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.'"
... trying to run our lives. Most of the politicians making tech based laws have no idea of the technology for which they are making legislation.
What a wonderful idea!
Let's just make it illegal for anyone anywhere to put pr0n on the net.
Surely then they'll all stop?
It's nice to see that at least they're starting to realise that writing laws, without understanding the tech is a waste of time. A bit too late for those who've already been squished by such heavyhanded legislation, but nice to see none the less.
To (mis)quote a Dilbert strip: You wish to pit your expertise against the collective sex drives of all the teenagers in the world? Good luck.
Come ON! It's all about potential; 10 years ago very few people had an inkling of the sheer potential of the internet. but NOW? That's just stupid.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
In theory, the virtues that governments wish to convey look quite nice and noble. However, in practice, they do too much to restrict freedom. What's to stop any 'censorship' department from censoring what they don't like? If any Australian governmental officals hear this, freedom is more virtuous than trying to put a mask on everything. The truth is out there, however people might encounter it, the truth doesn't care.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
cool... May have to check into that..
I always forget about NZ for some reason. I have however seen some pretty cool shows on the discovery channel etc. from New Zealand.
I live in australia, and i can tell you, this country has absolutly NO IDEA when it comes to the internet, the broadband we have costs 89 australian dollars a month for a pitiful 3 gig limit, our minister for IT banned forwarding email without permission, he also said "broadband is for kids playing games", the ignorance of the australian goverment about anything to do with computers is beyond pathetic (P.s. there is another company called Optus@home who offer a decent amount but they are not available to the majority of australians)
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
Speaking as a New Zealand, I must say that many New Zealanders would, at this point in time, be mortified to hear you say that. Though I can see where you're coming, from, we're too fiercly independent. We like to live our own way, and I think that sheer stubborness will keep us away from Aussie, even if it makes economic sense. Just my 2c.
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.
'Essentially, [the federal government] does not see that the Internet in Australia has much of a future as a forum for adults.'"
*cough*Bullshit*cough* But since when does the Australian government talk the truth.. I live in Australia and we have to battle with High Taxes (GST blah) and other crap all the time.
I can honestly say that the government probably doesn't see the Internet for what it really is.. An Information ground.
>_ @ the aussie government.
Yep. But it's still true! :)
:)
:)
Have you managed to avoid all the debate on the subject?
Speaking as a New Zealand
BTW, how does it feel to be a country?
Never mind - you could be a city - I'm in Hamilton - and no, I don't need your steeeeenkin' sympathy!
Prisoner #655321
I used to think I would like to live in Australia one day. I liked the idea of traveling there sometime and visiting to see all of the unique things that Australia has to offer. Now I believe that I will stay here in the United States. No matter how frustrated I get over the things that our money grubbing polititians do, I have only to look "down under" to see a government that is full of raving lunatics.
Well.... not quite right, but go ahead and jump right to conclusions.....
What most people seem to misunderstand about Australia is that while our politicians are very keen on making laws, enforcing those laws in another thing altogether.
Australians on average don't tend to be very law abiding, and they have very little respect for authority. And so most laws are only ever introduced to be used as political weapons by the various factions in our Government. Citizens go right on doing pretty much what they were doing before the laws came into place.
Having said that, over the last ten years this has started to change, as our Government and other institutions have been almost completely infiltrated by the CIA and other US interests.
So the next time you have a go at OZ for passing a stupid law, remember that it was probably done at the bequest of the US, so they could test the waters before introducing it in YOUR country.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Aussie classifications for film and literature HAVE SUCCEEDED. We can watch and read pretty much what we want, with commonsense restrictions that limit the availability of this material based on age.
.biz and .info ....thanks for nothing.
This attempt at 'net laws is aimed to appease the ultra conservatives , whilst being recognised as generally ineffective and useless.
They limit the publication and dissemination of information - but not the perusal or production. You can still make and peruse what you want - just don't publish it to a audience that is deemed restricted - (ie) those under 18. The www is uncensored , therefore is deemed an unsuitable publishing meduim for this sort of stuff in Australia.
The author in the SMH article has missed the point - but the content will generate letters to the editor , wanker angst and generally help to maintain newspaper circulation.
There was a recent chance to start classifying information based on this sort of content - much the same as film classifications - with the recent new top level domains...but we are stuck with
He was commenting about the legislation, not about the realities of how the legislation will be enforced/not enforced.
/is/ important, even if most people ignore it - at some point or other it /will/ be enforced, even if only as a tool for putting some serious criminal in gaol. Just saying that a law will be ignored doesn't stop it from being potentially damaging.
And the legislation
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
It looks like the Australians have been reading JonKatz. The ones who are speaking out read some, took a positive message out of his extremely wordy articles, and took it to the government and said "This is what we want!"
The sad part is that someone in the Aussie government probably read a JonKatz article also, but they couldn't shake the often silly messages he tries to portray as being serious, so they thought "Hey, maybe if we censor the whole net, we'll get this guy too."
Another attempt at humor by myself. Probably a troll though. Who knows.
-- Dan
Thats some scary shit! I would have been totally unsurprised
to see 'political issues' in that list as well. Surely a progressive
society that believes in free speech has an interest
in making sure material, of any nature, is available to anyone,
regardless.
I sure has hell can't think of any text, sound, or image, moving
or still, that is so harmful to my kids, that I will disregard my love
for free speech so much, that I would censor that material from them.
Its the fear, the banning, and the censorship, from superstitous fundamentalists
such as christians, that gives this material its stigma, not the material itself.
In fact its not mentioned at all, just alluded to. The government can censor whatever they want, they only have to worry about being voted in again. But I think that PM Howard has proven that you can flat out lie repeatedly to the public, implement an extremely unpopular tax, do various other things and _still_ get re-elected.
You have to realise that it is rare to find Australians that are really involved in politics, most aussies "don't give a sh*t", all politicians are regarded as being as bad as each other. The majority of the vote comes down to the personality of the party leaders, and to put it frankly, the last three labour (the other major political party) leaders have all come across as slime balls. Regardless of how good a person they really are.
Oh yeah, you's killed Ansett, our second largest airline
http://saveie6.com/
As a number of other posters have said, Australians tend to ignore laws that they don't agree with. Unless there are people standing over us, we'll just live our lives however we feel happy and ignore the stupid laws. The good laws simply codify what the majority consider reasonable, so very few people have problems with them.
/works/ - our rights aren't written down on paper, they're negotiated on a continual basis. This makes things very flexible, and means that our rights are always immediately apropriate to the current situation - 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.
/is/ a very free and fair society - it's consistently rated one of the most pleasant places to live in the world. Hiccoughs like this happen, but by and large they don't seriously affect things.
Another thing to note is that our constitution doesn't codify anything other than how the state governments relate to the federal government - we don't have any bill of rights saying that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, or anything like that. Rights like that are established through a combination of legislation, the actions of the courts, and public opinion about things. And, contrary to what a lot of Americans seem to think, this process actually
A large part of the reason this kind of legislation has come through is because of the work of one man, who just happened to hold the balance of power in the senate - basically, in order to pass bills, the government of the day needed to have his vote. So, parties would pander to his (very unrepresentative) views on things like morality, and support legislation like this in order to buy his support.
Australia
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.
Every time censorship of the Internet is brought up, the geek community shoots it down in flames as being impossible or impractical. But what if technology was to meet legislation half-way?
Here's the proposal (although to some extent it only works with global-treaty buy-in):
Every ISP is legally obliged to distinguish between Adult and Non-adult accounts. They are also obliged to run a transparent proxy service through which all connections must pass.
An extension is made to HTTP (and other relevant protocols) which includes an Adult/Non-adult content flag. This allows the proxy to block connections to inappropriate sites.
The further legal obligation is on all site owners and maintainers (and hopefully not the hosts!) to ensure that their sites comply with the rating they claim.
There is also a legal obligation on all adults NOT to make their account (password) accessible to minors; and only to allow minors access through their account if they are a legal guardian (or acting on behalf of one) and the minor is under constant supervision.
This is very much like existing censorship systems, but with three major differences: it is more transparent, there is legal recourse if the site fails to live up to its claimed rating, and there is an onus on adults to protect children (while not denying parents the right to allow their children access to material as they see fit).
Yes, there are ways around this. There are always going to be some sites that evade the law, just like there are porn shop owners that ignore the age of their patrons. There will be kids who "steal" adult accounts, just like they sneak into R movies.
But it is a great improvement on any system that is currently in place, and could be a suitable middle ground for all parties.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
I thought the article failed to outline the key differences between R and X rated material that is confusing the "save the children" moralists. So here goes:
R: generally anything that has very high levels of violence, language, drug use (which does come under the broad "strong adult themes", unfortunately), and simulated sexual activity (soft porn only --no erections allowed). Films can have all of the above in one scene, provided there is context for each "adult theme" within the scene. The print publication equivalent of this type of material is "R rating category 1".
X: this is only for sexually explicit films/video (uncensored/"hardcore" pornography). It allows for real sex scenes. It cannot contain any sexual violence, cohersion, or "fetishes which are deemed offensive" (I won't go into details of what is deemed offensive as some people in here might be offended. *g*). The print publication equivalent of this classification is "R rated category 2".
RC: refused classification. Basically, includes anything that is so abhorent that it cannot be included in either the R and X classication (for example, snuff films, poo eating, animal loving works, etc.). The print publication equivalent is the same.
As the article pointed out, most conservatives and/or moralists have lumped all three classifications into the "R" category without realising the strict restrictions between each rating and the allowed context that these ratings must adhere to. Ignorance is bliss when you've been blinded, I guess.
What I thought was interesting about NSW's hesitance towards approving their censorship legislation was their interest in protecting adults rights to access adult natured material on the internet. However, this is from a state where it is illegal to sell X-rated videos (not that has stopped retailers of adult erotica from doing so), although for print publications, R-rating category 2 material is perfectly legal. And people wonder why our politicians are so ignorant about what is allowed within each classification -- it's inconsistent across mediums!. So for the internet where people mostly "read" or "view" material (rather than watch video), the medium is being classified using the classification system for videos, which will confuse people even more. But either way, I hope at least one state as *some* commonsense left in what is becoming Playground Australia.
So uh, where can I grab a copy of GTA3 down there then?
-- Rambar
Too true. I only voted for Little John because I hated Big Kim more.
Yeah. !@#$ New Zealanders. Bah. Don't even have your own air force. (Aussies and NZ'ers are like Americans and Canadians, in case you havn't noticed)
I don't know much about Australia's style of government and whether or not the people have very much power, but I would be leaving Australia if there was nothing I could do about it.
Basic summary: Westminster-style bicameral parliament with modifications (US-style Senate w/ 12 senators/state and 2 senators/territory instead of a House of Lords for the upper house) governing a Federal Commonwealth similar in structure to the US. Constitution may only be amended by referendum, unlike the US, where the people don't get a direct say in constitutional matters (how undemocratic is that). Parliamentary elections every three years (may be sooner under certain circumstances), with the full House of Representatives elected through preferential voting and half the Senate elected through proportional representation.
Until Australia starts respecting it's citizens rights, I don't have much faith in whether or not they would respect a tourist.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Australia respects the rights of its citizens in other ways, e.g. by refusing to endorse capital punishment as a civilized method of dealing with criminals. But, sticking to free speech, didn't I hear something about a Harry Potter book burning in the Mid West the other day? You simply don't have that kind of thing in Australia (not for decades, anyway). Australians seem to have a far better innate respect for free speech than USians, partly because pro-free-speech groups have had to convince the populace of the worth of free speech rather than simply rely on a constitutional provision.
As for whether you think Oz wouldn't respect the rights of a tourist, well, since George W signed the order condemning foreigners (not citizens) accused of terrorism to trial by a military tribunal, I know that the US wouldn't respect the rights of a tourist.
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."
Lindsay Tanner, the Federal Opposition's Communications spokesman, has given a positive response to the idea and expects to have serious discussions about it in the coming term.
You can read more on it here.
Alex
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."
>(Aussies and NZ'ers are like Americans and >Canadians, in case you havn't noticed)
The Australians could be compared to "Newfies". However, as thick as the Aussies seem, us New Zealanders love 'em just the way they are.
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity
{YEATS}
Most posters overlook the fact that personal ownership of firearms is also proscribed in such wondrous places to live as Cuba, the former U.S.S.R., the People's Republic of China, North Korea
IIRC, it's also illegal in these places to cut of your mother's head and shit down the neck. Because these countries are "evil" then all of their laws must be as well. Obvious really.
"Under the iron bridge, we fist" - The Smiths, Still Ill
"No-one censors quite like us. "
.au laws caused these companies or the industry any real problems. None. I mean, who'd host porn in Australia ? Hosting on .au soil costs waaay more than the same service from the US would.
Bullshit. Cambodia has crackdowns on 'vice'. That's an incredibly long way from our censorship laws/tendencies. Although at least the Cambodian govt has a clearish direction...Which is more than can be said for the Liberal party's slack, sporadic, attempts at making Australian media PC, porn-free and 'safe for children'.
Quite a lot of day-to-day, mundane reality isn't suitable for children. That would be why (most) media is rated. All fine. Ratings are essentially a good thing IMO, some things AREN'T suitable for everyone to see, many more are worth rating so people can decide what they want to see. Government-enforced Censorship, on the other hand, is more often than not a vehicle for easy votes than anything productive.
Why then is so much time invested in making sure our media conserves this myth of a utopian planet?
I do not advocate legalising everything. Some things are morally reprehensible (eg. Encouraging discrimination, Snuff, promoting prescription drugs as a viable solution to society's problems....). Everything else (and even that in the right context) is worth preserving. Knowledge is half the battle.
(From a previous poster)
"Its the fear, the banning, and the censorship, from superstitious fundamentalists
such as christians, that gives this material its stigma, not the material itself."
I agree wholeheartedly.
(article)
"The morals campaigners responsible for this unique state of affairs - essentially Brian Harradine and a group of like-minded senators on both sides of politics..."
Take Porn for example. I've worked for 2 net porn companies and for myself. Never have the
How about doing something useful motherfuckers ? I hear the ABC could use a few more $$$...
Hell, improving the current ratings system could even be worthwhile.
"Contains sexually explicit material" , "Mainly concerned with sex"
Or
"Who'd think a porno would ?", "Why you'd consider watching it"
Should really be:
"Misrepresents and Degrades women"
(Article)
"Preachers, senators and ministers in John Howard's Government speak as if R allowed material from the outer reaches of human depravity to be aired. Many of these campaigners sincerely find no moral difference between R, porn and even snuff movies: all are abominable in their eyes."
Debauchery and depravity are dying a death of a thousand morons.
It's a shame, because they're all quite subjective and Censorship causes more harm than good.
There's more than just two parties in our system, you could have voted for one of the other ones.
Within this community, any attempt to limit the availability of information, for better or worse, is patently futile.
.au WAN down under will inevitably lead to an appreciable brain drain. As a Conservative American, I appreciate other countries that willfully drive their intellectual citizens abroad and to our borders. Our economy thrives off of their effort and ingenuity.
But I think we should applaud any attempt to truncate free speech/thought/innovation/booty, rather than deride the obvious stupidity of the effort.
The result of trying to turn the internet into a
In the spirit of my best wishes towards your nerds, dweebs, scientists and people with an overactive IQ, might I suggest that perhaps AU stop the pussy footing around and inact a socialist Christian hegemony with 16 foot barbed wire fences to keep the pornographic evildoers out? It tends to ensure that the fine illegal immigrants that we get are both athletic and intellectually quick on their feet. (It saves us no end of government oversight and management.)
Best wishes to your insane endeavors. And yes, the rest of the free world is laughing their collective asses off at you, not with you.
Cheers!
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."
Question number one: does the Australian government really want to put the restriction on media that all of its content must be suitable for minors?
/available/ in Australia?
If they recognise published media as one of the ways humans share their culture, do they really intend to lower the intensity of all cultural expression to a level that can be safely handled by children?
I think that many of the most interesting works of art have a serious unsettling effect, even on adults. Perhaps that's what makes them interesting, and what can make peoples life richer after experiencing them.
Of course people should be cautious about the human expressions and experiences a child is ready for. For example, one of the things that I would consider way too intense for children is the amount of manipulative advertising targetted at them. I can hardly imagine a lower and more harmful form of human culture.
I also keep being surprised about how much governments talk about censoring cultural expression from individuals, and so little about limiting targetted expression from companies, who only have responsibilities to their shareholders - but I digress.
Question number two: suppose that the Australian government succeeds in enforcing their restictions on content that is published in Australia, how will they deal with the fact that this will have hardly any effect the content that is
Will they then attempt to make viewing certain content illegal, if they find out they cannot control what people publish in less restrictive countries, and that they cannot control what makes it into Australia, because the objects transported across their borders are pure bitstreams, which are not recognisable as human expressions of any type during their transport?
Only if the internet would indeed work by a form of manual mirroring, with little dwarfs feverishly reading all internet content from abroad and re-publishing it on domestic servers, then national censorship would work.
It's just a pity that a lot of politicians' imagination does not seem to be capable to extend much beyond this idea. Who knows, it may just be the lack of exposure to human culture that has limited the development of their imagination...
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Scene from australian legislator's office:
Legislator(browsing the internet): Crikey! What's with all these long words? I can't read em. This interweb thing is just too hard to unnerstand!
Aide: Oh, thats one of them intellectual pages. They're using words beyond your mental capacity.
Legislator: intel-what? These words is just too hard to read. Bloody hell!
Aide: I know, let's write laws making it illegal to put anything on the internet that's beyond your intellectual level. That would be... about 6 years old.
Legislator: Uh?
Aide: I said, let's make it illegal to make internet stuff you can't understand.
Legislator: Great!
Aide: Since such a bill would normally go over like a lead balloon, if we deceitfully attach "child protection" to the name of the bill, no one will dare oppose it.
Legislator: Huh?
Aide: Let's fuckin' lie through our teeth and say it's a bill to protect children.
Legislator: Wicked.
Isn't burning a book an act of Free Speech? I personally don't think Harry Potter deserves the stake. However, the members of the church that did the burning were exercising their 1st Amendment right to say "We disagree with this!" in a graphic manner that did not infringe on anyone else's rights.
I'm not "accusing" you of any particular political leanings, but if it was a bunch of Bibles being burned, would you still think that the event was anti-free speech? If burning Bibles shows a respect for Free Speech, then burning Harry Potter also shows a respect for Free Speech.
Now, if they were trying to get Harry Potter banned, then I would disagree with the church on 1st Amendment grounds.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon. So possibility for damage is significantly reduced. Basically, picture a US high school student going nuts with a small pistol and compare the damage to when he has a big high power, semi-automatic.
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?
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.
The numbers are in, and states where people are free to arm themselves have lower crime rates.
How about looking at the official statistics released by the Australian Beaureau of Statistics that refute your claim. The fact is you cannot conclusively prove that guns either increase or decrease crime because there are always other mitigating studies in any research. The same problem exists with determining whether or not violence on TV makes children more violent.
What it really comes down to with all issues like this, gun control, free speech, abortion, violence on TV, censorship etc, is what the society decides is right for that society. What is right for the US may be wrong for Australia. Now, not every Australian will agree with all the Australian laws, but overall, the majority of Australians are happy with it. That's how a democracy works.
You may want the right to bare arms, but as a community we have decided that we don't.
This is sad.
/.
I live in NSW, and the only two references I have seen about its internet censorship legislation both come from
This issue is basically ignored by the media, although its good to see the Sydney Morning Herald publish something about it. Not the newspaper I read, but its one of the major ones.
And they're just as / moreso fucked up than the two majors, also they're nearly guarunteed to not get voted in, so a vote for them is a defacto vote for the slightly left of center, or slightly less left of center (labour, liberal).
Basically, picture a US high school student going nuts with a small pistol and compare the damage to when he has a big high power, semi-automatic.
I hate it when people bring up crap like this. There are on order of 30 million kids in the US public school system. In the worst year recently, there where 3 school shootings.
Even if there where 300 such events, schools would still be one of the safest places to be. Don't fall under the spell of the alarmist crap the media throws at you because it's a slow year for the news.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
>> But in America, cartoons are watered down to
>> Disney-level and it's just not cool to be an
>> adult who watches toons.
>
> Um, where have you been? Anime is hugely popular
> in America.
He said it's not too cool for adults to watch anime. Try walking into a room of actual adults, not a geekCon, and say, "Hey! Sailor Moon is on!" OMG will the women line up to get down on their knees for you.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Going back to your roots huh ;) (as a convict colony of course)
What would Brian Boitano do?
The Conservative party in Australia is dominated by members of a "Family Oriented Christian" Organisation (hooo weee that's a scary combination of words) called the Lyons Forum. They shoot down anything slightly progressive and enjoy persecuting minorities and workers while encouraging racists, bigots and, of course, BIG BUSINESS.
The Australian govt also locks up refugee women and children in the middle of the bleeding desert because they dared to flee persecution by leaky boat and they are non-white muslims. It spreads lies about the Muslim refugees being terrorists or 'illegal queue jumpers', sends leaky boats back to sea or to bribes poor Pacific islands to "process" these wretched people, and was rewarded for these 'compassionate and non-discriminatory' *cough* policies by being re-elected by Australia's predominately white, narrow-minded and racist population.
Read more Here
just thought the world should know...
And even if there was only ever one such event, it would be no less of a tragedy. Don't fall under the spell of being desensitised to horrific events because it's such a big year for the news.
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."
You make a good point. If we look at the *real* dangers facing kids in schools, alcohol-related traffic fatalities are far and away the biggest killer.
I'd be curious to know what the proportion is of kids murdered in schools is to kids who've committed or attempted suicide.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I can honestly say that the government probably doesn't see the Internet for what it really is.. An Information ground.
Perhaps they do see it for what it is, and are threatened by the idea of easy, cheap mass communication.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Garr - seen this debate 6 times already. I think this guy's main argument was against a specific document outlining and government conduct. Freedom of speech? I'll give you that. Separation of church and state? Brilliant. But carrying guns as a basic right? Nuh-uh. I'm not saying guns are evil - I feel more comfortable in a gunless society, but I was brought up in one, so that's pretty natural. I've never seen fully-convincing arguments on either side of that argument. But it's hardly a basic neccessity of a healthy society. There are plenty of countries that get along fine without guns, and the common people generally aren't clamouring for this terrible injustice to be corrected.
The US constitution is held with reverence usually reserved for sacred texts - by Americans anyway. The problem there is that if the founding fathers - being only mortal - made a mis-step and included some things that will be detrimental in the long run, it'll last a long time. *No one* wants to fsck with the constitution. And I think that was the point - not "guns'r'bad"
Last post!
I have no such duty to arm myself in order to protect myself. It is sensible for me to avoid trouble, but it is not my duty to be prepared to kill or even to harm anyone and it would be a very sad society if it was.
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.
You are more than capable of preparing to defend yourself without the use of semi-automatic weapons. You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in your home if you challenge them. Anyone who comes into your home with the intent to harm you rather than steal your possessions will have harmed you long before you have a chance to get your gun ready to fire. Anyone who comes into your house purely to rob you will not harm you if you don't put up a fight.
There are always exceptions, but there are always times when a gun won't protect you. All in all, you're better off avoiding trouble rather than arming yourself so that you win the battle, but like I said. It is up to the society as to what is best, because this is an issue that affects the society. Whether or not you carry a gun will not affect me, because I am well out of firing range.
BTW, the incompetent perp who tried to detonate his shoes last week wasn't stopped by a policeman, was he?
No, but the case proves my point because noone in the area had a gun, and he was still stopped. Hence, this is an example of not needing a gun to protect yourself.
For the record, I have not mentioned anything about centralisation of threat, defence or police. I make the claim that there is no hard and fast rule for these decisions and they should be made by the society. I personally, prefer living in a society which has gun control as do the majority of Australians, hence we have gun control laws. That's how democracy works.
How long ago was the federal internet censorship legislation passed? All Australians are now required to be running some kind of approved adult filter (as the ISP's didn't want to have to filter themselves). The funny thing is I can't seem to find *anyone* who is actually complying with the law.
There arn't enough people in the country to even start to review & classify every web page produced from an Australian server. Yes the silly NSW government passed the legislation but they don't have to (and probably wont) ever provide the funds for it to be enfored.
Its good to see that once again the Ausatralian public is lead down the garden path by a small minority - is the government *really* wants to start passing internet legisation perhaps they could start by providing access free to all NSW schools & libraries (but then why would they do that it would cost actual money...)
You know the nice thing about being the head of a govement is you can make stats dance on their head. You are the type controling goverments love, the non-questioning types.
Regardless have you ever been in a true car jacking? That 9mm my friend had made that car jacker dance in the street while the cops came. Guess what I'm not going to be a victim.
Now murder rates, see this is an intresting point. Depending what state you live in, and depending on the city your murder rates are diffrent you goto Washington DC and they have one of the highest murder rates, and the one of the toughest gun control laws along with chiago and a few other places. You goto a city with relaxed gun laws, or where citizens are required by LAW to carry a gun and low and be hold...the crime and murder rates are low to non-existant.
So, unless you know what in the hell your talking about, you can go back to your snibling anti-gun retoric and hope someone doesn't hold you up. Because I refuse to be a victim.
Moving on...
Actually most people don't believe that they have the right to own a machine gun, they believe that they have the RIGHT to protect themselfs, and their families from some fruit cake that wants to rob them. Specific reasons exist in the US that gun laws are the way they are, there is a reason the right to bare arms is protected in the consitution. I'm glad your an australian who is happy that they can't protect themself, I know a good number of canadians that are NOT happy with the goverment. You know what you get when guns are gone? Ever read some history? Take a look in europe specificly in the 1930-48 around germany. I'll let you read some stuff, and open your mind to the truth.
Actually compartivly speaking, the US is more "free" than say australia or canada. You have simply been brain washed by goverment propaganda, why else does the goverment control the media hmm? Just remeber that your rights are not guarneteed, they are a privilage.
Actually been to aussie land, while it's nice and all you can keep it, I prefer to live somewhere where I'm allowed to do what I would like. Freedom is a nice thing.
Every goverment has made mistakes, no doubts there just the aussie goverment has made some massive screw ups and so have others. Ahh yes, here is the question...is the murder rate lower(goverment controled figures), or is it the fact the person couldn't kill the other one quickly enough before the cops arive? Or is it like toronto where they had a whole pile of murders and they simply were not reported on the news(either papers, radio or TV)?
I'm sorry my friend, but you need to wake up and smell the shit on the wind.
--
Freedom should be a right, not a privilage.
--
Om, nomnomnom...
You censor have the Internet, but I refuse to recognize any country that will not let me get my daily GTA3 fix. Commie bastards!
--Steven
take it you've never seen the simpsons or futurama, king of the hill or the critic? all adult cartoons.
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
That's not true. The Constitution is amendable at any time by a 2/3 majority of the states. If we, as Americans, really did decide that the 2nd amendment wasn't such a good idea anymore, we could strike it from the record. The writers of the Constitution included a provision for counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of voting, but the country realized that was wrong, and it was amended. The point is, don't think that we still have the 2nd amendment because we have any mechanism for ending it; we still have it because the majority of us wants it there.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Is everything suitable for children? Obviously not. Saving Private Ryan is an excellent film, excessively gory, and I wouldn't show it to a young child. But showing it to a 16 year old and letting them see visually and audibly why war is hell is a good thing if the 16 year old is mature enough to handle it. Let's not ban everything 'dirty.' Let's just exercise a little more self-control as adults instead.
I say kill the fuckers. Just be sure to get it on tape.
Better yet, let's take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
> What most people seem to misunderstand about Australia is that while our politicians are
> very keen on making laws, enforcing those laws in another thing altogether.
Correct, but that only speaks of the current situation. The problem with bad laws on the books is twofold:
1. Laws are rarely enforced at the "never" end of the scale, unless they've become completely defunct (such as laws regarding placement of hitching posts for horses in modern cities). Instead, they're enforced selectively against people that are thorns in the side of the current power base. Selective justice is often injustice. Though people often flaunt 'stupid' laws, they do so at their own risk.
2. The level of enforcement is subject to change. If enforcement is suddenly deemed "the thing to do", all those bad or stupid laws on the books suddenly have a much greater effect on the people they apply to. This is why many countries, including the United States, attempted to set up a constitution that binds the hands of the government both at the time, and into the distant future. The people founding a given government may have the best of intentions, but they would be fools to assume that someone with dictatorial aspirations would not at some point attempt to sieze power within the constraints of the existing system, rather than overthrowing it completely.
On another related issue:
I've long wondered why it is that people haven't slapped their politicians around until they understand that it is not necessarily their job to keep passing more and more laws. Sometimes, effectiveness and "good government" could be equally measured by the review of and quite possibly repeal of existing laws that do NOT serve the public good.
It is my own personal opinion that complex laws serve only the legal _system_ and the people that work within its structure, rather than the people that must _use_ the legal system (us, the mere mortals who on occasion have the unhappy desire or need to get ground up in the system's gears).
At the same time that book was being burned, there were protesters protesting that protest, chanting "stop burning books". The same group burning Harry Potter were also burning works by Shakespeare and AC-DC music.
Had this been government burning books, that would have been one thing, but it was a private group, and another private group protested their act. I do not agree with the book-burning group (if they think Harry Potter is Satanic they need to get out more) but I'll defend their right to burn as many books as they've paid for. The publisher doesn't care, they got their money.
The difference comes when the government gets involved. If a group says some material is bad, it's certainly within their rights to persuade other members of the public to agree with them; that's discussion. For one group to coerce the government into legislating their viewpoint on others is the problem, and that appears to be what is happening in Australia.
But hey, politicians are pretty much the same the world over: they'd rather LOOK like they're doing something than actually DO something useful.
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
...is censor happy "adults" who think that hiding the unpleasant or politically incorrect aspects of existance from them is somehow a good thing. This stems from our culture's insane belief that human beings below the magical age of 18 are "impressionable" to the point of being human tape recorders. This would be funny if the consequences weren't so severe for the young.
By the way, I turn 30 in less than a year so save your "wet behind the ears" responses for someone else.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
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.
Um - there was a centrally controlled military force at the time, and it had just been kicked out. The second ammendment was designed to oppose centrally controlled military forces - sort of a less organized Switzerland. In addition, it was designed to oppose a corrupt US government, should the need arise. There may be arguments against the second ammendment, but the existence of a national armed forces is not one.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon.
I've seen purses (and briefcases) that would hold anything but a rifle or shotgun, which ironically are the least regulated firearms. And all handguns have holsters available.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble.
I know you meant this in terms of a burglar or mugger, but this sentiment has been expressed in many situations in history, and it usually eventually led to a pretty disfunctional society, and was seldom true.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
"No-one censors quite like us. The general rule in Australia is that each new communications technology as it comes along - especially cable television and video games - is allowed to operate only on condition that it sticks to material suitable for children. The same rule always applied to television in this part of the world. Despite what you can stumble across on SBS, it's still the case that no matter how old you are or how late you stay up at night, you can never see on Australian television what is screened for adults all the time at Hoyts and Greater Union."
[Mental note: Don't move to Australia...]
Zodiac Survey
ok, let me explain. a long time ago, some king said "lets just dump all our criminals on the other side of the world" it was a brilliant idea, no crowded prisons or re-offenders. you guys should try it infact - you could send all your criminals to afganistan :) lol... anyway, i digress, we discovered this neat little island exactly on the other side of the world, now don't go on at me about it being the natives' land that we came and infested, because, well - you can talk. so we shipped off all the criminals and lived happily ever after, although some people were worried that the prisoners might try to dig a tunnel back to england, they were put at ease when we discovered that the earth had a hot molten core. eventually we had to let them call it home, and put our little flag in the top corner. Now you can understand why they have funny ways and speak 'like this?' but it is their own country and they have a right to run it how they like...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
take it you've never seen the simpsons or futurama, king of the hill or the critic? all adult cartoons.
I take it you've never seen Warner Bros. either. All cartoons EXCEPT Disney are made for adults. Everything from Popeye to Betty Boop to Animinaics. (You don't think that Popeye wanted to teach kids to hit bullies who are raping your girlfriend, or two little dog-looking creatures popping out of a nurse's big boobs saying "Helllooooooo, nurse!" [Animinaics], or Betty Boop and...well, that's obvious.)
Zodiac Survey
we all know that Australia does not have much future as a forum for adults either so it all works out... :) j/k BTW
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
And the publisher is perfectly happy. They get free publicity, and all of those burned books were purchased. And the parents that were involved will probably have to buy a new copy for their kids to stop the whining. :)
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
You are more than capable of preparing to defend yourself without the use of semi-automatic weapons.
I don't think this statement could be any farther from the truth. How exaclty do you plan to defend yourself from an armed person? You can cower in fear, and give them what they want and hope they don't shoot you. But you cannot defend yourself.
You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble.
I'll grant that the police won't shoot you if you follow the rules, but you can still be a victim. Criminals don't exactly pick out other criminals to go after.(Though I will grant that it does happen.) More likely, however, the criminals will go after the weakest, and eaisest target. (They tend to avoid things like big dogs, and armed people.)
You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in your home if you challenge them.
Possibly, though I would like to see some real numbers on this. I tend to belive that this idea is more propaganda that science. Plus, I would like to know how many burglaries were stopped because the home owner cocked a shotgun?
Anyone who comes into your home with the intent to harm you rather than steal your possessions will have harmed you long before you have a chance to get your gun ready to fire.
This is is a silly statement, this is a matter of training and preperation. The biggest problem is that most people are unwilling to fire. If you know what you are doing, you keep the weapon either loaded or you keep the ammo close at hand. When you have a break-in, you identify your target and then shoot, you don't stop to think about it, that is where most people get stuck (simple rule, if you point it at someone, pull the trigger.) While I will grant that this could be a problem if you have untrained children in the house, this problem could be remedied if you simply teach the children to respect the weapon from an early age.(Quick antecdote: I grew up with several guns in the house, often loaded, or with the ammo close, but I knew what a gun could do, and so never created a problem.) And, if the weapon is ready, you can have it loaded, and ready to fire within seconds of the intrusion. Plus, with something like a pump-action shotgun, the sound can be enough to scare people off. Most people, in America, know what one being cocked sounds like. And they also know what one will do to someone at 3 to 5 feet(most likely range for a home engagement)
Anyone who comes into your house purely to rob you will not harm you if you don't put up a fight.
Great, so now we can all live in fear, and become easy targets for criminals. This is so ass-backwards I can't even begin to describe it. It should not be the people living in fear, it should be the criminals. And this idea of giving the criminal what they want, hoping they don't kill you, and praying that they are caught is wrong. Plus, there is no gaurentee that they won't hurt you, you could be one of the unlucky ones. However, if they are dead, they won't hurt you, and this is a 100% fact. We should be gunning the criminals down before they finish the crime.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
What is wrong with porn? What is wrong with R rated movies? I never understood this.. I do come from more liberal part of Europe so I might have different opinion when it comes to this.. But I watched what you would call "inappropriate" material my whole childhood and in no way did it effect my personality in any "bad" way.. Look at the statistics on crime and teen pregancies in Europe and you will find that countries with most liberal laws have least of those (especially when compared to the US where censorship on regular TV is high).. The whole point is, restricting anything from anyone won't do any good... EDUCATION WILL.. Good education, and easy access to information is what matters.. Restricting what you can see or think can only lead to problems...
The US constitution is held with reverence usually reserved for sacred texts - by Americans anyway. The problem there is that if the founding fathers - being only mortal - made a mis-step and included some things that will be detrimental in the long run, it'll last a long time
The other problem with seeing the US constitution as a "sacred text" is people knowing the words better than the meaning.
No, you make the bad people stand out because they're carrying a gun.
Unless they hide the gun in some way. e.g. shortening the barrel on a shotgun...
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon. So possibility for damage is significantly reduced. Basically, picture a US high school student going nuts with a small pistol and compare the damage to when he has a big high power, semi-automatic.
And they can't fit an assualt rifle and lots of amunition into a bag of the size other students use to carry books?
New Zealanders love us, that's why most of them live here.
They'll live for their country, they'll die for their country, they just won't f*cking live over there.
re: Ansett
How do create a small business? Take a big business and put a Kiwi in charge...
RedFive jedi_knight111@hotmail.com
It saddens me that most of the time Australia is mentioned on /. it's becuase our government is trying to do somthing silly, instead of all the other really usfull projects that are happening.
I've long wondered why it is that people haven't slapped their politicians around until they understand that it is not necessarily their job to keep passing more and more laws.
How many politicans or political candidates have an alternate viewpoint
Sometimes, effectiveness and "good government" could be equally measured by the review of and quite possibly repeal of existing laws that do NOT serve the public good.
It is my own personal opinion that complex laws serve only the legal _system_ and the people that work within its structure, rather than the people that must _use_ the legal system
Could it be that many professional politicans are either lawyers or in some way connected to lawyers?
The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard was in England meeting the Queen at Balmoral. They were discussing Australia and Howard's plans for the future.
Howard asked the queen if it was possible to turn Australia into a Kingdom to increase its force in the world market. The Queen replied,"One needs a King for a Kingdom and you are most certainly not a King."
He then asks if it is possible to turn Australia into an Empire. The Queen replies, "For an Empire one needs an Emperor you are most certainly not an Emperor."
Howard thinks for a moment and then asks if it is possible to turn Australia into a principality. The Queen replies, "For a principality one needs a Prince and you Mr. Howard are certainly not a prince."
The Queen adds further, "Without meaning to be rude Mr. Howard I think Australia should remain as a country.
When was the last time an amendment was removed, once it made it to the constitution? The 18th (anti-alcohol) amendment was removed in 1933 - 14 years after it was ratified. Constitutional amendments have long staying power even if they're unpopular/wrong.
Last post!
Wooo... lucky MS has decide that port 80 is the Internet after all.
p2p stuff may be more difficult to use now, and encrypted traffic may be for geeks only, but all this stuff will be available off the shelf the minute the current alternatives get blocked. No-one seriously used Napster alternatives until Napster was shut down.
What are they going to do? Sit in on all my video conferences in case I show any pink bits? As long as we have genitalia, we will have pR0n.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Just remember that if we have internet laws like how the US was going to have (I think) were their laws apply to any information routed over their networks.....well what can I say...unlucky .nz
Although this is only a little speculation.
Going back to your roots huh ;) (as a convict colony of course)
We've never left our roots as a convict colony. Live here for ~30 years and you will see what I mean.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
1. Laws are rarely enforced at the "never" end of the scale, unless they've become completely defunct (such as laws regarding placement of hitching posts for horses in modern cities). Instead, they're enforced selectively against people that are thorns in the side of the current power base. Selective justice is often injustice. Though people often flaunt 'stupid' laws, they do so at their own risk.
...er I mean constituents.
Good point. Take drink driving/speeding (laws I happen to agree with). When they were first introduced, most people didn't change their behaviour. But once the RBTs got out in force, plus speed cameras, and the govt. got serious about it, then slowly behaviour changed.
However, censorship laws are different. They are like laws about prostitution.
Prostitution has been illegal (except recently changed in NSW) for decades, and yet Australia has one of the highest brothel per capita ratios in the Western world. Higher than France, Britain and the US.
Basically it was all 'hush-hush, nudge nudge, wink wink', but it was very rare for a brothel to be raided or prostitutes arrested, let only charged. It was just considered 'one of those things'. The police knew where they were (or are), but don't take action, because 3 more will pop up overnight if they close one down.
Now put thousands of internet cafes in that context, where people can surf 'censored material' and upload it to servers in the 'free world'. Then the law becomes irrelevant. The Govt. pats itself on the back for 'saving the children' and everyone else goes on as before.
I've long wondered why it is that people haven't slapped their politicians around until they understand that it is not necessarily their job to keep passing more and more laws. Sometimes, effectiveness and "good government" could be equally measured by the review of and quite possibly repeal of existing laws that do NOT serve the public good.
I think it's a power issue. Politicians don't feel powerful repealing laws (unless those laws REALLY suck, and they become the people's hero for doing so). The power rush comes from telling people WHAT TO DO. Giving people any kind of freedom EMPOWERS them, the last thing a politician wants to do for his serfs
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
The Australian Constitution is quite hard to change. A constitutional referendum requires more than a simple majority across the country to succeed. In addition, it requires a simple majority in a simple majority of the states. Achieving both these criteria is quite hard (out of 44 proposed amendments, only 8 have been successful).
And the English constitution, although unwritten, is more than the common law (if one could rightly say that the common law forms part of the constitution). It incorporates the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1669, and various royal decrees about such things as the sovereignty of parliament, the independence of the judiciary, etc.
First, guns were not banned, just certain types of guns.
Second, the crime rate hasn't noticebly changed.
You may notice that none of those web sites have an "au" suffix - or are from any respected news source. Some people in the U.S. of A who have a vague idea that Australia is in the southern hemisphere and is run by baby eating communists have written many articles that make Australia look a lot worse than Beiriut a few years back. "Road Warrior" is a movie - get over it, it isn't real, it's even dubbed into American for those who cannot understand english, and with the print flipped for those who can't understand that people drive on the other side of the road in some countries.
Yes, it's a tragedy, I won't dispute that. My point is that we cannot create public policy because of extremely rare events that do not overall impact the public health.
Is this a bit cold? Perhaps.
But if we are to live in a free society, as I and most of my fellow Americans desire, we must pay the occasional price.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And they're just as / moreso fucked up than the two majors, also they're nearly guarunteed to not get voted in, so a vote for them is a defacto vote for the slightly left of center, or slightly less left of center (labour, liberal). Not so.. If enough voters were to vote [1] Australian Democrats(for example) then they *would* get in, while the two _older_ parties continue the same lie about voting for the alternative parties then they won't get in. Can you even tell the difference between the labour and liberal party in Australia now?
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?
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.
Do you really think Martin Bryant would have successfully murdered so many people if a member of the general community was also carrying his/her hangun in their purse/holster? Personally I would have returned fire.
That's true, but can you see the democrats getting the necessary votes, what did they get last elections, like 5%?
and anyway, in my opinion, thank fuck for that. They're worse than the either of the current choices anyway.
NZ rox0rs okay? aussie is a lumbering dinosaur... i have lived in melbourne and it has an enormous class system developing... rich getting richer, poor living in filth... the rulers are completely out of touch, elderly white males the lot of them. its a shame, all over the world egalitarianism is dying a slow death... gah i think nz bush (a la LOTR) is the best place on earth, if the world turns to nuclear hell this is where i will be.