1. The gun thing has been done to death, so I'll just sum up my opinion as "liberty > security"
2. The nazi thing is good, but sets a dangerous precedent. What's to stop politicians from manipulating that definition for other, peaceful groups in the future?
Voting is compulsory in Australia. The constitution of Australia does not grant free speech and a series of laws some years back further blocked the types of things you can be arrested for saying or doing. Australia has diversity of its own and there’s no one voice of Australia- the Aboriginals themselves had over 200 languages. So to be clear I am not bagging on the country or it’s people. But it is just a fact that the principals of Australia are not the same as America. The constitutional rights to freedoms are not the same nor is the culture or the society or the way people are distributed around the country. Just as with the example on guns- there will almost always be some trade between freedom and security. Freedom is inconvenient. It takes more work to achieve similar results. It just comes down to wether one personally cares about the way something is achieved or the results more.
If someone gifts you a fancy present- the result is the same wether they stole it and didn’t get caught, won it in a raffle, or saved for months to afford it. Likewise you can outright ban saying hateful things or you can try to eliminate the harm that such behaviors can cause over time. Banning will work faster. But do you care how the result is done?
You already know my opinion on this. I'm completely with @the_average_gatsby on this one. This is a gateway to tyranny. When all it takes for a country to begin censoring, banning and arresting people, is one attack, it's worth nothing.
Australia is a swamp. People largely don't care about politics, unless it has anything to do with taxes or environmentalism. A field day for anyone who would want to quitely pass legislation that restricts people's freedom more and more.
They fucking took down 4chan fo christ's sake. All because the terrorist used the damn website. And nobody I know gives a shit, because they are too damn shortsighted and careless. The only moment they notice is when the police show up to their home for something they said online, like the police state of the UK.
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
I dont 100% agree with everything you said, but its important that people realize this isnt hypothetical--this is actually happening in the UK. People have been arrested for something they said online that people found offensive, and I'm not talking about a call to arms or actual hate speech... I mean a dark or dirty joke. Citing one of several sources: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d
A point about the gun thing and how a lot of people think of this as an issue: gun culture in Australia and NZ is incredibly different to what it seems like it is in America from here. Basically, we mostly don't know or care about guns unless we're either farmers, part of a shooting club, the police, or the military. Those groups tend to not want anything more than needed for their uses, such as a shotgun or rifle for pests or a pistol for police work, which they'd much prefer to never have to unholster. We don't really see a lack of semi-automatic assault weapons as a loss of liberty, since almost nobody we'd want to have one wants to have one, and those that do are either military or the part of the police that's closest to that.
*please note that I am basing this off of my own personal, non-military-or-police family experiences as an Australian who has only ever seen or fired one gun, at a shooting range with Venturers.
It is very true. American gun culture is very different from most other countries. It is also true that often- the guys who want “tacticiool” weapons that are replicas of military weapons and have all the picitani rails and gadgets are often guys I wouldn’t want to own guns. But if we equate guns to power it makes sense. The personality profile for the “average” police officer, politician, or CEO is not generally flattering. Usually people who actively seek power- especially without having been called to do so- are not the first person ideologically who should have power. These are HARD jobs that are demanding and not inherently super rewarding, jobs of service to others at their heart- but most people who seek the job seek the power and rewards- not to merely be a humble servant. But these are high concept ideas. Let me bring it closer to reality for most people.
The most popular category of vehicle in America are trucks and SUV’s. Big heavy hunks of metal that by their inherent design are at a disadvantage in physics. They will always stop worse than a car with comparable brakes, they have a higher center of gravity- they handle worse and are prone to roll over. They will have worse aerodynamics than a comparable car, and they tend to have big V6 and V8 engines with top speeds far in excess of both the legal speed limit and the safe speed to drive them. They are worse on gas and more inefficient and wasteful in general. If you don’t regularly carry 7 passengers, aren’t a farmer, done regular tow etc. most people do not NEED these trucks. Station wagons and “utes” which aren’t really a thing in the US- will do what most people use trucks for- and about 70hp is all an engine needs for freeway speed and yet- most new cars have 200+.
So then- given that auto accidents are one of if not THE top killer of Americans, and trucks/SUV’s top the list for accidents... it stands to reason that we could not only save more lives but also help save the planet by making these things illegal to own without demonstrated proof of need no? In fact- since cars are such a big part of life and a major killer- why don’t we limit what you an buy? Commute is 20 miles or less, no kids, no health restrictions? It’s a bicycle for you. 90% of driving is done to work and back alone? Oh. A 70hp sub compact for you. And so on. “It’s different! People need cars!” Well... not all people do- and most people do not need the car they have. Who NEEDS a Porsche 911 if they aren’t using it for their racing business? No one NEEDS a lifted 4x4 to go off-roading. They WANT it. They enjoy those hobbies. They have an emotional reason to purchase. Most people who buy guns in America do it out of fear or other emotions. It’s a practical tool bought for...
... emotional reasons for these people. Most of the people who “shouldn’t” own guns fall into this category. They FEEL safer or more confident or whatever with their gun. So if we start playing games about what we NEED vs what we WANT and weighing that against what is safest for society or best for things in a “big picture” we go down a slippery slope because so much of what we do and the point of why we do it is simply to be able to enjoy the things we want- and if we examine the things we want a great deal of them aren’t completely defensible by logic. To be clear- I’m not saying we don’t need some measure of gun control. Certain people behave in a way that proves they shouldn’t have guns- and certain weapons are just too dangerous and not justifiable in the slightest to give open access to. But American culture and history are deeply seated in guns. I grew up around guns in an environment where hunting and gone defense were practical uses for guns, and they weren’t toys or...
... accessories or penis extensions but tools. Dangerous and expensive tools to be treated with cautious respect. So educating people on guns, training and certifying them- those things could go a long way. In many US states it is mandatory (and in others it is HIGHLY favored) that to get a license for a motorcycle you must complete a course in class room and on the riding range to learn safety and skills and demonstrate those abilities. A person completing all levels of this training is statistically 90% less likely to be involved in a fatal crash. They know lots of the “wrong people” want to ride and those people tend to get hurt or killed. A simple course cuts those statistics down exponentially.
Demonstrably in the real world. Many people who “shouldn’t ride” don’t make it past the first day or two of class to where they even get to see the training motorcycles. They stress consequences and dangers and by the end of the first day or so- many have either washed out or decided that once they learned the gravity of responsibility that they do not want to ride anymore. I think something similar would work for guns, and that by having to be certified by individual weapon or weapon type things could be greatly improved further. But there are many reasons that different Americans want to own guns. Punishing the ones who follow the law and use sense for the actions of criminals and idiots is like making alchohol illegal because some people cause a ruckus when they drink or destroy their livers. We should protect people from others but we can’t protect people from themelsevs.
2. The nazi thing is good, but sets a dangerous precedent. What's to stop politicians from manipulating that definition for other, peaceful groups in the future?
Australia is a swamp. People largely don't care about politics, unless it has anything to do with taxes or environmentalism. A field day for anyone who would want to quitely pass legislation that restricts people's freedom more and more.
They fucking took down 4chan fo christ's sake. All because the terrorist used the damn website. And nobody I know gives a shit, because they are too damn shortsighted and careless. The only moment they notice is when the police show up to their home for something they said online, like the police state of the UK.
*please note that I am basing this off of my own personal, non-military-or-police family experiences as an Australian who has only ever seen or fired one gun, at a shooting range with Venturers.