S
Stiffy
Guest
Some Politician even calling for us to be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons due to Terrorism
[MENTION=895]Shrek[/MENTION]
[MENTION=895]Shrek[/MENTION]
-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Gun Amnesty and crackdown due to Terrorism
Yep, farmer browns kids might have found an unregistered shotgun in the shed after pop died, gotta get those nasty guns off the street.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the people with and using illegal firearms continue to do so.
Gun crime has increased since the last amnesty, how does that work?
Meanwhile, in the real world, the people with and using illegal firearms continue to do so.
Gun crime has increased since the last amnesty, how does that work?
WoodyAllen
Well-known member
Allowing the ownership and possession in public of guns by citizens works wonders. Cuts the crime rate down to zero. Knowing a potential victim is armed eliminates all violent crime.
*Meanwhile, in outer Chicago.......*
*Meanwhile, in outer Chicago.......*
Fadi
...
On the surface, the basic principle appears just fine, however....
I wonder if Senator David Ean Leyonhjelm hasn’t set up this idea of calling for armed citizens, to crash and burn before it had its chance to leave the ground.
Why do I think that?
Because I have not heard the word “control”, neither have I heard the word “license” been mentioned by the senator.
Consequently, this automatically leads me to assume that any Tom Dick and Jane, including wanna be terrorist, to be able to fulfil that wish much easier than ever before, all under the guise of “the right to self-defense/protection”.
What is required in my opinion is a carefully selected group of people, (and that would be millions of Aussies), who would have to pass some sort of “entry” test, a test that would emphasise the privilege to carry over the right to carry.
These millions would need to pass some intelligence test; psychological test similar but not necessarily as stringent as what our police and armed forces would need to pass, display a sense of responsibility and maturity just to name few attributes one would need to have to qualify. After qualifying, a sense of privilege over right would kick in, where any breech of these strict rules would see their privileges denied.
Failing to at least consider the above restrictions, would ensure that Senator Leyonhjelm’s recommendations would more than likely be thrown out even before the public had a chance to debate this crucial matter.
I wonder if Senator David Ean Leyonhjelm hasn’t set up this idea of calling for armed citizens, to crash and burn before it had its chance to leave the ground.
Why do I think that?
Because I have not heard the word “control”, neither have I heard the word “license” been mentioned by the senator.
Consequently, this automatically leads me to assume that any Tom Dick and Jane, including wanna be terrorist, to be able to fulfil that wish much easier than ever before, all under the guise of “the right to self-defense/protection”.
What is required in my opinion is a carefully selected group of people, (and that would be millions of Aussies), who would have to pass some sort of “entry” test, a test that would emphasise the privilege to carry over the right to carry.
These millions would need to pass some intelligence test; psychological test similar but not necessarily as stringent as what our police and armed forces would need to pass, display a sense of responsibility and maturity just to name few attributes one would need to have to qualify. After qualifying, a sense of privilege over right would kick in, where any breech of these strict rules would see their privileges denied.
Failing to at least consider the above restrictions, would ensure that Senator Leyonhjelm’s recommendations would more than likely be thrown out even before the public had a chance to debate this crucial matter.
Last edited:
spartacus
Well-known member
what we need is the best possible intelligence, police and military capability. it is inevitable that the terrorists will strike in Australia, and we need to be ready.
don't think loosening gun laws will help, but if chaos happens you can be sure that a whole lot more people will arm themselves.
talking to soldiers at work yesterday and they told e they cant even wear their uniforms in Liverpool, a Sydney suburb. it is a sad state of affairs.
don't think loosening gun laws will help, but if chaos happens you can be sure that a whole lot more people will arm themselves.
talking to soldiers at work yesterday and they told e they cant even wear their uniforms in Liverpool, a Sydney suburb. it is a sad state of affairs.
Kyle Aaron
Active member
Too much hysteria about terrorism. We've always had theft, kidnapping, arson and murder, whether it's done for money or for politics, who cares.
The soldiers would not be wearing their uniform because someone ordered them not to. The military is the same as any other public service or non-profit organisation, they worry a lot about image. For example, when I was in we weren't allowed to go to civilian pubs in uniform. Civvies resent soldiers in towns with a lot of soldiers, there are confrontations from time to time, add in alcohol and it's worse. And appearing in uniform makes the confrontatins more likely. Remember soldiers are mostly 18-25yo males, even if they haven't been deployed they've done some tough things and been through some sht together, so they tend to be a bit cocky and loud and it's easy to start a fight with them.
Soldiers getting into drunken brawls while in uniform, images appearing in newspapers or telly (or nowadays, social media) - the brass don't want that. Soldiers stick together, so if some civvies pick a fight with them, you end up with a picture of six soldiers kicking some guy while he's down on the ground. Or if it's an individual soldier who walks past some bunch of radicals (moslems, socialists, same sht) and gets beaten up, and then images of that appear across the country, imagine the fcking drama.
Whereas if they're in civvy gear, confrontations are less likely, and if they do happen, less likely the story goes nuts across the media. Army doesn't want any drama, it's why they kept journalists out of Afghanistan.
The soldiers would not be wearing their uniform because someone ordered them not to. The military is the same as any other public service or non-profit organisation, they worry a lot about image. For example, when I was in we weren't allowed to go to civilian pubs in uniform. Civvies resent soldiers in towns with a lot of soldiers, there are confrontations from time to time, add in alcohol and it's worse. And appearing in uniform makes the confrontatins more likely. Remember soldiers are mostly 18-25yo males, even if they haven't been deployed they've done some tough things and been through some sht together, so they tend to be a bit cocky and loud and it's easy to start a fight with them.
Soldiers getting into drunken brawls while in uniform, images appearing in newspapers or telly (or nowadays, social media) - the brass don't want that. Soldiers stick together, so if some civvies pick a fight with them, you end up with a picture of six soldiers kicking some guy while he's down on the ground. Or if it's an individual soldier who walks past some bunch of radicals (moslems, socialists, same sht) and gets beaten up, and then images of that appear across the country, imagine the fcking drama.
Whereas if they're in civvy gear, confrontations are less likely, and if they do happen, less likely the story goes nuts across the media. Army doesn't want any drama, it's why they kept journalists out of Afghanistan.
S
Stiffy
Guest
I'm not advocating Gun Laws similar to the U.S. but the U.S. doesn't seem to have the smaller Terrorist incidents (outside 9/11 etc) that the European Countries seem to have do they? Are radicals discouraged earlier or does the fact that the U.S. has loose Gun Laws act as a deterrent.
S
Stiffy
Guest
They said that there are 1 Million Guns in circulation. 260,000 are illegal/unregistered ones. I think they realise that the people with bad intent aren't going to hand in their illegal weapons, but less illegal Guns in circulation makes things easier control.
There is just no simple answer. arming people isn't going to stop a terrorsit driving a car into a group of people waiting to cross the road at a crowded intersection. On the other side, taking guns off law abiding gun owners isn't going to stop terrorists either.
Fadi
...
There's no such thing as a deterrent for someone with determined intent, period!
Furthermore, there is no such thing as security for someone who's willing to willingly give up his life for a cause. The only security you can truly make for yourself (for a time), is distance.
No one has to like what I've just written, but it's undisputed hard facts.
The main thrust of this thread offers nothing more than a band aid solution to a much larger problem. A solution, a long term solution (in addition to this band aid solution...and yes band aids do have their place too), however a long term solution would have to be implemented if you are looking for effectiveness. That long term solution (similar in structure to a long term bodybuilding/weightlifting training program), focuses on building a solid foundation first and foremost. This foundation begins in the class rooms (and gets reinforced at homes with mums and dads) with our children, our future generations.
Having said the above, some people just don't get it!
They believe that driving an agenda of the "us" and the "them" would somehow magically solve this world problem. What they fail to realise, is that two can play this hate game, a game that is based on fear, generated by arrogance and ignorance.
Last edited:
Repacked
Punxsutawney resident
Rofl
Kyle Aaron
Active member
The US has a lot of mass killings, they're just not often politically-motivated. I'm not sure how "13 dead in killing spree" is any better than "13 dead from terrorist."
EU terrorists are so hopeless these days they can't even get hold of explosives and firearms - which any dumb Albanian gangster can do - they have to run people over. The IRA, PLO etc would be embarrassed.
Having everyone armed is irrelevant. Terrorism happens in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, and basically every adult male has an AK-47, hell some have RPG-7s. The terrorist, like the spree shooter (Martin Bryant, etc) is not deterred by armed people, since he expects to die that day no matter what, he just wants to take a lot of people with him first. Being armed is only a deterrent to criminals who want to get away and live.
Sometimes sht happens and there's not much you can do about it. We should stop pretending that everyone can be safe all the time if we just do things right.
Last edited:
CT, add something.
You must of missed were Los said he wasn't advocating US style gun laws.
EU terrorists are hopeless, can't get guns or explosives??? You on drugs? Less than a month ago they blew up that concert in Manchester.
spartacus
Well-known member
concur, sure no scrutiny is perfect, but doing nothing is just stupid against these dipsticks.