.

90% of new drugs and medical innovations/devices are developed by the United States every year.
Once again, relax, I'm not attacking the US medical research industry, so your rank patriotism is unnecessary. And hell, we expect the largest and richest Western country to be churning out a lot of medical advances. Your health system, however, leaves a lot to be desired.
While the U.S. system is far from perfect, I've never seen a patient turned away from an emergency room.
And they probably don't turn them away in Russia or Afghanistan either. The point is missed spectacularly. It is the care of chronic, insidious illness, especially in the poor, that suffers when health care is costly, not the care of acute, severe illness.
The largest group of uninsured people in the U.S. are young and working but choose to spend some of their money on something other than health insurance.
Of course, it is human nature to live for today.

It is difficult to compare violent crime in the U.S. vs. Australia as the data is collected differently.
Agreed; there are large cultural differences in reporting rates. Australians are reporters, as our LEAs are not typically so overwhelmed that they ignore all but the most violent crimes.

That said, violent crime is hardly rare in Australia.
This wasn't my assertion. Life-threatening violent crime is rare. I have never met an Australian who feels that the possession of a gun would have improved the outcome of a crime of which that person was a victim.
It isn't a coincidence that violent crime rates are highest in those cities which have the strictest gun control laws.
This may be true within the US, and may be true within any other country with patchy gun ownership laws. It certainly doesn't hold water when you compare an objective statistic, such as murder rate, between countries, such as, for example, between the US and Australia. In fact it is a laughable hypothesis. As I have previously said on this thread, however, I think that the US is a violent country due to deficient educational, welfare and correctional systems, and pervasive racial divides, rather than simply due to the lack of gun control.

Two other points: Since the introduction of stricter gun control in Australia, violent crime and homicide rates have increased.
This is laughably wrong. You are partially excused because this is rubbish propagated by your NRA, and hence widely believed by Americans. Please refer to a graph I published on this thread some weeks ago, sourced from our Bureau of Statistics. The murder rate has dropped since 1996. Australia is a vastly safer country than the US, with about 1/3 your homicide rate.

Now, they have been increasing at a steady pace since the end of WWII so it will take several more years to fully establish a relationship between stricter gun control and increased crime.
You will be disappointed if you look to Australia as a crucible to prove your hypotheses. We did not have guns at home before the laws, so for the vast majority, nothing has changed. Most of the guns handed in were from recreational hunters and gun nuts; these people still have non-automatic rifles, shotguns etc if they really wanted them. The average Australian household hasn't had guns for a century. We're different from you guys, and that's why this thread staggers us. It has nothing to do with laws. The thought of the general public carrying concealed guns disgusts us. And don't give me that "sheeple" rubbish; you guys are closer to being overrun by demented religious fundamentalists than we are to being carried away by Maoists or Big Brother.

The U.S. wouldn't exist in its present form had the settlers not had firearms.
The world wouldn't have existed in its present form if the Romans hadn't had swords, the British hadn't had cannons, the Australian colonists hadn't had rifles. What a specious point. Times change; necessity becomes barbarism with time.
Please read about Stalin, ******, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Again, I am embarrassed for you.
What a ridiculous line of argument. "You don't agree with me, therefore you are ignorant."
Gun control is about guns. Guns are for killing or threatening people; I have never in my life needed to do so, and I know noone that has.
But lo, I see the error of my ways, a shining light streams from the sky - I need a great big gun to stop the government from trying to control me....
 
What a reply artemidorus, im proud of ya! How can they justify carrying a gun to PREVENT crime it doesnt make sense! I have never had more than a hooligan crying out nice bike!!! lol, i did not feel my life was in danger or that i needed a gun lol.:)
 
artemidorus said:
Thanks for your facetious observation; I am aware, as would be 100% of the readers of this forum, of the basic details of health economics. The point I was making, and that you are overlooking in specious fashion, is that the consumer doesn't pay at the time of seeking care, which is a critical point. It is a truism that insurance funded health care is cheaper, as the excesses and copayments are designed to make it that way. The point is whether a society is willing to accept these or not.

I agree; a truly dysfunctional health system. The health systems of other countries, however, demonstrate that one can't generalise from one example.

The fact that you cite no sources for this wild statement leads me to believe that it is your own glib concoction. Glib, but indefensible and probably just plain wrong.


I suppose it's asking too much to expect debate on this forum that does not stoop to personal insult. Relax, your line of argument isn't sharp enough to make paltry insults sting, so I won't return the favour, beyond this sentence anyway.


Once again, relax, I'm not attacking the US medical research industry, so your rank patriotism is unnecessary. And hell, we expect the largest and richest Western country to be churning out a lot of medical advances. Your health system, however, leaves a lot to be desired.

And they probably don't turn them away in Russia or Afghanistan either. The point is missed spectacularly. It is the care of chronic, insidious illness, especially in the poor, that suffers when health care is costly, not the care of acute, severe illness.

Of course, it is human nature to live for today.


Agreed; there are large cultural differences in reporting rates. Australians are reporters, as our LEAs are not typically so overwhelmed that they ignore all but the most violent crimes.

This wasn't my assertion. Life-threatening violent crime is rare. I have never met an Australian who feels that the possession of a gun would have improved the outcome of a crime of which that person was a victim.

This may be true within the US, and may be true within any other country with patchy gun ownership laws. It certainly doesn't hold water when you compare an objective statistic, such as murder rate, between countries, such as, for example, between the US and Australia. In fact it is a laughable hypothesis. As I have previously said on this thread, however, I think that the US is a violent country due to deficient educational, welfare and correctional systems, and pervasive racial divides, rather than simply due to the lack of gun control.


This is laughably wrong. You are partially excused because this is rubbish propagated by your NRA, and hence widely believed by Americans. Please refer to a graph I published on this thread some weeks ago, sourced from our Bureau of Statistics. The murder rate has dropped since 1996. Australia is a vastly safer country than the US, with about 1/3 your homicide rate.


You will be disappointed if you look to Australia as a crucible to prove your hypotheses. We did not have guns at home before the laws, so for the vast majority, nothing has changed. Most of the guns handed in were from recreational hunters and gun nuts; these people still have non-automatic rifles, shotguns etc if they really wanted them. The average Australian household hasn't had guns for a century. We're different from you guys, and that's why this thread staggers us. It has nothing to do with laws. The thought of the general public carrying concealed guns disgusts us. And don't give me that "sheeple" rubbish; you guys are closer to being overrun by demented religious fundamentalists than we are to being carried away by Maoists or Big Brother.


The world wouldn't have existed in its present form if the Romans hadn't had swords, the British hadn't had cannons, the Australian colonists hadn't had rifles. What a specious point. Times change; necessity becomes barbarism with time.

What a ridiculous line of argument. "You don't agree with me, therefore you are ignorant."
Gun control is about guns. Guns are for killing or threatening people; I have never in my life needed to do so, and I know noone that has.
But lo, I see the error of my ways, a shining light streams from the sky - I need a great big gun to stop the government from trying to control me....
Well.......................Ok the United States is more violent than Austraila. I can't say I know enough about Austrailia to even compare the two. The United States is a complicated place. Our Constitution and The Bill of Rights have shaped thisCountry into what it is today. Combined with some of the most diverse Cultures, Religions, differances in economic status, there is no other place on Earth like it.
All of these divisions of people and Religions have Inalianable Rights guaranteed by the Fathers of our Nation. Which boils down to......
If you want to take something away from someone, you'd better have a good reason.
If you don't have a good reason it won't hold up in court, whatever Right, Privelage or Material property it happens to be.
Let's say I want a certain Religion of Peace banned from our country because
That Religion could be detremental in further events, Can't do it.
They have the Right of Religious Freedom. I want to take away firearms, Can't do it, the Second Amendment guarantees the Right of a Citizen to Bear Arms. Illegal Aliens demand that their children be guaranteed schooling and medical care, even though it is against the law for them to be here ?? Well guess what, they have that Right and I have to pay for it.

The United States is advanced citizenship, you need to be here to understand it.
Take our Constitution, our Rights, mix in the millions of Immigrants that arrived here from the 1890's through today, add the events that play out in the course of history and this is what We have.

If you guys know how to make it work better, come on over, I've got a spare room.
One last thing, Through the trial of time Austrailia has been our Friend and Ally through thick and thin, please notice none of my posts have bashed Austrailia, but just pointed out some differances.
Joel
 
artemidorus said:
Thanks for your facetious observation; I am aware, as would be 100% of the readers of this forum, of the basic details of health economics. The point I was making, and that you are overlooking in specious fashion, is that the consumer doesn't pay at the time of seeking care, which is a critical point. It is a truism that insurance funded health care is cheaper, as the excesses and copayments are designed to make it that way. The point is whether a society is willing to accept these or not.

I agree; a truly dysfunctional health system. The health systems of other countries, however, demonstrate that one can't generalise from one example.

The fact that you cite no sources for this wild statement leads me to believe that it is your own glib concoction. Glib, but indefensible and probably just plain wrong.


I suppose it's asking too much to expect debate on this forum that does not stoop to personal insult. Relax, your line of argument isn't sharp enough to make paltry insults sting, so I won't return the favour, beyond this sentence anyway.


Once again, relax, I'm not attacking the US medical research industry, so your rank patriotism is unnecessary. And hell, we expect the largest and richest Western country to be churning out a lot of medical advances. Your health system, however, leaves a lot to be desired.

And they probably don't turn them away in Russia or Afghanistan either. The point is missed spectacularly. It is the care of chronic, insidious illness, especially in the poor, that suffers when health care is costly, not the care of acute, severe illness.

Of course, it is human nature to live for today.


Agreed; there are large cultural differences in reporting rates. Australians are reporters, as our LEAs are not typically so overwhelmed that they ignore all but the most violent crimes.

This wasn't my assertion. Life-threatening violent crime is rare. I have never met an Australian who feels that the possession of a gun would have improved the outcome of a crime of which that person was a victim.

This may be true within the US, and may be true within any other country with patchy gun ownership laws. It certainly doesn't hold water when you compare an objective statistic, such as murder rate, between countries, such as, for example, between the US and Australia. In fact it is a laughable hypothesis. As I have previously said on this thread, however, I think that the US is a violent country due to deficient educational, welfare and correctional systems, and pervasive racial divides, rather than simply due to the lack of gun control.


This is laughably wrong. You are partially excused because this is rubbish propagated by your NRA, and hence widely believed by Americans. Please refer to a graph I published on this thread some weeks ago, sourced from our Bureau of Statistics. The murder rate has dropped since 1996. Australia is a vastly safer country than the US, with about 1/3 your homicide rate.


You will be disappointed if you look to Australia as a crucible to prove your hypotheses. We did not have guns at home before the laws, so for the vast majority, nothing has changed. Most of the guns handed in were from recreational hunters and gun nuts; these people still have non-automatic rifles, shotguns etc if they really wanted them. The average Australian household hasn't had guns for a century. We're different from you guys, and that's why this thread staggers us. It has nothing to do with laws. The thought of the general public carrying concealed guns disgusts us. And don't give me that "sheeple" rubbish; you guys are closer to being overrun by demented religious fundamentalists than we are to being carried away by Maoists or Big Brother.


The world wouldn't have existed in its present form if the Romans hadn't had swords, the British hadn't had cannons, the Australian colonists hadn't had rifles. What a specious point. Times change; necessity becomes barbarism with time.

What a ridiculous line of argument. "You don't agree with me, therefore you are ignorant."
Gun control is about guns. Guns are for killing or threatening people; I have never in my life needed to do so, and I know noone that has.
But lo, I see the error of my ways, a shining light streams from the sky - I need a great big gun to stop the government from trying to control me....

Thanks Arte, that's what I was going to say but I was too dumb and lacking in time to articulate anything but a personal jibe. Well put. :D
 
Upstroke said:
Well.......................Ok the United States is more violent than Austraila. I can't say I know enough about Austrailia to even compare the two. The United States is a complicated place. Our Constitution and The Bill of Rights have shaped thisCountry into what it is today. Combined with some of the most diverse Cultures, Religions, differances in economic status, there is no other place on Earth like it.
All of these divisions of people and Religions have Inalianable Rights guaranteed by the Fathers of our Nation. Which boils down to......
If you want to take something away from someone, you'd better have a good reason.
If you don't have a good reason it won't hold up in court, whatever Right, Privelage or Material property it happens to be.
Let's say I want a certain Religion of Peace banned from our country because
That Religion could be detremental in further events, Can't do it.
They have the Right of Religious Freedom. I want to take away firearms, Can't do it, the Second Amendment guarantees the Right of a Citizen to Bear Arms. Illegal Aliens demand that their children be guaranteed schooling and medical care, even though it is against the law for them to be here ?? Well guess what, they have that Right and I have to pay for it.

The United States is advanced citizenship, you need to be here to understand it.
Take our Constitution, our Rights, mix in the millions of Immigrants that arrived here from the 1890's through today, add the events that play out in the course of history and this is what We have.

If you guys know how to make it work better, come on over, I've got a spare room.
One last thing, Through the trial of time Austrailia has been our Friend and Ally through thick and thin, please notice none of my posts have bashed Austrailia, but just pointed out some differances.
Joel
Joel, Australians don't hate Americans, in fact quite the opposite is generally true. There are differences in culture between the two countries and it is a credit to both countries that we are free to discuss those differences in this kind of forum.
 
mitosis said:
The only person you need to feel emabarrassed for is yourself. You sound like one of the gun-toting good ole boys who come from the US. It doesn't sound like you have to be very intelligent to study medicine in Canada. LOL
Someone has serious reading comprehension problems. I studied medicine in the U.S. Although I'm sure you'll say that 'you don't have to be very intelligent to study medicine in the U.S.' because that's the best answer an ignoramus like you can come up with.:rolleyes:
 

Similar threads