Slashdot Mirror
Speaking Out Against Australian Internet Censorship
edo-01 writes: "The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting
opinion column up that details some of the opposition to the federal
government's net censorship laws, most notably from the government of
Australia's most populous state, New South Wales. An interesting quote
from the article: 'Essentially, [the federal government] does not see that
the Internet in Australia has much of a future as a forum for adults.'"
Go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and find the /real/ crime statistics. Then come back and tell me what you think of the NRA's bullshit. Because that's what those statistics are - bullshit.
You say you don't know much about Australia's style of government? Then why the fuck do you feel qualified to comment on something like this?
You talk about Australia respecting it's citizen's rights? Well, how about the right to go about our daily life without dealing with a firearms murder rate like the US's? The US has a firearms homicide rate that's /15/ times as high as that in Canada, and almost that much higher than it is in Australia. Personally, I'd rather live without /that/ piece of crap than worry about some stupid idea like /your/ precious 2nd amendmant.
The US is the only place in the world where the majority seriously believe that /everyone/ has a god-given right to own machines that are specifically designed for killing. The rest of the world sees gun ownership as a priveledge, and a priveledge that carries with it heavy responsibilities. Australians are /happy/ to have laws that ban most guns. Canadians are happy to have similar laws. Likewise the population of the UK, and most of Europe.
And if you think I'm any less 'free' than you are, /you/ need to get your head out of your arse. Take a look around your wonderful home of the free, and tell me if you really /are/ as free as you'd like to think. And then come /here/, and look around for a bit, and tell me if I'm living under the thumb of an oppressive government that wants to make a puppet of me.
Yes, our government has made mistakes, and yes some of them are really bloody stupid. But so has your government. The difference is, the Australian government presides over a country where the firearms murder rate is a small fraction of what it is in the US. I'm proud of that fact, and you can go fuck yourself if you think regulating gun ownership is too high a price to pay for this.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
That's something noted on the site I linked to: the murder rate with weapons other than guns is fairly constant around the world. Likewise the suicide rate (in Australia, 80% of firearms related deaths were due to suicide) - there's no evidence of people replacing guns with other things when they're doing their dirty deeds, and in fact evidence to the contrary.
The thing that sets the US apart is the availability of guns - the only other places where there are as many guns are there are people are places where there's recently been a war, or where armed conflict is part of life.
Go read the guncontrol.ca site - they have lots of good stuff.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Could you point me at the official statistics that show this? Having seen the NRA stats (which were basically a complete misreading of some Australian Bureau of Statistics information, which the ABS considered to be of no statistical significance), I'm very leery of taking stats like that without references, and references pointing to /official/ stats.
/anyone/ is good. It's one reason I support gun control.
/don't/ see violence as bad form to make it everyone else's problems, since they're nicely armed.
If I had more time I'd go search around the ABS site and get some hard figures, but I don't . . .
As for shooting a police officer being good . . . I don't think shooting
Finally, the violent crime rate in the UK is low because they simply have a peaceful society . . . Violence as a solution to problems is considred really bad form. It's similar here in Australia, too . . . I imagine it's the case in the US, as well - things are probably skewed seriously by the fact that it's so easy for those people who
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
we don't have things like the US's 2nd amendmant, which was a nice idea when it was made, but is kind of pointless in an age when there's a centrally controlled military force.
On the contrary, the right to self-defense is all the more important in this day and age, when it's been clearly demonstrated that trying to disarm everyone is a tragic blunder.
When you disarm the public, you eliminate the advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But, sticking to free speech, didn't I hear something about a Harry Potter book burning in the Mid West the other day?
Probably, but I would point out that even the despicable act of burning that book is a protected form of expression.
If a preacher here tries to prevent you from buying a copy of a Harry Potter book, you can tell him to fuck off, and buy it and read it anyway.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
No, you make the bad people stand out because they're carrying a gun. You also give me the right to walk down the street without worrying which of the people around me is suddenly going to use their gun (we rated that right as more important than the right to bear arms).
Most importantly though, you stop a lot of people from panicking and shooting someone for no good reason, thus defending the right to a fair trial. There was a very unfortunate case a while back where a couple of guys were going to a party, got the wrong house and wound up being shot because the owner thought they were theifs. They didn't respond to his warnings because they didn't speak english so they didn't understand. Perfectly innocent people assumed to be guilty and shot because they made a mistake. That and a range of other reasons is why we chose to disarm the public.
No, you make the bad people stand out because they're carrying a gun.
Have you ever heard of a "holster", or a "purse"? They are devices which anyone, good or bad can use to conceal a gun.
There was a very unfortunate case a while back where a couple of guys were going to a party, got the wrong house and wound up being shot because the owner thought they were theifs.
If you want to trade anecdotes, how about the case where the murderer on a Long Island Commuter train was able to shoot people at will, and was reloading for the second time, before people realized that he didn't intend to stop?
Do a web search for the book "More Guns, Less Crime." The numbers are in, and states where people are free to arm themselves have lower crime rates. For another case in point, note the sharp increase in violent crime in Great Britain after they banned all civilian-owned firearms.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That would be a good anecdote in support of gun control. Basically, you want to have guns because some guy used one to kill people.
New York has gun control laws. That's the point: the perp was the only armed person on that train. The result: four or five dead, I forget how many wounded.
We're not up against the Soviet Union anymore. Today's dangers are decentralized, and if we try to rely on centralized authority alone for our safety, more thousands will die.
Now, I sincerely hope that you'll never have occasion to regret your decision to shirk your duty to protect yourself and your family with adequate weapons, as much as I hope that I will never need to point a weapon at a human being, but my right to be prepared for such an event is not contingent on the approval of my neighbors.
BTW, the incompetent perp who tried to detonate his shoes last week wasn't stopped by a policeman, was he?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."